Sitting of 16 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Nazi War Criminals
Mr. John Marshall: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 6,000 people. It is appropriate that it should be presented on the day that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is likely to receive the report of Sir Thomas Hetherington's inquiry into suspected Nazi war criminals.
In October 1986 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was sent a list of 17 individuals suspected of war crimes and resident in the United Kingdom. Currently, the British Government have no jurisdiction to try in the United Kingdom individuals who committed a crime outside the United Kingdom before they became British citizens. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, have recently altered their laws to allow the prosecution of war criminals.
Anyone who has read the history of the holocaust or who has visited Yad Vashem realise how heinous was the nature of Nazi war crimes. For Nazis, no activity was too vile, no degradation too cruel.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must read or summarise the petition, not make a speech about it.
Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I have never before presented a petition. My error can be blamed on my innocence and good nature. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your tolerance.
The petition is as follows:
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of the United Kingdom sheweth:
That up to 250 alleged Nazi war criminals are living in the United Kingdom today.
That the Governments of Australia, Canada and the United States have recently changed their law to bring such persons to justice.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take appropriate measures to ensure that those accused persons in the United Kingdom are brought to justice swiftly. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c."
To lie upon the Table.

Coal Mining Subsidence
9.36 am
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to call attention to coal mining subsidence damage and its effects on properties, business and services; and to move,
That this House believes that the owners of houses, land, buildings, services and other constructions which have suffered any damage due to subsidence, resulting from the working and getting of coal or of coal and other minerals adjacent to or under their properties shall have the right to full repair and equitable compensation for any damage caused by such activities.
First, I want to place on record my thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for the help they have given me in trying to sort out the problem of coal mining subsidence damage, particularly in the north Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire areas. I particularly want to mention my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who have greatly supported the efforts being made to secure justice for homeowners, businesses and service industries in the constituencies that they and I represent.
I thank also the Under-Secretary of State for Energy for his action arising from a debate on the subject 12 months ago. During my speech, I hope to show that, although he, as the Minister responsible, attempted to be helpful, little has been achieved despite all his efforts, and much still needs to be done.
I draw the Minister's attention to a survey undertaken by district councils in the north Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire areas. I shall explain in detail who were responsible for that survey and then dwell on its findings. It was undertaken by the staff of Trent polytechnic independently of the councils of Amber Valley, Bassetlaw, Ashfield, Mansfield, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Gedling, Newark and Sherwood, although they paid for it. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is here. He has a great interest in the matter. He represents parts of the Chesterfield and Amber Valley district council areas.
If the Minister doubts the value of the report, I should explain to him that it was compiled by a multidisciplinary team organised by Trent polytechnic. Its membership consisted of Professor P. L. Clark, who was the project leader, Mr. W. G. Carter, a senior surveyor, Mr. P. Ramsay-Dawber, a senior surveyor, Mr. M. J. Saunt, another senior surveyor, Dr. R. H. Oldham, a mining engineer, Dr. A. C. Waltham, a geologist, Dr. M. Roberts, a research fellow and Pamela Burke, a research assistant.
The aims of the survey were many. The first was to obtain information relating to subsidence damage in the district council areas concerned. That is not surprising when one knows about the damage levels in those areas. I have often spoken in the House about damage to homes in particular, businesses—small, medium and large—schools, some of which have been either partially or wholly closed, and hospitals. I have also referred to cuts in services, such as water, gas and electricity.
The survey aimed, secondly, at establishing what were the most common concerns about the way in which damage problems were being dealt with at local level by British Coal. I hope to give many examples later.

1217
The third aim was to gain evidence for the Department of energy that would help it to deal with subsidence damage. The Minister will remember that I raised the matter after his responses 18 and 12 months ago about the evidence that his Department was compiling. He said that he hoped to let the House know about a series of decisions on how to alleviate the problem. I managed to gain from him on a number of occasions an assurance that his Department would accept evidence from the district councils. I am grateful to him for that assurance.
A fourth aim of the survey was to offer local authority help to the Department. Local authorities are responsible for planning, building regulations and various services. It would be difficult for anything to be sorted out without their help. They hope that their evidence will influence any legislation that the Government may introduce.
I emphasise that Opposition Members and all hon. Members who are trying to obtain justice for people who have suffered from the effects of subsidence, particularly in areas where coal mining takes place on a large scale, are not against British Coal. Our attitude is quite the reverse. The pressures that these communities experience are also being experienced by British Coal.
The chief executive of Mansfield district, Mr. Richard Goad, aptly described it in the report that is to be presented next Tuesday to the Minister. He says:
"The aim is not to smash British Coal around the head but to obtain equity for people suffering subsidence damage."
That is a very laudable aim. In no way could the council's attitude be construed as being against British Coal.
Everybody who is concerned about this problem recognises that the major factor is old damage, not new. New mining techniques have been introduced by British Coal in recent years. It is old damage that is causing the problem. The statistical evidence in the report provides an impartial information base for any future action that may be taken by the participating authorities.
The questionnaire that was used in the survey was specifically designed to provide information about a number of matters: first, the nature of any compensation that claimants may have received—for example, cash in kind; secondly, any compensation that they expected to receive; thirdly, the parties involved in the claims process—solicitors, estate agents, British Coal, subsidence agents, etc.; fourthly, the degree of statisfaction expressed by claimants in respect of remedial works by the contractors supplied by British Coal; fifthly, the number of subsidence claims outstanding, and many other factors.
Having decided to carry out the survey, local authorities were asked to distribute 160,000 leaflets, restricted to target areas that were known to have coal mining subsidence problems. Local businesses were also contacted by letter. The returned questionnaires were then sorted into two categories—affected and non-affected properties. Different distribution methods were used by each authority. It was thought that, if as wide a variety of methods as possible were used, it would help to reinforce the argument. I shall describe the different methods of distribution.
The questionnaires were distributed in Amber Valley with electoral registration forms and they were returned with the electoral registration forms by the occupiers. They were distributed only where there were known to be subsidence problems. The questionnaires were distributed
1218
by hand in Ashfield by council staff—with an addressed, unstamped envelope for return—to all areas in the district. In Bassetlaw, the questionnaire was distributed by means of the local authority's own newspaper and delivered to every house in the district. It was distributed in Bolsover by means of the local free newspaper and by using local newsagents, post offices and libraries in the area.
The questionnaires were distributed in Chesterfield in pre-paid envelopes with the electoral registration forms. Distribution was limited to areas that were likely to have experienced coal mining subsidence. In Gedling, the questionnaires were delivered by hand with the electoral registration forms and there was a pre-paid envelope. It was delivered only in areas that were known to have experienced mine working subsidence within the last 15 years.
The questionnaire was distributed by hand in Mansfield to every householder on the electoral register and it was collected, together with the filled-in electoral forms, by canvassers. In Newark and Sherwood, there was limited distribution of the questionnaire. It was delivered to people in areas where there were known to be underground mine workings. It was hand-delivered and part-collected by canvassers. The others were returned directly by householders.
In order to assess the views of those who responded, particularly concerning the quality of the repairs carried out by British Coal, a random sample of properties affected by mining subsidence were inspected by consultants. The sample included equal numbers of satisfied and dissatisfied claimants in each area. The Minister knows that the background to the debate is the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1950, which allows the owners of small dwelling houses the right to be compensated for repairs. The Act also covers those who have no rights to compensation under title deed. Another provision relates to a time limit for notice of damage to be given. The Act also provides that British Coal—then the National Coal Board—should be able to serve notice to the effect that repairs can be postponed until the likelihood of further damage has passed. It came to be known as a stop notice. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the 1957 Act extended the statutory right of compensation to the owners of practically all land, buildings and works damaged by subsidence. The Act stated that British Coal was responsible for making damaged property reasonably fit for its normal use or making a payment equal to the loss in value of the property if the cost of remedial work was in excess of that sum. The Act also contained provision for a time limit from the date when damage was first noticed within which the claimant must have given written notice to British Coal. It also contained four provisions for temporary accommodation which had to be made available by British Coal if a dwelling was uninhabitable due to coal mining subsidence damage.
The Coal Industry Act 1975 extended and made clear British Coal's right to withdraw support in certain situations. The Act requires British Coal either to pay proper compensation or, with the claimant's consent, to make good the damage satisfactorily. Section 2 states that British Coal must give three months' notice of its intention to withdraw support in the few locations where it did not previously have the right to mine coal. Unlike the 1957 Act, the 1975 Act contains no provisions about the onus of proof of liability for any damage.

1219
The Minister is aware that in 1976, as a response to calls for an improvement to the compensation system, a code of practice was introduced which set out five types of claim for which compensation could he given in addition to that already available under legislation: first, damage to chattels; secondly, home loss payments; thirdly, depreciation of crops; fourthly, farm loss payments; fifthly, additional payments to tenant farmers when compensation has been paid to landowners.
The final point is very important, as in my constituency it relates not to tenant farmers but to tenants and owners of properties. I have hundreds of cases, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House, in which small amounts of subsidence compensation were paid to previous owners or landlords, yet the damage has continued and, because of the cosmetic nature of the repair or the small amount of money which was paid, the present occupiers are now being denied any help, as they are being told that British Coal had covered its liability by previous payment or action.
The code also permitted any disputes between British Coal and claimants to be referred to independent arbitration. The coal board, as it was then, gave an undertaking to relieve hardship by dealing with claims sympathetically and allowing special discretionary payments in certain circumstances.
Those changes were made because of evidence gathered which pointed to a number of anomalies in methods which were causing problems. I shall list the problems in the evidence that was given at the time.
Case (a) was dissatisfaction over communications with British Coal by claimants, including complaints about the attitude of its officers, difficulty in contacting officers and the length of time taken, to deal with inquiries. Case (b) was resurgence of damage, often with British Coal denying liability. Case (c) was rejected claims. The reasons often given were that the last workings were too old, compensation had already been paid to the last owner or that damage was due to general dilapidation—or, simply, no reason was given. Case (d) was lack of information from British Coal, such as information regarding possible damage occurrence, how to claim, or claimants' rights. Case (e) was dissatisfaction with services provided by professional advisers. Case (f) was dissatisfaction with repairs, mainly quality of work, the attitude of contractors, the length of time to complete work. Case (g) was dissatisfaction with temporary accommodation provided by British Coal, with complaints about the length of time complainants had to spend away from their own homes and the standard of temporary accommodation provided. Case (h) was complaints about the lack of compensation for financial losses suffered through damage to furniture and fittings, loss of earnings and expenditure on repairs which was not compensated for by British Coal. Case (i) was stress and strain caused by damage disturbance during repairs or simply difficulty in gaining full restitution. Case (j) was loss of property value. Case (k) was difficulty in selling damaged properties. Case (l) was lack of follow-up by British Coal. Case (m) was houses which had to be demolished by British Coal. Case (n) was dissatisfaction with compensation payouts and lack of knowledge of what the amounts were supposed to cover.
On that last point, I agree entirely with 'the Minister that some of the problems we are now experiencing relate to compensation payments made in previous years. I
1220
wholly agree that damage by coal mining subsidence requires not compensation but repair, and that we should proceed on that principle.
I regret to inform the Minister that, despite his efforts —I know that he has tried to sort them out—many complaints in the recent study mirror the complaints made in 1976 and those given later to the Waddilove inquiry. In my constituency of Mansfield, many of the same complaints are made.
During the last full debate on the issue, I raised a number of cases on which I could not get any sense out of British Coal. I promised the Minister that I intended to deal with those cases personally and that I would not discuss them during the debate. However, I raise the matter again because, when I raised them with the Minister, it appeared that those people were clearly being denied their rights. In certain instances, the position was so clear that I thought that it was simply a matter of the Minister contacting British Coal to review those cases for some action to be taken. I regret to inform the Minister that, despite his efforts in contacting British Coal, the reverse has happened.
I have a letter from British Coal dated 17 August 1988 concerning one of the cases which, after the debate on the matter, the Minister asked British Coal to review.
The letter is from the chairman of British Coal, who denied any movement whatsoever in respect of all the cases. It referred to Mr. G. Johnson of 22 Bosworth Street, Mansfield and stated:
"The last mineworkings in the vicinity of this particular property took place in 1974. Any damage arising from those workings would have become apparent soon afterwards, but it was not until July 1983 that the Corporation received a claim on behalf of Mr. Johnson, through his Agent, Alan Brentnall. An inspection of the property did not reveal any recent damage for which the Corporation has a liability. The Area confirm that subsidence damage exists in the property, but this is in their view considerably more than six years old and is therefore, out of time."
I find that absolutely amazing, as I have visited the home of my constituent many times. The property is so badly damaged that, until the repairs are done, I feel that my constituent should not stay there. The walls are leaning, the ceiling is displaced and there are cracks and small fissures in the footpaths and garden area.
My constituent works all night as a care attendant for the social services. When I originally contacted British Coal, it was not about whether British Coal would sort out the matter, but whether it would either pay an amount to my constituent so that, because he worked permanent nights, he could have those repairs done for him, or that it would quickly get him temporary accommodation.
What is amazing about that incident is that the records that I have clearly confirm that the inquiry about Mr. Johnson's property was earlier than the date stated in the review. Also, it is a semi-detached house and the adjoining semi-detached house has been completely repaired by British Coal. It has carried out repairs almost exactly similar to those of which Mr. Johnson's property is in dire need. The agent and Mr. Johnson have supplied evidence that, some years ago, British Coal sent out its so-called independent arbiters, British Mining Consultants, or whoever it was at that time, who agreed on site that this was recent coal mining subsidence damage.
Having gone back to British Coal and reminded it of all those facts, the only letter I received back from it was to say that the evidence, advice and ruling on site or off site

1221
by British Mining Consultants had been reviewed, and the ruling was subsequently found to be wrong. Mr. Johnson was then denied liability, because, as British Coal pointed out, it was not bound to accept the evidence. It just had to put in place the mechanism to have that property inspected. That is a silly and completely unindependent attitude.
The second case concerns a Mr. and Mrs. Lilley of 37 Harropwhite road, Mansfield. British Coal states:
"The last mineworkings in the vicinity of Mrs. Lilley's property took place in 1978 and a claim was received seven years after the last mining took place and at least six years after any damage would have become apparent."
That again is an amazing reply, because the dates which I have confirm what the chairman of British Coal is saying about this property. It is unbelievable that British Coal could say there is no new damage to the property, because I have seen further deterioration of the property due to subsidence during the 12 to 18 months in which I have been visiting it. The fissures are larger in the garden area and the walls have undoubtedly moved. They have been moved not by a crowbar, but by ground movement. The evidence is clearly not correct.
Another property is 42 Southwell road east, about which British Coal states:
"The last mining to take place in the vicinity of this property arose from Rufford colliery in 1983–84. A claim received from the Agent"—
again Alan Brentnall—
"was considered by Nottinghamshire area".
British Coal went on to say that an amount of money was offered in recompense for subsidence damage to this property.
The property is a bungalow situated on the Southwell road, towards Rainworth in Mansfield. I raise this case because the amount offered would probably not buy a fairly elderly detached property in Mansfield. The property concerned is, in fact, a detached bungalow with considerable ground space. British Coal's offer for the property is completely ridiculous.
British Coal went on to say that it has agreed that the case should go to the Lands Tribunal. That disturbs me, because eventually any independent tribunal or civil court would rule in my constituent's favour. British Coal has accepted that the damage to the bungalow has been caused by coal mining subsidence. It is clearly in desperate need of either demolition or repair. If one goes in the bedroom of the property, one can see the outside world through the walls. There are cracks from one end of the wall to the other and from the ceiling to the floor, windows are displaced and the outside walls and the pavements are cracked. It is in a seriously damaged state.
It is amazing that, as part of the remedy to the problem, the Government have suggested the use of the Lands Tribunal system. It will cost at least £120,000 for that case to go through the Lands Tribunal system, but at present that is the way in which it is heading. As British Coal's offer is ludicrous, that tribunal will undoubtedly rule in favour of the full repair of the property, restitution and compensation payments. I believe that the Lands Tribunal is being abused by British Coal. It is being used as a mechanism to get the people who own the property to take a lesser amount, and one which could not in any way replace the type of property that they have at present. It
1222
has been used to slow up the negotiating process, and British Coal is attempting to get a settlement prior to the tribunal.
The next property is at 24 Williamson street, Mansfield and is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sharman. Again, British Coal is saying that the claim was received seven years after mining took place. Mr. Sharman worked all his working life in Sherwood colliery. He was a deputy responsible for the safety of those cutting coal underground. On the day of his retirement, he was to finish work at 4 o'clock, but he had to be more or less dragged from the coal face to the top of the colliery to be informed that he was now retired. He gave all his working life to the industry, and he knows when mining took place. He also knows that every house surrounding his has been accepted for damage repair and those repairs have been carried out.
Why is Mr. Sharman's case different? I put it to the Minister that his case is little different from many of those in my area. Mr. Sharman's property is a semi-detached house in a crescent. It was a council house that he bought from the council. British Coal says in its reply:
"I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Sharman as sitting tenants, purchased the property from Mansfield District Council in its damaged condition during 1983 and this was presumably taken into account in the purchase price agreed."
That was not taken into account. Mansfield district council sold that council house under the conditions which normally apply, with the price taking into account the number of years that the tenant has lived in that property, which in Mr. Sharmer's case was considerable. The price was based on the price of housing in that area, less the discount that he was allowed as a sitting tenant. No adjustment of the price was made because of damage to the property. It is cheeky of British Coal to talk about the price that people pay for their council houses. That has nothing to do with British Coal. All that British Coal has to consider is the cost of a similar house in a similar area. It is about time that it stopped using that argument.
The next affected property is 45 High street, Mansfield Woodhouse, Nottinghamshire. There is no joke in the fact that the owners of the property are Mr. and Mrs. Swindell. The Chamber is not the right place in which to have a conversation with the Minister about the swindles that have occurred in coal mining areas, but I am prepared to do so privately. Mr. and Mrs. Swindell are absolutely honest in their determination to try to get their property repaired. They live in a small stone cottage in Mansfield Woodhouse High street and it is seriously damaged. It is not a council house but a listed property, and it must be repaired. British Coal has said that the claim is out of time and that there are no new defects arising out of coal mining subsidence problems. That is wholly misleading. There is clear evidence that the movement and subsequent defects in the property are worsening all the time. Properties in the near vicinity, almost adjacent to the cottage, have moved and claims have been lodged and accepted, but the claims for this property have not been accepted.
It is totally misleading to claim that mining has not occurred. About eight weeks ago I received plans of the current and intended coal mine workings in the Mansfield Woodhouse area. There were three separate plans, one showing the area that is being worked and has been worked for about 18 months for the Shirebrook pit. The other plans showed the workings that would be undertaken in October of this year and in the next 18 months after that. To my mind the coal that has been cut

1223
for the past 18 months—it is scheduled to finish in November—has been worked directly adjacent to the cottage. Unbeknown to the chairman of British Coal, who signed the letter to Mr. and Mrs. Swindell, a review had been carried out by the Nottinghamshire or central division of British Coal. The information it collected was incorrect. The plans I received were produced not by builders on the district council, but by the estates department for central area. It is clear that workings have been undertaken near to the cottage and that workings are planned to proceed close to it.
The cottage is listed, and I am not sure whether it could survive any further damage. After all, the new workings will be undertaken almost underneath it. If the worst happens, what then? Will the central division of British Coal say that the damages were old, and that therefore they should not be repaired? 'That is ludicrous. If the current damage is out of time, it will be considerably worsened by the effects of new mining. That does not mean that British Coal is liable for part repair only, it means that it has considerably worsened the existing damage. The Minister should write to the chairman of British Coal to see whether his officers in the various areas can investigate the properties I have mentioned.
I receive hundreds of complaints from constituents who cannot get any sense from British Coal. Things have improved, but people still ring for days and they are rarely able to get through. When they do, they are often told that the person they want is not there. Many have taken it upon themselves to visit the Nottingham headquarters of British Coal at Edwinstowe. Edwinstowe is a considerable distance from my constituency and many of the people about whom we are talking are elderly and many have given their lives to the coal industry. Those people have to go by car, get a lift from someone or make a series of bus journeys to get to Edwinstowe. When they get there, they are usually given exactly the same response as that given on the telephone: they are told that the person they want is unavailable, but that their details will be noted.
People are extremely anxious about their homes—they are not council houses, but their own homes. Because of their fears and the stress that that causes, those people are pesistent and they eventually get through to the necessary people at British Coal. Their success is a result of having written a series of letters or made God knows how many telephone calls. In some circumstances, people have pressured British Coal so much that it is more fed up with them than they are with British Coal. Once they make contact, people are given all kinds of promises. They are told that inspectors will be sent out, that British Coal will deal with a person's agent or whatever. The way in which British Coal handles this matter must be improved considerably.
Many of my constituents complain about the attitude of some officers employed by British Coal who visit their homes. Many say that they are "offhand" and show little compassion or sympathy with their problem. That problem must be resolved. I appreciate the difficulties and stress encountered by the staff of British Coal in the Nottinghamshire area. They are overworked and stretched, resources are limited and they face a growing number of complaints. What has happened is not the fault of the staff; it is the scale of the damage that has caused the problems. I cannot condone the current situation nor can the Minister. We need action to try to help British Coal's staff and the people suffering damage to their homes.
1224
Why does British Coal say that recurrence of damage is not its liability? That defeats me. If damage recurs it is because the original damage was not properly repaired or because the damage was greater than initially judged. In common with other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I have hundreds of cases on file where further help has been refused, but when British Coal carried out the initial repairs, the contract price was so low that it enabled only cosmetic repairs to be done. The work involved little more than papering cracks and in-filling plaster or paint into cracked walls. It is only common sense to realise that such repairs will last only a short time. British Coal cannot morally argue that it has fulfilled its responsibilities with such repairs. If it believes that, it is conning itself as well as those people with damaged properties.
A better system of communication on rejected claims must be established. At present, British Coal can use the compensation agents hired by property owners to their detriment. The large amounts of financial compensation, as opposed to repair work, that was paid by British Coal and the use and growth of agents have caused problems to the coal-mining areas. Some years ago, there was a compensation bonanza, when large amounts were paid out on claims. We are still living with the effects of that bonanza. My area has suffered massive damage, and many claims were made. From the evidence that I have collected, it appears that anyone who could use a slide rule put himself forward as a compensation agent. Considerable amounts of money were involved.
Earlier, I talked about swindles and frauds. Some arrests occurred of people who work for British Coal in the Nottinghamshire area. Some of them are still on charges awaiting trial, people have gone to gaol and staff have been sacked. We have to think about some of the problems in that area. Many agents, as they call themselves, were interviewed by police. In many cases the use of compensation agents is a deterrent to trying to solve the problem. One agent has so many cases on his file that it is unlikely that anybody will be able to get a settlement.
Little or no communication takes place between home owners and British Coal. British Coal is changing the system and no longer maintains contact with property owners, but a second-class stamp is all that it needs to keep in touch with an owner. Some of my constituents have had to wait months for letters, so it seems that not many second-class stamps are being used.
Agents are used as a mechanism to create a barrier between the home owner and British Coal. Because agents are exerting pressure in order to get settlements and chasing tens or hundreds of cases, they cannot contact people as often as they should. They are trying to cut their costs by not making contact with the home owners or people in British Coal. The people who suffer are the property owners; sometimes it is months before they know about offers or rejections.
The Minister should ask himself why agents are being used at all, because that question is fundamental to the debate. I can tell him that it is basically because home owners in coal mining areas do not trust British Coal to do a fair deal. The evidence in the report shows that people who deal directly with British Coal get a better deal more swiftly. Coal mining is the major industry in some areas and many people have given their lives to it or to one of the industries that serves it. It is sad that an industry which has completely dominated an area is now thoroughly

1225
distrusted by the people living there. The National Coal Board was always regarded as a caring employer, but British Coal has lost that trust.
Bearing in mind the amount of money that is still in the fund, can the Minister say whether he would consider funding, on a trial basis, an experimental, independent legal centre to deal with subsidence claims? The money required to do that would be minimal—peanuts compared to the amount in the fund. A centre could he set up in Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire for both areas. Three or four people could operate the centre and concern themselves only with coal mining subsidence. That would be helpful and the centre would be financially viable. It would enable claimants to get expert advice and representation, especially in areas such as north Nottinghamshire.
Subsidence money is already in the bank waiting to be used. Because of the age of many of the people involved, many of the cases would be legally aided and, with the correct legal advice, people would not be conned or shoved up alleyways. Some people are being told by agents that they should get £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000. They find out that Mrs. Smith down the street got £24,000 or Mr. White round the corner got £14,000, or they are told that they should not take the compensation but should have the house repaired. If we had a proper legal centre, people would be able to determine their exact rights.
For a small additional amount, such a legal centre would be able to liaise with another body which I shall propose. That might take some of the pressure off British Coal, and that is a key factor. The small amount of money required is already there and it is not British Coal or Government money. It has been deducted from the sale of coal and set aside for subsidence grants. Such a scheme would save money because to take a case through the Lands Tribunal can cost six-figure sums. There are thousands of cases and, as I shall later show, many of them could go in that direction if that is the only option. If there was another option, it would be helpful all round.
Fourthly, of major concern to many of my constituents is the lack of information. I accept that British Coal has improved its distribution of information, but much more needs to be done. A central register for damage and property repairs for each district, kept up to date weekly or monthly by the local authority, needs to be available. That is important in areas where, because of coal mining, damage has occurred to properties.
The Conservative party is the party of business and urges people to be entrepreneurial and to stand on their own two feet. We are talking about my constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Derbyshire, North-East and the hon. Member for Sherwood. Anybody who wants to buy a house goes to an estate agent and asks for a search to be carried out. He receives a piece of paper containing about three sentences and it costs £14·50. It says on the bottom of the piece of paper that if more information is required it will cost another £32. Sometimes it takes weeks to get such information. Who will trust information supplied in that way?
Prospective home buyers are investors and should be able to pop down to the local authority to have a look at a damage register. They could locate the street and check
1226
to see whether there has been any damage or compensation paid or whether repairs have been carried out. When people are investing tens of thousands of pounds in a house or business it is common sense that they should have access to such a register. The documents that I have here are registers from eight local authorities. They are a considerable size, but when the Minister gets his copy it will be smaller.
The registers contain the addresses of damaged properties and the names of the occupants. They will be presented in an indexed form in a booklet. Each of the areas has been surveyed and the results lodged with a local authority, so that anybody who wants to buy a house can see if the property has been damaged or if a claim has been lodged or paid. It is not hard to do, and it would help everybody concerned.
The fifth factor is dissatisfaction with professional advisers, something that I have already mentioned. The Minister should seriously examine the independence of the so-called independent mining consultants being used by British Coal, about which I have great doubts. It was largely through the Minister that we got these independent consultants, because he pushed the case for them and got British Coal to respond by using them more than it had done. In my constituency and that of other hon. Members, the independence of these consultants has been questioned. In every case where they have ruled that subsidence damage clearly exists, even going so far as to talk about what kind of settlement or schedule should be reached, when British Coal has asked for reconsideration of the case, the agents have stood on their heads and changed their decisions. This has happened in hundreds of cases, and there must be something wrong about that. There must be doubt about the independence of such people.
Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend has hit an important point. My experience, over many years of representing my constituents in Ashfield who have had the problem of mining subsidence, has been similar. For many years we had a fair deal from the National Coal Board and then, suddenly, there was a change and, following the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB, which became British Coal, it took on an independent body of mining consultants. These people were turning down claims willy-nilly, despite the fact that serious damage had been caused to property. I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Minister should be aware that we shall look seriously at these independent consultants to see what is going on, because of the unfairness of the decisions that affect the people whom we represent.
Mr. Meale: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been told by people qualified in this sector that such changes of decision are not surprising. The work of these so-called independent consultants is on such a small scale that, if they started to stamp their feet and refuse to change their decisions, other consultants would be used and business would be lost. I should like the Minister to consider this point. If there are to be independent consultants, as there are in industrial relations—we are aware that the Government are arguing the case over rail strikes and miners' strikes and God knows what else—there should also be binding arbitration so that we can see the real value of the independent side of the consultation.

1227
There is dissatisfaction with repairs, which mainly concerns the quality of work and the attitude of contractors. Many hundreds of complaints about the quality of finished work and the appropriateness of the work carried out have been received. The Minister should have this investigated. The prices offered for many repair jobs are so low that many builders will not do them until the winter, when other contracts are slack. Furthermore, many builders use British Coal repair contracts as fill-in jobs, because the prices are so low, so many jobs take weeks to complete.
Many constituents complain to me that in their homes, all their furniture has been moved into one room and is covered in sheets and that they are having to live in that one room while the damage is being repaired. For example, somebody has come round and put a bit of plaster on the wall, but it is taking weeks for them to come back to paint it or put on wallpaper. This is all wrong. It is mainly a result of the prices paid. I have spoken to many builders, from large, medium and small building firms, and they say that, if they could get enough work, they would not bother with British Coal work because of the low prices and because workmen get hassled; it is not a viable exercise for them.
There is dissatisfaction about temporary accommodation. Many complaints are received about the length of time spent in temporary rooms, while at the same time there are lengthy waiting lists for people to be given such accommodation while their homes are being repaired. Twelve months ago, the situation was disgraceful. Hundreds of people were waiting to have their homes repaired but could not have the work done because of the lack of temporary accommodation. There has been movement as a result of the Minister's actions following the debate 12 months ago, and I thank him for that. However, more needs to be done and I hope that the Minister will keep up the pressure to take the strain off the people waiting for repairs.
I have received many complaints about compensation for financial loss. Again, since the last debate, British Coal is helpful whenever possible. One difficulty has been losses accrued through loss of working days while inspections and repairs are carried out. Since the Minister put pressure on British Coal, there has been a better relationship with it, and in a number of cases it has spent quite a lot of time and effort, in difficult circumstances, sorting things out. However, when repairs and inspections are carried out on property, people have to be there to inspect it. They cannot leave the key and say, Inspect it and I will accept your judgment." Inspectors miss damage sometimes. Furthermore, British Coal inspectors find it helpful to have present the person who owns the house because they can explain what is old and what is new and what needs to be done.
The Government encourage people to buy their own homes, and therefore to have a mortgage. Growing interest rates put an increasing burden on home owners, so they are anxious not to lose money by taking days off work. They want to keep up with the bills so that their houses will not be repossessed and they can keep the financial wheels turning. Some 120,000 people live in my district council area and they do not have well-paid jobs like people who live in Westminster, Pimlico, Hampstead and the like. Many of my people are unemployed, but those who are in employment are not on high wages, and cannot afford to lose money.
1228
There is no doubt that worries over repairs, particularly of homes, causes stress and strain. Many cases on my files involve elderly and infirm people and the unemployed, who suffer serious stress through lack of action or even acceptance of liability by British Coal of its responsibility for damage. It is sad that this is happening. I understand, of course, that Department of Health Ministers are directly concerned, and that the Under-Secretary of State is not. I know of two cases where, without any shadow of doubt, the stress and strain that has followed the denial of liability for repairs has led to serious illnesses.
The stress that I see in people's faces, especially those of the elderly, who come reguarly to my surgery to see whether they can get help, is proof to me that the stress and strain can cause illness, and sometimes serious illness. I hope that the Minister will take this factor into account in his determination of these matters and in his final recommendations. I hope also that he will try to ensure that British Coal acts more swiftly.
The 10th area of concern is loss of property value. Without any proper guarantee of acceptance of liability, property values have been affected. Property values in north Nottinghamshire, an area of coal mines, demonstrate the effect of subsidence on house prices. Mansfield is one of the cheapest housing areas in Britain. The problems that have come to light over recent years have been reflected in property values, and people in the areas that have been affected are having to sell their properties at lower values than those which prevail in other parts of the country. If anyone wants to sell his home or purchase a home, he will have searches carried out on the property. Sometimes the process takes many weeks to complete. This obviously delays movement within the property market.
British Coal regards the head of claim as extremely important when it comes to determine whether the claim is in time under the six-year rule. A claim is made, and sometimes, after years of waiting for a determination, the owner moves on. When that happens the new owner will have to make a new claim. I ask the Minister to consider whether that is fair. I have met people who were told on buying a property that a claim had already been made and that they would be able to have various repairs carried out. That is not the position. British Coal is saying that, if the head of claim—the owner of the property—changes, all bets are off.
That is a nifty device under the six-year rule. Britsh Coal has only to wait for owners to get so fed up with the delay before repairs are carried out that they decide to move on. When that happens, it is no longer liable. Under the six-year rule, the claim founders. I ask the Minister to intervene. If a property is damaged and a claim is made within time, surely the claim remains in time even if there is a change of ownership. The fact is that many claims have been denied because of a change in the head of claim. It is ludicrous to deny that the properties concerned need repairing.
The 11th area of concern is dissatisfaction with compensation payments and lack of knowledge of what the payments are supposed to cover. This concern is linked undoubtedly with dissatisfaction with the standard of repairs that are carried out. Many people who are not builders do not understand the difference between cosmetic repairs and major repairs. If a builder conies to someone's home to repair damage and says that skimming is all that is required, the owner will be willing to accept

1229
that. He will be pleased that repairs are being done. There is a difference, as I have said, between cosmetic repair and cosmetic damage, and full repair and serious damage.
Many owners are unaware that by signing an agreement to have cosmetic repairs carried out, they are thereby losing any right to full repair. This has happened many times. British Coal has applied pressure and has stated that cosmetic repairs only are needed. It has said, "This or nothing. If you do not accept the scheduled cosmetic repairs that we are offering, you will get no further response from us. We shall delay matters. You will have to go to court, and that will take a considerable time." Presumably these decisions are reached behind closed doors between the so-called agents and members of British Coal's estates department staff.
In many instances, people accept cosmetic repairs because they are fed up with their houses being undecorated. It is pointless decorating a house when it is known that plastering, rewiring, reflooring and the fitting of new doors are required. People are told not to redecorate while their claim is being determined, but sometimes the process takes three, four or five years. How would the Minister like it if he could not carry out any redecorations in his house for three, four or five years? The reality is that many property owners have had enough. If it is a question of cosmetic rather than full repairs, they accept the cosmetic approach because they want to live in a normal home environment.
I refer again to the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire district council survey. I have stated already that 160,000 questionnaires were distributed to households by various methods. More than 50,000 completed questionnaires were returned. More than 33,000 respondents—64 per cent.—claimed that their residences had suffered damage as a result of coal mine workings. It can be argued that some of these claims are wrong, that some of them might be misleading, and that others might be deliberately misleading. That could be said of three, 33 or 330, but not of more than 33,000
A random selection of properties was carried out in each area covered by the survey and subsequently the properties were inspected by qualified members of the survey team. There were reports of damage throughout the areas covered by the survey where coal mining had taken place. Bearing in mind the many occasions on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield and I have raised the matter with the Minister, he will not be surprised when I tell him that 70 per cent. of the allegedly damaged houses were found to be in the Mansfield and Ashfield district council areas.
Bolsover district council sent out 27,900 questionnaires and received 3,077 returns. That was a response of 11 per cent. There were 2,127 claims of subsidence damage. Of the 3,077 returns, 939 reported no subsidence damage. Chesterfield district council sent out 6,500 questionnaires. There were 1,957 returns. That was a response of 30·1 per cent. Of the 6,500 questionnaires, 1,927 reported subsidence damage. Only 28 per cent. reported no subsidence damage. Gedling district council sent out 6,034 questionnaires and received back 3,792. That was a response of 62·8 per cent. There were 2,970 claims of subsidence damage. There were 775 reports of no subsidence damage.
1230
In Bassetlaw, 16,000 questionnaires were delivered and only 751, or 5 per cent., were returned. They showed 180 cases of subsidence damage and 564 cases of no damage. In the Amber Valley area, 12,000 questionnaires were sent out. Of those 7,589, 63 per cent., were returned. They showed that there were 2,747 cases of damage and 4,842 cases of no damage. In the Newark and Sherwood area 13,000 questionnaires were distributed and 3,252–25 per cent.—were returned. The returns showed that 1,132 properties sustained damage, while 1,963 were undamaged.
The high figure of over 70 per cent. arose in Ashfield, where 41,952 questionnaires were distributed and 12,050 were returned. That was 30 per cent. of the total. Subsidence damage was reported in 9,730 properties and no subsidence damage in 2,320. In Mansfield, 40,787 questionnaires were distributed and 17,744–43·5 per cent. —were returned. Of those, 12,321 reported damage and 4,994 showed no damage.
Those figures show that there were claims that 33,134 properties had been damageed. Those claims have been ratified by the checks made by a qualified survey team. They also show that 16,425 properties were unaffected. In simple terms, those figures show that only 20·7 per cent. of questionnaires were returned. They also show that 66·8 per cent. of returns indicated subsidence damage. In real terms, the figure is much higher, as many people did not bother to fill in the forms, as the percentage of returns shows. In particular, very little public or private rented accommodation replied to the survey.
It is also important to note that the business community, apart from small businesses, was not included in the survey. The Minister has agreed to hold a meeting next Tuesday with interested parties. A senior official of the Severn-Trent water authority will be present at that meeting and he will refer to the millions of pounds worth of damage in the public industry sector. There are difficulties in the gas and electricity industries. The county council also has difficulties with roads and sewers. The business community is very deeply concerned. I hope that the Minister will accept that we are today talking only about privately owned houses and that the problem is really far worse than that.
Other factors also emerged from the survey. It showed that the claims procedure differed throughout the research areas. It also showed that claims were protracted where an agent was appointed by the householder, as I stressed earlier. Claims made directly by the householder to British Coal generally proceeded satisfactorily, as I also stressed earlier.
The survey also showed that few householders received a schedule of work. A schedule was generally prepared when an agent had been appointed and was used as a basis for claims from British Coal. That is amazing. I have seen some of the schedules. I know that negotiations continue between agents and British Coal, as I have received hundreds of the damned schedules. It is amazing that people are not generally given a schedule of damage.
The impression gained from the survey was that many householders did not know when work would commence or by whom. Because the builder usually did not provide a programme of work, householders' homes were worked on without consideration to the occupants' usual needs. For example, in certain circumstances, all rooms were

1231
worked upon simultaneously, householders were given insufficient time to prepare for the work and there was a lack of continuity of work by the builder.
The survey also showed that quality control was at the discretion of the householder. As no schedule of work was usually available, quality control generally proved difficult for householders to undertake. Quality control by British Coal has been more in evidence in recent years and I have no doubt that that has happened because of complaints that were sent to the Minister.
The survey showed that householders had little control over the quality of the finished work. I could quote many instances to the Minister of people who have said to the builder as he was about to walk through the door, "What about that?" The builder would reply, "That's got nothing to do with us. It's Friday afternoon, we'll be back on Monday morning. That's not in the schedule. Where's the schedule?" The builder simply has a sheet of paper telling him what work to do. In hundreds of cases, people have waited years for a contractor or someone from British Coal to turn up to repair the last piece of damage in the programme. Those people continue to live in unrepaired accommodation.
The survey showed that dissatisfied householders were concerned about what was and what was not claimable. The allowances given for decorating—for example the rate for wallpaper—were felt to be inadequate in some cases. If this was not so sad, it would be ludicrous. People have shown me an example of a certain quality of wallpaper on their walls. However, they complain that the amount of money allowed by British Coal for wall covering provides for only very basic coverings. If wallpaper or paint is required, it should be of an acceptable standard. British Coal should not have to indulge in piddling and peripheral negotiations.
The survey also showed that there were complaints about the general lack of care and protection of personal possessions and the use of householders' equipment and facilities without permission. The builders do not actually go in and cook sausages and chips on a householders cooker. However, once they have placed coverings on the furnishings, they sit down and lounge about the house. They usually, ruin the kitchen sink because they stick buckets, plaster and paint in it. The Minister may smile at this, but he knows that it is true. He would not have it in his home. Would he like that to happen to him? We are not talking about people who can nip off to the south of France. We are talking about people who want to go to work in the mornings.
There are also complaints about irregular attendance of builders. Some builders disappear for weeks, months or years. That is a bit of a bind, and people are worried because they never quite know when the builder will come back through the door. Sometimes it is so bad that, when the builder comes up the path, he is greeted like a Littlewoods or Vernons pools officer, his appearance is so rare.
There were complaints that householders did not receive formal notification of the completion of work. The builder, as he walks through the door, often says, "That has nothing to do with me."
There seemed to be a disparity between amounts claimable within the same locality. That applied to Mr. Johnson's case. People in one house might be given wallpaper, while those in the neighbouring houses were not. Some houses would have their drains or footpaths
1232
repaired and others would not. In many instances, the state of the houses denied such services would be worse than that of those that received them.
There was a lack of information about what work would be undertaken, when and how. The impression gained was that householders who had been or were currently employed by British Coal expected preferential treatment. My colleagues and I hear that argument time and again. People tell us, "I gave my life to the coal industry. I did not miss a shift in God knows how many years." In Nottinghamshire, they say, "I stood four square with the present Government during the miners' strike. I went to work in opposition to my colleagues. It has caused rifts within my family. Yet I am being treated in this way."
Some householders reported that the builders had a "don't care" attitude to the work. As I told the Minister earlier, I think that that attitude is connected with what builders are paid. They will be in and out as quickly as they can, because the job is probably a "fill-in" and they want to get it over with.
When householders were informed that there would be a delay in handling claims or undertaking work, they generally accepted that. Not knowing was the factor that caused them distress. Householders have come to me with stories of having spoken to the agent three years ago, having received a letter from British Coal and another from the agent a year ago, and having heard nothing since. Surely there is some way of letting people know that the matter is still being dealt with, even if it is only a standard letter with a second class stamp.
The administrative procedure used by British Coal appears to have been inconsistent. Some officers issued claim forms, whereas others relied on receiving letters or telephone calls from householders. In one village—I believe that it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood—a public meeting was organised by British Coal, and in another village British Coal undertook door-to-door inquiries.
I do not think that that is a bad idea. Public relations are important, particularly with people who work or worked in the industry or in its service sectors. It is part of the style of a caring employer and a caring industry. It might not be a bad idea either, given the traumas that the industry has been through in recent years, for British Coal to do that more often: it used to do it in the past, and it is good practice in any community.
The public relations aspect of British Coal was perceived by householders to be rather poor. Householders assumed that schedules produced by agents would be the exact list of work to be undertaken when that was not the case. They have been presented with a dilemma. One or two agents will come into the house and look around. They will say, "Oh, yes, I will put that down on the list." Before an agent has left the back kitchen, there will be enough down on his list to make the householder think that he will have a fitted kitchen with quarry tiles and the whole works, and that each room will undergo similar improvements. People are conned into believing that they will get the whole world. By the time the agents are out of the front door, it seems that, if all that has been promised were to come to fruition, the accumulated cost would be such that it would be better to give the householder a house twice the value of the current one.
There is also the problem of independent consultants. They give schedules for what needs to be done; then people who expected to have their repairs done at a cost of

1233
£15,000 or £16,000 suddenly receive an offer of £2,200 through the letterbox. It frightens the living daylights out of them, because of all the problems that have been pointed out to them.
No written guidelines appear to have been prepared to assist in the process of deciding marginal cases, such decisions being made only by British Coal's surveyors. That is rather sad. Where is the independence there? Why could not a local authority send out an inspector? After all, many of the houses used to be owned by local authorities. The inspectors would not say, "Right, we think that you should have everything." They are qualified, understanding people, and they are not going to start abusing their position and indenting for new front doors and walls. If their budgets are controlled, they will respond appropriately.
Some householders were not made aware that significant changes to their homes would occur during and after building work. That, too, is an important point. Like other hon. Members, I have come across such cases. The building work is carried out, and it looks wonderful. It takes away the stress and strain and the householder looks forward to the future. Then he trips on the way into the living room, because the floor is as much as 4 in higher and there is a step there. The way may be in a slightly different position; doors may have been moved. There seems to be no understanding of the effect that that will have on someone who has lived in the same property for years—in some cases, generations.
Each property had repairs which could be regarded as "cosmetic": substantial damage has been repaired, but there was also a good deal of botching up and covering up. All the evidence from the surveyors points to that. The surveyors were not made aware by the householders of any guarantees for other repair work. Householders may believe that something has been repaired and that if there are any more problems they can get back on to British Coal, but, as I have told the Minister, that is not the case. If they do that, they will be told, "Hang on, in 1985 you signed a form and that ended our liability"—although British Coal must have known in its heart of hearts that, without the shadow of a doubt, the damage was more considerable than was being implied.
Many householders had found that claiming for damage and the execution of repairs was a process that caused them considerable distress. In some cases, the stress was the apparent result of genuine grievance about the inconvenience; in others, it appeared to have been caused either by inability to understand the process of building work generally, or by a lack of knowledge of what might be regarded as genuine damage due to subsidence and what is an acceptable standard of repair.
The House is well aware of my concern about coal mining subsidence damage. According to a report that entirely supports the arguments that I have advanced since the last general election, my community has been and continues to be damaged by the effects of coal mining. Let me now discuss with the Minister what is to be done.
In response to a number of questions that I asked on 18 May this year, the Minister said:
"Administration of the subsidence compensation and repair system, including making the necessary provisions in the accounts, is a matter for British Coal."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 445.]
1234
I do not think that that is a very helpful answer. Whatever the Minister may think about the responsibilities of British Coal or any other public sector industry, ultimately the responsibility is his: he is in charge of such matters in his Department. He is the person who has to take public responsibility for sorting out the matter, and I shall try to help him.
The Minister also answered a question that I tabled on 15 May 1989 asking him to give possible solutions to some of the dilemmas. He said:
"At the end of 1987–88 repair of and compensation for subsidence damage cost the corporation almost £50 million." —[Official Report, 15 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 102.]
It would help him greatly if he could find out over how many years that sum was accrued, how much of it was spent in repair and compensation, how much on administration of staff, how much on outside advisory costs, how much on legal costs and how much was paid to the claimants' agents.
I do not expect an answer today, but I think the Minister will find that a low proportion of the money was spent on the purpose for which it was intended: repairing damaged property. If my analysis is wrong, I shall gladly apologise to the Minister either in the Chamber or publicly, but I doubt that I am. However, even if I am, it is still the case that more than £200 million is left in the account which could be used to settle this problem. Presumably, it accrued because it was added to the budget for coal production and was set aside to solve the problems of coal mining subsidence damage.
Some of the money could also be used to set up in the coalfield areas, particularly those which provided the evidence, some form of trust made up of senior figures from local authorities, the legal profession and the mining industry, which could review cases for damage when liability was denied. I am sure that all hon. Members would be grateful if that could be set up on a trial basis for two or three years. If that were done, it would help the Minister because he would no longer keep receiving letters from hon. Members as these could be referred to the regional coalfield trust. I should like to think that local authorities would be represented on the trust because, after all, they have to sort out the problems. Such a trust could look at the major problem of old damage.
New mining techniques have largely solved the major problems. The trust would be appreciated not only by the owners of damaged properties, but by British Coal, which needs help with a problem that is draining a considerable amount of its energy and placing an enormous financial burden on its production activities and pits. It would help to take the pressure off British Coal and the huge number of staff it employs, and help it to meet its advisory costs.
The evidence given to me shows clearly that, before all hell broke loose at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, the size of the estates department in Nottinghamshire was modest. However, events since then now mean that, if there is any trimming and rethinking to be done on management and design to help solve this problem, that is where it must be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield has frequently pointed out to me that merely half a dozen people, with some secretarial support, were employed in that department in Nottinghamshire in the 1970s. That number is now close to 50, with fairly high numbers of outside consultants to back them up. The process has gone too far. There is an amazing

1235
administrative bottleneck in the coal industry. A coalfield area trust, with a legal department to help it, could look at the old damage problems and review cases.
I wish to thank the Minister for expressing his willingness to meet the chief officers of the district councils next Tuesday morning. I hope that he will reconsider the invitation sent to him to visit the north Nottinghamshire area. This November, the district councils, Coalfield Communities Campaign representatives and county councils are holding a one-day seminar. The Minister has already been asked whether he can come, and has said that he will consider the proposal sympathetically, but that the date is too far off and that it is highly unlikely that he could attend.
I understand that some members of the Department of Energy have since said that they would like to attend. Nottinghamshire is of special interest to Conservative Members, and if the Minister came along we could show him some of the properties. Alternatively, he could stick a pin in the report that I have shown him today, of which he will receive copies, to see which properties to visit. I would be willing to give him the pin with which to do so. Even if he will not stick in the pin and burst the balloon, perhaps he will attend the seminar to give the Government's view. The problems are harrowing, and we need some direction. I hope that this debate has helped the Minister to decide what action he must take.
My hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State for Energy and his shadow junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), have agreed to attend the seminar, and it would be a shame if only one political voice was there to represent Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. I understand that, on such occasions, the Minister often asks a local Member to represent him. On this occasion, I would go along with that, provided that the Minister will assure us that he will accept whatever his representative says and carry out his findings.
Once the Minister has read the excellent report, which he could do on his holidays or before, he will appreciate the full scale of the damage. Perhaps he will also consider, with his Parliamentary Private Secretary, other Conservative Members present, and even the Whips, that at 2.30 pm when the private Members' Bills are considered, when my Coal Mining Subsidence (Damage, Arbitration, Prevention and Public Awareness) Bill, which has support from both sides of the Chamber, is announced, instead of shouting, "Object," to allow it to proceed. A few Conservative Members smile, but I am prepared to accept that, if my Bill were allowed to proceed to Committee, where the Minister has an inbuilt majority, he could change it. The Government have the built-in numbers to do exactly that and I ask the Minister and the Whips to do it. It would form the basis for a solution to the problem.
I have said that this solution would be wholly self-financing and that £200 million or more is in the accounts for this purpose. I have mentioned a couple of ways in which help could be given to home owners, to British Coal, to the Minister, to businesses and to hon. Members. They would be cost-effective; the money has already been deducted. It exists precisely for this purpose and should be used for it.
We should also remember that the chairman of British Coal has just announced massive profits for this financial year, of £500 million. That money has been derived from the communities which are suffering damage and which will continue to suffer it in the future. Nottinghamshire
1236
contributed £65 million to this profit, of which only a tiny amount need be used to try to find a solution to this problem—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I had not meant to intervene, but it is important to set this point right for the record. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is correct to say that there was a notional operating profit, as defined by British Coal, but that was before many other costs had been incorporated in the calculations—in particular, the cost of borrowing, which is a cost usually associated with any business, and the costs of restructuring and redundancies. When British Coal has included those costs, it has to return to Parliament the whole time to ask for more money. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House on that point, which is central to a balanced discussion of the subject.
Mr. Meale: I thank the Minister. We should take into account certain costs that have to be deducted. Nevertheless, British Coal is a profitable business now—the chairman has said as much.
These are areas which have been seriously damaged by the effects of a major industry. Elderly, infirm and unemployed people have, directly or indirectly, given their lives to that industry. They do not live in Bermuda or the south of France: they live in the backbone of Britain, in coal mining communities which produce wealth and energy for the nation. I ask all hon. Members and the Minister to help us begin some movement—not subsidence —towards a solution to the problem.
11.23 am
Sir Hugh Rossi: Having listened to the difficult constituency cases which the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has detailed at some length, I can understand his anxiety and desire to raise all the problems related to coal mining subsidence this morning. I am relieved not to have such problems in my constituency, although I have troubles enough.
I take an abiding interest in compensation and environmental issues and I want to address the House on the broader aspects of the tribulations of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I have long held the view that when persons or communities are disadvantaged in the public interest they should he fully and adequately compensated for that disadvantage. It matters not whether it takes the form of the building of a motorway, new railway line, or nuclear power station beside their homes, or the digging of a mine underneath them. If people's homes are affected by public works in the national interest, their loss should be fully compensated in every case.
The ideas that I have propounded met with some success in the Land Compensation Act 1973, although it was a compromise in respect of the views that some hon. Members, myself included, proposed in those years. The Act provides for the purchase at full market price of homes directly affected by public works, and for grants for those indirectly affected by them.
For historical reasons the coal industry was isolated from the legislation. It has always enjoyed a privileged-position vis-à-vis the communities which worked for it to provide cheap fuel for the rest of us. So I can understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Mansfield when he speaks on behalf of his constituents. On their behalf, he

1237
said that he would rather they had a right to sell to British Coal than that British Coal should repair the properties damaged by subsidence.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's remark that it is an insult to be offered, not the full market price, but a discounted price if the occupants happen to have bought under the right-to-buy provisions. That is offensive but typical of the cheese-paring attitude of the public sector whenever it deals with compensation matters. The private sector would never be allowed to get away with it. The individual would be entitled to claim through the courts and would often reach a settlement, before the case came to court, granting him full and proper compensation—but the public sector has never operated like that.
I have said before in the House that our railway system, which everyone values and wants to protect, would never have been built by private companies in the Victorian era if the owners of the properties in the way of the new lines had not been paid not merely the full market price but 110 per cent. of the value of their property.
Since nationalisation and the clawing in of so much to the public sector, a different attitude has arisen. In part it dictates that people who suffer for the public good must put up with it. I do not accept that philosophy. The person who gives something to the nation should receive full and adequate compensation for it.
Instead, in the public sector the first thing to happen is a public inquiry. Compulsory purchase procedures are followed when necessary. Protracted negotiations take place with district valuers. We go before the Lands Tribunal. All this is a long and wearisome process which is constructed as much as anything else to wear down the will of the individual so that in the end he will get only what the public sector is prepared to pay him. That is not just, and I see no reason why the Government, or Government bodies, should treat those to whom they have a duty any differently from how we would expect a private company or industry to treat them.
When I was in office, I often asked Ministers and civil servants whether anyone had ever worked out how much cheaper it would be to establish a more generous compensation system in place of the bureaucratic machine we had developed to discourage people from resisting the will of the state.
The hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned management and estate divisions of the coal board that do exactly that. If we did away with all the paraphernalia that supports the operations of the coal board and of Government departments, the savings might allow us to pay adequate compensation quickly. If people felt that they were being dealt with fairly, they would be much more ready and willing to co-operate with the public sector. I leave those thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister and wish him more success with those ideas than I did when I had an opportunity to press them.
Mr. Dick Douglas: But the Government intend to eliminate his whole Department.
Sir Hugh Rossi: The Minister is currently responsible for legislation affecting the coal industry and the coal board. When it is next amended, it should not be beyond the ingenuity of parliamentary draftsmen to include clauses to give effect to the thoughts I have expressed.
1238
The coal industry developed in a climate in which there was very little regard, if any, for the environmental impact of industrial operations. We all know of the continuing debate about the mere burning of fossil fuel and its impact on the environment—the greenhouse effect and acid rain. Such matters have received attention only in recent years. Mines were dug and have been abandoned with little regard for the effect on the surface above them or on anything built there. Slag heaps disfigure our countryside, and Durham is appallingly polluted by mine residues that have been dumped along the coastline.
Members of the Environment Select Committee visited the north-east and saw for themselves the extent of that pollution, which has continued for many years under many Administrations, and were very disturbed by what they saw. From the evidence they heard, it was clear that the Coal Board wanted to do very little about that situation. The new energy industries are not allowed to get away with anything similar. Radioactive waste will be deposited deep underground, and the industry will have to find the right sites and then, with the benefit of the right scientific ads ice and proper engineering, construct the necessary safe depositories.
Under other Government measures, the industry will meet the large cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations at the end of their useful life. The coal industry has never been under an obligation to deal with the decommissioning of its mines or slag heaps, or to deal with the mounds that it has left littering the north-east coastline.
The coal industry must be dragged kicking and screaming into this century of the environment and live up to its responsibilities. Although the hon. Member for Mansfield has made a plea on behalf of his constituents because of the direct consequences of subsidence for them, there is wider general interest in what should be done with abandoned coal mines. Should they be allowed to rot and collapse, or is there a way of backfilling and compacting them? Is it possible to use the railway tracks that brought the coal out to return the slag to the mines and ram it back into them to prevent future subsidence? Has the Department of Energy discussed with the Department of the Environment the possibility of using disused coal mines having the right geology and in the right locations to dispose of much of the waste created by our civilisation and for which apparently there is no home at present?
The Environment Select Committee's toxic waste and contaminated land inquiries address the problems of what can be done with such residues. They can be chemically treated or incinerated, but after the mass is made inert, heavy metals and other substances are left that must be disposed of somewhere. At present, the remedy is either to dump them at sea or to use them for landfill. I ask the two Departments jointly to undertake a survey of mines that are disused or are about to be closed to see whether they can be utilised for waste disposal and in such a way that future subsidence will be avoided.
I have thrown out a few thoughts, and have taken the opportunity provided by the hon. Gentleman's description of his constituents' tribulations to express the concern about the way in which we deal with compensation and fail to require the coal industry to live up to its responsibilities to the nation in respect of the impact of its operations on our environment.
11.37 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on his good fortune in coming first in the ballot and on his choice of subject. I know of the frustrations of coming second in the ballot, because I did so on Monday, which denied me an opportunity to participate in the debate. If my hon. Friend did not exist to raise this debate and to present his Bill to the House later today, we would have to invent him, because there is need for such a person and for such a measure.
Given the length of my hon. Friend's speech, it is difficult to imagine that there is anything more to be said, but I wish to raise one or two points in respect of my constituency. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about me, though he is wrong in thinking that Amber valley is part of my constituency. We have no imperialist ambitions to take it over. We believe that at the next general election Labour will be able to take it without the need for any imperialist actions.
The area of Chesterfield affected by mining subsidence is Staveley, which is a separate township. Staveley's southern half falls into the Chesterfield constituency, while its northern part is in mine. My comments and conclusions will relate to the experiences of north Staveley and of developments in south Staveley.
I am worried about what by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said about backfilling pits. Backfilling is desirable, but to backfill pits with nuclear and toxic waste in areas such as Staveley would be counterproductive. To add to the problems that they face over coal mining subsidence the thought that they would be living on top of dumps of hazardous nuclear waste would be unacceptable. It would be a greater environmental danger than subsidence and would be on top of other hazardous activities, such as those carried on by Staveley Chemicals.
The people in my area are faced with two types of problem. The first is the consequence of mining subsidence in the Hartington road area of Staveley in 1984. Lessons for the future can be drawn from that experience, but they will be of no use to residents who are living there now. Action needs to be taken on their behalf so that their compensation problems can be resolved. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade British Coal to provide more money in an attempt to resolve numerous outstanding problems, including those in the Hartington road area.
The second type of problem with which people in my constituency are faced is the prospect of coal mining during the next five years from thick seams elsewhere in the Staveley area, including the Lowgates area. In the unlikely event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, following yesterday's European results, there would be the added problem of coal extraction, leading to subsidence, by private coal companies. Subsidence claims would be dealt with first by British Coal and, later, by private firms. People making compensation claims might then have to negotiate with two bodies or companies, which would result in the inadequate funding of compensation claims.
I have received letters from constituents who live in the Hartington road and Hartington view area of Stavely. I shall not mention their names, but I want to refer to some of the problems that were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield because they affect my area,
1240
too. I shall use the words of those who have been affected and will comment on what they say as I do so. Constituent
A wrote to me and said:
"I vacated my house for a total of 17 weeks."
That is quite a short period. Some people have to move out of their homes for much longer. That fact needs to be taken into account when compensation claims are made. It causes disturbance to people's lives while their houses are being repaired. The compensation takes no account of that disturbance, but provision ought to be made for it.
Constituent A then said:
"Since then the new sills, door frameworks, skirting and ceilings have all pulled away from the walls and have cracked. The Coal Board came to inspect the new damage and offered an inadequate amount to put this right…there is also a problem regarding tilt, my neighbour has been informed that he has tilt and is being paid accordingly. Whilst I have been told I have none."
That highlights a number of points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. The compensation that is paid for tilt varies greatly. That creates a feeling of injustice, because tilt can often be observed with the naked eye. The shoddy work that is done by contractors also causes problems. British Coal uses poor contractors The role played by British Coal is inadequate. Its inspections are below par. British Coal does not insist on the application of correct standards before a person moves back into his home.
Constituent B wrote:
"We've had six inch nails knocked into door frames to straighten them, and then painted over. Twisted doors have been left on…we've had carpets left uncovered during the repair work, yet neither British Coal, nor the building firm concerned, wish to compensate the damage. The out-buildings are in a terrible state…brickwork is bulged and twisted, and being left in that condition, broken sewerage pipes have been left under the building…we don't feel we are being fairly treated."
There are continuing problems over contractors, the role of British Coal and the difficulty about obtaining fair compensation. People feel that it is inadequate. British Coal's agents are also thought to be inadequate. People resent being bounced between British Coal and its agents. No adequate action is taken, and people end up by bringing their problems to hon. Members and others in an effort to obtain assistance.
Constituent C wrote:
"From my observations and talking to people, I would say that British Coal are exerting people to settle by keeping people waiting and not corresponding, also by their attitude of take-it or leave it. My own property has not yet been repaired."
There is the double problem of incompetence and manipulation. The two seem to go hand in hand. There may be another way of describing it, but incompetence leads to manipulation. If something is not done, an excuse will be found later to get round it.
Constituent D wrote:
"Our chief concern has been the outhouse building…when the initial repairs began it was declared that the damaged side needed rebuilding, this did not materialize. Incidentally some three others to our knowledge were similarly neglected. We were out of our home for eleven and a half months, as you can appreciate an exacting time to us all, beyond all sense and reason."
Those people were out of their home for considerably longer than the 17 weeks that were mentioned by constituent A. That led to protracted problems and difficulties.
Constituent E complained about the inconvenience and discomfort that he suffered

1241
"when old and infirm by having to be out of his home for a considerable period."
Sometimes there is conflict because tilt is taken into account in some cases but not in others, but there is also a great deal of co-operation when people suffer the same inconvenience. They are concerned not just about their own well-being but about the well-being of their neighbours, and they push claims on their behalf.
Constituent F says:
"My main complaint is the decorating. There is no room in my house decorated as I asked…I had the kitchen repainted myself paying someone to do it… I cannot do much myself in the way of re-decorating (due to age and illness) and cannot afford to pay to have it done."
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield referred to wallpaper not having been put up correctly. My constituent refers here to other redecorating problems. These difficulties come on top of the many other burdens that people carry. They will soon have to pay the poll tax. That will cause great problems because of their limited resources. These burdens worry them and nag at them all the time. They create stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said. We are discussing issues relating to shelter and to people's homes. That is one of the three basic provisions—food, clothing and shelter—that bother people.
I sometimes wonder whether the Minister fully appreciates the difficulties. Although he receives plenty of literature, information and representation about issues that affect the coal industry, I believe that his personal experience is limited. I understand that he stood twice as the Conservative candidate for Easington, which may lead him to believe that he understands the problems. Of course, the pit at Easington goes out under the sea so that the subsidence problems are created for passing seamen rather than elsewhere, although there are problems nearby. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green talked about the dereliction of coastal areas, and I believe that the Committee visited Easington. I am interested in Easington as I come from that area and my parents still live there.
Constituent G wrote:
"When I moved back into my home I discovered several repairs that I can only describe as 'shoddy' and several problems which were listed on the work schedule that had been completely overlooked. To top all this, my attic, which was insulated before the 'repairs' is no longer insulated…Now I find new problems, windows leaving walls, new cracks everywhere."
Such issues are quite difficult to resolve. People could pursue various legal rights through litigation and other means, which is entirely inadequate. There should be provision for local consultation, adequate involvement by the board and some local arbitration to resolve matters through avenues similar to the small claims courts.
Constituent H stated:
"I am completely dissatisfied with the general attitude and approach of both British Coal and the contractor's senior staff who are generally arrogant, belligerent and patronising in the extreme and the quality and manner of the work being done is of a very low standard… work… proceeded in fits and starts."
Contractors move into the Hartington road area, they move out into an entirely different area, and then they come back again, and people are very frustrated by what takes place. The letter continues:
1242
"The list of omissions etc. is too long to include here; a list is attached."—
eleven detailed points were attached to the letter.
"It seems apparent that unless the contractors are continuously supervised one has little chance of satisfactory repairs being made."
That creates another problem because if people are moved out of their homes, in one case for eleven and a half months, they cannot supervise the work themselves and they feel that the board does not provide adequate supervision on their behalf. In some cases walls have been plastered and the occupants of the house do not believe that the repair work underneath has been done. When they challenge the contractors, they tell them that they will break open the wall but the owners will have to pay for replastering. People do not have the money and do not take the chance, although in some cases it would be advisable because the long-term problems might be considerable.
Constituent I stated:
"The path was laid too high covering our damp course and there are no slants to the drains causing the conservatory to flood when it rains. When the path was laid, they disturbed the drains and ever since then the drains keep getting blocked up… very little of the plastering was done, because when we moved in we did most of our own plastering."
People face practical difficulties that disrupt their homes and their lives.
I shall quote two more cases. Constituent J complained about the board sending a cheque for a settlement when none had been agreed. My constituent is paying for an independent survey showing 6¼ in when the agent was informed by the board that it would recognise only a 4 in tilt.
Finally, one constituent has been involved in putting pressure on the coal board by writing regularly—[interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We cannot have a sub-debate or sub-committee meeting.
Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and other Conservative Members involved in the discussion are probably discussing the Coal Mining Subsidence (Damage, Arbitration, Prevention and Public Awareness) Bill, which is sixth on the Order Paper, and trying to persuade the Minister not to shout "Object" to it.
Alternatively, I suspect that they are discussing the same activities that were being discussed on Monday, and that is to stop the second motion on the Order Paper, being discussed as it relates to the poll tax, which is fantastically embarrassing to Conservative Members.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Some Members, like me, have mining decline problems and serious subsidence in our constituencies, and are here to debate that important issue. I resent the hon. Gentleman's imputation.
Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentlemen were discussing the present motion, were concerned about advancing it, and are attempting to influence the hon. Member for Watford, who may not be as aware of the problem as are hon. Members who have these problems in their constituencies.
Mr. Roger Knapman: In the event that we reach the poll tax motion, how many Opposition Members are prepared to contribute to that debate by being present today?
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), have you had any intimation that if we
should reach the motion in my name about the poll tax, a Scottish Minister will be available to respond to the debate? If not we shall be in severe difficulties, as you well know. It appears that the Government are reluctant—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have gone far enough along that line. We should get back to the subject of coal mining subsidence.
Mr. Barnes: I shall be very keen to join my hon. Friend in his debate later today.
The last letter from which I shall quote states:
"We have sent numerous letters to the Chairman of British Coal, Robert Haslam, and he just does not want to know. Our complaints are of unsatisfactory work, outstanding repairs and the way in which British Coal conducts itself, their manner towards the people who are affected, we feel that they are fully irresponsible."
I have quoted those letters at length because they concern important issues affecting my constituents. I have not identified any of the writers as members of the community may want to check up on other people's business. There is common concern in the community. I have read out some of their feelings, but all told there are 108 cases and I do not intend to refer to them all. They demonstrate the recurring problems about the board, the sub-contractors, the agents and the inadequate cowboy work that is carried out in many areas.
A number of lessons can be learned. There needs to be negotiation long before the subsidence problems emerge rather than trying to pick up the pieces later. Planning authorities should make plans available and the matters should be fully understood by the community. The Department of the Environment also has a role to play, as has the Department of Energy, in that local authorities need to be advised of their role.
For instance, council housing and other services should become their responsibility so that the money—which should be more readily available through central grants —will begin to be put in funds that are directed towards those services rather than being just estimates contained in general funds. As greater pressure is applied, sometimes those amounts begin to be squeezed and the full amount is not spent on solving the coal mining subsidence problems. There can be difficulties because more than one authority is involved. In Staveley the town council is taking action about future developments and is co-ordinating with the districts and the county council. In difficult funding circumstances, there can be problems for all those authorities unless they have considered fully the discussions and plans concerning their area. The town councillors in Staveley are now in direct negotiation with the board prior to coal extraction in that area.
Considerable sums need to be spent by authorities on preparations within the area. Action has been taken in the Chesterfield constituency to ensure that provision is made for strengthening primary and special school buildings in the Inkersall area of Staveley. If, however, in the end they do not become affected by coal mining subsidence, those structural improvements will benefit the community. There needs to be that kind of planning. Obviously the funding for such matters needs to be considered.
The National Audit Office could have a function and a role in these matters. I wrote to the National Audit Office
1244
to see whether there was any chance of it carrying out a survey of the books on coal mining subsidence. I received the type of reply that I expected. It said:
"As I am sure you are aware, the day to day control and management of this scheme rests with the British Coal Corporation and, since there are no specific grants from the Department of Energy to fund coal mining subsidence, the scheme's costs are met by the industry. Unfortunately I have no rights of access to the books and records of the BCC and I am not therefore able to examine the administration of the scheme".
I believe that it would be fruitful if directives or primary legislation were passed by the House to allow the National Audit Office to have such powers. Some of the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the funding available from the now more profitable board could then be solved.
Under section 2 of the Competition Act 1980 there is a provision to order an independent investigation of a nationalised industry under the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to be undertaken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It might be worth considering whether there should be a similar order specifically directed to coal mining subsidence.
I have been able to deal with only some of the lessons which arise from the difficulties in the Staveley area. I hope that the Minister will propose some serious measures, first, for primary legislation in those areas on the lines of the proposals contained in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, which will come before us later and which is a combination of two Bills that he produced to the House last year. Secondly, he has an opportunity to take action without the requirements of primary legislation in areas such as the availability of plans for planning departments. I am sure that there are many other matters that do not require primary legislation, and measures could be pushed forward quickly, however important it is that we get that primary legislation.
12.5 pm
Dr. Mike Woodcock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on raising this important matter. It is not the first time that. he has raised it in the House and it is regrettable that he has to continue to raise it. The Government should have acted before now on what they have been told on many occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Similarly, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has raised the matter in the House on a number of occasions. He has campaigned long and hard for his constituents.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Without success.
Dr. Woodcock: Yes, without success, but perhaps we will have success this morning.
I understand that the hon. Member for Ashfield has recently announced his intention not to seek re-election. I had the privilege of serving on the magisterial bench with the hon. Gentleman for many years. I remember that he was greatly missed when he left the bench, and he will be greatly missed in this place, too, for his down-to-earth and forthright contributions. We all hope that before he departs this place he will see at long last some progress on the subsidence issue on which he has campaigned for so long.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who seeks to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has campaigned tirelessly for six

1245
years to bring about a different approach not only from the Government, but from British Coal. His constituents, along with those of other hon. Members, have suffered from defective legislation and from unfair practices on the part of British Coal.
I know those three constituencies quite well. I was born and lived for many years in Mansfield and I now have a home in the Sherwood constituency. Many of my family and friends live in Mansfield, Ashfield and Sherwood. I have extensive interests in all three constituencies and many of my family and friends have worked in the coal industry as coal miners. I can say, therefore, that I am not entirely without experience of the effects of mining subsidence and the disruption, inconvenience and hardship that it can cause.
Coal reserves can be both a blessing and a curse in any community. On the one hand, they bring employment and prosperity, but, on the other, the effect of subsidence, as the law stands, can be devastating. I believe that we all recognise that a balance must be struck—one which is fair between British Coal's need to mine coal in the nation's interest and the legitimate interests of home owners, tenants and the business community. It is important that it is a fair balance. It should, in particular, protect the interests of the individual against the abuses of power and the financial strength and monopoly position of British Coal. I have to say from my experience that, for a number of reasons, that fair balance has not been achieved.
As the hon. Member for Mansfield has reminded us, there are vast amounts of subsidence damage which are neither repaired nor compensated for by British Coal for a variety of reasons—British Coal has failed to notify property owners that mining has taken place, tenants have failed to report damage, ignorance as to how subsidence manifests itself, a fear of forms, changes of policy by British Coal without notice, and the infamous so-called six-year rule, which is no more than an excuse for British Coal to avoid its moral responsibilities. All of those items have contributed to the problem. British Coal is denying liability for millions of pounds' worth of damage. It is not that there is disagreement about whether the cause of the damage is coal mining subsidence, but that British Coal is denying liability for it and that legislation allows it to do so. It cannot be right for British Coal to damage property and then to walk away, leaving other people to pick up its bill.
The balance between British Coal and the claimant is unfair because British Coal does not always deal fairly. For example, although the Coal Industry Act 1975 is more favourable to the claimant, British Coal does not point that out to the unsuspecting claimant. It sends out damage notices and, in each case, it invites claimants to claim under the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957. The unsuspecting claimant fills in the form and so deprives himself of the valuable rights that he could have had under the 1975 Act.
There are many questions that lead one to suspect that British Coal does not act fairly. Why is British Coal so unwilling to let members of the public or hon. Members see its so-called "subsidence manual"? If it has nothing to hide, why does it want to keep it secret? Why does British Coal refuse independent adjudication on the extent of damage or independent adjudication on whether damage
1246
has been caused by subsidence? Why does it refuse independent adjudication on delay or on consequential losses? Why does it refuse adjudication on whether repairs or compensation is appropriate? It now claims that independent adjudication is widely available, but why can it give no figures as to where it is available, when it has been available and how many people have been granted or refused such independent adjudication? Why does British Coal refuse adjudication for loss of income or loss of profit arising from subsidence damage or from its failure to act in reasonable time? Why will it not supply a list of contractors who are prepared to work for British Coal rates?
When British Coal sells properties from its ex-estates, why does it limit liability to
"claims for new damage under the 1957 Act"?
Why does it seek to exclude claims made under the 1975 Act when selling its properties?
The balance between British Coal and claimants is also unfair because British Coal administration is often so appalling. Sometimes it takes months, even years, for British Coal to answer letters. Sometimes it does not answer such letters and sometimes it even loses them. Sometimes British Coal ignores letters that have been written to complain that it has ignored other letters already sent.
I shall quote one case—a claim that was submitted on 2 January 1985. A damage notice was sent in on that date, but it met with no response from the corporation. A year and a half later the owners sent a reminder letter to British Coal on 9 July 1986. Again that letter was ignored. On 27 August 1986 the owners wrote again asking when they might receive a response. The letter was ignored. On 9 October 1986 the owners wrote again and said:
"Could we please have a reply to our letter of 27 August 1986 which asked for a reply to our letter of 2 January 1985?"
Again the letter was ignored. On 15 December 1986 the owners wrote again to British Coal and said:
"Can we please have a reply to our letter of 9 October 1986, which asked for a reply to our letter of 27 August 1986, which asked for a reply to our letter of 2 January 1985?"
This time British Coal responded—nine months later. On 21 August 1987, two and a half years after the claimant had first submitted his claim, British Coal replied and said that it regretted the delay in replying, which had been due to a change in proposed future workings. That was after two and a half years. A letter from the area estates department, however, said that the claim would be dealt with expeditiously. After that letter it took a further eight months to send the next communication.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that that correspondence has all the hallmarks of service to the nation by a nationalised industry?
Dr. Woodcock: Yes, and later in my speech I shall make a strong case for moving forward quickly to the denationalisation of the coal industry.
Today, four and a half years after the claim was first submitted on 2 January 1985, it has not been settled, even though the claimant sent a personal letter to the area estates manager which was ignored.
We could all quote such examples all day long, but I shall quote just one more. In this case subsidence damage was reported on 14 April 1986 by way of a damage notice. On 30 July 1986 the owner wrote inquiring whether any progress had been made. The letter was ignored. On 23

1247
June 1987 the owner wrote again. The letter was ignored. On 24 August 1988, two and a half years after the damage notice had been submitted, the owner sent a further reminder to British Coal. His letter was again ignored. In February 1989 British Coal eventually got around to acknowledging that claim when it wrote back to say that it was sorry for the delay and that it had been due to "microfilming currently taking place." It appears that it took two and a half years to microfilm a letter.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a nationalised industry.
Dr. Woodcock: Yes; and such is the incompetence with which claimants must deal regularly and for which they receive no compensation.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Have all the examples quoted taken place in one particular area of British Coal's operation?
Dr. Woodcock: The first example came from the constituency of the hon. Member for Mansfield and the second from the constituency of the hon. Member for Ashfield. I should be glad to make the details of those cases available to either of those hon. Gentlemen if they so wish.
Although British Coal is so slow and dilatory, the claimant is told that he must submit his claim within two months and that if he does not, technically, he cannot proceed under the 1957 Act. British Coal cannot get round to sending out damage notices within two months, but the claimant is required to complete it and send it back in less than two months.
The present balance between British Coal and the claimant is also unfair because of the time scale operated by British Coal even when it accepts a claim. That time scale is unrealistic. It takes months, sometimes years, for British Caol to get on with the claim—
Mr. Barron: In north Nottinghamshire?
Dr. Woodcock: Yes.
Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman should say so.
Dr. Woodcock: I can speak only from my experience, and it is about cases in the three constituencies which I have mentioned that I am speaking.
It often takes a long time for British Coal to deal with claims. British Coal is also the sole arbiter of whether repairs should be effected or whether compensation should be paid. The claimant has no such choice. Even if the claimant has good reason to want either repairs or compensation, British Coal decides what is best for him. British Coal will make that decision on the basis not of what is best for the claimant or what is best for both parties, but of what is best for British Coal, irrespective of the claimant's wishes.
The present balance between British Coal and the claimant is also unfair because the individual householder is no match for the vast legal and financial resources of British Coal. If a claimant wants to challenge British Coal's decision, his only option is to risk what may be his life savings in a costly battle in the Lands Tribunal. The large legal costs of British Coal are paid by the taxpayer. I ask the Minister, is that justice? Even if the claimant is successful and British Coal agrees with his claim he is still out of pocket as he has to pay for the information as to whether mining has taken place near his home. If a man wants to know when mining took place under his home, he
1248
must pay a fee to British Coal to obtain that information. How can that be reasonable? The claimant has no right to compensation for consequential losses and no recompense for the time and trouble taken even though he may have spent days arguing his case, drawing up schedules, meeting British Coal and so on. All of that is unfair.
One of the greatest injustices is that there is no system of independent adjudication. I have often heard it said that British Coal acts as judge and jury. Not only is it the judge and jury; it is the offender, judge and jury. What kind of justice is it when the offender is the judge and jury in his own case? The only response for the claimant is to engage in expensive litigation.
We have regulatory organisations for many of our industries—for electricity, telecommunications, financial services, the Post Office, the police force and many other bodies and industries. We even have them for coal consumers because there is the Domestic Coal Consumers council. However, we have no independent complaints procedure for the victims of subsidence damage. Those are just some of the reasons why the present system is unfair to claimants.
What have the government been doing in the last few years about this massive injustice, this appalling situation? Regrettably, some people claim that the Government have just been supporting British Coal by refusing to take any action. I give the Minister credit for the fact that he has made some effort. He regularly forwards letters to the chairman of British Coal and tries to respond to questions from hon. Members.
In 1983 the Government appointed the Waddilove inquiry. A year later, in 1984, the inquiry reported to the Government. That was over five years ago. How can it take five years to take action if, as they say, the Government are taking this matter seriously? The Government published their response to Waddilove in 1987. It took Waddilove just one year to take evidence all over the country, look at thousands of cases and hear hundreds of submissions. However, it took three years for the Government to respond to the report of their own inquiry. It is now six years since the Government set up the Waddilove inquiry and five years since the inquiry reported. How could anyone seriously form the impression that the Government are taking the matter seriously? A few days ago the Secretary of State for the Environment floated the idea of a tax on fossil fuels to encourage the use of cleaner fuels.
Mr. Haynes: He has dropped the idea.
Dr. Woodcock: He may have dropped it, but are home owners who have suffered damage to continue to subsidise British Coal operations to make coal cheaper only to see the Government increase the price of coal by taxation? That would be rather a strange way to proceed.
Of course the Government will argue that British Coal has implemented some of the Waddilove recommendations. They are largely fooling themselves. For example, it is claimed that British Coal responds very quickly to reports of subsidence damage. That is often untrue, and I can cite instances of responses taking years. It is claimed that damage notices are sent by return, but that is untrue because it often takes months to send out a simple damage notice.
It is said that claimants in active mining areas are visited within one month. That is often untrue and I can

1249
supply examples of cases where it has taken a year. It is claimed that fully-costed schedules are now provided, but that is largely untrue. It is also claimed that independent adjudication is widely available, but British Coal refuses to offer adjudication in the most important areas of dispute. It continually ignores requests for such adjudication, and many of its inspectors do not even know that such adjudication is supposed to exist. If the Minister is in doubt, I shall be happy to supply examples of all the instances that I have quoted—provided that the Minister will agree to look into them or to have them looked into independently and not merely send them to the chairman of British Coal, who simply sends them to his officials who caused the problems in the first place.
I am afraid that there is a growing view that claimants are battling not only against British Coal but against the Government, who refuse to take action to put matters right. I came to this place to support a Government who prize individual rights and freedoms and who are determined to bridle the power of bureaucracy and state monopoly. In many respects the Government have been highly successful, and I have been delighted to support them. However, in the matter of British Coal subsidence they are failing. People ask why the Government are so reluctant to act positively and quickly. Some people even say that the Government wish to present British Coal as less of a liability in the run-up to privatisation. Some say that they expect the householder to subsidise the privatisation of British Coal.
I disagree with Opposition Members on one aspect of the matter because I want to see British Coal privatised as quickly as possible. Nationalisation of the industry has been a disaster for the nation. British Coal has not served the interests of the consumer and continues to operate wastefully and inefficiently. It stifles the private mining industry with artificially high royalty demands, abuses its monopoly power and even today it continues back-door nationalisation, apparently with the Government's approval, by buying up sectors of the private coal trade. Far from managing the nation's coal assets in the interests of the British people, it has largely managed them against their interests. Privatisation cannot come a moment too soon, but it should not be at the expense of those who have suffered subsidence damage. Subsidence matters must be put on a fair footing before privatisation.
Hon. Members who are taking part in the debate are not the only people concerned about the matter. Many representative bodies, local authorities, health authorities, companies and individuals also look to the Government for action. A couple of weeks ago I took a delegation to see the Secretary of State and the Minister about this subject. The delegation consisted of representatives of the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union, the Building Societies Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the British Property Federation. Those are august and, I hope, influential bodies and they are worried about the present state of the law and the practices of British Coal. They have formed what they call a united industry working party. It describes the behaviour of British Coal as "scandalous". It says:
"Clearly, the Government are not taking the matter seriously."
1250
At the meeting those representatives made many of the points made by the hon. Members in the debate. After the meeting the Minister wrote to me and said he hoped that we recognised that the Government were determined to make progress on this important issue. I certainly hope that they are, but I came away from the meeting not convinced that the Government are taking the matter seriously.
It is five years since Waddilove reported and we have seen precious little action. I hope that I am mistaken and that when the Minister responds he will commit the Government to appropriate legislation. I hope that he will put pressure on British Coal to meet not only its legal but its moral obligations.
As far as I am aware, the statute of limitations does not prevent British Coal from meeting its moral obligations. It merely allows it to avoid them if it chooses to do so. British Coal chooses to avoid them. No responsible nationalised industry would wish to avoid liability for the damage that it knows that it has caused, and no Government who prize the rights of the individual above those of a nationalised monopoly should let it avoid its moral obligations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that he will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to do a number of things.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman and I have different ideological views about the ownership of the industry. However, if the industry is privatised, it will move from one monopoly to another, so that involves a difficulty that has to be dealt with in legislation so as to ensure that the duties imposed on British Coal are transferred. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the British Property Federation as one of the bodies concerned in the consortium. In the evidence that it gave to the Minister before the deputation saw him, it said:
"While the British Coal Corporation as a national institution may in certain circumstances be regarded as operating in the public interest, the same could not be said of a private company undertaking coal mining for the profit of its shareholders."
Therefore, the federation, which is deep into property itself, recognises that private bodies have to follow that principle.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House.
Dr. Woodcock: My hon. Friend the Minister should introduce legislation to deal with the vast amount of damage for which British Coal chooses to avoid liability. We should set up a system of local arbitration to adjudicate on claims, without cost to the claimant, where the claimant wishes. We should require British Coal to restore damaged property to a pre-damage condition. We should allow claimants to employ a contractor of their choice, not of British Coal's choice. We should require British Coal to compensate for consequential losses and the cost to individuals of pursuing the claim, and to answer without charge questions about how mining has, or will, affect property. Where there is a dispute on onus of proof, it should lie with British Coal and British Coal should notify property owners or occupiers of future mining plans and of mining that has taken place in previous last year. Above all, we should set up an independent ombudsman system to which claimants could refer cases of delay and administrative failure and which would have the power to require British Coal to pay the costs of losses that arise

1251
from unreasonable delay and administrative failure. The seriousness with which the Government treat this issue will be measured not merely by words but by deeds.
I have made a contribution to the debate but not because I have a major constituency interest in coal mining—it finished many years ago in my constituency. However, I have lived most of my life in coal mining areas. I am happy to place on record the fact that I have business interests that include property in mining subsidence areas. My home has been affected by coal mining subsidence, as have those of many of my friends. I speak because I have lived in mining areas all my life and because I know the hardships that can be caused by subsidence damage. People like me and businesses can usually represent themselves, but thousands of home owners in coal mining areas who are affected by subsidence find it difficult to do that against the might of British Coal.
Not only hon. Members here today but thousands of householders and many public and private bodies will be anxious to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. It is five years since Waddilove reported, and it is high time that the Government took firm action.
12.32 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not disagree with much that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) said about British Coal and its attitude to compensation and damage, but the idea that privatisation of the coal industry would be a green light for the improvement of Britain's environment is far from the truth. Mining areas still bear the scars of the private coal industry. Privatisation of the coal industry is not the answer to the problems of mining and the environment, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). Labour Members do not need reminding about the effect of mining on the environment because we have lived with such problems all our lives.
We could be forgiven for thinking that British Coal has a bad track record, but it would be wrong to say that that is the case throughout the areas in which it mines. As a member of the Select Committee on Energy, I took part in a preliminary investigation into coal mining subsidence damage in north Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) should be congratulated on his tour de force in describing the problems in that area, which stem from had engineering decisions at coal extraction workings. Bad decisions were taken at the beginning and subsequent bad decisions have been taken to try to tidy up the mess on the surface. An accumulation of shortcomings has left thousands of homes in a damaged condition. I accept, of course, that not all the damage is the making of British Coal. As my hon. Friends have said, some of those who were directly involved are now in prison and others are awaiting trial. A free market was set up in north Nottinghamshire and so-called entrepreneurs established themselves in towns such as Mansfield. We were told that some of those people were further exploiting those living in the area with money paid by British Coal. Some employees of British Coal were involved in the operation. We are having to live with the legacy of that. Many hon. Members have major constituency problems as a result of the operations of the private sector in north Nottinghamshire.
1252
I represent an area in which there has been intensive coal mining for many years, but during my six years as a Member of Parliament I have had brought to my attention fewer than five problems. I can only assume that properties are suffering subsidence damage in my constituency but that British Coal is responding satisfactorily. It should not be thought that what is happening in north Nottinghamshire is happening everywhere else.
The Waddilove committee was set up in 1984 and its remit was specifically to examine subsidence and the damage caused by it. Everyone hoped that improved arrangements would stem from that report. A White Paper was published by the Government in 1987 and we were led to believe that legislation would be introduced and that some of the affected areas would be cleaned up. There are many areas which suffer apart from north Nottinghamshire. The White Paper was followed by the Department of Energy's consultation paper. I understand that there were to be no more responses to the paper after July 1988. It has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there have been no proposals from the Government.
We are faced with the six-year rule and the issue of exactly what damage is or is not caused to property by deep mining. The Waddilove report recommended in paragraph 192 that
"there should be no limit on time for claims for subsidence damage compensation. The onus of proof of the cause of damage should switch to the claimant after three years from the date when the damage should have reasonably become apparent."
That is a contentious issue.
The 1957 legislation allowed only two months for applications to be made for compensation for any damage that was caused to property by coal mining. On any interpretation, British Coal has not followed that line for many years. In most areas compensation is arranged to ensure that people do not fall victim to those hard rules. The Government believe that they should stick with the six-year rule which applies to other forms of compensation under current legislation. That is the rule which British Coal is operating. The six-year rule was not developed by geological experts or experts in deep mining. The experts know that earth moves over a period of time and many people are suspicious about this six-year rule. It seems that because the six-year rule exists in legislation at the moment, it is to be applied in this case. The six-year rule may apply in most cases in future, but there must be flexibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) could not be present today, but she has told me that she has problems with subsidence in her constituency. Her problems are considerably worse than mine. She has had correspondence with her city council about some houses in Riley avenue in Burslem. The council quoted a classic distinction; apparently because of the length of time that mining has gone on beneath that road, British Coal denies that subsidence damage is attributable to deep mining. It claims that compensation is statute-barred because of the length of time that the mining has continued.
A geological fault runs beneath Riley avenue in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. The presence of that fault has been known for many years, presumably even before mining commenced. Obviously mining coal from below such a

1253
fault is a problem. I have worked beneath geological faults in mines, and I know that faults are very unstable and unpredictable and it is not very nice to work underneath them. Where those faults exist, people are not convinced that long-term mining below a thin crust is satisfactory. I hope that we shall consider the need for flexibility and a re-interpretation with regard to specific cases where compensation claims arise.
I do not want to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield would be happy to see local adjudication so that people do not feel that bureaucracy is preventing them from making claims. Ordinary people cannot afford six-figure fees to go to a land tribunal over a dispute.
I received a letter from a constituent of mine in January. Prior to this I had corresponded with him, with the local parish council and British Coal, at area and national level. I have been trying to get some compensation for damage in the village of Woodall near Harthill in the south of my constituency. The letter is from a Mr. H. Taylor who, although only an ordinary resident, has become something of an expert on coal mining subsidence law—or rather the lack of it—over the past three and a half years. Mr. Taylor lives in South Cottage, Woodall. His letter, written in January, gives a brief outline of what happened in his village:
"Six of us, householders in Dowcarr Lane Woodall, applied in the summer of 1986 to British Coal for compensation for subsidence damage to our houses from the Highmoor Drift mine"—
which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) —
"the main gallery of which runs under our houses in Dowcarr Lane. We got nowhere. A young technician visited and took a very cursory look and BC"—
that is, British Coal—
said 'No' to our claims. I had used a Subsidence Consultant who was in no doubt about the merits of my claim; he was on the basis of 'No payment, no fee' ".
When British Coal said no, the consultant cleared off, as he could see that there was no money to be made—although payment was made in Mansfield, just half an hour's drive from my constituency.
When their claims were turned down, the residents of Dowcarr lane collectively asked Harthill and Woodall parish councils for help. They also had problems with drainage because the road had tilted—a clear sign that subsidence was most likely to have caused the damage. The tilt was also causing problems in nearby fields.
The borough engineers then went into litigation with British Coal to try to obtain compensation. There has been no outcome so far, although the case has been in progress for a considerable time. Mr. Taylor and many other residents are very upset. They have found that British Coal, while denying any responsibility for problems on the roads and in residents' homes, has been negotiating not only with residents collectively—through me or through the parish council—but with individual residents. It came to the attention of Mr. Taylor and his associates that British Coal has decided, without prejudice—a phrase that is often used—to pay compensation to one of the residents of the village. I hope that I am not misquoting British Coal.
1254
A letter written to the clerk of the council stated—referring to a house on a road in which all the other residents had applied for compensation, individually and collectively—
"this property has suffered recent movement but we are still of the opinion, after taking all factors into account that it is not due to the effects of mining subsidence for which we would have a current liability."
Presumably that is an interpretation of the six-year rule that British Coal now uses. The letter continues:
"Completely without prejudice we are however prepared to investigate the matter further and the claimant has been informed of the action proposed."
Mr. Taylor's letter includes a handwritten note, which reads
"A 7th person claimed when we did and that claim was allowed—because, I think, the claimant could get legal aid and therefore dodge the huge expense of the Land Tribunal (High Court) which would require us to use Solicitors and Barristers, at a cost in the region of ten times the size of our claims."
That sums up the householders' problems. British Coal now appears to be prepared, "without prejudice", to pay some compensation on one house in this small village, but is denying it to all the others.
Dr. Woodcock: I understand that no case settled by the land tribunal has not involved legal aid. No one can afford to risk such high costs without it.
Mr. Barron: That is absolutely right. The irony is that if legal aid is granted a massive amount of public money may be payable. People may have interests to declare. Massive legal expenditure may be paid out of the public purse which, as Mr. Taylor pointed out would be far in excess of the compensation claimed for the damage done to the property. That is nonsense.
British Coal thought that it was helping, but in reality it has made matters worse, in that village. I do not for one moment want British Coal to stop paying compensation to the owner of that house, but many other people are caught in a pincer movement and will have to remortgage their homes if they are to have any chance of obtaining justice.
Mr. Meale: Has my hon. Friend considered another danger facing the coal industry? It does not take a genius to realise that the scale of the claims submitted means that as this country is a member of the European Community someone could take to the European court of Human Rights the right to have his home repaired. If that were to happen, implementation of the court's decision might actually rule out the financial viability of the coal industry.
Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation to sort out the mess before we are forced to obtain judgments from elsewhere.
My constituents in Woodhall are not helped by the absence of any form of independent adjudication in which they and British Coal could have faith. Such a body could decide whether and how much compensation should be granted. The Waddilove report states:
"There is a place for local independent adjudication by persons who have appropriate skills and are drawn from an approved list. The Department of Energy should invite nominations for such a list of adjudicators to be available throughout the coalmining areas."
It then described in detail how that should operate.
One of the most disappointing aspects of the consultation paper put out by the Government in April 1988 was that it did not propose that the legislation would

1255
deal with the referral to local adjudication. In those circumstances, how are Mr. Taylor and my constituents to receive any form of justice if they cannot receive some money to allow them to go to the land tribunal to fight their case? That is totally and utterly wrong. Conservative Members have said that in other areas of dispute there are consumer protection organisations and arbitration organisations, as well as Government Departments or Government-sponsored agencies, to which consumers can go for some form of arbitration. Yet the Government say that they are not prepared to bring in local adjudication for this matter.
If the legislation as proposed in April 1988 is brought in before the next general election, I assume that the Minister will be in charge of it and the Opposition will strongly oppose it if it does not contain the Waddilove recommendations. It would be the answer to many people's problems if they could have confidence in a local adjudication system which would decide whether it was mining damage, instead of having to rely on the present arbitrary lottery. Under such a system Members could advise their constituents as to whether they would receive compensation.
Until such time as we can get help to the people who have to live with the environmental excesses of coal mining, we shall continue to argue strongly against what is currently being done. I hope that the Minister can tell us when legislation is to be introduced. He must know that people are not happy about the Government's proposals for legislation.
12.54 pm
Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate gives hon. Members another opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the Government the serious and often distressing circumstances that our constituents must endure as a result of damage to their properties from subsidence. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) who, knowing at first hand the enormous problems faced by residents of coal mining areas, used his good fortune in winning the ballot for private Members' motions to choose this subject again for debate. The hon. Gentleman may recall that just over a year ago he introduced another important debate on the consequences of subsidence damage.
Some may question the relevance of this debate, but for hon. Members who represent mining areas it is the only way in which we can demonstrate to the Government and to British Coal that the law on subsidence damage must be changed. Under the present regulations British Coal is judge and jury. It decides whether compensation is due and how much it will be, leaving people with two choices—take it or forget it. Since last year's debate, progress on change has been nil, although a constructive meeting was held with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Two important milestones, however, have been reached. First, the united district council authorities, covering north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire and working in conjunction with Trent polytechnic, have ascertained the depth of the problem facing people who live in their districts. The hon. Member for Mansfield gave a full account of these activities, and I shall not bore the House with repetition. Suffice it to say that I fully support the endeavours of the united local authorities.
1256
Secondly, the united industry working party has been formed, comprising the Association of British Insurers, the British Property Federation, the Building Societies Association, the CBI, the Country Landowners Association, the Law Society, the National Farmers Union and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Why have these powerful professional organisations come together? That is easily answered: they are incensed by the scandalous behaviour of British Coal in respect of its members' claims for mining subsidence damage. These bodies have pledged to lobby hard and long for national justice to be seen to be done to the affected property owners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has asked me to apologise to the hon. Member for Mansfield and the House for his absence today— he has eight long-standing engagements in his constituency. I assure the House that he wholly supports our cause on behalf of his constituents.
Since I was first elected to Parliament more than six years ago I have received more than 2,000 letters from, and a similar number of visits to my surgeries by, constituents complaining about British Coal's attitude to, lack of progress on and outright rejection of their subsidence claims. However, we must also bear in mind that British Coal has satisfactorily settled many claims.
One of the principal problems faced by my constituents is that British Coal has moved the goalposts in Nottinghamshire when it has been in its interests to do so. A prime example of that was the reduction, in 1985, of the time limit for claims to be submitted from 12 to six years. If a claim had been lodged but had not yet been processed, that was my constituent's bad luck. If claimants did not accept British Coal's meagre offer, offers were withdrawn.
That change was brought about after serious financial irregularities were uncovered in British Coal's estates office in Nottinghamshire in 1983–84. As a result of a lack of proper supervision by British Coal of its subsidence inspectors, and in the absence of a proper audit, innocent people were made to suffer. At present, their only redress is the right to appeal to the Lands Tribunal. That system may have been satisfactory when first introduced many years ago, but in recent years the cost of bringing a case has, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mansfield, varied between £15,000 and £100,000. That does not give claimants much incentive to rush to justice.
A change to a cheap and simple system of recourse for claimants is long overdue. During last year's debate on the subject, I welcomed the White Paper published in response to the Waddilove report in which the Government made clear their determination to alleviate the hardship and distress suffered by property owners affected by subsidence. Action to implement that ideal is also long overdue.
No one can afford to be complacent—least of all British Coal, as many of its employees live in areas prone to subsidence. The Union of Democratic Mineworkers recognises that substantial claims in any one area could place a colliery in jeopardy. Nevertheless, it believes in the principle of fair and just settlements, not only for its own members but for everyone affected by subsidence.
I share the UDM's view that the cost of providing compensation should be met from a national fund and not be set against individual collieries. The cost of meeting compensation claims adds approximately £1 to every tonne of coal that the industry sells. Although that sum

1257
may be small, it can be crucial to a pit's viability when added to its total costs. I was delighted to read in British Coal's annual report that claims charged to collieries dropped substantially, from £245 million in 1983–84 to £50 million last year, particularly bearing in mind that some related to earlier years. British Coal currently has £270 million set aside for latent liabilities arising from subsidence.
How can justice for claimants be ensured? Improvements could be made by adopting five administrative measures. First, British Coal should publish each year in local newspapers a map of sufficient size and detail showing coal workings in that locality for the past 12 months, currently, and for the next 12 months. Secondly, the Department of Energy's guide to claimants' rights should be corrected and rewritten in a more user-friendly style and be made more freely available. British Coal leaflets should be consolidated and should incorporate all extra current statutory concessions. Thirdly, British Coal should provide claimants with a claim form under the Coal Industry Act 1975, a basic summary of the differences in entitlement from those provided in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, a copy of the Department of the Environment's revised and updated guide to claimants' rights, and a copy of other British Coal leaflets.
Fourthly, British Coal should acknowledge that claims may be submitted within six years of damage occurring. Fifthly, the Department of Energy should establish an independent user group consultative committee review board to monitor the system's operation and to recommend improvements. As the Government's sponsoring Department for coal, the Department itself cannot function independently of that role.
I should also like to suggest to the Minister that there is a need for interim legislative reform. Interim measures could be included in any forthcoming Coal Bill. There could be local arbitration. All disputes in respect of private dwellings and up to £50,000 in respect of other property should, at the election of the claimant, be resolved by a local arbitration panel. As for the standard of repair, British Coal should he under a duty to restore damaged property, so far as is reasonably practicable, to the condition that is was in when the damage occurred. Compensation should be paid for any shortfall in valuation to the pre-damaged condition equivalent to the residential loss of market value.
As for own contractors, a claimant—unless, in all the circumstances, it was unreasonable to do so—should be entitled to employ a contractor of his own choice to make good the damage after preparation of a proper schedule of repair and competitive estimates. After inspection of completed work, or stages, British Coal should pay the cost of the work, including that of any technical or professional assistance, properly incurred by the claimant in respect of the work and for recording the condition of the property at the time of notification. In all disputes as to whether damage resulted from subsidence caused by coal mining the onus should be on British Coal to prove that it is not subsidence damage. These measures will not solve all the existing problems. They should be looked upon only as interim measures until full legislation can be implemented.
1258
The White paper, in response to Waddilove, said that simple arbitration would be available as an alternative. Unfortunately, 18 months after the White Paper was published that is clearly not happening, even though British Coal has accepted liability. All my submissions on behalf of constituents have been rejected. One constituent has made 20 separate claims for arbitration on differing aspects. All have gone unanswered. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that to date British Coal has not accepted any cases for simple arbitration.
To whom, therefore, do we look when seeking immediate help for our constituents, bearing in mind British Coal's intransigence? Under the existing legislation, it can only be to the Lands Tribunal. In the past, the huge cost precluded that course as an option for hard-pressed claimants. However, the White Paper stated that British Coal would not ask for costs if individuals made their own representations to the tribunal instead of employing a battery of expert witnesses and barristers. Having taken nine months to clarify the position, I am pleased to inform the House that two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Goodwin of 112 Shortwood Avenue, Hucknall, have made a submission to the registrar of the Lands Tribunal for arbitration to determine their claim. On behalf of the many people who need help in my constituency, I have personally thanked Mr. and Mrs. Goodwin for being the front runners on this course. Time will tell whether we have done the right thing. However, I believe in the old adage "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." If the Goodwins' case is successful, the Lands Tribunal will require a substantial increase in staff to cope with the number of applications that it will receive, or it might just dawn on British Coal that it should behave in a civilised way, thus saving everybody time and energy.
During last year's debate I highlighted a number of outstanding cases in my constituency. It will come as no surprise to those of us who have to deal with British Coal estates department to know that they are still outstanding. Today I could relate many further cases in my constituency which could take the debate to 5 o'clock were I not sure that the cases already highlighted by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) had made it clear that there was still a long way to go.
One of the most traumatic effects of coal mining subsidence is that which lengthy and time-consuming negotiations with British Coal have on human beings. Many people involved have had their lives, health and businesses severely affected by their experiences. There is constant disruption to their daily life and work as people strive for justice and for an equitable solution, and in doing so receive no recompense for the expense and time involved.
Speaking on behalf of my constituents, I do not request the Government to take action. Our patience has run out and we now demand a promise today from the Minister that legislation will be introduced and enacted.
1.10 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on choosing this subject for debate because of the serious problem in mining constituencies such as his, mine and those of Conservative Members. I recognise the fight that has been put up in the House on behalf of our constituents

1259
in mining areas over mining subsidence. Secondly, I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) for his comments about me. As he said, we had a close association for a number of years on the magistrates' bench at Mansfield. The hon. Gentleman was a fair magistrate and is a fair Member of Parliament. This morning he severely criticised the Government for not having taken action on behalf of our constituents, many of whom have had a raw deal. It is time that the Government took some action about this problem.
I have seized every opportunity to fight in the House on behalf of those people, and it has been an uphill struggle, but I feel that we are over the top now and we are coming down the hill. Whenever I have had the opportunity I have tried to knock the Minister out with one fair blow, but it seems that we will win the battle on points. I am looking forward to the Minister's reply to the debate and I hope that he will respond to the points that we put to him.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) is sitting in the Minister's place while the Minister nips out to have a bite, no doubt, and I do not deny him that. He cannot sit here all day without a drink or a bite, but I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not here to listen to my speech as I wanted to say one or two things to him before turning to the real problem—mining subsidence. I believe that the Minister is a fair Minister. We often talk outside this place and he says very nice things to me and comes my way on the problems. But when I speak to him in the House he is really vicious to me. I am only speaking on behalf of those whom I represent in my constituency who have problems.
I do not altogether blame the Minister. I blame the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, because not all that long ago he was the Secretary of State for Energy. When we put the problems to him, he did not want to know. Then following on from him, as Secretary of State for Energy, was the present Secretary of State for Social Security. He did not help us either. They just did not want to know. I got the distinct impression, when they were Secretaries of State for Energy, that they were just letting the National Coal Board, as it was known at that time, do as it liked. It could walk all over those people whom we represent—those complainants who are not and have not been getting a fair deal with their mining subsidence claims.
However, the situation has changed. We had two years of MacGregor, and look at the mess he made of the mining industry. People have subsidence problems because of the mining industry. I was lucky enough to be selected to initiate an Adjournment debate only three or four weeks ago, when, once again, I chose the subject of mining subsidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield also spoke in that debate. The Minister was going our way that night. I could see a light in the tunnel. I am hoping that we will see a massive light today in the interests of our constituents. We need help back in the mining areas.
The Government encourage people to own their own properties, and that has happened. However, many people in our mining areas have problems with their properties because of the damage caused by the mining industry. The Government have a responsibility. I am sick to death of seeing the Minister about the problem. The Minister just passes it back to the mining industry—British Coal and the National Coal Board before that. Many Nottinghamshire hon. Members, for example, went to see the chairman of the board. He told us that we had to go back to the area
1260
where the problems are. He passed the buck back to the areas. We then go to see the area director, but we get no change there either. We are in the same boat—no one wants to do anything. We go to the Minister and he passes it back. We go to the chairman of the board and he passes it back, because he says that it is a matter for legislation. What we are appealing for this morning is a change in that legislation in the interests of those people whom we represent.
I shall carry on with what I have to say now that the appropriate Minister has taken his place.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Start again.
Mr. Haynes: No, I shall not start again; that would take too much time. Other hon. Members who have problems in their areas want to speak. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), for example, has a pit in his area. Before he was elected to the House, there were a number of pits there. No doubt he has subsidence problems in his constituency, because he is here this morning and is obviously interested in the debate. I hope that he will put up as good an argument as his colleagues before him.
Before you came into the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was slipped into the debate. I thought to myself, "What will he talk about? How many pits are there in Hornsey?" He happens, however, to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I thought to myself that he would be on our side—and, by God, he was. He spoke about the unfairness of some of the public bodies, who walk all over everybody instead of giving fair treatment. He was right. I hope that people outside will read the hon. Member's contribution because it was made by a senior Conservative. The Minister is faced with a real problem today—or is he? I do not think he has a problem because he can get up at the Dispatch Box to tell us what he will do.
I shall cite two examples only, but they are really bad ones. The first concerns an 82-year-old lady whose husband worked at the pit. They saved and saved. They did not go into an elderly people's bungalow supplied by the local authority; they bought their own out of the savings made from the husband's life-long work at the pit. What happened? The property was seriously damaged so they made a claim to, at that time, the National Coal Board for that damage to be repaired or for compensation to be given. But what happened? The poor fellow died and left a widow on her own. She came crying to me at my Saturday morning surgery because she had made a claim to the NCB, but it had told her that it was out of time. That is scandalous. The industry did the damage and it has every cause to put it right by repair or through compensation. When that old lady made her claim the board said that it was going to go under her house again with a different seam. It said that it would not pay out twice and that it would do the necessary little repairs and would do the real jobs later. Nine and a half years later the board said that she was out of time. That is scandalous. She had a genuine claim on a genuine property and yet those—I nearly called them something then, but I just managed to hold it back in time. At that time the NCB continued to reject her claim in line with the legislation. That shows just how stupid the industry is.

1261
That legislation must be changed in the interests of the people and that is why we are here giving the Minister a rough ride, I hope, so that he will come our way and put matters right.
Currently some people can accept compensation instead of British Coal calling in an outside contractor to do the repairs. In my second example the people said, "We will take the compensation"; but that compensation covered nowhere near the repairs to be done to the property. Who the hell do the people at Hobart house and in the various areas think that they are kidding? It is time that the Minister got on his bike and travelled around and told the area directors and the bloke at Hobart house where to get off. The Minister should tell them to get something done in the interests of the people who have had a real raw deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned how, under the NCB regime, officials were on the fiddle—I know that it is history, but it damn well happened. They went down the line for it, and quite right too. The result, however, is that the people we represent have suffered. Those officials should be locked up in a cell because of what they have done. They fiddled from the taxpayer and they should be ashamed of themselves, it is the people we represent who have done the suffering.
I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said as it is a serious matter. Before he came in I said that he was a fair Minister. In my Adjournment debate he started to come our way. I am convinced that the Minister is concerned about what has happened out there over the years. I do not blame him for it: I blame the people before him. He is, however, coming our way as he has talked sensibly about the problem and I hope that he will do so again today.
There are all manner of things happening. I went to look at two bungalows in my constituency that were advertised. I knew that it was an area in which properties have been damaged by mining subsidence. Because of the serious damage to the two bungalows, British Coal bought them from the owners so that they could move on and buy other properties. That shows how much money it would have cost to repair them. British Coal then put the bungalows on the market to "flog" them, and they did it through an estate agent. In the advertisements for those properties it was not mentioned that they were affected by mining subsidence. Somebody could have bought a pig in a poke and found out about it afterwards. That is the sort of thing that is going on in British Coal. It is damned well deceitful, and it should be checked by the Minister.
Some of my constituents have had to wait for a very long time. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about the Waddilove report. The previous Secretary of State sat on that report and was not prepared to do anything about it. It was two years before it got to the House and before we knew exactly what Waddilove had said. When we did receive it, we realised why the Secretary of State had sat on it. It was clearly in favour of the complainants. No wonder the Secretary of State sat on it. The matter is now wide open and we know what the Waddilove report says and how the complainants are suffering. We know how British Coal is treating people and it is high time that something was done.
1262
The first question that I ask people who come to see me about a subsidence problem is whether they have an agent to represent them to British Coal. Nine times out of ten they say yes. However, hon. Members have found that they are doing the agent's flipping job, and that is wrong because it is not our responsibility. When the complainant talks to the agent, the agent quietly says, "Go and have a word with your Member of Parliament." It lands on our doorstep and people come to us. Hon. Members have talked about the thousands of claims that drop on our doorstep and for which we are not responsible. Our responsibility is to see that the Minister and the Government do something about the problem.
Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member touches on a topical subject. I recently wrote to an agent and received from him a letter on A4 paper. In the last paragraph he said that he had written to me as a favour because he is not paid to write to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Haynes: That is a shocking state of affairs. There is a great amount of fiddling going on as well.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Haynes: No, because I have not yet answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). I am really drawing the Conservative Members who are trying to get in. The hon. Member for Sherwood is correct.
Agents get a percentage rake-off on the compensation settlement. I visited a property for which British Coal had offered £6,500. It was the gable end house of five very old properties and the gable wall was falling. The agent wrote to me and said that the compensation offered by British Coal was not enough and that the claim was worth £32,000. That speaks for itself. The chappie wanted to accept the £6,500 but the agent said no, thinking, "I will get 5 per cent. of this lot and if it is a large figure I will get a large amount." That has been going on along with the fiddling by British Coal. Blokes in British Coal were getting a large percentage rake-off as well. That is why they have been sent to Lincoln prison and they will be there a long time.
When British Coal is not prepared to move and the agent gets into difficulties, he suggests taking British Coal to court. He puts it in writing, but finishes off by saying, "It will cost you £5,000." Who will write out a cheque for that amount? Will that elderly widow, for example? Such a figure is scandalous. Big businesses do not have a problem. The Mansfield brewery was affected by subsidence, and British Coal rejected its claim. The brewery had an agent, who told it to take British Coal to court. The brewery is rolling in money. It makes masses of profits. It even has a big advertisement using ex-President Reagan drinking a pint of Mansfield bitter, so it must make a nice profit. Because it is a big business that can afford to take British Coal to court, when it threatened to do so British Coal coughed up. The ordinary person cannot do that because he cannot put his hands on such amounts of money.
I have had enough of the buck passing. The buck stops at that Dispatch Box in front of the Minister. I hope that the Minister will pick up that buck. If he wants, I will put a buck on the Dispatch Box so that, when he gets up to grab it, he will tell us what he proposes to do.

1263
We have had a flipping good debate and hon. Members have expressed themselves well. I congratulate Conservative Members on the way in which they have conducted themselves. They have an incentive to do so. There were some elections yesterday, so no wonder the beggars are coming in here today to support an Opposition motion. They are looking after their backs. I do not mind that. They are entitled to do that, especially when, at the same time, they are speaking out on behalf of people who have had a raw deal.
I was a little disappointed by one thing. I do not want to bring in the National Union of Mineworkers or the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, but the hon. Member for Sherwood did when there was no need for it. He used a political argument, just as the Minister did when, from a sedentary position, he accused the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—the hon. Gentleman may not have heard this, but I did—of having a financial interest. The hon. Gentleman might have, but in the properties that he owns in my constituency live people who are affected by mining subsidence. I will back the hon. Gentleman to the hilt because he is speaking in the interests of those people, so he has every right to clobber the Government for what they have not been doing about mining subsidence. I have cleared the air for the hon. Gentleman, who made a first-class contribution. The Minister could only make snide remarks which were uncalled for, because the hon. Gentleman was right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and I have been criticised by the UDM for raising the issue of mining subsidence. It said that by bawling our heads off in the House of Commons about mining subsidence, we were closing pits. However, I remember that the general secretary of the UDM in Nottinghamshire had his property seen to and done beautifully because he had a claim against British Coal. He does not own the property—belongs to the union. It cost a fortune to put the house right and now he has the neck to criticise my hon. Friend and I for raising, on behalf of thousands of constituents, the problem of subsidence. It was nasty to say that after his own property had been repaired.
I have tried so often to deliver the knock-out blow to the Minister but I have not yet been able to hit him. We talk nicely to each other outside the Chamber. We do not talk as I am talking now. On this occasion we are really mounting an action in the interests of our constituents. I think that we are winning on points, and I think that we shall win the battle. British Coal—and the National Coal Board before it—has not given a fair deal to those who made claims. I feel within my bones that the Minister will do something about the problem for he is a sincere chap. He has told me privately that he does not like unfairness. I know that I am giving away secrets, but he is prepared to take action to eradicate unfairness.
We have had unfairness for a long time. At long last people have brought themselves together and, in effect, have said, "It is going to stop. The buck stops here." There is no doubt that the Minister will get the message when a meeting takes place next Tuesday. We who represent our constituents back home will come to Westminster to put the case to the Minister, and it is a good one.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on picking coal mining subsidence as the topic of his motion. It is a beauty. He could have selected another topic, but instead he chose the right one. I believe that the Minister has got the message. If he does not tell us
1264
what we all want to hear, he is in for a rough ride next Tuesday. He will not buy me off with a cup of coffee and biscuit in the Department. He will have to listen to what is said as he has had to listen to us today.
I hope that the Minister will come our way and that we shall sort out all the problems so that our consitutents can say, "That Minister is a first-class chap. He has given us what we want. Our representatives did a good job on Friday morning and afternoon in the House of Commons. The result is that the Minister—a wonderful young fellow—stood at the Dispatch Box and gave us what we wanted. He gave us something for which we have been fighting for a long time."
I hope that the battle has been won. I hope that it is all over and that we shall be working together in the interests of our people back home.
1.38 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I represent a declining mining area, so I am especially grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest, although it is perhaps not necessary to do so. My family was involved in tin mining in Cornwall for many generations and I feel the sadness that is felt by my constituents that only one pit is left in Bosworth. Desford has gone, Merrilees deep drift mine has gone, and Bagworth is soon to close.
It is clear from the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) and those of the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that there is still great concern about compensation arrangements. I apologise to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I was unable to be present to hear his speech as I was detained on other duties earlier in the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) had hoped to be in his place, but unfortunately, for pressing reasons, he has been unable to attend. In his constituency, in an area part of which was part of my constituency until the boundary changes, there are I understand problems near former pits around Ellistown, the Nailstone mine which is still working, Snibstone where the new mining museum has been opened and is such a success, Whitwick and Lount.
Subsidence can be fast, slow and unexpected. The Dolcoath mine between Redruth and Camborne in Cornwall, where my family came from, is famous for the enormous extent of its underground workings. A rather unusual case of subsidence occurred at that mine in 1828. A book from the time states:
"The movement—which continued for several weeks—was so slow that the miners who at its commencement were employed at deep levels, by climbing uncrushed portions of the ladders in some places and waiting their opportunity and creeping through crevices between moving rocks in others, managed to reach surface at the west part of the mine in safety."
I am sure that we are all pleased that miners would never be placed in that predicament today. However, mine subsidence still occurs. The point of my little story is that it can occur long after mines have been sunk. That is the problem that we are finding in my constituency.
The motion implies that British Coal and its predecessor, the National Coal Board, have done next to nothing to compensate those suffering from the effects of mining subsidence. I cannot accept that. Something has

1265
been done. Similarly, I cannot accept that the Government have taken no action. We must recognise that the Government have acted. I want to refer to some of the problems which have affected my constituency.
I welcome the clear undertaking given by the Minister earlier this year that he was aware of the real problems associated with subsidence. He said that
"The question … is how to ensure that those affected by subsidence get a fair deal."—[Official Report, 11 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 1104].
I suggest that the Government have acted to ensure that those affected by subsidence get a fair deal, but they have not done enough. Many of the people affected in my constituency will, like others today, be looking to the Minister for new initiatives to deal with the problem. We have already heard about the important recommendations in the Waddilove report which was based on the 1981 report of the commission on energy and the environment.
The Waddilove committee made 65 recommendations, but it did not recommend a radical revision or overhaul of the system. One principal recommendation involved improvement of public notification procedures. That recommendation, which has been accepted, has had a very beneficial effect. I shall illustrate that by referring to discussions that I had yesterday with council officers from Hinckley and Bosworth borough council. On 20 June, the council's planning committee will consider a report based on a report provided by British Coal about the workings around Bagworth, Nailstone and Markfield. I am pleased to say that the Coal Board's report covers the problems in some detail, for example, outlining the difficulties faced in the areas east of Wigg Farm, south of Bagworth colliery and north of Fox Covert Farm. The report does not skimp and it has had helpful and useful results—I was going to say "meaningful", but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) would agree that that is a terribly abused word.
As a result of other Waddilove recommendations, British Coal is at least committed to good standards of repair in all cases of subsidence. We have already heard why that commitment may not have been fulfilled in all circumstances, but the fact that claimants can now use their own contractors for repairs, for instance, is significant, as is the fact that British Coal provides the Secretary of State for Energy with an annual report on the administration of subsidence claims. I understand that, so far, British Coal has implemented more than half the committee's recommendations, although I agree with the hon. Member for Ashfield that the presentation of the report may have been a slow process.
Another helpful development has been the publication of a new Department of Energy leaflet offering advice on handling subsidence problems, which is a credit to my hon. Friend the Minister. The inclusion of the address of the area surveyor and minerals manager will make it easier for people to contact British Coal officials. British Coal's new procedures, the annual report to the Secretary of State and the report of mining activities to councils are three steps in the right direction.
There is some evidence that the impact of subsidence problems on householders has been reduced. Both the number of new claims and the total number of claims outstanding have fallen. I believe that in 1983–84 some
1266
50,000 claims were outstanding, but in 1986–87 the figure was down to 36,000, and last year saw a further fall of 14 per cent. to 31,000.
Mr. Meale: Part of the reason for that is that so many claims are being denied because of the implementation of the six-year rule.
Mr. Tredinnick: I accept that. In my constituency, certainly, the six-year rule presents claimants with considerable problems. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point sympathetically.
British Coal now takes more account of subsidence in its planning; it also includes it in the costing of all proposed workings. There has been progress, although the pace may be that not of the hare but of a somewhat smaller creature.
There are serious problems in my constituency of which I hope the Minister will take note. We have heard about the problems facing individuals, but businesses also face tremendous problems. In my constituency, the Bagworth to Merrylees road was closed for more than a month—due to subsidence outside the main gate of the old Desford colliery. The Merrylees mine area is now an industrial complex offering employment to many of my constituents. When the road was closed it posed an enormous burden on the businesses which had to make a long detour. There is a good case for those companies receiving some compensation. The companies include major employers such as Butterley Buick and Hercock Simpson, which receive nothing from British Coal although their businesses have suffered seriously as a result of this problem.
It is no good British Coal saying that the problems are minimal. Not long ago in my constituency we had the case of the disappearing digger. I am referring not to an Australian who had too many "triple Xs", although when we consider the result of the recent Test match some of us might wish that Alan Border were a disappearing digger, but to a disappearing JCB which popped into a hole and could not be found. It simply sank overnight in an area that is supposed to be fairly safe, the site of the old Merrylees deep drift mine.
Sporting facilities in the Bosworth area face problems. The Bosworth parliamentary division has a long tradition of bowling and cricket, which I support at a time when sport seems in decline in this country. It is a credit to my constituents that they have such tremendous sporting interests. It was tough on the Barlestone mining institute when its bowling green suffered subsidence and the club received nothing for it. Barlestone football club pitch suffered movement too. In this House we are familiar with moving goalposts and tilting pitches because we play on them all the time, but I do not see why my constituents should have to suffer that.
The National Coal Board sells off houses and, in the small print of the contract, exempts itself from responsibility for any future problem. What is the use of a beautiful ex-Coal Board house which might make a lovely home when who knows what rabbit warrens of mining passages may run underneath? I say, "Who knows?" because none of us knows and none of us can find out because the information is not available. That is probably because it is a nationalised industry. If it were privatised it might have kept proper records.

1267
We could all give cases, and I know of many of them. The subsidence problems faced by a family business in my constituency should go on the record. A. E. Statham and Sons process and distribute potatoes. Mr. Statham built a factory on land above old mine workings. Very soon subsidence occurred which necessitated repairs to the floors and foundations of the main storage area and the walls. The problem was first raised by my predecessor, Sir Adam Butler, who served his constituents so well. He started work on the case in 1980, and I have followed his work since then. The Coal Board accepted liability and arranged for the work to be carried out.
The beginning of the necessary repairs was also the start of a long saga of frustration about the standard of repairs. Another big problem that my constituent faced was that British Coal was not prepared to carry out the repairs outside usual working hours. My constituent was trying to run a business facing this enormous hurdle. The specifications for the work were poorly drawn up and the job was not properly supervised. Fortunately, Mr. Statham managed to continue in business and, to cut a long story short—think of the parliamentary time which has gone into this long case—he received some, albeit inadequate, compensation.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I will finish without giving the House the summary that I had planned to give. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and I look forward to hearing his speech.
1.55 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: I had not originally intended to take part in this important debate, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). At one time in a previous incarnation I almost became secretary of the Co-operative movement's education committee in Mansfield but, perhaps wisely, it chose not to employ me. I n any case, I know the area reasonably well—
Mr. Haynes: I served on the Co-operative board.
Mr. Douglas: Now I know what happened.
I represent what used to be a coal mining constituency, although now there are no active pits within its boundaries. Some of the few remaining miners in my constituency are employed in the Longannet complex. I shall allude to it again in a moment.
We are discussing the impact of mining on the environment and the consensus is that those who disrupt or pollute the environment should pay for the social and economic disruption that they cause. Having established this basic principle, we need to find a way to put it into practice. I have received many letters from constituents about subsidence caused by British Coal, not below but above ground—by the number of lorries that pass through a small village in my constituency called Cairneyhill, driving from opencast mining operations in Fife.
How we enforce the principle that the polluter pays is what counts. My hon. Friends have made a good case for saying that the enforcement procedures bear too heavily on those who cannot afford to go to court and are weighted too much in favour of the big corporations, such as British Coal, which can afford to put off the inconvenienced individual who suffers damage and disruption to his property.
1268
We must take national action. It is not only public corporations that mishandle the individual: private corporations can do the same. We need a scheme that can help these people, and the scheme that we have is legal aid. However, because of the requirement for a reasonable chance of success in the courts, legal aid is difficult to obtain. There is a case for someone such as an independent ombudsman to assist the aggrieved individual.
There is increasing public worry about pollution, and there is some indication of that in the likely results of the European elections, with the exit polls suggesting that the Green party achieved 2 million votes. That illustrates the underlying concern of people in Europe as a whole about the environment. The Coal Board is sensitive to criticism in respect of acid rain and is anxious to prove its claim that it is not as great a polluter as has been suggested.
The Longannet complex is closely linked to a power station and produces coal having a very slow sulphur content. As the Minister knows, important negotiations are under way between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal over a reasonably long-term contract for the supply of 2 million tonnes of power station coal. If Longannet does not win that contract, there will be considerable subsidence in central Scotland because a coal mine there dedicated to a power station will no longer be utilised. The social cost of that will be borne by the community as a whole and by the Coal Board, whose £400 million operating profit would be substantially reduced.
Concern has been expressed about the effect of subsidence on property. Under the old rating system, such damage would be reflected in lower rates, but under the change to poll tax property owners will have to pay the full sum regardless of the state of their property.
Because I want to be fair to Conservative Members who have massive constituency interests, I bring my remarks to a conclusion with this observation. I do not know what is the practice now between the usual channels, but when I entered the House in 1970, if an understanding was reached between right hon. and hon. Members as to the allocation of time available for a debate, their respective Whips would get together and reach an understanding. That was done to protect the interests of Back Benchers. Today is for Back Benchers, not for members of the Government or Opposition Front Benchers. Nevertheless, I understand that the type of friendly understanding to which I referred has broken down. Mr. Speaker can do very little about it, but Back Benchers ought to put down some markers. They should reach a harmonious understanding on the timetabling—I use that term loosely—of motions. The usual channels ought to take account of it. The dreary procedure of talking out motions would not then be needed.
Some, though not many, of my constituents have suffered from the effects of mining subsidence. However, we ought to look after the interests of all Back Benchers, particularly when they are successful in the ballot.
2.5 pm
Mr. Roger Knapman: I do not represent a constituency with a coal mining interest, but I take a particular interest in the law relating to compulsory purchase and compensation. The steady and logical arguments that are always pursued by my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) have been of great benefit to the mining

1269
industry for some years. They are of considerably more benefit than the erratic outpourings of one trade union leader.
The Minister's career is rapidly recovering from the flattering remarks that were made about him by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). He will, I believe, have to introduce at some time a Bill to cover compulsory purchase and compensation. It is not just a question of subsidence within the mining industry. It is a complex and complicated issue. It began in the middle of the 19th century. I apologise to Hansard for using the Latin phrase "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit"—that whatsoever is planted in or attached to the soil remains with the soil.
It was rather hard luck for any farmer who died on 28 September: the landlord automatically took his crop on 29 September. Gradual progress was made towards the end of the 19th century. Further progress was made in 1919 under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act. Yet more of the customs of the country were covered in McCartney v. Metropolitan Board of Works, a major decision affecting the law on compensation. In 1946—not a particularly good year for legislation—there was the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act which led to a number of additional complications. By 1947, things were getting even more desperate. Under the Town and Country Planning Act the Labour Government tried to nationalise all development land values. That did not last for very long. There have been town and country planning Acts in almost every year since then. There was also the Land Compensation Act 1973.
The legislative programme of the last 100 to 150 years has led to great complexities. I ask my hon. Friend not to go down the same road. I sat for many hours in the Committee that considered the Water Bill. The Minister recognised that a new compulsory purchase code for land held by water companies would be needed. Many similar matters are covered by the Acts covering electricity and gas supplies. Will every statutory undertaking need a separate code? A comprehensive Bill dealing with compulsory purchase compensation must be introduced, but it must be sufficiently flexible to take account of the needs of different industries, including subsidence in the mining industry.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) drew attention to many problems, but many of them have been created because the nationalised industries do not have flexibility to look after people in a reasonable way. Now that at long last the mining industry is becoming increasingly profitable, we can surely afford to address compulsory purchase and compensation in a more flexible way.
2.9 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join my colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on choosing this subject for debate and for so eloquently, if in a marathon speech, giving us the benefit of his detailed knowledge. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who has been an equally assiduous proponent of these matters on behalf of his constituents and all our constituents generally.
1270
Today I have moved Bench to indicate that I am speaking in the capacity not of parliamentary private secretary to my hon. Friend the Minister but as a constituency member with coal mining interests as my constituents are very much affected by the problem of coal mining subsidence.
Cannock is well known for its association with the coal industry. In 1945 there were 22 pits in my constituency and today there is not one, although there are two just outside it. I pay tribute to my constituents in the coal industry who have produced a tremendous turnaround in the fortunes of the industry and, I am glad to say, are making money for themselves, for our local economy and for the nation at large.
Like many hon. Members who have spoken, since I was elected in 1983 I have found subsidence to be one of the most difficult problems affecting my constituency. As everyone has pointed out, the villain of the piece is British Coal, which has not dealt with the problem satisfactorily. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, this is not unassociated with the fact that British Coal is a nationalised industry. Private sector industries simply cannot afford to be so overbearing and churlish about the anxieties of people affected by their operations.
The hon. Member for Mansfield said that home owners simply do not trust British Coal, and that is a widespread feeling throughout the parts of the country where coal mining has been or is being carried on. The sooner that the British coal industry can move into the private sector, the sooner it will have to conform to the disciplines of the private sector. In these modern times the private sector cannot put up with so many dissatisfied customers who will only speak ill of the business. There will be further advantage in competition.
Mr. Douglas: What about British Airways?
Mr. Howarth: My kinsman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), says that I should refer to British Airways, and I am happy to do so. British Airways enjoys superb competition from British Midland and as a result the travelling public get a better deal.
Two issues are involved here. The first is that the problems caused by subsidence are not confined to damage. Blight is a major problem. A crack in one house in my constituency on the new estate sent metaphorical shock waves through the entire housing market, affecting neighbouring houses and streets. Confidence in housing in that area was seriously shaken. Local surveyors simply reported to purchasers that subsidence had taken place and building societies would not lend and people could not sell their houses, they could not move jobs and they could not raise funds on their properties for business or pleasure purposes. As a result of getting together with some of the local and professional interests involved, we were able to dampen that down. I pay tribute to one estate agent in my constituency, Mr. Graham Morris, who did a tremendous amount to take the heat out of the problem.
The second issue is the damage. In my constituency the difficulties are faced by the owners of older properties. The problem is well illustrated by one particular area, the Church hill area of Hednesford, which is well known to those who did national service in the Royal Air Force as one of the bleakest, most inhospitable and horrid places in the land on which to do their square bashing. By the time

1271
that I arrived as Member of Parliament for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983, St. Peter's church, a very fine Victorian church, was falling apart, but already negotiations with British Coal were at an advanced stage for compensation of about £250,000 to be paid. Further down the hill is the Hednesford Victoria working men's club. The bottom literally fell out of that club. I went there a couple of days ago and saw a gaping hole underneath the club. The day after, British Coal sent round a JCB, on a no-prejudice basis, to fill up the hole. There is even a road sign on the hill which says, "Road liable to subsidence". In 1978 a sewer collapsed and the board elected to make a payment to the local authority.
If, however, one draws a line on the map between the club and the church—both properties which have been bailed out by British Coal—it is a completely different story for the private houses on that line which have suffered damage. My constituent, Mrs. Flinn, of 128 Church hill has suffered damage to her property and so, too, has Mr. Walker of 140 Church hill—but can they get any joy out of British Coal? They cannot, because they are not a working men's club or a church. They have found it impossible to get any satisfaction. Mrs. Flinn sent me a letter which I believe sums up the position. She said:
"Public places, i.e. St. Peter's church and Church hill working men's club, seem to be top priority, but, when it comes to people's homes, they are right at the bottom of the list."
It is intolerable that British Coal should seek to take advantage of its massive underwriting by the public purse to do selective deals with people who they feel they need to bail out and to ignore the poor private house owners who cannot, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, afford to go through the long-winded procedures of the Lands Tribunal and all the rest of it to establish their rights.
British Coal has told me that in this case it is natural movement in the earth's surface that has caused the problem, because mining activity ceased 20 years ago. I went to see a splendid mining engineering consultant who told me that there is no such thing as natural movement in the earth's surface in the United Kingdom. It is significant, too, that the only places in my constituency where there are problems are in areas where there has been mining activity. I do not see how British Coal can have the continuing gall to pay out on some properties but not to pay out to poor householders who do not have the resources to take on Goliath.
I believe that I am in the best position to know that my hon. Friend the Minister has done more than anybody to try to improve the situation. As long as he is at the Department of Energy, I am sure that we shall have a worthy champion of our concerns about mining subsidence. We look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend will say. Ultimately, however, I am sure that the answer lies in the privatisation of the coal industry.
2.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): As has been said already, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has raised an important matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) stated, this subject has been pursued by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for
1272
Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for instance, has represented this cause assiduously during the period in which he has been in Parliament.
In view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), I must say that I in no way would denigrate the contributions that have been made over a period by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). The fact that he has not a constituency interest, and that perhaps he has some business interest in the matter, which he has always declared, does not mean that he should not be deeply involved in the matter. I do not want the hon. Gentleman ever to cast any implied aspersions on what my lion. Friend may say on this matter.
I came to the House with a 39-page speech in which I intended to outline in great detail what the Government plan to do on this subject. However, so eloquent have been the speeches on both sides of the House, notably that of the hon. Member for Mansfield, who spoke for two hours, that, far from giving a speech of 39 pages, I have time only to give various indications to the House of the principles by which the Government will govern their actions in this regard.
I am very much of the view that subsidence causes both material difficulties and mental anguish to the people affected. That come out strongly from the debate and anyone in British Coal or anyone else who was unaware of such problems will be much more aware of them after this debate, in which some excellent speeches have been made.
I am sure that the House recognises that subsidence is an inevitable consequence of modern, deep-mining techniques. The problems associated with subsidence will therefore remain as long as there is a coal industry, and I certainly predict—I suspect that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen agree with me—that that industry will be with us for a long time and will undertake deep mining for many years to come.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Mansfield because it is important to remember that the industry is under considerable financial pressure—far greater than was implied in the hon. Gentleman's speech. There is no question but that the industry is still suffering considerable losses. No doubt I shall return to that aspect when I come to the House some time in the future to ask for more assistance for it.
Currently, the coal industry is under great pressure from the environmental lobby, and in some respects that pressure is not entirely fair. No doubt the industry will address those problems in the future, but it will cost money. It is important to put this debate in context and to point out that the industry is not flush with cash but is still under considerable pressure. However, I completely accept, on behalf of the Government, that there is a problem with subsidence. How are those affected by subsidence to get a fair deal?
Mention has been made of the Waddilove committee report of 1984 and about the lapse of time between that committee publishing its report and the response to it. It is important to remember that one of the committee's conclusions was that the system for compensation and repair had its shortcomings—undoubtedly it took that view—but it did not call for a radical revision or overhaul of the system. Hon. Members have pointed out, however, that the report identified a number of areas in which improvement could be made. The process of implementation—perhaps not fully recognised—has already begun.

1273
As I stated to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston in a written answer on 12 January 1989. British Coal has already implemented more than half the Waddilove committee's 65 recommendations.
A number of important changes are therefore in place. British Coal has, for example, improved its public notification procedures. It now publishes in local newspapers mining locations for the previous and next 12 months. I appreciate that it is important to ask how effective those notifications are. That is why we are currently conducting a review of how these procedures are operated. We shall then be able to see whether they have been effective.
One of the Waddilove committee recommendations on which it is important to focus—there were lots of them, but I do not have time to go through them all—concerns the necessity for the Secretary of State for Energy to be supplied with an annual report of the administration of the subsidence compensation and repair system in the previous year. I remind the House that the first of those reports was placed in the Library towards the end of last year. It shows that the numbers of new claims and the total number of claims outstanding are on their way down. They may not be coming down quickly enough, but in 1983–84 there were 52,000 claims outstanding, while in 1986–87 there were 37,000. The report shows that by last year the figure had fallen to 31,000. Some hon. Members have suggested that this reduction has been achieved by British Coal simply rejecting claims, but that is not true. In 1987–88, the last full year for which figures are available, British Coal settled more claims than it received.
Last year, British Coal spent £49 million on compensation and repairs. The hon. Member for Mansfield asked for a breakdown of the figure, and perhaps I can supply him with detailed figures in writing. The main point is that the £49 million does not contain a large element of administrative costs as he feared. It is the amount of compensation that was paid. That money has been spent by an industry which, as I have said, has serious financial problems. In addition, it currently makes provision of £260 million in its accounts for subsidence compensation.
It is a distortion—I have to use such a strong word—to say that in some way or other the industry is specifically gearing itself not to make settlements. British Coal has a substantial amount in its accounts for the payment of compensation and pays out almost £50 million a year in compensation settlements. That is indicative not of an industry unwilling to make settlements, but of one that has all sorts of bureaucratic problems.
1274
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and other hon. Members have said that we are talking about a nationalised industry and that it may well be that it operates differently from the way in which a private industry would have to operate. However, much money is set aside and paid out in subsidence compensation. The Government accept many of the recommendations in the Waddilove report for tightening up procedures. I would have gone through that matter in greater detail if I had had the time.
Mr. Barron: Why do the Government think that there should not be any form of the local adjudication that is specifically mentioned in the Waddilove report?
Mr. Spicer: I had intended to deal later with the question of the adjudication review, but I shall deal with it now in some detail as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has quite properly raised it. I know that it is at the root of many of the problems raised by hon. Members. At present the Lands Tribunal procedure can be used, and local independent arbitration is also available. The issue is about what matters can be dealt with by each form of adjudication.
British Coal says that if a matter is not sufficiently simple to be dealt with through local and independent arbitration it should be put to the Lands Tribunal. That is where the controversy arises because it has been said that the Lands Tribunal procedure is expensive. 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 between the two types of arbitration is made. We shall look at the matter to see whether there is room for improvement.
Mr. Meale: I know that the Minister will not have time to answer all my points, but will he respond to one or two of them?
Mr. Spicer: I shall not have time to deal with the details, but the hon. Gentleman's idea of what he calls an independent legal centre, as part of the review procedure, is interesting, and we shall look at it in the context of what I have just announced to the House. We shall also look at the general circumstances in which arbitration takes place.
We accept the spirit of this motion and of the debate and attach great importance to it. We intend to legislate—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day

  RE-ENFRANCHISEMENT OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.

  COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.

  BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.

  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 June.

  RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On behalf of the promoter, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 21st June, Motions in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Social Security and Community Charges (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question already proposed from the Chair.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 22nd June, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary King relating to the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989 have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Seven o'clock, or one and a half hours after the proceedings were entered upon, whichever is the later, put the Question thereon. —[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

RAF Biggin Hill (Selection Centre)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
2.31 pm
Mr. John Hunt: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise a matter that is of great concern to my constituents and many people well beyond the boundaries of Bromley. I am particularly pleased to see a number of hon. Members supporting me in the debate, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), my Bromley colleagues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who I think is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the proposed transfer of the RAF office and air crew selection centre from Biggin Hill to Cranwell. This came as a bolt from the blue last October and immediately aroused a wave of protest and indignation, not only from my constituents but from a wide range of groups associated with the RAF.
For many people in Britain and far beyond, there are strong emotional and historic ties with RAF Biggin Hill. It was, after all, the RAF's most famous war-time base and played a decisive role at a crucial stage in the second world war. As a young schoolboy in south-east London, I can remember the pride and excitement of seeing the Spitfires and Hurricanes valiantly defending our capital from the German bombers. I am told that some 1,600 enemy aircraft were shot down by pilots operating from Biggin Hill. We owe it to those men to ensure that an effective and meaningful RAF presence remains at Biggin Hill, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have noted that I am today wearing the RAF Biggin Hill tie as a mark of my commitment to the cause.
My hon. Friend the Minister has close links with Biggin Hill. He is a former distinguished mayor of the London borough of Bromley and I recall that his parents lived for many years at Leaves Green, just a stone's throw from the airfield. Therefore, like me, he knows of the important role that RAF Biggin Hill plays in the life of the local community. For example, it gives generous help and support to the Spitfire youth club in Biggin Hill and it involves itself in many other community projects within the borough. It is for this reason, among others, that the RAF station was given the freedom of the London borough of Bromley some time ago. It is for this reason also that the proposed closure has caused such distress and dismay in all parts of the borough.
We are told that on cost and service grounds there would be considerable advantages in moving the centre to RAF Cranwell. What are those advantages? I hope, for example, that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to quantify the cost advantages rather more convincingly than he has so far been able to do. His written answers to my questions on 24 January were somewhat vague. Real doubts have been raised about the projected savings of £10 million over 10 years. It seems that that figure would depend in part upon the cost of additional accommodation required at Cranwell. My hon. Friend has provided an estimate of £5·5 million at current prices for that. In four or five years, however, the figure could well be nearer £10 million. We must remember also that the RAF works services budget is already severely over-stretched.

1277
A crucial matter is the capital receipts that are likely to accrue from any disposal of the site. The local Biggin Hill ward representative, Councillor David Haslam, who has considerable professional expertise in such matters, has calculated that the maximum likely to be raised in this way is £16 million, but many think that it would be a substantially smaller sum than that. We must remember that it is a green belt site, so the development potential is necessarily strictly limited.
In his written answer to me on 24 January my hon. Friend the Minister declined to give an estimate of the likely capital receipts, pleading what he called "commercial confidentiality". I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming this afternoon.
What about what are called service grounds? The accessibility of Cranwell is clearly inferior to that of Biggin Hill. My hon. Friend will know that Bromley South station is only a 15-minute train journey from Victoria, and that there is a regular bus service from Bromley to the camp gate at Biggin Hill. Cranwell cannot rival that and by comparison is a remote location.
Currently, 70 civilian personnel are employed at Biggin Hill. In the main, they are locally engaged civil servants who have considerable experience of the special skills that are involved in the selection process. As I understand it, none of them is prepared to move to Cranwell. Is the Minister seriously telling us that suitably experienced replacements will be readily available in Lincolnshire? If not, presumably RAF personnel will have to be recruited to fill the gap, and that means more expenditure. In addition, there will be redundancy payments for the civilians at Biggin Hill.
We cannot overestimate the importance to the RAF of a strong and flourishing air training corps. We have the Minister's assurance that the Biggin Hill squadron of the ATC will remain in its present buildings, and we all welcome that. It seems, however, that that misses the point that RAF Biggin Hill provides a support base for about 135 squadrons of the ATC and cadet forces throughout London and the south-east. If RAF Biggin Hill goes, one is bound to ask where they are to be located. I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the continued existence of the ATC squadrons is vital to continued recruitment for the RAF as a whole. The question of recruitment is directly bound up with the location of the officers and aircrew selection centre. I understand that recruitment to the RAF is becoming progressively more difficult as a result of the declining numbers of school and university leavers. At the same time, the RAF is facing greater competition for the reducing number of available technically qualified youngsters.
As I have shown, the Biggin Hill officers and aircrew selection centre is well located within easy reach of London. Its buildings are tailor-made for its important job. In addition, the buildings are bought and paid for and still have plenty of useful life left in them. Incidentally, those buildings are also used for aircrew testing by the Army and the Navy flying arms to carry out aptitude and medical tests. If that facility is no longer available, the Army and Navy presumably would have to build their own facilities and that would be an additional cost to be placed on the debit side of the Minister's balance sheet.
1278
For those reasons, many of us fail to understand the sense or logic in the Minister's proposal. May I therefore make a special request to the Minister this afternoon: while allowing the planning for the move to continue for the time being, will he also ensure that there is a ministerial review of the costs involved before any irrevocable decision is taken? It would also be greatly appreciated if he could find time to visit RAF Biggin Hill to see the splendid spirit there and the efficiency and effectiveness of the centre.
As the Minister will know, his predecessor visited the centre to announce the transfer proposal last October. In fact, it was his first visit there. My feeling was that he was immensely impressed by what he saw and that if he had come a little earlier he might not quite so readily have endorsed the closure plan.
I fully recognise that the Minister has undertaken to retain the chapel and the gate guardians on the site. That undertaking raises more questions and worries. In his letter to me on 12 October, my hon. Friend the Minister's predecessor said:
"The Chapel will be retained as a lasting symbol of the Station's historical role in the Battle of Britain and continue to be accessible to the many visitors it attracts.?"
However, my understanding is that, without an RAF presence, there could be no chapel. Without regular services, I contend that the chapel would soon become a very sad and sorry symbol. I would welcome any reassurances that my hon. Friend can offer on that point.
More than 11 years ago the selection centre was under a similar threat of closure. In November 1977, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), whose constituency at the time included Biggin Hill, initiated an Adjournment debate. In those days, the intention was to transfer the officers and aircrew selection centre from Biggin Hill to the RAF station at Bentley Priory. On reading the record, it is interesting to see that the move was justified on the basis of so-called cost-effective benefits to defence expenditure. Apparently however, those benefits were subsequently in doubt because the transfer plan was eventually abandoned. I hope today that I can match the dramatically successful eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington on that occasion. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister to maintain my local reputation in that respect.
The station crest of RAF Biggin Hill bears a chain with the motto "The Strongest Link." It seems to me that we owe it to the brave fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain, as well as to future RAF generations, to ensure that that link is not broken by a foolish and short-sighted decision aimed at achieving financial savings which, in the end, could prove illusory and highly damaging.
2.44 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: With the leave of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) and that of the Minister, I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend's powerful plea for the retention of an RAF presence at Biggin Hill.
I must declare a special interest. I am a graduate of the 1942 class of the aircrew selection centre, which was then based at St. John's Wood. It was a great pleasure and honour subsequently to be elected Member for Parliament for the constituency in which Biggin Hill was then sited.
As my hon. Friend has said, we survived an attempt by the Labour Government in 1977 to transfer Biggin Hill on

1279
grounds of cost, and I am surprised and ashamed today that a Conservative Government should see fit, on the same grounds, to abandon the RAF presence there. The very name of Biggin Hill evokes the spirit of patriotism and endeavour in the British nation, and I should have thought that when considering such a move the Minister would take into account more carefully than he has in the past the effect that it would have on morale and recruitment.
Biggin Hill is of great importance to both the RAF and the surrounding population, and I plead earnestly with the Minister not to take this action.
2.46 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) for giving me the opportunity to speak. The House is aware of my interest in the Royal Air Force, and I will not go into that. Let me simply say that my hon. Friend the Minister should remember that Biggin Hill is the centre of excellence in selection. The world at large talks about Biggin Hill; it does not talk about the Royal Air Force officer and aircrew selection centre.
Biggin Hill is the brand name of excellence, and no commercial organisation would throw that away. Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and to throw away the brand name of excellence in the run-up to that anniversary would make no sense to me or to many others who have spent a lifetime supporting the RAF.
2.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): It is a mark of the characteristic zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) that he should raise the question of Biggin Hill. I know that he has been seeking the opportunity to do so for a long time, and I congratulate him on his success in initiating this short debate. I have known him for longer than anyone else in politics, and I can say that his reputation as a campaigning constituency Member of Parliament is unrivalled and thoroughly deserved.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne for raising this issue today. The name of RAF Biggin Hill occupies a lasting and memorable place in the annals of our recent history, reflecting the brave spirit of defiance shown by members of the Royal Air Force who, facing great odds, fought and won for us the Battle of Britain in the dark days of 1940. I know that many people in my hon. Friend's constituency, Members of the House and former service men from both this country and abroad who have been in one way or another associated with RAF Biggin Hill, feel a great deal of sadness that the station is finally to close as an active Royal Air Force location, particularly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned—as we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Britain next year.
As a former mayor of Bromley and leader of the council, and having spent my boyhood at Leaves Green very close to RAF Biggin Hill, I share those feelings of regret, but it is important that we look to the future as well as the past. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out, in response to the excellent case made by my hon. Friend,
1280
some of the reasons why the RAF officer and air crew selection centre is to move—in about four years' time—from Biggin Hill to RAF Cranwell in Lincolnshire.
It would be helpful, to put the matter in full perspective, if I were to give the House some of the wider history of RAF Biggin Hill. This really began in 1917 when it was established as part of the inner patrol zone of the London defence area. During both world wars it played a major part in the defence of London. Originally the station was a base for Bristol fighters which operated at night against German air raids in the last year of the first world war. During 1918, the station was used for experimental work on wireless communication between the ground and aircraft in flight, and by the end of the war movements of the home defence squadrons in the air were being controlled through the transmitter at Biggin Hill.
In 1938, the station was again used for experimental work, in connection with the interception of hostile aircraft, under the direction of Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding and Professor Watson Watt. At the outbreak of the second world war, Biggin Hill was home to Nos. 32 and 79 squadrons, both equipped with Hurricanes, and No. 601 squadron equipped with Blenheims. On 29 November 1939, aircraft from 601 squadron, together with others from 25 squadrons, attacked the Borkum seaplane base. However, it was during the Battle of Britain, when its squadrons were engaged in some of the fiercest fighting of those critical three months, that the name of the station became famous. It shared with RAF Hornchurch the doubtful distinction of being the most frequently bombed airfield in Fighter Command.
Most famous squadrons operated from Biggin Hill during the Battle of Britain. Amongst the many famous pilots who flew with them were Group Captain Rankin, Group Captain Green, Wing Commander Kent, Wing Commander Stanford Tuck and Squadron Leader Neville Duke, later to become the well-known test pilot. In 1944, squadrons in the Biggin Hill sector began to escort light bombers of the Tactical Air Force to bomb the French railway system in preparation for the forthcoming landings in Normandy. Later that year, Spitfires of different squadrons provided air cover for Lancasters bombing the dykes on Walcheren Island, the key to the port of Antwerp.
After the second world war RAF Biggin Hill continued as a fighter station, and Nos. 600 and 615 Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, and later a regular squadron, No. 41 squadron, operated from there. But in January 1958 RAF Biggin Hill became non-operational, although the University of London Air Squadron remained there, and No. 61 Group Communications Flight moved there in March 1958. However, on 7 February 1959, more than 30 years ago, all Royal Air Force flying from the station finally ceased.
While the RAF retained some working and domestic accommodation, the actual airfield at RAF Biggin Hill was transferred from the RAF to the Ministry of Aviation in 1964, and later sold to the London borough of Bromley in 1974. I remember, as mayor, presiding over the council meeting which decided to purchase Biggin Hill. Since then, civil flying has continued very successfully from the airfield, and this weekend the annual international air show, which has become a prominent part of flying activities from Biggin Hill, is to be held, with the planned participation of the RAF's Red Arrows. I am sure that this important and prestigious event will once again prove to

1281
be a resounding success, and will continue well into the future, keeping the name of Biggin Hill before an appreciative public.
In April 1959 with the cessation of flying operations the Ground Officers Selection Centre was transferred to Biggin Hill from Uxbridge, and in April 1962 the officers and aircrew selection centre formed at RAF Biggin Hill and took on the tasks previously performed by the ground officers' selection centre at Biggin Hill and the aircrew selection centre at RAF Hornchurch, thus illustrating the nature of change over the years. Since it was established, the selection centre has done an excellent job in helping the Royal Air Force to choose young men and women to join its ranks, and I would like to pay tribute to all those who have worked and continue to work at the OASC. However, after more than 20 years it has become increasingly apparent that with the changes which the Royal Air Force is facing to keep abreast of modern developments, and the introduction of major new aircraft types such as Tornado and the European fighter aircraft, the centre not only needs to be part of a larger establishment than Biggin Hill can provide, but also needs to share in the spirit and atmosphere of the modern Air Force, to provide potential recruits with a realistic flavour of life in the service today. We have therefore decided that it should move to RAF Cranwell, where it will become a part of the wider activities of the RAF college in an environment that is well suited to its task, alongside an active military airfield.
Various alternative locations for the selection centre were considered before RAF Cranwell was chosen as the most appropriate new site. Apart from financial aspects, a range of other factors was taken into account, including accessibility and ease of travel to the centre for candidates. Examination of the points of origin of candidates showed that a more northerly location than Biggin Hill would be fully justified, and good transport links to Cranwell, which is easily reached by road, bus or train, will make travelling to the centre after relocation simple and convenient. The RAF is prepared to provide a transport service to the nearest railway station, at Grantham. There are of course already many visitors to the RAF college at Cranwell.
This decision has been taken as part of a wider and continuing initiative to keep under review the estate holdings and deployment of the Royal Air Force, and to ensure that the most cost-effective use is made of the resources available to the service. The selection centre is now the only unit based at Biggin Hill, and to maintain its presence it requires a considerable administrative "tail" in supporting functions such as catering, motor transport and supply. By transferring the selection centre to the much larger station at RAF Cranwell, where the administration wing alone is larger than Biggin Hill's total complement, we shall reap economies of scale to correct that imbalance. Cranwell will be able to absorb the OASC with only a small increase in its own support establishment. We will thus be able to save about 113 service and 19 civilian posts and secure running cost savings of more than £2 million a year once the move is complete. Some new building will be required at RAF Cranwell, but income from disposing of most of the existing real estate at Biggin Hill, including a large number of married quarters, will be more than adequate to
1282
compensate for the new facilities needed. I shall keep these factors under review in the years ahead, but I can offer my hon. Friends no prospect of the equation changing in their favour. Indeed, we expect an ample margin of funds from disposal to be available for investment elsewhere, assisting in the process of adjusting the size and shape of the defence estate to meet the challenges that the services must face into the next century.
To revert to this century and the earlier history of the station, to commemorate all the aircrew who died while serving in the Biggin Hill sector during the war, St. George's chapel of remembrance was established at the station. The present chapel is the second on the site, the first having been dedicated on 19 September 1943, some months after the sector had received confirmation of the destruction of its 1,000th enemy aircraft. Unfortunately, the first chapel was completely destroyed by fire in 1946. An appeal was then launched with the endorsement of Sir Winston Churchill to erect a permanent shrine of remembrance at the station. Air Chief Marshal Lord Dowding laid the foundation stone of a new building in July 1951, and the Lord Bishop of Rochester dedicated the chapel on 10 November 1951, since when it has been in full use as a Royal Air Force church.
In recognition of the historical importance of Biggin Hill, we intend to retain and maintain, as a Royal Air Force responsibility, St. George's memorial chapel, along with Hurricane and Spitfire gate guardians, which reflect the past activities of the station. Arrangements will be made to ensure the chapel will be accessible to members of the public, and available for services as appropriate. This will ensure that a lasting memorial of the distinguished history of the station and the famous part it played in the Battle of Britain remains available both to those with a personal memory of, or connection with, those events and to subsequent generations, for whom that epic struggle would otherwise be only a formal entry in their history books.
Mr. John Hunt: Can my hon. Friend add to that by giving an assurance that a chaplain will be appointed?
Mr. Neubert: I shall certainly consider that point in response to my hon. Friend's plea.
I refer now to discussions with Bromley borough council concerning disposal of that part of the site that we shall not retain. Consultants have been appointed to undertake planning. My officials will continue to work closely with the borough council over the future use of Biggin Hill, and we shall be prepared to consider any suggestions for possible development, including aviation use.
The selection centre employs 89 service and 40 civilian personnel. For those civilians without an obligation to move with the centre, every endeavour will be made between now and the time that the move takes place to find them alternative employment, whether in the Ministry of Defence or in other Government Departments. However, at this stage the possibility of some redundancies cannot be ruled out. All staff in both mobile and non-mobile grades will be interviewed at an appropriate time by civilian management authorities to consider the possibility of future employment. Should redundancies eventually prove necessary, I shall ensure that all staff involved are given appropriate periods of notice. As to recruiting new staff

1283
needed at Cranwell, our studies have shown that the relatively small numbers involved will not present any difficulty.
As my hon. Friend said, there is an active and thriving air training corps squadron at Biggin Hill, and my predecessor, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), made it clear that that squadron will be able to continue providing training for local young people, which fosters a practical interest in aviation and develops qualities of leadership and of good citizenship. A planning group is currently considering in detail how the squadron's needs will best be met following the move of the selection centre. I assure the House that we consider it very important to preserve the ability of the squadron to discharge its constructive and worthwhile task and that appropriate arrangements will be made to ensure that that continues.
Biggin Hill also provides support or parenting to a number of other ATC squadrons and combined cadet force sections in the south-east. That function will be transferred to other RAF stations in the area, and arrangements are already in hand for RAF Uxbridge to take responsibility for CCF sections.
1284
In addition to selection procedures for potential RAF officer and aircrew recruits, the centre undertakes aptitude testing of aircrew candidates for the two other services and medical examinations of Army candidates. Following the centre's transfer, facilities will continue to be offered to the other two services who have been fully involved in preparations for the move.
As I said, I personally feel deeply the regret shared by many others that RAF Biggin Hill is soon to close after such an illustrious history, but there have been many far-reaching changes since those early days of 1917. Today, the RAF operates aircraft that would be unrecognisable to pioneers of military aviation. I am sure that the officer and aircrew selection centre will continue to uphold the very best traditions of the RAF following its move—and what better place than the Royal Air Force college, Cranwell, the home and heart of the RAF, for it to carry on its work. Similarly, I am sure that the name Biggin Hill—
The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) BBC Scotland, and (b) STV on the future of Gaelic broadcasting, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Earlier this year I met the chief executives of Scottish Television, Grampian Television and Border Television to discuss their views on the White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" and on the possible future arrangements for broadcasting in Scotland, including the future of Gaelic broadcasting. My officials had similar discussions with staff of BBC Scotland and last December I discussed Gaelic broadcasting with BBC representatives at the offices of Radio Nan Eilean in Stornoway. In April this year, I met representatives of Comunn na Gaidhlig specifically to hear their views on the future of Gaelic broadcasting.

  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said during his statement on 13 June, we will make announcements before long on our proposals for Gaelic broadcasting.

  Severe Weather (Highlands and Islands)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to respond to the several letters outstanding from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye concerning specific cases of individual financial losses or commercial damage as a result of the severe weather conditions in the Highlands and Islands earlier in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A reply covering all eight cases raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye was sent by my noble Friend the Minister of State on 27 April, the day on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's package of measures for assisting with storm damage Hansard, columns 609–12.

  A follow-up letter from the hon. Member on behalf of one of the cases involved is being considered and a reply will he issued shortly.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing a link between rate poundages in Scotland and the new unified business rate to be applied in England after 1990.

  Mr. Lang
  We have announced firm proposals to achieve a common rate poundage for Scotland at the same level as for England. We are seeking powers through the 540
  current Local Government and Housing Bill to enable us to prescribe the actual non-domestic rate of each local authority for a transitional period beginning in 1990–91. Our intention is that rate poundages in Scotland will generally be reduced relative to the uniform business rate in England and Wales so that. after five years or so, they will be brought into line with the rate in England and Wales.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider introducing an extension of the mechanism of industrial derating to commercial premises in Scotland in the period leading up to the introduction of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Lang
  The future of industrial derating will fall to be considered once the likely effect of the 1990 revaluations on different sides of the Border and on different sectors of property become known later this year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide for interim relief to business rate payers in Scotland to take account of the discrepancies in rates paid north and south of the English border in the period leading up to the introduction of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Lang
  The plans I have announced will ensure that the discrepancies are removed on a reasonable timetable which takes account of the likely timetable of changes in England and Wales.

  Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress being made to implement the provisions of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Progress to date has been as follows:

  Operational area and date of implementation

  County of Renfrew—6 April 1981.

  County of Dumbarton—4 October 1982.

  County of Lanark—3 January 1984.

  County of the Barony and Regality of Glasgow—30 September 1985.

  These four counties contain about 30 per cent. of the housing stock of Scotland.

  Further extension of the Land Register will be undertaken once current backlogs in the General Register of Sasines and the Land Register have been substantially reduced.

  Local Health Councils
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future role of local health councils in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am considering a number of proposals put to me, and I shall make an announcement on this in the near future.

  General Register of Sasines
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the average length of time it has taken to record a deed in the General Register of Sasines over the last 10 years.
  541
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Average turnround time in days

  Year

  Days

  1979

  63

  1980

  64

  1981

  85

  1982

  79

  1983

  115

  1984

  123

  1985

  110

  1986

  110

  1987

  137

  1988

  158

  Note: Turnround time is the number of calendar days between receipt of a writ for recording and its return to the presenter.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take urgent steps to introduce common methods for use by assessors in Scotland when deciding questions relating to the status of tourist accommodation to include guidance in the assessment of the domestic element in computing the commercial rateable value of hotels and guest houses, the criteria to be used to classify bed-and-breakfast establishments as commercial subjects not subject to the standard community charge and circumstances to be taken into account in deciding whether self-catering cottages are subject to the payment of the full standard community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans to do this. The decisions of assessors and community charges registration officers in matters of this kind are subject to appeal.

  Solicitors' Fees and Court Expenses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that statutory instruments dealing with matters such as solicitors' fees and court expenses are not implemented until after the regulations are made available to the legal profession.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I appreciate the desire of solicitors for adequate notification of forthcoming revisions to solicitors fees and court expenses. The normal arrangements for publishing statutory instruments permit this.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to monitor the effect the introduction of the community charge is having on the tourist industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The effects of rating reform on the various sectors of the tourist industry are being looked at in the light of representations which have been received.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish tourist industry to discuss the effects on tourism of the introduction of the community charge in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to maintain the existing number of appointees from local authorities to the board of East Kilbride development corporation when appointments fall to be made to the board.

  Mr. Lang
  In appointing members to new town development corporations, the Secretary of State is required to consult the local authorities and to have regard to the desirability of securing the services of at least one person resident in or having special knowledge of the locality. Both East Kilbride district council and Strathclyde regional council have been invited to offer nominees for vacancies due to arise in the board of East Kilbride development corporation on 1 January 1990. I cannot say at this stage what will be the outcome of that consultation, but all members are appointed because of the contribution their personal qualities enable them to make to the new towns.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government has with regard to the disposal of Forestry Commission land.

  Mr. Rifkind
  In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) on 8 November 1984(Official Report, columns 6–7), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) announced that the Forestry Commission's disposals programme would be extended to 31 March 1989, and that its main purpose would be to rationalise the forestry estate thereby improving the commission's efficiency and the commercial effectiveness of the forestry enterprise.

  We welcome the important contribution that the rationalisation of the forestry estate has made to the increased efficiency of the forestry enterprise over the past few years. The commission has been able to dispose of a large number of plantations in a way which has assisted the streamlining of its management structure and enabled it to achieve significant improvements in its operational efficiency. The annual net call on Exchequer funds for the enterprise has been greatly reduced. At the same time the commission has been able to make an important contribution to the major new developments which have taken place in the wood-processing industry in recent years. The market for timber is now buoyant, to the great benefit of both public and private sector timber-growers.

  My right hon. Friends and I have considered the future extent and purpose of the commission's disposal programme. We have had regard to the needs of the wood-processing industry for a steady and secure source of supply; to the effect of the programme on the use of the commission's forests for public access and recreation; and to environmental considerations. We also accept that the commission must be able to plan ahead without the uncertainty caused by frequent reviews, and that it will continue to make a small but effective contribution towards the fulfilment of our targets for new planting.

  We consider that the rationalisation policy has been successful and that there is scope for it to continue to be pursued with vigour. In accordance with the general policy of this Government, we also wish to see some further transfer of forests out of the public sector. This will have

  543
  the important effect of strengthening and enhancing the role of the private sector, whose proportion of the nation's woodland estate has already risen to over 60 per cent. We also see it as a valuable opportunity to widen interest and participation in British forestry.

  We have therefore asked the Forestry Commissioners to proceed with the further disposal of some 100,000 hectares of forestry land and properties in the period up to the end of the century, of which they should seek to dispose of some 50,000 hectares in the first half of the period. The commissioners will continue to be responsible for selecting properties for sale, and in doing so they will have regard to the selection guidelines which forestry Ministers set them in 1981. In particular I have referred to the use of the commission's forests for public access and recreation, which my right hon. Friends and I warmly support and encourage. Forests have a major part to play in the enjoyment and understanding of the countryside and the commission will continue to have an important role in this.

  We are concerned, however, that the general public should also continue to enjoy access to those forests to be disposed of by the commission in a way which is compatible with management for forestry and other purposes. We are therefore giving careful consideration to ways of achieving the objective.

  It is estimated that, subject to market factors, the programme which we have now asked the commissioners to carry out should realise up to £150 million over the period. By settling this issue for a decade, we intend to put the commissioners in a position to implement the programme so as to consolidate their forestry estate in a rational and orderly manner.

  Head Injuries (Rehabilitation Centre)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the need to establish a centre in the south of Scotland for the rehabilitation of persons suffering from head injuries; and what progress has been made in funding the necessary resources and possible site for such a centre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: I have had a number of letters about improving rehabilitation services in Scotland for people suffering from head injuries. I expect to receive a report very shortly, following a study by the Scottish Home and Health Department, on how these services could be improved, and what arrangements for funding and location would be appropriate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will meet President-elect Carlos Menem to discuss the future of the Falkland Islands.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Namibian Refugees
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money Her 544
  Majesty's Government has allocated to assist in the repatriation of Namibian refugees; and how this will be deployed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have provided £1·15 million—£500,000 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and £650,000 to the World Food Programme for food for the returnees.

  Aid
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) of 12 June,Official Report, column 274, what figures he used for (a) net development assistance, and (b) gross national product, in calculating the figure of 0·32 per cent.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The figures are as follows:

  £ million

  Net official development assistance

  1,467·84

  Gross national product

  459,610

  Grants
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the grants to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations engaged in overseas development made by the European Community in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Under its NGO programme the European Community co-finances projects in developinging countries and development education projects with European NGOs. Normally the Community contributes 50 per cent. of the costs of individual projects. In 1987, the latest year for which figures are available, amounts granted to United Kingdom NGOs were as follows:

  1 For projects in developing countries

  £

  Accord

  384,571

  Action Aid

  298,789

  Africa Now

  41,823

  Aga Khan Foundation

  253,521

  Christian Aid

  833,272

  Commonwealth Trade Union Council

  169,086

  Concern Universal

  30,929

  Cooperation for Development

  633,954

  Friends of Ngora Hospital

  91,472

  Health Unlimited

  68,375

  Help the Aged

  446,044

  International Boys Town Trust

  17,767

  Intermediate Technology Development Group

  84,094

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  74,115

  Namibia Refugees

  89,060

  Order of St. John

  165,914

  Oxfam

  1,310,327

  Population Concern

  212,666

  Population Services

  446,373

  Richmond Fellowship

  158,701

  Rufiji Leprosy Trust

  57,242

  Save the Children Fund

  268,308

  SOS Sahel International

  253,521

  Sylvia Wright Trust

  28,798

  Tear Fund

  94,105

  Twin

  229,640

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  279,183

  World University Service—United Kingdom

  26,976

  War on Want

  140,845

  545

  £

  7,239,471

  2. For Development Education

  £

  Action for World Development Fund

  38,028

  Africa Centre

  85,241

  CAFOD

  99,615

  Centre for World Development Education

  45,634

  Christian Aid

  49,403

  Catholic Institute of International Relations

  83,594

  Federal Trust

  21,127

  International Boys Town Trust

  10,203

  National Association of Developing Education Centres

  74,690

  Namibia Support Committee

  62,639

  Oxfam

  44,703

  Oxford House Trust

  18,612

  Returned Volunteer Action

  65,705

  TV Trust for Environment

  76,125

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  19,177

  Workers Education Association

  32,917

  World Development Group

  19,471

  846,884

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which official bodies and organisations outside the United Kingdom make grants to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations engaged in overseas development after either consulting or obtaining the approval of his Department.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  There are no formal arrangements for organisations outside the United Kingdom to consult my Department or seek its approval before making grants to United Kingdom voluntary agencies engaged in overseas development. But we are happy to put such organisations in touch with British agencies if asked to do so; and we have taken the initiative in encouraging the Japanese to use their grant aid in support of projects undertaken in developing countries by British and other third country NGOs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Dennis Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I last met representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland at the meeting of the intergovernmental conference in Belfast on 24 May. At that meeting we completed the review of the working of the conference and copies of the joint statement were placed in the Library.

  Mitchell House School for the Handicapped
  Mr. John D. Taylor (Stratford)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are resident at Mitchell House school for the handicapped, Holywood road, Belfast; what proposals he has for them after the closure of this school; and at which other similar schools there is residential accommodation available for these students.
  546
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: Ten pupils are currently attending the boarding department at Mitchell House special school, Belfast. The only other school providing residential accommodation for physically handicapped pupils is Fleming Fulton special school, Belfast. I understand that the Belfast education and library board is currently considering the closure of the boarding department at Mitchell House school but no decision has yet been taken. Should the board decide to close this facility, it would be required to publish a development proposal which would enable objectors to make their views known to the Department of Education within two months. The Department would have the ultimate decision in the matter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Press (Referral)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current position of the referral of the press to the Office of Fair Trading and Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is continuing his inquiries into the structure of newspaper publishing, competition between newspapers, and the involvement of newspaper groups in other media. If a full-scale investigation were seen to be necessary it would be likely to take the form of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Inflation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the effects of the level of inflation on industry.

  Mr. Forth
  A number of representations which I receive refer to inflation. The great majority of these recognise that the control of inflation must remain the prime objective of economic policy.

  Manufactures (Trade Deficit)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the present trade deficit on manufactured goods.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  In the first four months of 1989 there was an estimated seasonally adjusted deficit in trade in manufactures of £5·8 billion.

  Open University Technology Centre
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to visit the newly founded centre for technology strategy at the Open university in Milton Keynes.

  Mr. Forth
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is aware of the recent formation of the centre for technology strategy at the Open university in Milton Keynes but has no plans for a visit.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Full Funding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects to achieve through the Government's policy of full funding.

  Mr. Lilley
  The aim of the full fund policy is that the Government should conduct their own financial affairs so as to have a broadly neutral impact on liquidity.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, further to the Economic Secretary's answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on 12 June,Official Report, column 272, he will indicate what other housing costs are included in the Italian index of consumer prices quoted by him on 7 June; and what housing costs other than mortgage interest payments are included in the United Kingdom retail price index figures.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The only housing costs included in the Italian consumer price index are rent, water charges and repairs. The housing group of the United Kingdom RPI includes rent, domestic rates, water and other charges, repair and maintenance charges, do-it-yourself materials and dwelling insurance and ground rents as well as mortgage interest payments.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Crown Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will publish a further report on business appointments of former Crown servants.

  Mr. Luce
  I have today placed copies of a statistical report entitled "Acceptance of Outside Appointments by Crown Servants—1988" in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

TRANSPORT

  Lead in Paint
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects lead to be eliminated from paint used for road markings.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The constituents of road materials are specified by the British Standards Institution. I understand that the institution has not yet set a timetable for substituting a lead-free pigment in their specification. Work to develop such a pigment of acceptable performance and durability is in progress.

  Pervious Road Surfaces
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions have been drawn from the research into pluvious road surfaces being carried out at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory with regard to(a) whether spray-reducing benefit can be applied to the resurfacing of existing roads and (b) whether this will be a general specification of new roads as proposed in the White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity"; and if he will make a statement.
  548
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has been undertaking a full-scale trial of pervious macadam road surfaces since 1984 on the A38 Burton bypass.

  Trials of new materials normally last for five years so that their performance can be compared with conventional materials before they are permitted for general use.

  In this case the material appears to be as durable as conventional materials and is effective in reducing vehicle spray.

  We are proposing to amend the Department's specification to allow the use of pervious macadam on new or existing trunk roads. The aim is to issue it early in 1990 as soon as the trials have been completed and the results fully assessed. This will depend on those results being satisfactory.

  Pervious macadam could prove more expensive than conventional materials and if so its use is more likely to be justified on sections of road where, for example, increased accident savings can be demonstrated.

  MV Majestic (Sinking)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has concerning the circumstances in which the fishing vessel MV Majestic was sunk between Shetland and Orkney on 13 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Fraserburgh registered fishing vessel Majestic capsized and sank some 30 miles west of Sumburgh Head at about 1300 on 13 June with the loss of five lives. Two crew survived.

  The vessel was pair trawling at the time of the incident when the net snagged on an underwater obstruction. There are no indications at this stage of any involvement by a submarine.

  One of the Department's marine surveyors has been appointed to investigate the casualty.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his Department's latest estimated cost for completion of the previously preferred route for the Birmingham relief road; and if he will estimate the number of man hours his Department has spent on the previously preferred route.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The estimated cost of the Birmingham northern relief road is £219·5 million at May 1989 prices. The Department is unable to disaggregate the number of man hours spent on individual schemes.

ENERGY

  Electricial Supply Industry
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current number of people employed in the electrical supply industry by region.

  Mr. Parkinson
  This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I shall ask the Chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.

  Rexo (Member's Letter)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is now in a position to reply and treat as a matter of urgency the letter from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw of 11 April regarding redundancy payments at Rexo which was passed on to him by the Department of Employment on 30 May.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The hon. Member should now have received my reply which was sent on 14 June.

WALES

  School-Business Links
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's policy of encouraging high schools in Wales to develop links with businesses.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is important that there should be effective links between schools and business so that young people have the opportunity to experience the world of work and learn about the career choices available to them, and business has a workforce better prepared and equipped to meet its needs.

  We have a range of activities designed to improve communications between schools and industry and to encourage enterprise activities in schools. The Technical and Vocational Education Initiative has proved successful and is being extended to all schools and colleges. The GCSE examination has an emphasis on learning by experience and the certificate of pre-vocational education also assists in the transition from school to adulthood and the world of work. The new national curriculum has as one of its main aims the preparation of pupils for adult life and work. Businessmen also have the opportunity to become governors of schools and colleges.

  Each local education authority in Wales has an officer responsible for education/industry links and there is evidence of increasing interest in organisations at the local level working to develop partnerships between education and industry.

  In addition, we now have a network of enterprise and education advisers whose purpose is to market to employers the benefits of links with schools and persuade them to become involved. Also, in the context of my valleys programme, I have met with the chairmen of the education committee and director of education of each of the five valleys LEAs to discuss ways of improving links between schools and industry. Positive action has already been taken and I hope to have further meetings in the near future.

  Sewage Works (Pollution Standards)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list sewage works in Wales that are at present failing the established effluent pollution standards.

  Mr. Grist
  The following Welsh Water Authority sewage treatment works failed to meet their consent standards during 1988:

  Ross New (Lower Cleeve)

  Kenderchurch

  Presteigne

  Llanbister

  550

  Eardisley

  Rockfield

  Llanbedr

  Ponthir

  Bonvilston

  Weycock Cross

  Acton Green

  Stoke Edith

  Hereford Rotherwas

  St. Owens Cross

  Fair View

  Llanwarne—Monkton Place

  Walford (Caughton Place)

  Carnay

  Kidwelly

  Rhydypandy

  Carew

  Kilgetty East/Stepaside

  Rosemarket

  Devils Bridge

  Llanybyther

  Rhandirmyn

  Brithdir

  Bryncrug

  Dolgellau

  Llandwcwyn

  Tyddyn Hywel

  Cynon

  Deinolen (Brynrefail)

  Edwin Ralph

  Ffeirh

  Fountain

  Glewstone-Wilson

  Groes Bronallt

  Gwalchmai

  Talybont (Price Bros.)

  Llangefni

  Llanfaes 'A'

  Sarnau

  Sesswick

  Five Fords

  Mold (Filters Plant)

  Gresford

  Maes Y Groes

  Penley

  Henllan

  Denbigh

  Nantglyn

  Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd

  Burton

  Flint

  Bagillt (East)

  Bethesda

  Bettws

  Brendenbury

  Bynea

  Capel Iwan

  Cefn Mawr

  Chwilog

  Cilfynydd

  Cilgerran

  Clyro

  Connahs Quay

  Coolech

  Crossgates

  Cwmyoy

  Rhoslefain

  Rhydymawyn

  Spamington

  St. Arvans

  Tirabad

  Weston Beggard

  Wolferlow

  Ystradgynlais

  Kupeck

  Kington

  Langdon

  Llanarmon Yn Ial

  Llanddew

  Llandegfan (Red)

  551

  Llanfechreth

  Llanfaes 'B'

  Llanfaethlu

  Llanfaglan

  Llangaffo

  LLangyli

  Llanrhidian

  Llanrug

  Llansey

  Llanvapley

  Llanyre

  Llanystumdwy

  Llynfaes

  Llysuen Village

  Melin Y Wig

  Pentraeth

  Pentre Halkyn

  Penygausi

  Local Authority Houses
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of local authority houses to rent by district in Wales in(a) 1986, (b) 1987 and (c)

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:

  Estimates of dwellings owned by local authorities or new towns at 1 April1

  Welsh Districts

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Aberconwy

  3,227

  3,139

  3,060

  Alyn and Deeside

  5,573

  5,503

  5,415

  Arfon

  5,304

  5,237

  5,194

  Blaenau Gwent

  11,012

  10,871

  10,749

  Brecknock

  3,095

  3,019

  2,967

  Cardiff

  22,551

  21,776

  21,190

  Carmarthen

  3,740

  3,711

  3,661

  Ceredigion

  3,700

  3,662

  3,631

  Colwyn

  2,877

  2,821

  2,746

  Cynon Valley

  5,699

  5,596

  5,497

  Delyn

  5,088

  4,992

  4,864

  Dinefwr

  2,795

  2,755

  2,711

  Dwyfor

  1,490

  1,484

  1,478

  Glyndwr

  3,284

  3,217

  3,154

  Islwyn

  6,858

  6,667

  6,470

  Llanelli

  7,626

  7,529

  7,360

  Lliw Valley

  5,547

  5,458

  5,351

  Meirionnydd

  2,259

  2,203

  2,153

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7,541

  7,357

  7,145

  Monmouth

  5,388

  5,351

  5,185

  Montgomery2

  4,626

  4,503

  4,435

  Neath

  6,190

  6,096

  5,959

  Newport

  14,020

  13,839

  13,699

  Ogwr

  10,892

  10,613

  10,333

  Port Talbot

  7,115

  6,834

  6,539

  Preseli

  6,286

  6,200

  6,117

  Radnor

  1,268

  1,262

  1,220

  Rhondda

  5,234

  5,153

  5,095

  Rhuddlan

  2,907

  2,905

  2,862

  Rhymney Valley

  10,920

  10,641

  10,460

  South Pembrokeshire

  3,112

  3,072

  3,005

  Swansea

  18,788

  18,554

  18,196

  Taff-Ely

  8,609

  8,356

  8,030

  Torfaen

  14,787

  14,519

  14,222

  Vale of Glamorgan

  7,105

  6,927

  6,738

  Wrexham Maelor

  16,857

  16,666

  16,533

  Ynys Moô

  6,087

  6,037

  5,994

  Wales Total

  259,457

  254,525

  249,418

  1 Includes some dwellings unavailable for rent, undergoing repair or improvement, awaiting sale or demolition, etc.

  2 Includes new town dwellings in Newton.

  Cottage-Community Hospitals
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he can give for each county in Wales the number 552
  of cottage-community hospitals with fewer than 70 beds in (a) 1985 and (b) 1988, and the percentage these represented of the total number of hospitals in (i) 1985 and (ii) 1988.

  Mr. Grist
  The total number of hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, with less than 70 beds are shown in the table:

  Number of hospitals with fewer than 70 beds1

  Percentage of all hospitals in authority

  Health Authority

  1985

  1988

  1985

  1988

  Clwyd

  15

  17

  60·0

  70·8

  East Dyfed

  7

  7

  58·3

  58·3

  Gwent

  8

  8

  44·4

  44·4

  Gwynedd

  16

  18

  76·2

  81·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  13

  15

  41·9

  46·9

  Pembrokeshire

  1

  1

  33·3

  33·3

  Powys

  11

  11

  73·3

  73·3

  South Glamorgan

  5

  5

  31·3

  31·3

  West Glamorgan

  10

  8

  52·6

  50·0

  1 As at 31 December.

  Rivers (Pollution Standards)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list those rivers in Wales which in 1988 were graded 3 and lower in pollution standards.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Welsh Water Authority and I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time taken to process applications for discretionary grants in respect of capital investments by small businesses; and what action is being taken by his Department to reduce the time taken to process applications and forward grants.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The main forms of discretionary grants towards capital investment by small firms are regional enterprise grants (investment) and regional selective assistance. The average times taken to process grant applications and payment claims during the period 1 January—31 May 1989 were as follows:

  Weeks

  Regional enterprise grants (investment) applications

  3·9

  Regional enterprise grants (investment) payment claims

  1·2

  Regional selective assistance applications

  7

  Regional selective assistance payment claims

  3·1

  The Department is continuing its downward pressure on processing times consistent with the proper administration of the scheme.

  Botulism
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration was given by officers of his Department to the need to publish advice to the public in Wales prior to the Government's recommendation on Monday 12 June that people should not consume hazelnut yoghurt pending the outcome of investigations into the recent incidents of botulism.
  553
  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department became aware of suspected cases of botulism associated with the consumption of hazelnut yoghurt on 12 June. Standard arrangements are that the Department of Health notifies national and regional media interests in such cases, including those in Wales. Copies of the Department of Health's press statement were subsequently sent by my Department to chief environmental health officers and medical officers for environmental health in Wales for information.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what information he has available on the cases of botulism in Clwyd referred to in the answer of his right hon. Friend to the private notice question on Tuesday 13 June.

  Mr Peter Walker
  My officials are in close touch with the chief administrative medical officer/director of public health medicine in Clwyd health authority regarding the four suspected cases of botulism. Investigations are continuing as to the source of the outbreak.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research projects into food hygiene and food production are currently sponsored by his Department; what resources are allocated to each project and what plans he has for expanding such research in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department has no agricultural research funds. Last year the Government funded 436 research projects on food in England and Wales. Details can be found in the draft National Programme of Food R&D 1988–89, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 13 June 1989.

  Future plans for Government funded research will be guided by the advice of the Research Consultative Committee on Food Safety and Applied Nutrition which is expected to report at the end of August. This Government are firmly committed to food safety research and will place the work with the most appropriate contractors.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to increase the resources available to local authorities in Wales to enable them to increase the number of environmental health officers available to inspect food producing and processing establishments in view of fresh public concern over dangers to health.

  Mr. Grist
  Provision for local authority spending in 1989–90 was announced in the rate support grant report published on 8 December 1988. My officials are presently discussing with the local authority associations their need to spend for 1990–91.

  The bulk of resources provided to local authorities are unhypothecated: it is for the individual authority to determine its own spending priorities.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the future security of adequate funding levels with predictable continuity for S4C in the light of the statement on 13 June, by the Home Secretary on the future of commercial television.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The White Paper on broadcasting made clear the Government's view that S4C has been a554
  considerable success. At present the Independent Broadcasting Authority determines the channel's level of income. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I envisage that the Independent Television Commission and S4C will make similar arrangements to ensure adequate funding for the channel in the future.

HEALTH

  Project 2000
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the level of bursaries to be paid to nursing students undertaking the first Project 2000 training courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government have accepted the proposal of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, made after consultation with the nursing professions, that Project 2000 students should have student, rather than employee, status and receive bursaries rather than salaries. The personal element of these bursaries will not be means-tested.

  Project 2000 students in receipt of bursaries will not be liable for income tax or national insurance or superannuation contributions. All Project 2000 students will pay only 20 per cent. of the personal community charge, like other full-time students, and will have the benefit of seven weeks' holiday each year, compared with the four or five weeks for those who continue to be trained under the existing arrangements.

  The following basic levels of bursary are to be offered to students undertaking Project 2000 courses. They are broadly comparable with the average net basic salary of existing student nurses.

  Under 26 at start of course:

  £

  London:

  4,700

  £

  Elsewhere:

  4,000

  Age 26 and over at start of course:

  £

  London:

  5,200

  £

  Elsewhere:

  4,500

  In addition to the above basic/personal levels of bursary, there will be additions for dependents which will be means-tested on the basis of Department of Education and Science mandatory grant rules.

  Existing NHS staff who enter Project 2000 training, provided they have been employed at least one year, will retain their current salary rather than receiving a bursary.

  Pre-registration nursing students who are not on Project 2000 courses will continue to receive salaries.

  Private Patients (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the revenue generated from private patients at hospitals in the Doncaster area in 1988; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last 10 years, at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The available information is given in the table.
  555

  Income from private patients: Doncaster health authority (at 1988–89 prices)

  £

  1978–79

  17,141

  1979–80

  19,611

  1980–81

  27,382

  1981–82

  50,428

  1982–83

  53,757

  1983–84

  46,051

  1984–85

  52,258

  1985–86

  71,592

  1986–87

  79,595

  1987–88

  165,837

  1 Latest available.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1988–89 prices by the use of the gross domestic product deflator.

  2. The Doncaster health authority was established on 1 April 1982. The figures used for earlier years are derived from the annual accounts of the former Doncaster area health authority which was broadly comparable to the present district health authority.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance has been given to registered medical practitioners on issuing certificates for poll tax exemption on the grounds that the individual is severely mentally impaired; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has issued any guidance in relation to the poll tax on the question as to whether those seeking a certificate of exemption from a registered medical practitioner will be required to undergo any examination; who will pay for any such examination; if there will be guidance on any standard scale of charges; how much will be charged for such certificates; and who will be required to make the payment.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Guidance to registered medical practitioners on issuing certificates of severe mental impairment in connection with applications for exemption from payment of the personal community charge will be issued as soon as possible.

  Queen's Park Hospital, Blackburn (Maternity Unit)
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the North West regional health authority since 14 April regarding provision of a maternity unit at Queen's park hospital, Blackburn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health will be meeting the chairman of North Western regional health authority on 19 June to discuss the implications of the extension of maternity services in phase IIIA of Queen's Park hospital, Blackburn, for the region's current review of its capital programme. It is unlikely that the outcome of the review will be known before the autumn of this year.

  Miss Claire Johnson
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department's superannuation branch first received a request to transfer pension rights in respect of Miss Claire Johnson from the National Health Service to the Professional Association of Teachers; why it has failed to reply; and when he expects the transfer to be effected.
  556
  Mr. Freeman
  National Health Service superannuation branch first received a request to transfer Miss Johnson's pension rights on 30 August 1988 when the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) wrote. They enclosed a copy of correspondence they had sent to Central Nottinghamshire health authority about the same subject.

  No reply, apart from an inquiry of the PAT about their scheme and routine acknowledgements, has yet been sent because the transfer value of the service was not apparently available. The health authority had exceptionally given details of Miss Johnson's final year's salary on 28 April 1988 when giving details about the cessation of her employment. This information was overlooked when the transfer request was received. A standard inquiry was therefore sent to the authority on 23 September 1988. Only when a belated reply was received on 8 May 1989 was attention drawn to the previous information.

  Urgent action is being taken to give details of a pension transfer value. Miss Johnson will then have the option of transferring the pension value or leaving it in the National Health Service scheme.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 May to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) setting out the amount due to pharmacists from 1978 to 1988, if he will specify the amounts included which are in respect of drug and container cost reimbursement; whether the amounts due for profit are stated on a pre-interest basis; if he will express these as a percentage of turnover; and if he will give estimates of the amount due for costs in £m and the profit in £m and percentage of turnover for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 18 May at column 284, excluded the payments made as reimbursement of expenditure on drugs and containers. The amounts due for profit included interest on capital employed. Amounts due for profit expressed as a percentage of amounts paid as reimbursement of expenditure on drugs and containers in England and Wales were as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1978

  3·57

  1979

  3·52

  1980

  4·78

  1981

  5·48

  1982

  5·10

  1983

  4·67

  1984

  4·62

  11985

  5·28

  1985–86

  5·19

  1986–87

  4·79

  1987–88

  4·58

  1 1 January 1985 to 31 March 1985.

  Current estimates for 1988–89 are: amount due for costs £437·2 million amount due for profit £70·7 million, profit as a percentage of drug and container costs 3·68 per cent. As from 1 April 1989 amounts due for costs and profit are no longer calculated as separate items of remuneration.

  Portable Oxygen Cylinders
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of a portable oxygen cylinder; and what guidance he issues to doctors on the provision of portable oxygen cylinders for use in the home and elsewhere by patients with chronic lung disease.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The basic cost of a portable oxygen cylinder is at least £157·00. Such equipment for use in the home and elsewhere may be provided through the hospital service on the prescription of a hospital consultant if he considers it clinically necessary for the treatment of his patient. Guidance on the provision of oxygen and other specialised equipment is contained in the booklet MHM50, "Provision of Medical and Surgical Appliances". A copy is in the Library.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will ensure that compressor-driven nebuliser systems are made available to patients when so advised by a consultant with specialist knowledge in thoracic medicine.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: It is for health authorities to decide whether to issue compressor-driven nebuliser systems (either permanently or on loan) to patients for whom they are prescribed by hospital consultants. In making these decisions, health authorities will have regard to the costs of the equipment and its potential benefit to patients and the competing claims on available resources.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions, and by what means, his Department has drawn the attention of the medical profession to the dangers of represcribing benzodiazepine drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The Department issues regular advice to doctors on a wide range of topics which from time to time include guidance on the prescribing of benzodiazepines. Exampls include:

  (i) Guidance on Good Clinical Practice in the Treatment of Drug Misuse, issued free in 1984 and 1985 to all doctors, includes advice on withdrawal from benzodiazepines. This publication is also issued annually to medical schools for distribution to final year medical students.

  (ii) The Committee on Safety of Medicines reinforced prescribing advice on benzodiazepines in "Current Problems No. 21" issued in January 1988.

  (iii) Up-to-date information on benzodiazepine prescribing is included in the British National Formulary, which is issued twice a year free to all doctors, pharmacists and to all first and final year medical students.

  (iv) The Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, issued fortnightly and distributed free by the Department has, on occasions, published articles on benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines on the use and prescribing of benzodiazepine drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The Committee on the Safety of Medicines advice about the
  558
  use and prescribing of these drugs remains as published in its bulletin "Current Problems No. 21" issued in January 1988. A copy is in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest meeting with the chargé d'affairs at the Chinese embassy in London.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend's latest meeting with the Chinese chargé d'affaires was on 5 June. He reported this meeting to the House on 6 June. A senior official had a meeting with the Chinese chargé d'affaires on 12 June, at which he further clarified our view of events in Peking, particularly with respect to the prospects and procedures for the implimentation of the joint declarations on Hong Kong. He also raised reports of Chinese embassy harassment of Chinese students here and the case of the Hong Kong resident detained in Shanghai.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning allegations that Chinese students in this country have received threatening telephone calls from officials at the Chinese embassy; whether he has made representations to the Chinese chargé d'affaires on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have noted press reports that the Chinese embassy has been harassing Chinese students in this country. A senior official raised this matter with the Chinese chargé d'affaires on 12 June and reminded him that we expected the Chinese embassy to act in accordance with British law. The Chinese chargé d'affaires said that the reports were a complete fabrication.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will grant to Chinese students studying in the United Kingdom, on completion of their courses, extension of stay until their safety can be guaranteed.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have given today to questions from the hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox).

  Hong Kong
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to amend the treaty with China to exclude the stationing of the Chinese army in Hong Kong after 1997.

  Mr. Eggar
  The prospect of the stationing of Chinese troops in Hong Kong after 1997 has always been a matter of concern in the territory. Recent events have increased this. We shall be considering how best to meet this concern when we resume our discussions with the Chinese authorities about the future of Hong Kong. But we have no plans to seek to amend the joint declaration, which is a solemn international agreement equally binding both Governments.
  559
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had seeking to ensure that a democratic Government are fully in place in Hong Kong before 1997.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the light of recent events in China, and evidence of a change of opinion in Hong Kong, we and the Hong Kong Government are considering carefully suggestions for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed this question with the Governor of Hong Kong on his visit to London last week and will be having further discussions with a broad range of Hong Kong opinion when he visits the territory early next month.

  Mr. Wajid Mahmood
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Mr. Wajid Mahmood, whose date of birth is 19 July 1971 and whose reference is IMM /92276, first applied to the post in Islamabad for permission to enter the United Kingdom; and when a decision is to be taken on his application.

  Mr. Eggar
  In accordance with the recent guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit in due course.

  Mr. Abbass Tabbakhi (Execution)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the execution without trial in Iran of Mr. Abbass Tabbakhi of Forest Gate, London E7; when Mr Tabbakhi was arrested; when he was executed; and if he will make the stongest representation to the Iranian Government about the execution of Mr. Tabbakhi.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no information about the case of Mr. Tabbakhi. It is usually impossible to verify reports of individual executions in Iran, given the absence of information about the situation there. We have consistently expressed concern about Iran's human rights record and have taken vigorous action at the UN to try to persuade Iran to allow the UN special rapporteur to visit that country.

  Sharks (Slaughter)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of Japan and South Korea regarding the slaughter of sharks in the waters around the Galapagos Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have asked the Japanese and South Korean Governments for assurances that their fishing fleets around the Galapagos Islands are acting in accordance with their obligations on the protection of endangered species. Sharks are not protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

  Private Education
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the sons and daughters of Foreign Office personnel can receive grants towards the cost of private education; and whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office keeps a list of schools approved for the education of such young people.

  Mr. Eggar
  All members of the Diplomatic Service who have an obligation to serve overseas are eligible to apply for an allowance towards the costs of their children's boarding school education. The allowance is paid in order that children may be guaranteed continuity of education in the British system. In certain cases, provided the paramount principle of continuity is observed, it may be possible for an officer to be refunded the cost of private day school fees at a boarding school where the child will be educated when his/her parents are abroad.

  The allowance is based on an average of the fees of schools on the Headmasters Conference list, but attendance is not limited to those schools. Any United Kingdom boarding school can be approved, provided that it offers the full range of subjects normally offered by a state day school and in a form generally available in the state system. No attempt is made to keep a comprehensive list of schools which meet those criteria.

  Staff whose children are resident with them overseas may reclaim the cost of local private education in countries where the state education system is inadequate or unsuitable. Refunds in such cases are limited to tuition or scholastic activities of a kind which would be provided without cost under the United Kingdom state education services. Each overseas post maintains its own list of authorised schools.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current checks and controls for salmonella enteritidis undertaken by continental egg producers who export their produce to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to differentiate between eggs being sold in retail outlets for tested flocks as opposed to untested laying flocks.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is a legal requirement that all UK flocks selling eggs should be tested. As for imports, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on 20 April at column 280.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received for and against the continued sale of untreated green top milk; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement on such sales.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 13 June at column 353.

  Beef
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about seasonal variations in the price of beef and consequent shortages; and if he will make a statement about any proposals to alter support arrangements in order to ensure that there is a more even supply of beef throughout the year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The ending of the beef variable premium has removed from the support regime an element which included seasonal variation. However, in practice the rate of premium remained fixed at its maximum rate for extended periods which limited its impact. Under the present arrangements the EC Commission has at its disposal measures designed to moderate fluctuations in beef supply. It can release beef from intervention stocks onto the market when supplies are short or introduce aids to private storage to hold beef off the market in times of over supply. We and other member states encourage the Commission to make use of these provisions as appropriate to market circumstances.

  French Potato Growers (Payments)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about possible retrospective payments being made to French early potato growers in Brittany; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have received no such representations.

  Deer (Slaughter)
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a compulsory slaughter scheme for deer suffering from tuberculosis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Only a few herds are believed to be infected with tuberculosis, but in the interests of preventing it becoming established the Government have decided to introduce a compulsory slaughter scheme where this is necessary to control disease in deer kept in farms or parks. Compensation will be paid at 50 per cent. of the value of the slaughtered animal, subject to a ceiling. The necessary order under the Animal Health Act 1981 will be introduced as soon as possible. This measure, together with the steps already announced to make tuberculosis in deer a notifiable disease and to introduce movement controls and marking requirements, represent a major initiative by the Government to deal with the disease. I now hope that rapid progress can be made in devising a deer health scheme in co-operation with the industry.

  NUVAN Fish 500 EC
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a product licence under the Medicines Act 1968 has been issued for NUVAN Fish 500 EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A product licence for Aquagard sea lice treatment (formerly known as NUVAN Fish 500 EC) was granted yesterday. The product licence was granted in accordance with the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 following a detailed and thorough assessment of 562
  data relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of the product. As part of this assessment very careful consideration was given to the safety of the product to the fish, the consumers of treated fish, those operators administering the product and to the environment.

  In reaching their decision to grant a product licence for Aquagard sea lice treatment Ministers were advised by the Veterinary Products Committee, an independent committee of experts in human and animal health. In reaching its recommendation, the Veterinary Products Committee took advice from experts in environmental safety.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what transitional help the Government give to those people who lose their benefit entitlement due to taking up a full-time job, and thus find themselves financially worse off than previously.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In most cases, people who decide to accept a full-time job offer should find themselves better-off financially than when they were unemployed. The Department of Employment claimant advisory service helps claimants determine whether particular job offers could prove worthwhile financially. It also provides rapid access family credit facilities for unemployed people with children, so that delays in payment are minimised. People entering lower-paid remunerative work may receive help through the housing benefit and community charge rebate schemes if they are responsible for rent, rates or community charge in Scotland. If they have at least one dependent child they may also be entitled to family credit. Payment of these benefits will continue to be made as long as the qualifying conditions remain satisfied. People on low incomes are also able to claim help with dental, optical and prescription charges, and with the cost of travel to hospital for treatment.

  Mr. G. Watterson
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he hopes to hold an inquiry into the claim for industrial disablement benefit made by Mr. G. Watterson of North Park holiday centre, Totnes road, Dartmouth, on 23 June 1986, Ref. INS/5999/8057/4; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Arrangements are in hand for fixing a date for an inquiry and Mr. Watterson should he hearing from the appropriate branch in the next ten days.

  The Department will be doing all that it can to process the matter smoothly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Order Act 1986
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued any guidelines for the use of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.
  563
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Home Office circular 11/1987 issued on 23 February 1987 gave guidance on those parts of the Public Order Act 1986, including section 39, which came into force on 1 April 1987. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions and in what situations section 39 of the Public Order Act has been used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not recorded by police forces or otherwise available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)Official Report, 15 March, column 231, exceptional and compelling circumstances which would warrant the Minister deferring removal include (a) a mistake and (b) a misrepresentation of a relevant fact by an immigration officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  As I said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 15 March at column 231, the examples given in the guidelines introduced on 3 January are not exclusive but are illustrative of the sort of circumstances which would justify deferment of removal. A right hon. or hon. Member may contact my private office (or, out of working hours, the Home Office duty officer) in any case where he believes that the immigration service has wrongly refused to defer removal on the basis of exceptional and compelling circumstances.

  Prisoners (Transfer)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he anticipates making a decision on the application for transfer to a jail in the North of Ireland from prisioner number 851715, John McComb;

  (2) when he anticipates making a decision on the application for transfer to a jail in the North of Ireland from prisoner number 463799, Ronald McCartney;

  (3) when he anticipates making a decision on the application for transfer to a jail in the North of Ireland from prisoner number B69204, Thomas Quigley;

  (4) when he anticipates making a decision on the application for transfer to a jail in the North of Ireland from prisoner number 119034, Paul Holmes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Mr. McCartney's application was answered on 31 May. The applications of Mr. McComb and Mr. Holmes will be answered as soon as possible. To date, there is no outstanding request from Mr. Quigley.

  Police Custody (Escapes)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners escaped from police custody before being sentenced in each police authority in the most recent period for which such figures are available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is not held centrally.
  564
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the escape of five prisoners from police custody in Liverpool on the evening of 12 June.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Merseyside police that at about 5.30 pm on 12 June a police bus left the main Bridewell in Liverpool bound for HM prison Hindley with 14 remand prisoners and a police escort on board. Shortly after leasing the Bridewell, a number of the prisoners, who were in individual cells, made a concerted attempt to force off the roof of the vehicle, and four of them managed to escape through a gap in the roof. Two of the prisoners were recaptured immediately, one was caught later the same day, and the other one is still at large. The chief constable is conducting an investigation into the circumstances of the escape.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, following a further break-out of five prisoners from a police custody van in Liverpool on the evening of 12 June, he will review the regulations for holding and transporting people held in custody; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I understand that the chief constable of Merseyside is conducting an inquiry into the incident and he will consider whether there are any lessons to be learnt for the future.

  Chinese Nationals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for Chinese students in London who feel unable to return to be allowed to remain beyond the expiry of their permit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the entry permits of all Chinese nationals currently in the United Kingdom on the same basis as the Australian Government have done; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure that no Chinese students will be forced to leave the United Kingdom to return to China once their student visa has expired, until condition greatly improve in China; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the present number of Chinese students studying in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  There are between 6,000 and 6,500 Chinese nationals in the United Kingdom who are subject to immigration conditions and of these some 3,500 are studying here. In view of the current situation in China, we shall look sympathetically at applications for leave to remain here by Chinese nationals who do not wish to return to China at the present time. Any Chinese national therefore whose leave to remain here is due to expire soon, or has already expired, and who does not wish to return should write to the Immigration and Nationality Department, Home Office, Lunar House, Croydon CR9 2BY, and if they do not qualify to remain under the immigration rules, they will nevertheless be allowed to stay for a further six months on an exceptional basis. This is, I understand, a somewhat longer period than the Australian
  565
  authorities have agreed. I am taking steps to have this advice published as widely as possible in the universities and colleges, and in the Chinese community.

  Mr. Garcia (Money)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis regarding money taken by Metropolitan Police officers from the home of Mr. Garcia of Stratford, London E1 5 on 6 February; where the money now is; and why it has not been returned to Mr. Garcia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The investigation of alleged criminal offences is an operational matter and, as such, is the responsibility of the commissioner. My right hon. Friend has no authority to intervene in such matters and it would therefore not be fitting for him to call for a report on Mr. Garcia's case.

  Approved city grant schemes as at 13 June 1989

  Local Authority

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved city grant

  West Midlands

  Coventry

  Seven Stars Industrial Estate

  Deeley Investments Limited

  1·627

  Birmingham

  Startpoint Industrial Development

  English and Overseas Properties Limited

  0·283

  Birmingham

  The Bond

  The Bond Limited

  0·391

  Wrekin

  Ketley Business Park, Phase 3

  C. J. Pearce & Co. Ltd.

  0·230

  Dudley

  Washington Centre, Dudley

  Folkes Properties Ltd.

  3·500

  Birmingham

  Garrison Lane, Ind. Dev. Birmingham

  J. A. Elliot (Developments) Ltd.

  0·570

  Sandwell

  Windmill Lane, Smethwick

  Tarmac Contract Housing

  0·775

  Birmingham

  Constitution Hill

  T. S. Gandhi

  0·068

  Dudley

  Garrick Business Park

  Garrick Properties Limited

  0·750

  Birmingham

  Birmingham Factory Centre

  Slough Estates

  1·260

  Sandwell

  Sandwell Ski Centre

  Glenarn Investments Limited

  0·282

  Total

  9·736

  North West

  Oldham

  Park Road Hotel

  Florshiem Company (UK) Limited

  1·053

  Bolton

  Prospect Mills Housing

  Tay Homes (Northern) Limited

  0·650

  Bolton

  Frederick Street, Farnworth

  Allen Homes Limited

  0·203

  Bolton

  Rose Hill, Bolton

  Lovell Urban Renewal Ltd.

  0·560

  Manchester

  Carriageway, Manchester

  Upton Hunter Estates Ltd.

  0·099

  Manchester

  Every Street Housing Scheme

  Tay Homes (North West) Ltd.

  0·457

  Manchester

  Bell Crescent, Manchester

  Tay Homes (North West) Ltd.

  0·622

  Salford

  Hazel Avenue and Acme Mill Housing Development

  Brackenlea Homes

  0·580

  Salford

  Salford University Tower

  Manchester Pare Securities Limited and Amec Regeneration Limited

  2·550

  Blackburn

  Atlantic Mill Site

  Hillcrest Homes Limited

  0·381

  Blackburn

  Ice Rink, Blackburn

  Arena Associates Ltd.

  0·680

  Blackburn

  Oozebooth Mill

  Euro Jeans Ltd.

  0·142

  Total

  7·977

  Northern

  Hartlepool

  Hartlepool Business Park

  East Mercia Developments Ltd.

  0·634

  Newcastle

  7–19 Mosley Street

  Kelburn Holdings Limited

  0·413

  Stockton

  West Row, Stockton

  Glynns Estates (Cleveland) Ltd.

  0·097

  South Tyneside

  Boldon Business Park

  Washington Developments Ltd.

  1·231

  Sunderland

  Ascot Court, Phase 3, Farringdon

  Two Castles Limited

  0·101

  Hartlepool

  Teesbay Business Park

  Humberside Properties Ltd.

  1·916

  Sunderland

  Ascot Court, Sunderland, Phase 4

  Two Castles Limited

  0·055

  Sunderland

  Gilley Law, Sunderland

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  1·221

  Gateshead

  Wellington Road, Dunston

  Stannah Lifts Limited

  0·201

  South Tyneside

  Mowbray Court, South Shields

  North Country Estates Ltd.

  0·101

  Newcastle

  43–49 Grey Street, Newcastle

  City & Northern Properties Ltd.

  0·487

  Mr. Bahadur Singh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his letter to the hon. Member for Bradford, West on 23 March concerning Mr. Bahadur Singh; reference IMP S656383/4(S), when he expects to despatch his explanatory statement to the appellate authorities and to Mr. Singh and his representative.

  Mr. Renton
  The explanatory statement will be despatched to the appellate authorities very shortly. They will make arrangements for it to be forwarded to the appellant's nominated representative.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Grants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) all projects and (b) the companies involved and the amounts they are likely to receive, which have been offered a city grant.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows:
  567

  Local Authority

  Project name

  Developer's name

  Approved city grant

  North Tyneside

  Coach Lane, North Shields

  Onix Construction Ltd.

  0·089

  Newcastle

  Dean Street, Newcastle

  Avatar

  0·351

  North Tyneside

  Grosvenor Mews, North Shields

  R. A. Construction Ltd.

  0·065

  Hartlepool

  Owton Manor, Hartlepool

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  0·570

  Total

  7·532

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Kirklees

  Site 2, Ringway Industrial Centre

  Slough Properties Limited

  0·223

  Kirklees

  Canalside Warehouse

  Mr. Marino Belivacoua

  0·100

  Sheffield

  Victoria Buildings

  Lynthorpe Properties

  0·073

  Sheffield

  175 Arundel Gate

  Manor Developments(Chesterfield) Ltd.

  0·246

  Leeds

  Maxi's Chinese Restaurant

  Maxi's (Yorkshire) Co. Ltd.

  0·074

  Calderdale

  Abbey Park

  Barrett Leeds Limited

  0·365

  Bradford

  Holroyd Hill/Wibsey Bank

  Amex Regeneration Limited

  0·700

  Sheffield

  Huttons Buildings, Sheffield

  Crofton Place Estate Co.

  0·270

  Total

  2·051

  London

  Hackney

  Ackermans Chocolates Ltd.

  Ackermans Chocolates Ltd.

  0·070

  Tower Hamlets

  Atlantis Paper Co.

  Atlantis Paper Co.

  0·400

  Lewisham

  Catholic Church Site, Deptford High Street

  First Premise Limited

  0·158

  Tower Hamlets

  Alami Import/Export

  Alami Import and Export

  0·780

  Southwark

  Alaska Works, SE1

  Charterhouse Estates Limited

  4·162

  Total

  5·570

  East Midlands

  Derby

  Sir Francis Ley Industrial Park South

  J. F. Miller & Company Limited

  3·287

  Nottingham

  20, 20A Fletcher Gate

  Garratt Properties

  0·160

  Nottingham

  Players Court, Nottingham

  Thomas Long & Sons Ltd.

  0·969

  Derby

  The Former Art Annexe

  Michael Goodall Quality Homes Limited

  0·120

  Nottingham

  Pilcher Gate, Nottingham

  James McArtney Architects

  0·080

  Nottingham

  Glasshouse Street (Avalon Court)

  Avalon Holdings Limited

  0·674

  Leicester

  Arnhem House, Leicester

  London & Manchester Assurance Co. Ltd.

  0·708

  Leicester City

  St. Johns Corner

  Provident Mutual Life Assurance Assoc.

  0·566

  Nottingham

  The Nottingham Business Design Centre

  Local London Group

  2·196

  Nottingham

  3 and 4 Kayes Walk, Nottingham

  Spenbeck Ltd.

  0·129

  Nottingham

  Rutland Square Hotel

  Wendchoice Limited

  0·738

  Nottingham

  Lamberts Factory Office Development

  Pickering Developments Limited

  0·796

  Nottingham

  8 Stanford Street, Nottingham

  Emmermoss Limited

  0·305

  Total

  10·728

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  Former Huntley & Palmer Building

  Montrose Holdings Limited

  0·335

  Total

  0·335

  South West

  Bristol

  Bristol Hawks Gymnastics Centre

  Hawkeshyde Motel Limited

  0·145

  Total

  0·145

  Grand Total

  44·074

  Dog Registration
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the dog registration proposal submitted to him by the Association of District Councils in association with the RSPCA, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and the National Farmers Union.
  568
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Planning Gain
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what directions have been issued by his Department since 1979 with regard to planning gain.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department's circular 22/83 gives advice to local authorities about the proper scope for
  569
  "planning gain". That advice is summarised in paragraphs 25–26 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 1, issued in January 1988.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress had been made in implementing the recommendation in the Services Committee's report, "New Parliamentary Building Phase 2: The Next Steps", HC561, that the Property Services Agency should undertake a feasibility study for the development of the phase 2 site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Since the House approved the report in December, the agency has undertaken a wide-ranging search to identify an architectural practice with the talent and expertise to undertake the development of this highly sensitive and technically difficult site. Following interviews by a panel chaired by Bryan Jefferson, CBE, past president of RIBA and special advisor to the Secretary of State on architectural matters, a short-list of suitable practices submitted fee bids. I am now able to announce that, with the agreement of the New Building Sub-Committee, Michael Hopkins and Partners have been commissioned by the Department to carry out the studies on the Palace Chambers site, Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street and the proposed subway in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.

  I am grateful to the hon. Member and his colleagues on the New Building Sub-Committee for their advice and support in making this recommendation and look forward to a close working relationship between the Department and the Sub-Committee in developing the proposals for the benefit of Parliament.

  I hope to be able to report the results of the studies before the end of the year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received about the impact of the community charge on the residents of almshouses who currently receive the benefit of mandatory or discretionary rate relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: I continue to receive representations on all aspects of the community charge.

  Rate relief for almshouses arises because they are used for charitable purposes. With the introduction of the community charge they will no longer be subject to rating. The community charge is a personal liability which is not linked to the status or value of the property occupied by the chargepayer. Protection for people on low incomes,

  Number of unemployed claimants by duration in the United Kingdom

  11983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  April 1989

  0–6 months

  1,303,262

  1,318,098

  1,341,831

  1,352,052

  1,206,243

  1,004,031

  794,075

  percentage of total

  43–4

  41·7

  40·9

  40·8

  40·0

  41·4

  42·2

  Over 6 months

  1,696,541

  1,840,157

  1,939,523

  1,960,331

  1,809,307

  1,421,895

  1,098,506

  percentage of total

  56·6

  58·3

  59·1

  59·2

  6·00

  58·6

  57·8

  6–12 months

  599,848

  610,779

  607,263

  606,079

  549,276

  431,006

  345,386

  percentage of total

  2·00

  19·3

  18·5

  18·3

  18·2

  17·8

  18·3

  Over 12 months

  1,096,693

  1,229,378

  1,332,260

  1,354,252

  1,260,030

  990,889

  744,120

  percentage of total

  36·6

  38·9

  40·6

  40·9

  41·8

  40·8

  39·5

  12–24 months

  572,894

  557,781

  538,746

  509,233

  463,082

  329,301

  252,454

  570
  including residents of almshouses, will be provided through rebates of up to 80 per cent. of the community charge plus, where appropriate, an amount included in income support in respect of the remaining 20 per cent.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concering exemption for disabled people from the community charge, also known as the poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: I have received a large number of representations on this subject. People who are severely mentally impaired as defined in schedule 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 are already exempt from the community charge. Others will be liable to pay the community charge, as they now are to pay domestic rates if they are rateable occupiers of domestic properties, and, depending upon their income, would be entitled to rebates. Disabled people with limited means receive particular help under the community charge rebates scheme.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to seek to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. I completed a review of the policy just over two years ago and announced the conclusions on 6 February 1987.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the average number, and (b) the average percentage of the unemployed who have been unemployed for (i) 0-six months, (ii) over six months, (iii) six months to one year, (iv) over one year, (v) one to two years, (vi) over two years, (vii) two to three years, (viii) over three years, (ix) three to four years, (x) over four years, (xi) four to five years, and (xii) over five years, in each year 1979 to 1988 and April 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The information is available from the Library. The table shows, for the United Kingdom, the annual average number of unemployed claimants, and these as a percentage of the total in each duration category requested, for the years 1983 to 1988 and the corresponding information for April 1989. Information for the years 1979 to 1982 is only available at disproportionate cost.
  571

  11983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  April 1989

  percentage of total

  19·1

  17·7

  16·4

  15·4

  15·4

  13·6

  13·4

  Over 24 months

  523,799

  671,596

  793,514

  845,019

  796,948

  661,587

  491,666

  percentage of total

  17·5

  21·3

  24·2

  25·5

  26·4

  27·3

  26·1

  24–36 months

  263,665

  302,447

  299,044

  274,968

  233,989

  181,730

  121·382

  percentage of total

  8·8

  9·6

  9·1

  8·3

  7·8

  7·5

  6·4

  Over 36 months

  260,133

  369,149

  494,469

  570,050

  562,959

  479,857

  370·284

  percentage of total

  8·7

  11·7

  15·1

  17·2

  18·7

  19·8

  19·7

  36–48 months

  143,302

  186,590

  205,688

  194,894

  162,775

  121,320

  89,815

  percentage of total

  4·8

  5·9

  6·3

  5·9

  5·4

  5·0

  4·8

  Over 48 months

  116,831

  182,559

  288,780

  375,156

  400,183

  358,536

  280,469

  percentage of total

  3·9

  5·8

  8·8

  11·3

  13·3

  14·8

  14·9

  48–60 months

  50,940

  92,462

  139,600

  147,500

  128,096

  93,523

  63,862

  percentage of total

  1·7

  2·9

  4·3

  4·5

  4·2

  3·9

  3·4

  Over 60 months

  65,890

  90,097

  149,180

  227,656

  272,087

  265,013

  216,607

  percentage of total

  2·2

  2·9

  4·5

  6·9

  9·0

  10·9

  11·5

  Note: Annual averages are the averages of the four months January, April, July and October. Figures are individually rounded and therefore may not appear to balance.

  1 Average of two months, July and October.

  Employment Schemes
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the monthly statistics since December 1988 for employment training for each standard GB region showing(a) entrants in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in project places at the latest available date, (d) trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (e) for all those trainees who have left the scheme how many found work, failed to attend, went on to another course of training or education, completed the course, left for sickness or went back into umemployment and (f) the total number of currently filled places.

  Table 1

  Employment training entrants—December 1988 to May 1989

  Region

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  Cumulative since 5 September

  South East

  1,700

  2,300

  2,500

  2,100

  2,300

  1,600

  18,000

  London

  2,400

  3,800

  3,400

  3,800

  3,100

  2,600

  27,600

  South West

  1,700

  2,100

  2,500

  2,300

  2,000

  1,700

  17,100

  West Midlands

  3,300

  4,300

  5,000

  4,800

  4,100

  3,200

  34,800

  East Midlands and Eastern

  2,200

  3,000

  3,600

  3,200

  3,100

  2,400

  24,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,400

  5,500

  6,100

  5,400

  4,900

  4,100

  43,300

  North West

  4,100

  5,500

  7,100

  6,500

  5,800

  4,800

  47,300

  Northern

  2,900

  3,600

  4,800

  4,700

  3,800

  3,300

  32,100

  Wales

  2,200

  2,900

  3,600

  3,200

  2,900

  2,300

  23,100

  Scotland

  4,000

  3,700

  5,400

  6,000

  4,400

  4,000

  36,800

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (September-April) (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Region

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic Origin1

  PWD2

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24+

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  South East

  64

  36

  25

  28

  12

  34

  91

  2

  2

  2

  2

  15

  85

  London

  58

  42

  14

  32

  16

  37

  51

  25

  11

  7

  6

  10

  90

  South West

  68

  32

  24

  33

  13

  30

  93

  2

  1

  2

  2

  15

  85

  West Midlands

  68

  32

  17

  27

  13

  42

  79

  9

  8

  2

  2

  12

  88

  East Midlands and Eastern

  72

  28

  12

  34

  14

  39

  88

  4

  5

  1

  2

  14

  86

  Yorks and Humberside

  74

  26

  20

  31

  14

  35

  90

  2

  4

  1

  2

  10

  90

  572
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Information is only available for the eight Training Agency regions in England and for Scotland and Wales. The figures for entrants to employment training are given in table 1. Figures for entrants showing what proportion are men and women, duration of unemployment prior to joining the programme, ethnic background and whether disabled or having a health problem, are given in table 2. Information about trainees entering work placements is not available. The figures for those on project placements are given in table 3. Figures for the number of people who have joined employment training since September and have now left are currently only available for Great Britain as a whole and are estimated; the figures are given in table 4. Information on the breakdowns requested is not available. Information about the number of filled places is given in table 5.
  573

  Region

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic Origin1

  PWD2

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24 +

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  North West

  72

  28

  19

  31

  14

  37

  92

  2

  3

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Northern

  74

  26

  17

  35

  15

  34

  96

  1

  1

  1

  2

  9

  91

  Wales

  71

  29

  19

  36

  14

  31

  95

  1

  1

  1

  3

  11

  89

  Scotland

  73

  27

  12

  32

  17

  39

  96

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Great Britain total

  70

  30

  18

  32

  14

  36

  88

  5

  4

  2

  2

  12

  88

  1 Ethnic origin

  1 — White

  2 — Black/African/Caribbean

  3 — Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4 — None of these

  5 — I prefer not to say

  2 PWD — People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  ֵ = less than 0·5 per cent.

  Table 3

  Employment training in training on project placements—May 1989

  Region

  Number

  South East London

  4,200 8,500

  South West

  5,200

  West Midlands

  13,000

  East Midlands and Eastern

  8,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,700

  North West

  12,900

  Northern

  11,600

  Wales

  6,500

  Scotland

  13,800

  Table 4

  Employment training leavers (estimated)

  Number

  December

  7,000

  January

  11,000

  February

  19,000

  March

  26,000

  April

  23,000

  Cumulative since 5 September

  99,000

  Table 5

  Employment training filled places at 26 May 1989

  Region

  Number

  South East

  10,700

  London

  17,700

  South West

  11,500

  West Midlands

  22,400

  Restart counselling: Numbers referred to menu options

  1Greater London

  2Merseyside

  3Greater Manchester

  4Glasgow

  5Sheffield

  6Birmingham and Solihull

  7Coventry and Warwickshire

  April—June 1988

  (a) Job

  5,506

  2,828

  3,296

  1,487

  904

  1,512

  850

  (b) Restart course

  2,188

  801

  1,385

  669

  219

  776

  113

  (c) ET

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (d) CP

  1,322

  1,189

  1,477

  789

  554

  493

  47

  (e) New JTS

  6,242

  2,642

  4,548

  2,112

  1,707

  2,141

  144

  (f) Jobclub

  9.076

  3,082

  3,837

  2,232

  678

  530

  193

  (g) EAS

  5,049

  1,259

  1,263

  310

  225

  700

  52

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  499

  374

  266

  189

  169

  152

  21

  (i) ERC

  168

  43

  106

  34

  29

  29

  5

  (j) DRO

  2,466

  761

  1,093

  664

  270

  428

  237

  (k) Claimant adviser

  5,815

  2,737

  2,206

  1,135

  698

  1,212

  444

  July—September 1988

  (a) Job

  7,705

  2,754

  3,329

  1,276

  1,216

  1,212

  594

  (b) Restart course

  2,052

  1,073

  1,405

  568

  351

  667

  321

  (c) ET

  5,188

  1,715

  2,527

  1,313

  1,189

  1,152

  758

  574

  Region

  Number

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15,300

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  24,900

  North West

  26,400

  Northern

  21,800

  Wales

  14,500

  Scotland

  22,300

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham and Solihull, Coventry and Warwickshire, and for each of the latest four three monthly periods available, how many unemployed people have been referred to the following outcomes as a result of their restart interviews and, for each of the outcomes, how many people started or attended them(a) referred to a job, (b) allocated to restart courses, (c) referred to ET, (d) referred to community programme, (e) referred to new job training scheme, (f) referred to jobclubs, (g) referred to EAS, (ft) referred to voluntary work/VPP, (i) referred to ERC, (j) referred to a DRO, and (k) referred to a claimant adviser.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the attached table gives the information for the relevant Employment Service areas.

  We do not know how many of those interviewed ultimately end up in a job or other opportunity as a result of the Restart interview.
  575

  1Greater London

  2Merseyside

  3Greater Manchester

  4Glasgow

  5Sheffield

  6Birmingham and Solihull

  7Coventry and Warwickshire

  (d) CP

  639

  879

  846

  204

  302

  216

  387

  (e) New JTS

  5,570

  2,240

  4,310

  1,341

  1,562

  2,023

  1,690

  (0 Jobclub

  8,848

  2,722

  3,592

  1,621

  883

  1,900

  1,286

  (g) EAS

  5,440

  1,305

  1,499

  260

  239

  828

  414

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  545

  302

  161

  96

  109

  92

  218

  (i) ERC

  124

  34

  80

  16

  45

  20

  46

  G) DRO

  2,677

  880

  1,077

  669

  366

  461

  164

  (k) Claimant adviser

  6,085

  3,180

  2,478

  1,049

  878

  1,273

  439

  October—December 1988

  (a) Job

  6,156

  2,466

  2,587

  1,215

  810

  2,634

  505

  (b) Restart course

  1,663

  651

  1,302

  664

  415

  747

  198

  (c) ET

  16,467

  6,586

  6,928

  5,454

  1,354

  4,929

  2,306

  (d) CP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (e) New JTS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (f) Jobclub

  7,943

  2,074

  3,543

  1,949

  717

  1,210

  700

  (g) EAS

  5,085

  1,309

  1,582

  313

  223

  1,036

  238

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (i) ERC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G) DRO

  2,364

  720

  1,114

  741

  306

  511

  118

  (k) Claimant adviser

  5,490

  2,795

  2,462

  1,380

  689

  1,322

  527

  January—March 1989

  (a) Job

  7,766

  2,421

  2,971

  727

  717

  4,727

  756

  (b) Restart course

  1,976

  562

  1,135

  686

  381

  613

  253

  (c) ET

  16,648

  6,936

  6,907

  6,409

  4,662

  5,533

  1,951

  (d) CP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (e) New JTS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (f) Jobclub

  8,617

  2,616

  3,723

  2,504

  726

  1,574

  727

  (g) EAS

  5,570

  1,330

  1,628

  365

  177

  1,289

  244

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (i) ERC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (j) DRO

  2,518

  723

  1,033

  690

  220

  598

  137

  (k) Claimant adviser

  6,629

  2,848

  2,554

  1,510

  716

  1,486

  443

  1 Areas: London SE; Inner London S; Inner London E; Inner London Central; Inner London W; London N; London NW; London E; London S; London SW; London W.

  2 Areas: Liverpool and Wirral; Merseyside N; Merseyside S.

  3 Areas: Manchester City; Manchester NE; Manchester NW; Manchester S; Manchester W.

  4 Areas: Glasgow N; Glasgow S.

  5 Area: Sheffield.

  6 Area: Birmingham (includes Solihull).

  7 Area: Coventry /Warwickshire.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for each of the Training Agency's areas within Greater London, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield, Birmingham and Solihull, Coventry and Warwickshire, what are the monthly statistics for the latest available three months for employment training showing(a) entrants in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the total number of currently filled places, (d) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered employer based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in employer placements at the latest available date, (e) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered project based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in project based placements at the latest available date, (f) trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (g) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many found work, failed to attend, went on to another course of
  576
  training or education, completed the course, left for sickness, or went back into unemployment, (h) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many have obtained a vocational qualification and (i) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many have received a training bonus, giving the average training bonus received.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures for entrants to employment training for each of the last three months are given in table 1. Figures for entrants showing what proportion are men and women, duration of unemployment prior to joining the programme, ethnic background and whether disabled or having a health problem are given in table 2. The number of currently filled places is provided in table 3. Information about trainees entering employer and project placements is not available. The figures for those currently in training on project and employer placements are given in table 4. The numbers of trainees who left the scheme are not available on an area basis. Information on the breakdowns requested and for the number obtaining vocational qualifications is not available. Information on the number of trainees who have left the scheme who have received a training bonus and the average bonus paid is not available.
  577

  Table 1

  Employment training entrants March—May 1989

  Area

  March

  April

  May

  Cumulative since September

  London North

  850

  570

  580

  5,750

  London West

  280

  180

  190

  2,130

  London East

  490

  380

  340

  3,590

  London South

  300

  360

  220

  2,380

  Inner London North

  1,120

  930

  770

  8,780

  Inner London South

  760

  680

  460

  4,990

  Merseyside

  2,030

  1,860

  1,640

  13,810

  Manchester East

  800

  660

  550

  5,160

  Manchester Central

  870

  920

  770

  7,220

  Manchester North

  720

  620

  520

  5,250

  Glasgow

  1,310

  970

  800

  7,410

  Sheffield

  1,340

  1,140

  820

  9,390

  Birmingham and Solihull

  1,580

  1,440

  960

  11,080

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  570

  560

  410

  3,910

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (September-April) (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Area

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic origin1

  PWD

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24 +

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  London North

  54

  46

  19

  31

  16

  35

  45

  26

  14

  7

  8

  10

  90

  London West

  58

  42

  24

  25

  16

  35

  62

  11

  18

  5

  4

  10

  90

  London East

  63

  37

  10

  36

  16

  38

  61

  16

  17

  2

  3

  11

  89

  London South

  57

  43

  20

  29

  15

  37

  67

  16

  8

  4

  5

  12

  88

  In London North

  58

  42

  15

  30

  18

  37

  50

  26

  9

  7

  9

  9

  91

  In London South

  60

  40

  12

  32

  19

  37

  44

  35

  5

  10

  6

  7

  93

  Merseyside

  69

  31

  23

  27

  13

  37

  95

  2

  3

  1

  2

  8

  92

  Manchester East

  68

  32

  23

  31

  13

  33

  94

  1

  3

  1

  1

  11

  89

  Manchester Central

  70

  30

  22

  31

  14

  34

  83

  7

  5

  2

  3

  10

  90

  Manchester North

  66

  34

  25

  30

  14

  31

  91

  1

  5

  1

  2

  9

  91

  Glasgow

  74

  26

  19

  27

  14

  40

  94

  2

  1

  1

  2

  7

  93

  Sheffield

  76

  24

  13

  33

  14

  41

  90

  3

  2

  3

  2

  8

  92

  Birmingham and Solihull

  63

  37

  19

  26

  12

  43

  65

  17

  12

  3

  3

  8

  92

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  65

  35

  20

  25

  13

  42

  82

  5

  8

  3

  2

  13

  87

  1 Ethnic origin: 1—White; 2—Black/African/Caribbean; 3—Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan; 4—None of these; 5—I prefer not to say.

  2 PWD—People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do. Figures to end February.

  3 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Table 3

  Employment training filled places at 26 May 1989

  Area

  Number

  London North

  3,555

  London West

  1,176

  London East

  2,198

  London South

  1,609

  Inner London North

  5,794

  Inner London South

  3,345

  Merseyside

  8,701

  Manchester East

  2,626

  Manchester Central

  4,189

  Manchester North

  2,622

  Glasgow

  4,505

  Sheffield

  5,489

  Birmingham and Solihull

  7,346

  578

  Area

  Number

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  2,662

  Table 4

  Employment training in training on project and employer placements May 1989

  Area

  Project placements

  Employer placements

  London North

  1,460

  1,000

  London West

  220

  290

  London East

  750

  510

  London South

  870

  240

  Inner London North

  3,190

  700

  Inner London South

  2,340

  130

  Merseyside

  4,790

  1,390

  579

  Area

  Project placements

  Employer placements

  Manchester East

  550

  1,420

  Manchester Central

  1,970

  1,220

  Manchester North

  870

  970

  Glasgow

  3,290

  630

  Sheffield

  2,960

  1,100

  Birmingham and Solihull

  4,920

  1,100

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  1,380

  510

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for Great Britain and each standard training agency region, and for each of the latest four three-monthly periods available, how many unemployed

  Restart counselling: Numbers referred to menu options

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  April to June 1988

  (a) Job

  3,687

  4,362

  4,996

  11,659

  2,338

  4,879

  6,970

  9,266

  9,843

  58,000

  (b) Restart course

  2,413

  883

  1,487

  3,683

  1,088

  1,811

  1,964

  3,378

  3,540

  20,247

  (c) ET

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (d) CP

  2,364

  2,131

  1,725

  2,607

  909

  1,663

  2,551

  3,663

  4,074

  31,687

  (e) New JTS

  6,036

  8,267

  6,353

  12,169

  2,861

  4,115

  7,006

  10,642

  8,542

  65,991

  (f) Jobclub

  4,199

  3,788

  4,339

  14,133

  2,347

  3,826

  5,647

  9,938

  9,368

  57,585

  (g) EAS

  795

  1,464

  1,589

  7,456

  1,607

  1,246

  2,331

  3,412

  1,895

  21,795

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  336

  615

  1,010

  1,449

  446

  644

  741

  1,113

  663

  7,017

  (i) ERC

  124

  84

  195

  246

  30

  109

  119

  191

  152

  1,250

  (j) DRO

  1,235

  1,348

  1,144

  4,396

  939

  1,002

  1,872

  2,864

  2,461

  17,261

  (k) Claimant adviser

  2,892

  3,346

  3,223

  10,634

  2,139

  2,459

  4,812

  7,204

  4,395

  41,104

  July to September 1988

  (a) Job

  4,080

  5,121

  5,257

  14,387

  2,135

  5,311

  7,432

  9,321

  8,186

  61,230

  (b) Restart course

  2,141

  1,274

  1,717

  3,271

  1,081

  1,814

  2,032

  3,547

  3,305

  20,182

  (c) ET

  4,144

  5,104

  4,029

  9,632

  1,694

  2,842

  5,212

  6,307

  6,313

  45,277

  (d) CP

  1,755

  1,230

  954

  1,369

  346

  1,139

  1,333

  2,117

  1,709

  11,952

  (e) New JTS

  4,662

  7,230

  5,288

  10,033

  1,961

  3,754

  6,996

  8,976

  6,160

  55,060

  (f) Jobclub

  3,746

  4,114

  4,006

  13,425

  2,048

  3,675

  5,023

  8,928

  7,593

  52,558

  (g) EAS

  996

  1,798

  1,582

  7,987

  1,193

  1,420

  2,775

  3,912

  1,686

  23,349

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  194

  341

  563

  1,124

  219

  456

  412

  700

  365

  4,374

  (i) ERC

  148

  97

  131

  190

  15

  80

  87

  133

  105

  986

  (j) DRO

  1,399

  1,761

  1,278

  4,655

  968

  1,120

  2,261

  3,039

  2,397

  18,878

  (k) Claimant adviser

  3,261

  3,914

  4,038

  11,198

  2,243

  2,855

  5,903

  7,664

  4,931

  46,007

  October to December 1988

  (a) Job

  2,834

  4,179

  5,064

  13,228

  1,758

  3,375

  8,400

  8,184

  6,493

  53,515

  (b) Restart course

  1,405

  1,532

  1,472

  2,765

  1,310

  1,647

  1,890

  2,955

  2,887

  17,863

  (c) ET

  11,034

  14,518

  10,402

  26,940

  5,564

  9,188

  15,748

  18,415

  19,798

  131,607

  (d) CP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (e) New JTS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (f) Jobclub

  3,193

  4,230

  3,961

  26,304

  2,211

  3,451

  4,913

  8,169

  7,776

  50,075

  (g) EAS

  875

  1,749

  1,506

  7,475

  1,393

  1,305

  2,910

  3,822

  1,717

  22,752

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (i) ERC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (j) DRO

  1,199

  1,605

  1,174

  4,332

  1,007

  1,079

  2,129

  2,895

  2,472

  17,892

  (k) Claimant adviser

  2,241

  3,368

  3,529

  9,757

  2,251

  2,504

  5,613

  7,234

  5,505

  42,002

  January to March 1989

  (a) Job

  3,256

  4,193

  5,657

  15,763

  2,016

  3,960

  11,471

  8,391

  7,808

  62,515

  (b) Restart course

  1,475

  1,867

  1,288

  2,983

  1,240

  1,557

  1,738

  2,524

  3,173

  17,845

  (c) ET

  11,173

  13,032

  9,716

  25,445

  5,255

  9,104

  15,595

  18,117

  21,010

  128,627

  (d) CP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (e) New JTS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (f) Jobclub

  4,093

  4,292

  3,948

  12,719

  2,353

  3,711

  5,325

  8,680

  9,769

  54,890

  (g) EAS

  899

  1,613

  1,594

  7,909

  1,272

  1,446

  3,090

  3,828

  1,969

  23,620

  (h) Voluntary work/VPP

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (i) ERC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  (j) DRO

  1,132

  1,499

  1,034

  4,325

  925

  1,065

  2,062

  2,727

  2,428

  17,197

  (k) Claimant adviser

  2,411

  3,171

  3,403

  11,171

  2,104

  2,621

  5,150

  7,004

  5,593

  42,628

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, for Great Britain and each standard training
  580
  people have been referred to the following outcomes as a result of their restart interviews and, for each of the outcomes, how many people started or attended them: (a) referred to a job, (b) allocated to restart courses, (c) referred to ET, (d) referred to community programme, (e) referred to new job training scheme, (f) referred to jobclubs, (g) referred to an EAS, (h) referred to voluntary work/VPP, (i) referred to ERC, (j) referred to a DRO, and (k) referred to a claimant adviser.

  Mr. Lee
  The information as requested is not available. However, information for Great Britain and the relevant employment service regions is given on the attached table.

  We do not know how many of those interviewed ultimately end up in a job or other opportunity as a result of the Restart interview.

  agency region, what are the monthly statistics for the latest available three months for employment training showing

  581
  (a) entrants in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative entrants since the scheme started, (b) a breakdown of entrants which shows how many were male and female, the length of time they had been out of work, their ethnic backgrounds and whether or not they had any disabilities, (c) the total number of currently filled places, (d) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered employer based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in employer placements at the latest available date, (e) the number of trainees in each monthly period who entered project based work placements and the cumulative total of how many are in project based placements at the latest available date, (f) trainees who left the scheme in each monthly period, and the number of cumulative leavers since the scheme started, (g) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many found work, failed to attend, went on to another course oftraining or education, completed the course, left for sickness, or went back into unemployment, (h) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many have obtained

  Table 1

  Employment training entrants1

  Region

  March

  April

  May

  Cumulative (since 5 September)

  South East

  2,100

  2,300

  1,600

  18,000

  London

  3,800

  3,100

  2,600

  27,600

  South West

  2,300

  2,000

  1,700

  17,100

  West Midlands

  4,900

  4,100

  3,200

  34,800

  East Midlands and Eastern

  3,200

  3,100

  2,400

  24,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,400

  4,900

  4,100

  43,300

  North West

  6,500

  5,800

  4,800

  47,300

  Northern

  4,700

  3,800

  3,300

  32,100

  Wales

  3,200

  2,900

  2,300

  23,100

  Scotland

  6,000

  4,400

  4,000

  36,800

  Great Britain total

  42,100

  36,300

  30,000

  304,800

  1 Combined regional figures may not equal Great Britain totals because of rounding.

  Table 2

  Employment training characteristics of entrants (September-April) (all figures are percentages, figures may not total 100 because of rounding)

  Region

  Men

  Women

  Unemployment duration (months)

  Ethnic Origin1

  PWD2

  0–6

  6–12

  13–23

  24+

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Yes

  No

  South East

  64

  36

  25

  28

  12

  34

  91

  2

  2

  2

  2

  15

  85

  London

  58

  42

  14

  32

  16

  37

  51

  25

  11

  7

  6

  10

  90

  South West

  68

  32

  24

  33

  13

  30

  93

  2

  1

  2

  2

  15

  85

  West Midlands

  68

  32

  17

  27

  13

  42

  79

  9

  8

  2

  2

  12

  88

  East Midlands and Eastern

  72

  28

  12

  34

  14

  39

  88

  4

  5

  1

  2

  14

  86

  Yorks and Humberside

  74

  26

  20

  31

  14

  35

  90

  2

  4

  1

  2

  10

  90

  North West

  72

  28

  19

  31

  14

  37

  92

  2

  3

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Northern

  74

  26

  17

  35

  15

  34

  96

  1

  1

  1

  2

  9

  91

  Wales

  71

  29

  19

  36

  14

  31

  95

  1

  1

  1

  3

  11

  89

  Scotland

  73

  27

  12

  32

  17

  39

  96

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1

  2

  11

  89

  Great Britain total

  70

  30

  18

  32

  14

  36

  88

  5

  4

  2

  2

  12

  88

  1 Ethnic origin

  1 — White

  2 — Black/African/Caribbean

  3 — Indian/Pakistan/Bangladeshi/Sri Lankan

  4 — None of these

  5 — I prefer not to say

  2 PWD — People with disabilities. Those trainees answering whether they had a long-term health problem or disability which affected the type of work they could do.

  ֵ = less than 0–5 per cent.
  582
  a vocational qualification and (i) for those trainees who have left the scheme how many have received a training bonus, giving the average training bonus received.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures for entrants to employment training for each of the last three months are given in table 1. Figures for entrants showing what proportion are men and women, duration of unemployment prior to joining the programme, ethnic background and whether disabled or having a health problem are given in table 2. The number of currently filled places is provided in table 3. Information about trainees entering employer and project placements is not available. The figures for those currently in training on project and employer placements are given in table 4. The numbers of trainees who left the scheme are not available on an area basis. Information on the breakdowns requested and for the number obtaining vocational qualifications is not available. Information on the number of trainees who have left the scheme who have received a training bonus and the average bonus paid is not available.
  583

  Table 3

  Employment training filled places at 26 May 1989

  Region

  Number

  South East

  10,700

  London

  17,700

  South West

  11,500

  West Midlands

  22,400

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15,300

  Yorks and Humberside

  24,900

  North West

  26,400

  Northern

  21,800

  Wales

  14,500

  Scotland

  22,300

  Great Britain total

  187,000

  Employment training in training on project and work placements May 1989

  Region

  Project placements

  Work placements

  South East

  4,200

  3,300

  London

  8,500

  3,200

  South West

  5,200

  3,000

  West Midlands

  13,000

  4,500

  East Midlands and Eastern

  8,700

  4,100

  Yorks and Humberside

  12,700

  6,200

  North West

  12,900

  7,400

  Northern

  11,600

  5,200

  Wales

  6,500

  3,900

  Scotland

  13,800

  4,700

  Great Britain

  97,000

  45,000

  Employment training leavers (estimated)

  Number

  February

  19,000

  March

  26,000

  April

  23,000

  Cumulative1

  99,000

  1 Cumulative leavers since September 1988.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Cope
  Twenty two applications for development funding have been received by the national training task force who is reviewing these proposals and will forward its recommendations to me. I will announce which TECs have been awarded development funding shortly after.

  Long-term projects—Details of capital projects costing over £500,000 and reconciliation with the Estimates (Subheads A2, A4, G2)

  £ thousand at 1989–90 prices3

  Current estimate of expenditure

  Project

  Year of start/original estimate of year of completion1

  Current estimate of year of completion

  Original estimate of expenditure2

  Total

  Spent in past years

  Estimates provision for 1980–

  To be spent in future years

  Field systems review Subhead A2

  1988–89/1992–93

  1992–93

  13,850

  13,850

  0

  750

  13,100

  Personnel data processing Subhead A4

  1987–88/1992–92

  1992–93

  937

  937

  0

  521

  416

  Local area network Subhead A4

  1989–90/1995–96

  1995–96

  2,065

  2,065

  0

  265

  1,800

  Total

  1,536

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will report what the Government are doing to help small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government have created an overall economic climate which has helped small firms to flourish and grown. It also supports a wide range of schemes to help new and growing firms gain access to professional advice, to finance and to training. These include the small firms service, the business expansion scheme, the enterprise allowance scheme and the enterprise initiative. In April I announced the extension of the highly successful loan guarantee scheme and I also launched business growth training to help small businesses improve their competitiveness and profits through training.

  The Reserve
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent and for what reasons his Department envisages needing to call on the Reserve over the planning period in Cm. 607; and if the Reserve is likely to be needed to provide for capital spending.

  Mr. Cope
  The Department is likely to call on the Reserve this year to the extent of £580,000 in support of end year flexibility on capital because of slippage.

  Major Capital Projects
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent major new capital projects are separately indentified in departmental booklets: what major new capital projects have been undertaken since Cm. 288; and what costs will arise from them(a) in 1989–90 and (b) in future years.

  Mr. Cope
  Major capital projects are separately indentified in my Department's Supply Estimates published each year. Details of projects costing over £500,000 are contained in table I to Votes 1 and 2 and table 2 to vote 4 in "Supply Estimates 1989–90, Class VII Department of Employment", Her Majesty's Treasury March 1989 (231-VII), copies of which are available in the Library.
  585

  Current estimate of expenditure

  Project

  Year of start/original estimate of year of completion1

  Current estimate of year of completion

  Original estimate of expenditure2

  Total

  Spent in past years

  Estimates provision for 1989–

  To be spent in future years

  Capital works below £500,000

  13,308

  Total subheads A2, A4, G2

  14,844

  1 The dates shown for year of start/completion refer to the main contracts. Only schemes on site during 1989–90 are shown in the table. Schemes which will reach practical completition before the start of 1989–90 or which are due to start on site after 1989–90 are not shown, though there may be expenditure on these schemes in the form of fees, equipment costs, enabling works etc. Expenditure figures shown include preliminary expenditure prior to the main contract and residual expenditure following completion of the work on site.

  2 Based on budget estimates updated to 1989–90 for inflation.

  3 All projected and outturn cash prices have been brought to 1989–90 prices using GDP deflators.

  1989–90, Class VII, Vote 2

  Long-term projects—Details of computer and construction projects costing over £500,000 and reconciliation with the Estimates (subheads D2 and L3)

  £ thousand at 1989–90 prices3

  Current estimates of expenditure

  Project

  Year of start/original estimate of year of completion1

  Current estimate of year of completion

  Original estimate of expenditure2

  Total

  Spent in past years

  Estimates provision for 1989–90

  To be spent in future years

  Refurbishment of Watford HQ—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1987–88/1988–89

  1989–90

  1,979

  2,301

  2,223

  78

  —

  Construction UBO Gt. Yarmouth—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1990–91

  433

  1,196

  614

  562

  20

  Construction UBO Swindon—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1990–91

  1,155

  1,738

  415

  1,082

  241

  Construction UBO Handsworth—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1986–87/1989–90

  1989–90

  1,312

  1,256

  1,248

  8

  —

  Construction UBO Camberwell—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1986–87/1989–90

  1989–90

  2,131

  2,412

  2,074

  338

  —

  Extension and Refurbishment Fulham UBO —Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1987–88/1989–90

  1989–90

  1,357

  1,849

  1,832

  17

  —

  Construction UBO Dartford—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1985–86/1987–88

  1989–90

  1,321

  1,615

  1,442

  173

  —

  Extensions and Refurbishment Exeter UBO— Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1990–91

  709

  1,321

  147

  1,070

  104

  Construction new H.Q. Building Sheffield— Subhead D2(3)(b) and D4

  1988–89/1990–91

  1990–91

  12,600

  12,600

  368

  4,200

  8,032

  Additional Mainframe Peripherals and Resilience Programme—Subhead L(3)(1)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1990–91

  2,835

  2,835

  840

  1,050

  945

  Refurbishment Nottingham RO—Subhead D2(3)(b)

  1987–88/1988–89

  1989–90

  597

  712

  693

  19

  Extension and alterations Yeovil UBO— Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1990–91

  394

  858

  436

  395

  27

  Construction UBO Kidderminster—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1985–86/1987–88

  1989–90

  506

  694

  685

  9

  —

  Construction UBO Willenhall—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1986–87/1988–89

  1989–90

  602

  564

  543

  21

  —

  Construction Failsworth UBO—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1991–92

  708

  708

  57

  187

  464

  Extension Bedminster UBO—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1987–88/1988–89

  1990–91

  394

  532

  431

  96

  5

  Extension and Refurbishment Selly Oak UBO—Subhead D2(3)(a)

  1988–89/1988–89

  1989–90

  1,666

  861

  81

  780

  —

  Runcorn Services—Subhead L(3)(1)

  1987–88/1988–89

  1989–90

  755

  872

  857

  15

  —

  Computer Page Printing System Runcorn— Subhead L(3)(1)

  1989–90/1989–90

  1989–90

  630

  630

  —

  630

  —

  Supervacs—Subhead D2(l)(b)

  1988–89/1989–90

  1989–90

  1,909

  2,364

  1,276

  888

  —

  Total

  11,618

  Capital Works below £500,000

  70,050

  Total Subheads D2, L3

  81,668

  1 The dates shown for year of start/completion refer to the main contracts. Only schemes on site during 1989–90 are shown in the table. Schemes which will reach practical completion before the start of 1989–90 or which are due to start on site after 1989–90 are not shown, though there may be expenditure on these schemes in the form of fees, equipment costs, enabling works etc. Expenditure figures shown include preliminary expenditure prior to the main contract and residual expenditure following completion of the work on site.

  2 Based on budget estimates updated to 1989–90 for inflation.

  3 All projected and outturn cash prices have been brought to 1989–90 prices using GDP deflators.

  586 587
  Comparing the above projects with previous years' Estimates tables the trend is:—

  Long term projects—Details of capital projects costing over £500,000 and reconciliation with the Estimates (Subhead C)

  £ thousand at 1989£90 prices3

  Current estimate of expenditure

  Project

  Year of start/original estimate of year of completion1

  Current estimate of year of completion

  Original estimate of expenditure2

  Total

  Spent in past years

  Estimates provision for 1989–90

  To be spent in future years

  Office conversion and construction of new laboratory (Subhead C)

  Works in progress 1 April 1989

  London HQ office conversion

  1987–88/1990–91

  1990–91

  1,710

  1,710

  878

  780

  52

  Sheffield Laboratory

  1987–88/1993–94

  1993–94

  12,519

  12,519

  599

  967

  10,953

  Building projects total (A)

  14,229

  14,229

  1,477

  1,747

  11,005

  Other works costing up to £500,000 total (B)

  —

  —

  —

  634

  —

  Total (A & B) Subhead C

  —

  —

  2,381

  —

  1 The dates shown for year of start/completion refer to the main contracts. Only schemes on site during 1989–90 are shown in the table. Schemes which will reach practical completion before the start of 1989–90 or which are due to start on site after 1989–90 are not shown, though there may be expenditure on these schemes in the form of fees, equipment costs, enabling works etc. Expenditure figures shown include preliminary expenditure prior to the main contract and residual expenditure following completion of the work on site.

  2 Based on budget estimates updated to 1989–90 for inflation.

  3 All projected and outturn cash prices have been brought to 1989–90 prices using GDP deflators.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the categories of information held by his Department that will be available for use by community charge registration officers.

  Mr. Cope
  Unemployment benefit offices are required to disclose details of the name and address of any person or their partner, aged 18 or over, to a registration officer for a charging authority. This information may only be disclosed if

  (i) at any time between 22 May 1989 and 31 March 1990 a person is in receipt of income support but is not receiving housing benefit; and

  (ii) from April 1990 where a person is awarded income support but has not made a claim for community charge benefits.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received a copy of the comparative training of clothing workers in Britain and West Germany by the National Insitute of Economic and Social Research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department has received a copy of the National Institute Economic Review (No. 125, May 1989) in which the article "Productivity, Machinery and Skills: Clothing Manufacture in Britain and Germany" appears.

  The article points to long standing differences between the training arrangements adopted in Britain and Germany and warrants careful consideration by the industry. In doing so they will be aware of the considerable progress made in recent years, notably through the introduction of two-year YTS and the "Clothing Skill Awards" accredited by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications in 1988.
  588

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Percentage of projects with later completion dates than original

  —

  83

  75

  Percentage of projects with higher current estimate of expenditure than original

  —

  —

  60

  YTs (Teachers)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many teachers are involved in full-time YTS and in what capacities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no statistics on the full-time involvement of teachers in YTS. Scheme staff frequently have teaching qualifications, and teachers are often employed in delivery of off-the-job training.

  To promote closer co-operation and understanding between teachers and trainers, the Training Agency has run two successful pilot schemes under which 78 teachers were seconded to YTS managing agents for periods of up to 16 weeks. Consideration is being given to the introduction of a national scheme of short duration secondments.

  Rexo (Member's Letter)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why it took from 11 April to 30 May for his Department to decide that a letter from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw regarding redundancy payments at Rexo was the responsibility of the Department of Energy.

  Mr. Cope
  The hon. Member's letter was received by my Department on 19 April. My Department considered that the issue was the responsibility of the Department of Energy and the letter was forwarded to them on 21 April. Subsequently checks showed that the letter had been lost in transit. Action was taken immediately to despatch a further copy. I apologise for the delay.

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the change in the expenditure plans for his Department for 1989–90 from the 1988–89 estimated outturn will be(a) in percentage terms and (b) after adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator.
  590
  Mr. Cope
  The expenditure plans for my Department for 1989–90 are 2·3 per cent. higher than the 1988–89 estimated outturn. After adjustment for the gross domestic product deflator, the expenditure plans for 1989–90 are £85 million 2·6 per cent. below the 1988–89 estimated outturn.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

National Drinkwise Day
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they propose to contribute towards the success of national drinkwise day on 20th June.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are providing wholehearted support for national drinkwise day. My right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, who chairs the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, is to launch the event nationally on 20th June. Most of the departmental Ministers represented on the group plan to participate in various local drinkwise events on or around 20th June.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that the Government are now making an effort to help with the problems of alcohol abuse. Will he say something about low-alcohol or alcohol-free beers? There seems to be some confusion in the minds of the public about where low-alcohol beers can be bought. There is a complex legal position as regards the drinking of low-alcohol beers. Will he explain that point in simple terms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can explain it in simple terms. There is a legal anomaly which was discussed last year on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Existing legislation defines intoxicating liquor—that is, that which needs to be sold with a licence—in terms of the highest level of alcohol that was ever in the liquor. Some low-alcohol beers are brewed up and then the alcohol is removed; some are always brewed below the 1·2 per cent., which is the level for intoxicating liquor. Therefore, some low-alcohol beers can be sold in unlicensed premises and some cannot. I hope that that reply is helpful.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what is meant by drinkwise day which is in the minds of a number of people? Is it suggested that Tuesday, 20th June, the first day of Royal Ascot, should be a day that is dry?
Lord Henley: My Lords, drinkwise day is not about going completely dry. I hope that I shall be able to attend part of the Royal Ascot meeting. The day is about promoting sensible drinking nationwide. It is a chance for the public to look at their drinking habits, consider healthy drinking choices and be a better judge of their alcohol consumption. Looking and feeling fitter, being in control and enjoying life through sensible drinking lie at the heart of the campaign.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much we appreciate the Government's, active role in connection with the campaign and Alcohol Concern. Bearing in mind what seems to be a national problem, demonstrated by all types of drink-related violence—I am also thinking about the next debate and about what sometimes goes on at football grounds—committed by young people, has any research been done into why young people seem to think that there is something "macho" about getting drunk?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I can help the noble Lord on that wider philosophical question. It is something that has been considered by my colleagues who are members of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. I shall ensure that a copy of its first annual report is placed in the Library. If the noble Lord cares to examine it he will find a long list of actions that the ministerial group propose should be taken to deal with the problem.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that for those who, for some reason or another, wish to take a soft drink or a mineral water, some of the prices charged in public houses or restaurants are frankly ludicrous? I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that in London one can be charged as much as £5 in a restaurant for a bottle of mineral water. Can the Government bring some pressure to bear so that we can get some sense in that area?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question; but I accept that £5 seems to be rather a lot of money. I suggest that the noble Viscount tries another restaurant where he might find it cheaper.

Construction Industry: Value of Orders
11.11 a.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the value of orders received by contractors for new construction work in Great Britain during 1988.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the value of orders received by contractors for new construction work in Great Britain in 1988 was £20·6 billion in constant 1985 prices.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Will he say something about the geographical spread of construction orders North and South? I do not have an interest to declare. I ask the question because the North-East of England is my old family homeland. I also spent five years as an employee of the Mowlem Group and was later on the staff of the architects' department at County Hall across the river.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the construction industry in respect of the North of England, as I believe he is, the latest state of trade inquiry conducted among firms by

1643
the Building Employers' Confederation reports an increase of full-capacity working principally among firms in northern England and in Scotland.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how the figure of some £20 million plus which he quoted is split between industrial and business construction, and domestic housing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figure which I quoted was £20·6 billion. Of that £7·8 billion represents new housing; £3·1 billion, industrial premises; £4·5 billion, offices; £2·058 billion, shops; and £1·3 billion, entertainment construction.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the high figure he gives of activity in the building sector as a whole is to be welcomed? Long may that activity continue, despite the high bank rate. Does the Minister not agree that the figures compare favourably with the first quarter of last year? However, there is a diminution in house building of approximately 20 per cent. in total affecting both the private and public sectors. Does the Minister not think, in view of the debate which took place in your Lordships' House last week, that this is an undesirable trend? Will he seek to influence his colleagues in another place to reverse it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that the building industry has far more to fear from a re-emergence of inflation than from the possibility of high interest rates which may have reduced housing demand in the south-east of England.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, recognising that the construction industry is probably the finest barometer of the nation's economy and how well we are doing as a country, last year's figures are without doubt very good indeed. Does the Minister see the same trend this year? Is there a downfall? If so, why?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we believe that there is not a "downfall", to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. Yesterday I saw—as perhaps he did—the annual report of British Steel which is an indicator in itself because it supplies so much to the construction industry. According to the report, the prospects for 1989 looked pretty promising.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind the House how these very encouraging and interesting figures compare with the road construction totals? Does he have the figures available?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in 1988 road construction expenditure was £1·03 billion.

Ivory: Import Ban
11.15 a.m.
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the ban on the import of ivory will take effect.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the ban on the import of ivory into the United Kingdom came into effect on 9th June.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does that cover worked and raw ivory?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, it does.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am sure that we all congratulate the noble Earl on the initiative which he took when he was in Kenya. When he was there was he able to say to the Kenyan and Tanzanian Governments that we should be able to give special help to them in order to stop the poaching on the ground and the killing of the elephants? Secondly, if those governments ask for financial help in order to employ more game wardens and stop the poaching, will Her Majesty's Government give a favourable answer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we already give considerable support to Kenya. We have three expatriate staff in the wildlife department. We also provide spares for vehicles and radios and other equipment. I asked Mr. Leakey, who has taken over the department, if he wanted any further vehicles or spares, would he please bear Britain in mind? We should consider any request that was made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House wish to acknowledge the splendid work that he has achieved in seeking and imposing the ban on the import of ivory into this country?
However, does he also understand this? He would have the full support of the whole House—in fact, the whole country—if it were possible for him to say a little more today about the measures the Government have in mind to try to achieve a ban on the export of ivory from those countries in which these wonderful creatures are gravely at risk.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is very difficult to influence from this country the export of whatever product it may be from other countries. It requires the world to say, "We don't want to import ivory any more". I am sure that your Lordships have read, in the press today, as I have done—and I am waiting for clarification—that Japan has banned the import of worked ivory and raw ivory which does not come direct from the African producer countries. So already the action which we have taken has had effect elsewhere.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I suppose that means Japan can import from Hong Kong. Can the noble Earl say anything about Hong Kong or India?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is the matter on which I am waiting for clarification. Certainly if what I read in the press is right, Japan bans the import of raw ivory other than from a producer country. I do not believe that there are African elephants alive in Hong Kong, so there would be an

1645
effect on the Hong Kong market. As I understand it, the latest position on Hong Kong is that they support us in the transfer on the CITES list of the reference to the African elephant from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1, provided that the trade in existing legal stocks continues to be permitted.

EC: Aids to Shipping Lines
11.18 a.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the withdrawal by all European Community member states of discriminatory assistance given to their merchant shipping industry.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the admissibility or otherwise of state aids to shipping lines of member states is now the subject of proposals by the European Commission and we are studying these carefully. The Government's objective is to secure open, competitive and non-subsidised shipping markets and to oppose discriminatory assistance.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that encouraging reply. However, may I follow it up with two questions? Has the noble Viscount seen the document issued as recently as May this year by the General Council of British Shipping? That sets out all the fiscal advantages and the amount of discrimination practised by a number of Community states. Does he realise that British shipping does not want retaliatory measures? What they want is, as the document says, a level playing field for merchant shipping. Can there be some assurance that this will be secured in time for the single market?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have indeed seen that document, and I can tell the noble Lord that it does not make economic sense for the UK Government to match the subsidy policies of others. The Playing Field—I believe that is the title of the document—needs to be levelled down, not up. The Commission's proposals for the second stage of the Community's shipping policy were made on 5th June. We are studying these carefully. However, we support the proposed opening up of the cabotage markets. As I said in my original Answer, we endorse the need to tackle the state aids question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not an extremely sad matter that the British Merchant Navy, which was until fairly recently the greatest the world has ever seen, has been allowed to decline to a pathetic level? Will the Minister take account of what my noble friend Lord Underhill has said about the assistance which is given by our partners in the Community to their shipping industries? I mention the example of assistance by way of large investment subsidies. Will the Government not be a little more constructive and forthcoming and enter into talks with our partners in the Community to see whether some better solution can be found and a little more encouragement given to the British sailor and to our Merchant Navy?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can paint a slightly different picture to the one that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has painted. It is wrong to suggest that either European or British shipping is not a potent force in world shipping. The rate of decline of the UK fleet has decreased. British flag tonnage, including dependent territories, is some 35 million tonnes. That is the fifth largest in the world. European-owned shipping represents some 25 per cent. of world shipping, and under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 we are providing assistance towards training Merchant Navy officers amounting to £3·5 million a year. We are also assisting with crew travel costs of £5 million a year. A Merchant Navy reserve of seafarers to serve on merchant vessels in time of war was inaugurated in May 1989. The intake of new officer cadets nearly doubled to 279 in the 1988–89 academic year, helped by government funding. I think that the noble Lord will be pleased to hear those figures.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that merely to say that the rate of decline has reduced is not particularly encouraging to those of us who greatly care about the decline in British shipping? Are the Government prepared to take really determined action against the various subsidies which our friends in Europe and elsewhere give to their merchant shipping? I believe that that is the major cause of the relative and absolute decline in our shipping.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that new orders by the UK shipping industry in 1988 were 66 per cent. higher than for 1987.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that we cannot take any satisfaction from the fact that the steep decline of the past 30 years has just slowed down a little? Does he not agree that the major trouble comes not from within Europe but from outside it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only say to my noble friend that I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
11.23 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert "but that this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have decided to proceed further with the Bill, in particular Part I, in advance of any report from the judicial inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster being conducted by Lord Justice Taylor".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, "What a Difference a Day Makes" is the title of a popular

1647
song of yesteryear. There can be no more fitting epitaph for our debate today. That day is Saturday 15th April 1989. As we concluded the Report stage of the Bill in early April we expected to move to the Third Reading and to a vigorous series of debates on a range of fiercely contested issues. However, that is no longer the case.
The events of Hillsborough on that dreadful day in April cast shadows far and wide and into the hearts and minds of the whole nation. To seek to progress this Bill in the midst of such awful, horrific and unbearable tragedy for the bereaved, the injured, the emotionally damaged, the clubs, the players and the cities of Sheffield and Liverpool seems to me to be an act of unspeakable obscenity. To intrude Parliament and Parliamentarians into such enormous, unbearable grief is an exercise of monumental insensitivity. To do so demands an imperative of overriding priority. It demands progress with this Bill at a time when the evidence of what happened on that awful day has still to be gathered, let alone evaluated. It places a priority on speed before all else.
There is much common ground on Part II of the Bill, which deals with hooligans abroad. Whether Part I is the best way to deal with hooligans at home is, and will be, the continuing subject of bitter divisions. If the real debate is renewed before we have the views or even the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor, it will be an exercise in futility. Any debate without the views of Lord Justice Taylor will be held in a vacuum and will have to be repeated. That need not be the case. The intention of the Government to have a Bill in place for spring 1990 can still be met, whether or not the report of Lord Justice Taylor is received in time for this Session. I will explain to the House how that can be done and why it should be done.
This debate should have nothing to do with the ramifications of the Bill. However, it must have everything to do with getting the matter right, rather than achieving a result now. That terrible day and the subsequent inquiry of Lord Justice Taylor represent for the Government, Parliament and the people perhaps the last chance to reshape football in the way that we want it to be established for the 1990s and beyond. The Minister has brought forward amendments pursuant to undertakings given. I acknowledge that. I have put down but one amendment to a government amendment.
There are important players in this drama, for drama it undoubtedly is. We have heard three voices, all of which are of great significance for they illuminate more brightly than any words of mine both the attitude and the rationale of this Bill in the eyes of the Government. As is fitting, the first voice I ask noble Lords to listen to is that of the Prime Minister, who spoke in another place immediately after announcing the inquiry of Lord Justice Taylor. She said that to refuse to pass the Bill this Session would be a very grave decision for this House. Thus we are left in no doubt that for the Prime Minister the crucial issue is that of passing legislation this Session.
The Minister for Sport, Mr. Colin Moynihan, in a broadcast on "The World Tonight" on 20th April was asked what would happen if the Taylor inquiry opposed the idea of bringing in compulsory identity cards for football spectators. His reply is at the heart of the approach of the Government to the Taylor report. The Minister said:
"I think it is inconceivable that he will say that … We will not implement a national membership scheme until we are totally satisfied the technology exists so there will not be a build-up of crowds outside the ground. That technology does exist. There will be no delays".
Before Hillsborough, and more than two months before the Minister said that there would be no build-up and no delays as the technology was in place, Arthur Young, the management consultants, had presented the Football League and the Minister with its report on the precise circumstances to which the Minister said he had the answer. Arthur Young took as its example the Arsenal ground and an Arsenal match with Manchester United which took place mid-week in November 1988. The final attendance at that match was a capacity crowd of 54,029, with between 3,000 to 5,000 spectators locked outside. Arthur Young made a series of assessments, but its main conclusion was that:
"Any delay caused by membership cards may increase queueing time substantially and many people may not be admitted until well after the scheduled kick-off time. The extra time required to admit everyone would increase between 16 and 48 minutes".
To be responsible for such a Bill with such danger and so graphic a warning of the consequences before us is too great a responsibility to contemplate. However, that need not be the case. It is when I reflect on the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, that I feel the greatest unease about whether the report of Lord Justice Taylor will be given proper weight by the Government.
I first remind the House of what Mr. Ridley said when he produced the current plan to proceed with the Bill at a pace which would take into account any relevant recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor. Frances Coverdale interviewed him for the Radio 4 "PM" programme on 20th April. She put it to him that:
"It is conceivable that Lord Justice Taylor will come out at the end of his investigations and say that there should not be identity cards for fans, that it would have caused more problems and the effect of it could probably be to lead to a greater crush outside a football ground. That is the argument".
To which Mr. Ridley replied:
"Yes, it could indeed".
Frances Coverdale then said:
"But if Lord Justice Taylor came out against this measure would you still go ahead with it if that was the case?"
Mr. Ridley said:
"That's a hypothetical question. Let's see what happens. I think it is for the Government to decide what it proposes to Parliament, not for the people who conduct inquiries into disasters to have the last say".
He also said that Lord Justice Taylor can only advise:
"We may not accept his advice, but at least let's hear it".
Now we have it. The Government will at least hear what Lord Justice Taylor has to say.
I remind the House that Ministers have indicated a government timetable. It was aimed at clearing
parliamentary hurdles this Session and carrying out testing and experiments in time to have the scheme in place by the spring of 1990. That target can still be attained. An all-party agreement could give the Government Part II of the Bill almost on the nod. The crux of the dilemma is when Lord Justice Taylor presents his preliminary findings. Whether they impinge on this Bill or not, we are told that if he does so in time for the Government to take them into account, a restructured Part I will be put before the Commons, will come to this House and will be promulgated this Session.
If Lord Justice Taylor does not present his preliminary findings in time, there must be no cut-off date, no point of no return. It would be intolerable if he felt in any way that to meet a parliamentary timetable to suit a political imperative he was under pressure to report in haste. If that point of no return and no report is reached there should be no Part I this Session.
Who would be the losers? Do the Government believe that the world of football is standing still, paralysed, waiting either for Ridley or Moynihan? All within football recognise that the next period, perhaps the next 12 months, is make or break time. Is it not better to give Lord Justice Taylor a higher worth than Ministers and to defer this Bill to next Session, with an urgent priority to receive Royal Assent for spring 1990, when it reflects fully the lessons of Hillsborough? That would be the fallback position if Lord Justice Taylor reported later rather than sooner.
Perhaps I may conclude with sadnesss in my thoughts but with hope in my heart. I know full well how determined the Government are to promulgate their preferred solution with this identity card Bill. They may well be right. I happen not to think so. But to proceed with the Bill before being able to analyse and evaluate the report from Lord Justice Taylor is surely to make a travesty of a tribunal and a mockery of parliamentary responsibility.
I want this Bill out of your Lordships' House and on to the Cabinet table. If your Lordships share my revulsion that the nation and Parliament will be plunged into an acrimonious, heart-tearing, soul-searching, bloody inquest on Hillsborough and beyond, before as well as after Taylor, you will properly and seriously request the Government to defer progress on the Bill until after the report. Nothing will be lost by supporting that request. I happen to believe that there are millions of men, women and, yes, children who, after Hillsborough, expect nothing less from your Lordships' House today. I beg to move.
Moved, As an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert "but that this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have decided to proceed further with the Bill, in particular Part I, in advance of any report from the judicial inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster being conducted by Lord Justice Taylor".—(Lord Graham of Edmonton-)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The original Question was that this Bill be now read a
1650
third time, since when an amendment has been moved, at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question now is that this amendment be agreed to.
11.24 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is now more than two months since we last debated this Bill. Two days after our second day on Report came the terrible disaster at the Hillsborough stadium, on 15th April. The Prime Minister and other members of the Government have expressed their deepest sympathy for those who were bereaved or themselves injured on that terrible day. I should like to add my own personal sympathy to those concerned. It is with no political point in mind that I say that this is the most recent and most serious in a line of tragedies that have scarred British football since the Second World War. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House share my profound hope that this disaster will be the last in that line.
I should also like to say something, before I move on to the Bill itself, about the reaction of the people of Liverpool to the disaster. I think that the whole country was deeply impressed with the way in which the city of Liverpool came together following the disaster. We were all moved by the remarkable floral tributes that covered the Anfield stadium and by the memorial services held to commemorate those who died. It is a measure of the impression that Liverpool's response made upon the rest of our country that the disaster fund for those bereaved and injured now exceeds £6 million though of course no amount of money will ever provide true compensation.
We cannot fail to be aware of that tragic background to our debate today. Immediately after the disaster, the Home Secretary asked Lord Justice Taylor to conduct a public inquiry into what happened. His terms of reference are:
"To inquire into the events of Sheffield Wednesday football ground on 15th April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds".
It would be quite wrong for me today to anticipate Lord Justice Taylor's findings on the causes of the Hillsborough disaster. The Government believed before Hillsborough that the Football Spectators Bill was necessary and we believe that it is still necessary, to deal with the continuing problem of football hooliganism, though we have no wish to draw a link between hooliganism and the disaster at Hillsborough.
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Graham, speak about the Government's decision to proceed with the Bill now, and I shall explain our reasons for doing so. I hope to draw the noble Lords' attention to the amendments which we have proposed to provide not one but two opportunities for Parliament to debate the national membership scheme following Lord Justice Taylor's final report. The Opposition's reasoned amendment was put down before the Government's amendments providing for those two further debates were tabled and I shall argue that it has been overtaken by them.
As your Lordships know, we felt it right to pause for a time in the passage of the Football Spectators

1651
Bill following Hillsborough. I am afraid that events since the disaster have only served to confirm the vital need for both parts of the Bill. Only one week after the Hillsborough disaster, on 22nd April, there were 24 arrests at West Ham and 94 at Chelsea. Three weeks later, the last Saturday of the Football League season was marred by a number of serious incidents both inside and outside football grounds.
The most serious trouble on 13th May was a pitch invasion at Crystal Palace by Birmingham City supporters in which 16 people were injured, two of them with stab wounds. At Bristol City's match with Sheffield United fighting between rival groups of supporters spilled on to the pitch and held up the game. There were several other outbreaks of fighting between football supporters in places as far removed as the Toddington service station on the M.1 and Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire.
In the face of continuing problems of this kind it would be irresponsible for the Government to postpone Part I of the Bill. When Part I becomes law all those convicted of a relevant offence, whether it is inside a football ground or on the way to or from a match, will be automatically disqualified from membership of the scheme. Of course, I must not pass judgment on those who were arrested on 13th May but, if those arrests lead to convictions, then I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree that it would be desirable that the people concerned should be banned from football matches.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question on that point. As he rightly said, we must not anticipate a decision by the courts. However, is he aware that the courts already have the power to disqualify people from attending football matches?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am, but I think that we shall get very bogged down in the debate if we do not try to follow an element of procedure. I am hoping that, with the leave of the House, I shall be able to answer questions on the reasoned amendment at the end of the debate.
The trouble surrounding the Scotland-England Match on 27th May was further evidence of the need for both Parts I and II of the Bill. I am afraid that it is clear that a number of English hooligans went to Glasgow not only to watch a football match but to find a fight as well. If the Football Spectators Bill had been law, restriction orders imposed under Part II of the Bill would have kept some of those hooligans at home. At least as important, it would have been open to the Scottish authorities to refuse to sell tickets to the match to English supporters who were not members of the national membership scheme and any member of the national membership scheme convicted of causing trouble at Hampden Park, or on their way there, could have their membership withdrawn.
The problem of football hooliganism is one that we have had to face since the Hillsborough disaster just as we did before. The need for measures to deal with it has, if anything, become more pressing and
1652
we believe that it would be quite wrong to postpone for yet another year taking the powers to put those measures in place. It is already three and a half years since Mr. Justice Popplewell reported. That is why we now propose to proceed with both Parts I and II of the Bill. At the same time, I invite your Lordships to recall that Part I of the Bill does not itself implement the national membership scheme. It provides a framework within which the Football Membership Authority will draw up the scheme.
We recognise that Lord Justice Taylor may have comments to make which will be relevant to the national membership scheme and of which Parliament would wish to be aware before any final decisions are made on the implementation of the scheme. The amendments that we have tabled for your Lordships to consider today would allow two opportunities for Parliament to debate the scheme after we have seen Lord Justice Taylor's final report. I must emphasise that proceeding with the Bill will enable us to create the framework for the scheme: the scheme itself will come later.
The amendments to Clauses 1 and 4 provide at the Bill's report stage the opportunity for parliamentary approval which I promised to consider. Their effect is that the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme submitted to him by the Football Membership Authority will itself be the subject of parliamentary approval and we shall arrange that this House, as well as the other House, will have an opportunity to vote upon it.
The amendments to Clause 24 add another, and prior, stage of parliamentary approval. No element of Part I of the Bill will come into force without a commencement order and the first commencement order, which will bring most of Part I into force, will require a negative resolution statutory instrument. The effect will be that the Secretary of State's appointment of the Football Membership Authority, under Clause 3, and the requirement on the FMA to submit the scheme for approval, under Clause 4, will not be activated until Parliament has debated and approved the relevant commencement order.
Parliament will therefore, following Lord Justice Taylor's final report, have opportunities to debate the scheme both before the FMA is appointed and after it has submitted a scheme for approval. The Government will, of course, ensure through the usual channels that opportunities for those debates are provided in both Houses. As I have said, we shall also provide an opportunity for a vote in this House when the order confirming the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme is debated.
The Bill will provide the framework, but there will be no question of putting the national membership scheme into place without full parliamentary consideration in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report. That will mean that we can go ahead with the scheme rapidly if Parliament is content to do so following Lord Justice Taylor's report. Not only is that a very much better approach than the idea of withdrawing Part I of the Bill and starting again, as implied by the reasoned amendment; it overtakes the need for it.

1653
I think this is the best way to deal with the position that we are now in. The case for both Parts I and II of the Bill is as strong as it ever was. Sadly, football hooliganism is only too obviously still with us. The Bill has been clarified in a number of useful respects during its passage through your Lordships' House. It would be quite wrong to throw away the progress that we have made and to delay for another year providing the framework that the Bill proposes.
At the same time, it is entirely right that Parliament should have the chance to take a further view on the national scheme in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's report, before the framework is filled in and the scheme implemented. The amendments that we are to discuss shortly will provide not one but two such opportunities. They take away the substance of the argument behind the Opposition's reasoned amendment and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw his amendment.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I do not think that anyone in the House can quarrel with the statement that has just been made. I think that it is very co-operative, friendly and decent. It is a great pity that that attitude did not prevail earlier when we had our debates on the proposals in the Bill. If it had, I do not think that we should now be in the position of putting down amendments.
Perhaps I may just put this comment to the noble Lord. Yesterday was a bad day for the Conservative Party. There cannot be any doubt about that. It lost two by-elections and, if the polls and the BBC arguments are right, it has done very badly in the European elections. I ask the party opposite, why? I have some experience of these matters. I was involved in party politics for many years. I have seen governments come and I have seen them go. But the Government must ask themselves, why?
I shall tell the noble Lord why this has happened, at least in my view. I believe that it is because, in mid-term, as we are now, the Government have lost their way. They have lost the art of public relations. If they have any decent ideas, they do not seem to put them over very well. They always put them too late and they always argue them rather badly. At least, that is how it seems to me, looking on.
Let us take the Bill. No one, but no one, can quarrel with the Government's intentions. They are honourable. They seek to deal with football hooliganism. No one on this side of the House can quarrel with that. However, the problem is whether the methods that they adopt are right. Here I come back to my argument about PR. Why do the Government not listen? I think that they have at long last started to do so. Why do they not listen to people who have spent their lives in football, the world of industry and the rest? Why do they not just listen now and again and not assume that, because they have a point of view, it must necessarily be right and be shoved down everyone's throat? That is the wrong way to approach the matter.
If we start from the basis, as we do, that both the Government and many on this side of the House—indeed, I think all on this side—are agreed
1654
that hooliganism must go, we must decide how best to deal with the problem. That is the key. It is as simple as that. There are no party politics in it. It does not matter whether one is Labour or Tory. It is a question of how we make the spoil a bit cleaner, given the thugs and the handful—the tiny handful—who spoil everything for decent people.
I speak with a little knowledge of the matter becuase I am associated with Millwall. I suppose that that is a bad enough advert for anyone. Millwall Football Club has been well known down the years for its handful of thugs who have destroyed the peace of mind of many decent people. No club has tried harder than Millwall to eradicate that problem.
Why is it, then, that under the scheme proposed by the Government, which is a national identity scheme, everyone has to have a ticket whether they like it or not? Why is it that many football clubs say that the scheme will not be workable? It is not because they are Labour. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that I happen to know that the top management in Millwall is certainly not Labour. 'Strewth—one has only to listen to some of them! Why do the Government not listen to friends? But no, they know so much; they know everything. Who knows everything? Who is it in government and in the Minister's own department who knows everything that goes on in football? It is a funny old world, isn't it? My knowledge of the department concerned—and I know it fairly well—is that the people there are as thick as a plank. They are just efficient doing a certain job and doing what they are told to do, but, as for ideas, I do not remember that department being brilliant. I cannot imagine how it was that the scheme came out. I can see why they started it and why the clubs were given the chance to analyse it. After the analysis, they have decided that it is not workable.
I must say that I found the noble Lord's speech very impressive; I do not deny that. But he has in effect said to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton that the Government are bringing in amendments that achieve everything that the reasoned amendment is trying to introduce. That is my view. That is what he said and I understand from him that no scheme of any kind will be introduced until Lord Justice Taylor's report has been received and both Houses have had a chance to discuss it. Until then nothing will be done. The scheme will be on the Statute Book—I assume that the Government's majority will ensure that—but its implementation will not take place unless and until both Houses of Parliament have had a chance to discuss it. If I am wrong about that, perhaps the Minister will get to his feet and say so. I see that he does not, which means that I am not wrong. I am right and that is quite an achievement—actually to be right in this place!
Therefore I ask my noble friend Lord Graham, "How far do you want to go?" It may be a matter of words but it is also a question of intention. As regards the original scheme, I have done a little research on my own account. I went to a number of banks—not because I am in debt, I may add. I went to talk to people who had some experience of dealing with plastic discs. I was told by one bank which is

1655
very popular in south London that on average between 10 and 15 people a day go to it because they have trouble when they put their discs through the cash banking facilities which are available outside the bank. So 15 to 20 people have trouble with their discs with that one bank every day.
I should like to give the Minister an illustration of what might happen at football matches. Let us suppose that Millwall, which is one club that I can speak of with knowledge, are playing a very important match—let us say it is playing Arsenal, and just imagine that!—so hundreds of supporters are queing up outside the ground and trying to get in with their discs. These people are ordinary, decent people—registered supporters who comply with the regulations of the Government; we have no truck with the spiv. Let us suppose that they arrive at the gate, put in the disc and the system does not work because something has gone wrong. The people argue, and when Millwall fans argue they really do have a go. They will say to the attendant at the turnstile, "Oi! This won't do—my card's all right". The turnstile attendant replies, "I am sorry but this doesn't work and you can't go in". Naturally there is a row; that is understandable. One can imagine the remarks of the crowd outside that is waiting to get in to the ground: "Oi! You lot in front, get rid of that argument! Let's get through!" They are not going to get through and in the end they are turned away. If the Minister thinks that they are turned away gently, then he could not be more wrong; there will be a disaster.
Everyone is horrified at the possibility of what might happen as a consequence of this scheme. At least the Minister is listening; I give him credit for that. Let me put to him no more than this: there are doubts as to whether the scheme will work. I appreciate that he has now said that the scheme will not be implemented under any circumstances until Lord Justice Taylor's report has been fairly and honestly considered. I speak personally and with some experience when I say that that from a statement by the Minister is not only worth considering but is worth supporting.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he saw the demonstration that took place outside this House a few months ago. If he did see it, I think he will understand that the scheme envisaged bears no relation at all (except that it makes use of a disc) to the kind of mechanism in the bank which he mentioned.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I did not see the demonstration and I am prepared to accept that the noble Lord is correct in his remarks. I did not see the demonstration and cannot argue the case.
11.53 a.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I realised more than ever the unbridgeable gulf between those who think that action should be taken today in this House and those who believe that it should be further
1656
delayed. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, in that we all wish to see the end of hooliganism, and I know that that is the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. However as I listened to the debate, I found it quite incomprehensible that anybody could accept that the tragedy at Hillsborough should prevent the passage of this Bill. I just cannot come to terms with that.
I thought about the tragedy of Hillsborough and what has happened since as regards the behaviour of crowds at subsequent matches. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred to that. It was an indication that action must be seen to be taken now. I looked at some more recent matches shown on television, as no doubt did other noble Lords, and was completely horrified by what went on in the vicinity of the ground regarding the behaviour of people coming to matches and its effect on the people who have houses close by. It seemed to me that unless some indication is given that at last action is to be taken we should never make any further progress.
I do not want to get sidetracked on to other issues, but I should like to say that it has always seemed to me that what is wrong is the need for perimeter fencing. The perimeter fencing itself is not at fault at football matches; it is what gives rise to the necessity for perimeter fencing; namely, the state of the terraces and the lack of any initiative by the Football League or the football clubs in the past to deal with that situation.
I should like to move on from there and say, as is probably obvious already, that I take part in this debate because I wish to support the Government on this matter. I wish to support the Third Reading of this Bill quite simply because I believe that we have reached the stage when something definite has to be done. That was the case some time ago when the Second Reading debate took place. I said then that I should be very glad to listen to the whole of the debate and if other schemes were put forward I should be happy to consider them, but that if other schemes were not put forward, I should support the Government. That is my position today.
This may not be the best Bill ever, but it is the only Bill that we have. That is my line of thought. One of my complaints was and still is that the people who have been opposed to the passage of the Bill ignore or forget that while it is called the Football Spectators Bill, the ramifications spread a great deal wider. Reading the newspapers and seeing the publicity that has gone on ever since the initiative of this Bill was taken, one would have thought that the only people concerned were those who went to football matches. It goes a great deal wider than that. This concerns the householders in the vicinity of the matches. I can only say that I am glad that I do not live anywhere near a major football ground.
Football matches affect the towns in which they are played. They affect shopkeepers, pub owners and the general public. We know what happens on our own city's transport and the Tubes in London when matches are played, never mind the rail transport throughout the country. Of course it affects the reputation of our country also. I should have thought that anyone who had seen the action of hooligans at matches since the Hillsborough disaster must have

1657
realised that it was not a very good advertisement for the entry of our clubs again into European competition.
Perhaps some noble Lord will want to rise and say to me, "All right, but do you think that this Bill will cure that?" Certainly I do not think so; of course not. However, this Bill will at least be an indication that the interminable delay is coming to an end and that something has been decided. I think that that is most important.
On 25th May I read what had been said by the chief executive of the Football Association, Mr. Graham Kelly, and I should like to repeat that to the House:
"We must reconstruct public confidence in the game. We need to break out of the trap created by hooligans on the one hand and outdated facilities at grounds on the other. It is important the FA shows it is capable of going forward".
When I read what Mr. Kelly had said, I realised that at last public opinion was having some effect. It is quite vital that the Football Association and everyone involved should understand that the general public are concerned in this matter. It does not only concern the people who go to football matches, who make up only a very small proportion of the population of this country.
Today on Third Reading I have no intention of listing what I think should be done. We all have many suggestions. However, I want action to be taken, and people should realise that action is being taken. Every time this issue has cropped up in this House there has been a suggestion of delay: let us put it off for whatever reasons. I am quite convinced that until this matter is tackled we shall not get anywhere. I should have thought that all those urging delay must have looked at the matches since Hillsborough and agreed that we cannot continue like this. One has only to look at a screen to see what is happening. To look at that and to say, "Let us leave it and delay further," is incomprehensible.
I have read—and I hope that it is correct because I have not checked it—that hooliganism is being contained in England only through public policing, with costs exceeding £20 million a year. I suggest that "contained" is an optimistic word. As Graham Kelly said, we need to break out of the trap created by hooligans on the one hand and outdated facilities at grounds on the other. I hope very much today that the House will support the beginning of the breaking out of this trap. Although I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton—he will accept that term—I find myself unable to support his amendment.
12.1 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this is a debate that should not be taking place. The Government were rightly persuaded after the Hillsborough disaster that it would be insensitive for Parliament to be debating this question while the suffering was still continuing. Do they believe that the anguish which was caused by that disaster has disappeared? If they do, they are totally out of tune with public opinion. Public opinion will see this debate as grossly insensitive in view of the events of the last few weeks and the people who have suffered from them.
1658
If the Minister looks behind him, he will see that those of his party who have been critical of this Bill, although not necessarily opposed to it, are not here. That is not an accident. I have heard throughout this week from those who, as I have, have taken part from the start in the debates on the Bill that a number of them have deliberately absented themselves this morning because they do not have the stomach to participate in something which is so distasteful to the public.
There is a second reason why this debate should not be taking place. Despite what the Minister said—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that he made a very conciliatory speech—he has missed the central issue. Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I do not intend to anticipate the findings of Lord Justice Taylor. It is debasing parliamentary work and the institution of Parliament to ask us to debate a Third Reading of a Bill without the evidence on which that debate should be based.
Since 15th April the situation has changed. I remind the Minister that in February of this year I warned the House that the conditions of the Bill could very well lead to an increase in violence, in particular outside the grounds. To my utter distress, that warning was validated in horrific circumstances on 15th April. While not anticipating what Lord Justice Taylor will report, those of us who have been closely associated with this business can tell the noble Lord now that there will be findings which will startle the public.
I refer simply to one issue. I suggest that when the report is made, Members of this House and of the other place note the number of injuries and deaths that took place outside the Hillsborough Stadium, not inside. That was the warning that I gave to the House when referring in February to the events of the evening cup tie replay between Manchester United and Queen's Park Rangers when the police asked the Manchester United Club to close the turnstiles with 10,000 people outside.
We do not have the evidence on which this debate should be based. The events of 15th April, as examined by Lord Justice Taylor, should be the basis on which the debate should take place. The Government have forced us to participate in the debate today against the weight of public opinion, without the evidence that parliamentarians should have to debate a matter of this kind. I say this to the noble Baroness who spoke before me. The important factor is not to take action; it is to take the right action. As some of us have been arguing from the start, the Bill could be the wrong action. It could increase violence rather than, as we all wish, to diminish it.
So far as I can see, the only reason that we are being forced this morning to debate this Third Reading is a megalomaniacal obsession with getting the Bill through at all costs, irrespective of whether we have clear evidence that we are getting it right with regard to the reduction of hooliganism, the prevention of another Hillsborough and the prevention of the events that took place on the last day of the season. These are the elements of evidence on which we

1659
should be debating. They are not there. The Government should not have forced the House to debate this Third Reading this morning.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I listened with some interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said. I do not think that the House can be accused of being insensitive to the dreadful tragedies that have happened over the last weeks or months. On the other hand a debate on a reasoned amendment on Third Reading is a very unusual occurrence in this House. I should have thought that, in view of the assurances that the Minister has given this morning that the House will have the opportunity, not once but twice, to come to a decision in a specific debate on a Motion, the reasoned amendment put forward is not now necessary.
I wish to deal very shortly with a narrow point. It is a question of what can be done on Third Reading. We go back to our old friend Erskine May. It is stated that amendments of a reasoned or delaying character may be moved in the same way as on Second Reading. However, I believe that in this House it is a very rare occurrence. I know that it happened in 1972 on the European Communities Bill. I gather that it happened again in 1982. My knowledge does not extend back for more than 10 years in your Lordships' House. I do not think that there have been any other cases.
The point that I wanted to make was that such an amendment has no effect on the progress of a Bill through Parliament. Whatever your Lordships' House decides today will not affect the progress of the Bill. It is merely an expression of opinion. I do not necessarily say party political opinion because that is too pejorative for me on this occasion. It does not concern detail upon the contents of the Bill as it is constituted.
Erskine May states that it is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage in the Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading. I suggest that it is unwise for an entirely different reason, and that is one of strict relevancy. The principle of relevancy must govern an amendment. The amendment must strictly relate to the Bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering.
Our Companion to the Standing Orders is quite clear on that point.
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill"—
and, I suggest, at this stage of the Bill, from what we have now heard from my noble friend the Minister this morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has had, even as I have had, experience as a Government Whip in another place. We both know the very limited value of a reasoned amendment. The party in opposition who puts down an amendment may think that it is of value. That value may be limited to the party's
1660
members in that House, but to the general public outside Parliament it is usually incomprehensible. To the public the reasoning is more like unreasoning. Members of the public would ask, "Why, if you do not like the principle, do you temporise? Why do you not vote outright on a straight Motion?" That surely is what we shall have the opportunity to do in due course when the Government put forward their own Motion.
I refer again to my main argument. The principle of the Bill is not now being called into question. An extraneous matter has been introduced as an argument for delaying the passage of the Bill—something which does not appear on the face of the Bill. I submit that it is inappropriate as an amendment, whether it be reasoned or otherwise.
Having said that and before I sit down, I fully understand the concern which the whole House feels about this extremely difficult problem, but I suggest that delay in any form, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said, would be a great mistake. Let us get on with it. Let us get the Bill through and then deal in due course with the promises which have been made by the Minister.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, as I reflected last night on what contribution I might make to this debate I took the opportunity to glance again at the report of the inquiry set up to investigate the disaster which occurred at the Bolton Wanderers football ground on 9th March, 1946, when 33 spectators were killed and hundreds injured. The parallels with Hillsborough made chilling reading. "Too many were admitted to the enclosure" the report said. It also described unauthorised entry as a factor—although not a major one—contributing to the disaster. The siting of the crash barriers provided for a direct channel or direct pressure to be transmitted from some distance away.
Noble Lords may agree that from reports we have read of the evidence being presented to Lord Justice Taylor similar comments are likely to be included in his report. What was different about Hillsborough was that the tragedy as it unfolded was seen by millions of people on their television screens. The result was shock, anger and recrimination on a scale which no other disaster, apart from that of Aberfan, has produced. No body of people watching the scenes would have been more horror-stricken than the police. Of all responsibilities laid on senior police officers, none weighs more heavily than that stemming from the problems of policing a situation which has a potential to develop into public disorder. Many officers that day would be saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I", for they would have understood better than most how the seeds of such disorder and such disasters can be found at most football grounds in this country. The reasons are fairly clear, I believe. They can be summed up as total complacency in the sense of "We have had no trouble before. It cannot happen here" on the part of all those involved.
How, otherwise, can one explain the fact that so many recommendations of past inquiries have not yet been implemented? How can a situation have

1661
been allowed to continue where allegedly only seven turnstiles were provided to handle the 10,000 capacity of the Leppings Lane terrace? At their most efficient it would have taken one and a half hours at least to let the number through. How could we have arrived at a situation where a senior police officer has been quoted as saying that stewarding was not a matter for the police but a matter for the club and the chief steward declaring that the terrace was a no-go area for them?
In saying that I do not seek to apportion responsibility. After all I have been as involved as anyone. I simply believe that no one, including the police, has really beaten the drum enough in seeking to identify and to draw to the attention of the proper authorities the potential dangers lurking in their local football grounds.
Does all this justify a postponement of the Bill which is the subject of this debate? First, it needs to be made clear that proper action is now to be taken. Whatever delay there may have been in the past, whatever deficiencies there may have been, action has now to be taken. In my submission there is no reason for delaying the passage of the Bill. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, the Bill in essence sets up a Football Membership Authority and creates the necessary criminal sanctions to support the scheme it is required to formulate. It does no more than that. The lessons to be drawn from Hillsborough will affect much more the formulation of the scheme.
It is the fear of many people, as expressed today, that the result of the scheme will be to create on more occasions the very scenes we saw at Hillsborough with large numbers of spectators seeking admittance at the very last moment. It is for that reason that the police are seeking to ensure that proper arrangements exist to abandon the scheme on a particular occasion if danger is perceived. That is a matter for inclusion in the scheme, not in the Bill.
It is, I believe, the formulation of the Final scheme rather than the Bill which must be delayed to take fully into account Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. Nevertheless there is one aspect with which, if I may be permitted to say so, I hope the Government will seek to deal when the Bill is being considered in another place. As I said on a previous occasion in this House, football grounds are private places. It is the clubs' primary and continuing obligation and responsibility to control and manage spectators in normal circumstances. They must also secure reasonable safety for those who are invited on to their premises, supported, to such an extent as may be thought appropriate, by the police. That is a special service for which the club is expected to pay. The police are present to assist in the enforcement and preservation of law and order.
No doubt Lord Justice Taylor will make comments on that relationship. The Hillsborough disaster clearly indicates the close involvement which the police must have if the scheme is to operate efficiently. Therefore, it is vital that they should be consulted at all stages in the drafting of the scheme; not simply invited to comment at the whim of members of the body concerned. There should be a statutory provision, as is the case in the making of
1662
traffic orders. I hope the Minister can say that the Government will at least give consideration to formulating such an amendment.
I conclude as I began. There are many lessons to be learned from Hillsborough; and they must be taken into account when the scheme is developed. However, I do not believe that it would be right to delay the Bill and give the impression that once again action will be deferred, as has happened so many times in the past.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I have every sympathy with and understand the anxieties expressed most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. We all know that there are problems concerned with football and no one doubts that. The debates which have taken place on the Bill have been concerned with dealing with those problems and the noble Lord contributed materially. I deny the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that no one from this side of the House had criticised or commented on the Bill. Some noble Lords who did so are present.
No one disputes the suggestion that there is a problem which must be addressed. Contributions have been made from all sides of the House. However, should we as a result of Hillsborough or any other disaster, or of the consequences raised by the noble Baroness of the post-Hillsborough matches, cease to consider the future of football in this sense?
This is an enabling Bill because Part I provides only a framework. It does not implement any specific scheme. Therefore, we need to satisfy ourselves of three issues. First, we need the opportunity to consider and debate the outcome of the Taylor report. Secondly, we need time to consider the incorporation of the appropriate recommendations into any scheme which will subsequently be implemented. Thirdly, we need another opportunity to confirm such a scheme.
I believe that those are the requirements which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was seeking and that 95 per cent. of his requests have been conceded by the Government. We shall have an opportunity not only to debate the Taylor report but to consider the scheme as a whole. Contrary to some of the criticisms put forward in this House, the Minister also made clear that a vote will be arranged so that the opinion of the House can be expressed. That appears to meet the requirements of incorporating. Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, giving time to assess the scheme and giving the opportunity to debate the matter further and to vote upon it.
I understand and appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord. However, I believe that 95 per cent. of his requests have been met. I express the hope that, rather than be too controversial today after significant concessions have been made, he will make the gracious move of which I know him capable. I urge him not to force us into the Division Lobbies on this issue today.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I put down my name but it was omitted——
12.26 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount and point out the fact that my name already appears on the speakers' list.
I address the House on this amendment following the reasonable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. I shall later point out where I believe his reasoning should leave him as it has not at the moment. I concentrate on the assumption, first, that noble Lords are present today with open minds. Secondly, the House is conscious of the fact that it is a legislative body, responsible to the public for assuring that legislation is properly dealt with.
I proceed on the first assumption of open minds. I remind the House of the terms of reference given to Lord Justice Taylor. They were:
"To inquire into the events at Sheffield Wednesday football ground on 15th April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds".
When the terms of reference were announced in another place on 17th April, (col. 19 of the Official Report) the Secretary of State for Home Affairs answered questions. He took the trouble to make absolutely clear how wide the terms of reference were intended to be. Mr. Michael Shersby asked:
"Can he say whether the inquiry will particularly consider the question of safety of stadiums and whether it will have the power to recommend temporary closure, should that prove necessary? Can he also say whether the inquiry will further consider how supporters travel to matches, the parking arrangements and the way in which supporters approach the ground? Can he further say whether the inquiry will consider the role of the Football Association in connection with the proposed football membership scheme?".
In reply the Secretary of State said:
"We have deliberately cast very widely the terms of reference for Lord Justice Taylor so that he can examine all those matters that my hon. Friend has listed, I believe without straining at the terms of reference. There are many angles to this—many points of comment and criticism have already arisen, even in the last 48 hours—and it is right that Lord Justice Taylor should be able to look at them all".
Also in the debate the question was cogently raised of whether the issues which were to be dealt with in Lord Justice Taylor's report would be properly examined. The matter was raised by Mr. John Carlisle, a very ardent supporter of the Bill which we are now talking about. He said:
"As my right hon. friend knows, I am one of the strongest supporters of the Football Spectators Bill, and I remain committed to the principle of membership to combat football hooliganism. Does my right hon. friend accept, however, that in consideration of what has been said this afternoon—and, indeed, of the tragic circumstances—it would be wise to postpone any further discussion until the full results of the public inquiry are known? I hope that my right hon. friend will then bring to the House a Bill that will receive not merely all-party support but support from outside the House, to combat the terrible problems that have been highlighted".
The Secretary of State duly replied:
"As I have said, there will be a pause for the sake of seemliness—as the House would wish—and also for consultations on the possible strengthening of the Bill. Both purposes are, I think, important from the point of view of my hon. friend".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/89; cols. 26–7.]
Therefore, in quoting what a Minister of the Government has replied in course of discussions of this report I am bringing to the attention of the House the understanding at that time that further discussion was promised to those who supported the
1664
Bill to allow the report of Lord Justice Taylor to be before the House.
There was a Written Answer given on 24th April by Mr. Moynihan, the Minister for Sport in answer to this Question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account will be taken of the Hillsborough disaster and the judicial inquiry of Mr. Justice Taylor before the Football Spectators Bill is introduced in the House".
His reply was:
"The timetable for the Football Spectators Bill will allow the House, in considering the Bill, to take account of relevent recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/89; col. 415.]
I now turn to the amendment and to the logical sequence of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and others who have spoken against this amendment. I could understand it if any noble Lord rose in this debate to say that it was quite wrong to postpone the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Nobody has proposed that so far, and so far as I know there will be no speaker subsequently who says that that is the interpretation of the Motion before the House. As I understand it, the House will be passing the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill will go to another place. All that this Motion does is to call upon every open-minded Peer to express regret if the Bill goes through another place, especially in regard to Part I, before proper consideration can be given to the report of Lord Justice Taylor.
Perhaps I may turn to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton. She is always listened to with great attention in this House and when she speaks about sport we recognise and remember her very eminent past. I thought that there must have been a misunderstanding about what the Minister has said so far and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, may have misunderstood it. The Minister has not said, as one would be led to believe by the Written Answer that I read out from the Minister for Sport, Mr. Moynihan, that in the House of Commons there will be no Committee stage because it would be nonsensical to take amendments on the Bill before one knows what Lord Justice Taylor is recommending in his report. The Minister has not said that there are arrangements in programming the Bill, as the Minister was saying in that Written Answer, that the Report stage will not be taken, that Third Reading will not follow and that the Bill will not be passed. What he has said is something that is completely and positively empty and has nothing to do with the expression of regret that I hope this House will make without stopping the passage of the Bill.
What did the Minister say? I took a note of it and I know that he will correct me if in any way I am misleading the House or misunderstanding what he has put to the House. There will be parliamentary approval of the scheme. That has nothing to do with the provisions in the Bill. Does he agree with me that if you put a scheme before Parliament nobody will be allowed to rise and say, "Please, I want to act as a committee on this scheme. I do not like the wording of Part II or subsection (3) and in regard to the scheme I want to move an amendment because

1665
of what Lord Justice Taylor said in a certain portion of his report".
Everybody knows who wants to analyse it that all that the Minister said was that the scheme will be passed—and of course there is a parliamentary majority to ensure that—or it will not be passed; that is all. What Lord Justice Taylor has said may be irrelevant from the point of view of what Parliament then wants to do. The Minister then said that there is no need for this because events have supervened which make this Motion unnecessary. No element of Part I is to have a date without a parliamentary order. What powers we are being given in this House and in another place as a result of being able to vote as to whether or not a date shall be agreed to which the Government put before us!
We were given nothing, no assurance at all. The word of the Minister in his Written Answer has been broken. This House is being asked, without postponing the Bill at all, to remind another place that we too are legislators. We are the revising Chamber. We do not like the idea of clumsily dealing with legislation.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is responsible for any of the quotations that I make which have the slightest wit, reminded me of the observation of Lloyd George when he said:
"It is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps".
That is exactly what the Government are asking us to do: to get on with the Bill, not to stop the Committee stage, not to wait for Lord Justice Taylor, and then to come back and have a debate and maybe an amending Bill later. Please let us not traverse this sorry and tragic chasm in two leaps and let us express our regret without stopping the Bill by voting for this amendment.
12.39 p.m.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, I shall try again. I have looked at my list of speakers and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not on it. I do not believe that your Lordships realise what the public really feel. They are becoming fed up. They see these ghastly things happening and they want action to be taken. The Government are now proposing that action and please God let it take place. Reasonably quickly after lunch I shall stop to buy petrol on the way home. I shall take in my credit card and in one second exactly what I have spent will have been recorded, and I cannot see much difficulty in that.
Football itself will suffer. I do not believe that your Lordships realise the feeling that exists. A man was kicked and ruptured in a football match. He was cured by the intercession of King Henry VI, 500 years ago. However, the monk who chronicled the episode added this:
"It is a game in which young men propel a huge ball not by throwing it but by striking and rolling it along the ground with their feet. A game, I say, abominable enough, and, in my judgment at least more common, undignified and worthless than any other kind of game, rarely ending but with some loss or accident to the players themselves".
Let us at least do something: I ask your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Viscount jumped the gun in speaking because I had already advised the Whips that I should be speaking. I shall be brief, but I speak as one who for many years has been a casual visitor to many grounds and in later years has become a supporter and member of supporters' clubs from outside the home team's area. This involves a lot of travel to home matches at great expense. Such supporters respect the law and are decent people. All of them are against the proposed scheme.
That is not the reason why I am speaking on this amendment. I believe that the Government are acting indecently in jumping the gun before the completion of the report from Lord Justice Taylor. There is much arising from the tragic events at Hillsborough that will affect the working of this Bill. Ticket admission is one aspect, but there are many other issues. I hope that the pressure to rush through this Bill is not because it is judged to be of party political advantage. If that is the case, it is completely and utterly wrong. I am not speaking now in a party political sense at all. The issue of Hillsborough is far too grave and will raise many questions in the final report.
I should like to make one final comment which is not exactly connected with the amendment but deals with an important issue. It has been said by the Minister that the cost to small clubs—I am concerned with small clubs—will be eased because the installation costs will be met by the proprietors of the equipment who would sell the addresses of the people on the register. I can assure the House that the Football Association has been told that not a single firm is prepared to install its machinery free of charge. I accept that that is a side issue to the debate.
In conclusion, I sincerely regret that the Government have jumped ahead without waiting for the report. The report will present many vital factors that the Bill has not covered. The Bill will go forward this afternoon because it is not the custom of this House to delay a Third Reading, but the amendment is vitally important. It is an expression of regret and that is an expression which I deeply share.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lord's, a week ago a detective sergeant of the South Yorkshire police gave evidence to the inquiry in Sheffield being conducted by Lord Justice Taylor. Speaking about the scene at the Liverpool end of the ground he said this:
"I can't believe what I saw. There were four rows of dead people in the front of the terraces. Some had bulging eyes, and there was vomit".
The policeman, Detective Sergeant Morton, went on to say that he then looked up and saw even more Liverpool fans surging in to the top of the terraces, following the decision to open the gates to relieve a crush of thousands of latecomers pressing to get in from the Leppings Lane end of the ground. He saw a young boy aged between 11 and 15. The boy was

1667
trapped, half upright, about four rows back from the perimeter fence. Mr. Morton said:
"He was leaning over the people in front of him and literally turned purple in front of me. I could see he was still alive. I tried to get over to him and pull him through the fence, but it was totally impossible".
Thus the evidence of just one witness before Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry; just one policeman amid the scores of others, some no doubt confirming his account of what occurred and some disputing it.
As your Lordships know, and as has been said this morning, we will not receive the interim report of Lord Justice Taylor for some weeks. He will presumably be able to tell us what in his judgment went wrong on that hideous Saturday afternoon: whether the pressure of the crowd in Leppings Lane led to the disaster; whether there were errors of judgment by the ground authorities or the police; to what extent heavy drinking was a factor; and what part the perimeter fencing played in the appalling loss of life.
That being so, we have to ask why in these circumstances we are being invited today to recommence discussion on the proceedings of a Bill which is directly relevant to all the fundamental issues being examined by Lord Justice Taylor. How can it possibly be right for Parliament to anticipate his findings, as indeed Parliament is being asked to anticipate his findings? What we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly said, is that Parliament will indeed have the right to block the Bill, but the one thing it will not have the right to do—and certainly this House will not have the opportunity of doing—is to amend the scheme itself to take account of what a Lord Justice of Appeal, appointed by the Government, finds in his report.
I take one small but, in my view, important matter—a matter dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, in his speech. The noble Lord and I went with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to see the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We had a helpful meeting, for which we were grateful, and we made some progress. However, there were a number of substantial issues left unresolved at the end of that meeting. One of them was the issue identified by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. Will the police have the right—a statutory right—to be consulted before this scheme is implemented? According to a letter from the noble Earl, for which I thank him, the answer to that question at the moment is no they are not. However, is it not important in the light of the report from Lord Justice Taylor, which will bear on this as on so many other issues, that Parliament should have the opportunity to satisfy itself on the important matter that the police should have a statutory right to be properly consulted? That is only one of the many issues which will be left unresolved when the Bill leaves this House.
Today therefore will be the last opportunity to have any form of detailed consideration of the contents of this Bill and we shall be doing it in ignorance of what Lord Justice Taylor says following one of the greatest disasters on an English Football
1668
ground. Will Lord Justice Taylor take the view that the proposed football membership scheme is relevant or irrelevant in regard to crowd safety? Will he make a firm recommendation as to what happens if the computer system introduced as a result of the scheme breaks down?
I take that example because we devoted a fair amount of time to that in Committee. I raised in debate with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as he will recall, the question of what would happen if the computer system broke down when tens of thousands of people are attempting to enter a ground in the few minutes before kick-off. According to much of the evidence given before Lord Justice Taylor which was very clear and not, so far as I am aware, disputed, this massive build up of thousands of people in Leppings Lane was one of the most signficant factors in relation to the disaster that took place a few minutes later. It seems highly possible that if this scheme had been introduced and there had been a computer malfunction, there could have been far heavier loss of life than took place on that occasion. I raised this matter with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. On the 14th March at col. 194 of the Official Report, in replying to an amendment which would have given power to the police to suspend the operation of the scheme if an emergency situation arose, the noble Earl said:
"I see dangers in providing for the criminal offences of unauthorised entry and admitting spectators to unlicensed premises to be waived whenever a so-called emergency is deemed go have occurred".
As we know, that emergency arose in Leppings Lane. I do not believe that any rational person can now doubt that if on that occasion there had been a computer malfunction at that end of the ground, there would have been scores killed in the streets outside besides what happened on the terraces. That is one of the more obvious conclusions to be drawn at this stage. But on this most fundamental issue Parliament will have no opportunity to look at this matter in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry. That seems wholly wrong. It is quite extraordinary that the Government who set up this inquiry presided over by a most distinguished member of the Court of Appeal, are prepared to put Parliament in this difficult position.
I have expressed my own views regarding this element of the Bill. There was a second leg to the argument which I shall try to deal with fairly briefly. It was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. It concerns the second reason why we should proceed with the Bill. He told us that there had been violence at Crystal Palace, West Ham and in Scotland. He passed over the Scottish experience rather swiftly, and for very understandable reasons, because we know that Scotland will not be covered by this Bill. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord said in his speech, we also know that an attempt was made on that occasion to ensure that no tickets were available south of the Border. We saw the situation that could arise if the Bill were passed with large numbers of people who knew that they could not get into the ground going there and creating mayhem in the streets outside.
That is one of the many reasons why there is so much police sceptism about this Bill. As the House

1669
is well aware, what many senior police officers fear is that violence within grounds will spread to the streets outside, city centres, railway stations and motorway service areas. When the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that that was one of the reasons why we want this Bill as quickly as we do, as the House will recall he was unable to respond to the question that I put to him; namely, is he not aware that the courts already have a power to disqualify people from entering football grounds?
I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Graham, Lord Mishcon, and others, have pointed out the unwisdom of proceeding in the way in which the Government have in fact decided to move. I know of no occasion during the period which I have been involved in public life when any government have behaved in a comparable situation with such an extraordinary combination of insensitivity and lack of judgment.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: my Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may briefly reply to some of the points that have been raised during the debate this afternoon. I took some time laying out the Government's position at an earlier stage. The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, introduced an electoral atmosphere to your Lordships' House when commenting on the events of yesterday. I am entirely confident that one day Glasgow, Central may become a Conservative-held seat. I believe that the noble Lord understands that it is not on the list of the most winnable seats.
He referred to the efficiency of the scheme and the technology as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, that we have always said that we have to be satisfied that the technology is going to work before it is implemented. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, quite rightly pointed out that the Bill spreads far further than football. It also spreads to the good name and reputation of this country. We are very conscious of that. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, accused the Government of megalomania. I do not believe that is true at all. They are responding to a demand.
My noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne quite rightly drew your Lordships' attention to what he felt was the not good reason for having this amendment before your Lordships' House today. Throughout the passage of this Bill we have been grateful for the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Knights. He drew the attention of the House to the fact that this is a framework Bill and that the foundations provide for the scheme. The Government's amendments that will be dealt with this afternoon will respond by providing Parliament with two opportunities to discuss this issue. He also asked me about the position concerning consultation with the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, quite rightly pointed out, following a letter that he received from my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Government feel that this matter can be dealt with by agreement. At the moment the Government do not believe that it should be dealt with by statutory procedure.
However, I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the remarks of the noble Lord.
1670
My noble friend Lord Trafford pointed out, as others had done earlier, the difference between the basis of the Bill and the scheme that comes after it. I believe it is very important for all of us to keep that in mind at all times. The noble Lord, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, pointed out that many people in the country were crying out for something to be done. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was in brilliant form. He presented a most persuasive case. At one point I felt that I was going to be convinced. Though the noble Lord does not like the scheme being discussed rather than the Bill that is to leave your Lordships' House today (and that I can understand) we believe that it will be an adequate and successful outcome to the matters that will be resolved when the scheme is discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, said that the Government were jumping the gun. It has always been important that the Government have proposed two stages. They have proposed to produce a Bill that provides the foundations and then to build on them. That will happen with the construction of a football membership authority and the scheme. Most important of all, the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said something very nice, and that is not always experienced by someone speaking from the Dispatch Box. He said that in the past the Government had not listened. He said that what I have said today showed that it may be better late than never. The fact is that we have listened and provided amendments that we shall come to later this afternoon in order to take account of anxieties that have been expressed. I was very grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. I shall say no more on the subject because earlier I expended a considerable amount of your Lordships' time in this debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, wishes to speak now.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will answer one simple and straight question. He has described it as a framework Bill. If the Third Reading is passed and the Bill is passed in another place and then, as a result of the report by Lord Justice Taylor it is seen that the Bill is either irrelevant or dangerous, what opportunity will this House have to change the Bill? It is on that issue that many noble Lords believe that this debate should not have taken place.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, by leave of the House for the second time, we have stated from the very start that we do not wish to anticipate the inquiry that is taking place. So let us wait and see what happens with the outcome of the inquiry.
1 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may say at once that the debate has been conducted in good spirit. Passionate views have been presented on both sides of the argument about the Bill. There has been no acrimony in any of the speeches because even those who have spoken with passion have at the same time sought to understand the view of those on the other side of the argument.
The Minister has helped us by the attitude that he has displayed today. He may recall that in a fleeting

1671
reference in my opening speech, I acknowledged and paid tribute to the fact that the Government amendments were in response to matters raised at an earlier stage by, among others, noble Lords on this side of the House. However, in his view what he had to say pre-empted the necessity for our amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, made some kind remarks about my diligence on the Bill in general. He said that 95 per cent. of what I wanted was contained in what the Minister had said. He hoped that I would be non-controversial and would withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the purpose of the amendment. It has a great deal to do with the Bill, but it also has a great deal to do with two other scenarios. Once the Bill leaves the House, one assumes—although the Government have not been precise with the timetable—that it will shortly be introduced for its Second Reading in another place. Immediately after the Bill becomes the property of another place, it will not be possible for a debate either on the Floor of the House or in Committee to be devoid of references to Hillsborough. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, whom we all deeply respect, said that Hillsborough has nothing to do with the Bill. The Minister made allusions to the fact that they are two separate issues. That is where we part company. What happened at Hillsborough may or may not have something to do with the identity card scheme; but what Lord Justice Taylor says are the lessons to be learnt from Hillsborough may very well have something to do with the Bill.
In my amendment, I invite the House not to anticipate what Lord Justice Taylor may have to say. I lay strong stress on the point that every day hundreds and perhaps thousands of people who live in Sheffield and Liverpool open their newspapers to read what I can only describe as horror stories. I shall not go into the detail, but those who have read the newspapers this week will know exactly what I mean. In two or three weeks' time they will be invited by the Government to listen to horror stories that may or may not be as authentic as those to be repeated in Parliament, to be rebutted in Parliament and to be argued about in Parliament while Lord Justice Taylor is trying to make sense of what happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Mellish, asked whether we could take it from the Minister that nothing would be done until Parliament had had the opportunity to give approval through the order procedures. The Minister was silent. Everything will be done before then. The Bill will be fought through Parliament. The issues in the Bill are matters of deep controversy. Overlying that will be Hillsborough. That will be enough to repel any one who shares in the trauma of Hillsborough. We all share in it. I am repelled by being part of a procedure that forces that kind of thing to be part of our parliamentary timetable.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, so that we can have it on the record, and so that we all know what we are talking about, perhaps I may set out my understanding of the position. The Government, assuming that they have their Bill on the statute
1672
book in that sense, will not implement that Act of Parliament if Lord Justice Taylor says that the government scheme is impracticable, and so on. If he says that—it is all hypothetical—we shall never see that Act of Parliament implemented in any way. Is that correct?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the fact of the matter is that the scheme will not be implemented until it has been before Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that helpful intervention and the more helpful answer from the Minister tells it all. By declining to regret the progress, we are being invited to discuss the nature of the Bill, overladden with the horror of Hillsborough and perhaps without the benefit of Lord Justice Taylor's report. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, who is a friend, that Mr. Colin Moynihan said that it is inconceivable that Lord Justice Taylor will say that identity cards are not relevant. How on earth can the Minister say that it is inconceivable? He has not heard the evidence. He does not know the working. As I reminded the House earlier, the Secretary of State Mr. Ridley has said that Lord Justice Taylor is an adviser and that he will advise the Government. He was then magnanimous enough to say that the Government will listen to what he has to say. That is all. He did not say that if Lord Justice Taylor came out with incontrovertible evidence, the scheme should not be introduced.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I feel that the noble Lord slightly insinuated that it is possible that Lord Justice Taylor's report will not have due attention paid to it. I must make it absolutely clear that it will. The most important thing which I also said earlier is that we cannot anticipate what will be in the report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Lord's ministerial friend Mr. Moynihan was sufficiently moved to say that he felt it inconceivable that this aspect would not be in the report. We also have the words of Mr. Ridley who said that the Government would listen to what Mr. Justice Taylor had to say. I accept what the Minister is saying now that they will listen carefully to what is being said. However, what the Minister has offered the House is that when the FMA has produced a scheme, and when the scheme has taken into account the Government's views—they having studied the report of Lord Justice Taylor whose views they may or may not accept—the House will then be invited on one Motion, without an opportunity for amendment, in two debates of a general character, to approve an action by the Government. That is what we are being invited to do in substitution for proper scrutiny by Parliament.
All my amendment asks is that until Lord Justice Taylor gives us the wisdom of his inquiry we ought not to project the horror story from Hillsborough either on to Parliament or on to the public. It is a sensible and a reasonable request. Unless it is absolutely necessary I do not want to be part of

1673
continuing the agony of the thousands of people outside. We should not proceed without this stricture on the Government. I beg to move.
1.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Amherst, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Mayhew, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mersey, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Monson, L.

Bottomley, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Northfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denington, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Scanion, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Willis, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wise, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Camden, M.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carnock, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Arran, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Digby, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Belstead, L.

Donegall, M.

Bessborough, E.

Dundee, E.

Birdwood, L.

Effingham, E.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Blyth, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Burton, L.

Elton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Caithness, E.

Ferrers, E.

1674

Foley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, I

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Greenway, L.

Norrie, L.

Hacking, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hesketh, L.

Porritt, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rodney, L.

Hooper, B.

Romney, E.

Ironside, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, L;

Joseph, L.

Selkirk, E.

Killearn, L.

Shannon, E.

Kimball, L.

Sharples, B.

Knights, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Layton, L.

Slim, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Marley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Young of Graffham, L.

Morris, L.

Resolved in the negative, and the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time disagreed to accordingly.
1.17 p.m.
Bill Read a Third time.
Clause 1 [Scope and interpretation of this Part]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, after ("made") insert ("and approved").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 20. We have discussed the effect of these government amendments during the debate on the Opposition's reasoned amendment. They provide two opportunities for Parliament to debate the national membership scheme after Royal Assent to the Bill, the first before the scheme is drawn up and submitted for approval and the second after the Secretary of State has approved it. The effect of the amendments to Clause 1 and Clause 4 is to make the approval of the scheme by the Secretary of State the subject of parliamentary approval by means of negative resolution. Any subsequent replacement scheme would similarly be subject to parliamentary approval. These are the amendments that I promised to consider at Report stage.
Amendment No. 20 to Clause 24 is new. The amendment provides an opportunity to debate the principle of the scheme following the final report of Lord Justice Taylor before the FMA is appointed. I do not propose to go over the ground that we have already covered. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House. However this is the only opportunity I have to raise an issue on which I have spoken

1675
informally to the noble Lord. As a result of the way in which these amendments have been proposed we are uncertain as to the function of the Football Membership Authority. The authority was brought in on a side wind as a way of drawing up a scheme, Clause 3 says:
"There shall be a body responsible for the administration ol the national football membership scheme".
Clause 4 says:
"The Football Membership Authority shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after its designation takes effect, prepare a draft scheme".
In other words, the Football Membership Authority came in as a piece of administration to draw up the scheme. The worry of a number of us is that the authority should be more than merely a body that draws up a scheme and is responsible for administration. Now that we have had time to reflect upon the situation created by the addition of the amendments, we believe that it should be an advisory body. It should advise the Secretary of State on the running of the scheme, on possible changes—I know that it can agree changes with the Secretary of State under Clause 4—and on possible termination of the scheme if that proves necessary. While it is operating it should be able to advise on the running of the scheme and on points that should be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State regarding the general policy and principles contained in the Bill.
At this late stage I am not expecting the Minister to give any undertaking. I suggest, however, that when the Bill goes to another place the Government should flesh out the functions, duties and role of the Football Membership Authority. It should not be left merely with its administrative and drawing-up functions. It should become an advisory body on the whole policy of the scheme which is the cornerstone of the Bill. I would have moved an amendment but did not believe it worthwhile. I hope the Minister will ensure that the matter is looked at carefully in the other place.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is correct when he says that the Bill goes to another place from here. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences relating to unauthorised attendance at designated football matches]:
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("of entering premises.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 2 raises the subject of attempting to commit offences. I was wrong on Report to suggest that that was unnecessary. I had forgotten that the general rule does not apply in summary cases before the magistrates. I was properly put right about that.
Subsection (1) is curious. It refers to two offences; namely, unlawfully entering a football ground and unlawfully remaining there, and then the offence of
1676
attempt, confining that to unlawful entry. It becomes an offence unlawfully to attempt to enter the ground, but it is not an offence under the Bill unlawfully to attempt to remain in the ground as an unauthorised person.
On Report, I tried to illustrate the sort of thing that might happen. A tradesman enters the ground lawfully in the morning to deliver goods, or a carpenter enters a stadium lawfully in the morning to do repairs. As the time of the match approaches he decides that it would be nice to remain and watch. He is told that he cannot do so because he is an unauthorised person and must leave. He says that he is blowed if he is going to leave; he is going to stop and watch and match. He refuses point-blank to leave and becomes abusive. The police have to be called to take him out. He is just as much of a nuisance as the fan who tries unlawfully to enter the ground. I do not know by what reasoning the Government believe that the fellow who tries unlawfully to enter is a worse criminal than the fellow who tries unlawfully to remain in the ground so that one commits the additional offence of an attempt and the other does not.
Natural justice requires that those two fans are dealt with equally. If the one attempt is a criminal offence, so should be the other. I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is on to one of his characteristically ingenious matters of precision. He tabled an amendment on Report. I said that I thought that it was unnecessary to ensure that the offence in Clause 2(1) covered an attempt to remain. "Remaining" is sufficient since anyone who attempts to remain must obviously be remaining. That is unlike the entry provision, because it is possible to attempt to enter without already having succeeded.
The noble Lord said that there were two offences under the subsection. In fact, it creates three offences: one of entering, one of remaining and a third of attempting to enter. If the noble Lord's amendment were incorporated into the Bill there would be a fourth offence of attempting to remain. One cannot attempt to remain without remaining. In his example the noble Lord said that the person having entered the ground might have been asked by a steward to leave but had replied that he would be blowed if he would leave. He wanted to stay. The fact is he was staying; he was remaining. Therefore it is no advantage to have an amendment which creates an offence out of attempting to remain.
The noble Lord in attempting to simplify the wording of the amendment has complicated its meaning. I hope that he will see that it would be better if his amendment were not in the Bill.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the noble Earl takes so much trouble and does his homework so well that I am astonished by that reply. He is miles away from the point. If a person goes in as a carpenter to do some work in the morning, he is obviously entering lawfully. There must then come a time—the football

1677
match is about to happen—at which he becomes an unauthorised person. If he does not have a pass, attempts to remain in the stadium beyond the point at which he has been told that he is not an authorised person and is to leave, and makes a nuisance of himself so that the police have to come to turn him out, he is of course attempting to remain in the ground during the football match as an unauthorised person.
If I were to take this matter to a Division, I should be impeding the further progress of the Bill. I am mindful also that there will be an opportunity in another place to go into this matter further. The Government's reply has been hopeless, but subject to what the noble Earl may be now going to say, I shall ask to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, I would not wish to prevent the noble Lord from doing that. I realise that the noble Lord is agitated about this matter. It worries me when he says that we are miles away from the point. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to look at Clause 2(1). It refers to an offence of remaining on the premises at a time relevant to a match. If a carpenter remains at a time which is relevant to the match, he commits an offence. It does not matter whether he is attempting to remain, he is remaining.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I appreciate that, but in my illustration, a person having refused point blank to leave is turned out by the police. They have to come and turn him out. He has been doing his absolute damnedest—if that is a parliamentary expression—to remain and watch the match. That is his attempt; he does not succeeed and because he does not succeed, he does not commit the offence of remaining inside. However, he commits or would commit the offence, if it were an offence, of attempting to remain in. If he were trying to get in unlawfully from outside, he would be caught as attempting to get in under the provisions of the subsection. That is the position. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [National membership scheme: making, approval, modification etc.]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 4, after ("requirements,") insert ("by order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the following amendments all refer to the same point. If your Lordships will allow me, I propose that we take Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 together.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 10:
Page 4, line 5, at end insert ("and if he does so, he shall lay a copy of the scheme as approved before each House of Parliament").
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("gives it his approval") and insert ("approves the scheme under subsection (3) above, then, subject to subsection (7A) below,").
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 9.
1678
Page 4, line 16, after ("scheme") insert—

("(a) the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the modifications before each House of Parliament, and.

Page 4, line 20, after first ("scheme") inser—

("(a) the Secretary of State shall by order confirm his agreement to the new scheme and shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament, and

(b) subject to subsection (7A) below,").

Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
("(7A) The powers of the Secretary of State to make orders under this section are exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,").
Page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (8).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [National Membership scheme: contents and penalties];
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("(1A) All evidence introduced under the procedures established and described in paragraph (k) of subsection (2) below shall be given orally.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and myself. I find it rather surprising that I have to rise to move the amendment because, until the government amendments were tabled this week and we read the result of the briefing by Ministers of the football correspondents, we assumed that there was agreement on the issue. It is a matter of fundamental importance. I very much hope that the Government will be able to reassure us on the matter.
The issue before us is very simple: what is to be done when someone is expelled from the football membership scheme? The question arises of what rights the person has to challenge his accusers. I asked this question when we were in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who was speaking on that occasion, will recall it. He told me that of course the rights of the accused person would be preserved because he would have the opportunity of his case being considered by a tribunal. After we had had a rather prolonged series of exchanges, he told me that the Government were holding discussions on the matter with the Council on Tribunals. He assured me that hearsay evidence would be excluded. We were satisfied that the Government had met our point.
However, what is now proposed? In the amendment which today stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, we see that the tribunal, as it was referred to in the Bill, is now to be abandoned. There is an insertion of totally different language. This suggests to us that the rights of an accused person will be drastically curtailed.
In the light of that, we have tabled this amendment, which would require that evidence given before any organisation which had the responsibility of determining whether a person was to be excluded from the scheme should be on the basis of oral evidence. The question to which I hope we shall receive a clear and also persuasive answer

1679
from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is this. It is a fundamental question and I should be grateful if he would take note of it and answer in explicit terms. Will an accused person have the right to challenge his accusers?
Let us say that a person is accused of racial chanting. I hope that the noble Lord is following the point. It is of some importance. I repeat, let us assume that a person is accused of racial chanting and is thrown out of the ground as a result. The person concerned denies it. What are to be his rights? Can he give oral evidence before the organisation or the body which will have the responsibility of hearing his case and will he be able to cross-examine his accusers?
Let us say that the evidence against him is that of a single steward. The steward says, "I heard him shout racial abuse". The man concerned says, "It was not me. We were in a dense crowd. It was a man four or five to my right or left". Does the accused person have the right to cause the steward to be cross-examined or does he not? It seems to me that this is a matter of the highest importance. I repeat, there have been suggestions in the press, clearly after government briefing, that the statements concerned will be given in writing. But if that is true, I must tell the noble Lord that it seems to me a most extraordinary provision.
May I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that the Government are taking this action because they have had some unwelcome advice from the Council on Tribunals? If so, what was the view of the council? I think we should all be extremely interested to hear what it was. Where does the onus of proof lie? Does it lie on the people who want to exclude the person from the scheme, or is it transferred to the person against whom the complaint has been made?
Let it not be said by the noble Lord, "Let us leave this to the Football Membership Authority". That is no answer at all. We are talking here about people's civil rights and the Government have an absolute obligation to satisfy us that they will be protected in the matter. I very much hope that he will be able to reassure us that there is nothing in this as sinister as it appears at first sight. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may add my support on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It seems to me that the key to this and the reason why the amendment is necessary is in Amendment No. 14 to be moved by the Government. If we had had a tribunal, I assume that it would be constituted under the tribunals Act and that the Council on Tribunals would make sure that there was a right of cross-examination.
As the matter stands, the whole nature of the proceedings which may be instituted under the clause as it is to be amended if the Government's amendments are accepted means that the right of cross-examination is taken away. It cannot be right to have an accusation made purely in writing—because to deny somebody a spectators' card is an accusation. It cannot be right to permit
1680
that accusation to be made only in writing, without a chance to examine the person who or organisation which made the accusation. It requires that the answer should be given orally. I hope that the Government will recognise that their amendmenl which is to be moved makes this amendment necessary.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, I have put my name to this amendment. I fully support his very forceful speech and also the speech we have just heard. I have a few brief remarks to make. I have been reading the Report stage of the Bill and a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. It seems to me that he was trying not to deter the clubs from using the machinery of appeal by making it simple. In my opinion, the machinery of appeal is being made far too simple for the clubs and a balance is being struck in the wrong way. I hope, if that is the case, that the noble Lord will redress the balance.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I seldom disagree with the ideas advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. However, I am afraid that I must do so on this occasion. His argument seems to be based on the assumption that a person has a civil right to enter a football ground. I do not believe that that is the case. A person has a right to enter a football ground if the club is prepared to give him permission to enter. A club can withdraw that permission at any time, without reason. That is the position that applies at all places of public entertainment.
As I have said, perhaps too many times already, places of entertainment are private premises and people enter with the consent and permission of those who own the premises. If we are to create a situation in which only football clubs—this measure does not apply anywhere else—have to justify by way of a procedure which is very similar to a trial why they have withdrawn permission for entry to their premises, we are raising this matter to a level that we shall find very difficult to sustain in practice.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I too hesitate before I intervene, especially on a Friday afternoon. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has just spoken and whose experience with the police we value in this House has really considered what the Bill intends to do. It intends to regulate the membership scheme so that those who are undesirable—let there be no doubt about the public impression of this matter—for one reason or another, cannot be admitted to a football ground and cannot be admitted to membership of the scheme. That is not the question that is normally within the policeman's mind or the civilian's mind who knows about these matters when it is a matter of joining a drinking club or any other kind of club.
This Bill has been intentionally introduced to stop violence and to stop undesirable people from being able to come to a football ground. Therefore, there must be a procedure which guards the character and the reputation of people who are refused membership. There must be an ability for a person to state that, if he is denied membership of the scheme, he must have the right to face his accuser,

1681
who has stated, for example, that the accused was a drunken lout the previous week. The accused must have this right if he feels his identity has been mistaken. There must also be the right to question a witness who alleges such things. To limit such a matter to evidence in writing would, I think, be absolutely wrong bearing in mind the obvious stigma that attaches to a person if membership and admission are refused.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has moved anticipates Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 standing in my name. I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both my amendments and to his at the same time.
My amendments fulfil the undertakings that I gave during the earlier stages of the Bill. Amendment No. 12 would limit the FMA's discretionary bans on membership to a maximum period of two years. Amendment No. 13 would make it a mandatory provision of the scheme that the FMA should notify anyone it disqualifies from membership of the reasons for that disqualification.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 concern the procedure under which anyone who is refused membership or is disqualified from membership and feels aggrieved about the FMA's decision may make representations about it. We have had very helpful discussions with the Council on Tribunals on how best to handle this matter. As presently drafted the Bill provides for a tribunal to hear and determine appeals against disqualification. Establishing a formal tribunal in this way would mean that the principles advocated by the council on appeal procedures would have to be applied in full. The council felt that the impact on the individual concerned of refusal or withdrawal of membership from the scheme was not of the character and weight that is usually dealt with by tribunals which are subject to the council's supervision.
We must remember that clubs already can and do bar people from their grounds without giving them the right to make any form of representation. It is also the council's view that if oral hearings were to be a normal procedure in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, proposes in his amendment, that in itself would mean that the council's principles and procedures had to apply. That, in turn, would mean that many hearings might not be held until after a short period of disqualification had expired. That would certainly not be fair to anyone.
We therefore envisage an informal procedure for making and considering representations against the FMA's decisions. The representation would normally be made in writing, although we do not rule out the possibility of occasional oral hearings in appropriate cases. The procedure will be simple, speedy and fair. We must not deter the FMA and the clubs from imposing bans. Dealing with cases quickly is important because that is part and parcel of making the procedure as fair as possible.
In the interests of fairness, it is also essential that the procedure for reviewing FMA decisions should be independent. Amendment No. 15 gives a member who is disqualified the right to have the decision
1682
reviewed by people who are independent of the FMA. The FMA will need to establish a panel of independent people for this very purpose. I said that we would consult the Council on Tribunals on these amendments. We have followed the council's advice in proposing them. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has not the remotest intention of withdrawing his amendment, particularly in the light of that very unpersuasive reply which did not answer a number of questions which I put to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. I asked him at the beginning of my speech whether, if a person wanted to confront his accuser and deny absolutely the charge made against him, he would have that right. He replied that there would be an oral hearing in an appropriate case. But what is an appropriate case? Who is to determine that?
As the noble Lord, Lord Knights, rightly said he and I very rarely disagree. However, I fear that we are on this occasion in fundamental disagreement. I regard this as a central question of the liberty of the individual. The noble Lord is correct in saying that at the moment an individual club has the right to keep someone out of its ground. He is absolutely right. That applies to football clubs just as to any other place of public entertainment. However, we are not talking about individual clubs; we are talking about a statutory scheme which imposes criminal penalties. That is the distinction. Are people to have their rights taken away in this arbitrary fashion and not be guaranteed any opportunity of being able to face their accusers? Who are some of the people we are talking about in this matter? Some of them, undoubtedly, will be able to frame representations with no difficulty at all. However, many will not be able to do so. Many would be deterred from doing so or would find themselves unable to put their representations in writing. Those representations would be passed to a body of men before whom, as I understand it, the accused would not be guaranteed any right of audience.
I have rarely heard an argument which strips people of their civil rights on the grounds of administrative convenience—that was the purport of the noble Lord's speech—introduced in any Bill in this House since I have been a Member.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene in the hope that the Minister will deal with the point about oral hearings being part of the procedure where appropriate? Who will decide what is appropriate? I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether he feels that the Minister could help the House by dealing with that particular point. I could not understand what the noble and learned Lord tried to say from a sedentary position. If the Minister can tell us what is meant by "appropriate" and whether the accused person has the right to opt for an oral hearing, I believe that that would be helpful.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I dealt with that point in my speech. The position of the noble Lord, Lord

1683
Harris, is based on an assumption that rights are being taken away. In my speech I made two relevant points. The first is that, when we took the advice of the Council on Tribunals, far from being disappointed or disagreeing with the Government, the council felt that the impact on the individual concerned of the refusal or withdrawal of membership of the scheme was not of a character or weight such as is usually dealt with by tribunals.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris—as I did in my speech and am doing again—when one combines that point with the fact that at present people have no rights as regards being ejected or prevented from entering a football ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Knights, pointed out with regard to other places of entertainment, it can be seen that the Government are in no way stripping away people's rights. Far from it. We have taken advice and are trying to introduce a system which will be fair and easy to operate.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may appeal to the noble Lord the Leader of the House on a point of order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite rightly addressing the House on his amendment in reply to the Minister. He was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who then made a supplementary speech in the middle of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Minister then replied. Where are we getting? Surely on a Friday afternoon we ought to stick to the rules of order of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think that we ought to stick to the rules of order of this House whether it is Friday or any other day. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was making his final reply on his own amendment. He has the right to do so and I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, now proceeds.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to bring the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to his feet, even at nearly two o'clock on a Friday afternoon. I am grateful to him for reminding the House that I was endeavouring to reply to the debate.
However, I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for intervening because he made the point that the Government were not removing any rights from the individual on the ground because clubs already have rights to cause people to be excluded from a ground. I dealt with that particular issue about two minutes before the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, got to his feet. The point had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. The answer to it is that of course a club has the right to exclude anybody. It can do it today, tomorrow or next week. It can do so if it is a football club, a cricket club or if it is Wimbledon. There is no doubt about it.
The issue here is a totally different one. We are introducing criminal penalties. Criminal penalties do not apply if someone tries to climb over a wall to get into Wimbledon or the Canterbury ground of the Kent Cricket Club. The situation here is quite
1684
different. If one enters a ground or attempts to do so without being a member of a national scheme—not a club—one commits a criminal offence. One can be sent to prison. In my view there is no doubt that if people are expelled from the scheme it is a commentary, and will be taken as a commentary by many fair-minded people, that they have done something seriously wrong.
I say that those rights will be stripped away from them with no guarantee that they will have the opportunity to put their own case before the body which will make the final determination of the matter. They will have no opportunity to cross-examine their accusers. In my view that is a fundamental attack on an individual's civil liberties, and we shall vote for this amendment.
1.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Longford, E.

Airedale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Attlee, E.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Blyth.L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland V [Teller]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fitt, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B

Foot, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hampton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Arran, E.

Elton, L.

Bauer, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Foley, L.

Birdwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Carnock, L.

Harlech, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Digby, L.

Hives, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Donegall, M.

Ironside, L.

Dundee, E.

Joseph, L.

Effingham, E.

Killearn, L.

Elles, B.

Knights, L.

1685

Layton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Long, V.

Reay, L.

Lothian, M.

Rodney, L.

Lyell, L.

Romney, E.

McFadzean, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Davids, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Mancroft, L.

Shannon, E.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Morris, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trafford, L.

Norrie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("a period") and insert ("an appropriate period not exceeding two years").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 46, at end insert ("and for notifying persons who are excluded from membership of the grounds for the exclusion;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("establishing") to end of line and insert ("procedures for the making and consideration of representations against").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 13, after ("it") insert ("and for the independent review of the decisions in the light of the representations;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in section 28(1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act 1984 (which exempt personal data relating to crime from the subject access provisions in certain cases) shall apply to personal data held by the Football Membership Authority for the purposes of the national football membership scheme.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disqualification for membership of scheme]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("or of detention in a young offenders institution").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18.
These two small amendments remove unnecessary references to detention in a young offenders' institution in Clauses 7(3)(a) and 14(1)(a). The relevant definitions of "imprisonment" in Clauses 7(9)(a) and 12(9) respectively already include detention for young offenders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Effect of order]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 22, leave out ("or of detention in a young offenders institution").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Further provision about, and appeals against, declarations of relevance]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 19, line 5, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 19.
This amendment fulfils an undertaking which my noble friend Lord Hesketh gave during Report stage. It requires the prosecution to give a defendant at least five days' notice before his trial that the court will be asked to make a declaration that the offence was football-related and that it is therefore relevant for the purposes of mandatory disqualification from the national membership scheme.
We had a brief discussion when my noble friend moved this clause on Report as to whether the period of advance notice should be three days, as we first proposed, or five working days as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, preferred. My noble friend offered five days in a generous spirit of compromise. It is of course a matter of balance. The defendant must be given sufficient notice to allow him to prepare his case against a declaration of relevance being made, if he so wishes. At the same time, we need to ensure that there is no unreasonable delay in the administering of justice.
This amendment gives effect to the willingness that my noble friend expressed on Report to move to five days' notice. There was some discussion during our debate on whether notice should be for calendar days or working days. This amendment means that the defendant will have five calendar days' notice where a declaration of relevance is to be sought. If we opted for "working days" it would be appropriate to spell that out in the Bill. We have not done so because we think that five; calendar days represents the best balance between fairness and speed. In our original proposal that three days' notice should be given, our precedent was the Criminal Courts Act 1973. That precedent was in respect of calendar days.
Five days' notice that a declaration of relevance is to be sought is fair to the defendant and consistent with the principle of swift justice which is so important in the context of football hooliganism. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is quite right that at earlier stages of the Bill this was a matter of some concern. I believe that he has gone some way with his ministerial colleagues to take our point. However, perhaps he will deal with the possibly tangential aspects of illness, convenience and such other circumstances. If there are problems of a person being able to keep to the five days, will there be a procedure whereby that appeal, request or excuse can be put forward?

1687
I reiterate that the amendment is certainly better than the Bill, but there might well be circumstances in which, even with five days' notice, there would be personal difficulties. I am not talking about anyone who procrastinates or tries to avoid appearing. I am talking about genuine reasons why it may be difficult.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the simple answer to the noble Lord's question is that, if the person produces a medical certificate in the event of illness, that is perfectly all right.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer about the medical side of the matter. I shall not labour the point. There could be other circumstances that make it impossible for the person to comply with that requirement. I believe that the spirit of the Minister's remarks is perfectly sensible and reasonable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Citation, commencement, consequential repeal and extent]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 20, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The provisions of this Act (other than this section) shall not come into operation until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.
(2A) Different days may be appointed under subsection (2) above for different provisons of this Act.
(2B) The statutory instrument containing the first order under subsection (2) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hesketh).
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is the last opportunity for those who have followed the matter closely to say a few words. Very often those words are to wish the Bill well and to express the hope that it has a successful passage through another place. I am sure that the Minister will understand that in view of the debate I am not in a position to say that.
First of all, however, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who has certainly dealt with the Bill much more comprehensively towards the end of our discussions than at the beginning. Let me hasten to say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House who is in his place that that is not a back-handed compliment. I appreciate the fact that at all times the Minister has sought to understand the intentions behind many of the observations from these Benches. On most occasions he has been successful. On one or two occasions he has not been quite so successful.
We on these Benches are very sad and sorry that the Government resisted the opportunity earlier
1688
today to delay the passage of the Bill. I genuinely do not believe that the Government understand what a furore will be caused when the Bill reaches another place. However, so far as concerns this House, it is a good opportunity for me to say that this side of the Chamber has always understood the need for legislation and the desire of the Government to take action. Our quibble is not with Part II of the Bill which is long overdue—it is to the credit of the Government that they are now dealing with the matter—but with the concept and the totality of a national compulsory identity card scheme.
The Minister may dress up the scheme. He may say that this is an enabling Bill, an outline or a skeleton scheme. At the end of the day the House has been asked to progress a Bill designed to introduce a compulsory identity card for those who wish to attend a football match. We believe that to be a retrograde step. Having said that, I repeat my thanks to the Minister and acknowledge the care and diligence he has shown always in listening to what this side of the House has said and often meeting our points.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the useful discussions that we have had with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope very much that the matters raised in those discussions will be carried forward and that a number of them will be included in the final Bill.
During the debate on the gracious Speech I described this measure as a "silly little Bill". Following the detailed consideration that we have been able to give to it I should like to make a substitution to the first of those adjectives. It is a nasty little Bill. Most of us on these Benches and quite a large number on the Benches opposite who have today given the Government majorities of 12 and 13—revealing a certain lack of enthusiasm there for the contents of the Bill—as well as many other noble Lords recognise that the Bill is irrelevant to its stated purpose. At best it will have only a limited effect within the grounds. It is the view of many senior police officers with operational responsibilities for policing football grounds that it will lead to a deterioration in behaviour in the streets outside. It may thus lead to more rather than less violence.
I find it extremely hard to believe that many Ministers in the Government dissent from that view. That is why the Bill has been left to the care of a junior Minister in the Department of the Environment. Its real author is the Prime Minister. Throughout she has handled colleagues who doubt the wisdom of this measure with the same degree of sensitivity as she has applied to her relationship with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill is therefore a suitable memorial to the Prime Minister.
The Bill is both silly and irrelevant. It will damage many small football clubs, some of which may be driven out of business. It also represents a fundamental attack on people's civil liberties and the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding football supporters.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, irrespective of its detailed content, this emerges from our deliberations as a wholly misconceived Bill. It is misconceived because it tackles the symptom rather than the disease—and only one of the many symptoms at that. The disease is the surplus aggression and violence of young males in this country. The phenomenon is endemic in Britain for a variety of reasons, including the absence of national service in Britain compared with the situation that still prevails on the Continent, the encouragement by the present Government of the get-rich-quick property boom society, at least until October 1987, with the consequence that a substantial segment of young people felt excluded from the alleged benefits of that society, our inadequate and probably under-funded state education system, and the virtual breakdown of discipline within that system, and a breakdown of family cohesion of which the highest divorce figures in Europe, announced two days ago, are only one aspect.
It is in stark contrast with the situation prevailing in France, for example, where family cohesion is still strong. That is why, although French youth is very far from being docile, tame or uncomplaining, one will not find lager louts or football hooligans in that country.
By this legislation the Government are inserting their finger into one hole in the dyke while there remain 100 other holes through which the tide of young male aggression can potentially surge. Even if this legislation succeeds without bankrupting many of the smaller clubs, or producing the grievous problems about which many other noble Lords have warned us, it will merely transfer the violence from the football grounds to other sporting events, to the pubs, the streets and the shopping centres. I hope that the House of Commons will give the Bill the drubbing that it deserves.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse once more the reasons why this Bill is necessary. Football hooliganism remains a major problem both at home and overseas. The Bill provides further powerful measures to deal with the problem on both these fronts.
I should like to reassure your Lordships once more today, as I did earlier, that we shall not approve and implement the scheme until we are satisfied that it will work effectively and efficiently. I do not wish to make a long speech at this stage of our proceedings today. However, before I finish my remarks, I should like first to thank my noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Ferrers and Lord Arran for their help in taking the Bill through your Lordships' House. On the Benches opposite I should like to extend my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the major contributions that they have made in all stages of the Bill as it has gone through your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank the many noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part in our debates. At a personal level, I can say that there could not have been a more educational Bill to deal with as one's first Bill. I beg to move.
1690
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Wesleyan Assurance Society Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Associated British Ports (Hull) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Isle of Wight Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past two o'clock.

  DEER WITH TB: COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER
  DEER WITH TB: COMPULSORY SLAUGHTER
  EC GAME MEAT PROPOSALS: DISCUSSIONS
  EC GAME MEAT PROPOSALS: DISCUSSIONS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL TERMINAL
  CHANNEL TUNNEL TERMINAL
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: TRANSPORT
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE: TRANSPORT