Sitting of 16 January 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the proceedings of 7th December 1989 on consideration of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill be null and void.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Tourism
    Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the development of tourism in the north of England; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): Ministers from my Department have, on a number of occasions, met representatives from the tourism industry in the north of England, and have received correspondence on a wide range of issues affecting tourism in the area.
    Mr. Amos: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask him two questions? First, will he use his best endeavours to bring about greater co-ordination and a clearer sense of direction for the many agencies in Northumberland that promote tourism? Secondly, will he urgently hold discussions with colleagues in the Department of Transport to bring about a more sensible and flexible policy on signposting? People cannot visit places of interest or use accommodation if they do not know that they exist. In a county as dispersed as Northumberland, it is important that people have that information.
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism, who will share my hon. Friend's concern. I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing
    142
    interest in the issue. I come from an area that relies heavily on tourism, so I have considerable personal sympathy with him. I take his point on board.
    Mr. Beith: Why have Ministers denied section 4 grants for tourism in Northumberland? Does the Under-Secretary of State realise how difficult it is to promote tourism in such an attractive area in competition with much better funded promotion on the Scottish side of the border?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked that question; I should have thought that he would already be aware of the answer. If he looks at the figures, he will find that the contribution that section 4 grants made to the tourist industry in Northumbria was minuscule. Other forms of grant and assistance are available to tourism in the area. The industry is so successful that it does not need to be maintained on the back of public subsidy.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth in tourism would be faster in the north of England, particularly in York, if there were more flights from overseas direct to the north? If overseas flights went direct to Manchester and other northern airports, tourists could be channelled directly to York and other tourist areas in the north.
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Transport links are of much importance. The Government's attitude is that local authority airports have a real role to play by taking their share of traffic. I accept what was implicit in my hon. Friend's question—that road transport also has a significant part to play. In that context, my hon. Friend will have been heartened by the proposals in the transport White Paper. I accept his point.
    Mr. Radice: Does not the success of tourism in the northern region owe much to the efforts of the Northumbria tourist board and local councils? Would it not be far fairer if we received some of the support that other areas, such as Scotland and Wales, receive? We should then be on a level playing field. Should not the Government take action on that?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, or the Government would have done
    so. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and others hold that
    view. The position in Wales and Scotland is different—t he hon. Gentleman will find a fair amount of support for this among Labour Members—and cannot always be equated to that in England. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales believed that section 4 should be retained in accordance with how they saw tourism developing. The evidence is that section 4 made a small contribution to tourism in England. The prosperity of the tourist industry in the hon. Gentleman's area owes more to factors other than merely section 4.

    Job clubs
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the pilot project in job clubs designed for people with severe literacy and language problems.
    The Minster of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend announced on 22 November last year a pilot programme of 15 job clubs that give extra help to people with severe literacy difficulties or with very limited command of English. All 15 pilots are now in operation. There will be a review of results achieved in late spring this year.
    Mr. Bowis: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that a significant number of people with language and literacy difficulties cannot benefit from the job markets without this form of assistance. I welcome the work of the job clubs and of the series of pilot schemes. However, will my hon. Friend assure me that once the review has been carried out, the good practice in those schemes will be spread to other parts of the country, including south London?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right to praise the contribution that has been made by the job clubs. More than 200,000 people have found jobs as a result of taking part in the job club scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that if the pilot projects go well, we shall consider extending them to other parts of the country.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister assure the House that his Department will work closely with the Department of Education and Science in this matter? He will have seen in today's papers the reports of the campaign, which is headed by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, for improving literacy throughout the country. Millions of people are unable to play a full part in society because they cannot read or write adequately. We need a co-ordinated campaign across the Departments. Will the Minister ensure that it is a departmental priority this year?
    Mr. Eggar: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is well aware of the problems of literacy. For that reason, we teamed up with the Department of Education and Science and with the BBC to launch a major new remote learning literacy scheme, and there are several other initiatives on that front. I shall be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what we are doing in that area.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the adult illiteracy to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred is a result of trendy and silly education policies, which have now been discredited? Does my hon. Friend recognise that in a constituency such as mine, which is approaching full employment, the small number of adult illiterates and young people leaving school whose literacy is not adequate have become unemployable, which is a tragedy for them and for the country? Does he agree that we should do everything that we can to reduce that problem?
    Mr. Eggar: Certainly, I agree with my hon. Friend on that point and that is why we have the job clubs' pilot project on literacy. If my hon. Friend has specific suggestions for her area, I hope that she will tell me about them.
    Mr. McLeish: No one would dispute the need for a modern employment service to be sensitive to issues such as literacy, numeracy and language. Is the Minister aware that that idea emerged from an internal strategy document from the Department of Employment, which also
    144
    suggested that benefit sanctions would be applied to job clubs, to employment training and to restart? Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be no attempt to use the measures contained in the Employment Act 1988 to designate those schemes as training, or to use the actively seeking work regulations of the Social Security Act 1989 to bring more pressure on people to adopt such programmes? Does he accept that in this day and age, when there are still almost 400,000 people who have been unemployed for more than two years, there is a need for positive consideration, rather than punishment and coercion?
    Mr. Eggar: The Government's schemes are designed to assist people to get back to work. That is why we have an extensive employment training provision, why we continue to seek to make it as flexible as possible and why we are giving increasing priority to literacy and numeracy skills. Together with the training and enterprise councils, we shall continue to seek ways to enhance people's capability to find jobs.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the pilot project embrace those who are suffering from dyslexia? If the pilot project turns out correctly, will my hon. Friend ensure that it embraces such people?
    Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the pilot project will cover people who suffer from dyslexia and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the problem. I had an Adjournment debate on the subject myself, back in 1981.

    Disabled People
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the working of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what additional measures he will introduce to enable disabled persons to participate fully in the work force.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): My Department already maintains a com?prehensive network of services to help people with disabilities find and retain jobs. Measures to encourage the employment of more people with disabilities and the operation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 are among the matters being considered in our current review of services for people with disabilities.
    Ms. Ruddock: Given the low level of enforcement of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act and the low morale in the disability advisory service, is it not time that the Secretary of State learnt from other countries such as West Germany, where the 6 per cent. quota is vigorously enforced, unlike the quota in this country?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Lady's allegations of low morale. She asked about West Germany. There are many differences between the approach taken there and the approach that we take in this country, and the basis on which comparisons are made is frequently misleading. All those matters will be taken into account in our review and I hope to publish a consultative document shortly.
    Mr. Corbett: In the review, will the Secretary of State consider extending the number of sheltered industrial units to enable the severely disabled, with reduced work output, to work alongside their able-bodied colleagues, but to get a subsidy via his Department from a sponsor organisation? Does he accept that that could improve the job prospects for about 370,000 registered disabled?
    Mr. Howard: The part played by sheltered industrial units is certainly among the matters being considered in the review, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is taken into account.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is a pleasure to see him at the Dispatch Box in his new role? Will he ensure that employers throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in areas such as mine, which now has virtually full employment, are made aware of the very good record of job loyalty that the disabled bring to their employment? That is an asset to employers when the labour situation is tight.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome. I entirely agree with his observation. People with disabilities have a great deal to offer employers and it is important that employers should have full regard to their potential.
    Mr. Thurnham: May I give a warm welcome to my right hon. and learned Old Petrian Friend in his new responsibilities? Will he confirm that he will continue to increase the number of disabled persons being helped into jobs, and assist in the rapid introduction of the proposed new disability employment credit?
    Mr Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. The Government's record of encouraging and helping disabled people into jobs is excellent and we want to ensure that it continues and improves further.
    Mr Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the good intentions expressed in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) run counter to the statements in his Department's internal review, which said that work for disabled people had little status and less priority in the employment service? Is he aware that his own Department does not know how many employers have completed their employment policy questionnaire and that two thirds of Britain's disabled persons have no job? May we have a changed attitude from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his new job, to which I also welcome him?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I shall look into the matter of the questionnaire, but the general matters that lie behind his question are at the heart of the review that is currently under way.

    Ballots
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the code of practice for trade union ballots for industrial action.
    Mr. Nicholls: Following representations on the draft published at the end of 1988, a modified draft of the code of practice has now been laid before Parliament. The draft
    146
    code deals with a matter of great importance—the conduct of union ballots on industrial action. The next step is to move approval resolutions in each House.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an encouraging reply? Does he accept that it is absolutely essential that any union that does not accept the need for a proper ballot, under the terms of the code of practice, should risk legal action being taken against it?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Many of the contributions that were made to the code of practice were drawn from the best practice of certain trade unions. Any union that is prepared to conduct its ballots fairly and democratically will find the code of great assistance.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that more than 90 per cent. of the ballots that have been held since the passage of the Trade Union Act 1984 have confirmed the unions' positions? Will he guarantee that the so-called code of practice is not just a back-door attempt to make ballots and official industrial disputes more difficult?
    Mr. Nicholls: No, as I said, many of the ideas contained in the balloting code have been drawn from the best practice of better unions. Nothing in the code should cause any concern to any union if it wants to conduct itself fairly and democratically.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the provision on workplace ballots that were passed by the House were attacked at every stage by Opposition Members and by trade unions but that, today, they appear to be in favour of what has worked well to bring industrial peace to this country?
    Mr. Nicholls: That is certainly what we are asked to believe. When the Labour party poses as the champion of individual liberties, I find it about as convincing as the idea of a piranha turning vegetarian.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made to establish training and enterprise councils.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many proposals have been made to the national task force for the establishment of training and enterprise councils; and how many have been accepted for development funding.
    Mr. Howard: I am able to announce today that a further seven training and enterprise councils have been awarded development funding. That brings the total number of TECs to 51, just 10 months after the initiative was first launched.
    Mr. Jones: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his new position. Does he agree that a major concern about setting up councils in rural areas is that their members may lack the necessary breadth of expertise to make them a success? Few industrialists have direct experience of in-house training in rural areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in rural areas, it is necessary to fund bodies that bring together not only industrialists but careers teachers, technical colleges,

    147
    universities and training agencies to identify potential skill shortages in rural areas and to begin to tackle the job at that end?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I agree that all the organisations to which he referred have a part to play in the TEC initiative. One of the great advantages of that initiative is that it is able to draw on local circumstances and adjust programmes to take full account of local needs.
    Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the results that he has described demonstrate that we are way ahead of target and that we shall achieve TEC coverage of most of the United Kingdom much earlier than was originally anticipated? Does he agree also that the results clearly demonstrate the truth that has been known by business for a long time is being learnt by our schools and is about to be learnt in the National Health Service—that if one delegates responsibility to the people who can use it properly, one will get not only better interest and commitment but far better results?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We expect the whole network to be in place by the end of this year, about two years ahead of schedule. The establishment of TECs is the most exciting training initiative that we have ever seen. I hope that the TECs will receive a warm welcome on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister advance the commencement of the Tyneside TEC by six weeks, to allow a Confederation of British Industry initiative in Cruddas park in Newcastle to continue? That initiative was run into the ground because not one local employer agreed to employ people on Government programmes in Cruddas park. Will the Secretary of State go to Newcastle, start the TEC six weeks early, and make sure that we can find one local employer who will participate in that initiative?
    Mr. Howard: I hope to visit Newcastle as soon as is convenient and I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned about the quality of the membership of the TECs, but does he agree that we might be being a little too restrictive, because a senior director of a major national company, who may not be the chief executive of that company, can have more to offer a TEC than, say, the managing director of a much smaller commercial enterprise. Should we not be a little more flexible than we are at present?
    Mr. Howard: I understand the concern that lies behind my hon. Friend's question, but the success of the TECs owes a great deal to the fact that it is the chief executives, or their equivalents, of the companies concerned who are members of the TEC boards. That lends the TECs an extra impetus that they would not otherwise have and that is why we attach so much importance to the participation of chief executive officers of companies.
    Mr. Blair: I welcome the new Secretary of State, but does he agree that his first priority must be to deal with Britain's lamentable record on training and skills? In that connection, when his own Department's survey shows that one in five employers do not themselves train but poach trained staff from others and when half Britain's work
    148
    force in any one year will not receive any training at all, what powers will the new training and enterprise councils have to prevent the bad employers from exploiting the good?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but I am sorry that he should have prefaced his question with routine party political criticism of the type in which he engaged. I hope that he will work with the Government to ensure that the TEC initiative succeeds, as it shows every sign of succeeding, and that it achieves great progress in dealing, among other things, with the problem that he identified.

    Tourism
    Mr. Bright: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage increase in the number of visitors to the United Kingdom in 1989; and what was the figure for 1988.
    Mr. Nicholls: The latest estimate for 1989 is that, during the first 10 months of the year, there were 14·9 million visitors to the United Kingdom, 9 per cent. more than in the same period of 1988. In 1988 as a whole there were 15·8 million visitors to the United Kingdom, 1 per cent. more than in 1987.
    Mr. Bright: Obviously, the trend is encouraging, but apart from ensuring that people use airports such as Luton and Manchester and avoid the sometimes cattle-like conditions that they have to experience at Gatwick and Heathrow, will my hon. Friend encourage the industry and, indeed, the planning authorities to provide value-for-money accommodation around the countryside, such as we often see in America, which is one of the things that tourists are looking for, instead of the high-priced hotels that they are sometimes pushed into at the moment?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right to draw our attention to the importance of an initially favourable impression when one lands at an airport. I know that my noble Friend the Minister responsible for tourism shares that view. My hon. Friend is aware of the attitude that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport takes in pursuing the liberalisation of air routes, to try to bring more people into the country. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Without being complacent, there are good grounds for saying that the industry is taking those points on board, especially in relation to accommodation.
    Mr. Pike: Would not we get better tourism in the regions and thereby increase tourism to this country if we not only developed more direct access to our regional airports, but ensured that the regions can benefit fully from the Channel tunnel project? Does the Minister agree that we must not get second best for the regions, but first best, with public investment in the railway network to meet that need?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman touches quite properly on the role that transport plays in this matter. He also referred to the Channel tunnel. It is expected that about 15 million people will use the Channel tunnel in the first year. I fully accept that that has consequences for the

    149
    regions and the road network. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the recent White Paper on road transport, he will find a great deal there to encourage him.
    Sir John Stokes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that while, clearly, we should welcome tourists to this country, tourism is ruining large areas of the world? Must we not take care to preserve our English countryside and heritage as much as possible as well as welcoming newcomers?
    Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is entirely right to point out that inevitably there is a conflict between the proper exploitation of tourist areas and making sure that our heritage is not destroyed in the process. I should not go so far as to take my hon. Friend's apocalyptic view of the matter but he is right that the danger must be borne in mind.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that tourism can provide a valuable source of income for the balance of payments? Is he aware that during the past five or six years, the amount under "invisible" items in the balance of payments has fallen from £700 million a month to £100 million a month and that tourism has a part to play in that? Is it not a scandal that the Government have reached the point where they make the invisibles invisible?
    Mr. Nicholls: The only thing that is invisible is the hon. Gentleman's ability to understand the facts. It is an entirely false formula to subtract domestic tourism from outgoing tourism. The fact that tourism overseas is increasing at such a rate and that people can afford to go abroad for their holidays shows the economic prosperity of the country. I say that in the certain knowledge that were the hon. Gentleman's party to attain office, that prosperity would disappear completely.

    Youth Access
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the youth access initiative.
    Mr. Eggar: I am pleased with the progress of this initiative, which is at the pilot stage. It seeks to develop partnerships between business and education specifically to take young people who would normally not continue their education after the age of 16, through further education and into higher education.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that with the demographic time bomb ticking away, it is vital that young people have early access to industry? Will he confirm that the Training Agency will provide an additional £200,000 to the initiative, which should be welcomed?
    Mr. Eggar: I readily confirm that to my hon. Friend. The pilot schemes are important. They will follow the line that we established with the technical and vocational education initiative, training and enterprise councils and higher education. All those schemes designed to bring together education, training and work experience.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that in the past 10 years the level of skills that our young people attained has been much lower than before? Does he recognise that we must pay attention to the quality of training opportunities for our young people and that we
    150
    have a long way to go before we come anywhere near meeting the potential of young people and the country's need for trained personnel for the future?
    Mr. Eggar: It is common ground that we need to improve the quality of our training and skills. It is important that employers and employees combine with the Government and the voluntary agencies to raise the level of skills throughout the country during the next decade. That is a major challenge to us all.
    Mr. Fatchett: How far does the Minister feel responsible for the fact that during the past 10 years the level of skills among young people here has deteriorated in comparison with the skills of West German and French youngsters? He does not need to take my word for that because that is the conclusion of the Confederation of British Industry report on education and training.
    Mr. Eggar: I readily take responsibility for the Government's excellent youth training scheme which later developed into youth training and for the formation of the training and enterprise councils. All those schemes will have a tremendous beneficial impact on our levels of skills and training in the 1990s.

    Construction Inspectors
    Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for increasing the number of Health and Safety Executive construction inspectors.
    Mr. Howard: The Health and Safety Executive has exceeded its objective of having 100 inspectors regularly engaged on the inspection of construction activities nationally by 1990. That number will be maintained. The House has no plans to increase the number in 1990, but the position will be kept under review.
    Ms. Mowlam: As we have had a 22 per cent. increase in the number of fatal and major accidents in the past eight years, does the Secretary of State consider that the target of 100 inspectors is adequate?
    Mr. Howard: One must look at the figures in perspective. There has been a substantial decrease in the number of fatal accidents in the construction industry. In the 10 years ending March 1988 there were 1,195 fatalities compared with 1,968 during the previous 10 years. The
    objective was set by the HSE and I have no reason to gainsay it.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the key to safety on construction sites is good training in site safety practices and good supervision by enlightened and progressive firms?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and he will know that we are awaiting the results of the consultation document that was issued by the Health and Safety Commission proposing new regulations on the management of health and safety on sites.
    Mr. Leighton: 1, too, add my welcome to the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will not want to underestimate the seriousness of the situation in the construction industry where about 150 people are killed and tens of thousands injured every year. That is on a rising trend, perhaps because of the number of sub-contractors, many of whom ignore safety regulations, and because there are only a

    151
    little more than 100 inspectors for nearly 700,000 employees. There are very few prosecutions because there are not enough inspectors to bring them and, when they are brought, the penalties are derisory. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman doing to increase the number of inspectors and to see that the penalties are an effective deterrent?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee for his kind words of welcome. There has been an increasing number of prosecutions and the hon. Gentleman will know that the HSE is increasingly seeking to persuade the courts that such matters should be dealt with in the Crown courts where the court's ability to make decisions and to levy punishments that are more in keeping with the offences is much more widely available.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been an increase of about 10 per cent. in the number of health and safety inspectors working on construction sites in the past two years? Do vacancies still exist in different parts of the country and, if so, what does that tell us about the level of pay that those inspectors enjoy?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's figure for the increase is correct and the number of inspectors on inspection of construction activities is now more than the complement that the HSE has set.
    Mr. Heifer: As there have been six deaths on this side of the Channel tunnel and only one death on the French side during its construction, will the Secretary of State pay special attention to the health and safety of those who are working on the tunnel? Will there be an increase in the number of health and safety inspectors on this side of the Channel?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point which requires attention. He will be aware that the latest unfortunate incident is being investigated by the HSE and we should wait and see what emerges from that investigation.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Under-Secretary of State was challenged about the Government's scandalous record in terms of death and injuries on construction sites, he said that people on building sites had the right to walk out if a site was unsafe, in effect asking them to take unofficial action? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House clearly whether the Employment Bill's provision on unofficial action will make it easier or more difficult for union officials to take such unofficial action on unsafe construction sites?
    Mr. Howard: As I recall my hon. Friend's words, his point was that employees have an important role in drawing breaches of the safety regulations to the attention of the HSE. That is an important contribution which employees can make, and I hope that they play their full part in drawing such breaches to the attention of the executive.

    Labour Statistics (Leicester)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement regarding the current level of unemployment in the city of Leicester.
    Mr. Eggar: In November 1989 there were 9,629 unemployed claimants in the local authority area of Leicester, a fall of 1,902 or 16·5 per cent. over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that over the past 12 months the hosiery and knitwear industries in Leicester have lost 4,000 jobs and that the Government's research programme cannot possibly save them because it will be too late to do so? Will the Government announce some help for the knitwear and hosiery industries in my constituency in view of the growing unemployment in those vital industries that have long been traditional and important to the city?
    Mr. Eggar: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know that similar points were made during last Friday's debate.
    Mr Ashby: Does not my hon. Friend agree that although his reply is good news, that is despite the fact that the loony Left-wing Leicester council policies encourage unemployment in Leicester?
    Mr. Eggar: I quite understand my hon. Friend's concerns about Leicester council's policy. Clearly, anything that adds to the costs for employees and employers in Leicester is likely to lead to unnecessary job losses.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the city of Leicester, unemployment is in excess of 25 per cent. and still increasing, and that it will increase further as local industry is facing increased pressure because of high interest rates? In the light of that, will he put pressure on his colleagues who are in charge of economic affairs to ensure that interest rates decline as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Eggar: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman. Why does he have to write down his own local area in Leicester? Unemployment has fallen sharply in Leicester, as it has elsewhere in the east midlands. Why does he not point out that, rather than the problems of the industries?

    Labour Statistics
    12. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom in 1989 and in other major industrialised countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Howard: Between January and September 1989, the latest comparable date, the rate of unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country. With permission I will publish a full comparison in the Official Report.
    Mr. Greenway: Is not that a matter for great congratulation for this Government? Is it not a fact that

    153
    the Delors social charter certainly would not have improved employment in this country? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that even in boroughs such as Ealing, in which the Left-wing Labour council has both doubled the industrial rates and is thoroughly antibusiness, jobs have increased as a result of Government policies?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in what he said about the social charter. However, the improvement in employment rates that he identified is not limited to Ealing. I hope that we shall see the principal Opposition spokesman on employment, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rise to his feet to welcome the 50 per cent. fall in unemployment that has occurred in his constituency in the past three years.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not any fall in unemployment a fall from the peak created by this Government? When does the Secretary of State expect unemployment to fall to the 1979 level? Does he think that there is any connection between the £20 billion balance of trade deficit achieved by the Government—another peak—and the 2 million jobs lost in manufacturing industries since 1979?
    Mr. Howard: I never cease to be amazed at the devotion shown by Opposition Members to jobs that existed in loss-making firms which offered no security either to the workers or the firms. The 2·75 million extra jobs that have been created in this country since 1983 are in firms that make profits and are secure for the long term.
    Mr. Holt: As the resurgence in economic activity in Cleveland is a major contributor to the better figures that my right hon. and learned Friend has in front of him, will he find five minutes to write to Cleveland county council to tell it to accept the figures and the truth instead of asking its research and intelligence department to try and concoct false ones because it does not like the good news from Teesside?
    Mr. Howard: I look forward to spending at least five minutes discussing that matter with my hon. Friend, so that we ensure that my letter correctly represents the facts.
    Mr. Salmond: How can there be any further progress in reducing unemployment when the United Kingdom's whole economy is restrained because of overheating in one part of it? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the research published in the current issue of the "Fraser of Allander Quarterly Economic Commentary", which reveals that manufacturing industry outside the south-east will suffer most from the Government's policy of high interest rates? Will he make respresentations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to help give businesses in Scotland, the north and Wales a chance to achieve economic recovery?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Industry and employment throughout the country have benefited from the framework created by Government policies.
    Following is the information:

    International comparison of unemployment rates (OECD Standarised Unemployment Rates)

    January

    September

    Change (per cent.)

    Italy

    11·1

    211·3

    0·2

    Norway

    14·8

    35·0

    0·2

    Netherlands

    9·4

    n/a

    n/a

    Japan

    2·3

    2·2

    -0·1

    France

    9·7

    9·5

    -0·2

    Canada

    7·5

    7·3

    -0·2

    Germany

    5·7

    5·5

    -0·2

    United States

    5·4

    5·2

    -0·2

    Sweden

    1·5

    1·3

    -0·2

    Portugal

    15·2

    34·9

    -0·3

    Finland

    3·7

    43·4

    -0·3

    Belgium

    9·3

    8·9

    -0·4

    Spain

    117·7

    317·0

    -0·7

    Australia

    6·8

    6·0

    -0·8

    United Kingdom

    7·1

    6·0

    -1·1

    OECD total

    6·4

    4 56·1

    -0·3

    Major seven

    5·8

    55·6

    -0·2

    EEC

    9·3

    58·9

    -0·4

    1 February.

    2 April.

    3 May.

    4 August.

    5 Estimated.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings today.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to maximise the advantages and opportunities for Britain in the developing European Community is for Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament to work more closely together in future, not grow further apart?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the Procedure Committee has some proposals to make on that matter, and its report will be debated in this House in due course. It is most important to work together in such a way that Europe is open for trade and is not protectionist, and that it operates in such a way that the rights of this House—the sovereign and oldest House of Parliament in the European Community—are well and truly respected.
    Mr. Battle: Why are the Government continuing to allow the dumping of industrial toxic waste into the North sea, despite comments made during last night's Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill, international assurances, and the protests made by the rest of Europe? Will the Government continue blatantly to disregard international agreements and the environmental health of the North sea?
    The Prime Minister: I have checked the law and the reports, and they confirm that we agreed to phase out dumping of industrial waste into the North sea by the end

    155
    of 1989, except where there was no practicable land disposal option—which requires a great deal of planning permission and investment. But then we have to show to the satisfaction of the Oslo Commission that waste dumped at sea will not cause harm. That is being done, so we are not infringing any of our legal responsibilities.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Farmers in my constituency believe that there is a contradiction in the attitude adopted by the European Commission, which wants to see greater progress made towards monetary union but is nevertheless prepared to reduce the gap between the real and notional value of the green pound by only one third. How can there be a single European market for agriculture when that crippling disadvantage for British farmers is so lightly dismissed by Brussels bureaucrats?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, farm price differences are due to the arrangements for green currency. We agreed to phase out the green currencies by the end of 1992, which will be of great benefit to our farmers, and we must hold our partners to that agreement. Meanwhile, the Commission's current proposals will reduce the gap by one third, which is a step in the right direction. Whether or not that goes far enough is a matter for negotiation in the coming months.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House last year that, under the present Government, there is no incomes policy? Why did she change her mind?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Under this Government, it is for the private sector to determine its pay levels and for the Government, as an employer, to determine their pay levels.
    Mr. Kinnock: I wish to jog the Prime Minister's memory by quoting from Hansard. She said:
    "Under this Government there is no incomes…policy." —[Official Report, 16 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 482.]
    Perhaps she can explain why she has two incomes policies in the public sector—one for the top paid, above the rate of inflation, and one for the remainder, below the rate of inflation. Why does she not come clean and admit that, even though it would mean swallowing her own words?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what an incomes policy is. If he did, he would know that there is no incomes policy under this Government. It is for the private sector to determine pay arrangements in relation to productivity and bearing in mind the need to keep prices competitive. It is for the Government, in the public sector, to determine the rate of pay for those who come directly under our employment. To do that, we have observed the recommendations of the pay review bodies for those people who do not go on strike. We have observed the many negotiating arrangements. The position is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman understands.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: If the NHS management bows to industrial action by the ambulance men and decide to
    156
    raise the offer, what message would that convey to the 84 per cent. of NHS workers who, last year, settled their pay claims through the usual negotiating machinery?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The pay claim that is being resolved now should have been settled last spring or early summer. That pay round was settled at 6·5 to 6·8 per cent. by some 84 per cent. of NHS employees including nurses, administrative and clerical grades, senior managers, ancillary staff, building trade operatives and medical laboratory scientific officers. They all settled at the right time for between 6·5 and 6·8 per cent. It would be unfair if, because the ambulance workers did not settle and have gone on strike and disrupted some of their work, they were to receive more than those who settled and did not strike.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Michie: I am here. Will the Prime Minister admit to the shabby Government policy that restricts ambulance crews having a decent living wage, while around her she has highly-paid colleagues who make more moonlighting than they earn as Members of Parliament? Is it not time that she cleaned up this sleaze Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to his place. I am used to answering Sheffield questions from that area. I do not agree with him. As he is aware, the ambulance men have had a revised offer costing another £6 million this year, which varies between 9 and 16·3 per cent., according to where they work and their qualifications, and for a period of 18 months. That is a good offer. It is 16·3 per cent. for those with more qualifications because we want more ambulance men with more medical qualifications. I hope that they will return to the relevant Whitley council and accept the offer
    .
    Mr. Aitken: When my right hon. Friend speaks of the need to preserve the right of this sovereign Parliament, is she fully aware of the disadvantage under which we are working because of the flow of documents from Europe? Is she further aware that during the past 12 months the European Commission sent this House 765 legislative documents consisting of 10,000 pages? That is an impossible total for the House to carry over and above its existing domestic legislation. Surely we need to reform our procedures as soon as possible.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an enormous amount of extra work involved in properly scrutinising the many documents that come before us. I hope that the report of the Select Committee on Procedure will soon be debated in the House and I hope that when all the arrangements are in place for 1992 that stream of directives will be infinitely less. As I have said frequently in the House, we have to remember that no other Parliament in the European Community is as central to the life of a nation as this one, and that is not surprising, because we are the oldest sovereign Parliament in the Community.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Does the right hon. Lady agree with President Gorbachev when he says that the people of Lithuania have an absolute right to independence if they so choose? Does she know about today's opinion poll in Scotland, in which the Conservatives have gone down to 16 per cent.—a level at which they would be almost wiped out in the House—which adds to their annihilation at a European level? When the Scottish people say yes to self-government what will be the Prime Minister's reply?
    The Prime Minister: It is for Mr. Gorbachev to make his views clear, which he does very competently. Expenditure per head in Scotland is 23 per cent. above the United Kingdom average, so Scotland does very well out of the Government. When the time comes, it will be for Scotland to consider whether it wants to throw over those advantages for something less.
    Mr. Bendall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bendall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under the block services grant, Redbridge will suffer? The national change is about 11 per cent., but in Redbridge we shall get 6·7 per cent., which is a shortfall of 4·3 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that I recognise all of my hon. Friend's figures. Redbridge will do well from the proposed grant settlements, and it will receive 27 per cent. more income from the Government grant and business rates in the coming year than it received this year from those sources. Many hon. Members would be very pleased with such a settlement.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Six thousand people are unemployed in my constituency, and more than one third have been unemployed for more than a year. What will the right hon. Lady do about unemployment in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the new employment training arrangements which are very successful. He will be aware that it is vitally important that we train people for new jobs, and that we do not necessarily try to keep the old ones. That is why we have set up the new training and enterprise councils which I hope will give training and jobs
    158
    to more of his constituents. It would also help if they welcomed private enterprise and co-operated to keep costs down.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the system for compensating people who are affected by road and rail developments leaves something to be desired? Does she agree that if we did as the French do—more than compensate people who are affected—we might find that we cut out some of the delays that we face when building the roads and railways that we so badly need, and in the long run we might save a great deal of money?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the viewpoint put by my hon. Friend is popular as a way to get things done more quickly. He will be aware that we compensate people with the full market value at the moment, and there are certain other disturbance costs granted to people who have to move. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering whether we need to give more compensation, but that would mean legislation in a new Bill. Perhaps, if we come to that conclusion, there will be time in the next Session.
    Q7. Mrs. Rosie Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Barnes: Does the Prime Minister agree that health visitors are a vital part of the community health service. particularly in their role of screening families to identify vulnerable young children? Will she join me in condemning the action of the Greenwich health authority, which has curtailed the service severely?
    The Prime Minister: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the health visitors, and to the vital part that they play as they go around performing their duties. I uphold their service in every respect, but it is not for me to make a judgment that must properly be made by Greenwich council when it weighs expenditure on one service against expenditure on another. The hon. Lady must not provoke me to make a judgment that I should not make because I am not in possession of the full facts.

Leyland Bus Plant (Lancashire)
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjourment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed decision by the chairman of Volvo Truck and Bus to sack 400 workers in the Leyland bus plant in Lancashire, near my constituency."
I was shocked and disgusted when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the current chairman of the Conservative party, failed yesterday at the Dispatch Box to give any indication of the Government's resolve to prevent Volvo Truck and Bus from betraying the Leyland-Daf Buses work force, thus further weakening the industrial base of the economy of the north-west.
Two years ago, the Government promoted the sale of Leyland-Daf Buses to a new foreign owner, with a fanfare of optimism and promises of new investment, job opportunities and long-term security. Yet, without either a warning from the company or any note of caution or regret from the Government, bus production in Lancashire is being put at risk and the production of all bus chassis is to be ended. How can a company such as Leyland, with a worldwide reputation for quality, be so cynically undermined by a boardroom decision made outside the United Kingdom but affecting the entire British manufacturing base?
Under the present Government, British manufacturing industry is being bought wholesale by foreign companies, and is being closed down on the Government's whim. The Government, in the guise of the Minister for Roads and Traffic—the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)
160
—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, must take full responsibility for allowing the present situation to develop.
Labour Members in the north-west are demanding action from the Government to prevent the Volvo corporation from imposing its two-week deadline on the work force. They must come up with a scheme to prevent the closure of the plant. It is an outrage that the workers should be put under such strain at such an important time, and the guarantees given two years ago should be recognised and implemented by both the Government and the Volvo corporation. Suspending the redundancies is not enough; they must be withdrawn immediately, and a commitment must be given that the 400 jobs in Lancashire will be retained.
Finally, let me thank the editor and staff of the Lancashire Evening Post for joining in the campaign on behalf of the work force.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The application was made to me.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement that nearly 400 redundancies are to take place at Leyland Daf Buses."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I must announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I have to decide whether his application should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and that I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to give guidance on the subject of the declaration of interests by hon. Members? In last night's television programme "World in Action", a number of Members, whom I have no intention of naming, were said to have commercial interests outside the House which they had not declared. I believe that that programme raised matters which concern the reputation of the House.
We have said—as you have said, Mr. Speaker—that this is an honourable House. It must be said that undoubtedly a number of people who watched that programme last night must be wondering how those with commercial interests, who in many respects are just lobbyists paid for by companies, can raise on the Floor of the House of Commons, at Question Time or on other occasions, matters in which they have a direct financial interest. That would not be allowed in a local authority. Indeed, the traditions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Winnick: I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether the standards which undoubtedly exist in local government, and which I believe to be right, should not apply in the House of Commons.
It was said last night that it was not necesary to declare an interest at Question Time. If you come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the reputation of the House is being abused because Members are exploiting that loophole by not declaring their interests at Question Time, when in fact they have a direct financial or commercial interest, may I ask you to rule that they do so?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same point, because I can help the House by giving clear guidance?
Mr. Howarth: My point of order concerns the same matter, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can be of assistance. In view of the sanctimonious nonsense that is traditionally spoken by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), whom nobody would employ to do anything, may I express the hope that, in taking this matter into account, you will bear in mind that many Opposition Members are nakedly sponsored by trade unions and who spend their entire time using the House in furtherance of their trade union interests?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not allow this to develop into a debate. Let me give clear guidance, because the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked for that.
I made it clear yesterday that these are matters in the first instance for the Select Committee on Members' Interests under Standing Order No. 128. That Committee considers any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests. The Committee also considers any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and contents of the Register of Members' Interests.
The Committee is currently examining the whole question of outside lobbyists and their relations with Members. I cannot comment from the Chair on
162
allegations of non-compliance with the rules for registration. Any information that Members or others have relevant to these issues should be sent to the Committee and not debated across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a matter of clarification relating to lobbyists, would you agree that that word would cover any body which is involved in lobbying Members of Parliament? If so, it must embrace trade unions and other bodies which actively lobby all of us. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The system of being lobbied in the House is of long standing.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? You will be aware that in a highly dynamic situation which was developing during the course of the day today, I tried to raise through the usual means the question of the dumping fly ash in the North sea off the north-east. I was advised by your office that one reason why the issue could not be raised was that, because three people had been arrested, the matter was considered to be sub judice.
This is a matter of some puzzlement to me. People are frequently arrested in relation to demonstrations about: matters of public concern and are not necessarily subsequently charged, or there may not be a case to answer. The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is whether we are to assume that when anybody is arrested in the course of some matter of public concern, we are prevented from raising it in the House. If so, that seems to be creating a precedent.
Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman guidance on that matter. He sought to raise the matter in an application under Standing Order No. 20 asking for a debate which would take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. My office gave him the guidance that that would not be in order because the men concerned—I think they were all men—had been arrested, and clearly it would not be in order to have a debate on the subject. The hon. Gentleman can put down a question regarding the disposal of ash; that would be a completely different matter.
Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The Register of Members' Interests shows that about 90 per cent. of Labour Members are sponsored by trade unions in their constituencies. The Register of Members' Interests states that many of them are under something called the Hastings agreement, which, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the unions pay for all those goods and services in their constituencies which other Members of Parliament have to pay for themselves out of their taxed income. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of guidance: is it not right that hon. Members who receive vast benefits from various trade unions should declare the exact amount that they are receiving, because they are receiving it in kind?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already made the position absolutely clear to the House. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: But it is not true.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may take exception to what has been said, but it is not a matter of order for me. If any such abuse is alleged it should be taken to the Select Committee.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I pursue just a little further the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised with you? The House is aware that, if a legal process is in action, you exercise the sub judice rule across all our business, whether it is a debate or an application under Standing Order No. 20. I think I am right in saying that that has never before happened on arrest.
As a matter of law, someone is innocent until proved guilty and certainly is not regarded as apprehended until he is charged. May I ask you to reflect on the matter generally? It affects not only the issue that my hon. Friend raised about dumping in the North sea, but all our business. Could you rule either today or tomorrow whether, between arrest and charge, a matter is not sub judice, as is the traditional understanding as a matter of law?
Mr. Speaker: I have made the matter absolutely clear. It is not a suitable subject for an application under Standing Order No. 20. If we had applications under Standing Order No. 20 every time anyone was arrested, we should never get any business done. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a specific request under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss those arrests. I passed the message to him that that would not be appropriate. If he would like to discuss the matter with me, I should be happy to do so.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I beg your indulgence to explain to the House that the Hastings agreement is an agreement between the trades unions and the local Labour party relating only to a percentage of the money paid for an election? None of us receives any personal remuneration whatsoever. Therefore, it is a total lie for hon. Gentlemen to suggest otherwise.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House would be well advised to wait until the Select Committee has carefully considered the matter, which I have already said is before it. Doubtless there will then be a debate in which all these matters will be in order. We should not deal with it this afternoon, on a day when we have very heavy business before us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED

    TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
    Mr. Ian McCartney presented a Bill to protect the general public in the purchase and application of toxic and
    164
    hazardous substances within the home environment; to provide a code of conduct for use by consumers and contractors; to set up a register of proscribed substances; and for other purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

    REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS
    Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. John Hughes, presented a Bill to provide a public register of organisations who carry out the lobbying of Parliament for commercial gain and the disclosure of expenditure by such organisations; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Declare your interest."] I always have done. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable to have this pointing across the Chamber. The point of order is to me. I must hear it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have you seen early-day motion 290, which questions the right of members of the press lobby to publish information on the proceedings of the House? Have you read the motion, Mr. Speaker? While it refers to me, it then
    "calls upon the Select Committee on the Televising of the House to review the terms upon which the Chamber and committees are televised to seek to prevent further similar uses of the proceedings of the House."
    The motion is similar to asking the Services Committee to prevent newspapers from publishing the proceedings of Parliament, which in itself means that there are 43 hon. Members who think that they have the right to require The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Independent and every national newspaper to refrain from publishing information which they believe should be in the public domain.
    The motion is an attempt to censor the House of Commons and to censor hon. Members because we are raising issues relating to the private interests of Members of Parliament, an issue of great public concern.
    Mr. Speaker: The early-day motion is on the Order Paper. The matter cannot be debated now. It was not drawn to my attention when it was put down.
    Ten-minute rule motion—
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us. I will take the point of order if it is on a completely different matter, but not on the question of Members' interests.
    Mr. Bennett: It is on the circulation of the Register. The programme to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred was very one-sided. It referred only to Conservative Members. Could you arrange, Mr. Speaker, for a copy of the Register of Members' Interests to be sent to Granada Television so that it may see, for

    165
    instance, that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has three adviserships? No mention was made of Labour Members who are advisers and consultants.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I saw the programme. It was in the light of it that I made my statement this afternoon.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter?
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not hearing it, in that case.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is it on a genuinely different matter?
    Mr. Skinner: It is as vital as some of those that you have had from the Tories.
    Mr. Speaker: I will only hear it if it is on a different matter.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is a genuine point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: What I said was, is it on a different matter?
    Mr. Skinner: It is a genuine point of order. If those Tories can—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Skinner: We have every right to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must sit down. Ten-minute rule motion, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not hearing it.
    Mr. Skinner: It is on a different matter.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is seeking to abuse the procedures of the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
    Mr. Skinner: It is on a different matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
    Mr. Skinner: Those Tories—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, I now order the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Elimination of Poverty in Retirement
3.48 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old-age pensions by reference to average earnings; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people.
This is the seventh occasion on which such a Bill has been introduced. I introduce it because the plight of elderly people is growing poverty, growing misery and a growing fear that they will not be able to make ends meet and that they will lead a lonely and miserable life. It is up to the House to address the problem urgently and to introduce a comprehensive measure, said as this Bill, which would eliminate the poverty that causes the problem.
The state old-age pension in Britain is the lowest of any European industrial country. The proportion is getting worse compared to the rest of Europe. That is compounded by cuts in social services provision by local authorities and by cuts in health provision. It is further compounded by the steadily increasing cost of gas, electricity, water and telephones, all of which have been privatised since the Government took office, and all of which are charging considerably more for what is often an inferior service.
The life expectancy of elderly people in this country is becoming lower that that of those in other industrial countries with which it is reasonable to make a comparison. I am glad that, so far, we have not had a cold winter, but should there be one, once again the horror of deaths from hypothermia will occur, not because there is insufficent capacity to heat old people's homes but because the cost of heating is far too high. The Bill includes a series of measures to eliminate much of the poverty from which elderly people suffer.
In 1980, the Government broke the link between the state old-age pension and the level of average earnings, which was a disgraceful and shameful act. That link should be restored, and the Bill aims to do so immediately. If it were restored in April 1990, the state old-age pension would be £13·10 a week higher for single people ands £20·70 a week higher for a pensioner couple. Pensioners have been robbed of that money since the earnings link was broken in 1980. That scandal must be put right.
The Government claim—indeed, their strategy is based on this idea—that an increasing number of people will subscribe to occupational or private pension schemes. That may suit the god of the market economy—indeed, it probably satisfies those many people who are making much money out of it—but the reality is that only half of all pensioners have any income from occupational or private pension schemes. That is a small figure, and only one third of women pensioners have any income from private pensions. The majority of old people rely on the state old-age pension and other state benefits for which they may be eligible, which is why the Bill is timely and important.
The proportion of the state old-age pension compared with the level of average earnings has steadily declined, and is now at its lowest level for over 20 years. From April

167
1990, as a percentage of male industrial earnings, the state old-age pension for a single person is merely 16 per cent., which is a disgraceful figure. Many people in work find that figure disgraceful, and the enormous and growing active pensioners movement is campaigning hard for an entirely different deal for the state old-age pension and pensioners in general. It campaigned before the first world war to get the state old-age pension introduced.
Elderly and retired people have always faced an uphill struggle, which is why I am introducing the Bill.
A Minister should be appointed with responsibility to co-ordinate policy for the retired population and for old-age pensioners. That Minister would report annually to Parliament on the condition, health, life expectancy and average income of old people, which would offer an annual opportunity to focus on their plight.
The Bill would require local authorities and local health authorities to produce an annual report on the services that they offer old people in their communities, what provisions they make and the conditions from which pensioners suffer, be they housing, lack of health facilities, domiciliary care, or any other concerns. Those who receive meals on wheels and other care are least able to protest about them. When cuts are made, they often suffer terribly, but in silence.
The Bill would abolish standing charges on gas, electricity and water for pensioner households. The unit cost of gas, electricity and water is considerably higher for low-consuming pensioner households than for other people. The Bill would also do what other hon. Members most notably my hon. Friend for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), have tried to do—to end the scandal of pensioners having to pay for a television licence—and it would stop them having to pay telephone rental charges. For them, a telephone is not a luxury, but a necessity so that they can maintain contact with friends and relatives.
The Bill would also protect the concessionary fare schemes in some parts of the country. They do not exist through the action of the Government—indeed, the local authorities that introduced the schemes were often penalised for doing so. The Bill would protect the existing schemes and would seek to introduce a national scheme to allow concessionary travel schemes for elderly people throughout the country. Old people deserve and should have that right of mobility.
The Bill also seeks to re-establish the link between the state old-age pension and average earnings. Each April, the state old-age pension would be increased in line with
168
average earnings. The Bill would include provisions to give old people what the National Pensioners Convention demands—a state old-age pension equal to half the average industrial earnings for a pensioner couple and to one third for a single person. That would be a big increase and would do much to right many of the injustices and wrongs that pensioners face.
The treatment of pensioners is bad and wrong. Pensioners are suffering seriously from the changes in the social security system, and the cuts in local government expenditure and local health authority expenditure. Old people are in a difficult position. They may not be as ambulant as they were when younger, or able to protest as loudly as those in work or as younger members of the population. They are the least able to mount a major protest. Despite that, the National Pensioners Convention and all the local pensioners' organisations are daily demanding justice for old people. If a measure of the quality of a civilisation is how well it treats its old people, this civilisation is sadly and badly wanting and the misery of many elderly people is a scandal. I hope that the House will do what it can to redress that imbalance and to right that wrong by passing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. David Winnick, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Frank Cook, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bill Michie.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN RETIREMENT
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities and health authorities to monitor the condition of their retired population; to eliminate standing charges on gas, electricity and water; to exempt pensioners from licence charges and telephone rental; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; and to appoint a Minister with responsibility for retired people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 February and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there a mechanism whereby we can put on record the fact that, while my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was introducing his important Bill, only four Conservative Members were present on the Back Benches? That is a blue snub for grey power.
Mr. Speaker: It seems that that point is on the record.

Orders of the Day

  Coal Industry Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are about to debate the Coal Industry Bill on Report and on Third Reading. Clause 4 deals with the increase in opencast excavation from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes, which means that a lot of money is involved in opencast mining. Will you state, Mr. Speaker, that if any Tory Member is about to line his pockets because he has interests in opencast mining or in private mining, which is also to be increased, he should declare his interest? It is high time that such people were prevented from voting on these matters.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is stating the obvious. He knows perfectly well that any hon. Member who has an interest and who participates in a debate should declare that interest.

  Coal Industry Bill
    New Clause 1

      DEFINITION OF ACCUMULATED GROUP DEFICIT
      `For the purposes of this Act the "accumulated group deficit" shall include

      (1) sums owed by the Corporation to the Treasury or the Bank of England,

      (2) sums owed by the Corporation to banks and other financial institutions,

      (3) sufficient sums to cover all outstanding claims on the Corporation for compensation for coal mining subsidence damage,

      (4) such additional sums as the Corporation would have been liable for if the recommendations contained in the Report of the Subsidence Compensation Review Committee on the Report and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence Damage had been enacted before 30th March 1990.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.59 pm
      Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
      When the Coal Industry Bill was published, many people were disappointed that it did not include proposals to improve the arrangements for compensating people for damage caused to their homes by mining subsidence. To be fair, it was not just Labour Members who were disappointed; even some of the Tory Members involved expressed their disappointment that the opportunity had been missed. We are all at a loss to know why such proposals were not included.
      No hon. Member was as disappointed, however, as the people who live in areas that are severely affected by mining subsidence, and probably the most disappointed of all were the people who live in the Nottingham coalfield, where the problem is particularly bad. People living in such areas suffer damage to their homes. Their children suffer damage to their schools, and other public buildings, too, are damaged. There is damage to water pipes, gas pipes, and sewers, and farmers' land is damaged by breaks in the drainage system.
      The Government say that they really cannot find any place in their legislative programme for provisions to
      170
      improve the compensation system. They have also said that they cannot offer an improvement in that system in this Bill—for some reason or another, it is not considered appropriate. The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who has now moved on to the Department of the Environment, said that the Bill was a subsidy Bill, not a subsidence Bill, although he attributed that bon mot originally to one of his colleagues.
      It is strange to hear that this is only a subsidy Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, it provides for a tenfold increase in the size of private opencast workings, with all the environmental damage and dangers to health that they bring with them. It also provides for a fivefold increase in the number of miners who may be employed underground in private mines, which are at least four times as dangerous as the mines of British Coal.
      The Government managed to draft a Bill to cope with those non-subsidy issues, both of which will have adverse effects on the coalfield communities—on the miners going below ground and on the people living above ground and facing the damage that opencasting usually brings with it. One might have thought that the Government would make some effort to introduce an offsetting provision to help the coalfield communities. They should have sorted out the problem of compensation scheme once and for all, and the Bill could have given them the opportunity to do that.
      I can think of only one explanation for their different approach: presumably, those in favour of bigger opencast mines and those in favour of increasing the number of miners going down terribly dangerous private pits must have made private representations to the Government. They include Tory supporters such as Taylor Woodrow, Costain and Wimpey, which will undoubtedly make money out of the changes.
      They are the only people who can have advocated the changes. There have been no official reports proposing them. There has been no long series of official inquiries into the problems of opencasting. There is little evidence of any pressure from hon. Members to increase the size of opencast workings. If there has been any pressure, it has been to try to persuade the Government to reduce the slize of those workings.
      We have a strange difficulty, it seems, over subsidence. Great efforts have been made in the House to get the compensation scheme improved and made the law of the land. I shall describe the various stages in the development of proposals to improve the scheme since the Government came to office. In September 1981, the Commission on Energy and the Environment made certain proposals about improving the compensation scheme. Its report contained a chapter on subsidence and recommended improvements.
      It took the Government until May 1983, almost two years later, to publish a response to that report. They did not show much urgency at the time. They can say that, shortly before they published their response, they set up the Waddilove committee to report on the compensation system for coal mining subsidence damage. Fair do's to the committee—it got on with its job. A year later, in May 1984, it produced a thorough report with 65 specific recommendations.
      The Government received that report in 1984. No one could accuse them of being in a rush to judgment on it, because they did not produce their response until October 1987. That meant that they took almost three weeks to

      171
      consider each recommendation in the report. It took them another year before they produced a consultation document on what they themselves proposed to do to improve the compensation scheme. They produced it in April 1988.
      When will the Government introduce a proper statutory compensation scheme? Other hon. Members have also asked that question. I have been checking what has happened in the House since the Waddilove report was produced. There have been dozens of written questions, seven or eight oral questions, no fewer than four private Members' Bills, early-day motions, Select Committee inquiries, and debates about this topic. This difficult topic has also been mentioned in a large number of general debates.
      I have a computer printout listing all the times when mining subsidence has been raised since the Waddilove committee reported. It goes on and on. It contains page after page of hon. Members trying to represent their constituents to make sure that something is done. Unfortunately, the only people who are not doing anything are the Government. On several occasions, successive Ministers have said that a Bill to change the law will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.
      Mr. Richard Alexander: Many Conservative Members would like to see such a Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a statutory compensation scheme would require several more clauses and would be quite complicated? The Government's objective is to get this Bill through Parliament at the earliest possible stage. Of course, a further Bill will have to come forward at another time.
      Mr. Dobson: Several comments are to be made in response to the hon. Gentleman's reasonable point. If they had wanted, during this Session, the Government could have introduced a separate Bill on subsidence. Instead, they have decided to introduce Bills that kick lumps off the National Health Service and other Bills on matters of apparent high priority for the Prime Minister. It is clear that subsidence is not a high priority for the Prime Minister. Even so, it would have been possible to introduce into the Bill provisions which would allow the establishment of a statutory compensation scheme.
      Although Opposition Members have criticised the Bill and, because of its threat to miners' lives, voted against it on Second Reading, we responsibly made sure that it got out of Committee quickly and that it will quickly be considered on Report, because it is necessary that the large sums that British Coal requires must be available by the end of March. Equally, even now, if the Secretary of State undertakes to introduce substantial changes to the Bill in the House of Lords to include subsidence, we will guarantee that we will not use that decision to obstruct the passage of this Bill or the passage of proper measures to improve subsidence compensation.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me, because my constituency has been devastated by mining subsidence, and over the years we have been pressing the Government for some new compensation and for a new look at things. We suspect that the Government are holding their fire purely and simply for the privatisation of
      172
      mines. However, would it not be sensible for the Government to bring in new legislation before that happens, if it is likely to happen, so that they can have something on the statute book to alleviate the fears of the many people who think that the Government are playing fast and loose and hard and fast until the mines are privatised?
      Mr. Dobson: I know that those fears are shared by a considerable number of people living in those areas that are severely affected by mining subsidence. My hon. Friend is right—logically, the Government should have introduced something on subsidence in the Bill, as my hon. Friend knows, because much of the rest of the Bill is intended as a paving stone for privatisation. People are concerned about what will happen and that the provisions for subsidence will be pushed further and further back and that we will then be told by the Government that it would be unfair to impose those awful burdens on a privatised coal industry. That may be what is happening. It is certainly what many people fear may be happening.
      For more than five years, the promise to do something about the compensation scheme has not been fulfilled. People living in the areas affected by subsidence are getting restless about the delays, and there is no reason why we should blame them. From time to time, Ministers have said that it is all right, because British Coal has already implemented over half the recommendations of the Waddilove committee. So it has—and all credit to British Coal—but British Coal cannot change the law. It cannot introduce a statutory compensation scheme. Only Governments can change the law. When Ministers say that British Coal has done its stuff, they are highlighting the fact that everybody else has done their stuff as well, and that only the Government have not responded and done their job properly. It is now up to the Government to settle this problem because it severely affects thousands of people.
      There are conflicting estimates of the number of people involved, but the lowest estimate that I could find—I suppose that it is understandable that it is the lowest, because it is British Coal's estimate in its last report—is that over 25,000 valid claims may lie against British Coal. However, there are many higher estimates, especially in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. As I have said, in fairness to British Coal and to the House and because I do not want to exaggerate, I have chosen the lowest estimate that I have been able to find. Others go well above double that figure.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: I do not want to dispute what my hon. Friend has said, but is he aware that Mansfield district council and other councils in my area sent a questionnaire to every house locally and received 33,000 or more answers from tenants and owner-occupiers who said that their houses had been affected by subsidence? So my hon. Friend's estimate might be rather low.
      Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has taken literally the next line of what I intended saying. It is certainly true that there have been much higher estimates, including estimates covering the affected districts in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
      It is necessary to emphasise to people who are not familiar with the problems of subsidence just what effects it can have, in this case, just on people's homes, and

      173
      leaving out major public buildings and such things. The Commission on Energy and the Environment has classified subsidence damage, starting with the lowest classification of "very slight" or "negligible", which includes hair cracks in the plaster, isolated slight fractures in the building that are not visible outside.
      As most people will know, no house-proud family likes even hairline cracks in the internal plaster. Indeed, if most hon. Members were faced with hairline cracks in the internal plaster of their front rooms or whatever they like to call them, they would want something done about it. They would want it put right as quickly as possible, to the highest possible standard. However, that is not necessarily available here.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right about this House. I think that he was talking about the houses of hon. Members. There was a classic example of the Government's attitude recently in the Houses of Parliament. Although the damage was not done by mining subsidence, it was significant that, when a little bit of plaster fell from the ceiling of the House of Lords, all hell broke loose. As a result, a string of architects longer than the so-called dole queue went running into the House of Lords to find a remedy. The ceiling was then propped up for 12 months or more. The estimate for the total cost of putting that matter right was over £250,000.
      That shows the double standard that operates in the country. If there is a hairline crack in the House of Lords or elsewhere in the Houses of Parliament, the Government will go to any lengths to put the matter right. When it comes to sorting out the problems of an elderly pensioner in my constituency or in the constituencies of my hon. Friends, the Government hold things up year after year. The same is true of Bolsover church. We have battled for several years to have the subsidence damage put right. The Government know how to operate double standards when it comes to subsidence.
      Mr. Dobson: I recall my hon. Friend raising the matter of damage to Bolsover church several times in the House. I wonder how swiftly the Government would respond if hairline cracks appeared in the new ornamental gates at the end of Downing street. I bet they would not have to negotiate with the Coal Board to put the gates right.
      The next category to which the Commission referred was slight damage. This was:
      "Several slight fractures showing inside the buildings. Doors and windows may stick slightly. Repairs to decoration probably necessary."
      Again, we would not put up with such damage in our own homes, at least not voluntarily.
      The next category is described as appreciable damage. It includes
      "Slight fractures showing on the outside of building (or one main fracture). Doors and windows sticking."—
      not "slightly" this time—
      "Service pipes may fracture".
      We then go on to severe damage. Service pipes are not simply fractured but disrupted. This class of damage also includes
      "Open fracture requiring rebonding and allowing weather into the structure. Window and door frames distorted, floors sloping noticeably, walls leaning or bulging noticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams. If compressive damage, overlapping of roof joints and lifting of brickwork".
      174
      That is not the end of it. We go on to very severe damage. The classification starts:
      "As above but worse, and requiring partial or complete rebuilding. Roof and floor beams lose bearing and walls lean badly and need shoring up. Windows broken with distortion. Severe slopes of floors. If compressive damage,"—instead of stretching—
      "severe buckling and bulging of the roofs and walls."
      Mr. Ashton: And then the dog refuses to go into the house.
      Mr. Dobson: Yes. This is a serious matter. Damage is done to the homes of people who, like most of us, take pride in their homes. Stress is caused as the damage happens and people wonder how it is happening, whether it will get worse, and how long it will go on. Then they suffer disturbance while the damage is put right, if they finally come to an agreement with the Coal Board.
      Some friends of mine who are reasonably well-off—they are both doctors who live on the edge of Nottingham—had to move out of their home for almost four months because such extensive work was required to put their home into reasonable nick and allow them to live in the manner to which they were, rightly, accustomed. Many other people are forced to leave their homes for similar periods. They are people who probably cannot afford it as well as my friends could and who cannot easily find alternative accommodation. The matter is serious for the people involved.
      It is stressful when one's house is cracking and buckling. It is stressful if one has to stay in it while work is being done. It is probably equally stressful to move into somewhere smaller while work is being done.
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Great distress is also caused to people whose properties may not have been blighted by subsidence but whose properties have been rendered valueless when neighbouring properties have been so affected. One day, a person may have a property worth £40,000 or £50,000 and the next day nothing.
      Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right. Blight affects whole areas as well as individuals. Only a half-wit would buy an undamaged house in a row where others are damaged until it was known that the subsidence had stopped or that work would be done to make the houses safe.
      Such stress is harmful for the people concerned. That is all the more reason why we should work to remove any unnecessary stress which, in the current system, is the gratuitous problem of having to have a great barney with British Coal in order to get things put right. That is why not just those directly affected but people living in areas that are generally affected by mining subsidence join us in believing that the time for action has come. That is why we have tabled new clause 1.
      Subsidence is a problem in many coalfields, but it applies particularly in Nottinghamshire. I do not know what the Nottingham miners have done to upset the Government. The Bill provides for redundancy money which will help to put Nottingham miners out of jobs and it provides for bigger private opencast workings. About a fortnight ago, the House passed the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill to increase the coal-handling plant on Humberside so that cheap, slave-labour, foreign coal could compete with the Nottingham miners' product.

      175
      Moreover, in the past few days we have discovered that at least two gas-fired power stations are to be built at Killingholme on Humberside near the Nottinghamshire coalfield. They are about to receive the Secretary of State's consent.
      In view of all that, one would have thought that the Government would have done something to compensate the Nottingham miners for all that is happening to Nottinghamshire and to the other coalfields. Surely we should act now. The Opposition will co-operate in any way with a new Bill or the additional clauses to this Bill in order to implement the Waddilove proposals. They are good and sound proposals, which have been discussed long enough. People understand them and want them enacted. That is the reason for the new clause.
      Mr. Jim Lester: I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), particularly on subsidence. No one who has lived in Nottinghamshire all his life and who has been involved in the coal industry in many ways during that time—as I have—could be happy with the overall situation on subsidence. Many hon. Members will have dealt with difficult subsidence cases, and one reason why I gave evidence to the Waddilove committee was my concern for individuals who must take on a major industry such as British Coal with few resources to do so.
      A problem arose when agents working in Nottinghamshire took on many cases at a time when cash compensation was available. The coal board paid out a lot of money for subsidence which, in many cases, was not used for the job for which it was intended. That is one reason why I have suggested that if anyone receives cash compensation, which is now much harder to get, it should be entered on the deeds or in the Land Registry so that any subsequent purchaser knows that a claim has been made and cash has been paid and so that a surveyor can ensure that the money has been used in the way that it should have been. I feel that there should be repairs rather than cash compensation, except when there is a tilted floor or something of that sort with which it would be better to live, with compensation, instead of pulling the house down.
      This all adds up to the case for more urgent consideration of the subject. Clause 4 on opencasting strengthens my belief that one reason why we have relatively low-cost coal is the forebearance of those who suffer when it is extracted. This is true of deep mine pits, through subsidence, and opencast mines, through the long-term problems which are created for the community when companies rip the hell out of the local hillsides. In my constituency, brand new green belt land is affected.
      It is time for us to look seriously at the problem. We try to protect the villages of Kent because individuals might suffer in the public interest when a valuable link is placed at the end of the Channel tunnel. I have no objection to such protection, but for many years, those of us who represent mining areas have had the short end of the stick. Nobody has thought through the fact that many people will suffer.
      The people who work in the industry have tended to say, "If we work in it, we have to suffer by it." However, that attitude has long since gone. It is time to look at the recommendation of the Waddilove committee. The Country Landowners Association was part of the united
      176
      industry working party which consisted of the National Farmers' Union, the Building Societies Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the Law Society, the British Property Federation and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. It met my right hon. Friend's predecessor to put pressure for action on the Waddilove committee which reported in 1984. The Government did not say anything until 1987—by anyone's standards that was a hell of a long time to consider the issue.
      Those organisations pressed for various sensible actions in terms of legislative reforms, independent arbitration and standards of repair. When repairs are done, there are constant disagreements about their standard. The organisations pressed the committee about the contractors used. Sometimes, the Coal Board, through no fault of its own, might be slow in appointing a contractor. There is no reason why, with proper safeguards, the people affected should not appoint their own contractors to do the work under proper supervision. The onus of proof should be on the coal board to show that the damage is not caused by subsidence, rather than on the individual to prove that it was subsidence damage. A great deal could be done for administrative improvements in terms of claims, limitations of claims and notification of areas of work.
      I do not want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to imagine that this is a party political matter. It is not. Those of us who represent, and have represented for some time, mining areas, feel that the time is right to look at compensation for those affected. My simple view is that there are many cases in which the public interest overrides the individual's interest. That is the case with roads and many other things. However, it is then right that the public interest should thoroughly compensate those private individuals who lose something—often quite dramatically—for the sake of the general interest. That applies not just to mining subsidence, but to other issues.
      If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept new clause 1, it would be helpful if he would give a clear indication of what he is prepared to do, through legislation, regulation or whatever, to bring about the Waddilove committee's sensible recommendations and respond to the promises made by his predecessor when he met the committee.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) agrees that mining subsidence affects areas other than those that he specifically mentioned, in Nottinghamshire. I assure him and the House that the problem exists also in west and south Yorkshire. It certainly does in my area.
      Like the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), I gave evidence to the Waddilove committee, both written and oral. Like him, I and many others believe that its recommendations would prompt a greater response than we have seen to date. The situation in Nottingham has only been made worse by delay.
      4.30 pm
      I recall going to Nottingham with members of the Select Committee to take evidence of the problems there, which had been highlighted by Ian MacGregor's evidence to the Select Committee in 1986, when he emphasised the colossal volume of funds contained in British Coal's estimates and which has been paid out in Nottingham. That set the alarm bells ringing.

      177
      There is no doubt that, through neglect, inefficiency and corruption on the part of certain British Coal officers—and people were found guilty of corruption and sent to prison—the policy in force at that time began to grind to a standstill and British Coal started tidying up its act. No one could grumble at that, because those responsible for corruption paid the right penalty. However, that was of little comfort to people in Nottinghamshire and in west and south Yorkshire who were treated differently from the way in which they had been hitherto.
      If the Secretary of State presents the new Bill of which mention was made earlier by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I hope that he will take into account the fact that the average individual in a mining community desperately needs independent professional advice before reaching any settlement with British Coal. In the past, many people accepted settlements that were far from adequate because of their lack of professional knowledge. I hope that any such Bill would provide for the cost of such professional advice to be met by British Coal.
      I do not take away from anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but one needs to live in a mining community to appreciate the problems that it faces. The Flowers commission report of 1981 acknowledged that there is little peace to be had in mining communities. People living in them dare not go to sleep at night because of the cracks and creaking that they hear. In my own area, housing estates have been demolished, and houses in the immediate vicinity have lost a tremendous amount of their value overnight. In many cases, the recompense offered has been far from adequate.
      Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are always remarking that the Government take notice of any Select Committee report, but I have yet to be convinced that that is so. The report of the 1987 Select Committee recommended that the Government should respond speedily to Waddilove's recommendations. It commented:
      "Any system of compensation which is developed from the Waddilove Report should be so framed as to apply equally to BC and any present or future competitors".
      I hope that any future Bill will offer protection in the event that—God forbid—British Coal is ever privatised. The Select Committee also said:
      "We regret the delay and we hope that the promised publication of the White Paper on Waddilove will be earlier rather than later in the current Session."
      That was in 1986-87, but there has still been little response. I hope that the Secretary of State, although he has not long been in his present job, will rapidly provide a Bill to protect people who have suffered from the terrible conditions in the mining communities for too long.
      Dr. Mike Woodcock: The major part of the Bill is concerned with grants to British Coal. While they are necessary to enable the restructuring of British Coal, I remind the House that that level of Government support was not available to the 7,000 constituents of mine, or to many thousands of other hon. Members' constituents, who were made redundant when their industries had to face the fundamental challenges of the market place.
      The Government have been generous to British Coal but, as many hon. Members have said, it is disappointing that, while the Bill gives further massive grants and
      178
      subsidies to British Coal, it does nothing to relieve the plight of the victims of coal-mining subsidence. A great deal of injustice is felt.
      Many hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who unfortunately cannot take part in the debte—have campaigned long and hard for reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said, a united industry working party has been formed, with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the Country Landowners' Association, the Law Society, the British Property Federation, the Building Societies Association, insurance companies, the National Farmers Union and other groups, all of which are concerned to ensure that the Government take action on coal-mining subsidence.
      I took representatives of those bodies to see the former Minister, and they sought to persuade him to take action. They are bitterly disappointed that, to date, no action has been taken. The Minister was extremely polite and listened sympathetically, but regrettably he did not act. The case is overwhelming. With the present rules, vast amounts of subsidence damage are neither compensated for nor repaired. British Coal regularly denies liability for damage that it knows it has caused, by relying on the infamous statute of limitations. In effect, it is saying, "We know that your property has been damaged and that we have caused the damage. We know that Parliament has passed laws requiring us to repair the damage or to compensate you, but we think that we can use the statute of limitations to get out of our responsibilities. We are going to do that and leave you to repair the damage that we have caused."
      Why does British Coal refuse independent adjudication on the extent of damage, on whether damage has been caused by subsidence, on delay, on consequential losses and on whether repair or compensation is appropriate? Why is British Coal continually allowed to act as offender, judge and jury? The reason is simple: because the Government—in spite of the recommendations of the Waddilove committee—continue to allow it to do just that.
      The Government are proposing further massive handouts to British Coal, so it is only fair that those handouts are linked to a fairer deal for the victims of British coal-mining, as was recommended by the Waddilove committee in 1983. The Government must acknowledge that they have had six years to act, hut they are still saying that the time is not right. I cannot accept that, while the Government can find the time and money to deal with the restructuring of British Coal, they cannot find the much smaller amount that is necessary to deal with this continuing problem. I fervently hope that the Secretary of State will tell the House that action will be taken quickly.
      Mr. Ashton: If there had been an earthquake in Britain similar to the one in San Francisco last year, or if the San Andreas fault disaster had happened in Nottinghamshire, and overnight 33,000 houses had suffered enormous damage and become unsafe and schools, hospitals and factories had been affected, there would have been uproar. There would have been an outcry and television stations would have set up fund-raising collections. The Government would have rushed in immediately with aid, and it would have been classed as a national disaster.

      179
      However, because subsidence has occurred gradually over the years, and has been assimilated at local level, the problem has been swept under the carpet.
      What happened after the gale in the south of England in October 1987? In one night, millions of trees were felled, damaging cars and houses. The insurance companies paid out, and the Government rushed in emergency aid. A tremendous amount of help was given to people in the home counties at that time because many prominent Tory voters and Conservative Members lived there. We should compare that reaction to the reaction to subsidence in coal-mining areas, where nothing has been done.
      Barlow Clowes is another example. Again, the affluent middle class were affected—people who know how to lobby Members of Parliament, write letters, form pressure groups and employ solicitors. They acted as a group and they got compensation.
      The farmers got compensation when eggs were affected by salmonella. That was classed as a national disaster and the cash was found immediately, and action was taken to keep them sweet.
      The pre-1973 war widows were another anomaly, but hon. Members got to their feet. There was a tremendous backlash and the money was found.
      If there is an overnight disaster, it seems that the cash can be found. In every Budget there is a 2 per cent. contingency fund. If expenditure in the Budget is £160 billion or £170 billion, 2 per cent. of that is allowed for the contingency fund, and if there is any sort of emergency, the Chancellor says that it is covered by the contingency fund. However, that 2 per cent. is never used for things such as subsidence. Action is continually postponed.
      I have no doubt that the cash will be found for the Channel tunnel. When British Rail is told that it has to put the track to Dover underground, to go under the vale of Kent, because otherwise it will upset lots of Tory voters, the money will be found.
      Coal-mining areas suffer from the blight of subsidence, and the Government have not even a register. The Department of Energy does not know how many houses are affected by the problem, or how much it will cost to restore them. It has no information.
      The problem has been left to the local district councils. The council in Mansfield set up a seminar, and people came from Ashfield, Bolsover, north-east Derbyshire and Newark, which are all areas where people have suffered chronically from subsidence. At the seminar they decided that, as nobody else would help them they had better help themselves and find out the information. Professor P. L. Clarke, a highly qualified professor from Nottingham university, was paid to send out a simple questionnaire to every household, as the electoral register forms are sent out.
      As hon. Members know, a phenomenal amount of bumph comes through our doors and it is difficult to get people to fill in forms. It probably leads to a lower response to questionnaires than one would expect, yet 33,000 households in those half dozen district council areas said that they had suffered from the effects of subsidence caused by British Coal.
      The Government have encouraged people to become owner-occupiers, and I do not deplore that. Sometimes, it seems that they are going the long way round, because of
      180
      the high interest rates, but surely it is Government policy to encourage people to buy houses. What happens then? They allow a massive accident blight to spread across a neighbourhood and they offer no promises about compensation.
      Thousands of people have followed Government advice and bought their council houses, and then they have suffered from subsidence. They put in a claim to British Coal, but it says that it is sorry, but will not pay compensation because it paid it to the council 10 or 15 years ago. The council says that it received the compensation and sold the affected house at a cheaper price.
      People followed the Prime Minister's advice and bought their houses, and now they are lumbered with perhaps a £10,000 mortgage on a house that they cannot sell because it is worthless, and no good to anybody. Some people may say that they should not have followed Government advice. What protection do the Government offer those unfortunate people, who were encouraged to buy council houses and found that they had bought a pup? The response from the Department of Energy has been nil—it has promised to consider the matter.
      One could argue that subsidence is an act of God. For example, Worksop and Warsop, in my constituency, both have coal mines underneath them. Worksop is hardly touched by subsidence because it is built on sand, but Warsop, which is seven miles away, is built on rock and there is a great deal of subsidence there. It is mere chance. People do not have a choice about where they live.
      4.45 pm
      Another problem is trying to attract new industry to the area. Pits are closing, and they have land that would be ideal for industrial development. Often, the land is at the foot of a slag heap, which has been grassed over and the surrounding environment may not be very nice, but many industries are environmentally unattractive, and they could go to such places. However, if one mentions subsidence, they run a mile. Who would invest £2 million in a new factory when, if one walks down the street, one sees cracks in the sides of houses, leaning chimneys and doors that do not shut, and one sees that people are continually protesting and demanding action, but getting nothing done?
      The areas affected by subsidence often have high unemployment of between 9 and 15 per cent.—in my constituency, unemployment is 17 per cent. There are good men, who are willing to work shifts and to do physically unattractive hard work. They would be happy to do almost any job. They are used to noise, dirt and heavy lorries. But industry will not come in to the area because no one will build a factory on a site if the building will have cracks in the walls within six months, and the machinery inside will not work.
      Many parts of my constituency have suffered for more than a century. One could make a D. H. Lawrence film in Warsop—"Sons and Lovers", perhaps—because the terraced houses are still there. Most of my constituency is beautiful, but in Warsop vale, less than 10 yards away from the bedrooms where people sleep, coal trains chunter past every 20 minutes. People work shifts. There is always the noise of the klaxon horns from the pits, heavy lorries, hooters and safety warnings. Those people have suffered from noise all their lives.

      181
      What happens when the pits close? People think, "Thank God. We might get a bit of peace." But the pavements are broken, the water that comes down off the slag heaps does not run away properly in the gutters and the street lighting is bad. The environment is lousy. There are playing fields with dips and holes among the kids' swings. The price of houses there is so low that it is a miracle that people buy and sell them. They like living in the area because they grew up there and they are happy.
      Subsidence is a massive problem that nobody seems to want to sort out.
      Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central): Relatively modern housing can be affected by subsidence. The semi-detached house in which I live tilts so much that the drainpipe at one corner is useless, as the water runs in the opposition direction. A new drainpipe will now have to be built at the other end.
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is right. I have been asked to visit houses where newly installed central heating does not work because the pump will not drive the hot water round; the owners, meanwhile, are still saddled with the debt that they incurred in installing the system.
      Can anyone imagine the anger and frustration experienced by women who find that after they have decorated the house, the wall cracks, the wallpaper will not stick or the fitted carpet suddenly becomes an inch too short because a gap has appeared in the wall? It can be dangerous: people sit looking at their walls and asking themselves whether the damn things are going to fall in on them. Often they cannot get the council to condemn their house and rehouse them, because almost all the houses have been sold off and the council has very few left to let. It has to keep one or two, but it knows that, once it rehouses one victim of subsidence, 500 more will want to be rehoused.
      Meanwhile, the insurance companies are engaging in one of the biggest rip-offs that we have seen for some years. When people follow the Government's advice and apply for a mortgage so that they can become owner-occupiers, the Halifax and the other building societies say, "Yes, we will lend you £10,000, but you must pay insurance." So they pay the insurance— and then a crack appears and the garden wall falls down.
      Getting insurance companies to pay out for subsidence is a terrible job, and I think that it is time that some of those people went to see the insurance ombudsman, as I have advised them to do. Alternatively, they could all band together, as the Barlow Clowes victims did, and announce that they are going to bang the insurance companies and building societies into court. The building societies compel them to pay insurance year in, year out, but as soon as there is a problem, the insurance companies do not want to know—or else point to the small print that says that occupiers must pay 10 times the cost of the annual insurance on the house. In other words, if the annual insurance is £300, they must put up the first £3,000.
      People in such circumstances obtain no help from the building societies, which back the insurance companies, so they ask their Members of Parliament to take up their case. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has a magnificent record in this regard, and I heartily congratulate him on his ceaseless campaign. He and his local council have managed to persuade the television
      182
      companies to broadcast programmes about the problem, and in the two years for which my hon. Friend has been in the House it has received more attention than ever before.
      One of the difficulties, however, is the need for secrecy. It is in the interests of tenants to keep such problems quiet in case they decide to sell their house. They come to our surgeries and say, "I am sorry, Mr. Ashton"—or Mr. Meale, as the case may be—"but you must not tell anyone about the problem. You will not put it in the newspaper, will you? If it gets around that XYZ road has a problem, no one living in that road will ever sell a house again." So they fill the walls with Polyfilla or apply Anaglypta. Such conspiracies of silence will do nothing to solve the problem. When we mention it, people say that they have heard nothing about it before, because newspapers and television do not shout about it as they have done about Barlow Clowes, foot-and-mouth disease or the Channel tunnel.
      The problem affects about 30,000 houses within a 10 or 15-mile radius of my constituency. A succession of Ministers have said that they sympathise and intend to act—that they will produce another report. British Coal has shed tears and offered tea and sympathy. Nothing is ever done, however. The insurance companies take no action, no cash is ever found and the Government simply hope that the problem can be swept under the carpet and will eventually go away. But we do not intend to let it go away: we shall continue to raise it whenever the opportunity arises until we see some action.
      Mr. Alan Meale: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) for his kind comments about our activities in the north Nottinghamshire area, but I must add that it has been a joint effort, involving not only him and me but my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—as well as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock).
      The House should accept the new clause. The problem of subsidence is nothing short of a national scandal. Home owners, not only in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire but in other coalfield areas such as Yorkshire, Scotland, the north-east and Wales, face tremendous difficulties. I pay tribute to the Channel 4 "Dispatches" documentary, entitled "In the Coalhole", screened just before Christmas, which discussed those difficulties in detail.
      I also commend the local press, especially in Nottinghamshire—the Evening Post (Nottingham) the CHAD in Mansfield, the Nottingham Recorder and the Nottingham Observer—which have not ceased to publicise the issue. Over the past two or three years, the BBC and Yorkshire and Central Television have also featured it several times. Only now, largely because of the Channel 4 programme, is it being seen for what it is—a national scandal.
      I met the Minister privately yesterday, along with another hon. Member, to discuss the matter, but it is difficult for hon. Members on either side of the House to realise the extent of the suffering involved. Not only people's homes but the security of their lives is being put at risk. Only those who represent coal-mining areas know exactly what is involved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that the survey carried out by local

      183
      authorities in north Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire produced 33,000 responses. In fact, there were 54,000, 33,500 of which referred to damaged properties. Some of our constituents have experienced severe health problems owing to stress, and many have had to consult their doctors. In my constituency, a school, a hospital and many other public buildings have had to close.
      As "Dispatches" pointed out, Trent Water has estimated that it is owed approximately £25 million for the repair of damage to properties in Nottinghamshire, although it has not been keen to publicise the fact, or to take part in a seminar: As its members explained when they visited London to meet the Minister, they were preparing for privatisation, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw observed—who would buy shares in a public industry that faced a £25 million repair bill? Moreover, Trent Water cannot get the money back from British Coal.
      The survey to which I referred has been discussed many times with Ministers and has been debated in the House. It referred to 33,000 damaged homes, roads and service supplies such as water, gas and electricity. It made it clear that in all the areas surveyed there was major concern and that havoc was being caused to the coalfield communities.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke of the way in which British Coal was being allowed to act as offender, judge and jury. British Coal is in fact getting away with blue murder against the people in the coalfield communities. It hides behind the six-year rule, which many in the legal profession say is of extremely doubtful merit but which is upheld because of lack of action by the Government. British Coal acts as judge and jury by acting as banker, as it were—openly blackmailing people who are suffering from subsidence problems, people who cannot go to courts or go through the Lands Tribunal.
      "Blackmail" may seem a strong word to use, but evidence has been produced by hon. Members on both sides of the House describing how letters have been sent by British Coal to home owners saying, in effect, "Unless you accept this minimal sum, we shall put your case to the bottom of the pile and take it through the legal processes, and that will take years. If you risk going through the Lands Tribunal or some other means, you will risk losing everything, including your home and savings."
      Alternatively, British Coal had demonstrated its determination to cut to the lowest sum possible the amount expended to fulfil its responsibilities in respect of coal-mining subsidence damage. By using the blackmail?ing technique of "take it or leave it" with home owners and others, British Coal states that only certain types of repair will be undertaken. Having said that, it employs the cheapest possible builders, who repair the properties not properly but cosmetically. They Polyfilla over the cracks and cover with the cheapest possible paint or other rendering.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said he knew of people who had been out of their homes for three or four months while repairs were done. I have constituents who were out of their homes for more than two years. Twelve months is normal for people to have to leave their homes in my constituency while subsidence work is done.
      184
      Then there is the plight of those who do not leave their homes while the work is done but who have to stay because of a lack of properties in which to house them, such is the scale of the subsidence problem in my area. As I say, British Coal employs the cheapest builders who, when faced with, say, major cracks across a living room wall, do not take down the wall and rebuild it—replastering and rendering as necessary—but cut out a portion where the crack exists, cover the furniture with cloths and make the families remain in their homes while the repairs are carried out. That takes not a day or two but weeks and sometimes months.
      Hon. Members have spoken in previous debates about how cheaply British Coal gets the work done. There have been cases of people who have produced the wallpaper that was on a wall before it was repaired and have been told by British Coal that it was not prepared to pay, say £3 per roll—the current price of the wallpaper—but only the original price of 99p per roll. What a disgraceful state f affairs.
      Builders in my area have gone so far as to tell British Coal that, because of the prices it is willing to pay, they are not interested in taking on the work. Some builders have told me honestly that, but for the slack winter period when they have little work on hand, they would not even bother to do British Coal work because the contracts that British Coal awards are not worth having.
      The amendment refers to financing the repairs of coal-mining subsidence damage. There seems to be a difference of opinion about how such work should be financed. On a previous occasion, I asked the present Minister of Housing and Planning, when he was at the Department of Energy, how much money was available for subsidence work. As we know, money is collected on every tonne of coal produced for work of this kind. Indeed, the Government continue to claim that that charge has led to coal mine closures, so expensive is the cost of subsidence repairs.
      Mr. Illsley: I can give my hon. Friend an example of a colliery that closed because of subsidence problems. I refer to Redbrook colliery in Barnsley. When the NCB costed the amount that it would have to pay in subsidence claims compared with the profit that would be gained by mining the coal in that pit, it decided to close the colliery.
      Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend for giving that example. Some time ago, Mansfield colliery in my constituency was closed. I had been told for at least a year prior to its closure that it would be shut, not because of subsidence but because although it was a pit with reserves, the NCB had decided not to expand production and dig into those reserves.
      When the closure announcement finally came, in a press release, British Coal and another organisation used the opportunity to accuse me of closing the pit because I had been busy fighting for the rights of coal subsidence claimants. I faced a stupid and untrue situation. I checked the files in my office and discovered that of 32 cases for whom I had made applications to British Coal's estates department—for repairs and proper compensation for the properties concerned in the area of the pit that was closed—not one had been settled by British Coal. In other words, in many cases the Government are using the excuse of coal-mining subsidence costs as a major reason for closing pits.

      185
      When at the Department of Energy, the present Minister for Housing and Planning said that, in the accounts, £260 million had been set aside for the repair of damage caused by coal-mining subsidence. I have since asked questions, in the House and elsewhere, to discover whether that money is in a separate account and, if so, why it cannot be used for subsidence repair work. I have been told by British Coal, in letters to me and through the media, that no such fund exists because such money has been set against the industry's losses and deficits each year and has been written off.
      I suggest that the House is being misled. Considering that an amount is attached to every tonne of coal that is produced, and that that money is put into a fund for the payment of subsidence damage repair costs, it cannot be written off to pay for the industry's debts. After all, those sums must, or should, have been put into a bank account to be drawn on at a future date for subsidence repairs. Indeed, if British Coal has not been doing that, it has not been carrying out its responsibilities. There should have been at least £260 million in the fund at the time when the Minister made his statement, and by now, having gathered interest, the total should be considerably higher.
      Let me say a few words about the future as the present Government see it. One must give them credit for their honesty as they have never shied away from their immediate plans and their absolute determination to privatise the coal industry. I am disappointed with the Bill and with the fact that so far the Government have not accepted our amendments. Unless they sort out the problem of coal-mining subsidence damage, all the residents, public services and business in coalfield communities throughout Britain will be left in severe difficulty. If those people do not have much of a chance of getting damages paid now, how on earth will they get them when a private employer takes over the responsibility for those coal mines?
      It will be extremely difficult to sell those industries, not simply because people will be unwilling to invest in them—if the Government are that determined, they will pass laws exempting them—but because the problem of coal-mining subsidence damage needs to be sorted out. I warn the Minister, as I warned his predecessor, that if any attempt is made to privatise the industry without having sorted out this business, according to that survey, there are 13,500 people with damaged homes in my constituency—that is just in the private sector; there are hundreds more in the public sector—who will band together and take the case to Europe. The Minister knows that, if we go to Europe for a ruling about people's rights to repair their homes which have been damaged by a public industry, without a shadow of a doubt the ruling will be in our favour.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if such a case went to Europe before the flotation of the electricity industry, the Commission might take a rather dim view of that progress being made?
      Mr. Meale: I agree with my hon. Friend. Obviously, the Minister has taken note of his point.
      I spoke to the Minister yesterday and asked him for an assurance that he will come to the Nottinghamshire coalfield area and see for himself the level of damage. I am pleased that he was willing to do that and assure me that he would not do what his predecessors had done and come
      186
      to Nottinghamshire only to talk to British Coal. Given that the report states that there are 33,500 damaged homes, I do not want the Minister simply to spend time talking to the people who have caused the problems and who are denying their responsibility for repairing people's homes. I want him to spend time in the Nottinghamshire coalfield area meeting the people who have to live with it day in and day out and run their businesses there.
      Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in my constituency, some council tenants' applications to buy their homes under the right to buy have been outstanding for three years because the council has been unable to reach an agreement on subsidence damage? Some people have become so desperate to purchase their property that they have signed an agreement to buy it at its present value, hoping that they will get reasonable compensation from British Coal, but so far they have been unable to achieve that.
      Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and again the Minister is making notes. I hope that he will be able to respond to it when he replies to the debate.
      I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to come to Nottinghamshire and to meet people running businesses, home owners, property owners and people providing public services. I wonder whether he can do that before the Select Committee on Energy, to which I pay tribute, returns to Nottinghamshire this spring. The work it carried out in the early 1980s has not been fulfilled by British Coal or by the Government.
      I remind the House about the lack of action that the Government have taken to sort out coal-mining subsidence damage. The Waddilove inquiry was commis?sioned in 1983, completed in 1984 and published in 1987 after severe pressure from Members of Parliament. The Government responded in 1988; now we are heading into 1990, and the Government are missing yet another opportunity to alleviate the problems.
      Action is needed. We need a legal centre for claimants who cannot afford to use the legal system which hinders their attempts to get justice. We need a low-cost independent arbitration system to get over problems caused because British Coal is judge and jury, and we need mandatory protection for claimants. Most of all, we need guarantees that the Government will produce a solution to help our people get back to a normal life.
      5.15 pm
      Ms. Joan Walley: I wish to pay tribute to all the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has done to draw attention to the huge problem of mining subsidence, which is not just a matter for Nottinghamshire, although we have heard an awful lot about Nottinghamshire today. It also occurs in north Staffordshire and in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North. In his usual pertinent way, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield made it clear that mining subsidence damage will be a real problem for the Government in the run up to privatisation. I do not argue that the industry should be privatised. I warn the Government that every coal mining community through?out the country will band together to draw attention to coal mining subsidence.
      One of the first things I did as a newly elected Member of Parliament was to go to the Secretary of State for the

      187
      Environment, who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and take up Stoke-on-Trent city council's case for inner-city status for Stoke-on-Trent because the extent of subsidence and the way in which it undermines the city meant that any new building would cost half as much again as it would cost anywhere else in the country. Without extra support from the Government and from the Department of the Environment, there was no way in which we could get the new buildings, new jobs and new opportunities for the city of Stoke-on-Trent. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take on board the clear need to liaise closely with their colleagues at the Department of the Environment because it is an environmental matter as well as one for the Department of Energy.
      Subsidence is a scandal in Stoke-on-Trent and it has been a national scandal for more than 20 years. In her maiden speech, my predecessor before one, Harriet Slater, spoke about the need for the Government to do something about subsidence and to sort out the problems faced by the local city council and Staffordshire county council. Those problems have not been resolved and I certainly join my hon. Friends in telling the Government that something will have to be done.
      My hon. Friends have described the extreme hardship faced by individuals who are living in homes which have been damaged by subsidence. Many people in Stoke-on-Trent, North have made claims but many more were not even aware that they had the right to do so. The way in which British Coal has done everything possible to prevent people from making claims for subsidence on their properties is absolutely out of order. It is not the easiest thing in the world for someone who is not aware of his legal rights to take on British Coal and demand proper compensation for the cracks and for the fact that his house is no longer saleable.
      One of the really difficult things that I have had to deal with is what to say to people when, time and time again, British Coal tells them that they will have to make do with £100 which the contractors will spend on repairs to their homes. There is no way that an independent assessment can be made of the damage. Something must be done about subsidence. One point that must be taken up is British Coal's refusal to pay attention to the serious hardship and stress that people are suffering.
      Another environmental problem is methane gas from old refuse tips. Yesterday we had an indication that the Secretary of State is prepared to consider retrospectively the need to make good damage from such tips. If the Government can deal retrospectively with that, they can do something about all the claims for subsidence damage.
      The Government have told us that they are concerned about the environment and that they will make the whole country clean so that there will not be a huge environmental problem. Is that a cautionary approach? Of course not. Why is no assessment being made of the scale of the problem in individual properties? Why is the cost of subsidence not considered as part of the entire cost of coal mining? Only recently the Government have recognised that something must be done about the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. The principle is the same. Any coal-mining operation that produces subsidence must take
      188
      account of that subsidence and put right the damage or must prevent it in the first place. The cost should be part of the overall cost of coal mining.
      It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to accept new clause 1. It is not just the 33,500 people in Mansfield whose homes have suffered from subsidence but all the other affected people in all coal-mining areas who want something done. Organisations such as the Coalfield Communities Campaign will make certain that there will be full compensation for people who need it, especially before privatisation. My hon. Friends and I are committed to working towards that.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I welcome the opportunity to participate in a debate on one of my favourite constituency subjects, the coal industry. Although I could not be here for the whole debate, I think that I would have been familiar with many of the speeches. There is common ground on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Mansfield, (Mr. Meale), my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and I, among others, participated in the Channel 4 programme which has been mentioned. I thought that it was a fair programme which looked objectively at the plight of people affected by coal-mining subsidence. I dare say that British Coal may take a contrary view, but it was given an opportunity to make its position plain, and I am not sure that it used the programme to its best advantage.
      The hon. Member for Mansfield said that one injustice is that British Coal is perceived as judge and jury in its own cause. That is a major criticism. It shows insensitivity towards people for whom coal-mining subsidence can be a long drawn out and bitter experience.
      One individual, David Linford, not my constituent but a constituent of my late colleague in Mid-Staffordshire, runs an important building company in my constituency. He had to wait 13 years for recognition by British Coal that subsidence had caused problems with his brand new house, which he had built after getting advice from British Coal about where faults were. Such insensitivity does no credit to those responsible for managing the affairs of British Coal.
      To break the bipartisan camaraderie on the issue, I declare again a view that I have put many times: that this is the inevitable result of nationalisation. I accept that Labour Members will take a contrary view, but I invite them at least to consider the thought that if the industry were in the private sector, it could not afford to ride roughshod over the will of people in whose community it operates.
      Ms. Walley: If we were to have a privatised coal industry, what compensation would be given to the hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered subsidence damage to their properties?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady anticipates a matter for a future Parliament. I have always declared my position, that I am in favour of the privatisation of coal because I believe it would greatly benefit the people who work in the industry, its customers, and those, like many of my constituents, who work and live in coalfield areas. I believe that a privatised industry would be forced to be much more concerned about how it treated the community. If it were not, the community would deny it the right to work the coal.

      189
      British Coal will have to be much more sympathetic because gone are the days when it could with impunity rape the countryside of its mineral content. It will need the support of the community in which it works. Coal will continue to be an important fuel. The nation expects of British Coal that it will discharge its duty responsibly.
      In the past, the industry could rely on the fact that, as people whose homes were affected by subsidence were the very people who were employed in the industry, they were unlikely to protest too much because they might be in danger of losing their jobs. Today, with a much more slimline industry, the position is different. Many who are affected by mining subsidence are not employed in the industry, but are its victims. They do not feel beholden in the same way as I suspect in years gone by those employed in the industry did. British Coal no longer dominates the community. I say with as much force as I can muster that I hope the people responsible for running British Coal will take a much more sympathetic and careful view of the problems of subsidence that have been expressed by hon. Members on all sides.
      I have noted the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and his hon. Friends as far as it relates to coal-mining subsidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who over the past two years or more served as Under-Secretary of State for Energy with great distinction, was cognisant of the difficulties mentioned by hon. Members. I know that he took the problem seriously, which is why some of the recommendations of the Waddilove committee that do not need statutory permission have been implemented. However, some of its recommendations will need statutory approval, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—whom I congratulate on his elevation to the post of Under-Secretary of State for Energy, in which I wish him a long and successful career—will take on board the cross-party view that it would be more sensible to introduce comprehensive proposals later rather than to tack them on to the Bill.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke eloquently of specific cases in their constituencies. However, people directly affected by coal-mining subsidence can more eloquently describe the problems that they face.
      A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield appeared on the Channel 4 series "Dispatches" in a programme entitled "In the Coalhole". About five minutes of that programme were devoted to her speaking forcefully about mining subsidence during a visit to one of my hon. Friend's advice centres. The producer told me that she spoke for about 25 or 30 minutes about the difficulties that she faced.
      Hon. Members' constituents have experienced vast problems with subsidence for ages and have records, notes and photographs of their experiences. I wish that there were a system to resolve their problems, to help them get their homes repaired and to help them to overcome the traumas that they have experienced.
      I have a problem of subsidence resulting from past coal mining in my constituency at Hartington road in Staveley. At one time, I was rather reluctant to discuss the problem,
      190
      but people in the area began to publicise it themselves. There is likely to be similar problems in the future, because of mining development at Markham pit, which is presently taking place in south Staveley in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In time, the problem will move to north Staveley, which is in my constituency.
      Inkersall green special school in south Staveley has been seriously affected by subsidence. It was known that there was to be mining development underneath it, so precautions were taken. A large ditch was built around the school so that it would fall slightly and settle, minimising the problem of mining subsidence. When mining halfway under the school, they hit a fault—I do not know whose fault it was that that was not foreseen—and could not continue. That broke the back of the school. It is a beautiful school and some of its facilities have been paid for by the local community, but anyone walking inside it feels seasick.
      The problem is what to do about it, what will happen to special education in the area, given local government's problems with resources, and whether it will receive full help from British Coal for repairs. Hon. Members have spoken of the difficulties of dealing with British Coal and its agents, of their constituents receiving inadequate help and of them often having to accept a raw deal.
      Earlier, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) said that the clause should not be given a Second Reading because a later Bill will deal with the problem of subsidence. I shall argue that it should be given a Second Reading now, unless I can be convinced otherwise by the Minister.
      The Bill is almost a paving measure for the privatisation of the coal industry. Some of the cash arrangements in the Bill may be acceptable to Labour Members, but their purpose is to prepare the industry for privatisation. In those circumstances, people are worried about whether funds will be made available to cover outstanding claims. New clause 1(3) is essential to ensure that adequate funds will be available. If the industry is privatised—that will not happen, because after the next election there will be a different Government—the problem of ensuring that funds are available and used will remain. The other sign that this is a paving Bill are the provisions that deal with small mine development.
      A further reason for giving the clause a Second Reading is that more pits will close if the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is enacted. Unless the other place passes an amendment stopping coal imports through the Humber ports—if that happened, the promoters of the Bill would withdraw it—the coal industry will be further damaged. British Coal will be forced to concentrate on a few super-pits and to develop opencast coal mining on a large scale. In those circumstances, if adequate funding is not made available to cover subsidence at coal mines that have closed, people will be in a bad position.
      A further reason given for not giving the clause a Second Reading is the promise of a Bill to deal with coal mining subsidence. I wrote to the Minister on 5 December, made one or two suggestions about the Bill and mentioned the need for coal-mining subsidence legislation. I received a reply, and I have since received a second version, which is circulating among other hon. Members. The letter states that,
      "at the earliest practical opportunity",

      191
      there will be some appropriate legislation, but we need to test what is meant by that.
      As has already been said, there have been six years in which measures could have been brought before the House. This is the umpteenth debate on coal-mining subsidence. Many previous debates were initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). When he was lucky in the ballot for motions that he could bring before the House, he ensured that we could discuss this matter. Many of the points about what is required in legislation have been hammered out in the House and in meetings with the Department of Energy.
      The Minister's letter says:
      "With regard to your concern about coal mining subsidence, you will, I am sure, recognise the inherent complexity of the subject".
      The subject is complex and there are conflicting interests involved, but that cannot be a reason for delaying such a measure. The complexities have been discussed at considerable length. The problems are well understood by Opposition Members and should be well understood by the Department of Energy. The measure must be brought forward.
      The letter continues:
      "and consequently, that subsidence requires its own Bill in its own timetable. I believe it would be wrong to rush a subsidence measure through the House tacked on the short, primarily financial, Coal Industry Bill, which requires early enactment. The government is therefore committed to introducing a Bill dealing comprehensively with subsidence issues at the earliest practical opportunity."
      The letter later deals with my points about the need for independent arbitration, the need for British Coal to have a primary duty to correct the problems, its legal responsibility and various other items. That shows that there is a great deal of sympathy within the Department of Energy with certain points that the Opposition have put forward.
      However, the letter implies that if we wait, everything will be okay. Many of us are sick of waiting. We have seen the problems of our constituents. Does
      "at the earliest practical opportunity"
      mean this Session, despite the fact that such a measure was not contained in the Queen's Speech; or does it mean that we are expected to sit back and to wait for such a measure to be contained in another Queen's Speech, if the Department of Energy bids for sufficient resources and funds to enable it to carry out such legislation?
      Opposition Members believe that it is not good enough for the Government to intend to introduce legislation in the next Session. That would not deal with our constituents' problems and the future difficulties that many of them face. I hope that the Minister will explain why he thinks that new clause 1 is inappropriate and, if so, what other measures would be appropriate. When will such measures be introduced? They are now very urgent.
      Mr. Illsley: I want to speak briefly on points that are similar to those made by my hon. Friends. It is nice to hear Conservative Members welcoming public money being given to the coal industry. Usually, when we ask for further funds to be given to the coal industry, we meet a barrage of hostility from Conservative Members.
      It is important that subsidence is dealt with in the Coal Industry Bill. New clause 1 deals with British Coal's historical debts. It is important that those debts are sorted
      192
      out before the end of the financial year. As many of the subsidence claims are historical debts for British Coal, money should be voted now to help the industry to meet its liabilities. Some hon. Members have heard from the chairman of British Coal the amount of money that British Coal requires for concessionary coal liabilities and claims for industrial deafness.
      Subsidence damage claims should be included in the Bill. The money required for subsidence claims has an effect on British Coal's investment decisions about collieries. Such considerations have had tremendous importance in the past. I have spent hours in meetings with British Coal—or the National Coal Board, as it was—which was trying to decide which coal seam or coal face could be mined in view of the amount that the board might face in subsidence claims if that coal were taken.
      Sometimes, decisions were taken to close seams or collieries because British Coal could not afford the amount of subsidence liability that it would have faced had it continued to maintain that face or seam. Subsidence has an important effect. Collieries and jobs may be cut because the board has insufficient money to finance the subsidence claims that have accumulated over the past few years. The Government must help with that liability. They must consider new clause 1 and ensure that British Coal has sufficient money to cover its liabilities on subsidence.
      5.45 pm
      Subsidence claims are endemic to mining areas. My hon. Friends have talked about their constituents with subsidence claims. A number of my constituents—including myself—have such problems. My present and previous houses suffered from subsidence so I am well aware of the delays in dealing with claims. One street in my constituency—Melvinia crescent—had to be demolished. The owners are waiting for their properties to be rebuilt by British Coal. However, I want to put on record my appreciation of British Coal's Allerton Bywater estates department, which has been helpful in my dealings with subsidence damage claims.
      However, claims put a considerable strain on my constituents who are faced with the decision of whether to remain in a property that has been damaged by subsidence and which may have been tilted, cracked or broken. Buying a home is usually a person's major financial investment. It is heartrending to have to decide whether a home should be demolished, repaired or rebuilt, especially if the property is of high value or if someone has personal reasons for wanting to remain in it.
      Subsidence also affects local authority housing. Sometimes, local authorities which are cash-squeezed by the Minister for Housing and Planning—the former Under-Secretary of State for Energy—cannot afford to spend money on housing repairs, although that money is owed to them by British Coal. Sometimes, tenants have to remain in properties that have been damaged by subsidence because local authorities cannot provide the money quickly enough for repairs to be carried out as they are still waiting for British Coal to make payments for subsidence damage claims.
      There is also damage to local authority roads and to road building programmes. Roads in my constituency have been substantially damaged by coal-mining subsidence. The local authority is having difficulty in keeping the roads repaired to a suitable standard. It has

      193
      recently been criticised because of that damage, yet because of the cash limit that has been imposed by the Government, it cannot meet those expenses.
      It is important that we deal with the problem of subsidence now in the Bill, which deals with coal industry finance, rather than wait for another Bill to deal with subsidence on its own. The Bill deals with historical finance, and subsidence imposes a historical financial burden on British Coal. As British Coal's finances will not he restructured again for a considerable time, we should deal with the matter now. I hope that the Government will support the new clause.
      Mr. Frank Haynes: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and a pleasure also to see the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who used to be the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, and responsible for the coal mining industry, but who has now been moved over to the Department of the Environment by that lady at No. 10. I understand that he is now the Minister for Housing and Planning, and that must be why he is here today: he has an interest in housing—in the housing in which our constituents live, which has been damaged by mining subsidence. The hon. Gentleman knows all about it. He has had his ear clobbered many a time when responding to questions and debates on mining subsidence but he has not done a great deal to sort the problem out. Now he has left it completely. He has gone to another Department and left it to somebody else.
      So who do we have now? We have as Secretary of State the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham). The right hon. Gentleman does not know a great deal about mining—he has never worked in a pit—and he does not know much about mining subsidence either. He knows about nuclear dumping, though I remember the campaign that he ran in his constituency where they wanted to take boreholes there with a view to dumping nuclear waste. That plan did not come off. The right hon. Gentleman won his campaign and we are asking him to win ours now that he is Secretary of State for Energy.
      Mr. Dobson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State broke with Tory party tradition and established a nuclear-free zone in his constituency?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will oblige me and return to the new clause.
      Mr. Haynes: I am not daft, Madam Speaker, and I know that when you are in the Chair I have to watch my Ps and Qs, so I shall not stray from the new clause, which I fully support.
      Before my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) interrupted me, I was about to say that we have a new Under-Secretary of State for Energy responsible for coal. I welcome him, and I hope that he will do something about our problem. I see that he represents Banbury. There are not many pits in Banbury, and not much opencast either. Both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have listened to our every word this afternoon. They are getting an education about coal mining and mining subsidence, and they now realise, I am sure, what a serious problem it is.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did a marvellous job in opening the debate but I
      194
      ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many pits are there down in Holborn and St. Pancras? My hon. Friend has done his homework and put a first-class case, as have a number of my hon. Friends. A good case has also been put by some Conservative Members and I hope that they will join us in the Lobby, because the new clause is necessary. We have waited for so long. We have clobbered Ministers. In days gone by, I even clobbered the Prime Minister about mining subsidence in my constituency and in other places in Nottinghamshire.
      A little while ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the House of Lords. When a piece of plaster fell from the ceiling, they closed the place down to repair it. It cost a fortune. The Government found the money, as my hon. Friend rightly said. I remember an Environment Minister coming to the House to tell us that Big Ben was 9 in out of true. It is, indeed, 9 in out of true and the reason for that is that we have not always had a car park. All those years ago—25 or 26—they scooped a whacking great hole out beneath the building and put in five floors so that hon. Members could park their cars. [Hon. Members: "Opencast mining."] Opencast mining, yes. The end result was that Big Ben started to be affected and to move out of true. I never go round that way because one never knows. We have been given assurance that it is okay now, but I never give it a chance. That is a perfect illustration of what happens. It is easy to understand the kind of problems that we have in mining areas back in our constituencies.
      Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that, only about 10 years ago, the Terrace was raised because of the level of the River Thames? One could put one's hand in the river at high tide. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on a Thames barrage to protect this place and the lower areas of London.
      Mr. Haynes: There you are, Madam Deputy Speaker: my hon. Friend is leading me in the right direction by referring to money being found to do that kind of work when money is not being found to do the work that we need done in our constituencies.
      Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend think that, as global warming occurs and the sea level rises, and all the fiat low-lying coastal constituencies represented by Conservative Members are threatened, those hon. Members will be clamouring for lots of public money to defend themselves from inundation by the sea?
      Mr. Haynes: Yes, but that will come later, and we have a problem right now. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to take me down lovers' lane, but I am steering clear of that one. I have done enough damage with that one, and I shall not go further.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and I get people coming to our morning surgeries of a Saturday. The result is that I visit homes on Sunday morning when I should be in church. Like any hon. Member who does his job correctly, I must look after my constituents, so I do not go to church very often. Last Sunday I went to visit a Mr. Taylor of Hill crescent in Sutton in Ashfield. The work on his house has been completed and it is shocking. You cannot close a door, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the door frames have

      195
      whacking great cracks in them. When Mr. Taylor took me outside, I saw that there were whacking great cracks in the bay windows too.
      I know what is wrong. We have seen British Coal officials go to prison for fiddling over subsidence repairs. Many of the contractors that have been brought in to do the repairs are cowboys, who keep the costs down and make a nice profit, and British Coal does not provide the money necessary to enable them to do the job properly.
      Another constituent of mine lives just round the corner from where I used to live. When he came to see me, he brought photographs to show me exactly what was happening to his property, which was supposed to have been completed. I wrote to the director of the Nottinghamshire area, who replied, "We have spent enough money on that property: we are not spending any more." That property is not fit to live in. Honestly, it is shocking; it is disgusting the way they have been treating people back home in our constituencies.
      We really need the new clause. All right, a Bill has been promised to deal with the subsidence problem at a later stage, but I do not accept that promise, because we have waited and waited and waited. We have had a bellyful; we want some action from the Government now.
      The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham)rose—
      Mr. Haynes: I have not finished yet. The Secretary of State need not get so excited.
      There are properties—
      Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Speak up.
      Mr. Haynes: I hope that you will watch the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: My attention is entirely riveted on the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).
      6 pm
      Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman's attention is riveted on me. He is always bawling and shouting instead of listening to what is being said, so I am saying it again.
      It often works out that hon. Members become agents on behalf of their constituents, yet there are agents who are supposed to be working for them. They are not doing their job. For a start, they are taking on too much work. They keep small staffs and they cannot handle the situation properly. The result is that constituents suffer in their homes.
      Tilt is the main problem with a number of properties. The board does not want to know if there is tilt. One can walk into some properties, and it is like being in a rowing boat in the middle of the Atlantic. How can the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department of Energy put up with that? They should go and look for themselves. I would welcome the Secretary of State visiting the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire and looking at some mining subsidence problems. He could spend the day there and open his eyes to the suffering that is going on in hon. Members' constituencies.
      People can be transferred from their own homes to other homes while serious repairs are being done. People
      196
      have been out of their homes for as long as two years before they could get back into their properties. The reason is that the contractor, who has been employed by British Coal, is never on the job. The result is delay after delay. People come to hon. Members' surgeries and, once again, hon. Members act as agents and make representations. The agent is supposed to look after and represent people with problems with British Coal. Oh, no—because he is an easy touch, the hon. Member has the problem dropped in his lap.
      I have a filing cabinet full of letters about mining subsidence problems. The Minister might not believe that, but it is true. I am sick to death of it. I am fed up. It is a nightmare. I have had problems with social security or housing, but the subsidence problem has been with me all along, and I have had enough. Hon. Members are looking for help for the people whom we represent. They have been getting a raw deal for far too long.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) knows about subsidence. He has had properties in my constituency. He has suffered just the same as others have. He could not get repairs done, simply because the board would not find the money to do them. The board says, "Well, regulations have been laid down by the Government." Opposition Members want the Government to get off their backsides and do something about the problem.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy will keep his eye on the problem. He has a responsibility in this housing matter. In the main, we are talking about domestic properties. Of course, there are serious problems with factories, schools and so on, but, in the main, we are talking about people's homes. I recently told the Prime Minister herself that her Government encourage people to own their own homes, yet many homes are being destroyed by mining subsidence.
      We have a real problem. I ask the Secretary of State please to grab hold of the new clause. It should be in the Bill so that we can deal with the problem now and not wait until later. The problem is big enough and serious enough, and we want some action. I ask the Secretary of State to vote for the new clause and let us have it in the Bill.
      Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) raised those points. Some of my other hon. Friends have also dealt with the matter at length. The Secretary of State will know that I have referred to the problem of subsidence in Bolsover church. For several years, negotiations did not proceed at any level between British Coal and Bolsover church, partly because of some negligence on the part of British Coal and the fact that there was no vicar for a period. I had to take over—[Laughter.] It's the way I tell them. I had to take over as an intermediary. Several years ago, I was approached about whether I could get negotiations started. I told British Coal that I would be prepared to challenge it to a debate in Bolsover church so that the whole community could take part in it. That cracked it. British Coal then decided to start negotiating.
      I raised the matter with the Church Commissioners and I was promised an investigation. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will see a reference to that on the valuable list that he produced. In the past few days, I received a further letter from the newly installed vicar, John Easton, of

      197
      Bolsover parish church. I am sad to report that, despite all the efforts that have been made, there is a deadlock. I ask the Secretary of State for Energy to take note of the point that I am making. There is no doubt that some of his advisers will know that this matter must be resolved.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield said, it is mainly housing that is affected by subsidence. We know that a terrible backlog has accrued in the past few years. When promises are made in the House on behalf of the Church Commissioners, the matter should be resolved. It was raised a considerable time ago. The vicar and the church wardens have jointly written, stating:
      "We have waited expectantly over the last six months for the fulfilment of the offer from British Coal but to no avail. We now agree with our architect and our solicitor who reluctantly conclude that British Coal are deliberately delaying payment with new quibbles about the wording of the document of acceptance."
      That is how British Coal plays the game. That will register a chord with thousands of people in our constituencies—the idea of quibbling about exact words. They went on to state:
      "We thank you for your interest and help in the past and hope that you will now be able to help in determining why payment has not been made."
      This stage of the Bill's proceedings is an admirable opportunity for me to place that matter on the record.
      There is a history to the backlog, and it is as well that the relatively new Secretary of State for Energy knows that. We also have a new Minister. He should be apprised of the reasons. Subsidence cases have not been raised in the same numbers since I have been an hon. Member. In the main, the backlog occurred during 1983, when suddenly it was found that some agents operating and acting on behalf of tenants and property owners were lining their pockets with large commission payments out of subsidence claims. Certain people became more involved in the matter. It received a lot of media attention. There was tremendous publicity about a few cases and about some people who were at arm's length from the problem—people who were making money on the side. Literally scores of thousands of residents with subsidence problems suffered.
      British Coal asked "What will we do? We will tighten up." Rather than agents and people who obtained the commission, people such as those at Bolsover parish church and thousands of others about whom hon. Members know have suffered. That is why the rule was changed to what is commonly known as the "six-year rule" and it was made more difficult for the honest-to-goodness residents to get that compensation.
      I hope that the Government's two representatives—Ministers who are relatively new to this—are fully apprised of why the change took place and why my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has suddenly taken an interest and devotion in this matter that is far greater than that taken by his predecessor. There is a good reason for that—and point number one is that my hon. Friend succeeded his predecessor. However, my hon. Friend became interested because of the problem. Among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Derbyshire, North (Mr. Barnes) have raised this matter because of the tremendous backlog in dealing with these cases and because of the Select Committee report that drew a lot of attention to the problem. I am not knocking that—I am simply saying that once attention has been drawn to the problem, it should be remedied in the proper way.
      198
      Let us not cause something to happen that means that the local residents will suffer. I can understand the agents losing their villas in Spain—not that they have, as a matter of fact—but it is unfair to lump the problem on to those people who are suffering.
      If there is plenty of money in the country to put pearly gates outside No. 10, there must be a bob or two left for people such as our constituents. We could give a litany of the ways in which the Government could spend money. We could also say the same about British Coal. If it can use some of its money for two-inch-deep carpets all around Hobart house and provide the wherewithal for all the luxuries and God knows what else there, it has a duty to assist in this difficulty.
      The Secretary of State for Energy has a chance to make a name for himself in the last two years left to this Government. Of course, it might be less than that, because Ministers are now shunted around very quickly. The previous Minister for Coal, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is sitting behind the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman was halfway through the Bill—he did not expect it—but he suddenly got a telephone call from inside the pearly gates, saying, "You are wanted. We have run out of real Right wingers. You're about the only one left." That was not the greatest compliment of all time to be paid by Bernard Ingham, but the Minister was shifted.
      That is why I am advising the Secretary of State and his new Minister for Coal that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield put the situation in the right context when he said, "Grab hold of it." There are many problems and they are not associated with Opposition Members only. Many Tory Members have these complaints. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that we get more complaints about subsidence now than about almost any other subject.
      Let us deal with this matter in a general way and take on board the points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and other hon. Friends. The Government should make sure that there is no more waffling, because there has been some on this issue. When my hon. Friend opened the debate, he gave an account of the way in which the Government have pushed the issue to one side. There is no doubt that the Government have done that with the Waddilove committee and all the rest of it. They have been buying time, but we have now reached the point when the buying of time should end.
      Let us get on with the job. If the new clause cannot be accepted, that is one thing, because we are simply saying that the Government should accept that kind of clause if they intend to do something about resolving the problem for the thousands of people who are suffering and losing money and who, in many cases, have not been given any money at all for their genuine claims of subsidence against British Coal.
      Mr. Wakeham: May I say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to discuss subsidence? It is an aspect of the coal industry about which there is widespread interest and concern among hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and his hon Friends have done the House a great service in raising the issue for debate on this new clause. One cannot come to this issue without one thing being crystal clear—that the present state of affairs is not satisfactory.

      199
      Rather than being a substantive point, perhaps my first point should be regarded as an audible aside. Opposition Members have made several attempts to draw a connection between the problems of subsidence and coal privatisation. The Government have a clear commitment to bring forward legislation on the problems of subsidence quite independent of the privatisation, about which I shall speak later. The Government have also clearly stated their proposals for coal privatisation, which will be dealt with in the next Parliament.
      However, as I have spent a considerable amount of time on the subject, perhaps I may draw an analogy from the electricity privatisation. To put the matter at its lowest, there seems no possibility of privatising British Coal without first clearing up the questions of the liabilities and problems of subsidence. I am not saying that there is a connection between the two, but as an aside to what some hon. Members have been saying, I should add that I do not think that some Opposition Members took the logic of the points that they themselves were making.
      6.15 pm
      The new clause, in fact, goes rather wider than subsidence, because it seeks to extend deficiency grant to cover not only British Coal's subsidence liabilities, but also all its loans as well. Perhaps it could be convenient for the House, therefore, if I were to deal with all the other matters first and then devote the remaining part of my speech to dealing with points on subsidence.
      In these other matters, the new clause would go well beyond what the Government have in mind and what is necessary. The basic purpose of the capital reconstruction is to recognise that the corporation's asset base has been severely eroded by the events of recent years, and to restore the corporation to a position where I can properly continue to advance loans to meet its day to day cash requirements. It has never been our proposal that we should write off all British Coal's debts, but we do believe that it is necessary to bring them into closer alignment with the true value of its colliery assets. Our Bill will achieve that. The Opposition's new clause would not only wipe out all the corporation's debts, but would also endow the corporation with many billions of pounds of spare cash. That would, quite rightly, be unacceptable to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as well as being contrary to European Community rules on state aids.
      Quite understandably the Government have been asked how much the deficiency in British Coal's accounts is likely to be by the end of the financial year. I said on Second Reading that it was likely to exceed £5 billion, and that there was a wide margin of uncertainty at present about certain elements, particularly the valuation of the corporation's assets.
      This margin of uncertainty could be as much as £2 billion and it may be several months before we are able to arrive at a more precise figure. This is because the revaluation of each colliery will be based on a detailed review of its future cash flow and, of course, there will need to be detailed discussion of the strategic assumptions underlying the cash projections, and particularly the assumptions for prices, output and productivity.
      Questions have also been asked about the valuation of land and coal reserves in the accounts. Land and buildings
      200
      are included at cost, but the annual accounts also give information on its value at current prices. At March 1989, British Coal's estimate of the current market value was £584 million, compared with a book cost of £207 million.
      I can assure Opposition Members that British Coal is in no financial position to hoard land. In fact, it has stepped up its sales of surplus property to nearly £100 million in the course of this financial year and will have to continue to sell its land if it is to generate cash for reinvestment in the industry.
      Mr. Hardy: In addition to valuing the land and property owned by British Coal, will the Minister put a notional figure on the value of the coal reserves in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next paragraph. Unworked coal reserves are not included in the balance sheet, but they represent an immense and vital national asset. If they were sold, they would, of course, have to be valued, but I am certainly not envisaging that unworked reserves, as distinct from the coal mining industry, would ever be privatised. Nevertheless, I understand the feeling expressed in Committee, that, as steward of our coal reserves, British Coal might provide a fuller and more regular analysis of the volume of reserves in each coalfield. It is important information and I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of Sir Robert Haslam.
      Mr. Alexander Eadie: This is an important point. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will be confused about assets and reserves. The Secretary of State must be aware that pits have closed, not because there was no coal in them, but because it was considered that the economic climate had changed. Pits were deemed unprofitable even though the coal was still there. That coal may even be worked some day, when there is a more realistic appreciation of the value of coal resources. Our worry is that the closure of some pits was a piece of vandalism and that coal was sterilised for all time.
      Mr. Wakeham: I shall leave aside part of what the hon. Gentleman said and come to the central point. I agree that it is not possible to value coal reserves. It is not our intention to do so. We do not envisage privatising that part of the coal industry. We do not believe that it is proper to value coal reserves. The hon. Gentleman will agree that a fuller and more regular analysis of the volume of reserves in each coalfield is more important than artificial and meaningless assessments of their value.
      I shall make a request to Sir Robert Haslam to make more information about the volume of reserves available. Many people involved in the coal industry would like to have such information. I agree that it would not be fruitful to attempt to value coal reserves.
      Clause 1 provides that I may pay deficiency grant up to the level of the deficiency shown in British Coal's accounts. I cannot guarantee that I shall fully extinguish the deficiency to the last penny. For one thing, part of the grant represents state aid requiring the approval of the European Coal and Steel Community. The level of grant will have to be sufficient to clear up British Coal's balance sheet to the point where I can properly continue to lend to the Corporation. In other words, there must be a genuine

      201
      prospect that it can service and repay its remaining debt. This means that a very substantial amount of deficiency grant will be required.
      I now turn to the subsidence aspects of the new clause. First, I assure the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that the deficiency already allows sums to cover its estimated liability for compensation for subsidence damage. The adequacy of these sums will automatically be reviewed by British Coal's auditors at the end of each year. The sums do not allow for the effect of further legislation on subsidence. It is not possible to make a proper assessment of any increase in the liability on this account until details of the Government's legislation are finalised. I do not expect that the extra liability will be significant.
      In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), whatever British Coal's financial difficulties or liabilities in the past—I hope that such difficulties will not continue—there is no question that any properly settled claim would not be met by British Coal. It could not reasonably plead poverty in settling its debts. That would be unacceptable. I hope that that will help the hon. Member for Mansfield to deal with the human problems in his constituency and in others. I shall deal with the negotiation and settlement of claims later in my speech.
      Mr. Meale: I admire the Secretary of State for his honesty and openness, and I am grateful for his reply.
      Mr. Wakeham: Fine. I appreciate friendly comments, wherever they come from. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) occasionally makes such comments, but they often have a sting in the tail.
      Many claims are already being met by British Coal. I am pleased to tell the House that the trends are encouraging. The number of new claims continues to fall. In 1988–89, British Coal received 9,600 new claims, some 2,300 less than the previous year. British Coal settled about 10,000 claims, at a cost of nearly £50 million. A further 4,600 claims were rejected, with the result that the total number of cases outstanding fell by about 5,000 compared with the previous year, to a little over 26,000. That compares with backlogs of 37,000 in 1986–87 and 52,000 in 1983–84.
      It may be helpful to the House to run through what has happened since the Waddilove committee on subsidence reported in 1984, and the Government's White Paper response was issued in 1987. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the Waddilove report on repair and compensation for coal mining damage made 65 recommendations, not all of which required legislation to be implemented. It is worth recalling that the report did not call for a radical overhaul of the existing system. It concluded that the thrust of the existing legislation was broadly right but needed strengthening in a number of areas. I draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 169 of the report.
      Between the publication of the Waddilove report and the Government's White Paper response, British Coal introduced several improvements to its management procedures. The result was that, by the time that our White Paper was published, over half of Waddilove's recommendations had been implemented, wholly or in part. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member
      202
      for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock), the Official Report listed those improvements in January last year.
      For example, British Coal now acts in accordance with Waddilove's recommendation that priority should be given to the repair of damage and that payments in lieu should be made only in exceptional circumstances. It also repairs all property to a good standard, even though the Coals Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 requires British Coal only to make the property "reasonably fitted" for use.
      British Coal does not strictly apply the time limit in the 1957 Act, which requires a claim to be made within two months of the damage becoming apparent and will generally accept claims up to six years after the damage occurred. Several hon. Members spoke about the time limit. I recognise that that causes problems. That is why we propose a change in new legislation to make the position abundantly clear.
      I am advised that claims will be allowed up to six years from when the claimant first had reasonable grounds to believe that damage had occurred. That is six years, not from when the mining took place, or from when the damage occurred, but from when the damage appeared. I hope that my comments will be of help to people who are in any doubt about that.
      Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State accept that there are still problems? When a person claims that his house has been damaged, it is possible for the Coal Board to say, "The houses on either side were damaged four years ago, so you are out of time." As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) said, the Coal Board can say in effect, "You have suffered from the damage for so long that we will not pay you any compensation."
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the position is not entirely satisfactory, but I said what I did in order that the legal position should be as clear as I am advised that it is. But we recognise that legislation is necessary to make that crystal clear.
      Some hon. Members have suggested that more should be done in advance of legislation. We agree, and I am actively looking to move things forward. That is why we are preparing a new version of my Department's advisory leaflet, often refered to as the Green Book. That will describe new procedures agreed between the Department and British Coal for dealing with subsidence claims. Those procedures will, as far as possible, incorporate the best aspects of both the existing Acts and anticipate our proposals for legislation. I am well aware of the anxiety that claimants may suffer simply from not knowing how to proceed. I hope that that will go some small way to reduce uncertainty in the minds of claimants until such time as our new legislation is implemented.
      Secondly, the House may recall from the White Paper that we said that we would conduct an attitude survey to assess public satisfaction with British Coal's notification procedures. If the existing arrangements are found to be unsatisfactory, British Coal will be required to notify individual households. The fieldwork for that survey is now complete and I expect a report shortly.
      Thirdly, because of the prospect of early legislation we have brought forward the review of disputes procedures which Waddilove recommended should take place in 1990.

      203
      That, in part, answers some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). That review is now under way and will look at a range of options. We shall shortly be consulting more widely and I hope that the outcome will be a simpler, quicker and cheaper way for claimants to resolve disputes with British Coal.
      The options that we are looking at include a better defined and more widely available form of independent adjudication; lower-tier to the Lands Tribunal, roughly equivalent to a small claims court; an ombudsman; a legal advice centre, and a disputes procedure based on the rules of the Institute of Arbitrators. At this stage it is not possible to anticipate the outcome of this review or when and how its findings will be implemented, but it may be possible for a new system to be agreed and established without legislation.
      I shall consider carefully all the points that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), and the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Mansfield, along with the other helpful suggestions that have been made.
      The Government remain committed to introducing a Bill on subsidence at the earliest possible opportunity, but subsidence is a complex area. There are two Acts which currently apply. We are not only introducing positive improvements, we are also consolidating two Acts into one Bill. Some of the provisions of these Acts, while desirable, are not always as clear as they should be.
      Many hon. Members will be only too aware of the uncertainties surrounding the interpretation of the six-year rule, on which we have already had exchanges. I accept that fully. Unravelling those Acts and replacing them with a lucid and comprehensive new Bill will involve a lot of "lawyer's law" which will require careful drafting and careful scrutiny by the House and in Committee. Moreover, a great deal of work and further consultation is going on and we want the legislation to reflect its outcome.
      For those reasons, it would be neither practical nor desirable to tack subsidence provisions on to the present short, primarily financial, Bill which is urgently required by the end of the financial year. I was responsible for the business of the House for long enough to know that I cannot predict when the legislation will be introduced. That is a matter for decision elsewhere. But I am sure that the Government, in reaching their decision on the timing of a Bill, will wish to take full account of the views expressed today, and I hope that on that basis the Opposition will withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Dobson: We do not want to withdraw the new clause, because this is an urgent matter. It is getting on for six years since the Waddilove committee reported. Its recommendations are sufficiently clear, and they should be implemented now.
      If the Secretary of State is not prepared to amend the Bill at this point or to see it amended in the other place, let me remind him of his previous incarnation as Leader of the House. In the previous Session of Parliament, we saw through the House the lowest number of Bills in an ordinary Session since the second world war, and in the Session before that we saw through the lowest number of Bills ever seen through the first Session of a Parliament
      204
      since the second world war. We are promised that there will be even fewer Bills in this Session, so there must be room in the Government's legislative programme for this important measure. If the right hon. Gentleman wants his hon. Friends to drop the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, or the Education (Student Loans) Bill, we shall facilitate that.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 246.

      Division No. 36]

      [6.35 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Donald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Gould, Bryan

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Thomas

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Barron, Kevin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Battle, John

      Hardy, Peter

      Beckett, Margaret

      Haynes, Frank

      Beith, A. J.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Henderson, Doug

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

      Hinchliffe, David

      Blunkett, David

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hood, Jimmy

      Bradley, Keith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Buckley, George J.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ingram, Adam

      Canavan, Dennis

      Janner, Greville

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Clay, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles

      Clelland, David

      Lambie, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lamond, James

      Coleman, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbett, Robin

      Lewis, Terry

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Litherland, Robert

      Cousins, Jim

      Livsey, Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cummings, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McAllion, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Darling, Alistair

      McCartney, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McFall, John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      McLeish, Henry

      Dobson, Frank

      Maclennan, Robert

      Doran, Frank

      McNamara, Kevin

      Douglas, Dick

      McWilliam, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Madden, Max

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marek, Dr John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Martlew, Eric

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Maxton, John

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

      Meale, Alan

      Fisher, Mark

      Michael, Alun

      Flannery, Martin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Foster, Derek

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foulkes, George

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Galloway, George

      Mullin, Chris

      205

      Murphy, Paul

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Brien, William

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Pike, Peter L.

      Strang, Gavin

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Radice, Giles

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Redmond, Martin

      Turner, Dennis

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Vaz, Keith

      Richardson, Jo

      Walley, Joan

      Robertson, George

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rogers, Allan

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Short, Clare

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Gran, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Allason, Rupert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

      Amess, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Amos, Alan

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Devlin, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Atkinson, David

      Dover, Den

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baldry, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Batiste, Spencer

      Eggar, Tim

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evennett, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fallon, Michael

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Favell, Tony

      Benyon, W.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Boswell, Tim

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Franks, Cecil

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Freeman, Roger

      Brazier, Julian

      French, Douglas

      Bright, Graham

      Fry, Peter

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

      Gale, Roger

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Gill, Christopher

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Burns, Simon

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Chris

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butterfill, John

      Gow, Ian

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grist, Ian

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ground, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hague, William

      Chope, Christopher

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hampson, Dr Keith

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

      Hannam, John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Harris, David,

      Colvin, Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Conway, Derek

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hayward, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Couchman, James

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      206

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Raffan, Keith

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Redwood, John

      Holt, Richard

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Riddick, Graham

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rost, Peter

      Irvine, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Janman, Tim

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shelton, Sir William

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Shersby, Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Sims, Roger

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knapman; Roger

      Speller, Tony

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knowles, Michael

      Squire, Robin

      Knox, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lang, Ian

      Steen, Anthony

      Latham, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lightbown, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Peter

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lord, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Maclean, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thornton, Malcolm

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thurnham, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mans, Keith

      Tracey, Richard

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Trippier, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Viggers, Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Walden, George

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mellor, David

      Waller, Gary

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ward, John

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mills, lain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Watts, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wells, Bowen

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Whitney, Ray

      Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wilshire, David

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Paice, James

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Portillo, Michael

      Mr. Tom Sackville.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 4

      LICENSING OF COAL WORKING, SEARCHING AND BORING
      Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
      '(c) in paragraph (c) after the word "tonnes" there shall be inserted "except that no operation shall proceed where the land was included in Acts of Enclosure which were enacted prior to 1840 and is currently devoted to agriculture, forestry or recreational purposes.".'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
      '(c) in paragraph (c) after "tonnes", there shall be inserted "and when undertakings have been made by the operators for the restoration of the land affected by the working of coal or by operations incidental to such working.".'.
      No. 1, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
      '(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted—
      "(2AA) Applicants for a licence under subsection 2(c) above shall undertake to deposit a bond, with the relevant local authority, sufficient to cover the costs of the restoration of land affected by operations under that licence as estimated by that local authority.".'.
      Mr. Dobson: This group of amendments is intended to ensure that the activities of private opencast operators are brought up to the standards of the opencast operations of British Coal. That does not mean that we think that British Coal's opencast operations are necessarily as good as they should be.
      Amendment No. 4 is a shrewd amendment, which was originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). It relates to the enclosure Acts, many of which specified that when common land was enclosed hedgerows should be established and then maintained in perpetuity. My hon. Friend will explain at greater length that, although that legislation is still in force, regrettably—even under the present law-and-order Government—it is not enforced. Amendment No. 4 seeks to offer protection wherever there is a threat of opencasting.
      I am reminded of a piece of doggerel that was popular at about the time of the Enclosure Acts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will recall, as may other right hon. and hon. Members:
      "The fault is great in man or woman
      Who steals a goose from off a common.
      But what can plead the man's excuse
      Who steals the common from the goose?"
      Common land is now enclosed only because hedges were erected around it—and if they are required to be removed, eventually they should be replaced.
      We argue that private operators of opencast sites should not be allowed to expand the scale of their operations from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes, but if the Government persist in increasing the maximum take tenfold, there should be a substantial improvement also in the protection given to local communities, to match the operators' degree of exploitation.
      There is no doubt that further protection is needed. Over the years, many reports have illustrated the problems created by licensed opencast sites. One of the most thorough—albeit that it is now somewhat old, having been
      208
      published in 1984—was that produced by the minerals and reclamation group of the County Planning Officers Society. It describes problems that confronted its members and local communities in no fewer than six counties. The report runs to 17 pages, and its contents should be noted.
      One of the problems that the report reveals is that operators do not observe conditions of operation, nor do they fulfil their obligations to restore an opencast site when their work is finished. Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 require operators to enter into an agreement to meet certain conditions. Also, after an operator has sought and obtained planning consent, the planning authority will secure a bond to cover the cost of the required restoration work. If the operator does not honour its obligations, the county council will have the funds to undertake the necessary work in default, at the operator's expense. That is only right and proper.
      The planning officers' report lists numerous examples of conditions not being fulfilled. In one case, a condition restricting the height of the overburden mound was disregarded. The mound was too high and caused a nuisance to local people. A condition restricting the noise emanating from the site was also disregarded, causing trouble to local people.
      The report cites an example of the shady behaviour of which operators are capable. At another site, an operator
      "was unable to comply with agreed working scheme because of the cost of replacing overburden in worked out area."
      The planning authority was virtually blackmailed into granting additional planning consent for another area of opencasting, so that the operator could finance the restoration work required at the first site. That approach is typical.
      The report describes flooding in a village adjacent to an opencast site in another county because of inadequate drainage. At the same site,
      "non-compliance with approved time period and phased working scheme caused greater disruption in the area than necessary, and lasted longer than necessary."
      On a different site in the same county, a condition to protect the stability of the highway and road safety by providing a 40 ft safeguarding strip alongside the highway boundary was disregarded. Instead, extraction took place right up to the highway boundary, which undermined the highway itself.
      At another site, consent was given for only 18 months' working. The report observes:
      "Slow rate of working because contractors kept 'diverting' machinery to sites which they considered more urgent"—
      and which presumably paid better. On that 52-acre site, the operator won about 40,000 tonnes of coal over seven years—but the neighbouring community had to pay a big price for that.
      As to the original amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Member for Wentworth, the report gives another example of an operator being provided with a detailed working plan and conditions relating to the safeguarding of hedges—but removing the hedges and then applying for retrospective planning consent to do so. Meanwhile, severe damage was caused to the landscape.
      My final example relates to a site that was inadequately restored because the operator went bust. If the operator had been required to lodge a bond with the county council, money would have been available to complete the restoration. As it was, the council was left to decide

      209
      whether to use the money of its ratepayers—soon, poll tax payers—to compensate for the fiddles perpetrated by the private operator.
      I notified the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) of my intention to mention a site in his constituency, which he may recognise from the photographs that I have. I refer to the Rope walk north site worked by United Mining Ltd. which won 18,265 tonnes between June and August 1987. The photograph was taken in December 1989 and shows that the promised restoration work had still not been undertaken. It may be that it was completed over Christmas and in the new year, but that seems unlikely. That is another example of things going wrong in the east midlands because an operator failed to comply with its original undertaking or with the planning authority's conditions.
      Other examples are to be found in the report, "Opencast—casting a shadow", published in 1989 by the Durham Area Miners Support Group. The chapter on private opencasting is entitled, "Licence to make a killing?". That is certainly what some operators have been doing. In Northumberland, R and A Young was working both the Jacks Law extension and Wandylaw moor sites under two licences so that that company could keep within the tonnage limit.
      7 pm
      Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham): The company that my hon. Friend mentioned is considering submitting an application for a further site in my constituency. The life of that site will probably he 30 years. The initial application for a site at Gassop near Bowburn in Durham is for opencasting for three years and drift mining for 26 years. The opencast mine will probably be expected to last even longer than that. It is appalling to have such an application in an area of landscape beauty and scientific interest. How will the amendment prevent companies such as R and A Young from exploiting the countryside in my constituency and making life miserable for many people? If its application were to be accepted, life around Bowburn would he unbearable for 30 years.
      Mr. Dobson: I understand perfectly what my hon. Friend is saying. As was explained in Committee, opencast sites are a great menace, not only on environmental grounds but because they are a threat to health with the dust that blows from them. There is little evidence that private contractors are willing to comply with any conditions that anyone may seek to place upon them. If my hon. Friend's constituency is of such outstanding natural beauty, but without the capital letters at the beginning of each word, it is probably best if the county council turns down the application. If the company then wants to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member who has moved from being the coal Minister to being the appropriate Minister at the Department of the Environment will give close attention to that application. We must recognise that the position is grotesquely unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale): I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government have weakened the planning powers of local authorities to refuse permission on environmental grounds. Local authorities are now told to take the financial aspects into consideration—that means the commercial interests of those making the
      210
      application for opencasting. That is weakening the powers of local authorities and creating havoc for the local communities.
      Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the case. Ministers say that they are green; indeed, they are practically coming into the House wearing green suits. However, they have not withdrawn any of the ludicrous circulars that were issued when the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was the Secretary of State for the Environment. He basically said, "If any rich Tories in business want to make a planning application, it will be granted." That is a rough summary of the circulars that he issued.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: Not for building sites.
      Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend points out, there was a caveat that that should not apply to an application for building development within the view of the former Secretary of State's house. There were obviously certain special considerations from time to time.
      Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West): Snide.
      Mr. Dobson: Yes, they are snide remarks. However, it
      is humbug—the only description I can use in the House
      —for a Secretary of State to go around the country saying,
      "You must give up your view and put up with noise and
      filth for the sake of other people having homes or for the
      sake of the country's industrial development—but that
      does not apply to a planning application near my house."
      On the problems of small operators in opencasting, the
      report from the Durham Area Miners Support Group
      says:
      "As private operators tend to apply for smaller pockets of coal which can be worked relatively quickly, they claim that their operations are only temporary."
      However, once operators have started on a site and
      obtained permission to work on it, they return and make further applications for work in adjoining or adjacent areas. That has proved a useful way of sidestepping the 25,000 tonnes licensing limit. In future, they will make multiple applications for 250,000 tonnes. They will do it in
      the same way, but on a much larger scale.
      One operator in the north-east applied for four changes to the conditions, including to be
      "allowed to run the washery on the site on a 24-hour basis"—
      which was noisy. It also asked to be
      "allowed to destroy a belt of trees which in their original application they had argued would be left as it added interest to the landscape while the site was recovering."
      It took the trees some time to recover as they were chopped down. There is little sign that they are restored to their former health. Sites have been left unrestored for years.
      I shall cite an example to justify our proposal for introducing a requirement for applicants to place a bond with the county council. At present, they can be required by British Coal to place a bond with British Coal, but that does not necessarily do the trick because British Coal's relationship with those people is not just to do with the environment. In Durham, the county council asked British Coal to invoke a bond. British Coal duly informed the
      council:
      "No decision as to the possible use of the bond can be taken until the corporation has resolved other financial matters"
      not with the orginal applicant, but
      "with the receiver."

      211
      It was interested in taking the bond money to make up for other moneys that it did not get from the receiver when the company had gone bust. The problem was that that bond was not used simply to protect the environment. Our proposal means that the bond would be used only to protect the environment. It would have to be placed with the county council and, if the operators failed to comply with the conditions on the site or failed to restore the site, they would lose their bond money.
      As anyone who has anything to do with opencast operators knows—and it can apply to British Coal sites as well—things that go wrong and breaches of the operating restrictions that are imposed when an application is granted are difficult to deal with. If they work all night for two or three days and ruin the night's sleep of a neighbouring village, there is not much that the county council can do about it. It can say three days later, "Don't do it again," but it cannot put things right. If operators louse up a watercourse and flood a field or village, that cannot easily be put right. We need the restrictions.
      Other aspects of the performance of private operators are equally bothersome. Some of the sites move from the opencast executive of British Coal to the private operators or back again, depending on the size of the workings. That swapping about is not intended to improve the environment or to protect the interests of neighbouring communities.
      Another aspect that needs to be considered, which is bringing the operators, the county councils and the system into dispute, in County Durham in particular, is what might be called the transfer of staff—that is the best interpretation of it—between the regulatory authorities and the organisations that they are supposed to be regulating. In recent times, a planning officer and a land and property officer from Durham county council went to work for one of the mining companies. Then a person who did land agency work for that council went to work for the same mining company, and shortly afterwards they were joined by the ex-chief executive of a district council in County Durham. I shall say no more about that, but corruption charges are outstanding at the moment.
      I do not suggest that any of the interchanges of staff are necessarily corrupt. I certainly am not saying that about a person who worked in land management for Durham county council and who moved to another company, or a person who was the planning officer with the Gateshead metropolitan borough, who went to yet another of the operators. However, as one legal officer from Durham county council recently pointed out, due to the number of staff who have left the county council to go and work for the private opencast companies, the private operators now know the Durham county structure plan better than the planning department staff. That brings the system into disrepute, and it should be avoided.
      If the Government purblindly and stupidly insist on going ahead with a tenfold increase in the maximum size of opencast private workings, there should be parallel strengthening of the planning laws to protect local people, who are sick to death of the sites that they already have. The amendments are intended to achieve that.
      The Minister may say that the amendments are technically at fault, or that the Government cannot accept them tonight. However, if the Government are serious
      212
      about trying to protect the environment of people in coalfield communities, they should either accept the amendments or put similar amendments into the Bill in the House of Lords, and we should happily give them a fair wind when they come back to the House.
      Mr. Lester: I thank the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for telling me that he was going to mention parts of my constituency in his speech.
      I have considerable sympathy with his basic premise that if we intend to extract more coal by the opencast method, we must ensure that extraction is controlled by the most stringent planning conditions and environmental controls that can be conceived.
      The Select Committee on Energy has described opencast mining as:
      "One of the most environmentally destructive processes that is going on in the United Kingdom."
      Certainly, in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire—the counties mentioned during discussion of the last amendment—the Committee regarded opencast mining as a most serious environmental problem.
      In the previous debate, we talked about the cost of coal. It was said that one reason why it is not costed correctly is the lack of protest from those most critically affected by subsidence. Of course, subsidence arises after the coal has been extracted and not much can be done about it. The Secretary of State gave figures—the backlog of 37,000 unprocessed claims has been reduced to 25,000—which show the scale of the problem.
      When we talk about opencast mining and the assets that we hope to extract, we are talking about the future. I can assure the Minister that opencast mining will not get through on the side, because there is understandably great opposition from local groups already.
      I pay tribute to the groups that operate in my constituency to oppose the principle of opencast mining. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) in his place, and I know that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will support my point of view.
      Nowadays, it is not enough to say to people who live in mining or ex-mining communities that one should not be surprised if people want to extract coal when one comes to live in a coal mining area. No one who goes to live in a village knows how much coal lies underneath it.
      Mr. Hood: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that many people who move into former mining communities do so on the understanding that there will be no more harrassment from mining works? When they move in they are confronted with proposals for opencast mining. One cannot say that it is their fault because they knew that they were moving into a mining community.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Lester: People make exhaustive surveys before they buy property, but I have never seen a survey which says that there are workable coal reserves underneath a house, and that one must anticipate that someone will want to extract that coal.
      We are moving into green field sites. That is certainly the experience of my constituents. In the past, opencast mining has been sold on the basis that it uses derelict sites, and will improve them. I pay tribute to the Coal Board because it has certainly improved parts of

      213
      Nottinghamshire. The Flowers report suggested that 15 per cent. of opencast coal mining was on derelict land but the other figure given by local authorities—25 per cent.—is probably more accurate.
      With the increasing pressure from the Department of Energy to extract cheaper coal—opencast is usually cheaper—the question of the environmental effects of moving into green field sites is serious.
      Mr. Peter Rost: My hon. Friend referred to the report by the Select Committee on Energy. One of its recommendations, which I strongly support, is that the licensing process should go back to the Department of Energy, as was the case with oil and gas licensing. That would provide a first vetting system whereby the Department could say which areas are environmentally suitable and which are not, before planning applications are entered. That would provide more safeguards than the present system, in which the Coal Board retains the patronage for issuing licences, subject only to planning approval.
      Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
      One of the great things that has happened in Nottinghamshire, for which I give enormous credit to the present Secretary of State for Wales, is Operation Eyesore. People who work in local government may remember it. Under the scheme, the Government gave 100 per cent. grants to deal with problems caused by mining—to get rid of tips, to level areas and to introduce new controls to change the face of the countryside. That certainly happened in Nottinghamshire. The ugly, tall tips, the black-topped mountains and all the consequences of coal extraction without proper environmental controls are memories now.
      I was chairman of the county finance committee at the time that Operation Eyesore was introduced, and we contributed a pound for every pound that the Government gave and doubled the funds. We cleared Nottinghamshire of the eyesores inherited from the coal industry. I still drive through Nottinghamshire and point out sites that used to be such eyesores. Now, one would not think that those areas had ever been affected by mining. I regret that we now seem to be taking the retrograde step of promoting opencast mining, which has serious environmental effects, and despite modern methods, we will recreate those problems.
      As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, in his constituency they are talking about opencast mining for 20 or 30 years. The potential opencast sites in my constituency, such as Shilo north, which is the subject of a planning inquiry, Beauvale, which is mentioned in the books of D. H. Lawrence, and Robinettes, are green field sites. As the name suggests, Beauvale is a beautiful place, and those areas are among the most attractive parts of my constituency. If the proposals for opencast mining go through, my constituency will be affected for between 25 and 30 years.
      Mr. Steinberg: Applications are now coming in for development of the exceptionally beautiful landscape around a small village in my constituency that has been a coal extraction site for many years. Millions have already been spent on the reclamation of old industrial sites in villages within a two-mile radius; now there is the possibility of a 20 or even 30-year extraction programme in this green field site. All that money has gone down the
      214
      drain, and now the descendants of the families who first experienced the problems of coal extraction—which has continued for hundreds of years—must put up with identical problems caused by opencast mining. It is crazy.
      Mr. Lester: That reinforces my case. If we are seriously considering opencast mining as an active policy, we must view it more globally, as did the Select Committee on Energy. Under the new mineral-extraction procedures, need no longer has to be proved, but we must consider the cost and the likely impact on the environment.
      I believe that expensive inquiries such as the one that has already taken place in a site in my constituency are not "costed into" the eventual cost of coal extraction. Heavy legal fees may be involved, as the representation of all the objectors may last for two or three months. However, no one has considered the cost of overall compensation paid to a community for the noise, dust, lorries and general nuisance that the process will involve, and for the fact that the very face of the community will be changed. Under present legislation, that cannot possibly be taken into account.
      It is, of course, possible to agree on the development of cricket fields or sports pavilions on certain sites, and we have helped such developments to come about. No one has anticipated the proposed work in these green field sites, however, and the principle of maintaining maximum control and the highest possible standards is therefore essential. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that neither the House of Commons nor our constituents will simply acquiesce in the various schemes. We need an overall strategy on opencasting; we should not rely on a hotch-potch of policies in the hope that we shall win where we can. My hon. Friend should think through such a strategy, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. A newspaper article headed "Opencast hot seat" describes a confrontation with my right hon. Friend, who freely admits that the most difficult decision that he must make—in a quasi-judicial capacity—concerns mineral extraction, not just coal extraction.
      The principle behind the amendments should be considered, in the interests of the environment as well as those of the coal and electricity industries. We need a range of much tighter controls on both private and public contractors, to ensure that the only sites to be worked are those that can he worked with the least damage to the environment and local communities. We should perhaps consider a system of preparatory licensing, rather than embarking on expensive planning inquiries that will take for ever and, having spent all that money, end up without enough safeguards. I ask my hon. Friend not to dismiss the amendments lightly, as they deal with a matter that concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who spoke with the aid of direct constituency knowledge. I am sure that the Minister will take his words to heart, and will recognise that the issue must be confronted. The bald statement in this short Bill that opencast mining licences will raise the production limit from 25,000 to 250,000 tonnes will ring alarm bells in many communities where the horrors of opencasting are already known. A possible tenfold increase will affect a much larger area and many more communities, and the Government must give us an idea of other criteria that may be applied.

      215
      The hon. Member for Broxtowe rightly referred to the pressure for an expansion of opencasting. He said that the coal would be cheaper, but that will depend on how we "cost" the environment, and unfortunately we have no mechanism with which to do that at present. The Secretary of State has said that he is looking into some of the suggestions made by academics and economists who have proposed the use of taxation or some other financial mechanism to put a price on environmental pressures, but at present not even the cost of a public inquiry—which imposes a considerable burden on the community—is counted in the cost of acquiring the coal, and certainly the disruption and damage suffered by communities is not taken into account. The Departments of Energy and of the Environment should put their heads together and try to establish improved environmental criteria and codes of practice.
      The amendments—although useful, valuable and worth taking seriously—all relate to the restoration of sites after workings are completed. It should be written into the Bill, that advance funding will be provided, so that if a company goes bankrupt, the community is not left to bear the cost, but we must also ensure that environmental costs are taken into account while the workings are in place, through a code of practice guaranteeing minimum exposure.
      An operator may wish to open up an extensive area because that is the cheapest and easiest way of getting at the coal, but more limited workings that could later be reinstated and moved on to another phase would reduce environmental damage. We should also seek transport and access measures that would not put all the pressure on one area for 20 or 30 years. The environmental impact of workings must be minimised, even if cost is involved.
      It is slightly disturbing that we should be asked to legislate for such an extension of coal-mining practice in the absence of new criteria and codes of practice, and the Minister will do the House and the public a service if he can inform us that the Government have any new ideas. Without such reassurances, the news of a tenfold increase in licence allocation will give no comfort to many coalfield communities.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Ashby: I welcome the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State to the Department of Energy because I detect the presence of a completely new spirit in that Department. That new attitude represents, I believe, a breath of fresh air. The problems that have faced that Department over the years have been such that I hope that the window is always kept open and that we shall continue to have fresh air blowing in, because significant changes must be made in the extraction of coal in Britain.
      I do not agree with those who say that we should support the coal industry no matter what. Rather, we must look at the total costing, including that to the environment, before we embark on a given project. I should be happier to import coal from, say, South Africa and Australia, where it is cheaper, in the sure knowledge that later our own coal will have risen in value to the extent that we can extract it at a price that will be profitable and
      216
      that will take into account the environmental impact of extraction, because, as I say, we must look at the totality of the cost.
      I represent a constituency that has been devastated by opencast mining. Indeed, I consider it to be one of the worst areas for opencasting.
      Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman live there?
      Mr. Ashby: Yes. Not only do I have a home in the constituency but I have just purchased a new house there, and there are plans for an enormous opencast site right next door to that house, although I purchased it in the knowledge that the application would take place. I assure Opposition Members that I have witnessed the effects of opencast mining on my area and the people who live there.
      The Bill is intended to grant licences for large amounts of extraction. Will the Minister say—he may care to answer in writing—how many sites there have been in Britain over the years when extraction of 25,000 tonnes has been exceeded? In other words, does he know how often the licensed amount has been greatly exceeded? I assure him that there are many such examples, and if he does not believe me he should come to my constituency and see for himself.
      There has been sharp practice by British Coal over the years. We note that, for opencasting, British Coal deposits long-term plans. A private operator makes an application for a certain tonnage, and then goes over that amount. The opencast division of British Coal takes over the site and says that the operator is acting as its agent or under contract to it. In that way, British Coal gets more from a given area, and a lot of sharp practice of that type is going on.
      Over the years, British Coal, in most coal-mining areas, has been Big Brother. One need only examine the legislation on the subject to see the effect that that has had. For many years, large numbers of Opposition Members were members of, or were sponsored by, the NUM—whether or not under the Hastings agreement—and they used to kow-tow to British Coal. Whatever British Coal said, they agreed to.
      For a long time we lived with that attitude of subservience to British Coal—[Interruption.] That was the case. I witnessed it. Indeed, in many areas in which people were employed largely by British Coal they had a feeling of subservience to British Coal. As a result, things took place which in other areas would never have been allowed to occur. People were afraid to object or to take on British Coal. They agreed to things to which nobody else would have agreed. British Coal got away with murder in some areas, and it is still getting away with murder.
      In environmental terms, there is the possibility of the deposit of a bond. That is a good idea, but we must not lose sight of the fact that local authorities receive rating revenue in relation to the number of tonnes of extraction from sites. It has always been difficult to discover how much they get. It took me two years of questioning and research to find out the percentage, but I have never been able to discover how much a local authority receives for any one site.
      Local authorities will never divulge that information; that money goes into the general rating fund and never returns to the affected areas. The community is entitled to restoration and some compensation, and to a large extent the money for that is there and has come from the

      217
      extraction process. That money should be used—because it is available—by local authorities and county councils in the areas that have been devastated and destroyed by opencast mining. The money should be used not only to repair roads and so on but to make the environnmental improvements that are needed.
      Mr. Skinner: Many years ago, the Tory-controlled Derbyshire county council had a policy which was, by and large, to allow any opencast application by the opencast executive of British Coal to go through. In 1981, we had a change of administration locally. The Labour group got control and it decided to adopt the policy that, when hon. Members who represented the areas concerned objected, such opencast applications would be opposed, and to a degree that policy has been successful. British Coal has on occasion conducted separate inquiries and won the day, with the support of the Tory Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      Meanwhile, the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council has had a proud record in opposing opencast mining applications, and that flies in the face of what the hon. Member has said. I assure him that that council has been supported in its policy by those working in the mines and by local councillors, and many opencast applications have been opposed by me, supported by many of my hon. Friends.
      In other words, in my part of the world, the people who have supported British Coal have been the Tory-controlled Derbyshire county council, Tory councils in general and Tory Secretaries of State who have allowed mammoth opencastings to proceed. That is why I am currently opposing the application at the Pinnock site, the application at Slayley, the one at Stanfree that has reared its ugly head, and the application at Rainge near Morton and Clay Cross. I and many of my hon. Friends are opposing all of them, because those applications are designed to line the pockets of the friends of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West.
      Mr. Ashby: To some extent, I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I urge him to cross the border into Leicestershire and speak to those who run the Labour-controlled Leicestershire county council, who always lie down and do exactly what British Coal asks them, and who grant one planning permission after another. I attack the Labour party in Leicestershire, the members of which have acted disgracefully towards the people of north-west Leicestershire. I blame them for much of what has happened in my constituency.
      I did not want to put this matter on a party political basis, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should know that the story of planning applications in Leicestershire is totally different from the story in Derbyshire.
      We also have the problem of old consents which do not allow for the full and proper restoration of sites. There should be a review of sites with old consents, and modern conditions should be placed on them. There is a site—one of the many areas of devastation in my constituency—which started off as a small clay extraction. It began with a pottery firm, and only a small amount of clay was required. After 10 or 12 years, that pottery firm was taken over by a larger pottery firm, and in due course that was taken over not by another pottery firm but by a company which was interested in extracting coal.
      218
      That firm is using the existing consent to make an application for the extraction of 25,000 tonnes. It has bought all the land, going way back. We all know that that is not a 25,000-tonne application but one for 250,000 or 300,000 tonnes. The consents in respect of the original site are old and do not provide for proper restoration. I am getting no satisfaction from the company or from the county council in terms of the proper restoration of the site.
      What we really require is not the separation of the licensing and the planning, but a coming together of the two. We in Leicestershire want an insistence on long-term planning for extraction. We all understand that there is coal under the ground which at some time will have to be extracted by opencast mines, because we need the energy, but it is not difficult to accept that a certain hill or park has reserves that we plan to take out in 30, 40 or 50 years' time, and to put in a planning application now. Then we could specify that trees should be planted for afforestation of the area.
      There is no need for us to devastate the countryside. We should plant trees around a site and then extract the coal from the centre. Nobody would know the extraction was taking place, as the forest would deaden the sound and the dust and would improve the environment.
      Mr. Hardy: But the trees would die.
      Mr. Ashby: Not if they are properly planted. In that way, we would achieve the necessary extraction in the long term, while ensuring that it was environmentally acceptable.
      In north-west Leicestershire, we are hoping for a new midlands forest which will stretch from the Charnwood forest across Derbyshire to Staffordshire. That is a delightful concept, which has my total support. What is really needed is a policy from the Department of Energy and from British Coal that includes the concept of a forest, bearing in mind the requirements of the Department of Energy and the environmental effects. We should apply the concept that the dirty, noisy, nasty extraction can be carried out in a way that is acceptable environmentally and to everyone. If we do that, we shall be successful.
      It is no good for an area to have an opencast mine such as Coalfield north in the Ravenstone area—a large opencast mine which operates for 10 or 12 years and causes great upheaval. When there are explosions, the houses shake and that causes damage, although British Coal always says that it is not responsible, despite the fact that the damage always occurs after an explosion. British Coal continually denies responsibility. One could put up with one opencast mine, but having suffered 12 years of one site as soon as that site is finished there will be another one right next door to it and then there will be another, until they encircle the entire area. We can never get away from it.
      If we are to allow opencast mines of such a size, extracting 250,000 tonnes, there has to be only one licence per area at any given time. When that licence has been exhausted, the area must have a chance to rest and the people who live there must be given the opportunity to live a normal life away from opencasting. There should be a gap at least 20 years before there is another series of opencasting in the area.

      219
      7.45 pm
      The friends of the hon. Member for Bolsover on Leicestershire county council take the view that the coal is there, and that the sooner it is extracted the better. That means 50 or 60 years of absolute hell for the people who live in north-west Leicestershire, and presumably it will be heaven for our grandchildren. But no doubt there will be something else to be extracted when the coal is finished and the hon. Gentleman's friends, if they exist then—I doubt that they will exist, given the current political climate—will insist—
      Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ashby: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he is about to walk straight into it.
      Mr. Barron: The Labour party does not control North-West Leicestershire district council, but the hon. Gentleman is making all those accusations. Surely he should be levelling his accusations at the Department of the Environment, which changed the regulations for opencast coal, giving people the right to mine coal before there is any development on the land. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have done all the damage.
      Mr. Ashby: The hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely wrong. The Labour party, together with its Liberal allies, absolutely controls Leicestershire county council. The Labour party also controls North-West Leicestershire district council. The Conservatives do not control either council, so the hon. Gentleman's friends are responsible all the way along.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ashby: In a moment.
      It is really a question of long-term planning and taking into account the history of an area—how much opencasting there has been in the past and how much devastation has occurred—and deciding what should be done in future. It is important to have long-term plans and to consider the past and the future. In that way, people can just about live alongside opencast mining. It is absolutely essential that long-term planning should take into account past planning, that there should be only one opencast mine at a time and that there should be environmental preparation for a given opencast site before such a site is allowed.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby), I trust that he will be with us in the Lobby tonight. He could go at least that modest distance, as our amendments are modest compared with many of the problems.
      In one month last summer, British Coal, supported by the Government, closed two pits in my constituency—two of the six pits that have been closed in the past 18 months in a 25-mile radius. In the same 18 months, British Coal and private opencast operators have proposed to dig up both sides of my valley and the neighbouring valley. The communities put up with many of the problems of deep-mine pits in our valleys, because we believed in those jobs. Having closed those pits and sealed off millions of tonnes of reserves by capping the shafts of Merthyr Vale
      220
      colliery within a month of the closure, the very communities that supported the industry and sacrificed their environment are not willing to sacrifice it any longer.
      The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester)—99 per cent. of whose speech I support—spoke about the green field sites. I should tell him that the existing coal mining valley communities also want to join the environmental protection society as much as those who are threatened.
      There is coal in every one of my hillsides. There is no doubt about that. They do not need much drilling, although drilling is already taking place. There is coal in all our hillsides—tonnes of it—but the communities have had enough.
      We accept the need to diversify our economy. One of the clearest contradictions of the clause which we seek to amend is the economic contradiction of the lessons that we are being taught by the Government. The Prime Minister, in a rare visit to a Welsh mining community recently, told the people to cheer up, to consider the change in the environment and the need to diversify economically, to create light industry and to develop the service and tourist industries. Before she came, and even before the present Secretary of State for Wales came, we had been doing just that. We had recognised that we had to change the basis of the economy and get away from the dirty, extractive industries to a high-tech industrial service sector. We are in the process of doing that, supported by the Secretary of State for Wales in his valleys initiative.
      I will give one classic example in my constituency to illustrate the contradiction in the clause. We are building a new business park in Pentrebach in the middle of the Merthyr valley. It will be a beautiful development with modern factories. At the centre of the business park are the business headquarters of the Welsh Development Agency. The site looks good. It will be a prime valley industrial site for light industry and other commercial development.
      Within the last week or two, there has been an application by a private opencast contractor to claim 40,000 tonnes. That is the interesting figure; he is already jumping the gun set by the 25,000 tonnes. He has obviously read the Bill or understood months ago that this provision was on its way.
      Where is the development proposed? It is immediately in the vicinity of the new business park. There are coal tips which we can clear. There is tremendous support for land reclamation such as we have done since 1, as a junior Minister in the Welsh office in 1969, helped to set up the original derelict land unit. We have done an amazing job. We have cleared tips and altered the landscape by developing grassland. Now there are proposals to dig up the virgin countryside and copses of trees which create a good backdrop to the new business park at Pentrebach.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) does not mind me saying so, I think that he was too kind to British Coal in his opening remarks. The amendments do not go far enough in regard to the existing operations of British Coal in south Wales. It was British Coal opencast executive that dug one of the largest holes in Europe in my constituency. The Trecatti site is 600 ft deep. It took 20 years at Dowlais Top to do it. The people of Dowlais Top suffered blasting, noise and dust for 20 years. Then it all came to an end. There was a genuine sigh of relief. With the skills that we have to grow grass on our hillsides, even on reclaimed waste land, within six months we had magnificent green grass, with sheep grazing on it.

      221
      What happened? Within months of the appearance of the new environment, British Coal wanted to develop the area next to it. That means ravaging part of the restored and reclaimed site. When pits are being closed, bringing the loss of jobs that we wanted to maintain, one can imagine the reaction when British Coal at the same time wants to destroy the environment. When people in the area have put up with an environmental handicap for 20 years, hon. Members can imagine their anger and frustration.
      There has been reference to existing planning consents. I can give another illustration, which reinforces the point about the impact that ill-thought-out schemes can have on the immediate environment. The residents came to see me about it only last Saturday. For years, the people of Rhymney had to put up with an existing consent for opencasting. One consequence was a change in the watercourses on the hillside. One night, suddenly all the houses were flooded. That had never happened before. When the opencast site was complete, the hillside was redrained.
      A few weeks ago, drilling rigs from British Coal turned up and started drilling within 60 yards of the houses. British Coal is prospecting for more coal on the very hillside where it caused problems which led to the flooding of the houses. The drilling did not require planning permission or any consultation with the community. British Coal is still drilling. I want a message to go out loud and clear from the House: we cannot stop British Coal drilling but it will not get planning consent from any district or county council to reopen the hillsides of our community.
      I support the amendments. My community, which for 200 years sacrificed the environment for economic development, has been told to learn different tricks, different economic arts and a different basis for the development of its economy. We wish to change faster, because the job gains are not matching the job losses, but we are not willing to suffer again the ravaging of our hillsides and the raping of our mountains. The Secretary of State for Wales has a fine environment in his constituency of Worcester, and has been supporting developments such as I have described in my constituency and in his valleys initiative. When county councils and district councils refuse to give planning permission for opencast development, whether to British Coal or private contractors, we shall expect the Secretary of State for Wales to stand up for our environment.
      I support the amendments, but we need to go further. We should send out a message loud and clear from the House that environmental protection applies not only to marvellous countryside but also to communities that have sacrificed their environment in the past but are no longer willing to do so.
      Mr. Rost: I want to add my support to the concern expressed on both sides of the House about opencast mining. While I am in sympathy with the amendments tabled by the Labour Members, I think that they are asking the impossible. They are really demanding that British Coal, a commercial producer which is anxious to produce as much coal as possible, should also act as regulator. That is impractical. It is like expecting the nationalised water boards to regulate and prosecute themselves.
      That is the very reason why I have argued that the whole licensing system must go back to the Department in
      222
      the same way that oil and gas licensing is in the hands of the Department. Before an oil company is granted a licence to explore or develop for oil or gas, onshore of offshore, the Department vets whether it is a suitable area and imposes conditions which have to be complied with if the operator is allowed to go ahead. Until such time as the coal reserves are vested again in the Department of Energy on behalf of the State and are then licensed under a vetting system, there cannot be any sensible national planning policy.
      It is quite unreasonable to expect British Coal to do other than grant whatever licences it thinks it can get away with, and it is unreasonable to expect independent planning inquiries to protect the interests of a local community or wider environmental issues.
      I argue that the amendments should go much further. The Department should be responsible for the licensing process, so that there can be a pre-vetting system and a national strategy for opencast mining. Applicants for licences would know that they are being granted licences for opencast mining only when the Department, with its independent monitoring team, can assure itself that it is a satisfactory and suitable area for opencast mining. They would be subject to the criteria of planning approval and of the licence, such as restoring the site properly and environmental protection, which would lead to a far more orderly system of opencast development that is far more acceptable to the communities most affected by it.
      8 pm
      Mr. Hardy: At various times in their political careers, all Conservative Members have demanded that we uphold the law. I was particularly interested by the speech made by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), in which he referred to the law and the limit of 25,000 tonnes. About 18 months ago, I discovered that clause 32 of the coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 imposed the limit of 25,000 tonnes and raised the matter in a parliamentary question. Some people in British coal and some private contractors were not very pleased with me at the time, which may be one of the reasons why the Government have decided to bend over backwards to facilitate those who previously were helping themselves. The speech made by the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West suggested that he will approve of my speech, because I also will ask the House to uphold the law.
      Amendment No. 4 may seem rather odd, but it is extremely relevant. I shall give a few historic details so that the House can appreciate the context in which I present it.
      The enclosure of our common land proceeded until 1840, and 4,000 Acts of Enclosure were passed, almost all of which were for the lowlands of England. I obviously have not read all of them, many of which are kept on long rolls in the other place. After 1840, enclosure procedures were covered by a general Act, but before then there were 4,000 of them. Some referred to relatively small areas of common land, but others covered substantial areas.
      My attention was first drawn to those Acts in 1980, when I was seeking to protect the hedgerow. In their greenery, the Government have blocked every attempt to protect hedgerows. My attention was drawn to the fact that, invariably, private Enclosure Acts required that the common land enclosed when fields were established be protected by hedgerows in perpetuity. This is a serious matter, because those Acts have never been repealed. It

      223
      would suit me if the Government decided that they could ignore those laws and that the terms of the enclosure legislation were no longer legal, because I could say, "Very well, we will return the land to the people." We could restore the common to the descendants of the owner of the goose in the doggerel quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
      I should find that a matter for rejoicing, but the Government will not agree to such a dramatic change.
      It is interesting that commons were enclosed largely because of the argument that as the population of England swelled in the industrial revolution, food production had to increase and agricultural efficiency had to be achieved. Yet now, we are talking about reducing agricultural production, so perhaps there is a case for the repeal of the commons legislation.
      In amendment No. 4, I am being perfectly reasonable—I hope that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West will not say that I am being subservient—in merely asking the Government to uphold the law.
      I first raised the matter in a question to a Minister of Agriculture. I can recall that Minister—I have spoken to him today—leaning on the Dispatch Box and confidently saying, "I have reason to believe that these old measures no longer apply." I took up the matter and correspondence ensued. I established that the last case on the subject was Pratt v. Garnett in 1928. The law was upheld in that case. I pointed out to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that, over the previous 30 or 40 years, millions of pounds of ratepayers' money had been spent on grants for farmers to grub out hedgerows. The Ministry had never bothered to check on that, but I said to the Minister, "You must accept that a huge amount of ratepayers' money, under successive Governments, has been given in grants to grub out hedgerows, which are required to be maintained under the Enclosure Acts."
      I found the correspondence with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods entertaining. The Minister said, "It is not our fault. If someone has been given a grant for grubbing out a hedgerow, we could not have been expected to be aware of the Enclosure Acts; he should have been aware of them, in which case we shall have to recover the full amount of grant that has been paid."
      Some Conservative Members think that the Labour party does not like farmers, which is quite untrue. I recognise that such a burden and blow to an agricultural practitioner could be almost ruinous. I did not wish farmers to be bankrupted, so I drew the matter to the attention of the National Farmers Union.
      I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on his appointment. He sat through the Committee's proceedings on the Bill last week. He will recall that last Thursday I gave him notice of this matter. The fact remains—the Minister must confirm this—that the law stands. A private Act of Enclosure is almost certain to include a requirement that the fields established shall be surrounded by a thorn fence and that it shall be maintained in perpetuity.
      Amendment No. 4 is entirely in accordance with the law of the land. I am aware of a case in Lincolnshire—this applied in many parts of the eastern counties—where the persons enclosing the land were required not only to plant
      224
      and maintain a hedge in perpetuity but to protect it by oaken fencing three rails high. An area in Lincolnshire was turned into a Royal Air Force bomber command station during the war. No one then could have put the interests of the Enclosure Acts and the environment before the needs of the nation, but now we are talking not about the needs of the nation, but about money sharks who want quick investments and to cook the books, to make a quick profit, to rape the countryside and to destroy communities. I do not believe that our historic law should be ignored so that a few sharks, who will have more friends among Conservative Members than among Labour Members, can make a lot of money.
      I have been involved in conservation for a long time. I recall that when we established the position about enclosure, I said to conservation bodies that we should establish a test case and that it would be useful to fund such a case. In all the cases known to me in the past three or four years in which a farmer was about to grub out an enclosure hedgerow, and was warned that he would be breaking the law and that action would be taken, he retreated.
      In my own constituency, for example, I learned a couple of years ago that a landowner was proposing to take out some hedgerows. I sent him a courteous note and said that I was sure that he would be aware that the area concerned was enclosed common land and that the local enclosure award required the perpetual maintenance of the hedgerow. He replied immediately, saying that I was aggressive and threatening. I said that I was merely telling him what the law of the land was. I said that I thought he held a copy of the enclosure award, but that if he was in doubt, there was a copy of it in Rotherham library. In fact, copies of most of the enclosure awards for the area can be found in Rotherham library and every one of them has a requirement for the perpetual provision of hedgerows.
      The other day, a little girl called Charlotte Bowen from Rawmarsh wrote me a splendid letter in which she expressed her concern about a small pond, which is served by Colliers brook. I wrote to the borough council, which said that the problem was that it did not know who owned the pond. It pointed out that British Coal might wish to carry out opencast mining and to destroy the pond, which Charlotte showed me a few days ago. However, the area was covered by an Enclosure Act; in fact a considerable area in South Yorkshire is covered by Enclosure Acts.
      I must tell the Minister that, as a law-abiding, constitutionalist Member of Parliament, I am not prepared to see the law ignored for the purposes of greed or for the environment in my area to be subject to the strains that we thought we had seen the last of in 1950. There was opencast mining around the villages of Wath upon Dearne and Wentworth in the 1940s and 1950s. Much attention was paid to that in the national press at the time and we were assured that everything would be restored properly. However, the farmers in that area still cannot grow potatoes half a century later. I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in Committee the other day.
      The problem is that although there was a great deal of upheaval in the 1940s and in the 1950s from the opencast operations there, we now see greater engineering capacity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reminded us. Opencast mining

      225
      can now go deep. No area in the existing coalfield is likely to be free from the attentions of the private money-grabbing opencasters.
      The opencast mining in my area in the 1940s and in the 1950s took out two or three seams of coal near the surface, but there are another four or five seams of coal that are accessible to opencast mining on a large scale. I am not prepared to see an area such as mine, where pits have been closed and where there has been complete disdain and disregard of local needs by half the members of the present Government, treated in that way.
      I am sorry to have to refer to this matter on successive days in the House. An area of my constituency spills over in the west into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and in the east into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). Every pit in the Dearne valley has closed, as have the glass works and the coking plants. What was once the largest railway coal concentration yard in Europe has closed.
      In the middle of that area, there are 2,711 drums of toxic waste, about which the Government do not seem to be the slightest bit concerned. As I said yesterday, had those drums been in Surrey or in Finchley—would that they had been—the Government might have taken action. It is not acceptable for us to have that amount of dereliction to our north and then to face the risk of environmentally destructive opencast mining to the south.
      In view of the pathetically small sums available for derelict land grants, there is no reason for hon. Members who represent coalfield areas to fall over backwards to accommodate such ruinous developments. I am opposed to them. 1 am glad that the areas that were enclosed—and a large proportion of lowland England was enclosed—had invariably to be surrounded by fences, thorn fences or hedgerows which had to be maintained perpetually. I want the Minister to assure us tonight that all the people who will be queueing up to opencast, to destroy the environment and to rape our green heritage will be made aware that they must not carry out their opencast mining if it means that hedgerows which the law says must be there for ever are to be destroyed. I am not a lawyer, although I have consulted lawyers about this matter in the past. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that the Enclosure Acts may be old, but that they still have meaning and considerable value in protecting the environment in the coalfields.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Hood: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is not in his place, because I want to comment on his reference to some of my colleagues who were formerly miners and members of the National Union of Mineworkers. He said that over the years, we had been subservient to British Coal. I was a miner for 23 years and I am still a member of the NUM. I can remember many occasions when area directors wanted to speak to me and when colliery managers wanted to remonstrate or to reminisce with me. I can assure hon. Members that the one word that they never used to describe me in 23 years in the pits was "subservient". It was an interesting comment and may prove how much the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows about the mining industry.
      226
      Opencast mining is an environmental problem that always excites heated debate, and our debate today has been heated and good. We must always remember that planning authorities are—and must remain—the custodians of the local community and of the environment. When discussing planning applications for opencast mining, they have to balance commercial need and the effect on the environment.
      Last week in Committee, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) made a comment about previous planning refusals for opencast mining. He had statistics which showed that 80 per cent. of the planning applications that were refused were under Labour authorities. I said that I hoped that he was not trying make a correlation between the authorities that refused permission and the party that was in the majority on them. He said later that that was not the case. The obvious point, as I said in Committee, is that where there are coal reserves, there are usually not many Tory councils, so that point of the hon. Member for Gedling was not relevant.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made an important point, which could apply equally to the Scottish coalfields. There has always been loyalty in Scotland between the local authorities and the coal-mining industry. In Scotland, the deep-mining industry and the opencast mining industry were one. There was always a cross-subsidy, so the deep-mining industry depended on the opencast industry to make it more viable. Our local communities throughout Scotland, almost without exception, had loyalty to mining—that word is not too strong—and tolerated planning applications for opencast mining where they would not normally have done so.
      The Scottish coalfield has been devastated since the Government came to office in 1979. It has been ravaged to the extent that we now have one remaining colliery, and have lost 18,500 jobs. Now local authorities are rightly saying that their loyalty has been abused in the past and that they will not allow it to be abused in the future, and we may well find that opencast mining is rightly viewed more critically in Scotland and elsewhere than it has been in the past.
      The Bill increases the amount that may be mined from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the abuses that have taken place under the existing laws. In my own area, we have what I describe as plot mining. When the limit was 25,000 tonnes, a firm would be given a licence for that tonnage for one plot, a second licence for another plot, and so on. I can speak with some authority on this, partly because I was a miner for 23 years and partly because I have 140 million tonnes of coal reserves in my constituency, known as the Harpendon coal reserves.
      My constituency also has the largest opencast site in Europe—the site named Dalquahandy—where we have 20 million tonnes of proven reserves, a figure which, in the opinion of those who know the area well, could be doubled. Sometimes, in the planning process, those employed in some sections of the industry have ended up on the other side of the table. I remember that, when we were dealing with the Dalquahandy opencast planning application, the regional council planning boss seemed to be pushing British Coal's planning application. He left the regional council with a golden handshake and the next we heard of him was that he was employed by British Coal and had managed to get planning permission for highways

      227
      for the construction. I dare say that British Coal and the gentleman concerned would say that that was a coincidence, but not many people where I come from believe in such coincidences.
      The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West made an important comment, as did the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). Opencast mining must be properly planned on a long-term basis. On the Dalquahandy opencast site, development has been started without the proper infrastructure being provided. If we are to allow opencast mining, we must provide the proper infrastructure and long-term planning for dealing with reclamation and restoration. Everything must be in place before we develop sites.
      Hon. Members have referred to the activities of individuals and companies engaged in private mining. We all have our own horror stories about the activities of private mining companies that have been given licences by British Coal. Recently, a private licensee came to me complaining that he had had his licence taken off him. When I asked him why, he said that British Coal had been unreasonable. I said, "I'm used to British Coal being unreasonable. How are they being unreasonable now?" He said, "Well, they have closed my little mine down because I owed them £12,000." I asked him, "Why do you owe British Coal money?" He told me that his accountant, had spent £12,000 of the miners' pension contribution. That sum had gone missing, and the poor accountant, who by then had died, got the blame.
      We have all heard stories such as that. One mining company in my area—the LAW mining company—has applied for planning permission to drill all over the Douglas basin, where there is loads and loads of coal. That company has been prosecuted many times for dumping in and so polluting our streams and rivers.
      Many hon. Members remember the previous chairman of British Coal, Sir Ian MacGregor without affection, although I suppose that some Conservative Members may remember him affectionately. He promised a company that it would get a plot in my constituency known as Townhead near the village of Rigside, with coal reserves of 250,000 tonnes. I give credit to British Coal for insisting that it would not give permission or a licence to mine the Townhead site. It may well be a coincidence that the figure of 250,000 tonnes, promised by Ian MacGregor to the private mining company concerned, is the figure that now appears in the Bill.
      I am sure that the Bill will be looked on with horror by villages in my constituency such as Rigside and Ravenstruther. The opencast quarries to which I referred mean that a 32-tonne coal truck goes through the villages every six minutes, 12 hours a day—sometimes 24 hours a day—six days a week. The coal reserves at that site are such that the villages can look forward to 20 years of such harassment and damage to their environment.
      The Bill spells disaster for the little villages in Clydesdale. It will do further damage to Rigside and Ravensburgh and other small villages in my constituency. I shall certainly be voting for the amendment and against the Bill.
      Mr. George Buckley: My hon. Friends have given examples of the devastation that is wrought by opencasting. Conservative Members should realise that
      228
      those of us from mining constituencies are mindful of the fact that opencastings are destined to increase in our area, particularly where pits have recently been closed. In areas where pits have closed—and closures have been fairly extensive since the 1984–85 strike—opencasting applications have almost inevitably been made in respect of the closed colliery sites. As Conservative Members have said, we are concerned that such applications have now been extended to green field sites, which will be even more devastating to the environment.
      The closure programme that has been embarked upon by the British coal industry and supported by Conservative Members has reduced employment in mining constituencies. It is unacceptable to our communities that whereas mines may now employ 900 men—for example, Ackton Hall in Featherstone—their opencast equivalents employ a maximum of 30 or 50 men. Opencasting is devastating not only to the environment but to employment prospects in coal mining communities. That is the main reason that local authorities may justifiably oppose opencast mining applications. Areas that have suffered such manpower losses will not accept a continuation of such devastation.
      The Bill would extend the tonnages for opencast sites from 25,000 to 250,000. 1 draw the attention of hon. Members to a point that I made in Committee. New section (2A) states:
      "shall not render unlawful anything done in accordance with such a licence."
      Does the Minister interpret that as stating that licences can be issued in contravention of the legislation? The extension to 250,000 tonnes may, by licence, be extended under the Bill. That would add further devastation to mining areas.
      The amendments are necessary to cushion the community from the proposals outlined in the Bill. I would further extend the requirement. An application for a licence to mine 250,000 tonnes should be solely for the relevant local authority. If devastation is to be experienced by a community, it ill behoves the Minister, who is not familiar with that community, to override a local authority on planning applications. Responsibility should be in the hands of local community representatives. The economic viability of and justification for a proposed site and its environmental consequences should be weighed by people who are familiar with the area. The matter should not be in the hands of a Minister who may override the refusal of a planning application.
      8.30 pm
      Because of environmental intrusion, I foresee greater opposition from local people. There was enough devastation in the past, even with the restriction of 25,000 tonnes. The Bill will permit far greater devastation. Will the existing licences that were granted under the 25,000 tonne limit be extended under the proposed legislation? Local people were assured that permission was granted for a limit of only 25,000 tonnes. Certain environmental conditions were agreed. However, conditions and promises will be overridden by the granting of new licences.
      People in my constituency were reasonably happy with guarantees of protection. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the figure in the Bill is a maximum tonnage, not a permitted tonnage that can be extended under licence, as set out in clause 4.

      229
      I hope that Conservative Members, and the Minister in particular, appreciate that the Government have embarked on supposedly environmental legislation. I hope that the principles laid down in the Environmental Protection Bill are embraced in this Bill on behalf of people in mining communities.
      Many people move to mining communities on the understanding that mining operations have ceased. They will strongly object to a reduction in the value of their properties as a consequence of a proposed licence to extract coal in the near vicinity of their recently acquired properties. Those people will be at the forefront of protests about environmental devastation.
      Mr. Skinner: Opposition Members have a fairish chance of winning the vote on this amendment. At least two Tory Members have said that, like Opposition Members, they are very much opposed to the extension of the opencast limit from 25,000 to 250,000 tonnes. I expect the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) to join Opposition Members in the Lobby to support the matters about which he feels angry. Other Tory Members who have reservations now have a great opportunity to declare themselves. They could induce the Secretary of State to vote with them. He does not like the ground in his constituency being disturbed. Of course, it was to do with low-level nuclear waste, but he would not even allow drilling to take place. I have news for the right hon. Gentleman: opencast mining extends over a large area of his constituency. He could accept the amendment, and it would be game, set and match.
      We know why there is more opencast mining. It is partly because pits have been closed left, right and centre. Many have been going through occasional or temporary economic problems. The Coal Board has come along, shut the pit and given a nod and a wink to its friends on the opencast executive and its friends in big business and said, "Look here, there is plenty of coal left in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, Scotland"—
      Mr. Ashby: Leicestershire.
      Mr. Skinner:—and Leicestershire—"You can get the contractor to come along, dig big holes, and make a lot of money." Of course, coincidentally, the combine is engaged in motorway construction. It is very strange. Suddenly, we find great big diggers digging out large sections of motorway. Work is concluded, and people ask, "Have you heard who has the new opencast?" The same people have all the spare machinery and need to occupy it for a certain time. They move from the motorway and start digging a hole in the opencast area.
      People talk about market forces. I do not believe that many opencast operations that have taken place in my lifetime, especially since I have been involved in politics, have been carried out on the basis of fair and open competition. It is almost as though people say, "It is your turn for the next one." All hon. Members have heard stories in their constituencies. One firm does one opencast, and then it asks, "Who is going to do the next?" My hon. Friends can recount all the usual stories about how companies move from one area to the next. It has been part and parcel of the pit closure programme. When they have churned out the coal, made large sums of money and left the dereliction behind them, they leave the big hole, and somebody comes along and says, "We will dump some toxic waste in it and make some more money."
      230
      I have continually said that it is important that we do not have toxic waste—low-level or high-level nuclear waste or any form of waste—dumped in those areas. It is one thing for communities to put up with large-scale opencast mining—even more so if the Bill is passed—but there will be even bigger holes in which to dump rubbish. Dioxin was dumped in my area of Morton. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) can no doubt tell another story.
      Mr. Hood: I hesitate to mention The Sun newspaper, but there was a report in it only a few weeks ago about the Clay mining company, which had six little mines that were bought for £40,000 and were sold to Lea Waste Disposal Limited for £17 million. That company is to dump toxic waste in those six mines.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is more, it is worth placing on record, as my hon. Friend did in Committee, the fact that opencast mining companies use some of the profits that they make out of opencast mining and put them into the Tory party's funds to fight elections. I am referring to companies such as—[Interruption.] I hope that "World in Action" will do a programme on this matter as well. I will give it some names to start with. The research has already been done. They include Taylor Woodrow, Costain and Wimpey. They are ready and available to grease the palms of those Tory Members who are to support the Bill.
      The real scandal is evidenced in some correspondence that I came across today showing that another opencast and private mine is now going to be developed in the centre of a tiny village in my constituency—which has only a few hundred inhabitants—called Stanfree, where Tommy Swain used to live. All my hon. Friends will remember Tommy. The opencast mine will be within 20 or 30 yards of Tommy Swain's old bungalow, and not only that, but 16 old-age pensioners' bungalows will be within spitting distance of the opencast operation, if it takes place.
      I place it on record here and now in Parliament that I am fully behind the Stanfree pressure group that is to oppose the opencast operation and the private drift mine in that village. Just imagine, the Bill has not yet become an Act—it is not yet law—but it is already being anticipated. Those concerned know that opencast operations can now be extended under private licence from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes. They know that private mines can be extended in terms of the people working in them from 30 people to 150 people or more.
      Already, people are beginning to say that there is money to be had and no doubt some of the money from the Derbyshire mining company that has some proposals on this will be passed to the Tory party. Even if it is only 1 per cent., there is a lot of money to be had and it will probably finish up—
      Mr. Ashby rose—
      Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. He will probably be one of the lawyers who launder the money from the mining companies and the opencast work into the Tory party.
      Mr. Ashby: That is a disgraceful and most irregular statement for the hon. Gentleman to make. He should know more about corruption than anybody—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should answer one

      231
      question. Is there any difference between opencasting on a large scale by British Coal or by companies in the private sector? It is as bad with both. What is the difference?
      Mr. Skinner: None.
      Mr. Ashby: Which is more efficient?
      Mr. Skinner: None. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has been trying to split hairs all night. He has a problem and is full of guilt. He wants to be able to tell his constituents what he has done about opencasting, so I invite him to join us in the Lobby. He can get rid of all his guilt. Guilt is riddling his body. All that he needs to do is a simple thing that will take only a few minutes. He can walk into the Lobby with us when my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) seeks to put the amendment to the vote. That is all that the hon. Gentleman has to do. Indeed, he could bring some of his Tory friends with him—those Tory Members who are making all the noise and who have crocodile tears pouring from their eyes every time they make such speeches. All that they have to do is to go back to their constituents and say, "Judge me by what I did last night and not on anything else."
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's problem, but both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have a problem in our constituencies in respect of the Slaley site and the Pinnock site. The Slaley site was a real scandal. We had an inquiry and the Labour-controlled county council opposed the proposal as did the Labour-controlled Bolsover district council and the parish councils. We had a massive inquiry. We fought the Coal Board and its expensive lawyers and we won because the inspector said that the board could mine the coal for only 11 seconds a day, and you cannot get a much better victory than that. They put the flags out in Clowne and Barlborough.
      What a great victory, but what happens? The Secretary of State sits on it. We thought, "Right oh, we've won," but along comes the new green and friendly Secretary of State for the Environment and the first thing he does when he gets the job is to look at the Barlborough, Clowne and Slaley application and overturn the decision. "Old Fag Ash" supported us, but this green and friendly one has allowed the opencast to proceed.
      Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East condemn the Slaley proposal because it should have gone back to the people. They should have been allowed to decide. There is now another proposal called Pinnock site, most of which falls in the constituency of my hon. Friend.
      There are four opencast applications within the space of four miles in those two constituencies. Three are massive applications. It is an absolute disgrace. All this is combined with the closure of pits in these areas and there will be even more.
      However, when the pits are closed, opencast operations will take only about one third of the reserves. Two thirds will be lost for ever because, once opencast begins, it will not be possible to drift or bore a mine. The coal is lost forever. Two thirds of the coal that belongs to the nation will be completely sterilised. That is short-termism. It means that someone can make a quick buck and line the
      232
      pockets of those in the Tory party and the opencast executive, but large areas of coal reserves will be lost to the nation forever.
      On top of that, there is the problem at Arkwright, a drift mine that was closed recently. Methane gas then poured into the houses in the village and although many families had to be evacuated, British Coal is now saying that it will not pay compensation. I put it on the record before the matter goes to court and becomes sub judice—and this is probably the last chance that I shall have—that I am saying to the Secretary of State, "Look into the Arkwright case." I mentioned this matter several times when the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House. Now, in his new job, I am asking him to say to British Coal, "Be decent and honourable and pay out compensation to the families in Arkwright." I repeat that families in my constituency had to leave their homes for weeks because of the methane gas that escaped from that drift mine after it was closed.
      8.45 pm
      There is no doubt that we must vote for the amendment. There is no question about the fact that we do not want Tories coming here, rabbitting on about how much they oppose opencast, but then sneaking away in the night. If those Tory Members really mean it, they have a great opportunity. They can join us in the Lobby and then go back to Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and all the other places before they are defeated in the next general election and say that they used their voices and followed them with their votes. That is the opportunity that is presented to them tonight. 1 hope that some of them have the guts to take it.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the hon. Members for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Ashby), and for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, both spoke passionately against opencast mining. It will be extremely interesting to see whether they have the courage of their conviction in following their voices into the Lobby.
      Mr. Ashby: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what I said was that it is inevitable that the coal will have to be extracted, but that it must be extracted under strict conditions, taking full account of the environment? That is what I said, and that is what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) failed to understand. The coal is there and has to come out some time, but only under the strictest of conditions.
      Mr. Fisher: I am sad that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to talk his way out of what I took to be a speech that was extremely criticical of opencast mining.
      The ground on which the hon. Gentleman and the Member for Broxtowe criticised opencast mining was the destruction that it caused to the rural environment and to beautiful places. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others talked about the destruction that is caused to communities. I wish to make a short contribution about the damage and destruction that opencast mining can do to urban areas in the middle of our cities.
      At present, the opencast executive has an application to mine 650 acres right in the middle of the city of Stoke-on-Trent on a site called the China site, which is

      233
      surrounded by thousands of homes. It is right in the middle of one of the largest cities in this country. The devastation to that community and to the city will be great. That is why I am speaking against the extraordinary tenfold increase in the licences from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes, and against opencasting in recreational and enclosed land. Those 650 acres comprise scrubland that has always been open land, right in the heart of our city. It is one of the few lungs in our city, but the opencast executive now proposes to take 3 million tonnes out of that site, which I repeat is in the middle of one of this country's largest cities.
      The executive will work to a depth of over 300 ft. At present, there is no road access to the site. It is proposed to take 3 million tonnes of coal out of the site by road, right through the heart of Stoke-on-Trent. When the project was announced 12 months ago, the opencast executive said that it was willing to go ahead only because it had a willing partner in the local city council. When it leaked its plans, it met, not surprisingly, with total opposition from every resident of the city, from everyone who was interested in the environment and from both the district council and the county council. The executive could not find a single supporter for its plans in north Staffordshire.
      In spite of the assurance that the director of the opencast executive gave to me, that he was going ahead only because he believed that he had a willing partner, the plans will proceed. The day after tomorrow, the executive will launch a slightly modified plan for only 165 acres over the next four years and a mere 1 million tonnes. It is interesting to note the relationship between that decision and clause 4.
      There will be public consultation about the plans and, again, they will meet total opposition. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to make several points clear when he responds to the debate. Is it not significant when everyone in an urban community such as Stoke-on-Trent is completely opposed to a project? Should not those voices be taken into account? Should not it be taken into account that both local authorities reject the plans? Is the middle—not the edge—of one of the largest cities in the country a suitable site for extracting 3 million tonnes of coal?
      If that were planned for the middle of London—for example, in Hyde Park—would the Government give permission to go ahead? If it were the middle of Manchester, Southampton, Bristol or Winchester, would the Government say that it was perfectly all right to extract 3 million tonnes of coal, although the site is surrounded by residential areas on three sides and by commercial, industrial and retail developments on one side? Is it reasonable to take 3 million tonnes of coal from under people's homes? It is proposed to go right up to the edge of people's gardens.
      Opposition Members understand anxieties about the environment and about destroying the green and beautiful parts of the country. To work 3 million tonnes of coal right in the middle of a city in this day and age is equally appalling.
      In Stoke-on-Trent we have paid our dues in coal. We have done enough. The whole city is built on a seam and is undermined. The major pit in Stoke-on-Trent, Hanley deep pit, had its main gates on the opposite side of the street to the main department store until the second world war.
      234
      For 200 years we have lived with the devastation that coal dust can cause in a community. Virtually every man in Stoke-on-Trent either has white dust on his lungs from pot banks or black dust from working down the pit. In the ward abutting the proposed opencast pit, with which the executive is determined to proceed, 50 per cent. of the men do not live to pick up their pension. We have paid our dues, and many people have paid with their lives. We are now being asked to have a 650-acre opencast mine in the middle of our city. That touches a raw nerve in the people of Stoke-on-Trent and they will not tolerate it.
      The Under-Secretary should understand that the changes in clause 4 imply not only the destruction of the countryside and a complete abnegation of the Government's commitment to a green and pleasant environment, important though that is, but the destruction of urban environments. The Government talk about inner-city regeneration. Is it inner-city regeneration to mine 3 million tonnes of coal in the heart of Stoke-on-Trent? The Minister cannot mean that. He should examine the plans and reject them as surely as everyone in Stoke-on-Trent and both local authorities reject them. We have paid enough. That is the reality of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary will understand that when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned north-east Derbyshire in connection with both the Pinnock site—which affects his constituency and mine—and Tom Swain, who formerly lived in Stanfree in his constituency. Stanfree is to be subject to an opencast development. It is a pity that Tom Swain did not live and had that unfortunate accident. He would have been solidly behind the fight to ensure that the opencast mining development does not go ahead.
      The Pinnock site has been mentioned previously in the House. It was the subject of an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend and of a petition that I presented to the House from residents of Mastin Moor on 13 June 1988. Those people live next to the proposed Pinnock site. The usual arguments against opencast mining, such as the disruption that it causes and its dangers, were presented earlier in this debate and were listed in the petition. The petition was responded to by the Department of the Environment, but such petitions should also be examined carefully by the Department of Energy, because such opencast sites will be affected by the Bill.
      Opencast developments face a problem, in that the conditions for such developments have already been weakened in a circular issued 18 months ago by the Department of the Environment in connection with planning permission. It has become increasingly difficult for local authorities that have objections to granting planning permission for opencast mining, to act within the rules to block applications. There have been attempts to ensure that planning permission is squeezed through at local level and does not go to appeal or a planning inquiry, which in many cases overturns the local planning decision.
      In an earlier debate I mentioned the problems with opencasting that arise from the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. In order to compete with foreign coal, the Coal Board and the private sector companies will promote a smaller number of deep mines and super pits at the expense of other pits. They will also go over to opencast mining developments in a cavalier manner.

      235
      That is particularly the case in the areas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover represent. My constituency has an odd structure, the eastern side being similar to the constituency of Bolsover and the western side being more like the constituency of Derbyshire, West in its rural aspects and in its towns. It is divided politically, the western side being more strongly Conservative and the eastern side more strongly Labour.
      However, the opencast issue is a great unifying force. The opencast executive has given me a huge map of the area showing how opencast mining will be developed. Those developments will be similar to those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Pits such as the Renishaw Park pit, in former industrial areas, have been closed, and sites such as the Pinnock site will, when it is developed, take coal that would otherwise have been taken by the Renishaw Park pit.
      However, the western side of my constituency, with its agricultural land and commuter towns, also has fantastic potential for opencast mining. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was full of cutrills and drift mines. The map that I have shows not only the areas already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, but many others in both our constituencies, with fantastic potential for opencast development.
      9 pm
      Dronfield in north-east Derbyshire is separated from Sheffield by a small strip of land known as the green belt, but that is all on coal, so it could soon become a black belt, with a host of transport problems and other forms of disruption for the communities in the area.
      I could travel round my constituency from parish to parish showing the extent of the problems in the two regions that I have described. I will do everything that I can to stop opencast mining being developed by British Coal or its successors, or by private developers, ripping open my constituency and causing problems for north-east Derbyshire, such as those that existed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby).
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been a lengthy and interesting debate upon this group of amendments on opencast mining in which hon. Members on both side of the House have taken part. I want to make it clear to each and every one of them that the Government believe that opencast mining must strike a proper balance between national economic needs and environmental concerns. That is clearly paramount.
      The House should recall that Britain's opencast industry is an important natural resource, producing coal of excellent quality, low in ash and chlorine. A substantial proportion is used for blending with deep-mined coal that would otherwise be unusable. Several major coal consumers have tight specifications that can be met only by opencast coal. Their business would otherwise go to other fuels or to imports.
      Opencast coal is also one of the cheapest forms of energy available to Britain. Its costs are, typically, a third less than those of deep-mined coal, which means that it can compete with anything on the international market. That
      236
      ]source of energy is a real import beater and any Government who turned their back on it would be irresponsible.
      However, I fully recognise that an environmental penalty is attached to opencast coal. That is why the Government introduced new planning guidelines on opencasting 18 months ago which spell out more fully and more tightly than ever before the environmental criteria that operators must meet. The mineral planning guidelines then issued spelled out more fully than ever before the environmental criteria, including restoration, that have to be met, and the Government have also insisted on full environmental impact assessments on all but the smallest sites.
      The new guidance represents a proper and durable balance between the interests of energy supply and the environment. Tighter regulations also prevent time wasting in the planning process because environmentally unacceptable applications will not be put forward.
      We should recall that in the case of small sites that have traditionally been worked under licence, the present 25,000 tonnes statutory limit on their size has led to a piecemeal working of opencast deposits. That small surface area has limited operators' ability to adopt imaginative schemes of restoration. The Bill lifts that obstacle and thereby reduces the period of disruption to the community and gives greater scope for even higher standards of restoration. I am glad to tell the House that local authority representatives in Scotland and England have welcomed the new, tighter guidance.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does not the Minister recognise that when there are larger opencast sites there will be more transport on the road because transporters will be in use? The bigger the output, the more transport there will be on the roads.
      Mr. Baldry: The fact that opencasting is subject to full planning procedures seems to have been missed out of the debate. It is important for the House to recall why we have been discussing this group of amendments on opencast mining. Doubts were expressed, initially by the Select Committee on Energy in its report in 1987, about British Coal's practice of licensing opencast sites of up to 35,000 tonnes, against the statutory limit of 25,000 tonnes or not greatly in excess of 25,000 tonnes. The Government have taken the first legislative opportunity since that report to remove any doubt by raising the limit to 250,000 tonnes. The Bill retains the flexibility for British Coal to issue licences for amounts not likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 250,000 tonnes. Such flexibility is needed because we can never be precise about how much coal is available in a particular site.
      Mr. Ashby: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that, as I suggested, British Coal has been breaking the law for years?
      Mr. Baldry: It was because the Select Committee drew attention to the fact that there was uncertainty about how licences were being issued that we took the first legislative opportunity to clarify the position. I hope that that clarification will be much welcomed by the House.
      Some hon. Members expressed concern about the issuing of consecutive licences. I would not expect British Coal to issue consecutive licences in the same deposit. Where a licence for up to 250,000 tonnes in a large deposit

      237
      of coal is being considered, I would expect the corporation to have regard, among other factors, to the likelihood and desirability, under current mineral planning policy, of the deposit being extracted as a whole under a single operation.
      Each of the amendments in the group is interesting. However, for reasons which I hope I shall make clear, they are all superfluous and unnecessary. Amendment No. 4 was first raised in committee by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) when he asked my predecessor, now the Minister for Housing and Planning, for an assurance that approval for an opencast site would not be given if the site was covered by a pre-1840 private Enclosure Act. I cannot give such an assurance. Even if the condition relating to hedgerows, which the hon. Member for Westworth has discovered in some pre-1840 Acts, is to be found—it is far from clear that it is to be found—
      Mr. Hardy: I have made the point—but the Minister appears to be disregarding it—that obviously, I have not studied all 4,000 private Enclosure Acts. However, I have studied, or had studied for me, a substantial proportion, dealing with various parts of the country. They all contain the clear, perpetual requirement that those hedgerows enclosing the fields and taking over the common land should be maintained for all time. The Government cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they respect the law or they do not. If the Government respect the law, the Minister cannot continue to maintain his evasiveness.
      Mr. Baldry: Even if the Enclosure Acts contain conditions relating to hedgerows, it is questionable whether any persons other than adjoining landowners could ever enforce them. That matter is for the planning authority to take into account when issuing the planning consents that all opencast sites require. If the hon. Member for Wentworth contends that the Enclosure Acts continue to have legal force, amendment No. 4 is unnecessary. If they have no such effect, it would be improper to extend them in the way that the hon. Gentleman proposes. In either case, amendment No. 4 is superfluous.
      As to amendment No. 5, I emphasise that proper and responsible restoration of opencast sites is of paramount importance and should be a fundamental consideration when appraising any proposal for opencast mining. Amendment No. 5, which requires applicants for exploration and production licences to make undertakings relating to site restoration is, again, unnecessary and superfluous. Such requirements are already dealt with in planning legislation. A local planning authority can, and generally does, attach restoration conditions to any planning consents. The authority also usually requires an applicant to provide an environmental impact assessment. The Government's current planning guidelines deal specifically with restoration standards.
      As British Coal does not issue production licences unless prior planning consent has been obtained, no purpose would be served by including restoration requirements in the licence, and to do so could cause confusion if they were inconsistent with conditions stipulated by a local planning authority.
      British Coal also requires licensees to deposit a bond to ensure the fulfilment of restoration requirements. The current practice, whereby British Coal issues a licence on condition that planning consent conditions are met, is perfectly satisfactory. It places planning issues where they
      238
      belong—with local planning authorities—and avoids the risk of confusion by requiring only one set of restoration conditions. It is a matter for local planning authorities to ensure compliance with any conditions that they attach to consents.
      Amendment No. 1 requires applicants for production licences to deposit a bond with local authorities to cover estimated restoration costs. Such a provision is also unnecessary and superfluous because local authorities can effectively already require such a bond to be lodged with them as part of the planning consent process. As, again, British Coal will not consider an application unless the applicant for a production licence has prior planning consent, there is no need for any amendment.
      In view of the proper balance that the Government have introduced in respect of opencasting, and having heard my explanation as to why the amendments are unnecessary and superfluous, I hope that the Opposition will feel able to withdraw them.
      Mr. Dobson: I should have welcomed the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to his new job earlier. I may add that he has proved to be a hit of a disappointment already. We had hoped that Baldrick would come up with a cunning plan, but he has failed us.
      Our amendment would require any applicant for planning permission to place a bond with the local authority against the possibility of going broke or deliberately not restoring the land properly afterwards. The bond placed with British Coal does not do that, because British Coal has other financial relationships with those private opencast operators and may use the bond for those purposes, rather than to look after the local environment and neighbourhood. The Opposition think that amendment No. 1 is a sensible amendment and we do not understand why the Government cannot accept it. All the Conservative Back-Benchers who spoke thought that it was a good idea.
      9.15 pm
      We think that it is a good idea and we want to put amendment No. 1 to the vote.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 27, at end insert—
      '(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted—
      "(2AA) Applicants for a licence under subsection (2)(c) above shall undertake to deposit a bond, with the relevant local authority, sufficient to cover the costs of the restoration of the land affected by operations under that licence as estimated by that local authority.".'—[Mr. Dobson.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided Ayes 161, Noes 229.

      Division No. 37]

      [9.15

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bradley, Keith

      Allen, Graham

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Anderson, Donald

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Ashton, Joe

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Barron, Kevin

      Buchan, Norman

      Battle, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Beckett, Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

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

      Callaghan, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Boyes, Roland

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      239

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Leighton, Ron

      Canavan, Dennis

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Lewis, Terry

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Litherland, Robert

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clay, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McAllion, John

      Coleman, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McCartney, Ian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Cousins, Jim

      McFall, John

      Cox, Tom

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Cryer, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Cummings, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McWilliam, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Madden, Max

      Darling, Alistair

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Marek, Dr John

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

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

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Meale, Alan

      Dixon, Don

      Michael, Alun

      Dobson, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Douglas, Dick

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Eadie, Alexander

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Eastham, Ken

      Mullin, Chris

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Murphy, Paul

      Fatchett, Derek

      Nellist, Dave

      Fearn, Ronald

      O'Brien, William

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fisher, Mark

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Flannery, Martin

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Flynn, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Foster, Derek

      Redmond, Martin

      Foulkes, George

      Richardson, Jo

      Fyfe, Maria

      Robertson, George

      Galloway, George

      Rogers, Allan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Rooker, Jeff

      Gordon, Mildred

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Gould, Bryan

      Rowlands, Ted

      Graham, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Short, Clare

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Haynes, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hinchliffe, David

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Strang, Gavin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Howells, Geraint

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Turner, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Vaz, Keith

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Walley, Joan

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Ingram, Adam

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Janner, Greville

      Winnick, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lambie, David

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Lamond, James

      Mr. Martyn Jones.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Allason, Rupert

      Atkinson, David

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Amos, Alan

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      240

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Beggs, Roy

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hannam, John

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Benyon, W.

      Harris, David

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hayward, Robert

      Boswell, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Bowis, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bright, Graham

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

      Holt, Richard

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Burt, Alistair

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Butler, Chris

      Hunter, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jack, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Janman, Tim

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jessel, Toby

      Carttiss, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Kilfedder, James

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Colvin, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Couchman, James

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Cran, James

      Knowles, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knox, David

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

      Lang, Ian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Day, Stephen

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Devlin, Tim

      Lightbown, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lilley, Peter

      Dover, Den

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lord, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fallon, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Favell, Tony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Mans, Keith

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Forman, Nigel

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Forth, Eric

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mills, Iain

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Franks, Cecil

      Moate, Roger

      Freeman, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      French, Douglas

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Fry, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gale, Roger

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Gardiner, George

      Neale, Gerrard

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Neubert, Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Norris, Steve

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Patnick, Irvine

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Raffan, Keith

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Riddick, Graham

      Grist, Ian

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Ground, Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hague, William

      Rost, Peter

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Rowe, Andrew

      241

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Thurnham, Peter

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Trippier, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Sims, Roger

      Ward, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speller, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wells, Bowen

      Squire, Robin

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Ray

      Stern, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Sumberg, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Summerson, Hugo

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Thorne, Neil

      Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      '(2A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted—
      "( ) A licence under subsection (2)(a) above shall not be granted to

      (a)any person who, or company which, has been convicted of an offence relating to its colliery activities in the relevant period, or

      (b)any company in which the controlling interest is held by a person who, or company which, has been convicted of an offence relating to its colliery activities in the relevant period.

      ( ) For the purposes of subsection (2B) above the 'relevant period' shall be defined as five years prior to the date of the application for a licence under subsection (2)(a) above, or the date upon which this Act received its Royal Assent, whichever shall be later.".'.
      We are concerned about the lack of regard to safety and health accompanying the increase in the number of private mineworkers. It cannot be denied that the safety record of the private mining industry is appalling and would not be tolerated in most industries. On Second Reading and in Committee, we discussed the ratio between major reportable accidents, and fatal accidents, in the private sector and those in mines operated by British Coal.
      In Committee last week, the Minister referred to a press statement issued on 8 January by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the number of underground private-sector mineworkers. In order to ensure that the statistics used were safe, my hon. Friend assumed that about 4,000 were employed, but the next day the then Under-Secretary of State said that he believed that the figure was about 1,700. That can be found in column 121 of the Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 January 1990.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras received from the Secretary of State a written reply to a parliamentary question today in which figures were given from the British Coal Corporation's annual report for 1988–89 showing that only 1,524 people were working underground in the private licensed sector. In
      242
      other words, the record that we regarded as bad when we began to look at the statistics for the private sector is shown to be even worse than we thought.
      9.30 pm
      The Government say that we exaggerate the concern that is felt and that coal mining is, by its nature, a dangerous job. That is so, and that is why we are seeking to ensure that safety standards are of the highest.
      The amendment would prevent anyone who had been convicted under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 from being granted a licence to mine for coal. That is not to ask for a great deal, for we are again seeking an assurance that safety standards will be paramount and that they will be considered as the first priority for everyone in the mining industry, be that British Coal or the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain in the private sector. We have not been convinced that that priority exists. The utmost protection must be given to those who work in that sector of the industry.
      Many questions about the Bill have been put to the Department, and we still await answers to them. For example, it appears that British Coal was not consulted before the changes were proposed. In a British Coal press release following the publication of the Bill, it was said that British Coal would be having discussions with the Government. Have those discussions taken place, and if so, what was the outcome?
      We have asked whether the Department of Energy or any other Government Department has discussed the issue with the mines and quarries inspectorate, which has statutory responsibility for the upkeep of safety standards in British coal mines. I hope that, when responding to the debate on the amendment, the Secretary of State will answer our questions. Until now, we have received only assertions, which have gone no way to allaying our fears about safety and health in an expanded private licensed sector.
      The mines and quarries inspectorate shares our fears. For that reason, in the summer of 1988, it initiated a meeting with the Federation of Small Mines and gave a damning indictment of the standards of safety in that sector of the industry. In a newspaper report dated 4 October 1988, Mr. Albert Davies, a deputy chief inspector of mines, was reported as having said in relation to that indictment of safety practices in that sector:
      "Professional standards of management in licensed mines must improve. All too often the reports record very poor mechanical, electrical and mining standards. There is no excuse for these or the fact that managers often do not understand what proper standards should be."
      The principal district inspector of mines and quarries in the south-western district wrote to all licensed coal mine owners and managers in 1988 instructing them to improve safety standards.
      Is it any wonder that we are concerned about the amount of regard that is given to safety in that sector when, in response to such criticism, the chairman of the Federation of Small Mines said on 3 October 1988:
      "I think it would be an error to focus too much on safety."
      Does the Secretary of State take that view, or does he agree that those who operate in that sector must be proven to have safety as their first consideration?
      In the last 10 years, the Government have allowed safety standards to fall and to become subordinate to cutting costs and increasing profit. In that period, there

      243
      have been nine convictions under the Mines and Quarries Act, at least two of which were the result of deaths in that sector.
      It would be interesting to know how many of those nine prosecutions were mounted after an accident had occurred and how many, if any, were mounted after the mines and quarries inspectors had found something not up to standard. If, as I suspect, most, if not all, of those convictions occurred following an accident or a death, the Opposition's fears about that sector and whether we should be discussing its expansion are justified.
      Incidentally, another written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras contained the information about the prosecutions over the past 10 years. In every one of those nine cases, the owners of the mines were found guilty as charged. The fines totalled more than £31,000. In one case, a fine of only £1,500 was imposed after a death occurred leading to a conviction under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. It does not seem to me or my hon. Friends, whether or not they have worked in coal mining, that that would be much of a deterrent after the loss of a life after breaking the law. That is a paltry fine. We have been repeatedly told that raising the numbers that can work underground in private mines will make the pits safer, as there will be investment in modern technology.
      Many Conservative Members, although sadly not Ministers, accept that the private sector seems to think that such investment will take place only if there is total deregulation. Is it not more to the point that the raising of the employment limit is a sop to those in the City and on the Conservative Back Benches who made it quite plain on Second Reading that they were pressing the Government for more deregulation and privatisation? It is just a taster of what they have in mind for the industry in future.
      The former Under-Secretary of State told us—almost as his parting shot from the Department of Energy—in a press release from the Department of Energy that the new provisions
      "should also provide opportunities for new employment through working remnant coal at closed pits".
      That seems a contradiction in terms, but given the fact that that statement was made in a press release from the Department of Energy, perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us tonight exactly what lay behind the comments in the press release which were not made on Second Reading nor in Committee when the Minister used some of the press release.
      A statement was sent out to the press telling us that the Government are now talking about
      "working remnant coal at closed pits".
      Very few pits operated by British Coal would be accessible for private coal mine operators—most of them are too deep. The pits that have already closed have put that coal out of reach. It is a great loss to the coal industry and to the nation that those reserves have been sterilised, perhaps for good. Are we to assume that, in the few cases where it might be possible, the private mine operator will inherit the benefits of all the investments made by British Coal, or rather the British public, in sinking shafts and maintaining them over the years? What will happen if private operators take over mines that are running down production?
      Will the Secretary of State tell us—I see that he is swapping notes with the new Under-Secretary of State—exactly what is meant by 150 people in clause 4? Does it mean that 150 people will be underground at a particular mine on a particular day? Does it mean that there will be
      244
      a limit on the number of people underground but no limit on the number of people who can be employed at a particular mine? As opposed to the present situation, when there may be 30 people at a mine, could there be 150 people at a mine on different shifts? It is important that we have answers to those questions, as it is not certain exactly what will happen.
      The Secretary of State may be aware that, in Committee, we said that it was impossible to find out exactly how many people work in that sector of the industry—hence the three misleading statements about the total work force, or exactly how many people work in each individual coal mine. That seems wrong under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, which states that people who work in a coal mine should be registered.
      Consequently, the Department should be able to answer questions similar to the question that my hon Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras put to the Secretary of State for Employment:
      "if he will list the private licensed coal mines known to the mines and quarries inspectorate, giving the numbers employed below ground in each case."
      The reply was:
      "Following is a list of private licensed mines held by Her Majesty's inspectorate. Figures for persons employed at individual mines are not readily available."—[Official Report, 15 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 64.]
      We argued in Committee that that would be a breach of coal-mining regulations under the 1908 Act. Given that the Secretary of State intends to expand by ten times the number of people who can work in these mines, what guarantee have we that the regulation will be complied with? We have no idea how many people will be working in the private mines.
      We are not satisfied by the complacent attitude of Government spokesmen that everything will be all right, and that particular attention is not needed. It is abhorrent to us that a sector so damned by the mines and quarries inspectorate should be given freedom to employ more workers without prior evidence of a commitment to uphold safety standards.
      That is why we believe that amendment No. 2 will not guide the Department of Energy for ever but that it is necessary now to protect lives and people's safety. The private licensed sector should be tightly regulated. It has a deplorable safety record. It is difficult for the mines inspectorate to keep it under control. Until we have the safeguards that are in the amendment, we shall oppose clause 4 and all its implications.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I want to relate what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has said to health and safety and problems in small mines. I recall that on Second Reading the Minister said that the expansion of the number of people in small mines would take account of the use of modern machinery. That raises some questions.
      The manager of a small mine does not need a manager's certificate; he can have a lesser certificate. If the number of people employed in small mines is to be expanded, will the person in charge of the mine need a manager's certificate? If so, will the person who is second in charge need a qualified under-manager's certificate? If a manager is responsible for a mine for 24 hours, even when he is not there, there has to be someone in charge who is fully qualified. If private mines are to have electrical and mechanical equipment such as is used in deep mines, will

      245
      there be an electrical engineer and a mechanical engineer in charge? Will there be a second in command to look after the electrical and mechanical equipment? Will those people he qualified under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954? Will the manager and the under-manager be qualified under that Act?
      If the small mines sector is to expand, we must consider carefully the safety of the people who work in the mines. There must be a proper management structure. I should like answers to the questions that 1 have put.
      Mr. Eadie: We may be reaching the fag-end of debates on the Bill, but this is an important one. Safety is of paramount importance in the mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that he had worked for private mine owners. I started in the pits as a boy of 14 in 1934, when the safety record of private mines was deplorable. Thousands of miners have been killed during this century, most during the period of private ownership. I remember working as a boy at the coal face, and I remember some of the things that were done in the interests of producing coal at a profit. We have heard much about producing coal at a profit, but many good men were killed at that time.
      To some extent, the amendment is a test. This debate on safety will be nothing compared to the debate that we shall have on the Government's proposals to privatise the coal industry.
      9.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said that sanctions must be placed on safety. The Minister may think that it is a sacrifice for private mine owners to have to comply with safety regulations, but the history of safety in the mining industry has been born from sacrifice. I am old enough to remember when we had to introduce sanctions on safety in the days of private enterprise. We made great personal sacrifices. If a man was killed in the pit, what sanctions were we able to apply? We decided that if that happened no one would work in the pit on that day.
      My wages when I began working in the pit were 2s 9d a day. A man on day wages received 7s 6d a day. Those fortunate enough to work at the coal face earned nine or 10 bob a day. To lose a day's wages was a great personal sacrifice, but we owed that to our colleagues. We said, "If the private coal owners are not prepared to look after our safety, our only sanction is to harm their profits." No man worked on a day when a man was killed. Unfortunately, if we consider the history of the mining industry, we are talking about not one man but dozens being killed. I remember the Gresford disaster, when 200 men were killed.
      One of the great achievements when the mines were nationalised was that we stopped that slaughter in the industry. We were also able to build up the independence of the mines and quarries inspectorate, which was respected by miners. They knew that it could apply certain sanctions and that safety would prevail.
      The amendment tests the Government's sincerity. Do they want to see slaughter in the industry as more private mines open? The Minister shakes his head, but we shall test his sincerity. The amendment places sanctions on people who ignore regulations. They are not fit to become owners of these mines. This is the test. Incidentally, the Government should have a close look at deregulation,
      246
      about which I am sure that my hon. Friends will talk later. It will make it easier for private owners to operate mines in relation to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
      I feel emotional about this subject, because some of my family have been killed in the pits. If I do nothing else tonight, I owe it to them to make this contribution to the debate.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It has been well documented on Second Reading and in Committee that the private mining sector has an appalling record on safety. I said in Committee, when we were debating raising the manpower in private pits from 30 to 150, that I foresaw disaster occurring somewhere in the mines because of the attitude of some private mine owners. I gave examples of many incidents that were described by mineworkers. Some were horror stories that would make one's hair stand on end if one were a miner working in the British coal industry.
      I want to illustrate why private mine owners should be severely watched when they open a mine. I want to quote from the case of a 51-year-old fellow who was killed at the Robin Rock pit in Northumberland. It emerged at the inquest that
      "electrical equipment at this mine had been poorly maintained".
      Danger signs had apparently been seen for three weeks beforehand. An electrical junction box had caught fire, and sparks and smoke had come from it. Fortunately, the men managed to get out of the pit in time. Any fire in a mine is a reportable offence to the mines and quarries inspectorate, but on that occasion, the mine owners did not inform the inspectorate. Apparently they thought that as everyone had got out of the pit, they need not report it.
      The same thing happened three or four weeks later. The box caught fire and smoke came out. Unfortunately, one of the old fellows did not make it and was suffocated by the smoke. The three brothers who owned the mine were prosecuted, and each was fined £1,000. When they were asked at the inquest whether they had an electrical engineer, they replied, "No." When they were asked whether they had an electrician, they said that they did. When they were asked what his qualifications were, they said that he had served his time at another colliery as a mining apprentice.
      We have had a great debate. Safety in the mines is an emotive subject and I am sure that we shall return to it. With my 20-odd years' experience of the mines, 1 ask the Minister seriously to consider new laws for the private mines. He—not the Opposition, who hope to win in the Lobby—is increasing the private mines. The responsibility will lie on the Minister's head. I shall never let him forget what I have said when there is a disaster in the private mines after the level of manpower is raised from 30 to 150.
      Mr. Hardy: Given the position adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), I should be foolish to seek to make a long speech. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that I should remind the House that I am sponsored by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, the trade union that represents those employed underground in the British coal mining industry, who have a statutory responsibility for safety. Let us leave aside for a moment all questions of politics and dogma. NACODS is deeply concerned about the extension of private mining. It is the considered view of the NACODS leadership—people who have a great deal of

      247
      experience—that the Government's proposals will lead to more people being killed and maimed. That must surely be a serious matter.
      I know that we shall not persuade the Government to withdraw the proposal, but although the Minister has only just taken office, he is aware of the points that we have made concerning the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908—a subject to which I referred twice in Committee. That Act is not being enforced. The Government have already had several weeks in which to ensure that the Act was being enforced. I want an assurance from the Minister that no private mine will be allowed to operate under present arrangements or in future unless that regulation has been put into practice. This is another example of the law being observed when the Government want it to be observed because it suits them. In this case, common sense and the need to save limbs and lives make it essential to ensure that the provision is put into effect without further delay.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I hope to be able to persuade the Minister to accept this modest amendment. I certainly deem it to be modest; I should have liked it to go much further.
      I realise that Conservative Members may feel that people of my generation—my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—speak with some bias on these matters because of our experience in the privatised coal industry. Conservative Members, who have never had such experience, are probably justified in questioning our views.
      I wish to outline briefly my own experience both of present-day technology in the mining industry and of licensed mines in Britain. In my experience, the American coalfield, which as we all know is privatised, does not bear comparison with the British coalfield and its industry. I can say to the House with all sincerity that the American coal mines that I have been down are the most unsafe that I have ever visited in all my experience—since the age of 14—in the mining industry.
      I have been down American mines—with ladies working in them, incidentally—where, on reaching the end of a coal face, my party has had to be brought back by what we in this country call a deputy. The normal system in this country is to go through one roadway on to the coalface and then through another roadway at the end of the coalface, which is called the return. In America we got to the end of the face and had to turn back.
      Conservative Members who accompanied us on that trip did not take exception, because they did not realise what was happening. We had to be brought back the length of the face because there was no other way out. There was only one way in and out. That is privatisation: the firm was saving the expense of a second roadway. I have never before seen such unsafe conditions. It was the only time that I have ever experienced fear in a coal mine.
      The conditions in private mines in this country were drawn to the attention of the House by the 28 January 1987 report of the Select Committee on Energy. Paragraph 171 states:
      "Other operators in the industry as well as BC have a responsibility to safeguard their workers' safety. Figures given to us show that 1 in 100 workers in the private deep mines suffered a fatal or major injury in 1985–86, compared with 1 in 187 in BC's pits."
      248
      That accident rate is a fact. The accident rate in private mines in this country was nearly double the rate in British Coal's mines. Incidentally, only 40 per cent. of American mines are unionised, and only those mines record accidents. Their accident figures are 2·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. higher than British Coal's.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Lofthouse: I challenge any hon. Member to produce accident figures relating to any country that operates a private mining sector and compare them with British Coal's figures. I should be very surprised if an hon. Member can do that.
      I well remember on 19 December 1939 going down a big hole in the ground in Featherstone in West Yorkshire. I was a 14-year-old boy at the time. I saw conditions in those days that were not fit for people to work in. I saw circumstances in which men were criminally killed because there were no roof supports for protection. Within three months of my going down that mine, driving a pony, I arrived at the coal face one morning and saw a man lying dead because he had had nothing to support himself with. The cemetery at Featherstone in Yorkshire is full of such men.
      Only in recent times, Mr. Kenneth Moses, who was a technical director of British Coal and, I suppose, can be recognised as one of the senior mining engineers in the country, was questioned by the Select Committee. I asked:
      "How do you explain the accident rate in the private pits in this country compared with British Coal?"
      Mr. Moses replied:
      "Well, because we are using two entirely different technologies."
      He can say that again.
      "The private pits are using the technology we were using in 1947, we are using highly mechanised modernised technology, and the way in which we have reduced accidents is, in fact, by the application of mining engineering technology."
      Mr. Moses conceded that the high accident rate in private mines in this country was because we were mining coal with pre-1947 technology.
      It is one thing to organise and control a mine with 30 men with pre-1947 technology, but it is another thing to expand to 150 men without that technology. Small mines will not be able to maintain British Coal's safety record, because the capital development which previously enabled British Coal to supply mechanisation for coal faces and so on will not exist. The Bill, which extends the number of men in private mines, will, as sure as night follows day, create a situation in which men in the mines will be in much more danger than their British Coal counterparts.
      One can say, "Well, they are protected by the inspectorate." It is true that the inspectorate visits the mines and that the mine owners must carry out the inspector's instructions. However, I remind the Secretary of State and the House that it is the self-same inspectorate that is inspecting the private mines now that is inspecting British Coal mines, yet the accident record in private mines has nearly doubled. It is not an argument for being protected by the inspectorate.

      249
      I hope that these arguments and the personal experiences that have been put to the Secretary of State tonight will lead him to consider—and, I hope, concede—this modest amendment.
      Mr. Wakeham: It has been a short and important debate. I had been, and am, going to quote exactly the same remarks that were made in the Select Committee report by Ken Moses, as were quoted by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), but perhaps towards the end of the debate we were nearer to getting a better understanding of the problems. Of course I understand the sincerity, the feelings and the passions that are raised by safety questions and by history. I hope that hon. Members will hear what I have to say, which I claim modestly to be stated with as much sincerity as that with which they made their remarks.
      The Opposition's position on the licensing of mines seems to remain the same as that stated in their comments that were attached to the end of the Select Committee on Energy's 1986–87 report into the coal industry. They believe that the manpower limit should remain at the levels set in 1946. In other words, they wish to condemn private sector mineworkers to the working methods and the safety levels of the 1940s. On the other hand, we believe that the most effective way of making mines safer for underground workers is through mechanisation.
      This is borne out by British Coal's own experience. Mr. Ken Moses, British Coal's technology director, pointed out recently when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy—in exactly the same piece of evidence quoted by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford—that the private pits are using the technology of 1947 and that British Coal is not. He said that British Coal has improved the accident record
      "by the application of mining engineering technology."
      I believe that to be absolutely right. It is the reason for our wish to increase manning levels in the licensed sector. I have no doubt that the out-of-date working practices that licensed mines are currently forced to use because of their size prevents them from improving their safety standards. I accept that the accident rate at licensed mines does not compare favourably with that at British Coal's mines, but that is because their mining practices have not kept pace with technological developments. [Interruption] We heard what Opposition Members had to say, so I think that I should be allowed to speak.
      The reports of the mines and quarries inspectorate on accidents in the licensed mines sector suggest that many of the fatal accidents reported would not have happened had modern mechanised group support and conveyance systems been employed. The investment required for that can be generated only by mines that are larger than the existing ones. The need to increase productivity by multi-shift working or by working two faces means that more men are needed, which means more mining jobs—jobs in areas where they are needed.
      Of course we wish to see improvements in licensed mine safety. We believe that the improvement in the manpower limit will enable modern, mechanised and, above all, safer pits to be developed in the licensed sector.
      The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and others have raised with me the question of the numbers of men employed in licensed mines. I shall do my best to give an answer, but it is not the clearest answer that I have ever given in my life. However, I repeat that I shall do my best.
      250
      The hon. Member for Wentworth asked about the exact number of people employed in licensed mines and related that to the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. I should make it clear that the 1908 Act required that a register be kept of persons going below ground and returning to the surface, so that a record is kept of the hours spent below ground. It may be a useful guide to the numbers of persons employed in the mine, but it is not a register of persons employed; nor has it ever been that.
      As I have said, the hon. Member for Wentworth was also most concerned to have a cut-and-dried answer to his question about the numbers of people employed in licensed mines. I am sorry that I cannot give a precise answer to that question. The work force in licensed mines changes frequently. Unlike for British Coal's mines, there is no central organisation to collect figures.
      Not all licensed mines belong to the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectorate makes inquiries to ensure that the numbers employed at the mine and the qualifications of officials are consistent with the requirements of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and associated legislation. The inspectorate does not keep detailed records of the numbers employed at each mine.
      As the licensing authority for private coal mines, British Coal must satisfy itself that the mining plans submitted with a licensed application could be undertaken by 30 men or fewer. Once the mine is in operation, it is for the owner to ensure that he complies with the requirements of the licence. British Coal will have to consider carefully whether a licence should be revoked at a pit where it is discovered that there has been an infringement of the licensing agreement.
      The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked about the qualifications of managers. I can answer his question simply. The basic principle is that the management qualifications required for a given size of mine are the same for a licensed mine as for a British Coal mine. A manager would require a first-class certificate at a mine employing more than 30 people.
      Mr. Allen McKay: I accept that, but is the Secretary of State saying that there will be 150 men per shift over three shifts? If there are 150 men per shift, a structure of under-managers will be needed too.
      Mr. Wakeham: I shall not go further than what. I said, because that is what I was advised. The same regulations, under the same Act, will apply whether the mine is a private licensed mine or a British Coal mine.
      The amendment was not referred to very often in the debate. I recognise the importance of the issues with which it deals. I recognise that mine safety must be paramount. I agree that mines should be run by those fitted to do so. It would be inappropriate to use the Bill to impose mandatory sanctions on owners for offences not directly related to its subject. The safety regulations covering the mining industry are part of the heath and safety at work legislation.
      The amendment does not distinguish sufficiently between serious and trivial offences. It would be iniquitous to put a company out of business for committing a relatively minor misdemeanour. I recognise the force of the argument behind the amendments. The most effective and proper way to deal with the issue is through the licensing process, not legislation. That is precisely how we deal with

      251
      the problem in licensing North Sea oil operations, where safety is equally vital. The statutes covering those licences do not contain requirements similar to those in the amendment, but applicants' safety records are taken into account in the licensing process.
      I shall draw the attention of British Coal to what has been said and ask it to take into account any criminal record of the mine manager or owner in any application for a licence or renewal of a licence. I cannot accept the amendment, although I understand the reasons for it.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Barron: I am dissatisfied with the Secretary of State's explanation, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are. He argued that mechanisation was the answer. No Opposition Member or anyone in the mining industry would disagree with that. He talked about running two faces of a coal mine with a limit of 150. But when Marine colliery in south Wales was mothballed, Mr. Crispian Hotson of Ryan International said that 150 would not be adequate to run such a colliery with fewer than three coal faces.
      The Minister's argument does not stand up. At no stage since the introduction of the Bill have the Government ever spoken to British Coal, which issues the licences and should police that sector, about the implications of clause 4 and raising the figure from 30 to 150.
      We still do not know how many people work in the private licensed sector. We have had three different figures in the three weeks that the Bill has been considered in Committee. The Minister says that the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908, which we and everybody else, including the inspectors, believed gave the number, as a useful guide. But that is not good enough when people are working in the same environment that existed pre-1947, when three or four coal miners were killed every day in British coal mines. We cannot accept an extension of that.
      At least 18 counties in Britain, sadly not all with Labour Members of Parliament, have private mines or plan to have private mines. Yet Conservative Members sit in silence when we are debating a measure which will increase fivefold the number of people who can work in private mines.
      We do not accept all the Minister's arguments about mechanisation, because that is limited by the number in the Bill. I am not arguing for more. We do not accept that there is any regulation at present of the licensed mine sector; hence the present number of deaths and injuries. Over the past 10 years, there have been nine prosecutions under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 in the private sector and not one in British Coal mines during the past 10 years. Therefore, the people who work in the private sector now, and who will do so in future, need the protection that the amendment gives, and we shall put it to the vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 214.

      Division No. 38]

      [10.17 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barron, Kevin

      Allen, Graham

      Battle, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Beckett, Margaret

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Beggs, Roy

      Ashton, Joe

      Beith, A. J.

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

      252

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Boateng, Paul

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Boyes, Roland

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bradley, Keith

      Lambie, David

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Lamond, James

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Leighton, Ron

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Buchan, Norman

      Lewis, Terry

      Buckley, George J.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey.

      Caborn, Richard

      Loyden, Eddie

      Callaghan, Jim

      McAllion, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      McCartney, Ian

      Canavan, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McKelvey, William

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McLeish, Henry

      Clay, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Clelland, David

      Madden, Max

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Coleman, Donald

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Martlew, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Maxton, John

      Cryer, Bob

      Meale, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Michael, Alun

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Darling, Alistair

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Morgan, Rhodri

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Dewar, Donald

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Dixon, Don

      Mullin, Chris

      Dobson, Frank

      Murphy, Paul

      Doran, Frank

      Nellist, Dave

      Douglas, Dick

      O'Brien, William

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Pike, Peter L.

      Eadie, Alexander

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Fearn, Ronald

      Radice, Giles

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Redmond, Martin

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

      Robertson, George

      Fisher, Mark

      Rogers, Allan

      Flannery, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Flynn, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Foster, Derek

      Short, Clare

      Foulkes, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fyfe, Maria

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Galloway, George

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gordon, Mildred

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Gould, Bryan

      Strang, Gavin

      Graham, Thomas

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hardy, Peter

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Haynes, Frank

      Walley, Joan

      Hinchliffe, David

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Howells, Geraint

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Winnick, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Illsley, Eric

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Ingram, Adam

      Mr. Ken Eastham.

      Janner, Greville

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Allason, Rupert

      Atkins, Robert

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, David

      Amos, Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      253

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Batiste, Spencer

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forth, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Franks, Cecil

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowis, John

      French, Douglas

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fry, Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Bright, Graham

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

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

      Gill, Christopher

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Burns, Simon

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Butler, Chris

      Gow, Ian

      Butterfill, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gregory, Conal

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grist, Ian

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ground, Patrick

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hague, William

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hannam, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Couchman, James

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Cran, James

      Hayward, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Day, Stephen

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Devlin, Tim

      Hind, Kenneth

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Dover, Den

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Durant, Tony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Irvine, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Janman, Tim

      254

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kilfedder, James

      Shersby, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Sims, Roger

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Speller, Tony

      Knapman, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Squire, Robin

      Knowles, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knox, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lang, Ian

      Stern, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lightbown, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lilley, Peter

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lord, Michael

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thorne, Neil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Malins, Humfrey

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Trippier, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Walden, George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Mills, Iain

      Waller, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Ward, John

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Moate, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Watts, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wells, Bowen

      Norris, Steve

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Whitney, Ray

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Riddick, Graham

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wood, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Rowe, Andrew

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Greg Knight.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Wakeham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I shall be brief, as I do not intend to deal with the detail of the Bill, other than to note that there has been a general welcome for the proposed capital reconstruction of British Coal. We had good debates in Committee on the detailed clauses and, thanks to the Opposition, we have had three good debates today on the issues that concern them—subsidence, opencast mining and licensed mines.
      The Bill, together with the power stations' contracts for large tonnages over the next three years, gives British Coal an opportunity to build on the success that it has achieved over the past three years. Against that background, I have asked it to carry out a fundamental review of its business prospects, taking into account the prices achievable by each coalfield and the productivity improvements achievable by each colliery. As I emphasised on Second Reading, continuing strong productivity gains are essential if those opportunities are to be realised. The Bill provides further Government support for British Coal's restructuring programme.
      The core of the Bill, is how to deal with the deficiency in British Coal's accounts—which will probably be more than £5 billion and could range up to another £2 billion. I do not claim that our deficiency grant is simply an act of generosity; it is essential if British Coal is to be re-established as a viable business. By valuing each colliery on the basis of its future earnings potential, the industry can establish more clearly than ever before where its future lies. Ultimately the size of the industry will depend upon the efforts of management and men together to maintain the trend of productivity growth and cost reduction.
      As I said on Second Reading, given all that, I am confident that the capital reconstruction will provide the industry with the means to compete in the market place of the future, and I commend the Bill to the House.
      10.31 pm
      Mr. Dobson: I, too, will be brief. On publication of the Bill, and again on Second Reading, we welcomed the Government's proposal in effect to write off the debts of British Coal so that the industry could compete and run its business properly. However, we are suspicious that this write-off is the precursor to the ultimate sell-off of British Coal, which would harm those who work in the British coal industry and the people of Britain in general.
      We also welcome the increased provision for redundancy payments, but we regret that the contract that has recently been negotiated—if that is the right word—between British Coal and the electricity generating companies will involve further losses in coal burn, which will inevitably lead to redundancies for which these payments will be necessary.
      We remain fundamentally opposed to the proposal for a fivefold increase in the number of people allowed to work below ground in private pits. In terms of safety, private pits are a disgrace. They are four to five times more dangerous than the British Coal collieries. It is preposterous for the Government to launch into that fivefold increase without any serious consultation with any of the people or bodies concerned with the safety of mines.
      The National Association of Colliery Managers and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers are utterly opposed to the proposal, as is the
      256
      National Union of Mineworkers. Even if the Government insist on the increase, because of the known poor safety record of private mines there should be a parallel development and stiffening of the safety provisions covering private mines. If they do not work for 30 people, they certainly will not work for 150.
      We have presented proposals to improve safety provision, and the Government have rejected them. I should have thought that a Government who presided at the time of the King's Cross, Piper Alpha and Herald of Free Enterprise disasters, as well as innumerable others, would at least put safety first in the mining industry, but it appears that safety is not one of their priorities. I sincerely hope that Ministers will not be coming to the House within a few months to say, "We got it wrong: if we had taken a bit of notice of people who knew what they were talking about, this disaster would not have come about." Opposition Members do not look for such disasters, but we do fear them.
      The Government also propose a tenfold increase in the size of private opencast workings. The new Minister's preposterous justification for that proposal was uncertainty about whether it was lawful for British Coal—blatantly,deliberately and with the agreement of the Department of Energy—to exceed the present limit of 25,000 tonnes and increase production to as much as 35,000 or 40,000 tonnes. To avoid the problem of a marginal increase over what was set down in the statute, he proposed an increase to 250,000 tonnes.
      Although, for the sake of argument, we accepted that barmy proposition, we demanded parallel protection for the communities and the environment in areas where opencasting was already in progress and was likely to continue. We have not been assured of such protection; consequently, operators of ragshop, ruinous, rotten, awful opencast workings will be able to do so on 10 times the present scale.
      We remain disappointed—and we are sure that the coalfield communities will be at least as disappointed as we are—that the Government have not taken the opportunity to improve the arrangements for compensation for mining subsidence. I understand that the Press Association has put it out on the tapes that the Secretary of State announced great improvements today, and said that all sorts of wondrous things would be done. No doubt all credit is due to the press officer sitting in the Box, but the PA seems to have omitted the fact that almost all the proposals concerned were put to the Government nearly six years ago, and the Government have done nothing about them. We feel that, if the Government are not prepared to introduce provisions to improve subsidence compensation when the House of Lords debates the Bill, they should find time to introduce such provisions in some other part of the threadbare legislative programme that they intend to push through this year.
      For all those reasons, we are still opposed to the Bill as it stands. However, as it will provide the coal industry with substantial sums that are very necessary, and as we have already registered our opposition to the private mine proposals on Second Reading, we shall not vote against Third Reading.
      10.39 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the Bill provides substantial sums of money for British Coal.
      I wish to highlight a scandalous situation in my constituency, which used to be the heart of the anthracite coalfield. There is one drift mine, Carway Fawr, which, though mothballed, is almost ready to mine. It is being maintained by British Coal and has not been opened. I understand that £330 million has been spent on it.
      I discovered a few days ago that some of the heavy electrical equipment in that mine has been removed to another mine. I appreciate the reasons for that, but there is fear in my constituency lest more heavy equipment is taken out. Once that happens, that mine will never re-open.
      There is a shortage of anthracite in Britain, especially of good quality anthracite. Imports are coming in from China, and last week there were rumours of imports coming here from Vietnam. That imported coal is not cheap and the quality is not very good. Those imports are coming here because of a desperate shortage of anthracite, yet British Coal is sitting on this mine, which could employ 600 people and produce first-class, top quality anthracite for the British market. That is scandalous.
      In his discussions with British Coal about the additional money that it will receive under the Bill—we welcome that—I hope that the Secretary of State will raise the anthracite issue again and ask British Coal to make a decision. Will it, or will it not, open this mine? If it does not, I shall regard it as my duty to have the matter investigated by the Public Accounts Committee or the Audit Commission, to find out why £30 million was spent and wasted. I hope that that will not be necessary. The coal and the jobs are needed. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene.
      10.41 pm
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Government's commitment to writing off the debt of British Coal as firm evidence of the Government's continuing and long-standing support for the coal industry and for putting it on to a firm and viable footing.
      As for the remainder of the Bill—affecting British Coal and the private sector—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware that for the communities affected, environmental issues are of the greatest importance. One of the most important measures that the Government undertook was to take planning issues away from the Department of Energy and to put them into the normal planning procedures under the Department of the Environment.
      I listened with interest to the comments of the Under-Secretary when he said clearly and categorically that nothing in the Bill would derogate from normal planning procedures or would remove existing protections from communities faced with planning applications for opencast, drift or deep mines. On the basis of those clear, categoric and unequivocal assurances, I welcome the Bill.
      10.42 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Bill is necessary—in some cases regrettably necessary—because British Coal needs a major financial injection. That is why my hon. Friends and I voted for the Bill on Second Reading and why we support it tonight. But certain issues which arose during the passage of the measure remain unresolved, and I fear that we shall have to return to some of those, probably in further legislation.
      The two main points that have been debated are the increase in the numbers employed in private mines and the substantial increase in opencast mining. I remain convinced that we need firmer guidelines and a much clearer policy on the issue of opencast if we are to reassure communities affected by it not only that they will get the restoration that they need but that they will receive the sort of compensation that is justified for the devastating effect of a much bigger expansion of opencast mining, and we shall need new environmental practices to minimise that impact.
      I hear the Labour party's clear opposition to the increase in the licensing of private pits from 30 miners to 150, but given that it will happen, there are causes for concern, in that who will be licensed will continue to be entirely a matter for British Coal and the criteria for licensing them will also remain a matter for British Coal.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a plea on behalf of his constituency for a working that has been mothballed, which British Coal can choose to leave mothballed and about which nobody else can do anything. In Committee I raised the case of Betteshanger, which has been closed, and Monktonhall, which has been mothballed, and there may be other examples.
      When resisting my amendments suggesting that the transfer of licensing from British Coal to the Department of Energy was the way forward, the Minister hinted—in Committee and to some extent informally—that such a step might be taken at a later date. For many of those enterprises, that later date may come too late and the opportunities, reserves, pits and jobs will be lost for ever.
      I remain dissatisfied that a genuine attempt to ensure that the issue was addressed was not just defeated in Committee—as was perhaps predictable—by 21 votes to one, but did not secure a recognition from the Government that, in the changing climate that they are creating, British Coal cannot be trusted to be the sole custodian of the nation's coal assets and the sole determiner of licensing conditions and applications and which pits should be closed, which pits should be mothballed and which pits should be operated.
      I predict that, in future, communities will tell hon. Members that they are dissatisfied with the fact that their potential is being obstructed by British Coal and that the law does not allow any way around that, and not even a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will take those points seriously, because I am sure that they will reappear again and again.
      10.45 pm
      Dr. Woodcock: In general, the Bill is to be welcomed, but with reservations. Many hon. Members have expressed their concerns about subsidence, and we welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that as a significant move forward.

      259
      Some of us also have reservations about private mining operations, licensing and royalties. I recently asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a written question whether he would review the royalty paid by the private mine operators. My right hon. Friend replied:
      "Royalties are a matter for the British Coal Corporation, as owner and licensee of coal reserves."—[Official Report, 20 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 307.]:
      Royalties should not be a matter for British Coal, and it should no longer own the coal reserves. We hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do something about that in the not-too-distant future.
      I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the coal industry does not simply concern British Coal employees and private mining operators. Many other people are involved in the industry, including wholesalers, importers, exporters, producers of smokeless fuel, coal merchants and many others. Many of those people are concerned about some of the practices of British Coal that are allowed under the present law. They are particularly concerned about back-door nationalisation and anticompetitive practices.
      I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear those points in mind. Ultimately, I want to see the privatisation of the state sector of British Coal and not the nationalisation of what remains of its private sector. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he considers other legislation.
      10.47 pm
      Mr. Michael Welsh: I will be brief and refer to two important issues in clause 4. Under that clause, the manpower in a private mine can be increased from 30 to 150. Clause 4 states:
      "to work below ground there is at no time likely to exceed, or greatly to exceed, 150".
      An increase of 200 may be covered by the term "or greatly". The Bill would provide for such an increase unless the Secretary of State gives a different undertaking. The increase will be 150 only if the Secretary of State gives that undertaking. At the moment, that is not clear from the Bill.
      I do not believe that the private mine operators will be able to use deep mines with 150 people below ground. However, is the Secretary of State aware that the miners' rescue team is run by the Coal Board? We can all hope that we never see another explosion in a mine, but they can occur. The Coal Board rescue teams will have to go underground if such an explosion occurs, because that is their job and they are a brave set of individuals. However, I cannot see why they should have to do that. The private mines are there to make a profit and the nationalised industry should not pay for the rescue teams. At the moment, equity does not prevail in that situation.
      On deep mining, especially in seams like the Barnsley seams, the only reason we have had no explosions is because we have been able to seal them solidly by stowing. It costs a lot of money and manpower. If people risk deep mining without stowing, as sure as God made little apples, a mine will go up, and our lads will have to go in and rescue the poor individuals who are underground.
      Once, there was no stowing. I remind the Minister that there are still four men sealed in the pit that I worked. In 1940, when I had just started, I was pony driving, taking
      260
      sand down to seal it off, when it went up a second time. There are four still in there because it was too dangerous to go in for them. The consensus was that they were dead. Since stowing started, we have never had an explosion. At Bentley in the 1930s, I think that over 30 men were left in because stowing was not done then.
      I am frightened that, if there is not investment in stowing in deep mines, our lads from the miners' rescue squads will have to rescue the poor sods who are down there. I hope that it never happens. I hope that the Minister will pass on to the chairman of British Coal, whom we saw this afternoon, that conditions should be laid down before licences are granted.
      There is to be an increase in opencast operations. We all know what has been happening. Where there has been permission to take 50,000 tonnes, when that has been extracted, British Coal has agreed to the extraction of a few more tonnes just because the machinery was there. What will happen if the operators want a bit more when they are taking 250,000 tonnes? I remind the Minister that this is not America or Canada. It is a small island. The Government are raping it by allowing this to go ahead.
      If it takes two years to get 25,000 tonnes, with lorries going through beautiful little villages, will it take 20 years to get 250,000 tonnes? If Conservative Members vote for this, I remind them that permission will be granted about the time of the next election, and their electors will not like it. I would not like it if lorries were passing my house for 10 to 20 years. They could do it in five or six years by increasing the capacity of the lorries and having them going past people's front doors 24 hours a day. If that is the outlook of a Government who say that they have green policies, thank goodness they do not have the opposite to green policies, or they would double the amount again.
      I ask the Minister to consider even at the eleventh hour keeping the quantity to 50,000 tonnes. He should give the kiddies and mothers who live round these developments a break. That is not asking a lot. Unless pressure has been put on the Minister—I do not know people who do such a thing—he should limit the amount to 50,000 tonnes. That should be enough in any area. I ask the Minister to consider that again when the Bill goes to another place.
      10.53 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: For the past two and a half years, as parliamentary private secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), I have by convention been unable to participate in coal debates. Therefore, I seek the opportunity of a newly won liberation to support the Bill which has been brought to the House by my right hon. Friend. As he knows, I represent a number of miners in the Cannock Chase coalfield.
      I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) said about the Bill showing the Government's commitment to the coal industry. To write off £5,000 million of accumulated debt represents a substantial commitment, and I challenge any hon. Member to suggest that the Government do not care about it. Those who work in it should understand that, as a result of the munificence of the taxpayer, the industry is being restructured. It will be put on a proper financial footing, which is only fair and proper after it has dramatically improved its productivity.

      261
      It must be recognised that the redundancy payments are more generous than those that have been offered by other industries. Those payments are the latest in a long line of investments that the Government have made in the industry. Hon. Members mentioned investment in private mines. There is no doubt that my constituents have benefited from the Government's investment in the coal industry.
      I welcome the liberalisation measures in the Bill. It gives Conservative Members much pleasure to see the Labour party so vociferously opposing clause 4. Whether it will extend its opposition to other clauses is another matter, but I believe that the liberalisation measures are modest.
      Conservative Members understand the sincerity of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and other Labour Members. We recognise that they hold heartfelt opinions about the industry in which they worked and in which they saw their friends killed. I hope that they do not believe that Conservative Members give safety a lower priority than they do, because we believe passionately in it. I honestly believe that the Labour party cannot argue that it is in favour of giving safety the high priority that it alleges it does when it is prepared to countenance the continuation of private pits that employ only 30 men, which cannot be economically viable unless they operate old-fashioned and dangerous techniques.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done well in bringing the Bill before the House. It will greatly benefit the coal industry in the private and public sectors.
      10.57 pm
      Mr. Allen McKay: I shall begin where the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) left off—with the writing off of the coal industry's debts.
      Labour Members welcome anything that will improve the industry's debts, but the Bill should be put in perspective. The industry has incurred most of its debts on redundancy payments and pension provision. When the Government talk about writing off its debts, they are talking about writing off its social costs.
      No figure has been given for the amount of debt that will be written off. Some of the money that has been allocated will be spent on continuing to pay for the debt. It has not been said when and how the debt will be written off. That point must be answered.
      We have been asking for help for the nationalised coal industry for the past two or three years. It does not require much thought to realise that this is an enabling Bill for the privatisation of the coal industry in the next Parliament, should the Government be re-elected.
      The Secretary of State did not fully answer the question about the managers of private mines. A manager does not merely to to university, gain a degree and have a class 1 mining certificate. He also has to go through a period of apprenticeship, and he must work in every facet of the colliery, before he can obtain the practical experience to go with his academic experience and his degree. Where will the managers come from for the expansion in private mining? They will not be plucked out of thin air. The managers who have been made redundant from British Coal and to whom I have spoken are adamant that they will not go into the privatised mines. Where will they come from, and how?
      The Secretary of State also did not answer the question about electrical and mechanical engineers. He did not say
      262
      whether an electrical engineer or a mechanical engineer would be in charge, and whether one would be in charge for the whole 24 hours or whether one would be in charge for each shift.
      I want to return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said about the viability of the mechanisation of private mines. Who will pay the capital costs? The only reason why the industry was capitalised and mechanised was that it became a nationalised industry. In the old days, the private owners could not afford that mechanisation. What makes the Secretary of State think that the owners will be able to afford mechanisation? How will they obtain a return on the tremendous capital costs of mechanising even one coal face?
      I want to see the legislation on opencasting tightened up now that the Government have increased the amount of coal that can be taken in that way. A mine in my area has gone through the usual stages and will hold up the industrial development of the area for the next eight to 10 years. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) believe that it will cause huge devastation to the locality. There is the prospect of opencasting in the valley, and the people on the periphery of the valley will not be able to ignore the noise and the dust, because there will be no baffles.
      In addition, the River Dearne will have to be redirected, which we certainly do not want. Following the huge opencast executive applications are a number of small private applications which will devastate the whole area. Some of the areas were opencast areas in the 1950s. As a result of new technology, opencasting can go deeper, so we shall have opencast applications time and time again, if we are not careful.
      As for subsidence, we must debate the Waddilove report on the Floor of the House. That would be only justice. We should debate the recommendations, the form of compensation and the need for compensation. All my constituency is devastated because of mining subsidence, although the collieries that caused that subsidence are closed. Who is picking up the cheque for the repairs that need to be carried out?
      Should this Government return to power and privatise the mines before the Waddilove report is debated, and before compensation arrangements are effectively tidied up, who will pay the costs of mining subsidence? The people in those areas want an answer to those questions. We have asked them time and time again, but we have never had an answer. It is time that all the cards were put on the table so that we can see what will happen to the mining districts, and especially to the mining communities.
      11.3 pm
      Mr. Lofthouse: I want to point out to the Secretary of State that, although I welcome any financial assistance for the British coal industry, I regret the amount of finance that has been made available for redundancies, because I wish that it had not been necessary. Whatever the argument over the total numbers, it is a fact that thousands of men will lose their jobs. We should hear in mind that fact, and the fact that, as I have often said in the House, the average age of these young miners is 34. There is no cushion of weekly payments, as the redundancy

      263
      payments will be based on a lump sum. Many of those young men are burdened by large mortgages, and the present interest rates do not help.
      In January 1987, the Select Committee on Energy said clearly that the industry should never again be run down so rapidly without a policy co-ordinated by the Departments of Energy, of Trade and Industry and of Employment to cushion the blow and limit the social consequences.
      Since 1985, when the rundown began, some mining communities, including my own, have had not one farthing of Government assistance in attracting alternative employment. Only about three weeks ago, I accompanied a deputation to the Department of Trade and Industry and met the Minister for Industry, who was very sympathetic to our problems in the mining communities—certainly to those of my own constituency—but told us clearly that he could offer us no assistance whatever because our areas had not been zoned as having intermediate area status.
      Thousands and thousands of jobs have gone, and we had no assistance at all. That cannot continue. One is forced to think—it is certainly what my constituents think—that the reason why the Government are not interested in helping our areas is purely political. The Government know full well that, even if they help us to attract industry, it will not win them any votes. It will certainly not win them Pontefract and Castleford. Nevertheless, the Government have a moral obligation to give some assistance to the communities that their policies have wiped out.
      Has the Secretary of State any plans to help the thousands of young miners who will lost their jobs? Does he plan to have discussions with his colleagues to try to decide whether the areas can be helped to find jobs for these young men? If he has no such plans, the Government's policy is immoral and they have kicked the miners in the teeth. If there are no signs of help, my constituents' suspicions will be confirmed. I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Minister should give a lead—unlike their predecessors—and show that they have some feeling for the mining communities.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

  NHS Reform
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish to present a petition from Cornish residents, to bring to the attention of the House our concerns about the National Health Service and the Government's proposed reforms. The Cornish people are overwhelmingly opposed to the Conservatives' plans.
  This week, a Liberal Democrat survey of local doctors showed that 90 per cent. believe that the reforms will be detrimental to patients. My petition carries 82 signatures, each of which represents 100 signatures on the health petition organised by local Liberal Democrats that I have already presented to the Department of Health. That means that 8,200 of my constituents in all call on the Government to abandon their proposals, and a further 100,000 people have signed the Liberal Democrat petition nationwide.
  I welcome this opportunity to bring our opposition to the attention of the House, and I hope that Ministers will begin to respond to the overwhelming concern felt by the people of Britain.
  To lie upon the Table.

Radiation Overdoses (Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
11.8 pm
Mr. Tony Speller: I have sought this opportunity to raise the matter of compensation arrangements for patients damaged by radiation overdoses at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital in Exeter. That hospital looks after the radiation side of treatment for people in my constituency of Devon, North and a further five constituencies in the south-west of England.
Since the problem arose, several questions have been asked in the House and several comments and statements made, of which the most apposite was that made by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), two years ago. She said that Exeter health authority
"intends to deal with claims as expeditiously as possible in a way which will cause as little distress to patients and their families as the circumstances will allow. The Authority has instructed its solicitors to reflect this desire."—[Official Report, 13 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 753.]
That was two years ago, and time passes. It passes quickly in this place, but it passes slowly on a sick-bed. Recently, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State what had happened about claims for excessive dosages of radiation. I wanted to know how many had been settled, what ranges of payments had been made, and how many cases remained to be settled. I also asked whether the Minister would list how many settlements had been made. What was the highest? What was the lowest? Finally, I asked the Minister to list the number of payments that were made to staff who were sacked. Of course, two of the staff were actually sacked for negligence or professional misconduct.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, answering all those questions, which were of great importance to my constituents and to my colleagues in the area, said that all those matters were for Exeter health authority as far as they affected patients or their representatives. The two physicists who were dismissed received severance payments. Those details are confidential to the parties concerned.
The Minister of State told me, "Don't ask the Minister, ask the health authority." The health authority, which has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), keeps saying, "Everything is confidential." There comes a time when we must take confidentiality by the scruff of the neck and ask, "Is this merely a smokescreen? Is confidentiality merely the excuse for obscurity—the excuse for no action?"
The history of this sad case in Exeter is straightforward. In February two years ago—23 months ago from now, to be exact—a new radioactive cobalt source was fitted and calibrated to one of the machines used to treat patients who have problems or expected problems with cancer. The machine was calibrated with a 25 per cent. excess in the dosage. Every person who received treatment received 25 per cent. radioactivity over and above the basic dose.
There is no secret about that, except that it happened in February. Nobody checked that the equipment had been properly calibrated. It does not say very much for the physicists—they have gone with severance payments. It says very little, for the administration—quite a few of them have gone elsewhere without penalty. It says very little
266
frankly, for the consultants or the doctors who treated patients who had been damaged, and damaged over a period of five months.
It came to pass that, in July 1988, after five months, he machine was rechecked. It should have been checked months before, but it was not. No one was penalised, except the poor patients. But then, of course, they trusted our Health Service, the consultant, the person who administered the treatment, and the nurses. Several of them spoke to the nurses and said, "I was told that it would not hurt, but it hurts. I was told that it would not burn, but it burns." One of my constituents was burnt through the breast into the back and was given, gratis, a bottle of calamine lotion and told to apply that. That does not reflect tremendously well on the quality of the care administered in that place.
Patients complained to the nurses, and some of the nurses mentioned it to the doctors, but their complaints never reached a consultant. According to the Thwaites report, not one consultant was aware of the damage done and not one consultant was aware of the complaints. I do not know why the medical hierarchy is so scared of consultants—one never speaks to them. My constituents and others were damaged for life, their life expectancy was shortened, and no one paid any attention to their complaints or queries. It is the old business—the expert knows best.
In July when the calibration was rechecked, the 25 per cent. mistake was not found, but thank God—I say that sincerely—on 12 July 1988, Exeter health authority agreed
to enter into some form of national check on the equipment in use. That special check—not the routine checks, because there was none, and not a random check after five months—found the fault.
What happened then? The brief answer is, nothing. There was clearly a "fox in the henhouse" in that organisation, but the patients and the Members of Parliament knew nothing. No one was told anything for some time. Then a nurse—I do not know her name—got in touch with a national newspaper, asking whether it knew about what had happened. The paper did not know, but checked with a local reporter on the Exeter Express and Echo, who checked with me. I had not heard about it. The long and the short of it was that when the paper telephoned the hospital and said, "We're going to break this story," all of a sudden a press report was issued and a meeting held—all with such speed that all my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, also learned from local radio and television that they might have been terminally damaged.
But even then the matter was not taken as seriously as it should have been. It was a case of, "Oh well, it is an overdose, but don't worry. It'll be all right." One of my constituents was told, "Don't worry, my dear, your name isn't on the list," but she recognised on television the piece of apparatus on which she had been checked. She said, "That is the piece," and was told, "Oh yes, you are on the list." Just imagine—a young woman who is in the depths of despair is told, "You aren't on the list of those damaged,"—thank heavens, happiness—but she sees the very machine on television. What sheer inefficiency.
The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was very straight and said, "Yes, there has been a mistake. Yes, the Health Service—us—is at

267
fault. Yes, we accept our responsibility and yes, restitution will be made." At that stage, all of us thought that something would happen swiftly.
In fact, two men were sacked. They were sacked because their machine had overdosed and because it had not been checked, but was found wanting after someone else had checked it. They were sacked, but they were paid in compensation sums that I cannot discover. The Minister says, "Ask the health authority," but the health authority says, "It's confidential." Although it is public money, the amounts are confidential. Rumour has it—I say no more than that—that one of the men received about £50,000 and the other about £40,000. They will not tell us, so I cannot prove it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us, because those figures put into pretty shabby perspective some of the offers made to my constituents.
The employees were not prosecuted and as far as I know, they were not disciplined. They work elsewhere, but no restitution has been made to those affected, except good money to those two men as restitution for being sacked. In the businesses in which I have been involved, if one is sacked, one leaves, but not with a lot of money.
Although I speak basically of my constituents, the picture is larger. The health authority identified 217 people who were treated during the period of overdosing, of whom, as at the end of last week, 121 are dead; and 96 remain. I do not deny for a second that many of those people were terminally ill, and no one is suggesting for a moment that there has been some vast killing. That is not the case, but none the less, folk were damaged. Professor Joslin, the specialist brought in by the health authority, says that about 33 people are at no risk at all, so we are down to about 60 people.
The problem is always that there is confusion. We cannot find the details. All that we can tell is that the health authority hopes to pay out what it calls PSA claims—which stands for pain and suffering allowances. It is now two years since that pain and suffering was inflicted, but the health authority only hopes to have the claims finalised by April. The pain and suffering is not finalised, but I repeat that the health authority hopes that the claims may be. The health authority admits liability. Indeed, in answer to a question in the House, I was told that insurance was not needed because the funds had been found from the authority's own resources.
Perhaps therein lies the core of the problem, because a pattern is apparent to me. There is a great dragging of feet in paying these poor people, although there is no doubt about liability. It is not like settling a claim for a car crash when, if one side has not filled in the form, its company will not pay out the loss. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested way back in December last year that we should talk about some form of independent panel or assessor to put zip into the process. There is no zip whatever in the health authority.
It is not difficult to argue about why a claim cannot be paid. It is the old Catch 22. The health authority says, "Until you make a claim, we cannot pay you." The people who have been damaged and their lawyers say, "We cannot make a claim until we obtain the medical details that you hold. You who injured us hold the records that prove how much you injured us." The position changes as the weeks and months progress. The effects of radiation on
268
a body that is perhaps already damaged inevitably change. We cannot expect the position to be static. That is why I appeal to the Minister to provide for an instant payment. I do not care how it is worked out. Perhaps there should be three bands of payment, which will not be a final payment.
Today I was talking to lawyers from the United States of America. I described the case of my constituent who was burnt through the breast to the back. I asked what damages they would seek. They said that they would not seek tens of millions, but certainly they would seek millions. I understand that the tacit verbal offers going around are about £5,000 for the blighting of a human life and for the people who can no longer work. If that is true and if no one has been punished, it is a disgrace to us all.
There were 217 injuries. Fewer than 100 of those people survive. How many settlements have been made in the 18 months that have passed since the problem first became known? Fewer than 10 settlements have been made. Some people have died. Of my eight constituents who were involved, five are dead. Perhaps their widows or families will be compensated, but that is no consolation to the person who has gone or to the family. The money is needed now. That is why I appeal to the Minister to think of some form of payment that can be made now. He might create three bands of payment. I am not an accountant, but perhaps they can be payments of £5,000, £10,000 and £20,000. The final payment will be much higher, but for goodness' sake, let us, as a nation and as a Health Service, pay something to those people now.
A claimant taking us through the courts would probably finish up with a six-figure payment. If, as I suspect, the men sacked for inefficiency were given £50,000, it will be hard to deny the person damaged twice that sum.
I conclude by saying that the compensation paid instantly was to those who moved from their jobs. It is strange and unreasonable that those who were sacked took the money with them but those who were injured are still waiting. Some payment must be made to those who were injured. We are talking about £1,000 here and £5,000 there. I do not say for a second that my hon. Friend the Minister and the health authority do not accept the problem. The problem is that they will not expedite it. The wheels of the law grind almost as slowly as the wheels of medicine.
I have spoken to the lawyers who represent my constituents. They say that they are doing what they can, but that they are waiting for papers from the health authority. The health authority says that it would like to pay, but that it is waiting for the claims. No paper, no claim. No claim, no paper. That is the top and the bottom of the argument.
Somewhere along the line, we the Government, not the health authority, must take the bull by the horns and do something to help the people injured who still live—we hope, healthily. Some are women who are young by my standards, healthy, strong, able and determined. They are not likely to die, praise God, but they are likely to be damaged. They are not likely to have to leave work but they may never work as they did. Their career and family opportunities have been damaged by us and by our Health Service. It is not fair that we the Government, who care for our people and our constituents, should allow the health authority to get away, almost literally, with murder.
11.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has once again done a great service to his constituents by securing this Adjournment debate supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who also has a great constituency interest in the matter. The matter has been of continuing concern to him and to other hon. Members in neighbouring constituencies.
I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern that everything possible should be done to speed up the negotiations between Exeter health authority and the patients or their representatives in securing agreed compensation payments. However, as the House will appreciate, it is a matter of great sensitivity and confidentiality, and not one in which I or my Department are directly involved, although we are indirectly involved.
Negotiations are taking place on the wake of this most regrettable incident in the radiotherapy department of the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital early in 1988, on which my predecessor answered questions in the House in July of that year. The incident led to the accidental overdosing of 207 patients undergoing radiation treatment. The circumstances surrounding the incident were investigated by an independent panel of inquiry led by Professor Sir Bryan Thwaites, who subsequently reported to the health authority in December 1988 with 21 recommendations, all of which are being implemented by the health authority.
I hope that my hon. Friends have seen that report. The preface to that report is signed by the chairman of the Exeter health authority. It is dated 6 December 1988 and in it he says:
"1 wish to express my deepest sympathy to everyone affected and to record here my lasting regret that an incident such as this ever occurred. Unfortunately, what these reports"—
he is referring to the reports of a committee of inquiry—
"or indeed, any inquiry into such a regrettable incident, cannot do is to lessen the anguish which has been experienced by the patients and families who discovered that they were involved."
I am sure that my hon. Friends would associate themselves with those remarks.
Following the incident, the health authority acknowledged that the overdosing had been caused by negligence on the part of its employees failing to calibrate the equipment properly, and invited every patient affected, or their executors, to make a claim against the authority.
My hon. Friend touched upon the severance payments of the two physicists involved. They were payments consequent upon their dismissal for negligence over the affair. There are no legal suits against the health authority and no legal prosecution was considered possible against the two individuals involved.
As I have explained previously, the severance payments involved are confidential to the parties involved, but I am advised that it is speculation that the sums involved were of the order of £40,000. I can tell my hon. Friend that the figure that he mentioned is greatly over-estimated. I understand how my hon. Friend feels about those payments but they were to avoid any prolonged appeal process which would have prevented the posts being refilled as soon as possible. It was a simple matter of priorities, and the continuing care and safety of the patients came first.
270
At national level, the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's sub-committee on cancer subsequently set up a sub-committee on quality assurance in radiotherapy which is hoping to report by the end of the year. My predecessor also wrote to regional chairmen on the sensitive handling of untoward incidents in the best interests of patients, following the lessons learned at Exeter.
In addition to the Thwaites report, from which I have quoted, a confidential medical risk assessment for the health authority was carried out by Professor Charles Joslin of Leeds university on each of the patients affected, initially through the medical records of the patients concerned. That assessment has formed the basis of the health authority's early work on the claims.
Of the 207 patients originally affected, I am sorry to say that 121 have since died, but not, I hasten to add, necessarily earlier than they would have done had they not received the overdose. The House will realise that they were all suffering from cancer. Of the 86 survivors, 35 are thought to be at insignificant risk from the overdose, in the main because only a small part of their treatment was given on the miscalibrated machine.
I understand that the position at the beginning of this year was that there had been claims from a total of 103 patients to date, of which 95 were still to reach final settlement. However, a variety of payments to 65 claimants have so far been made. The number of claimants who have had their claim finalised and to whom a full agreed payment has been made is eight. A further seven claims have been met in settlement of
"pain, suffering and loss of amenity".
Interim payments have been made to 50 other eligible claimants, and the total so far paid out is more than £400,000 in varying amounts according to the degree of physical harm judged to have been done by the radiation overdose.
Thirty-three of the remaining 38 claims where no payment has yet been made—including one claim which was subsequently withdrawn—were on behalf of patients assessed to be at insignificant risk. A further five claims are in respect of deceased patients assessed to have been in a low risk category, which are still under consideration and in respect of which no payments have yet been made.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that settlements are bound to take a little time even though the claims are not being pursued in the courts. Legal representatives of the patients have to decide whether to advise pressing for early settlement or to delay pursuing a claim until the client's medical condition is clearer. This has to be entirely a matter between the patients and their legal advisers. Some effects may be long term, while others may be short-lived. Meanwhile, the health authority stands ready to register any further claims and pursue them with all diligence.
While the health authority is willing to do all that it can to expedite matters, it nevertheless has a duty to be fair and scrupulous in weighing claims, since it has a duty to the taxpayer as well as to the claimants. The nub of the issue is to determine the amount of damage caused by the excess radiation, since radiation treatment itself is intended to be damaging to cancerous cells, but inevitably there is peripheral damage to health tissue, and a great deal of painstaking work has gone into that.
In claims of this kind, there are two kinds of damages. The first is for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; and the

271
second is for special damages to cover such things as the need for domestic help, taxis, dressings and so on. It is the former that will usually be the larger amount and the subject of considerable debate. Those special damages—the second class to which I referred—can be derived from medical evidence, actual costs incurred and life expectancy tables. It is clear that some legal advisers are, perfectly legitimately, holding back on the second issue until they are fully clear about the implications for their clients.
The health authority has therefore, with the full agreement of the solicitor who is co-ordinating the claims, separated the two sets of damages in order to speed things up. Meetings are being held with legal representatives of both sides to settle at least the pain, suffering and loss of amenity claims as quickly as possible, and the health authority is anxious that all those claims can be settled by the end of April.
Mr. Speller: Will all claims be settled or just those for pain, suffering and loss of amenity?
Mr. Freeman: If I may finish the paragraph, I shall be happy to answer that point.
If the claims are not settled, it will not be from want of will on the part of the health authority.
My hon. Friend asked whether all the claims would be settled or just those in the pain, suffering and loss of amenity category. I cannot give him an assurance that all claims in the second, so-called special damages, category will be settled within that timetable. That is partly because, as I have said, I understand that for perfectly legitimate and reasonable grounds the advisors acting for the patients involved wish to assess various other factors. Therefore, I am advised that the authority is not in a position to estimate whether that second category of claims can be settled by the end of April. As to the second category of damages, on which I am not in possession of comprehensive advice tonight, I shall write to my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, North and for Honiton, with an estimate of the timetable for settlement of the claims.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for allowing me to intervene. Everyone is concerned about the excessive length of time involved. I made the suggestion to a previous Health Minister and to the health authority's chairman that there should have been established immediately a panel comprising a leading
272
Queen's counsel or judge concerned specifically with compensation, a specialist—someone of the calibre of Mr. Joslin—in cancer, and an insurance specialist concerned specifically with the aspect of compensation for medical accidents.
My proposal was that such a tribunal should quickly review every case and make a recommendation for compensation. No legal rights would be taken away from the individual, and if he or she then wanted to continue with the legal process that had already been under way for some considerable time, they would be at liberty to do so.
Had that been done, many of the claimants would have received money before they died and have enjoyed the mental benefit of being free from anxiety. The health authority's chairman is concerned because many of those involved are worried about the publicity that their own cases have attracted.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider using a mechanism such as I have described to achieve a settlement on any appropriate occasion in future? I feel sure that my hon. Friends the Minister and the Member for Devon, North, and Mr. Murray French, Exeter health authority's chairman, want to do whatever they can to help the patients concerned.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to reveal that he has said privately to me, and to publicise from the Floor of the House tonight the fact that any person in the queue who is concerned at the delay, and believes it to be the fault of the health authority, should contact him personally.
Both he and I believe that much of the delay has been woven by the lawyers. I am sorry to have to say that, but while certain of the lawyers have stated that they have been working for nothing, I hope that their fees will amount to no more than 10 per cent. of the value of the settlements—so that they are seen to live up to their word. Leaving that to one side, can my hon. Friend the Minister see his way to finding a solution more quickly?
Mr. Freeman: In the one minute remaining to me, I give my hon. Friends two assurances. I am advised that there is no dilatoriness on the part of the health authority and that the matter is one for resolution between it, its patients, and their legal representatives. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I take a close interest in the matter, and I will make further inquiries and write to both my hon. Friends if I can add anything further to tonight's brief debate.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department intends to make a decision on the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 21 December 1989, at column 383.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Royal Air Force squadrons which are to be equipped with the European fighter aircraft will consist of the same numbers of aircraft as current fighter squadrons.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The precise number of EFA to be allocated to each squadron is still under consideration.

  Misfires
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been an increase in the incidence of misfires with ammunition purchased from Greek suppliers.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No reports of misfires with ammunition purchased from Greek suppliers have been received.

  Brokerage Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Al-Hamanah Saudi arms deal provides for brokerage fees to his Department or the Defence Sales Organisation for sales placed in the United Kingdom; and in which years any such fees have been paid.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Cash Limit
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce any changes to the defence cash limit for 1989–90.

  Mr. Tom King
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 29 July 1989 an entitlement of £435,690,000 to increase the cash limit for 1989–90, resulting from carry forward of capital expenditure under the end-year flexibility scheme. I can now announce that we shall receive a further entitlement of £248,770,000. Of this new increase, £239,588,000 comes under the terms of the additional flexibility arrangements announced to the House on 19 December 1986,Official Report column 778. These arrangements provide for carry
  134
  forward of underspend resulting from procurement decisions taken to improve contractors' performance and the value for money obtained from our defence procurement contracts during the 1988–89 financial year, including the Department's tauter approach to interim payments. The remaining £9,182,000 is to compensate the defence budget for the costs arising from the change in status of the Property Services Agency.

  Procurement
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's major procurement purchases which have followed competitive tendering in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The following contracts valued –25 million or more were placed following competitive tendering during the period 1984 to 1989:

  1984

  Type 996 Radar

  Forward Repair Ship

  Mine Counter Measures Vessels

  Aviation Training Ship

  Missile Tubes for SSBNs

  A90 Process Equipment

  Sir Galahad Replacement

  Tristar Aircraft

  Academic Instruction and Support at RMCS Shrivenham Nine Contracts for Oil

  1985

  Type 22 Frigates

  Submarine ESM

  Tucano Aircraft

  Phoenix RPV

  MCT 80 (Warrior) Vehicles

  Seven Contracts for Oil

  1986

  Upholder Class Submarines

  Close In Weapon Systems

  Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Vessel

  Type 23 Frigates

  Type 23 Frigate

  Challenger MBTs

  HVM Weapon System

  Four Contracts for Oil

  1987

  Submarine ESM Systems

  Single Role Minehunters

  ALARM Missile

  E3A (AWACS) Aircraft

  SA80 Weapons Systems

  Target Towing Services

  Image Intensifier Tubes

  Development of Bridging Equipment

  Thermal Observation and Gunnery Sighting Systems

  Three Contracts for Aviation Fuel

  1988

  Type 23 Frigates

  Development of Air Defence Command and Information System

  Development and Supply of ACEWS EW System

  Insurance Services

  Three Contracts for Oil, Diesel, Fuel and Aviation Fuel

  1989

  Magnetic Treatment Facility

  Command System for Type 23

  Frigates and AOR

  Type 23 Frigates

  Skynet Ground Equipment

  4 x 4 4 Tonne Vehicles

  Ammunition
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of competitions held since 1984 to supply small calibre ammunition of 30 mm and

  Calibre

  Date

  Type

  Quantity

  Tenderers

  Winner

  7·62mm

  September 1985

  Ball

  10M

  Norma (FFV), Sweden

  Indep

  SFM, France

  Hirtenberger, Austria

  MEN, West Germany

  Dynamit Nobel, West Germany

  FN, Belgium

  Indep, Portugal

  GPC, Greece

  Raufoss, Norway

  Royal Ordnance, United Kingdom

  September 1985

  4 Ball/1 Tracer

  15M

  FN, Belgium

  Indep

  Indep, Portugal

  Raufoss, Norway

  FFV, Sweden

  MEN, West Germany

  Dynamit Nobel, West Germany

  September 1985

  Blank belted

  2·2M

  FN, Belgium

  FN

  Indep, Portugal

  Raufoss, Norway

  FFV, Sweden

  MEN, West Germany

  GPC, Greece

  Hirtenberger, Austria

  9mm

  September 1985

  Ball

  14M

  FFV, Sweden

  FFV

  SFM, France

  Hirtenberger, Austria

  MEN, West Germany

  Dynamit Nobel, West Germany

  FN, Sweden

  Indep, Portugal

  Royal Ordnance, United Kingdom

  January 1986

  Ball

  15M

  FFV, Sweden

  FFV

  SFM, France

  Hirtenberger, Austria

  MEN, West Germany

  Dynamit Nobel, West Germany

  FN, Belgium

  Indep, Portugal

  Royal Ordnance, United Kingdom

  0·5 inch

  September 1985

  4 Ball/1 Tracer

  440K

  Eley, United Kingdom

  GPC

  FN, Belgium,

  Eurometaal, Holland

  1 Ba11/1 Tracer

  250K

  GPC, Greece

  Accles & Shelvoke, Canada

  August 1986

  1 Ball/1 Tracer

  1.15M

  Eley, United Kingdom

  Eley

  Accles & Shelvoke, Canada

  Eurometaal, Holland

  FN, Belgium

  0·5 inch

  March 1988

  1 Ball/1 Tracer

  1·2M

  Eley, United Kingdom

  GPC

  FN, Belgium,

  Eurometaal, Holland

  Accles & Shelvoke, Canada

  GPC, Greece

  20mm

  October 1986

  HE I

  25·5K

  Matra Manurhin, France

  GPC

  HE I Tr

  25·5K

  GPC, Greece,

  Practice

  105K

  BMARC, United Kingdom

  Practice Tr

  19K

  December 1984

  Practice

  250K

  Olin Winchester, United States of America

  Raufoss

  Raufoss, Norway

  Dekruithorn, Holland

  FN, Belgium

  December 1985

  Practice

  304K

  Olin Winchester, United States of America

  Dekruithorn

  Raufoss, Norway

  Dekruithorn, Holland

  FN, Belgium

  136
  below for the United Kingdom armed services, in each case listing (a) the type, calibre and quantity of ammunition involved, (b) the names and nationalities of the competing companies and (c) the winning company.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The data requested are as follows:
  137

  Calibre

  Date

  Type

  Quantity

  Tenderers

  Winner

  December 1986

  Practice

  304K

  Olin Winchester, United States of America

  Olin Winchester

  Raufoss, Norway

  Dekruithorn, Holland

  FN, Belgium

  December 1987

  Practice

  228K

  Olin Winchester, United States of America

  Olin Winchester

  Raufoss, Norway

  Dekruithorn, Holland

  FN, Belgium

  25mm

  July 1988

  Practice

  294K

  Raufoss, Norway

  Raufoss

  BMARC, United Kingdom

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken by his Department to ensure the quality of ammunition purchased from overseas.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The quality requirements called up in MOD tenders and contracts for ammunition are identical for United Kingdom and overseas suppliers. Our quality assurance branches ensure that the requirements are met irrespective of the place of manufacture.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts awarded to overseas suppliers to provide the United Kingdom armed forces with small calibre ammunition, 30 mm and below, for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The data for 1984–85 are not readily available. The approximate values for the subsequent years are:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  31·4

  1986–87

  6·9

  1987–88

  28·5

  1988–89

  14·1

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of contracts awarded to United Kingdom suppliers to provide the United Kingdom armed forces with small calibre ammunition, of 30 mm and below, for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The data for 1984–85 are not readily available. The approximate values for the subsequent years are:

  Year

  £ million

  1985–86

  76·6

  1986–87

  68·6

  1987–88

  52·5

  1988–89

  50·1

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom companies are still able to supply the United Kingdom armed forces with 0·5 in ammunition.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  After the unsuccessful bid by Eley Ltd. for our last tender in 1988, there have been reports that it has closed its facility. There are no other established manufacturers for 0·5 in ammunition in the United Kingdom, but several could adapt their capabilities should our next requirement be attractive to them.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom companies have in the past 20 years supplied his Department with 0·5 in ammunition.
  138
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The only United Kingdom company to have supplied 0·5 in ammunition to MOD in the past 20 years is Eley Ltd.

  Ministry of Defence Houses
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many surplus Ministry of Defence houses have been sold to service men to date.

  Mr. Neubert
  As at 8 December 1989, a total of 2,241 surplus married quarters had been sold to service personnel through the Ministry of Defence's own discounted sales scheme since its inception on 1 December 1983.

  In addition, approximately 224 surplus quarters were sold to service personnel through the Ministry of Defence's non-discounted sales scheme, which operated from 1 April 1981 to 30 November 1983. We do not maintain records of surplus quarters that may have been sold to service personnel outside these two schemes.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions when Royal Navy vessels have made visits to ports in Warsaw pact countries since 1985.

  Mr. Neubert
  Visits made by Royal Navy vessels to ports in Warsaw pact countries since 1985 are as follows:

  Port

  Vessel

  Date

  Constanta, Romania

  HMS Naiad

  July 1985

  Leningrad, USSR

  HMS Bristol

  May 1989

  Gdynia, Poland

  HMS Bristol

  June 1989

  Rostock, GDR

  HMS Achilles

  June 1989

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions when Warsaw pact naval vessels have visited British ports and naval bases since 1985.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Polish destroyer Warszawa, which visited London during May 1989, is the only Warsaw pact warship to have visited a British port or naval base since 1985. A number of Warsaw pact naval sail training ships have also visited the United Kingdom during this period to take part in the annual tall ships race.

  AWACS Aircraft
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the current value of contracts awarded to United Kingdom companies as a result of the offset arrangement agreed for the purchase by his Department of seven AWACS aircraft.
  139
  Mr. Alan Clark
  Boeing has to date submitted five progress reports listing contracts placed with United Kingdom companies to the value of $1,176 million. Our evaluation is not yet complete, but we have so far agreed some $672 million to count for offset credit purposes.

  Bounty Payments
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum training commitment per year of Royal Navy Reserve officers and ratings enabling them to claim bounty payments.

  Mr. Neubert
  The current minimum training commitment of Royal Navy Reserve officers and ratings for bounty purposes is a standard two continuous weeks and 50 drill nights per year, which may be reduced for certain specialist categories.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current minimum training commitment per year of Territorial Army officers and men enabling them to claim bounty payments.

  Mr. Neubert
  In order to earn bounty, assuming other qualifying criteria are met, members of independent and specialist units of the Territorial Army must complete a minimum of 27 days and 19 days respectively in each training year. In both cases the overall requirement would normally include a continuous period of 15 days, either annual camp or a course in lieu. Where personal circumstances preclude an undertaking at the above level, facilities exist for individuals to carry out a lower training liability with a commensurately lower level of bounty being payable.

  Royal Ordnance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government retained any share of the patent rights of Royal Ordnance when Royal Ordnance was sold off; and whether they have to pay for the use of any of the patents transferred to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The transfer of patents to Royal Ordnance was subject to the right of the Secretary of State and any Government Department without payment to use and authorise others to use any of the patents for any Government purpose, except for patents for inventions arising out of work funded out of the ROF Trading Fund. These terms are unaffected by the purchase of Royal Ordnance by British Aerospace.

  Ambulance duties
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the number of Army man hours employed in ambulance duties per police authority to date.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 8 January 1990]: Up to 5 January 1990, estimates of the number of Service man hours deployed are as shown. It is not possible to separate out the Army element without disproportionate cost.

  Police Authority

  Service Man Hours Deployed

  London (Metropolitan & City)

  215,220

  Hertfordshire

  32,028

  Lincolnshire

  6,460

  140

  Police Authority

  Service Man Hours Deployed

  Bedfordshire

  15,640

  Derbyshire

  1,428

  South Yorkshire

  30,464

  West Midlands

  35,292

  Hereford and Worcester (West Mercia)

  14,280

  Dorset

  9,792

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Oil
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans for specific legislation on waste oil discharges from incineration facilities;

  (2) if he has any plans to facilitate the collection of waste oil from small producers;

  (3) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to bring Britain into compliance with EEC directive 75/442 on waste by requiring establishments producing, collecting and disposing of at least 500 litres of waste oil each year to keep records and submit a report to the competent authorities;

  (4) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to bring Britain into compliance with EEC directive 75/442 on waste by requiring that information be provided on the quantity, quality, origin and location of waste oils as well as on their receipt and dispatch;

  (5) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require mineral and synthetic oil retailers to take back waste oils free of charge;

  (6) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require that in-house disposal of waste oils must be authorised or approved;

  (7) if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require the recycling of waste oils;

  (8) if he intends to introduce specific provisions to prohibit the discharge of waste oils into water bodies and drainage systems;

  (9) if he intends to introduce specific provisions to prohibit uncontrolled discharge of waste oils and to require that they be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government are considering what further action to take to ensure compliance with EC directives 75/439, 75/442 and 87/101 regarding the disposal of waste oils. Most large industrial plants burning waste oils are already controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) under the Alkali etc. Works Regulation Act 1906 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. It is intended that waste oil burning will be included in processes listed in regulations made under the Environmental Protection Bill, when enacted, for part I control. The Government will also take steps to make the public aware of the need to dispose of waste oils in an environmentally responsible way.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation specifically concerning disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and poly-chlorinated triphenyls.
  141
  Mr. Trippier
  The disposal of waste PCBs and PCTs is subject to the general legislation on the disposal of toxic waste. The storage and landfilling of waste PCBs/PCTs comes under the licensing system of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and their incineration under the registration system of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Alkali etc. Works Regulations Act 1906. It is intended that storage and landfilling will come under the revised licensing system and chemical incineration under the integrated pollution control system to be established under the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require that the total polychlorinated biphenyl and halogen content of waste oils has to be recorded.

  Mr Trippier
  Under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, the PCB and halogen concentration of waste oils which are special wastes is stated on the consignment note which is raised when the waste is moved from the premises where it is produced. Copies of these consignment notes are kept on registers held by producers, carriers and waste disposal licence holders. The PCB and halogen content of waste oil, which brings it within the definition of special waste, is one of the matters covered in our proposals for revising the Special Waste Regulations which I shall announce shortly.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce legislation whereby a subsidy is paid to operators exchanging or retrofilling equipment containing poly chlorinated biphenyls or polychlorinated triphenyls.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Paying subsidies would be contrary to the polluter pays principle.

  Cleaning Products
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ban the use of(a) nitro-tri-acetic acid, (b) ethylene diamino-tetra-acetic acid, (c) perborate bleach, (d) optical brighteners and (e) enzymes in cleaning products.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no plans to ban the use of these chemicals in cleaning products.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to limit the amount of(a) phosphates, (b) chlorine bleaches and (c) ethlylene diamino-tetra-acetic acid used in cleaning products; if he intends to limit the acidity of toilet cleaners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no plans at present to limit the amounts of these constituents in cleaning products but is planning to place a study contract to review any adverse effects which may occur if polyphosphates used in cleaning agents are replaced by other chemicals.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to require an increase in the biodegradability of anionic and non-ionic surfactants.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no plans to require an increase in the biodegradability of anionic and non-ionic surfactants.

  Richmond Metal Company
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has obtained a report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Health and Safety Executive on how a bar of uranium came to be on the premises of the Richmond Metal Company; what action has been taken; whether any breaches of security were involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Health and Safety Executive have carried out an extensive investigation into how the small bar of uranium came to be on the premises of the Richmond Metal Company. They have concluded that it arrived in a large batch of mixed scrap metal. The origin of the bar has not yet been established and this may prove difficult in view of the nature of scrap metal operations. Investigations are continuing and arrangements have been made to dispose of the uranium bar. There is no evidence of any breach of security.

  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the findings of the European Commission's PAGIS study into the suitability of British geology for high-level radioactive waste disposal;

  (2) what account he will take of the European Commission's PAGIS study findings in determining Government policy on the disposal of high-level radioactive waste in Britain;

  (3) how his Department intends to use the findings of the European Commission's PAGIS assessment of the suitability of British geology for high-level radioactive waste disposal.

  Mr. Trippier
  PAGIS—performance assessment of geological isolation systems—a six-year multinational research project on the safety assessment of high-level radioactive waste disposal, was launched in 1982 as part of the Community plan of action in the field of radioactive waste management. Reports of the PAGIS project have been published by the European Commission. The results indicate that vitrified high-level radioactive waste could be disposed of safely in a variety of geological formations. PAGIS reinforces Government policy on the management of high-level radioactive waste and due account will be taken of the methodology and results when considering its eventual disposal.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the European Commission's PAGIS study into the suitability of British geology for high-level radioactive waste disposal.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department was represented on the PAGIS steering committee.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many personal journeys are made in the United Kingdom each year; and if he will initiate research to estimate gains to be made in vehicle pollution abatement by a ten fold expansion of cycling in the United Kingdom.
  143
  Mr. Trippier
  "Transport Statistics Great Britain, 1978–8" (HMSO, September 1989) includes tables showing the passenger/kilometres travelled using the main modes of transport, and journeys per person per week. No research is planned to estimate gains in vehicle pollution abatement following from an expansion of cycling.

  Toxic Wastes (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what areas in west Yorkshire were involved in the study undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on toxic wastes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's recent technical report "Determination of Polychlorinated biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in United Kingdom Soils" report levels of PCB, PCDD and PCDF contamination at specific points on a regular 50 km grid across most of the United Kingdom.

  The report lists the grid references of all the sampling locations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the areas in west Yorkshire where toxic wastes have been found; and if he will identify the so-called hot spots.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's recent technical report "Determination of Polychlorinated biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in United Kingdom Soils" reported levels of PCB, PCDD and PCDF contamination at specific points on a regular 50 km grid across most of the United Kingdom.

  The study was aimed at identifying the range of contamination levels of these chemicals in United Kingdom soils. There was no intention, in this study, to identify areas of abnormally high contamination (hot spots).

  The report lists the grid references of all the sampling locations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the result of the soil samples taken from refuse tips in west Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's recent technical report "Determination of Polychlorinated biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in United Kingdom Soils" reported levels of PCB, PCDD and PCDF contamination at specific points on a regular 50 km grid. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The study was aimed at identifying the range of contamination levels of these chemicals in United Kingdom soils. No refuse landfill sites were knowingly sampled in west Yorkshire or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Romania
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to increase the United Kingdom contribution to the east European 144
  programme of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to provide assistance in improving the ecological situation in Romania.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has recently announced a contribution of £50,000 towards the east European programme of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. It is a matter for the IUCN to decide how much of this programme should be devoted to assisting Romania.

  Rateable Values (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment as a result of the recent revaluation, what percentage of businesses in the Chelmsford parliamentary constituency area have had their rateable value(a) cut, (b) increased by 1 to 10 per cent., (c) increased by 11 to 20 per cent., (d) increased by 21 to 30 per cent., (e) increased by 31 to 50 per cent., (f) increased by 51 to 100 per cent., (g) increased by over 100 per cent., (h) increased by over 150 per cent., and (i) increased by over 200 per cent., and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the date when Crown immunity will be removed from all hospital incinerators.

  Mr. Trippier
  Crown immunity for hospital incinerators with a capacity of over 1 tonne an hour was lifted in March 1989 as a result of the Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) (Amendment) Regulations 1989. Clause 54 of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill provides for a widespread removal of Crown immunity from National Health Service premises. This will cover all National Health Service incinerators. The provision will be brought into effect by commencement order at the earliest opportunity.

  Radioactive Substances
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from which persons and bodies he has received responses to the consultation paper on the control of radioactive substances.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on 6 December,Official Report, column 217.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he proposes to take to control radioactive substances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The improvements we intend to make to the control of radioactive substances under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 were set out in a consultation document, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, and are incorporated in the Environmental Protection Bill now before the House.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has had regard to
  145
  the new ionising regulations in the United States based on proposals by the National Academy of Sciences in drawing up proposals for the control of radioactive substances in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Radioactive Substances Act 1960 provides a comprehensive framework for controlling the keeping, use, accumulation and disposal of radioactive substances. We take into account legislation in other countries in amending United Kingdom legislation where appropriate.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for local authorities in the urban programme in 1990–91; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am today announcing initial urban programme resource allocations for 1990–91, totalling over £258 million, an increase of £13 million over last year. The resources will be allocated to the 57 urban programme partnership and programme authorities. The money will be used to support a wide range of projects aimed at stimulating economic recovery, improving the environment and helping people to deal with social problems in urban areas.

  The urban programme encourages local authorities, in partnership with Government, to help revitalise our inner cities. It is a key part of the Government's Action for Cities programme, which includes the Department of the Environment's other urban initiative—urban development corporations, city grant and derelict land grant. Together, these Department of the Environment programmes will provide £920 million for inner city regeneration in 1990–91.

  The urban programme allocations made today, some three weeks earlier than last year, are provisional: formal allocations are made after inner area programmes (IAPs) have been assessed and approved. Allocations will not be confirmed until authorities have provided a satisfactory annual report on achievements through the UP in 1988–89. Redistribution of resources can sometimes occur within the course of the year which may lead to outturn being different from the initial allocations.

  Copies of the allocations to individual authorities have been placed in the Library.

  Soil Contamination
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of soil contamination with polychlorinated biphenyls throughout Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 16 January 1990]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's recent report "Determination of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in UK Soils" contained details of the levels of PCBs found in soils in England, Wales and part of Scotland. The results show that PCBs are ubiquitous in soils, although the levels vary, being higher where there is a history of heavy industry and urbanisation. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of soil 146
  contamination throughout Britain from polychlorinated bi-phenyls, contamination from factory chimneys and the burning of plastic wastes in municipal incinerators.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Details of PCB contamination of soils throughout Britain are given in the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution "Determination of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in UK Soils" published by HMSO, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. The use of PCBs is severely restricted by the Control of Pollution (Supply and Use of Injurious Substances) Regulations 1986. Thus they are not likely to be found in emissions from factory chimneys or to arise from the burning of plastic wastes in municipal incinerators.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the location of sites where landfill gases have been identified as a potential problem.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Reliable and complete information on sites where landfill gas has been identified as a potential problem is not held centrally. Waste disposal authorities can advise about specific sites in their area.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the sites, where landfill gases are a potential problem, that are located within 250m of housing.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: This information is not held centrally. Waste disposal authorities provide information to local planning authorities where development is proposed within 250m of a landfill site.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that all future soil samples from the area around the Rechem incinerator at Pontypool required to be taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are collected by persons in the direct employ of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: It is for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to determine the most effective use of its resources and, in part, this will mean deciding on the most appropriate way to obtain samples in particular areas.

  Single Homeless People
  Mr Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish figures for the number of single homeless people for each year from 1979 to 1989;

  (2) how many single homeless people he estimates there are under the age of 25 years currently in England;

  (3) if he will publish the figures for the number of single homeless people in (a) Birmingham, (b) Cardiff, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Liverpool and (e) London during each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Local authorities report the number of households for whom

  147
  they accept responsibility to secure accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Acts; the single homeless are not separately identified and my Department has no estimates.

  For information about Wales and Scotland I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the Stonefrost inquiry report into the future of housing associations' development in central London.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: I was pleased to note the report's acknowledgement of the value of work carried out by London housing associations, and the part played in this by private finance. Since the inquiry was concluded, we have announced our decision to move over the next two years to a regional distribution of the Housing Corporation's capital investment programme based on the housing needs indicator, an objective measure of the relative need for investment by housing associations in different areas which was fully reviewed last year by my Department, the Housing Corporation and the National Federation of Housing Associations. As a result housing associations in London and the south-east will receive significantly higher levels of resources to help them continue their important work in providing homes for people in housing need.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding homelessness.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Following publication last November of our review of the homelessness legislation, we have received comments from a range of public and voluntary bodies.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the general public has immediate and free access to the regional registers of water pollution levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amery
  Information on water quality and pollution is contained in the registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority in accordance with its duties under section 117 of the Water Act 1989. The public has free access to these registers at the authority's regional offices during normal working hours.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the beaches awarded blue flag safe bathing symbols were tested for, and failed the European Economic Community standards for coliforms, enteroviruses and salmonella.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The results of the 1988 survey of bathing waters were placed in the Library on 21 February 1989. These included details of tests for coliforms, enteroviruses and salmonella. The award of blue flags for 1989 was announced on 5 June 1989 by the organisers of the blue flag campaign.

TRANSPORT

  Public Transport
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations in the report "Public Transport and the Missing Six Million—What Can Be Learned?"

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is working closely with the disabled persons transpot advisory committee in following up the recommendations.

  Motor Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of motor vehicle accidents, excluding motor cycles, in each of the last five years involving fatalities and non-fatalities in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information is only available for road accidents which involve personal injury. The information requested is as follows:

  Motor vehicle accidents, excluding motor cycles England and Wales, 1984–1988

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Total

  1984

  3,470

  166,431

  169,901

  1985

  3,309

  165,629

  168,938

  1986

  3,527

  172,405

  175,932

  1987

  3,390

  171,024

  174,414

  1988

  3,427

  181,160

  184,587

  This table, as requested, counts accidents and not vehicles, and excludes all those accidents involving motor cycles including, for example, an accident involving car and motor cycle.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of motor vehicle accidents, excluding motor cycles, in each of the last five years involving drivers who had passed their test in the previous 12 months in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available; licence details of drivers involved in accidents are not recorded on the accident report form.

  Car Drivers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of people who are currently permitted to drive a car in England and Wales.

  Mr. Atkins
  Over 28 million people in Great Britain have full licences to drive motor cars. There are no separate figures for England and Wales.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of people who have passed a driving test to drive a car in each of the last five years; and if he will specify what proportion of those people were aged(a))17 to 25 years, (b) 26 to 40 years, (c) 41 to 60 years and (d) over 60 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Statistics in this form are available only from 1985. Those for 1989 have not yet been completed. Figures for 1985–1988 are as follows:—
  149

  Year

  Tests

  Proportion in age-group: per cent.

  passed (cars)

  17–25

  26–40

  41–60

  Over 60

  1985

  863,339

  71·6

  22·9

  5·1

  0·4

  1986

  941,005

  75·6

  19·7

  4·4

  0·3

  1987

  958,087

  74·2

  20·8

  4·7

  0·3

  1988

  1,039,461

  73·5

  21·3

  4·9

  0·3

  A38 Trunk Road
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's preferred line of route for the A38 trunk road improvement Liskeard to Bodmin section.

  Mr. Atkins
  As I informed my hon. Friend in my reply of 4 December, at column 95, I hope to announce the Department's preferred route early in 1991.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce the consulting engineers to examine possible alternative routes for the A38 trunk road improvement, Saltash to Trevulefoot section.

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope to announce the appointment of consulting engineers within the next few weeks.

  Mersey Ferries
  Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in respect of the funding of the Mersey Ferries; if he will consider giving direct financial aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The director general of the Merseyside passenger transport executive wrote to the Department of Transport on 21 July and 31 August 1989 with details of a project for developing the Mersey Ferries as a leisure facility, and the passenger transport authority also asked for this project to be taken into account in the determination of its annual capital guideline. The Department replied to the PTE on 9 October raising various questions on the project. We have received no representations since then. We would consider any application for direct financial assistance on its merits, in accordance with our normal criteria for grant for public transport projects.

  Mark Woodward
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on what was done with the Coastguard and British Telecom tapes of calls relating to the accidental drowning of Mark Woodward on 16 August 1989, following the coroner's inquest.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The multi-track tapes that recalled the content and timing of all telephone and radio messages to and from Coastguard stations were wiped clean one month after the coroner's inquest. Up to this time these tapes would have been available for examination should this have been requested. For the benefit of the inquest certain extracts of the tapes were taken, in cassette form, and these are currently held by the police, following their inquiry. These tapes will be returned to the Department's solicitor shortly and will be made available to interested parties. But also it should be noted that in cassette form the content is incomplete and cannot be linked to accurate time. The question of the British Telecom tapes is one which should be addressed to BT in the north Devon area.

  British Rail
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what subjects are covered by the commercially confidential matters to which he referred in his answer to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing of 21 December,Official Report, column 361.

  Mr. Portillo
  The letters cover a wide range of issues, for example the commercial and financial structure of the proposed joint venture, which are now the subject of detailed negotiation between Eurorail and the British Railways Board. They also bear on the negotiations that need to take place with third parties before the joint venture can be established.

  A13
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what improvements to the Al3 between the North Circular road and the Tower of London will be started before 31 December; at what cost; and when they will be completed;

  (2) what improvements to the Al3 between the North Circular road and the Tower of London are currently in progress; at what cost; and when they will be completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department's responsibilities are for the Al3 trunk road, which runs as far west as Butcher row. The remainder of the A13 known as Commercial road is the responsibility of the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  Departmental schemes currently under construction are:

  Scheme

  Works £ million

  Completion

  Strengthening of Britannia Bridge

  0·3

  February 1990

  Creation of access to "Financial Times"

  10·6

  February 1990

  The following schemes are due to start before 31 December:

  West India Dock Road junction interim improvements

  1·2

  Mid 1991

  Cotton Street junction interim improvements2

  4·0

  Summer 1992

  Leamouth Road junction interim improvements

  2·0

  Early 1991

  Ironbridge waterproofing and resurfacing

  0·2

  September 1990

  Cumberland Road Subway refurbishment

  0·07

  April 1990

  Tollgate Road signalled junction

  0·75

  Summer 1990

  1 Costs met by developer.

  2 Progress dependent upon timely confirmation of LDDC's compulsory purchase order on land for redevelopment at Woolmore street.

  Progress on most of the trunk road schemes are dependent on the completion of statutory processes which could be subject to public inquiry and delay. Completion dates are therefore provisional.

  Permanent schemes at Butcher row, West India Dock road and Blackwall tunnel northern approach-Cotton street will follow in 1993, when a three and a half year project will commence to make final improvements to the Leamouth road junction and widen the Ironbridge, including the connection of LDDC's East India dock link to the A13.

  Towards the end of this year we hope to publish Orders for improvement of the A13 junction with the A117 East

  151
  Ham Manor way and to hold an exhibition of proposals for improvement of the Al3 junction with the A112 Prince Regent lane.

  The traffic control systems unit of the City of London is investigating on behalf of the Department the possible co-ordintation of signals on the Al3 trunk road in Tower Hamlets to expedite the flow of through traffic.

  West Yorkshire Bus Services
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the implications for the bus services of the change effected by the community charge on the method of raising finance for the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority from a precept to a levy on the five west Yorkshire districts; and what assessment has been made of the effect of fixing that levy at grant related expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is up to the passenger transport authority to decide what level of bus services to provide and what levy to raise to achieve its objectives, in the same way as it decided on the level of services and set an appropriate precept for the present financial year. The districts influence PTA spending policy through their representations on the PTA. The PTA levy is only one of the elements making up total district expenditure, and there is no separate standard spending assessment for PTA services. Instead, districts' standard spending assessments will include an element designed to cover spending on these and other small services.

  Oil Companies (Shipping)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of registered oil companies that have their own shipping.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom oil majors will have their own commercial arrangements for access to shipping, generally through ownership or chartering, but the information required to provide a more comprehensive reply is not available.

  Near Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of reported near-miss occurrences in the transit area that covers the area from Hucknall in the south, through Mansfield, Chesterfield, Worksop, Sheffield and Rotherham to Barnsley, Doncaster and Finningley, that have involved military and civilian aircraft for the last five years; what are the types of aircraft involved; and what is their nationality.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Within the area specified, three air misses have been reported, none of which involved commercial air traffic:

  1. A civilian glider and a civilian Cessna 172 (2 November 1986).

  2. An RAF Buccaneer and a civilian Cessna 152 (1 July 1987).

  3. An RAF Tornado and civilian Cessna 152 (27 January 1988).

  A27
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he has received from East Sussex county council a map detailing a possible route for the A27 dual carriageway from Lewes to Polegate; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that any scheme brought forward to dual the A27 from Lewes to Polegate will take into full account the landmark of Mount Caburn, and the views therefrom, and from Firle Beacon;

  (3) if he will make it his policy that any scheme brought forward to dual the A27 from Lewes to Polegate will bypass Wilmington rather than dualling the present road.

  Mr. Atkins
  This scheme was admitted to the trunk road programme in May 1989 following a confidential scheme identification study undertaken for the Department by East Sussex county council. This study recommended the improvements to dual carriageway standards of the A27 between Lewes and Polegate, and identified one possible option.

  Design agents are to be appointed very shortly to investigate and prepare proposals for the improvement. They will identify and evaluate all feasible route options for the scheme, including combinations of on-line and off-line solutions, on which to consult the public. Their brief will include a requirement for environmental and landscape assessments of the alternatives identified. It is too soon, therefore, to predict what route the improvement might follow or how villages along the existing A27 might be placed in relation to it.

  Road Improvements (Compensation)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is for compensating those people whose dwelling is(a) compulsorily purchased and (b) severely blighted as a result of major road improvements.

  Mr. Atkins
  Where land is compulsorily purchased, the statutory basis for compensation is the open market value of the land, disregarding any alteration in value due to the scheme for which the land is being acquired. Vendors may also be eligible for additional payments, such as removal costs, reconnection and refitting charges, and legal expenses. A displaced houseowner who had lived in the property for at least five years is also entitled to a home loss payment. Entitlement to compensation is set out in a series of booklets "Land Compensation—Your rights Explained". There are copies in the Library of the House.

  Where a dwelling lies in the line of a road proposal and cannot be sold in the open market at a reasonable price, protection is given by the blight provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. An owner-occupier may serve a notice on the highway authority, requiring it to buy the property. In the early stages of a road proposal, before a preferred route is announced, there also exists a discretionary power to buy where there is a genuine possibility that the property will be required. Policy is to exercise this power to alleviate cases of serious hardship.

  When roadworks are imminent or in progress, there is discretionary power to buy dwellings not required for the road but likely to be severely affected by the construction works. There is also discretionary power to buy property severely affected by nuisance arising from the use of a new or improved road, up to one year after opening.
  153
  The legislation governing compulsory purchase and compensation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He is currently considering whether improvements are needed in the light of comments on an consultation paper published last year.

  M27 Motorway
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist for the construction of an M27 motorway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have no present plans to extend the M27 motorway. However, consultants are carrying out a study into the possible need to increase the capacity of the existing roads and its junctions. They are expected to report in the spring.

  We are also improving progressively the south coast trunk route, running westwards from the M27 to Honiton and eastwards to Folkestone. The national trunk road programme currently includes 36 schemes at various stages of preparation, collectively valued at some £375 million.

  Transport Spending (London)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each London borough(a) the transport supplementary grant and (b) the capital allocations or annual capital guideline for transport purposes for each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]Details of each London boroughs(a) transport supplementary grant and (b) transport capital allocation, annual capital guideline and supplementary credit approval for the period 1987–88 to 1990–91 are given in the table.

  London boroughs' transport capital allocations 1987–88 to 1989–90 and annual capital guidelines/supplementary credit approvals 1990–91

  £ million

  Capital allocations

  1 ACG

  2 SCA

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  City of London

  1·320

  0·720

  0·630

  0·461

  0·000

  Barking and Dagenham

  2·590

  6·210

  4·580

  3,622

  0·000

  Barnet

  1·340

  1·110

  0·790

  0·571

  0·000

  Bexley

  1·835

  2·870

  2·780

  2·869

  0·000

  Brent

  1·120

  1·370

  1·190

  0·736

  0·000

  Bromley

  1·710

  8·880

  8·880

  4·328

  0·000

  Camden

  1·430

  0·710

  0·260

  1·095

  0·000

  Croydon

  1·180

  0·800

  1·110

  1·890

  0·000

  Ealing

  5·145

  6·820

  6·450

  3·592

  1·710

  Enfield

  16·325

  15·550

  24·210

  0·429

  6·480

  Greenwich

  5·160

  3·460

  2·590

  1·149

  0·000

  Hackney

  1·675

  1·910

  1·550

  0·791

  0·000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·360

  0·285

  0·410

  1·303

  0·000

  Haringey

  3·400

  8·475

  11·592

  0·661

  2·780

  Harrow

  4·130

  9·690

  8·980

  5·668

  0·000

  Havering

  3·510

  1·330

  0·960

  0·568

  0·000

  Hillingdon

  7·300

  10·710

  3·012

  2·297

  4·917

  Hounslow

  1·960

  1·050

  1·630

  0·540

  0·279

  Islington

  0·800

  0·480

  0·530

  0·549

  0·000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·710

  1·170

  1·570

  0·694

  0·000

  Kingston upon Thames

  9·770

  5·690

  3·870

  1·881

  0·000

  Lambeth

  1·140

  0·850

  0·610

  0·280

  0·000

  Lewisham

  1·840

  2·530

  11·030

  3·081

  0·000

  Merton

  7·780

  6·850

  9·400

  7·282

  1·150

  Newham

  3·510

  2·850

  2·420

  2·869

  0·000

  Redbridge

  2·800

  1·980

  0·900

  0·598

  0·000

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·920

  0·850

  0·610

  0·633

  0·000

  Southwark

  2·970

  4·470

  5·610

  1·701

  0·000

  Sutton

  2·180

  2·830

  2·330

  3·168

  0·000

  Tower Hamlets

  0·970

  0·740

  0·420

  1·007

  0·000

  Waltham Forest

  2·670

  1·870

  1·250

  0·726

  0·000

  154

  Transport Supplementary Grant for London Boroughs 1987–88 to 1990–91

  £ million

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  City of London

  0·479

  0·183

  0·194

  0·101

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·800

  2·836

  1·895

  1·748

  Barnet

  0·475

  0·400

  0·291

  0·161

  Bexley

  0·451

  0·649

  1·118

  2·134

  Brent

  0·311

  0·436

  0·450

  0·007

  Bromley

  0·429

  3·883

  3·833

  3·834

  Camden

  0·107

  0·131

  0·086

  0·189

  Croydon

  0·202

  0·234

  0·294

  0·888

  Ealing

  1·911

  1·938

  2·820

  2·429

  Enfield

  7·413

  11·255

  11·958

  4·881

  Greenwich

  1·980

  0·816

  0·023

  0·019

  Hackney

  0·200

  0·427

  0·410

  0·186

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0·118

  0·065

  0·142

  0·148

  Haringey

  1·478

  3·662

  5·812

  2·721

  Harrow

  1·609

  3·578

  3·050

  3·214

  Havering

  1·284

  0·320

  0·207

  0·215

  Hillingdon

  2·421

  1·957

  4·530

  2·742

  Hounslow

  0·623

  0·758

  0·714

  0·279

  Islington

  0·103

  0·072

  0·148

  0·168

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·261

  0·069

  0·633

  0·285

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·737

  0·331

  1·661

  0·566

  Lambeth

  0·288

  0·247

  0·182

  0·154

  Lewisham

  0·299

  0·970

  5·314

  1·987

  Merton

  2·719

  2·529

  4·280

  7·100

  Newham

  1·164

  0·343

  0·497

  1·791

  Redbridge

  1·048

  0·403

  0·339

  0·134

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·205

  0·186

  0·163

  0·172

  Southwark

  0·734

  0·997

  1·952

  0·249

  Sutton

  0·843

  0·778

  0·682

  0·590

  Tower Hamlets

  0·169

  0·068

  0·070

  0·091

  Waltham Forest

  1·091

  0·494

  0·476

  0·056

  Wandsworth

  2·442

  0·554

  0·433

  1·011

  Westminster

  0·383

  0·210

  0·750

  0·367

  155

  capital allocations

  1 ACG

  2 SCA

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Wandsworth

  6·880

  2·800

  2·690

  3·429

  0·000

  Westminster

  2·360

  1·840

  2·020

  4·589

  0·000

  1 Annual Capital Guidelines.

  2 Supplementary Credit Approvals.

  Bas Deregulation
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the operation of buses in north-west Sussex, following deregulation.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]The Department has no detailed records of bus services in north-west Sussex. The operation of services is a matter for operators and local authorities. In West Sussex as a whole, bus mileage has increased whilst the county council has been able to reduce spending on bus support from some £1·5 million before deregulation to £610,000 for 1989–90.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those maritime nations, on which he has information, that collect light dues from pleasure craft;

  (2) when he expects to reach a conclusion on the payment of light dues by yachtsmen.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The British Ports Federation has not yet completed its study on the feasibility of extending light dues to pleasure craft. I expect to invite views on its report from interested parties before reaching any conclusions. Charging practice in relation to navigational aids varies widely in other countries. I understand that almost half the states with membership of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities levy dues of some kind as the sole source of finance, but information on the treatment of pleasure craft is not available.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Deptford City Technology College
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total liability of his Department, as of the end of December 1989, to reimburse the Haberdashers' company for expenses incurred to that date in connection with the proposed establishment of a city technology college in Deptford.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave yesterday at column 8.

  Middle Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are currently educated in middle schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989 the number of pupils in maintained middle schools in England was 334,099.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the funding of primary age children in middle schools under schemes of local management of schools.
  156
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under schemes' funding formulae, schools should receive a basic sum of money for each pupil of the same age; that sum should be the same whether the pupil is in a primary or a middle school. Schools will, however, receive additional resources over and above this basic allocation for a variety of reasons and this may lead to differences in funding both between primary schools and between primary and middle schools with similar numbers of pupils.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to meet with the teachers' unions to discuss the establishment of negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend held a series of meetings with the teacher unions in October and November last year. He is considering carefully the points made to him then. Further meetings will take place in due course.

  Higher Education Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest year for which his Department has any estimates of the numbers of students in higher education in the United Kingdom; and what is the estimate for that year.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has not projected beyond the year 2000, when the most recent figures indicate that there will be about 1,130,000 students in higher education in Great Britain.

  Opto-electronics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards the funding of academic-only work in relation to opto-electronics.

  Mr. Jackson
  The policy objectives for Department of Education and Science funding of civil science were set out in the Secretary of State's speech at the first plenary meeting of the Academia Europaea in London on 26 June 1989. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Government support scientific research through the science budget which funds the research councils and through the Universities Funding Council block grant to universities. Some research is also carried out by polytechnics funded through the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. It is for the research councils and higher education institutions to determine the priority they accord to opto-electronics or any other scientific field, taking due account of the policy objectives referred to above.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest pupil-teacher ratio for England and Wales; and what was the ratio in 1978–79.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England in January 1989 was 17 and in January 1979 was 18·9. Similar information for Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Manchester university study on teacher shortage, a copy of which has been sent to his Department.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has not received a copy of the report referred to. However, officials have been in touch with the authors of the report, and I understand that their findings are broadly consistent with the Department's statistics about teacher wastage. They confirm that the majority of those leaving teaching do so on retirement. Others resign on maternity, on moving house or on going abroad, and less than 1 per cent. of the work force leaves teaching for other employment, including self-employment.

PRIME MINISTER

  Agriculture Spending
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the operation of the automatic agricultural stabilisers and the legally binding budgetary controls.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. The stabilisers and the legal limit on market support expenditure, for which the United Kingdom fought so hard, have been a considerable success. They have been major elements in reducing expenditure on the common agricultural policy and bringing about significantly lower levels of surplus food.

  Bournemouth
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Bournemouth.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Pornography
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister what action she proposes to take to support moves to remove pornography from the shelves of shops.

  The Prime Minister
  I share the hon. Member's concern about pornography. We have introduced legislation for the control of sex shops and outlawing possession of child pornography. Legislation to outlaw indecent displays has been carried with Government support. The Government have also given support to two private Members' Bills to strengthen the Obscene Publications Act 1959 which were 158
  unsuccessful, and has taken other steps to uphold standards in published material. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has commissioned a review of the available research on links between pornography and violence and the effects on attitudes to women.

  Low-cost Rural Housing
  Mr. Boswel
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning low-cost rural housing.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive such representations from time to time from hon. Members, interest groups, and members of the public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible for housing issues in England.

  We have announced a significant increase in resources available to the Housing Corporation over the next three years. Total capital expenditure is planned to rise to £1,736 million by 1992–93, more than double the provision in 1989–90. As a result we expect the number of new homes provided by associations in 1992–93 to be over twice the 1988–89 output.

  We have specifically enabled the Housing Corporation to establish a special programme for smaller villages which will rise to 1,500 new rented houses a year by 1992–93.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she continues to regard the African National Congress as a terrorist organisation.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the preference expressed in some of the African National Congress' statements for a resolution of South Africa's problems through negotiation. But there have also been statements repeating the commitment to armed struggle. We hope that the organisation will remove this ambiguity and commit itself explicitly to the pursuit of peaceful solutions only.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.

  Ms. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 January.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  AIDS
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the Government Departments which have been or will be funding research into AIDS, giving the amount that each Department contributed to this work for 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply. The latest available information about expenditure by central Government on AIDS research in 1989–90 is as follows:

  £

  Medical Research Council

  113,100,000

  Other Research Councils

  2,909,700

  Department of Health

  496,000

  Health Education Authority

  1,000,000

  National Institute of Biological Standards and Control

  440,000

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  1,100,000

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  163,000

  Overseas Development Administration

  533,306

  1 Includes expenditure on work commissioned by the Department of Health.

  Figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect the proposed changes made by the occupational pension board will have on small self-administered pension schemes for small businesses.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 20 December 1989 at column 304.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of unemployment benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For the financial year 1988–89, unemployment benefit is estimated to have cost £1,143 million.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether social security adjudication officers will automatically treat an unemployed claimant whose income support is suspended for not actively seeking work as suffering hardship so that they only lose 40 per cent. of their personal allowance; whether unemployment benefit recipients will be treated automatically as suffering hardship so long as they fulfil the basic qualifying rules for income support; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether unemployed claimants who are quarterly attenders who have had their benefit suspended for not actively seeking work, have to return their order books; whether they will be paid benefit if they are in hardship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Where an unemployed claimant receiving benefit has failed to show that he is actively seeking employment, hardship payments of income 160
  support may be made. The adjudication officer considers each case on its merits. If he is satisfied that the claimant, or any member of his family, would suffer hardship unless benefit were paid, income support is awarded at a reduced rate. Quarterly attenders who do not satisfy the actively seeking employment condition are required to return their order books.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the claimants affected by his introduction on 10 December of the new benefit rule on claimants earning more than £43 a week he estimates(a) will have an entitlement to income support or other income replacement benefits, and (b) in cases where they have two employers, will not earn enough from one employer to have a National Insurance contribution liability as an employee; and how many of these are married/cohabiting women, lone parents and claimants with intermittent work patterns due to chronic illness and disability.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is estimated that of around 5,000 people who will lose unemployment benefit as a result of this rule up to 1,000 will qualify for income support or housing benefit. I regret that the other information requested is not available.

  Pensioners (Canada)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his most recent estimate of the number of British pensioners currently residing in Canada.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of British pensioners residing in Canada was 95,228 at 28 December 1989.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions have taken place between the British and Canadian Governments to discuss the payment of uprated pensions to British pensioners residing in Canada.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There have been no recent discussions of this topic.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of the invalid care allowance(a) in Tower Hamlets, and (b) in Bow and Poplar.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Short-term Foster Parents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 20 December concerning short-term foster parents, what arrangements he has made regarding requirements for(a) availability for work and (b) actively seeking work in the periods between placements.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The general rule is that people claiming benefits on grounds of unemployment have to be available for and actively seeking employment. No special arrangements apply to short-term foster parents, who are treated in the same way as natural parents.

  Pension Books
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cause of the pre-Christmas computer error which delayed automatic renewal of 42,000 pension books; how many staff, departmental and consultancy, were employed, for how long and at what cost, to send out substitute giros; and what has been the cost of overpayment as a result of the error.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Issue to the Post Office of some 4,300 pension books, not 42,000 was delayed by a recent change to the income support computer system. Immediate action was taken to ensure that all affected beneficiaries received payments before Christmas. A total of 112 man days' effort was spent in preparing interim payments, at a cost of approximately £7,000.

  The cost of any duplicate payments is not yet known, but is not expected to be significant. We have taken action to ensure that there will be no recurrence of this incident.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for attendance allowance are awaiting a decision by the attendance allowance board.

  Mr. Scott
  At 30 November there were about 49,000 claims awaiting a decision by the attendance allowance board and its delegated medical practitioners.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to expedite consideration of the case of Natasha Greig who has been waiting for two and a half years for a decision on the review of her claim for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand that the attendance allowance board has concluded its review of Miss Greig's case. The board's written decision will be sent to her mother as soon as possible.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to review claims for attendance allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The average time taken to process an application for review of a determination made by the attendance allowance board or one of its delegated medical practitioners is about 12·3 weeks where the outcome of the review is in the claimant's favour, and about 29·9 weeks when the result is not in the claimant's favour.

  Income Support and Housing Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what basket of specific items is accounted for in each of the disablement-related premiums for income support and housing benefit;

  (2) what basket of specific items is accounted for in the weekly personal allowance of the applicable amount for income support and for housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no specific amounts included in income-related benefit levels to cover particular items of expenditure apart from the amounts included last April to help towards the minimum contribution to the community charge.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Romania
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the ambassador and his staff played in the recent events in Romania.

  Mr. Maude
  None. The embassy did, of course, fulfil its usual task of observing and assessing events and reporting on them.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government provided any assistance or encouragement to the revolutionary forces in Romania prior to, or during, the civil unrest leading to the fall of Mr. Ceausescu.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Treaties and Directives
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) directives and (b) treaties, have been agreed or ratified by (i) the EEC and (ii) the Council of Europe, since 1960.

  Mr. Maude
  During the period 1 January 1973 to 15 December 1989, a total of 1,209 directives were adopted and published by the European Community. In the same period, there have been nine treaties revising earlier treaties and Acts relating to the Communities, and the Community has become party to a large number of bilateral and multilateral treaties with third countries and international organisations; these could he quantified only at disproportionate cost. All of these legislative Acts have been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The Council of Europe does not issue directives or ratify treaties itself. Since 1960, a total of 73 conventions and agreements have opened for signature and ratification by member states of the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by name and in chronological order(a) the directives and (b) the treaties that Her Majesty's Government have initiated and which have been ratified by (i) the EEC and (ii) the Council of Europe since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the Community treaties it is for the Commission to initiate proposals for directives and for the ratification of treaties by the Community, and for the Council of Ministers, made up of the representatives of the member states, to decide on those proposals. Nineteen Council of Europe conventions and agreements, set out in the table, have opened for signature by member states.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with details of those initiated by the Government.

  European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter (1979)

  Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1979)

  European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children (1980)

  European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (1980)

  163

  European Agreement on Transfer of Responsibility for Refugees (1980)

  Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (1981)

  Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (1983)

  European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (1983)

  European Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (1985)

  European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches (1985)

  Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe (1985)

  European Charter of Local Self-Government (1985)

  European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes (1986)

  European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organisations (1986)

  European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (1987)

  European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1987)

  Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (1988)

  European Convention on Transfrontier Television (1989)

  Convention on Insider Trading (1989)

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Basayi Maqoko and Zwelinkosi Mjo currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken on these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received no specific representations about these cases. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Dilizintaba Lucky Nomgana, Mandla Mngomezulu and Sibusion Sindane currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken on these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received a number of representations on behalf of Mr. Dilizintaba Lucky Nomgana. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. With legal avenues yet to be exhausted we have not intervened with the South African Government in this case. We have received no specific representations on behalf of Mr. Mandla Mngomezulu or Sibusion Sindane.
  164
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Israel Machasa, Jerry Molebeng and Johannes Mono currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken with regard to these cases;

  (2) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Jabu Obed Masina, Frans Ting Ting Masango and Neo Griffith Potsane current under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (3) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Leonard Natange Sheehama and Nkosinathi Zuma currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (4) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Mthetheleli Zephania Mncube and Mzondeleli Euclid Nondula, currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (5) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Mtutuzeli Bottoman Ngqandu, Abraham Zeyo and Gilindoda Norman Gxekwa currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (6) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Mxolisie Ncaphayi, Vuzumsi Jack, Samson Booysen and Bennet Sonamzi currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken with regard to these cases;

  (7) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Ndibulele Ndzamela and Pumzile Mayapi currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (8) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Ringo Farland, Sipho Gonya and Phutumile Dlabathi currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken on these cases;

  (9) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Sibusiso Senele Masuku and Oupa Josias Mbonane currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about these cases;

  (10) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Vuyani Petrus Jacobs, Mthetheleli Lucas and Tozamile Mooi currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken with regard to these cases;

  Mr. Maude
  We have received no specific representations about these cases. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong
  165
  extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Joseph Chidi, Robert John McBride and Nico Ledube Mnyamana currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action has been taken about these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received a number of representations on behalf of Mr. Robert McBride. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. We have not intervened with the South African Government in this case. We have received no specific representations on behalf of Mr. Chidi or Mr. Mnyamana.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Patrick Manginda, Desmond Majola, and Dickson Madikane, currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action has been taken about these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received a number of representations about Mr. Patrick Manginda, Desmond Majola and Dickson Madikane. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. With legal avenues yet to be exhausted, we have not intervened with the South African Government in these cases.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representations have been received on behalf of Rodney Moloi and Stanford Lebepe, currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken with regard to their cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We received representations from the mother of Mr. Rodney Moloi which were forwarded to the South African authorities. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. We have received no specific representations on behalf of Mr. Lebepe.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether any representations have been received on behalf of the Upington 14 166
  currently under sentence of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken about this case;

  (2) whether any representations have been received on behalf of Wilson Matshili, Patrick Molefe, Takalani David Mamphanga and George Maugedzo currently under sentance of death in South Africa for their alleged involvement in offences arising out of political protest; and what action he has taken on these cases.

  Mr. Maude
  We have received a number of representations about the Upington 14. We consider intervening, exceptionally, in such cases only when all legal avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Our criteria are that the case must be clearly political and there must be strong extenuating circumstances or grounds to doubt the fairness of the judicial process. We are not prepared to make appeals in cases involving indiscriminate terrorism. With legal avenues yet to be exhausted, we have not intervened with the South African Government in these cases.

  Afghanistan
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic arrangements are in hand for the protection of British citizens in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Maude
  As I explained in answer to a similar question on 13 November 1989, we have temporarily withdrawn our embassy staff from Kabul, and, therefore, we are not able to offer consular assistance to British nationals in Afghanistan.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to re-establish Her Majesty's ambassador in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Maude
  Her Majesty's ambassador was withdrawn in 1980 following the Soviet invasion. There are no plans to appoint a new ambassador.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have reopened their embassies in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Maude
  None of the Western Governments who withdrew their diplomatic staff from Kabul early last year has returned them, although we understand that the French Government have now decided in principle to do so.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers have made visits to Cameroon in the past five years.

  Mr. Maude
  The following list gives details of ministerial visits to Cameroon in the last five years:

  Mr. Channon (Department of Trade and Industry—13 to 17 February 1985

  Mrs. Chalker (Department of Transport)—28 November to 1 December 1985

  Mr. Gummer (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)—5 to 8 April 1987

  Mr. Bottomley (Department of Transport)—2 to 5 October 1987

  Mrs. Chalker (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)—12 to 14 July 1988

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received the report to which he referred in his statement of 12 December 1989 on the mandatory return of boat people to Vietnam from Hong Kong; and whether he will make it public.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received the report to which he referred on 12 December and it has been placed in the Libraries of this House and another place. It is also being made available publicly.

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  1

  3

  16

  243

  264

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  8

  120

  132

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  114

  121

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  21

  197

  222

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  1

  1

  8

  7

  131

  148

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  100

  104

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  1

  2

  8

  9

  170

  191

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  14

  255

  273

  Dorset

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  7

  131

  141

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  3

  102

  108

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  82

  86

  Essex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  20

  244

  271

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  101

  104

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  3

  11

  41

  811

  867

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  85

  92

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  11

  272

  288

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  11

  205

  218

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  144

  152

  Kent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  18

  320

  343

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  17

  282

  304

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  14

  174

  194

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  4

  90

  100

  Merseyside

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5

  37

  528

  575

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  7

  92

  101

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  107

  111

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  1

  1

  5

  15

  305

  327

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  122

  130

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  8

  107

  116

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  184

  194

  South Wales

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  12

  241

  257

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  16

  277

  299

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  13

  255

  270

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  117

  122

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  212

  222

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  16

  263

  282

  Thames Valley

  —

  1

  3

  2

  4

  17

  430

  457

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  91

  98

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  10

  225

  239

  West Midlands

  —

  1

  —

  2

  12

  55

  926

  996

  West Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  2

  9

  24

  524

  560

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  94

  102

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  10

  76

  90

  Metropolitan

  11

  3

  6

  8

  27

  230

  3,112

  3,387

  Total

  2

  12

  23

  43

  166

  751

  12,661

  13,658

  1 Commander

  Visas
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to require nationals of(a) Morocco (b) Algeria and (c) Jamaica to obtain visas to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 7 December 1989 at column 378.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women Police Officers
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are employed as police officers in each police authority area; and what rank they hold.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information as at 31 October 1989 is set out in the table.

  War Crimes
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will accept the recommendation by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers in the war crimes report that, should it be decided to legislate, investigations into those suspected of involvement in Nazi war crimes should commence as soon as possible after the decision to legislate has been taken.
  169
  Mr. John Patten
  The Government are considering the views expressed in the recent war crimes debates in each House of Parliament, and we shall announce our conclusions shortly. Investigations could begin once it was clear that any proposed legislation had the general support of Parliament.

  Gamma Radiation Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for south and west Yorkshire, the comprehensive plans and programmes for implementation of procedures that have been made for the fire and ambulance services to deal with accidents on railways or road involving external emissions of gamma radiation, and for police officers and other workers immediately affected.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of emergency plans is the responsibility of the consignors of radioactive material. These plans are exercised regularly with the emergency services, which have the relevant operational responsibilities.

  Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been made into the links between international terrorist groups and drug trafficking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Investigation of the links between terrorism and other forms of crime has not so far indicated any significant involvement in drug trafficking by terrorist groups threatening the United Kingdom.

  Broadcasting Ban
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to remove the broadcasting ban introduced in October 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no plans at present to remove the broadcasting restrictions, but we are keeping the operation of them under review.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the broadcasting ban introduced on 19 October 1988.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations about the broadcasting restrictions from right hon. and hon. Members, members of the public and interested organisations.

  Tobacco Sales
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been initiated against cigarette retailers in alleged breach of the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 each year since the Act became effective.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is given in the table. The Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986 came into force on 8 October 1986.
  170

  Prosecutions for the sale of tobacco to persons under 16 under the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Act 1986

  England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1986

  1 17

  1987

  18

  1988

  29

  1 Includes prosecutions before October 1986 under earlier legislation.

  Interpretation Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently held in custody awaiting provision of an interpretation service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None. The criteria for detention under the Immigration Act do not include the availability of an interpreter.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to apply the conclusions of the Office of Health Economics report, "Mental Health in the 1990s: From Custody to Care? to prisoners in custody; and if he will make a statement".

  Mr. Mellor
  The report was published as recently as last month and is wholly concerned with arrangements for care of the mentally ill in the general community. We are always open to ideas which may, directly or indirectly, point to ways of improving the health care of prisoners. In that spirit we will study the conclusions of the report with some care.

  Children in Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for 1980, 1985 and for the latest date for which he has figures and by location(a) the number of children and babies who are in prison with their mother because of an offence she has committed and (b) the length of time the children are kept in prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 10 January 1990, there were 38 babies in the three prison mother and baby units; 12 were at Her Majesty's prison, Holloway, 10 at Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution, Styal, and 16 at Her Majesty's prison, Askham Grange. Equivalent information for 1980 and 1985 is not available.

  Rule 9(3) of the Prison Rules 1964 (SI 1964 No. 388) provides that the Secretary of State may, subject to any conditions he thinks fit, permit a woman to have her baby with her in prison. Only a mother can request the admission of her baby but approval depends on a place in the units being available and admission being considered as in the best interests of the child.

  The length of time a baby remains in a prison mother and baby unit can reflect a number of factors, including the wishes of the mother and the length of her sentence. But babies are not normally permitted to remain with their mother in prison beyond the age of 18 months because research has shown that after that age there is likely to be an adverse effect on the development of the child.

  Prison Officers' Accommodation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of prison officers' accommodation for which requests have been made by officers to purchase, for each establishment, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The prison service scheme for the discount sale of quarters to staff was introduced in June 1987 and to 9 January 1990 we have received the following applications to purchase:

  Establishment

  Numbers of Applications

  Acklington/Castington

  32

  Albany

  95

  Aldington

  14

  Ashford

  96

  Ashwell

  13

  Askham Grange

  3

  Aylesbury

  51

  Bedford

  54

  Birmingham

  42

  Blantyre House

  15

  Blundeston

  25

  Bristol

  71

  Brixton

  227

  Brockhill

  23

  Buckley Hall

  24

  Bullwood Hall

  16

  Camp Hill

  61

  Campsfield House

  29

  Canterbury

  49

  Cardiff

  40

  Channings Wood

  30

  Chelmsford

  65

  Coldingley

  103

  Cookham Wood

  24

  Deerbolt

  58

  Dorchester

  41

  Dover

  47

  Drake Hall

  2

  Durham

  66

  Eastwood Park

  17

  Erlestoke House

  21

  Everthorpe

  16

  Exeter

  57

  Featherstone

  23

  Feltham

  115

  Finnamore Wood

  16

  Ford

  14

  Foston Hall

  8

  Frankland

  40

  Full Sutton

  25

  Gartree

  54

  Glen Parva

  75

  Gloucester

  39

  Grendon-Spring Hill

  62

  Guys Marsh

  15

  Haslar

  11

  Hatfield

  6

  Haverigg

  39

  Hewell Grange

  16

  Highpoint

  36

  Hindley

  17

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  54

  Holloway

  78

  Hull

  58

  Huntercombe

  42

  Kingston

  21

  Kirkham

  15

  Kirklevington Grange

  11

  Lancaster

  13

  Latchmere House

  49

  Leeds

  37

  Leicester

  45

  Lewes

  70

  172

  Establishment

  Numbers of Applications

  Leyhill

  23

  Lincoln

  36

  Lindholme

  25

  Littlehey

  21

  Liverpool

  100

  Long Lartin

  111

  Lowdham Grange

  23

  Low Newton

  20

  Maidstone

  80

  Manchester

  82

  Medomsley

  2

  Morton Hall

  1

  The Mount

  6

  New Hall

  7

  Northallerton

  13

  Northeye

  22

  North Sea Camp

  3

  Norwich

  63

  Nottingham

  19

  Onley

  43

  Oxford

  22

  Parkhurst

  110

  Pentonville

  117

  Portland

  63

  Preston

  23

  Pucklechurch

  32

  Ranby

  21

  Reading

  65

  Risley

  123

  Rochester

  40

  Rudgate/Thorp Arch/ Wetherby

  56

  Send

  15

  Shepton Mallett

  19

  Shrewsbury

  11

  Stafford

  43

  Standford Hill

  31

  Stoke Heath

  13

  Styal

  1

  Sudbury

  12

  Swansea

  21

  Swinfen Hall

  20

  Thorn Cross

  14

  Usk and Prescoed

  28

  The Verne

  40

  Wakefield

  70

  Wandsworth

  157

  Wayland

  37

  Wellingborough

  32

  Werrington

  2

  Whatton

  29

  Winchester

  109

  Wormwood Scrubs

  255

  Wymott

  39

  Total

  5,001

  These applications include 385 applications that have subsequently been withdrawn and a further 50 that are the subject of applications to purchase at full market value. To date, 3,538 sales have been completed.

  Beryl Kennedy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the rules governing the number of letters that may be written by any one person to a prisoner; and how these have been applied in the case of Beryl Kennedy writing to an inmate in Winson Green prison.
  173
  Mr. Mellor
  Instructions to prison service staff about handling prisoners' correspondence have been published in Standing Order 5B, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Governors have discretion to limit the amount of mail received by a prisoner if the number of letters received causes delays in handling other prisoners' letters. Ms. Kennedy was writing on a daily basis and after being asked to reduce the volume of her correspondence it was judged necessary, so that other prisoners' mail would not be delayed, to return some letters to her.

  Offensive Language
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will have discussions with the broadcasting bodies about the use of language which might cause offence.

  Mr. Mellor
  Programme content is a matter for the broadcasting authorities, who are independent of the Government and are responsible for considering complaints on such matters. In addition the Government have established the Broadcasting Standards Council as a direct response to public concern about standards of taste and decency on television and radio. These include the use of offensive language. The Government's Broadcasting Bill proposes that the council should have statutory powers to consider and adjudicate on complaints.

  Lost Property
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints in 1989 were made by inmates to his Department over the loss of money or personal property that resulted from an inmate being moved from one prison to another.

  Mr. Mellor
  The precise information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the total number of complaints in 1989 relating to lost property and money, including those concerned with property lost on transfer, was about 2,250.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the policies that are followed by the prison department to ensure that money and personal effects belonging to inmates go with them when they are moved from one prison to another prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  Instructions to prison service staff, requiring that a prisoner's property and cash should be moved with him or her on the day of transfer, are contained in prison Standing Order 1C, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It has not always proved possible in practice to comply with this requirement in respect of the transfer of money and a number of steps are being taken to improve the present procedures.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints have been made to his Department by inmates who had been held in Canterbury prison and when moved to another prison did not have money belonging to them transferred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures for individual establishments are not available, and could only be produced at disproportionate cost. Because of delays in the transfer of money 174
  from prisons in the south-east region of the prison service, which includes Canterbury, the regional director issued instructions in November, so that all receiving establishments will be notified of private cash balances within 24 hours of transfer, by which time the prisoner should be able to spend this money. Loans are available to cover any delays in the transfer of a prisoner's earnings.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases that inmates in prisons in England and Wales took to the small claims court against his Department in 1989 following the loss of personal property; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Nineteen claims for lost property were commenced in the small claims court during 1989.

  Prisoners Committees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will encourage the involvement of inmates in prisons in England and Wales in the formation of prisoners committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Governors of prison service establishments have discretion to use a variety of methods when seeking the views of inmates, including encouraging the establishment of inmate committees.

  Grendon Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons that inmates from Grendon prison have been sent to; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Serious defects in the electrical systems at HM prison Grendon meant that the establishment had to be evacuated in December. Inmates have been temporarily moved to the following prisons:

  Aylesbury (one inmate only).

  Glen Parva

  Oxford (one inmate only).

  The Mount

  Swinfen Hall (two inmates only).

  Winchester

  Wormwood Scrubs (currently holding inmates originally destined for Parkhurst.

  In view of the unique nature of Grendon's therapeutic regime, every effort is being made to enable receiving establishments to maintain that regime, wherever possible.

  Grendon inmates and staff will be returned to Grendon when the prison reopens. In the interim, urgent work is in hand to empty HMYOI Wellingborough of young offenders, and convert it for use as a temporary "new". Grendon. All young offenders should have been moved out by the end of this month. Grendon inmates will be individually assessed for their suitability for the levels of security at Wellingborough before they are transferred there.

  The two wings at Wellingborough not required for Grendon inmates will be occupied by category C adult male prisoners.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Grendon prison has been closed; and how long this prison will remain closed.

  Mr. Mellor
  An electrical survey carried out at Her Majesty's prison Grendon revealed a number of serious
  175
  faults which made it necessary to evacuate the establishment. The prison is likely to remain closed for between six and nine months while repair work is undertaken.

  Prison Kitchens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints have been made to his Departmet by boards of visitors regarding the conditions existing in prison kitchens; and if he will list the prisons, and the action that has been taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information required is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  I place great value on the work undertaken by boards of visitors. Any matters of concern raised or recommendations made by them, whether in their valuable, detailed annual reports or by other means are afforded very careful consideration. I can assure the hon. Member that the same careful consideration is given to any matters raised on kitchens.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to inmates who work in kitchens in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  All inmates who work in kitchens in prisons in England and Wales recieve instruction in personal hygiene and training in the safe operation and care of machinery and equipment. Establishments are also encouraged to provide formal craft training leading to recognised vocational qualifications. At the end of June 1989, a total of 45 establishments were offering 52 certified courses and a further 17 uncertificated courses. An additional 35 establishments plan to introduce formal training courses during 1990.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of senior catering officers who are fully trained and in charge of kitchens in London prisons on 5 January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Ashford and Downview employ private catering contractors. In every other London establishment the officer-in-charge of the kitchen is a fully trained caterer.

  Alcohol-related Violence
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government measures to curb late-night alcohol-related violence against police officers.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: We continue to be concerned at the level of alcohol-related violence. We therefore encourage the work of local inter-agency groups, such as Newport's, seeking to reduce such crime for the benefit of all members of the community, including police officers. Parliament has provided severe penalties for serious attacks against any person: a maximum of five years' imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and up to life imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grevious bodily harm. The Public Order Act 1986 put in place revised and new offences to help deal with disorder whatever its cause.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cameroon
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to contribute funds for the building of a ring road in north-west Cameroon.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Funding of that part of the Bamenda ring road project proposed for UK finance would require an ECGD covered commercial loan in association with aid funds—the latter from the aid and trade provision. There is currently no medium or long-term ECGD cover to Cameroon following its 1987–1988 economic crisis and subsequent structural adjustment programme. In the event of export credit cover being restored, construction of part of the ring road would be considered, alongside any other eligible proposals for ATP funding, if it met the conditions pertaining to such cover.

  Vietnam
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has received about Her Majesty's Government's policy on development aid for Vietnam, and from which organisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he will now consider the joint funding of NGO projects in Vietnam on a case-by-case basis.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have received representations from Save the Children Fund, Oxfam and Christian Aid about aid to Vietnam, and also from a number of private individuals. We welcome the withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia, but we also expect the Vietnamese Government to meet their obligations towards their own people, including the boat people in Hong Kong, as a pre-condition for the establishment of a Government-to-Government aid programme. Further progress is also needed in the reform of economic policies.

  Following the representations to which I have referred, I am considering whether the time has come to open Vietnam for participation in the joint funding scheme whereby the Government meet half the costs of agreed projects sponsored by voluntary agencies, and in particular how the agencies might be able to contribute to mitigating the economic and humanitarian problems in the areas from which the boat people predominantly come.

  Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to uprate the pensions paid to former local government officers overseas to bring them into line with pensions paid to former overseas civil servants.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British Government are not responsible for the pensions of officers who served overseas in the local authorities of our former colonies, and have no plans to uprate them.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average pension of(a) retired local government officers in overseas service and (b) retired civil servants in overseas service.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not hold details of the pensions of officers who served overseas in the local authorities of our
  177
  former colonies, nor generally about the pensions of colonial civil servants. The average pension in respect of overseas service paid to some 39,000 former colonial civil servants and their widows, for whom the British Government accept a responsibility, is about £3,800 a year.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average pension paid to local government officers retired from service with Nairobi city council; and what are the highest and lowest pensions received by former officers with the council.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My Department has no responsibility for the pensions paid to retired Kenya local government officers. Information about Nairobi city council pensions is held by the Public Trust Office which is the trustee of the Kenya local authorities superannuation fund.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many pensions are in payment for the Palestine police force; what is the average pension in payment; when the pensions were last increased; and by how much.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are 557 expatriate officers and 613 local officers receiving a pension from HM Government for their Palestine public service. The number of these who served in the police force could be identified separately only at disproportionate cost. The average pension paid to local officers is at present £1,180 a year. Many expatriate officers have pensions for service in several territories, which are treated together for calculating increases. The present value of the pension deriving specifically from Palestine service in these cases can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The average pension paid to the 235 expatriates who served only in Palestine is £2,240 a year. The pensions attract increases under the United Kingdom pensions increase legislation, and are uprated annually in line with inflation. They were last increased with effect from 10 April 1989 by 5·9 per cent.

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the additional cost faced by local education authorities in Wales arising from the movement of each non-Welsh speaking child into schools where Welsh is the normal language of education(a) at primary level and (b) at secondary level; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  We have made no such estimates. The costs of Welsh medium education are, however, taken into account in the annual local government financial settlement.

  Forestry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed by the Forestry Commission in Wales, giving a sub-regional breakdown indicating labouring and white collar jobs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is shown in the table:178

  Forestry Commission direct employees at 30 November 1989

  County

  Non-industrial

  Industrial

  Clwyd

  15

  46

  Gwynedd

  43

  139

  Dyfed

  1115

  79

  Powys

  29

  96

  Glamorgan

  41

  87

  Gwent

  19

  37

  262

  484

  1 includes 78 staff employed in the Conservancy office at Aberystwyth.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much forest land has been sold so far in Wales since 1981; for what sums of money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Forestry Commission sold some 8,600 hectares of forest land in Wales between July 1981 and 31 March 1989. Total receipts from these sales were in the region of £11 million.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the continued supply of forest products to the paper industry consequent upon the sale of woodlands.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The guidelines on the selection of Forestry Commission properties for sale which Forestry Ministers issued in 1981 require the Forestry Commissioners to take account among other things, of the maintenance and development of the wood processing industry. The commissioners are continuing to follow these guidelines and are fully meeting their wood supply commitments. The guidelines are to be found at appendix V to the commission's 1981–82 annual report.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a study group to assess the social and economic impact of forest sales upon rural areas.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. I do not believe that there is any need to set up such a study group.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the likely number of Forestry Commission staff to be made redundant consequent upon the sale in Wales of forests and woods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It seems unlikely that any Forestry Commission staff will have to be made redundant as a consequence of the sale of forests and woods in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of forests to be sold in Wales giving a sub-regional breakdown.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is expected that about 10 per cent. of the Forestry Commission's forest land in Wales will be sold over the next 10 years. It is not possible to give any sub-regional breakdown.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he will make to protect the public's right of access to woodland sold by the Forestry Commission.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on
  179
  16 June 1989, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that the Government were concerned that the general public should continue to enjoy access to those forests to be disposed of by the Forestry Commission in a way which was compatible with management for forestry and other purposes. Ways of achieving this objective are being investigated.

  Plastic Waste
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines were issued by his Department to health authorities in Wales regarding the safe burning of plastic waste without such burning forming dangerous compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorines and flurans.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  Guidance on the safe disposal of clinical waste including plastics was issued by the Department to district health authorities in June 1982. The code of guidance was prepared by the Health and Safety Commission and offered advice on the handling, transport and disposal of all kinds of clinical waste.

  Teachers
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich of 20 December,Official Report, columns 319–20, in March 1989; how many teachers were employed by each local authority in Wales; how many teachers were in receipt of an incentive allowance for each local authority in Wales; what percentage this was of the total employed by each local authority; and how many teachers in receipt of an incentive allowance in each local authority in Wales held allowances that were (a) incentive A, (b) incentive B, (c) incentive C, (d) incentive D and (e) incentive E.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information relating to March 1989 is not yet available.

  Sport in the Countryside
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what body he will give responsibility for policies and developmental work with organised and active sport in the countryside in Wales in the future.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to expect all the relevant agencies to work together in this field.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he intends to bring in to ensure that adequate consideration is given in future to the interests of informal users of the countryside, including horse riders and cyclists; and that these interests are reconciled with environmental conservation requirements.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to achieve or maintain a separation of regulatory and promotional functions in relation to the countryside in Wales, particularly in respect to access and recreation.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  None.
  180
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to ensure full consideration of the views of organised sports and recreational interests in Wales by the proposed Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This will be a matter for the proposed Countryside Council for Wales when it takes over its full functions.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to ensure that recreation in the countryside in Wales is controlled by agreement and conciliation between conflicting interests wherever possible, and that control by regulation is only undertaken following adequate consultation and attempted conciliation; and what machinery he will establish to this end.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government have no specific proposals to introduce any controls of this nature.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to ensure that promotional and development work currently undertaken by the Countryside Commission in Wales is continued and developed following the changes proposed in the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill relating to the countryside and conservancy agencies are essentially concerned only with the reorganisation of those bodies. The Countryside Council for Wales will continue to have the same statutory functions as the Countryside Commission. It will be for the council to develop its policies within that framework.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to ensure that the Countryside Commission's target of opening up all rights of way in Wales is achieved by the year 2000; following the restructuring of conservation and countryside bodies.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  This will be a matter for the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to ensure that the powers of the Countryside Council for Wales are not limited only to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Countryside Act 1968 not only changed the name of the National Parks Commission to the Countryside Commission but enlarged its functions to include the wider countryside. These broader functions which are in no way limited to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty will be transferred, in respect of Wales, to the new Countryside Council for Wales.

  Bilingual School, Preseli
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest developments regarding the proposed bilingual school, Preseli, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Dyfed county council published proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 on
  181
  22 November 1989 to establish a bilingual comprehensive school in the premises of the existing Preseli county secondary school. The law prescribes that, if statutory objections to the proposals are received by the county council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must decide whether to approve or reject the proposals.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the income of each district to sustain a common level of services throughout Wales on the basis of his assumed figures for community charge payments in each district.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The standard spending assessment for each county and district council is calculated on the basis of formulae which have been agreed by the Welsh local authority associations. It represents a measure of the cost of providing a standard level of service, taking into account the characteristics of each area. If every authority were to spend at the level of its standard spending assessment, the community charge in the area of each charging authority in Wales, after taking account of revenue support grant entitlements and income from non-domestic rates, would be £173—the community charge for standard spending.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Income Support
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in how many cases the personal allowance of an individual in receipt of income support is used to cover costs of(a) private residential care and (b) private nursing care in each unit of management area of the Southern health board.

  Mr. Needham
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Detention
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of people detained under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 had their requests to have someone told of their detention delayed on the direction of a police superintendent or an officer of more senior rank in 1988 and the period 1 January to 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Figures are available to 30 June 1989. During 1988, a total of 6 per cent. of requests to have someone informed of a person's detention were delayed on the authorisations of a superintendent or above. Between 1 January and 30 June, no such requests were delayed.
  182
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of requests made by persons detained under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 for solicitors were delayed on the direction of a police superintendent or an officer of more senior rank in 1988 and the period 1 January to 31 October 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  Figures are available to 30 June 1989. During 1988, a total of 60 per cent. of requests for access to see a solicitor were delayed on the authorisation of a superintendent or above. Between 1 January and 30 June, 64 per cent. of requests were so delayed.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average hourly rate of pay earned by home helps in each health board area in each financial year since 1980.

  Mr. Needham
  Standard hourly rates are payable to all home helps in the Health and Social Services Boards. Details are as follows:

  Financial year

  Period

  Hourly rate

  1980–81

  1 April 1980–31 October 1980

  154·13p

  1 November 1980–31 March 1981

  165·63p

  1981–82

  1 April 1981–31 October 1981

  165·63p

  1 November 1981–31 March 1982

  177·13p

  1982–83

  1 April 1982–31 October 1982

  177·13p

  1 November 1982–31 March 1983

  190·77p

  1983–84

  1 April 1983–31 October 1983

  190·77p

  1 November 1983–31 March 1984

  199·48p

  1984–85

  1 April 1984–31 October 1984

  199·48p

  1 November 1984–31 March 1985

  209·74p

  1985–86

  1 April 1985–30 August 1985

  209·74p

  1 September 1985–31 March 1986

  230·26p

  1986–87

  1 April 1986–31 August 1986

  232·69p

  1 September 1986–31 March 1987

  248·08p

  1987–88

  1 April 1987–31 June 1987

  248·08p

  1 July 1987–31 March 1988

  290·13p

  1988–89

  1 April 1988–31 August 1988

  290·13p

  1 September 1988–31 March 1989

  306·79p

  1989–90

  1 April 1989–31 August 1989

  306·79p

  1 September 1989–31 March 1990

  333·79p

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Accounting Standards Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the work of the accounting standards committee.

  Mr. Redwood
  The work of the accounting standards committee of the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies in developing accounting standards has made a major contribution to improvements in accounting practice over the last 20 years. The arrangements for making and enforcing such standards now need strengthening. The Dearing committee's recommendations on this subject have been widely supported and Sir Ronald Dearing is negotiating terms with all concerned so that the new arrangements for making and enforcing acccounting standards are in place by the summer.

  Public Houses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from(a) brewers and (b) representatives of public house landlords and managers regarding the revaluation of business rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  We received in 1988 and 1989 a number of representations from and on behalf of brewers about the powers available to the valuation officer to obtain information to be used in making a valuation and the subsequent use of such information. We have not, however, received any representations about the levels of value proposed for breweries or for public houses.

  Regional Assistance, Corby
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total annual expenditure in each year since 1979–80 on(a) regional development grants, (b) regional selective assistance, (c) regional investment grants and (d) regional innovation grants paid in the Corby development area.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Regional development grants1

  Payments £ million

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  0·2

  1981–82

  2·6

  1982–83

  6·8

  1983–84

  6·5

  1984–85

  2·5

  1985–86

  3·3

  1986–87

  7·9

  1987–88

  6·6

  1988–89

  7·9

  1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989

  7·3

  1 From 1985–86 includes payments on both original Regional Development Grants (RDG I) and revised Regional Development Grant (RDG II). RDG I grants were terminated in November 1984 and RDG II grants in November 1988.

  184

  (b) Regional selective assistance

  Payments £ million

  1979–80

  —

  1980–81

  0·03

  1981–82

  0·31

  1982–83

  1·43

  1983–84

  4·47

  1984–85

  3·45

  1985–86

  2·89

  1986–87

  1·58

  1987–88

  0·96

  1988–89

  0·37

  1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989

  0·32

  (c) Regional investment grants1

  Payments £ million

  1988–89

  0·01

  1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989

  0·12

  1 Scheme introduced March 1988.

  (d) Regional innovation grants1

  Payments £ million

  1988–89

  —

  1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989

  0·03

  1 Scheme introduced March 1988.

  International Tin Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the progress of discussions concerning the liabilities of the International Tin Council.

  Mr. Ridley
  A proposal supported by all known creditors of the International Tin Council's buffer stock operation for a settlement at £182·5 million payable on 30 March 1990 has been approved by the ITC as the basis for a settlement. A Supplementary Estimate covering a United Kingdom contribution not exceeding £31,790,000 to the settlement amount will be laid before the House in February.

  Consumer Guarantee
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those organisations which have made representations to him opposed to the consumer guarantee as set out in the report of the National Consumer Council.

  Mr. Forth
  A formal public consultation exercise has not been undertaken but, following publication of the National Consumer Council report "The Consumer Guarantee", representations have been made both for and against various aspects of the proposals. It would be inappropriate to name bodies which have expressed views in confidence.

  Company Prosecutions
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions arising from company investigations commenced after 1 June 1979; and how many of the prosecutions were successful.
  185
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: I am aware of 113 successful prosecutions completed since 1 January 1979 arising from investigations under the Companies Acts; some of those prosecutions may have commenced before that date.

  Further information is given in the annual report prepared under section 729 of the Companies Act 1985 (formerly section 451 of the Companies Act 1948) and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. This report is available in the Library.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department examines published company accounts for compliance with the requirements of the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for compliance with the Companies Act's requirements concerning accounts rests with directors, with auditors required to state whether the accounts meet those requirements. Companies House staff carry out certain basic checks on accounts, but the contents are not scrutinised in detail except in response to specific complaints.

  Genetically-Manipulated Animals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the patenting of genetically-manipulated animals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Patents are granted in the United Kingdom for inventions which are novel, non-obvious and capable of industrial application, except that plant or animal varieties and essential biological processes, among other things, are not patentable. However, microbiological processes and their products, with which genetic engineering is essentially involved, are patentable and it is therefore likely that patent applications for inventions concerned with genetically-manipulated animals would be granted, provided other relevant conditions were met.

  A European Community proposal for a directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions which is currently under discussion would not alter this position. Nevertheless, I am aware that a patent application for a genetically-manipulated mouse similar to one granted by the US Patent and Trade Mark Office has been refused by the European Patent Office. However, this decision is under appeal.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the new opportunities available to British firms in eastern Europe; and what support services his Department is now able to offer such firms.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: My Department is well seized of the new commercial opportunities opening up in eastern Europe. These include, in particular, the opportunities for direct investment; the possibility of increasing exports of goods and services; opportunities for joint ventures and other forms of industrial co-operation; as well as consultancy and management training opportunities.
  186
  My Department has an eastern European branch of 25 staff directly responsible for commercial relations and trade promotion in eastern Europe. This branch is able to provide both general and specific advice and guidance to United Kingdom business men on investment opportunites in these markets and about the availability of the various United Kingdom and EC assistance schemes recently created. These resources are supplemented by other staff in my Department working on various specific export service schemes, such as trade fairs, and by the export service staff in the Department's regional offices. My Department also funds the East European Trade Council, the BOTB's area advisory group for eastern Europe.

  Coal (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the balance of trade in coal and related products at the last available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is available for the period January to November 1989 as shown in the table.

  January to November 1989

  million tonnes

  Coal

  Other solid fuels

  Total

  Imports

  10·9

  0·6

  11·6

  Exports

  1·9

  0·5

  2·4

  Net imports

  9·0

  0·2

  9·2

  Note: Figures are rounded independently and some totals may therefore differ from their constituent parts.

  Source: Her Majesty's customs and Excise.

  Uranium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of uranium have been imported from Africa in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Uranium for the United Kingdom's civil nuclear programme has not been imported from Africa since 1984. From 1980, some 6,300 short tons of U3 O8 (some 4,800 metric tonnes of contained uranium) were imported. Figures for specific years are as follows:

  metric tonnes (to nearest hundred tonnes)

  1980

  1,200

  1981

  1,300

  1982

  1,000

  1983

  900

  1984

  400

  Output Figures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether output figures based on sales include products which are imported by producers from their overseas subsidiaries, associates and others.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.
  187
  The concepts and methodology employed in the output measure of gross domestic product and its components, including the index of industrial production are fully described in chapter 5 of "United Kingdom National Accounts: Sources and Methods" (third edition: HMSO 1985), a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Trade Surpluses
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the bilateral trade surpluses/ deficits with the United States of America of each of the OECD countries, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Romania, India and Brazil, in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is in the table.

  Trade balances with United States of America 1988

  billion

  US $

  Australia

  -3·7

  Netherlands

  -3·2

  Spain

  -2·2

  France

  -1·8

  Ireland

  -1·0

  Turkey

  -0·5

  United Kingdom

  -0·5

  Greece

  -0·2

  Norway

  -0·2

  Austria

  -0·1

  Finland

  -0·1

  Portugal

  -0·1

  New Zealand

  0·0

  Denmark

  0·0

  Iceland

  0·1

  India

  0·1

  Romania

  0·5

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  0·7

  Switzerland

  1·2

  Sweden

  1·4

  Singapore

  2·5

  Italy

  3·7

  Brazil

  5·4

  South Korea

  8·7

  Federal Republic of Germany

  9·4

  Hong Kong

  10·4

  Taiwan

  10·4

  Canada

  11·5

  Japan

  48·0

  Sources: Taiwan—national statistics.

  Others—IMF Direction of Trade.

ENERGY

  Low-Sulphur Coal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the levels of imported low-sulphur coal in tonnes for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the sulphur content of imported coal is not available centrally.

  Fuel (Energy Values)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to(a) the energy values required to manufacture waste derived fuel and refuse derived fuel and (b) the balance between the energy required and energy produced by the various types of fuel.
  188
  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Waste and refuse derived fuels produce typically just over five times more energy than is used in their production, although this figure will depend on the particular process involved.

  The less highly refined forms of refuse derived fuel and fuels derived from commercial and general industrial wastes are even more attractive as they require less energy in production. The energy inputs required to produce other fuels will depend on the circumstances of their production.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the inspector to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry to submit his report; and if he will publish it when received.

  Mr. Baldry
  The timing of his report is a matter for the inquiry inspector. My right hon. Friend will wish to see and consider the report before deciding when to publish it.

  Oil and Gas (Safety)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the number of fatalities and serious injuries which have occurred involving the use of gangways linking offshore oil and gas installations and other vessels or structures, for each year of operations on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Since 1 January 1980 my Department has received reports of three fatalities relating to the use of gangways. These occurred in a single incident in 1982 when the bridge connecting Piper Alpha to MSV Tharos collapsed. No serious injuries have been reported.

  Private Licensed Mines
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many men were working underground in private licensed mines in 1978–79 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The British Coal Corporation's 1988–89 annual report and accounts provides a figure of 1,524 as the number of men employed underground in licensed deep mines at the end of 1988–89. The Department does not have figures for previous years. I have therefore asked the chairman of the British Coal Corporation, which is the licensing authority, to write to the hon. Member.

HEALTH

  Block Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who was the contractor, what was the cost, what was the experimental location by district and unit and what was the date of report of all pilot work carried out on the specification of block contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are funding development work on contracting for services in a number of health authorities. For details of this work I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 6 November 1989 at columns 455–56. The projects involve contracting for a range of services in a variety of local circumstances and identifying the most

  189
  appropriate type of contract to use in these different situations. None of the work is limited explicitly to specifying block contracts.

  Deaths (Elderly People)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths among those aged(a) 60 to 69 years, (b) 70 to 79 years and (c) 80 years and over for each complete six-monthly period from 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1989 for England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths among those aged (a) 60–69 years, (b) 70–79 years and (c) 80 years and over for each complete six-monthly period from 1st April 1979 to 31st March 1989 for England and Wales

  Age-group

  Period

  60–69

  70–79

  80+

  1 March 1979–30 September 1979

  52,657

  88,841

  86,200

  1 October 1979–31 March 1980

  58,348

  101,304

  101,262

  1 April 1980–30 September 1980

  52,526

  88,774

  83,433

  1 October 1980–31 March 1981

  57,706

  101,403

  104,203

  1 April 1981–30 September 1981

  51,003

  87,722

  86,298

  1 October 1982–31 March 1982

  57,808

  104,422

  110,338

  1 April 1982–30 September 1982

  51,151

  88,023

  88,605

  1 October 1982–31 March 1983

  57,482

  103,202

  110,941

  1 April 1983–30 September 1983

  50,765

  88,331

  90,264

  1 October 1983–31 March 1984

  54,512

  98,956

  106,859

  1 April 1984–30 September 1984

  49,190

  87,007

  91,720

  1 October 1984–31 March 1985

  55,657

  102,670

  117,664

  1 April 1985–30 September 1985

  48,927

  88,249

  96,511

  1 October 1985–31 March 1986

  54,149

  102,276

  121,568

  1 April 1986–30 September 1986

  49,216

  87,831

  96,419

  1 October 1986–31 March 1987

  51,524

  93,959

  109,480

  1 April 1987–30 September 1987

  48,083

  84,043

  96,212

  1 October 1987–31 March 1988

  54,027

  95,141

  120,224

  1 April 1988–30 September 1988

  48,657

  81,396

  100,475

  1 October 1988–31 March 1989'

  52,394

  89,272

  117,089

  1 Provisional

  Residential Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of persons aged over 75 years live in nursing homes.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of persons aged over 85 years live in(a) nursing homes, (b) residential homes and (c) other institutions in England and Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  Not all this information is collected centrally. At 31 March 1988, the number of people aged 85 and over in local authority staffed and registered residential care homes for the elderly people and younger physically handicapped people was 100,036 or 15·4 per cent. of the population aged 85 and over. This figure is provisional.

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training procedures have been introduced at the Royal Hallamshire hospital, Sheffield, on accepting radiation-contaminated casualties and assisting with decontamination of personnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  Regional health authorities are responsible for planning for emergencies. The hon. Member 190
  should contact the chairman of Trent regional health authority for details of training for staff at the Royal Hallamshire hospital.

  Backlog Maintenance, Trent
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of backlog maintenance for National Health Service properties in the Trent regional health authority and by district health authority, for he latest year for which he has figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 10 January at columns 666–69.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures from 1979 to 1989 for the number of(a) spina bifida births, (b) hydroencephaly births, (c) still births and (d) cot deaths, in the Merseyside area.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of (a) spina bifida births, (b) hydroencephaly births, (c) stillbirths and (d) cot deaths' in Mersey Regional Health Authority, 1979–88.

  Stillbirths

  Spina bifida

  Hydroencephalus

  Cot deaths

  1979

  278

  33

  45

  9

  1980

  238

  28

  42

  35

  1981

  207

  25

  41

  46

  1982

  214

  14

  26

  48

  1983

  156

  18

  22

  51

  1984

  181

  15

  27

  46

  1985

  179

  13

  23

  53

  1986

  180

  11

  12

  77

  1987

  175

  12

  7

  65

  1988

  135

  10

  8

  56

  1 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome-International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 798.0.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the North Western regional health authority to discuss the proposed Health Service reforms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have regular monthly meetings with the chairmen of the regional health authorities including Mr. Bruce Martin, chairman of the North Western regional health authority. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met Mr. Martin at the regional chairmen's meeting on 14 November 1989 when a number of management issues including Health Service reforms were discussed.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will show, by regional health authority, the response received to date from general practitioners, by percentage, where health centres and clinics are proposed to be sold; and what terms and conditions will be implemented.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Community Care
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated number of frail elderly, disabled and chronically sick patients no longer in need of acute hospital services who need to be rehabilitated and transferred to community care; what plans he has for professional training and establishing nationally-determined rates of pay for community carers; and what is the estimated average cost of care in the community perseriously disabled patient.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The organisation of rehabilitation services is a matter for individual district health authorities together with local authority social services departments. Information about such numbers is not held in the form requested. As set out in our White Paper "Caring for People" (Cmnd. 849) we welcome the developments in the role of home care workers which are already under way in a number of areas and have no plans to create a profession of community carer. We are currently discussing the detailed financial implications of the White Paper with the local authority associations.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce remuneration or compensation for members of the proposed new health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will enable remuneration to be paid to the new non-executive members of health authorities.

  Grant Funding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time his Department takes to make a decision on grant funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  As the nature and complexity of applications for grants vary considerably, an average time could prove misleading. We have introduced arrangements for our section 64 general scheme which require applications from voluntary organisations to be submitted by October with the intention that most decisions will be announced before April. A few complex applications and those where additional information is required may take a little longer to process.

  Intra-fallopian Transfer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the National Health Service centres that do not charge patients for gamete intra-fallopian transfer treatment;

  (2) if he will list the National Health Service centres that do not provide full National Health Service funding to National Health Service patients for gamete intra-fallopian transfer treatment and the cost per centre.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why payments are required from National Health Service patients for the cost of gamete intra-fallopian transfer treatment at some National Health Service centres.
  192
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT) is a relatively new technique used in the treatment of infertility and is available in only a few centres. Treatment under the National Health Service, including that for infertility, is provided free of charge. In addition, in some NHS hospitals GIFT may be provided as part of an academic research programme when patients may be asked to contribute to its costs.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the 10 largest hospital building projects in the United Kingdom currently under construction.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows that the 10 largest hospital building schemes, based on the cost of construction at tender, currently under construction in England are as follows:

  Region

  Scheme

  Northern

  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Scheme 1, Phase 5

  Northern

  Wansbeck General Hospital, Scheme 1, Phase 1

  Trent

  Lincoln County, Phase 2

  North West Thames

  Westminster and Chelsea Hospital

  South East Thames

  Hastings District General Hospital, Main Phase 1

  South West Thames

  Mid Sussex, Phase 1

  Wessex

  Bournemouth District General Hospital, Phase 2B

  Wessex

  Salisbury District Hospital, Phase 1

  South Western

  Royal Devon and Exeter, Wonford

  North Western

  Ormskirk District General Hospital, Phase 1

  Information on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of their respective Secretaries of State.

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the 10 largest hospital building projects completed in the United Kingdom since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information held centrally shows that the 10 largest hospital building schemes, based on the cost of construction at tender, completed in England since 1979 are as follows:

  Region

  Scheme

  Trent

  Queens Medical Centre Development, Phase 2

  North West Thames

  St. Mary's W2, Phase 1B

  North East Thames

  Homerton Hospital, Phase 1

  South West Thames

  St. Georges Block H, Phase 2A

  Wessex

  Bournemouth District General Hospital, Phase 1A

  West Midlands

  Walsall, Phases 4A and 4B

  West Midlands

  City General, Stoke, Surgical Accommodation

  West Midlands

  Telford District General Hospital, Phase 1

  West Midlands

  Bromsgrove Redditch District General Hospital, Phase 1, Contract 2

  Mersey

  North Sefton District General Hospital, Southport, Phase 1

  Information on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of their respective Secretaries of State.

  Camberwell Breast Screening Unit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Camberwell health authority breast screening unit.
  193
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No changes are planned at present to this unit. Since October 1988 it has provided women aged 50 to 64 from south-east London with a successful and popular screening and follow-up assessment service.

  Social Work Training
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of social work training.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have accepted the need to improve training for social workers and other social care staff and we are implementing a balanced programme of improvements. This includes the provision of additional funding for phasing out one-year post-graduate social work courses in favour of a minimum of two years training, improvement to the quality and quantity of practice placements and improvements to course curricula. Additional funds are also being made available to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work to introduce a new qualifying course, the diploma in social work which will replace the existing qualifying courses in due course. We are also giving consideration to improving opportunities for social work post-qualifying training.

  Hospices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to introduce a scheme of financial assistance to voluntary hospices for Her Majesty's Government to match pound for pound, up to 50 per cent. of running costs, money raised by the voluntary sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 15 December 1989 at columns 846–47.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit the Hospice of the Good Shepherd, Backford, near Chester, to meet the medical director to discuss the work of the hospice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We would be pleased to consider an invitation from the hospice.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use the registrar general is making of information collected for the community charge in respect of improving the accuracy of population statistics.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, at present. The registrar general will he examining aggregated community charge data with

  Prescriptions investigated under regulation 201 August 1988 to December 1989

  Region

  Cases considered by LMCs

  LMC decisions against the GP

  All decisions to recover the cost from the GP2

  East Anglia

  5

  1

  7

  Mersey

  0

  0

  7

  North East Thames

  4

  3

  3

  Northern

  3

  1

  1

  North Western

  15

  3

  5

  North West Thames

  4

  3

  3

  194
  a view to their use in making population estimates. If it becomes clear that use of community charge data would improve the accuracy of population estimates, this will begin as quickly as practicable.

  Lewisham Hospital
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is yet able to announce a decision on the proposed new Health Service development at Lewisham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Agreement has recently been reached on a major new development, known as phase II, at Lewisham hospital, the cost of which will be around £27 million. This scheme should provide, from the mid-1990s, a greatly improved range of health care to local people. The development complements the equally impressive phase III scheme at Guy's hospital in the north of Lewisham and North Southwark health authority costing around £75 million.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inquiries were undertaken each year since 1979 into prescribing practices by the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such inquiries have been undertaken, as this is not a function of the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in how many cases in each year since 1979 family practitioner committees deducted prescription costs from general medical practitioners, remuneration; and in which National Health Service regions those cases occurred;

  (2) in how many cases in each year since 1979 local medical committees invoked their powers under section 20 of the National Health Service Regulations 1974; and in which National Health Service regions such cases occurred.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for the period prior to August 1988 is no longer held in the Department. For the period since August 1988 the table shows for each region, on the basis of the information reported to the Department, the number of cases considered by local medical committees (LMCs) under regulation 20 of the NHS (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974, the number of cases in which LMCs decided that the substances should not have been prescribed, and the total number of cases in which the cost of the prescription was recovered from the GP concerned.
  195

  Region

  Cases considered by LMCs

  LMC decisions against the GP

  All decisions to recover the cost from the GP2

  Oxford

  1

  0

  12

  South East Thames

  2

  2

  11

  South Western

  3

  1

  19

  South West Thames

  10

  1

  3

  Trent

  7

  0

  1

  Wessex

  2

  1

  11

  West Midlands

  1

  0

  9

  Yorkshire

  12

  2

  2

  1 The figures are based on information provided by Family Practitioner Committees (FPCs) and Local Medical Committees (LMCs).

  2 Includes cases determined by the Family Practitioner Committee without reference to the Local Medical Committee by agreement with the GP concerned.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases in each year since 1979 PD8 inquiries were undertaken into individual doctors' prescribing practices; and in which National Health Service regions these inquiries were carried out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Inquiries into the prescribing of practices whose costs overall are significantly above the local average (previously known as PD8 inquiries) are undertaken by medical officers of the Department's regional medical service (RMS). RMS boundaries are not conterminous with NHS regional boundaries and it is therefore not possible to provide information in exactly the form requested. The RMS is organised in six divisions and covers the NHS regions as follows:

  RMS Division

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Eastern

  121

  104

  97

  87

  72

  24

  43

  87

  55

  143

  143

  East Midland

  90

  67

  35

  89

  110

  31

  34

  47

  92

  93

  129

  North Eastern

  92

  62

  49

  70

  62

  33

  14

  116

  114

  94

  128

  North Western

  161

  82

  50

  121

  96

  26

  53

  63

  143

  114

  99

  Southern

  121

  91

  35

  101

  59

  17

  36

  34

  105

  84

  168

  Western

  143

  94

  87

  144

  120

  46

  56

  48

  101

  143

  77

  TOTALS

  728

  500

  353

  612

  519

  177

  236

  395

  610

  671

  744

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many benzodiazepine tranquilliser addicts are known to have broken their dependency.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will provide the necessary funds to ensure that the national tranquilliser advice centre can continue operating;

  (2) what help or advice has been given to the national tranquilliser advice centre by his Department towards preventing its closure through lack of funds.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department awarded a grant of £10,000 to TRANX (UK) Ltd. in 1988–89 to enable the organisation to balance its books in that year. The organisation was advised that it should collaborate closely with local statutory authorities in order to secure adequate funds for the future. In the current financial year representatives of TRANX (UK) Ltd. met departmental officials who advised them that central funding was unlikely to be available in their existing circumstances. To assist TRANX, officials therefore suggested that it should provide details of its budget expectations and how it would set priorities for the services it offers in line with the
  196
  Eastern Division
  North West Thames, North East Thames and East Anglian Regions.

  East Midlands Division
  Trent and Oxford Regions.

  North Eastern Division
  Yorkshire and Northern Regions, excluding Cumbria.

  North Western Division
  North Western and Mersey Regions, plus Cumbria.

  Southern Division
  South East Thames, South West Thames and Wessex Regions.

  Western Division
  West Midlands and South Western Regions.

  The numbers and total of visits to high cost practices undertaken in England since 1979 in each of the RMS divisions is shown in the following table:

  funding likely to be available. Following this reappraisal by TRANX, the Department would consider whether there was any advice or help which it could offer.

  When the North West Thames regional health authority and the London borough grants unit decided not to continue to support TRANX the Department wrote in December explaining that because the local statutory authorities are no longer prepared to fund local elements of the service TRANX (UK) Ltd. provides and given the constraints on central funds the Department is unable to offer the organisation any further grant aid.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will summarise the nature of the new provision for drug misusers that has been made by the regional health authorities with the near £15 million provided by his Department; and approximately what proportion of this provision is specifically aimed at those addicted to tranquillisers.

  Mr. Freeman
  Regions are due to report in detail on the use made of the £14·793 million allocated in 1989–90 specifically for the development of drug misuse services in July 1990. We will be asking regions for full details of developments funded from these earmarked allocations which will include information on services for people dependent on tranquillisers.
  197
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the spread of the service provided by the national tranquilliser advice centre for tranquilliser addicts;

  (2) what information he has been given by the national tranquilliser advice centre about the national service it provides; and what information he has on the proportion of the inquiries it receives from people living in areas which are not part of the North West Thames region.

  Mr. Freeman
  Direct client services of the kind TRANX (UK) Ltd. offers are best provided locally rather than nationally. Local statutory authorities are best placed to decide which services are worthy of support and fit in with their overall plans. TRANX (UK) Ltd. has provided the Department with details of the national service it offers. This consists of telephone counselling, written information about tranquillisers and advice on how to withdraw from them, together with a newsletter.

  Figures from TRANX (UK) Ltd's annual report for 1988 (the most recent available) show that 44 per cent. of inquiries in England were from areas not covered by the catchment areas of the four Thames regions. The breakdown of inquiries from the North West Thames area is not separately available.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efforts his Department has made to establish the number of people at risk of addiction through taking benzodiazepine tranquillisers on a long term basis.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is unlikely that it would be possible to obtain accurate statistical data on those dependent on benzodiazepines. What is important is to encourage careful prescribing of benzodiazepines, to promote alternatives to their use and to provide services for those experiencing problems as a result of their dependence: the right hon. Member will be aware of the initiatives the Government are taking in this respect.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of tranquilliser advice centres, similar to the national tranquilliser advice centre, operating throughout the United Kingdom and on their source of funding.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are aware of a number of centres in various parts of England which provide advice for those working with those dependent on tranquillisers. We are also aware of many local services for this group. The provision and funding of these local direct client services is the responsibility of the local statutory authorities. We are funding the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) to produce a national directory of services for this group. Up to £81,000 has been made available for the work which is spread over three financial years starting in 1988–89.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigation there has been of the type of support and advice that best enables those addicted to tranquillisers to overcome their addiction.

  Mr. Freeman
  Studies have shown that in other fields of dependence face-to-face counselling and contact with a local treatment service improve the likely prognosis compared with other treatment approaches. The available evidence is that this also applies to tranquillisers.
  198
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated number of people dependent on the benzodiazepine tranquillisers; and how the numbers have changed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Detailed information is not held centrally, but it is known that in recent years the increase in the number of local agencies which have been established partly as a result of Government initiatives, has resulted in a far greater number of people coming forward for help in withdrawing from their prescribed drugs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most recent figure for the annual rate of prescription of benzodiazepine tranquillisers; and which pharmaceutical companies currently supply the National Health Service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest estimate of the number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain is 23·2 million in 1988. Under the selected list scheme prescriptions for most benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers must be written generically. It is not possible to produce a comprehensive list of pharmaceutical companies whose products are being supplied. However some benzodiazepines may be prescribed at NHS expense using the brand name for example for intravenous use. The manufacturers concerned are

  C. P. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Farmitalia Carlo Erba Ltd.

  Kabi-Vitrum Ltd.

  Roche Products Ltd.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response has been given to the pharmaceutical company Roche which has indicated that it would contribute towards the organisational costs of the national tranquilliser advice centre if his Department did likewise.

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble Friend Lady Hooper has written to Roche, informing it of the decision by North West Thames regional health authority and London borough grants unit and the Department of Health that no further funding can be awarded to TRANX (UK) Ltd.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to mental illness and mental handicap hospitals under compulsory powers; how many were resident in such hospitals when detained, excluding special hospitals; and what percentage of total admissions and residents they constituted, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recent complete information is for 1986. During that year there were 237,311 admissions, of which 16,193 (6·8 per cent.) were formal admissions under compulsory powers, to National Health Service mental handicap and mental illness hospitals and units in England. It is estimated that 9,900 patients, already admitted as informal, were subsequently detained as formal patients and 7,600 formal patients had a change of legal status although remaining detained. On 31 December 1986 there was a total of 93,442 patients resident in these hospitals and units, of whom 4,602 (or 4·9 per cent.) were formally detained patients.

  Welfare Milk
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proportion of total redeemed token value in the welfare milk scheme submitted by roundsmen in each year since 1979 in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his proposals for apportioning revenue loss costs between farmers, dairies and distributors with respect to his proposed welfare milk scheme discount; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The regulations laid on 5 January enable the dairy trade, on a voluntary basis, to accept tokens for the supply of liquid welfare milk and pass them up through the trade so that the cost of the price reduction can be shared equitably. The dairy trade has well-established mechanisms and procedures for deciding prices and discounts between milk marketing boards and distributors.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what negotiations have taken place with the milk trade and its constituent companies concerning proposals for changes to the welfare milk scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Before negotiations commenced we wrote to all suppliers explaining that as part of the Government's initiative to see whether better value for money could be obtained the cost of purchasing liquid welfare milk was to be examined. Detailed and extensive negotiations subsequently took place over a period of eight months involving over 40 separate companies and six major supermarket chains. Discussions were held with representatives from all sectors of the dairy trade including the dairy trade federations, the National Dairyman's Association and the milk marketing boards. Meetings were held with representatives of the British Retail Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Fedration of Self Employed and Small businesses. Following the decision to introduce a revised pricing structure, we have written to all suppliers explaining the decision together with details of the measures that we have introduced to enable the cost of the price reduction to be shared equitably throughout the trade.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received by his Department with respect to current proposals to change funding arrangements for the welfare milk scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the announcement of the decision to implement a revised price structure for the supply of liquid welfare milk we have received representations from the English Dairy Trade Federation and the National Dairyman's Association. In response my noble Friend Baroness Hooper met with officers and members of the English and Scottish dairy trade federations on 9 January to hear the trade's views and make arrangements to discuss implementation of the new structure.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether imported blood products are tested for hepatitis C; and what are the differences in testing procedures between imported blood products and fresh blood donations from British resident donors.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 10 January 1990]: As far as we are aware, at present there is no routine testing for hepatitis C carried out by the home authorities in any country from which blood products are imported to the UK. Such tests as are available are still being developed and evaluated.

  It is a matter for the authorities in each country to decide on appropriate screening procedures for blood. These may vary according to the prevalence of certain infectious agents in the country of origin. The Department keeps testing procedures under review and recommends the introduction of new tests in the light of scientific and other developments.

  Blood or plasma collected overseas for processing into blood products which are to be imported into the United Kingdom under United Kingdom product licence is subjected to such screening tests as are laid down by the home authority, as well as any that are required by our licensing authority—the Medicines Control Agency.

SCOTLAND

  Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how employment training and YTS will be administered after the Scottish Enterprise and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise proposals are implemented.

  Mr. Lang
  Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will contract with local enterprise companies for the provision of all Government training in their respective areas.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to promote any measures to increase the take-up of YTS and employment training places in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no present plans for further measures specifically designed to increase uptake of employment training and youth training. However, I fully expect that the creation of local enterprise companies and the opportunities that they will have for flexibility in the provision of training will lead to more attractive locally-oriented training arrangements for both adults and young people that are closely geared to their needs and those of local employers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis of training expenditure in Scotland, consistent with page 40 of "Public Expenditure to 1991–92: A Commentary on the Scotland Programme", indicating for the years 1983–84 to 1991–92 (a) public expenditure in Scotland on training, (b) the public expenditure programme in which it was included for that year, (c) the Vote on which it was taken for that year and (d) the impact of the definitional and classification changes upon the annual totals of public

  201
  expenditure on the Scotland programme, as shown in table 16.1 of Cm. 616 and in the table appended to the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 6 December, Official Report, columns 330–33.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to provide details of spending on training only. Spending in Scotland by the Manpower Services Commission, the Training

  Year

  (a) Spending in Scotland by Manpower Services Commission, Training Commission and Training Agency £ million

  (b) Public expenditure programme

  (c) Class and Vote

  1983–84

  119 outturn

  4

  Class XV Vote 4

  1984–85

  127 outturn

  4

  Class XV Vote 4

  1985–86

  134 outturn

  4

  Class XV Vote 4

  1986–87

  162 outturn

  4

  Class XVI Vote 4

  1987–88

  164 outturn

  4

  Class XVI Vote 4

  1988–89

  205 outturn

  4

  Class XVI Vote 4

  1989–90

  277 planned expenditure

  4

  Class XVI Vote 4

  1990–91

  267 planned expenditure

  4

  Class XVI Vote 4

  1991–92

  not yet available

  15

  Class XVI

  (Vote not yet available)

  (d) Since this expenditure has been in programme 4 definitional and classification changes affecting it have had no impact on the Scotland programme.

  Steel
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of employment in steel and steel-related industries in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The total number of employees in steel and steel-related industries in Scotland in 1989 was estimated at 7,400 using data from the Industry Department for Scotland's regional data system.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of employment in steel and steel-related industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 16 January to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars).

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of employment in steel and steel-related industries in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 16 January to the hon. Member for Govan.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of employment in steel and steel-related industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 16 January to the hon. Member for Govan.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities in Scotland about the collection of poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations from local authorities about different aspects of the community charge.
  202
  Commission and the Training Agency cannot be broken down in sufficient detail to distinguish fully spending on training from spending by these bodies on other employment-related programmes such as the employment rehabilitation service and the enterprise allowance scheme. The figures given in the table therefore represent total expenditure in Scotland by these bodies, which were funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland:

  Dangerous Weapons
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there have been any recent alterations to the rules governing the holding of potentially dangerous weapons within Scottish prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The Prison Rules (Scotland) do not authorise the holding of potentially dangerous weapons and there is no reason to alter them.

  Mr. Gordon Jackson
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if weapons were involved in the authorised training processes carried out within the Scottish prison service by Mr. Gordon Jackson.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Jackson was authorised to train teams in negotiating procedures. Weapons are not authorised or necessary for such training.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland under what authority the former governor of Glenochil prison, Mr. Gordon Jackson, established a special squad from the prison service to be trained to SAS standards; and what was the basis for selection.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A special squad from the prison service was not established and trained to SAS standards.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland. whether the special training initiated by governor Gordon Jackson at Glenochil has continued following his departure.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no evidence to suggest that governor Gordon Jackson initiated any special training at Glenochil and no such training has been introduced since his departure.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement as to why Gordon
  203
  Jackson, governor of Glenochil prison, kept CS gas cartridges and ammunition at the gaol; and what was his policy on the keeping of similar supplies at other prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Jackson pled guilty to being in unauthorised possession of CS cartridges and ammunition at Alloa sheriff court on 1 December 1989. The Prison Rules (Scotland) do not authorise the possession or use of these items and no change to this position is considered necessary.

  Drought Orders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by(a) water company and (b) location those areas where drought orders still remain in force.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Water supply in Scotland is the responsibility of the regional and islands councils. No drought orders are in force at the present time.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage by volume of drinking water in Scotland that is treated by the addition of(a) chlorine and (b) ozone.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over 99 per cent. of drinking water in Scotland is disinfected by chlorination. Of the remainder, broadly equal proportions are disinfected by either ozone or ultraviolet radiation.

  Planting of Evidence
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of alleged planting of evidence were made in 1989 against the police in Scotland; and how many of these resulted in prosecutions.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I understand from inquiries made of chief constables that in 1989 five cases of alleged planting of evidence involving the police in Scotland were reported to the procurator fiscal. No proceedings were taken in three cases; the remaining two are still under consideration by the procurator fiscal.

  Two Homes Allowance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of the two homes allowance payable by the Scottish Education Department in addition to students who own or rent property which they cannot reasonably be expected to give up on moving to another area for educational purposes, in each of the last five academic years including 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is as follows:

  Academic Year

  £

  1985–86

  410

  1986–87

  455

  1987–88

  473

  1988–89

  490

  1989–90

  515

  Museum of Scotland
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the location of the planned Museum of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I am delighted to announce that the new Museum of Scotland will be located in Edinburgh, on the vacant site adjacent to the Royal Museum of Scotland in Chambers street, and to confirm the Government's agreement to fund the development.

  The Museum of Scotland will provide a worthy setting for the outstanding Scottish collections of the National Museums of Scotland. The need for new accommodation in which to display the nation's heritage has been acknowledged for many years. The project was given fresh impetus in 1985 with the formation of the National Museums of Scotland. The board of trustees identified the provision of a new museum as their prime objective and last year submitted to the Secretary of State a detailed assessment of their requirements and a comprehensive investment appraisal of optional locations for the development. This clearly demonstrated that the need for the new museum was more pressing than ever, and that the Chambers street site was the most appropriate and cost-effective location.

  On the basis of the investment appraisal, we have allocated resources for the new building within our recent public expenditure settlement, and I am pleased to confirm that these resources will now be made available to the National Museums' board of trustees.

  The Government's decision to invest in this project reflects the importance that we attach to the care and display of our heritage, and to expanding the opportunities for the people of Scotland and for visitors to enjoy and learn from the wealth of material held by the museums.

  I congratulate Lord Bute and his fellow trustees and the director Dr. Anderson and his staff on their success in securing a new home for Scotland's heritage.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what uses are being made by health boards of the moneys released from competitive tendering initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Boards have been using the moneys released in a variety of ways and examples of the projects funded or partially funded by them are as follows:

  Argyll and Clyde

  1. Increased medical and support staff in community care and special needs (children).

  2. Employment of additional occupational therapist and chiropodist.

  3. Increased staffing for accident and emergency.

  4. Upgrading of pathology posts and enhancement of cervical cytology screening.

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1. Provision (including nurse staffing) of self-contained paediatric out-patient clinic at Crosshouse hospital.

  2. Part funding of gynaecology day unit at Crosshouse hospital.

  3. Increase in medical staffing (including three registrars in anaesthetics, one ophthalmist and increased GP sessions).

  4. Additional community nurses.

  205
  Borders

  1. Advancement of opening dates of Innerleithen and Hawick health centres.

  2. Assistance with development costs of the Borders general hospital.

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1. Provision of new 30-bed geriatric unit at Annan and additional beds at Lockmaben.

  2. Development of mental handicap services.

  3. Appointment of additional consultant medical staff in ophthalmology.

  Fife

  1. An extra clinical psychologist at the priority care unit.

  2. Extra nursing staff at Cameron hospital.

  3. Options under consideration at Dunfermline are development of medical photography services, recruitment of more trained operating theatre staff or extra nurses to allow psycho-geriatric day hospital services to be made available for longer periods of time.

  Forth Valley

  1. Appointment of additional 15 psycho-geriatric nurses.

  2. Appointment of additional consultant histopathologist.

  3. Provision of additional treatment facilities for geriatric patients at Falkirk and district royal infirmary.

  4. Provision of funds to enable the devolution of psychiatric care from Bellsdyke hospital to the community and establishment of a community care team.

  Grampian

  1. Part funding of a joint venture project with voluntary organisations and social work departments to meet the running costs of five houses to accommodate 20 mentally handicapped patients being transferred back into the community.

  2. The establishment of a number of additional posts, primarily in nursing and paramedical services, in the board's geriatric and specialist services unit.

  3. Additional nursing posts in the neuro-surgical, renal dialysis and vascular surgery areas.

  4. Additional physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

  5. The establishment of five new low technology delivery rooms and recovery facilities, allowing women in labour to be midwife managed.

  Greater Glasgow

  1. Additional 44 nurses for mental illness.

  2. Additional 17 paramedicals and 13 staff of other kinds for mental handicap.

  3. Additional 16 paramedicals and 11 district nurses to reduce waiting lists in the community.

  4. Additional 15 nurses and four other staff for improvements in service for cancer treatment.

  5. Additional 10 staff to improve and develop cervical cytology services.

  6. Additional 14 staff to meet increasing demand on renal services.

  7. Additional six staff for improvements in accident and emergency services at Glasgow royal infirmary.

  Highland

  1. Additional paramedical posts in geriatric services at Sutherland.

  2. Creation of waiting list team assisting medical staff at Raigmore hospital.

  3. Creation of "travelling day hospital" for psychiatric patients who live some distance from Inverness.

  Lanarkshire

  1. Additional community nursing posts in Mental Handicap Services Unit.

  2. Additional speech therapy posts in the community.

  3. Additional occupational therapy posts.

  4. Additional paramedical posts (physiotherapy, chiropody etc).

  206
  Lothian

  1. Increased renal dialysis sessions.

  2. Increased support funding for joint working with local authorities.

  3. Increased nurse staffing for mental handicap and psychiatric services.

  Tayside

  Developments in patient services in the following areas:-—

  1. Mumps, measles and rubella vaccinations;

  2. Blood products;

  3. Resource management;

  4. Support finance;

  5. Accident and emergency-consultant support staff

  6. A senior physicist;

  7. Community nursing.

  Window Replacement
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amounts spent by the Scottish Special Housing Association on window replacement programmes for its housing stock in each year since 1979; and if he will also list the amounts currently being spent and planned to be spent on window replacement programmes by Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: Such information is not held by the Scottish Development Department. The hon. Member may wish to write directly to Scottish Homes, which may be able to provide information on past expenditure by the Scottish Special Housing Association and its own expenditure programmes on window replacement

  Mentally Ill People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what extra resources will be made available for the provision of community care for the mentally ill;

  (2) what plans he has to earmark financial resources for the care of the mentally ill.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The recently published White Paper "Caring for People" (Cmd. 849) states that local authorities will receive adequate resources to enable them to discharge their new responsibilities. These extend to the provision of care and support for persons with mental illness in the community. Local authorities will have transferred to them resources that the Government would otherwise have used to finance residential care through social security payments to people in residential and nursing homes.

  Local authorities are generally free to determine the use of the resources available to them for their various responsibilities. The White Paper announced that there will be a specific grant to help accelerate the development of community-based services for persons with mental illness.

  Rural Legal Partnerships
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will conduct a survey into the financial viability of small legal partnerships in rural areas.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: I have no plans to do so.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the levels of legal aid fees in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Legal aid fees in Scotland are set after consultation with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. The next consultations will begin soon.

  Community Water Charge
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the community water charge set in each region and islands council area for 1989–90.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Information on water charges is available in the booklet "Water Charges in Scotland—The New Arrangements" published by the Scottish Office in April 1989, copies of which are available in the Library. The community water charges set in each region and islands council area for 198–0 are set out in the table:

  Regional/Islands Council

  Community Water Charge £/person

  Borders

  31·00

  Central

  15·00

  Dumfries and Galloway

  28·00

  Fife

  18·00

  Grampian

  30·00

  Highland

  20·00

  Lothian

  18·00

  Strathclyde

  19·00

  Tayside

  21·00

  Orkney

  26·00

  Shetland

  6·78

  Western Isles

  34·00

  Homelessness
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many single homeless people he estimates there are currently in Scotland under the age of 25 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: The Scottish Development Department does not make such estimates.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the figures for the number of single homeless people in Scotland for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: This information is not collected centrally.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Government Documents
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what measures have been taken to increase the safety of Government documents being transported by Ministers in Great Britain following the recent theft from the car of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
  208
  Mr. Luce
  I am satisfied that the measures which are already in place for the protection of Government documents are sufficient to ensure their safety.

  Staff Relations
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to improve staff relations in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 16 January 1990]The Government have always attached importance to good staff relations in the Civil Service. The next steps initiative is intended, amongst other things, to increase motivation and satisfaction by releasing staff talents to provide a better service to the public. In some cases group performance bonuses can be earned. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have both paid public tribute to the quality and commitment we see in staff in the Civil Service. As I made clear in my speech at a RIPA seminar last year the Government care greatly about the men and women of the Civil Service and the way they deliver Government services.

THE ARTS

  Opera
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to increase funding for the provision for opera facilities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Luce
  The funding of opera is a matter for the Arts Council. However, I am pleased to say that, as a result of the increase in the Arts Council's grant which I announced in November, companies will receive significant increases in their grant. Among these, Welsh National Opera will receive an 8 per cent. increase from the Arts Council of Great Britain, and a 10·1 per cent. rise from the Welsh Arts Council taking its total grant to £4·8 million in 1990–91.

  Arts for Labour
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will meet representatives of Arts for Labour to discuss the allocation of resources, both national and regional.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so.

  National Railway Museum
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will take steps to save the unique double turntable installation at the national railway museum in York during works involving the replacement of the roof at the museum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The proposed changes at the national railway museum at York are a matter for the director and the trustees of the science museum. I understand that they have formulated their proposals for the new roof and a single turntable after careful and extensive consultation. The north engine shed has a long history of alteration and the museum has never sought to interpret the main hall or any part of it as a former locomotive depot.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to discuss arts funding and tax deductibility.

  Mr. Luce
  I keep these matters under general review.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now ready to publish a Green Paper on his proposals for the future legislative regime for friendly societies.

  Mr. Major
  I have today laid before Parliament a paper entitled "Friendly Societies: A New Framework". This Green Paper sets out the Government's proposals for a new legislative framework for friendly societies. The main proposals are to give societies wider powers to offer a more comprehensive and competitive range of services through subsidiary companies. The main new powers would be to allow establishment and management of unit trust schemes and personal equity plans; to act as agents of other insurers (life or general business); to give advice on insurance; to provide loans; and to reinsure other friendly societies' business.

  This range of powers was requested by the Friendly Societies Liaison Committee in its submission to the Economic Secretary in 1988 and I have decided to accept its case in full.

  The proposals include legislation to provide societies with a cheap and simple route to incorporation as a special category of body under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. This will enable societies to achieve the legal status which is necessary to own subsidiaries and hence to offer services other than long-term insurance business, without losing their special identity as friendly societies.

  The paper also proposes that the regulatory system for friendly societies should be updated to give improved investor protection. In particular, I propose that a solvency requirement should be extended to all friendly societies, that the chief registrar should be given enhanced powers to deal with moribund societies, and that the requirements for societies' systems of accounts and control should be updated to bring them into line with other financial institutions. I also propose that all societies should be required to join a statutory investor protection scheme and that a new ombudsman scheme should be established to deal with members' complaints.

  I believe that the Green Paper will establish a satisfactory constitutional and legislative framework for societies, which will allow for their continued development over the coming years. I hope that there will be support for these proposals from both sides of the House.

  Exports
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what exports per capita were in each of the OECD countries, in the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what percentage of gross domestic product exports amounted to in each of the OECD countries, in the latest year for which figures are available.
  210
  Mr. Ryder
  The data for exports per capita and exports as a percentage share of gross domestic product in each of the OECD countries for 1988 are shown in the table:

  Exports of goods per capita US $

  Exports of goods as a percentage of gross domestic product

  United Kingdom

  2,539

  17·8

  United States of America

  1,301

  6·7

  Canada

  4,314

  23·2

  Japan

  2,161

  9·3

  Germany

  5,268

  26·9

  France

  2,895

  17·1

  Italy

  2,248

  15·6

  Netherlands

  6,981

  45·2

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  8,963

  59·3

  Australia

  1,976

  13·3

  New Zealand

  2,652

  21·0

  Austria

  4,086

  24·5

  Denmark

  5,279

  25·2

  Finland

  4,394

  20·7

  Greece1

  649

  14·6

  Iceland

  5,781

  23·8

  Ireland

  5,295

  60·6

  Norway

  5,343

  24·9

  Portugal

  1,033

  25·5

  Spain

  1,032

  11·8

  Sweden

  5,891

  27·9

  Switzerland

  7,601

  27·4

  Turkey

  215

  16·2

  1 The data for Greece refers to 1987.

  Source: OECD Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade.

  OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report an analysis, comparable with Table 2.4 of Financial Statistics, of the public expenditure classification changes contained in table 1A.1 of the Autumn Statement 1989, Cm 879.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The classification changes contained in table 1A.1 of the Autumn Statement include the following:

  1. Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay are now included in the planning total;

  2. Recipts of fines and fixed penalties are now treated as revenue and outside the planning total;

  3. Expenditure on police, education and fire services in Northern Ireland is now treated as central Government's own expenditure. Previously this was treated as local authority expenditure;

  4. Expenditure by the Training Agency on the technical and vocational educational initiative (TVEI) and work-related further education (WRFE) formerly treated as central Government's own expenditure, is now included in support for local authorities;

  5. Expenditure of National Rivers Authority on land drainage financed by levies on local authorities is now included in central Government's own expenditure Equivalent expenditure was previously included in local authority expenditure as payments to water authorities;

  6. Receipts from visa fees are now treated as revenue and outside the planning total;

  7. Receipts of OFTEL and OFGAS are now treated as revenue and outside the planning total.

  Their contributions to the aggregate classification change shown in table 1A.1 are as follows.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Central Government's own expenditure

  Statutory Sick Pay/Statutory Maternity Pay

  1,259

  1,311

  Fines and Fixed Penalties

  275

  291

  211

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern Ireland switch from local authority

  791

  831

  TVEI and WRFE

  -243

  -248

  NRA land drainage

  155

  160

  Visas

  32

  33

  OFTEL and OFGAS

  7

  7

  Others

  3

  2

  Total

  2,279

  2,387

  Public Corporations

  Local authority airport and bus companies

  -86

  -70

  Total

  -86

  -70

  A similar analysis covering the period from 1984–85 to 1991–92 will be included in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing, for the latest years now available, identifiable public expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) as an index, United Kingdom total identifiable public expenditure =100, (c) as an amount per capita and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an index, United Kingdom amount per capita =100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) on 19 December 1989 at columns 179–91.

  EEC Payments
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payments from the European Economic Communities due in the calendar year 1989 have yet to be made; when such payments are expected; and if he will state the reasons for any delay.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: As far as I am aware, all of the payments which the United Kingdom was due to receive in 1989 were made.

  Capital Investment
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest trends on capital investment by British industry.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]Figures of manufacturing investment up to the third quarter of 1989 are shown at table 1 of the press release CS0(89)147 (Manufacturers' Investment Intentions for 1990 and 1991) issued on 20 December 1989. That release also contains projections of future investment by manufacturers. For non-manufacturing industries, comparable figures to the third quarter 1989 are given in table 3 of the Central Statistical Office Business Bulletin Issue 16/89. Projections of future investment for these industries are not available. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  City of London (Foreign Earnings)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the foreign earnings of the City of London in(a) insurance, (b) banking, (net), (c) commodity
  212
  trading, (d) brokerage, (e) investment trusts, (f) pension funds, (g) unit trusts, (h) leasing, (i) securities dealer and (j) in total in (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1987, (iv) 1988 and (v) 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Information up to and including 1988 is given in the published annual Pink Books on the United Kingdom balance of payments and from the CSO Databank, both of which are available in the Library. Information for 1989 will be published later this year.

  VAT
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current rates of value-added tax on(a) electricity and (b) gas in each European Community country; and whether it is intended to maintain a zero rate in the United Kingdom for fuels after 1992.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: Based on the latest available information the current rates are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Country

  Gas

  Electricity

  Belgium

  17

  17

  Denmark

  22

  22

  France

  5·5

  5·5

  Germany

  14

  14

  Greece

  2—

  2—

  Ireland

  10

  5

  Italy

  9

  9

  Luxembourg

  6

  6

  Netherlands

  18·5

  18·5

  Portugal

  8 (6)

  1 8 (6)

  Spain

  12

  12

  United Kingdom

  0

  0

  1 Lower rates apply in autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira Archipelagoes.

  2 Information not available.

  To comply with the European Court of Justice ruling of 21 June 1988, VAT at the standard rate will apply in the United Kingdom to fuel and power supplied to businesses from 1 July 1990.

  In the context of the Commission's indirect tax proposals for the single market, the Government have repeatedly made it clear that they intend to maintain the zero rate of VAT for domestic fuel and power. As changes to EC law require unanimous agreement, the United Kingdom's position is safeguarded.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Consumer Panel
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names of individuals that have been nominated to sit on his consumer panel, giving the name of the nominating organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have not yet written to all the nominees. When I have done so, it is my intention to announce publicly the names of the members of the consumer panel and details of its meetings. I will send the hon. Member the information he has requested at that time.

  Cattle Auctions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle auction markets are(a) licensed and.(b) unlicensed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  All cattle auction markets must be licensed under the provisions of article 17 of the Brucellosis (England and Wales) Order 1984.

  Organic Extensification
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to introduce an organic extensification option; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I shall shortly be issuing a consultation document outlining a possible scheme under which grant aid would be available to those farmers wishing to convert from conventional to organic production.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to encourage further the practice of organic farming;

  (2) what steps he proposes to take to lessen dependence on imports to satisfy consumer demand for organic produce.

  Mr. Curry
  It is for those who produce, process or market organic produce to respond to the growing demand for organic foods and to lessen our dependence on imported supplies. However, my Department has already taken a number of steps to encourage this process while additional proposals are current under consideration.

  Of particular significance has been the setting up of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards (UKROFS) which in May 1989 launched production and processing standards for organic produce and an independent certification and inspection system. We understand that the UKROFS board has now reached an advanced stage in its discussions on registration with the organic sector bodies through which it is expected the large majority of registrations will be effected. Once the board has satisfied itself on the inspection and certification arrangements to be operated by these bodies, consumers will be able with confidence to purchase British organic produce backed by the UKROFS standards and monitoring provisions.

  Other steps being taken, or under consideration, by the Government include the funding of a comprehensive economic survey of organic farming; the provision of R and D and of specialised ADAS advice; the help for conversion available through the fallow option of the set-aside scheme; and the benefits available through the farm and conservation grant scheme and from assistance towards establishing co-operatives. In addition, we are proposing shortly to issue a consultation document on an organic conversion option under the EC extensification scheme.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to prevent the sale of produce inaccurately labelled as organic.
  214
  Mr. Maclean
  It is already an offence under the Food Act 1984 to apply a false or misleading description to food. In proposed EC regulation, currently under consideration, there are specific provisions to prevent the sale of produce labelled as organic but which does not conform to specified standards.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will accept further applications from those who have already made a first application under the farm woodland scheme to cover a further three-year period.

  Mr. Curry
  Initially, the rules of the farm woodland scheme allowed only one application to be accepted for any one agricultural unit or applicant. Last August, in the light of experience, we changed the rules so that farmers with more than one agricultural unit could make a separate application for each of them.

  The rule limiting farmers to one application per agricultural unit remains in force to minimise administrative work and to encourage farmers to formulate a firm three-year planting plan at the outset. However, I am keeping it under review, along with the other rules, in the light of operational experience and the level of uptake under the scheme.

  At the end of the initial three-year experimental period in September 1991 all aspects of the scheme will, of course, be reviewed to help establish what arrangements should apply thereafter.

  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the hectarage applied for during the first three years of the farm woodland scheme; and how much under the target figure this is.

  Mr. Curry
  In the first 14 months of the farm woodland scheme applications to plant 8,938 hectares of trees throughout the United Kingdom were received. This compares with the target for applications in the first experimental three-year period of 36,000 hectares.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of polychlorinated biphenyl levels in all parts of fish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministry scientists regularly measure the concentrations of PCBs in both edible and non-edible parts of fish in English and Welsh waters as part of an extensive programme on the quality of fish and shellfish. The results are published in the directorate of fisheries research's aquatic environment monitoring report series. The most recent report is AEMR 16, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Microwave Ovens
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there is any evidence of a risk to health in heating milk in microwave ovens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Microwaving is simply one method of heating food. I am not aware of any good evidence that
  215
  changes in food brought about by microwave heating would not also be brought about by other methods producing equivalent amounts of heat.

  I understand that the account of the research carried out at the University of Vienna and reported in The Lancet of 9 December was very incomplete. It failed to mention that a very small milk sample was microwaved at full power in a sealed tube to an unknown temperature (probably well in excess of 100 deg. C) until it was brown. This heat treatment was far more severe than that received by other samples with which it was compared and bears no relation whatever to the way consumers would heat milk in the kitchen.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the nature and scope of his new research programme into the vertical tranmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 18 December 1989 at col.30.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the research work into bovine spongiform encephalopathy as announced by him on 9 January, will be published in full as recommended by the Tyrrell report.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 January 1990]: I shall adhere to MAFF's general policy and publicise the results of research which we fund.

  Enzymes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of gels containing enzymes as binding agents in meat products.

  Mr. Maclean
  Meat products offered for sale have to comply with the provisions of the Food Act 1984, the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984. Meat products made using the techniques mentioned would have to be carefully labelled so as to ensure that consumers are adequately informed of their true nature and means of production.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban the use of vegetable enzymes as meat tenderisers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The continued use of vegetable enzymes to tenderise meat will be subject to single market rules yet to be determined. However during the course of the Adjournment debate on 7 November 1989, I announced the Government's decision not to seek provision for the continued use of the pre-slaughter injection of cattle with the enzyme papain when Community proposals are discussed.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require meat subjected to treatment with the vegetable enzyme papain to be labelled in such a manner that the use of this enzyme is clear to prospective consumers.
  216
  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Labelling Regulations 1984 already require that the name used for any meat which has been treated with proteolytic enzymes or which is derived from an animal that has been so treated shall include or be accompanied by the word "tenderised".

  Fish Disease
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what surveys have been conducted by his Department to establish the incidence of(a) dab, (b) flounder, (c) cod, (d) herring and (e) plaice caught in water around Britain which show evidence of disease.

  Mr. Curry
  Since 1980 my Department, together with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, has conducted both annual and ad hoc surveys to establish the prevalence rates of diseases in commercial fish species, including dab, flounder, plaice, cod and herring in water around Britain.

  My Department has played a key role in establishing standardised sampling and disease recording methods with other European countries and collaborates with these countries in fish disease survey programmes.

  Simplesse
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has discussed the product Simplesse with Monsanto.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. Representatives of Nutrasweet, a Monsanto subsidiary, have discussed the product with officials of my Ministry and the Department of Health. It is a product made from common food ingredients using existing food production methods and has been considered by the advisory committee on novel foods and processes. The likely impact on the diet of this and similar products is under consideration.

  Industrial Pollution (North Sea)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from consumers about the effect on fish in the North sea of industrial pollution and waste disposal; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Curry
  I receive a number of inquiries from members of the public about the safety of North sea fish for human consumption.

  The waste disposal operations directly licensed by my Department are very carefully assessed to avoid adverse effects on marine life either in the short or long term. My Department carefully monitors the quality of the marine environment both round disposal sites and more generally and this includes an extensive programme of monitoring fish.

  As a consequence, I am able to assure correspondents that the health of the North sea is good, that fish offered for sale from British waters are not adversely affected by pollution, that they fully comply with relevant public health standards and that they are quite safe to eat.

  Fish Liver Oils
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is known by his Department about the extent of polychlorinated biphenyl contamination of fish liver oils; and what tests are, or have been, carried out on fish liver oil products.

  Mr. Maclean
  Results of surveillance of fish liver oil products for the presence of polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) have been published in food surveillance papers Nos. 13 and 16, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Wastes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields, 14 December,Official Report, column 800, whether the replies received from (a) Sweden, (b) Denmark, (c) the Netherlands, (d) Germany and (e) Norway, were in support of his proposals to issue a licence to dump the relevant wastes in the North sea.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]: Sweden, Denmark and Norway objected to each of the three proposals, the Netherlands objected to two and the Federal Republic of Germany raised no specific objections.

  The other seven countries of the Oslo convention did not comment, an indication that they were content with our submissions.

  A full response has been sent to each country which raised objections, clarifying misunderstandings which appear to underlie the comments.

  In response to concerns that heavy metals could cause harm we have confirmed that there are no detectable heavy metals in the wastes. We have explained that the biochemical oxygen demand would be far too insignificant to have any effect in the sea and that standard works of reference show that the trace level of biodegradable phenol in one waste will not taint fish.

  As regards monitoring, we have reminded the countries concerned that these specific wastes are rapidly neutralised in the sea and that their presence in the water is undetectable very shortly after release. We have described our fish and shellfish monitoring programme which shows that fish are not affected by the disposals.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 11 December to the hon. Member for South Shields,Official Report, columns 512–16, if he will list the active ingredients which have had their reviews concluded by the ACP according to the categories (a) approval withdrawn, (b) use restricted and (c) use continues unchanged following their review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 11 January 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Approvals Withdrawn

  Aldrin

  Binapacryl

  Bitertanol

  Captafol (Phased withdrawal)

  Chlordane (Phased withdrawal)

  Cyhexatin

  218

  DDT

  Dieldrin

  Dinoseb

  Dinoseb-acetate

  Dinoterb

  DNOC

  Endrin

  Ethylene dibromide

  Mercury compounds (some approvals)

  (b) Use Restricted or other amendments to approvals

  Aminotriazole

  Dimethoate

  Fentin acetate

  Fentin hydroxide

  Iprodione

  Sulphonyl Ureas (ii)

  Synthetic pyrethroids

  (c) Use continues unchanged

  Aldicarb

  Biological agents used as pesticides

  Daminozide (iii)

  Fenbutatin oxide

  Glycolethers

  Maleic hydrazide

  Mercury compounds (some approvals)

  2,4,5-T

  Triazophos

  It should be noted that (i) Alachlor, which appeared under "Reviews concluded by the ACP" in my answer of 11 December to the hon. Member should in fact have been listed under "Reviews currently in progress"; (ii) Sulphonyl Ureas should have been listed under "Reviews completed by the ACP" and (iii) the partial review of Daminozide was completed in December 1989 and has therefore been included in the list.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his revised estimate for the numbers and value of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom for 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A total of 14·9 million overseas visitors are estimated to have come to the United Kingdom in the first 10 months of 1989, spending about £5·8 billion.

  Both the number of visitors and their total expenditure were 9 per cent. more than in the same period last year. The estimate for the whole of 1989 will be published on 7 March.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he has taken to assist the tourist industry since the ending of section 4 grants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 28 November 1989,Official Report, column 212, regarding my Department's review of tourism policy.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of employment training places in the north-west are unfilled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 15 December 1989 about 21 per cent. of employment training places in the Training Agency's north-west region were unfilled.
  219
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department receives a wide range of representations, from both individuals and organisations about employment training, all of which receive careful consideration.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish his Department's survey into the overall performance of the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The first results from the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training leavers have already been made public. These show that 58 per cent. of trainees completing their agreed training went into jobs or self-employment or further full-time education or training.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest results from the 100 per cent. follow-up survey of employment training leavers show that 58 per cent. of trainees completing their agreed training went into jobs or self-employment or further full-time training or education. This is clear evidence that the programme is playing a major role in helping unemployed people to get back into work.

  Footwear and Textiles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on job losses in the footwear and textile industries.

  Mr. Eggar
  As the hon. Member knows, owing to competitive pressures there have been some job losses in the footwear and textile industries. I refer him to the reply given by my hon. Friend on 8 January,Official Report, column 491.

  Minimum Wages
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to increase the number of prosecutions for breaches of minimum wage legislation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The policy of the wages inspectorate under all Governments has been to seek compliance with wages council regulations by advice and persuasion and to prosecute ones where an offence is deliberate or repeated and the evidence is considered adequate. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase minimum wage levels.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) on 5 December 1989,Official Report, columns 202–3.

  EC Ministers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met his European Community counterparts; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Howard
  My predecessor last met his European Community counterparts on 30 November 1989, at the meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council. The outcome of that meeting was reported in the Official Report of 19 December 1989, columns 144–45.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to raise the number of disabled persons in the work force.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett).

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the appropriateness of anti-discrimination legislation to protect disabled persons within the labour market.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government's preferred option for improving opportunities for people with disabilities in the labour market is to educate, persuade and assist employers to adopt constructive policies and practices. The appropriateness of anti-discrimination legislation is being examined in the Employment Department's current review of its services for people with disabilities. The conclusions of the review will be published in a consultative document soon.

  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate how many working days have been lost in disputes for a shorter working week in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12-month period ending October 1989, 15,000 working days were lost through disputes about basic working hours.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to avoid preferential funding by TEC members in organisations in which they may have an interest.

  Mr. Howard
  Every TEC's memorandum and articles will contain a clause requiring a director to refrain from voting on any matter in which he has an interest. TECs' plans will be scrutinised to ensure they reflect market needs and they will contract on a competitive basis for training and enterprise services. Furthermore, a TEC will publish an annual report of its performance against its plan.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made with the establishment of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Howard
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country since we issued the invitation to form training and
  221
  enterprise councils. Applications for development funding from over 50 groups of senior employers from around the country have been approved. A table listing the areas from which we have had applications and indicating their current status has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further applications have been received to set up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on recent progress with the training and enterprise council programme.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been very encouraged by the excellent response from employers throughout the country since we issued the invitation to form training and enterprise councils. Applications for development funding from over 50 groups of senior employers from around the country have been approved. The table lists the areas from which we have had applications and indicates their status.

  List of training and enterprise councils that have applied for development funding

  Applications

  South East

  Milton Keynes

  Approved

  Hertfordshire

  Approved

  Essex

  Approved

  Hampshire

  Approved

  Isle of Wight

  Approved

  Thames Valley

  Approved

  Oxfordshire

  Approved

  Kent

  Approved

  Surrey

  Under Consideration

  London

  Kingston/Merton

  Approved

  London East

  Under Consideration

  South London

  Under Consideration

  South West

  Devon/Cornwall

  Approved

  Dorset

  Approved

  Somerset

  Approved

  Avon

  Approved

  Gloucestershire

  Under Consideration

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Approved

  Walsall

  Approved

  Staffordshire

  Approved

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  Approved

  Dudley

  Approved

  Wolverhampton

  Approved

  Sandwell

  Under Consideration

  East Midlands and Eastern

  North Nottinghamshire

  Approved

  Norfolk/Waveney

  Approved

  Suffolk

  Approved

  Greater Peterborough

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Under Consideration

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  Approved

  Lincolnshire

  Under Consideration

  Northamptonshire

  Under Consideration

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Sheffield

  Approved

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Approved

  222

  Applications

  North Yorkshire

  Approved

  Rotherham

  Approved

  Leeds

  Approved

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Approved

  Wakefield

  Under Consideration

  North West

  Cumbria

  Approved

  East Lancashire

  Approved

  Rochdale

  Approved

  Oldham

  Approved

  South and East Cheshire

  Approved

  Wigan

  Approved

  Manchester

  Approved

  Stockport/High Peak

  Approved

  Bolton/Bury

  Approved

  St. Helens

  Approved

  Northern

  Teesside

  Approved

  Tyneside

  Approved

  Wearside

  Approved

  County Durham

  Approved

  Northumberland

  Approved

  Wales

  Mid Glamorgan

  Approved

  North East Wales

  Approved

  West Wales

  Approved

  North West Wales

  Approved

  South Glamorgan

  Approved

  Gwent

  Approved

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department will assess the competence of training and enterprise council board members.

  Mr. Eggar
  The competence of training and enterprise councils will be judged by their ability to achieve agreed levels of performance on quality as well as quantity. TECs will also be accountable to their community by holding public meetings and by publishing an annual report. It will be for board members themselves to consider the competence of other members of their board.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about unemployment in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In recent months my Department has received one letter on unemployment in Cleveland. In the year to November 1989, unemployment in Cleveland county fell from 36,150 to 27,964, a reduction of 22·6 per cent. on the November 1988 figure.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what amount the work force in the United Kingdom has increased in the last quarter for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased by 78,000 in the last quarter to stand at 26,341,000 in June 1989—the highest level ever.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in the numbers of unemployed in the latest month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  223
  Mr. Howard
  Between October and November 1989, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by 25,200. Unemployment has now fallen for 40 consecutive months on a consistent basis and is now at its lowest for over nine years.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in unemployment for the last quarter and what were the figures for the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows the change in unemployment in the United Kingdom for the latest available quarter and the change for the corresponding quarter in each of the last five years. Unemployment has now fallen for 40 consecutive months and is at its lowest level for over nine years.

  Change in unemployment (seasonally adjusted)

  Thousands 1 quarter 3 change

  1984

  +57·3

  1985

  +16·6

  1986

  -15·9

  1987

  -139·1

  1988

  -132·4

  1989

  -115·4

  1 September compared with previous June.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In November 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,649,700, the lowest for over nine years.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently unemployed in the Devon, North constituency; and how many in 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures for current parliamentary constituencies are available only back to June 1983 when there were 3,124 unemployed claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Devon, North. This compares with 1,968 in November 1989, a fall of 1,156 or 37 per cent. The comparison is affected by the change in the compilation of the unemployment count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in benefit regulations affecting under 18-year-olds in September 1988.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest quarterly figure for those in work in the United Kingdom, and what were the comparable figures for the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In June 1989, the United Kingdom work force in employment, seasonally adjusted, stood at 26,341,000—the highest level ever. The table shows comparable figures for the past five years:

  Workforce in employment—United Kingdom

  Annual change

  Workforce in employment Thousands1

  Actual

  Percentage

  June 1984

  24,226

  —

  —

  June 1985

  24,527

  300

  1·2

  June 1986

  24,553

  26

  0·1

  224

  Annual change

  Workforce in employment Thousands1

  Actual

  Percentage

  June 1987

  25,065

  512

  2·1

  June 1988

  25,864

  799

  3·2

  June 1989

  26,341

  477

  1·8

  1 Seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of unemployed people in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Canada; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest date for which international standardised unemployment rates are available, the percentage of unemployed claimants, seasonally adjusted, was 6 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 7·3 per cent. in Canada. Over the past two years the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other major industrialised country.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and in each country of the European Community for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average level of unemployment in the other members of the European Community; what is the comparable level of unemployment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In October 1989, the latest available date, the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 6·2 per cent. compared to an EEC average of 9·1 per cent. Over the past two years the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom has fallen faster than in any other major industrialised country.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in the numbers of long-term unemployed in the latest month for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of claimants in the United Kingdom unemployed for 12 months or more fell by 62,000 between July 1989 and October 1989. Long-term unemployment continues to fall at a faster rate than total unemployment.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now in employment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The work force in employment in the United Kingdom was 26,341,000 in June 1989; that is the latest figure available, and is at its highest level ever.

  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the fall in the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom over the last two years; what were the figures in other OECD countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows for the United Kingdom and for each other OECD country, the change in the standardised unemployment rate, over the latest available
  225
  two-year period. Over the past two years unemployment has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other major industrialised country.

  International comparisons of unemployment rates latest month compared with two years earlier (OECD standardised unemployment rates)

  Country

  1 Percentage points change

  United Kingdom

  -3·8

  Spain

  -3·2

  Portugal

  (May) -2·2

  Belgium

  -1·9

  Australia

  -1·7

  Finland

  (August) -1·5

  Canada

  -1·1

  France

  -0·9

  Germany

  -0·7

  United States

  -0·6

  Japan

  -0·6

  Sweden

  -0·4

  Netherlands

  (January) -0·2

  Italy

  (April)0·2

  Norway

  (May) 3·1

  Note: September 1989 unless otherwise stated.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which region in the United Kingdom recorded the greatest fall in the rate of unemployment in the last quarter.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Scotland.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on employment levels in the north of England.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the three regions, north, north-west, and Yorkshire and Humberside, the civilian work force in employment was 6,126,000 in June 1989, an increase of 403,000 or 7 per cent. in the last five years.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department has taken to help further reduce unemployment in Merseyside; how successful these have been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department, through its employment service and Training Agency, operates a wide range of employment, enterprise and training measures, which are all available in Merseyside, as well as elsewhere.

  In addition, as in other inner city areas, a number of initiatives have been adopted aimed at helping unemployed people in Liverpool to find employment, and at encouraging employers to recruit local unemployed people. Since April the Liverpool city action team has approved 29 employment and training projects which will create almost 800 jobs and training places, and improve the facilities for nearly 1,300 training places.

  During the 12 months to November 1989 unemployment in Merseyside county has fallen by 16,166–16·4 per cent. of the November 1988 figure.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the increase in jobs in the north-west in the most recent five-year period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The civilian work force in employment in the north-west has increased by 202,000 (8 per cent.) from 2,570,000 to 2,772,000 over the five years from June 1984 to June 1989.
  226
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the percentage unemployment reductions in Lancashire travel-to-work areas since June 1987.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is available in the Library. Percentage changes in unemployment between June 1987 and November 1989 for all travel-to-work areas covering the county of Lancashire were:

  Travel-to-work areas

  Percentage change1

  Pendle

  -58·4

  Settle

  -56·3

  Clitheroe

  -53·1

  Accrington and Rossendale

  -50·5

  Burnley

  -50·4

  Blackpool

  -45·8

  Bolton and Bury

  -44·9

  Preston

  -44·6

  Blackburn

  -43·0

  Wigan and St. Helens

  -42·4

  Rochdale

  -42·1

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  -39·0

  Liverpool

  -34·1

  1 unadjusted.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on staffing levels in jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices.

  Mr. Eggar
  During November 1989 the equivalent of approximately 7,643 full-time staff were working in jobcentres on placing people into jobs. A total of 17,382 full-time staff were working on benefit payments in unemployment benefit offices. A further equivalent of 3,791 full-time staff were employed on counselling functions.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department has commissioned into the removal of wages councils.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research his Department has commissioned into the rates of pay set by statutory wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 21 July 1989,Official Report, column 390.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning his plans to abolish the wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer to the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 21 March,Official Report, columns 555–56, for Luton South (Mr. Bright) on 28 July, Official Report, column 1037, and to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 23 March, Official Report, columns 798–802.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on research he has commissioned into the effects of removing young people from wages council protection.
  227
  Mr. Nicholls
  There is clear evidence in studies both in the United Kingdom and internationally on the link between pay and jobs, especially for young people. These findings are supported by indications from employers that their freedom since 1986 to offer jobs at rates they can afford has resulted in the engagement of young people who would not otherwise have been recruited. Further research is therefore unnecessary.

  Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibilities he has for employment policy in Wales.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for formulating policy on employment and training matters throughout Great

  Local authority areas in England within which the Government target inner city programme aid (not seasonally adjusted)

  Unemployed claimants

  Change

  Percentage change

  November 1988

  November 1989

  Halton

  7,130

  5,248

  -1,882

  -26·4

  Knowsley

  13,492

  11,651

  -1,841

  -13·7

  Liverpool

  42,406

  35,812

  -6,594

  -15·6

  Sefton

  14,892

  11,947

  -2,945

  -19·8

  St. Helens

  9,708

  7,872

  -1,836

  -18·9

  Wigan

  14,023

  10,703

  -3,320

  -23·7

  Wirral

  18,112

  15,162

  -2,950

  -16·3

  Blackburn

  5,638

  4,782

  -856

  -15·2

  Bolton

  11,356

  8,902

  -2,454

  -21·6

  Burnley

  3,280

  2,450

  -830

  -25·3

  Manchester

  32,107

  26,931

  -5,176

  -16·1

  Oldham

  8,633

  7,039

  -1,594

  -18·5

  Preston

  5,561

  4,459

  -1,102

  -19·8

  Rochdale

  8,964

  6,960

  -2,004

  -22·4

  Salford

  12,228

  9,711

  -2,517

  -20·6

  Gateshead

  11,341

  9,155

  -2,186

  -19·3

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  18,302

  14,794

  -3,508

  -19·2

  North Tyneside

  9,987

  7,379

  -2,608

  -26·1

  South Tyneside

  10,836

  8,577

  -2,259

  -20·9

  Sunderland

  19,828

  16,018

  -3,810

  -19·2

  Hartlepool

  6,278

  4,764

  -1,514

  -24·1

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  8,833

  6,688

  -2,145

  -24·3

  Middlesbrough

  10,868

  8,659

  -2,209

  -20·3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  10,171

  7,853

  -2,318

  -22·8

  Barnsley

  12,649

  8,986

  -3,663

  -29·0

  Bradford

  18,788

  15,206

  -3,582

  -19·1

  Doncaster

  16,865

  12,494

  -4,371

  -25·9

  Kirklees

  12,153

  9,638

  -2,515

  -20·7

  Leeds

  26,795

  21,580

  -5,215

  -19·5

  Rotherham

  13,934

  10,550

  -3,384

  -24·3

  Sheffield

  29,576

  23,068

  -6,508

  -22·0

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  15,856

  13,584

  -2,272

  -14·3

  Birmingham

  58,740

  46,515

  -12,225

  -20·8

  Coventry

  14,861

  12,225

  -2,636

  -17·7

  Dudley

  11,166

  8,182

  -2,984

  -26·7

  Sandwell

  15,452

  11,744

  -3,708

  -24·0

  The Wrekin

  5,181

  3,278

  -1,903

  -36·7

  Walsall

  11,154

  8,404

  -2,750

  -24·7

  Wolverhampton

  13,761

  11,634

  -2,127

  -15·5

  Derby

  9,807

  6,985

  -2,822

  -28·8

  Leicester

  11,531

  9,629

  -1,902

  -16·5

  Nottingham

  16,542

  13,382

  -3,160

  -19·1

  Bristol

  15,886

  12,485

  -3,401

  -21·4

  Plymouth

  11,298

  8,952

  -2,346

  -20·8

  Brent

  11,928

  7,808

  -4,120

  -34·5

  Greenwich

  9,402

  7,951

  -1,451

  -15·4

  Hackney

  14,644

  12,370

  -2,274

  -15·5

  Hammersmith

  8,091

  6,273

  -1,818

  -22·5

  Haringey

  12,270

  10,412

  -1,858

  -15·1

  Islington

  11,297

  9,324

  -1,973

  -17·5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,526

  3,887

  -1,639

  -29·7

  Lambeth

  17,209

  13,737

  -3,472

  -20·2

  Lewisham

  12,453

  10,232

  -2,221

  -17·8

  228
  Britain, in consultation with colleagues, including the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, as appropriate.

  Inner Cities
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the reduction of unemployment in inner cities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the fall in unemployed claimants in the 57 local authority areas in England within which the Government target inner city programme aid. The sustained fall in unemployment in these areas is very encouraging and reflects the success of our action for cities package. My Department's programmes are continuing to equip unemployed inner city residents in Wolverhampton and elsewhere with the skills, confidence and motivation to compete for jobs.
  229

  Unemployed claimants

  Change

  Percentage change

  November 1988

  November 1989

  Newham

  11,318

  10,248

  -1,070

  -9·5

  Southwark

  15,295

  11,798

  -3,497

  -22·9

  Tower Hamlets

  11,203

  9,322

  -1,881

  -16·8

  Wandsworth

  9,861

  7,630

  -2,231

  -22·6

  Total

  806,466

  643,029

  -163,437

  -20·3

  Closed Shop
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking in relation to the closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Bill published on 21 December 1989 makes it unlawful to refuse to employ a person because he is, or is not, a trade union member and provides that any person refused employment for such a reason may complain to an industrial tribunal. This measure, together with the protections afforded by the 1988 Employment Act, will make all forms of the closed shop unenforceable in law.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the abolition of the closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department continues to receive letters that describe difficulties experienced as a result of the operation of closed shop arrangements. The majority of these letters support measures against the closed shop. The Employment Bill published on 21 December 1989 will make it unlawful to refuse anyone employment because he is, or is not, a member of a trade union and this, together with the protections already afforded under the 1988 Employment Act, will make all forms of the closed shop unenforceable in law.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has held any recent meetings with his EEC counterparts to discuss the legal and practical aspects of trades union closed shop procedures in the member states.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor his predecessor the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has held any such meetings recently.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how his Department intends to extend protection at work for part-time workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no current plans to extend the employment protection legislation.

  Industry Training Boards
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made with the privatisation of industry training boards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) announced on 8230
  November that the majority of the remaining industry training boards would move towards independent status as soon as possible. This process is proceeding satisfactorily.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of implementing the national vocational qualifications framework.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The council's task of rationalising and reforming our vocational qualification system is well under way. Over 165 qualifications have now been accredited within the first four levels of the new national vocational qualifications framework.

  In discussion with relevant professional bodies, the council has also begun to prepare the ground for extending its work to higher level qualifications.

  Details of the council's work are contained in its annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with employers' organisations regarding the provision of child care.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have had discussions on child care with representatives of the CBI at my advisory committee on women's employment. This committee also includes the EOC chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), representatives of the TUC and the Women's National Commission.

  I also attended the CBI conference, "Tomorrow's Workforce: practical employment policies in a changing labour market", where child care was one of the major topics. I am also a member of the ministerial group on women's issues which has been looking at the whole question of child care.

  Recruitment
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he will introduce to encourage employers to recruit people over 50 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department is taking a range of steps to encourage employers to recruit people over 50 years of age, including publicising the implications of the declining numbers of young people, questioning upper age limits on vacancies notified to jobcentres, and making all adult employment and training programmes available to people over 50. There are no current plans to introduce further measures, but the position will be kept under review.
  231
  If employers in the 1990s are to deal with the consequences of demographic changes, it will be essential for them to utilise fully the talents of people over 50.

  Ballots
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the code of practice for trade union ballots for industrial action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Over 50 responses were received on this draft code of practice during the public consultation period which followed its publication in November 1988. A modified draft was laid before Parliament last year, and the next stage is to seek approval by resolution of each House.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to improve health and safety conditions in the workplace.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd),Official Report 5 December 1989, column 186.

  Training
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the adult work force currently receives some form of training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is estimated that in 1986–87, 48 per cent. of employees received some job-related training from their employer. More recent figures from the labour force survey show that in the spring of 1988, 12 per cent. of all economically-active adults were taking part in job-related training in the four weeks prior to the survey—an increase from 8 per cent. in 1984. It is vital for our international competitiveness that this upward trend continues. The primary responsibility lies with employers and with the new training and enterprise councils to take the lead in promoting training locally.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the appointment of the national training task force.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The national training task force was established to advise my right hon. and learned Friend in carrying out his training responsibilities throughout Great Britain and he very much values its contribution.

  It is the best team ever put together on training and my right hon. and learned Friend is pleased that it has been further strengthened recently with the appointment of Andrew Collier, chief education officer for Lancashire county council.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the Confederation of British Industry's vocational education and training task force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  A number of representations have been received concerning the CBI's vocational education and training task force and the publication of its report "Towards a Skills Revolution—a Youth Charter".
  232
  The report makes a number of timely and important recommendations. New arrangements have been announced for youth training to take effect later this year (Official Report, 5 December 1989 column 196.) Youth training incorporates a number of the recommendations, including demanding targets for the achievement of qualifications by young people and a key role for training and enterprise councils.

  The Government are giving close attention to other recommendations in the report.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he intends to implement to ensure that all young people in employment under the age of 18 years should receive some form of training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is primarily for employers to ensure that young people receive quality training in order to meet the challenges of technological change and the need to achieve greater international competitiveness at a time when the number of school leavers is falling sharply. The Government will continue to help employers to respond effectively to these challenges through the training and enterprise councils (TECs), the introduction of the new youth training arrangements and the compacts initiative. Our aim is to move to a position where every young person under 18 years of age in this country is in full-time education, or a job with training, or training leading to a job.

  Disability Advisory Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how he intends to improve the working of the disability advisory service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The working of the employment service's disablement advisory service is being considered as part of the internal review of services for people with disabilities which my Department is currently undertaking. A consultative document covering the conclusions of the review will be published soon.

  Women Workers
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures he will take to encourage the return of women to the work force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are already taking many steps to facilitate the re-entry of women to the labour market, and will continue to do so. We also recognise that women who choose not to take paid work are doing an equally valuable job in looking after the family at home.

  The Government are encouraging employers to adapt traditional working practices to accommodate the needs of women. This means more flexibility in hours of work and in holidays, job sharing, career breaks, part-time working and, where possible, help with child care costs.

  All Government schemes to help the unemployed, to help inner cities and to help people set up their own businesses are open equally to women and men. Women returning to the labour market and certain single parents on order books can enter employment training, full or

  233
  part-time, without fulfilling the usual six-month unemployment eligibility condition. All lone parents on employment training can qualify for a child care allowance.

  My Department's employment service has produced a special leaflet to tell women interested in returning to work about available opportunities and schemes.

  My Department is also jointly undertaking a major project with BBC radio's "Woman's Hour" aimed at providing information and practical assistance to women returners. The project, which will be called "Back to the Future", will consist of eight conferences, each attended by 120 women on the following subjects: Being Personally Effective; Selling Yourself; Retraining; Working for Yourself; Getting that Job; Managing Money; Flexible Working and Childcare; Planning Your Life. The conferences, the first of which takes place in London on 22 January, will be run in tandem with "Woman's Hour" programmes, publicity material, visits by the Employment Department action bus and a national telephone helpline.

  Manual Workers, London
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of manual workers who travel to London every Sunday night to work and leave again on Friday.

  Mr. Nicholls
  These figures are not collected by my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  EPCOT Centre
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to visit the EPCOT centre at Disney World in Florida.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans.

  School-Industry Compacts
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications have been received for development funding for school-industry compacts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In England, all but four of the 57 urban programme authority (UPA) areas have applied for development funding for compacts. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales have received eight and seven applications respectively.

  These applications have led to 29 compacts becoming operational, and a further 11 are currently in their development phase. This is an excellent start and the response of employers, young people, parents and the schools has been very enthusiastic. I am therefore announcing today additional funding of £12 million to support the introduction of further compacts. This brings total Government support for the initiative to £28 million, and means that by next year all urban programme authority (UPA) areas currently without a compact will be able to set one up.

  Seven inner city areas are to be offered immediate funding to set up compacts. They are Barnsley, Burnley, Lambeth, Nottingham, Rotherham, Wandsworth and Wigan.
  234
  The remaining inner city areas eligible to receive compact funding are being encouraged to develop proposals. Funding will be made available to them from April 1990.

  Low Pay, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he will introduce to eradicate the problem of low pay in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) on 16 May 1989,Official Report column 164.

  Picketing
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about picketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government receive various representations on all aspects of industrial relations law including matters relating to picketing.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places in Scotland remained unfilled at the most recent date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There were 13,000 unfilled YTS places in Scotland at the end of November 1989.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the costs of production of the YTS video entitled "YTS—Designed for You".

  Mr. Nicholls
  The YTS video "YTS—Designed for You" cost £30,000 to produce.

  Factory and Agriculture Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of factory and agriculture inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 January 1990, 624·5 factory inspectors and 172 agricultural inspectors were in post in the Health and Safety Executive.

  Multi-lingual Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff at his Department's offices in(a) Doncaster and (b) Mexborough, speak (i) Urdu, (ii) Punjabi, (iii) Bengali, including the Sylheti dialect, (iv) Chinese, (v) Farsi, (vi) Hindi, and (vii) Gujerati.

  Mr. Eggar
  None of the Employment Department's staff in the jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices in Doncaster and Mexborough speaks any of the languages or dialects referred to.

  Wage Rates
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the wage rates and cost of living rates(a) in Northamptonshire and (b) the county in the south-east region with the lowest rates.
  235
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the detail requested.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the actions taken by the Government since 31 December 1988 to encourage small and medium-sized businesses.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 January 1990]: In 1989 the Government continued their efforts to create and foster a climate in which small businesses can flourish and to provide incentives for enterprise by minimising the burdens of taxation, regulation and red tape.

  Last year's Budget raised the small companies' profit limit for corporation tax, the limit for marginal relief and the VAT registration threshold. The Companies Act 1989 enabled private companies to opt out of certain provisions of the Act which are of concern only to shareholders, by means of unanimous written resolutions and the agreement of shareholders.

  In November 1989 improvements were announced in the conditions of the VAT cash accounting scheme, widening eligibility for small businesses.

  Two booklets promoting good purchasing practice and equal opportunities in Government procurement for small firms were launched—"Think Big, Buy Small", aimed at Government purchasing officers, and "Tendering for Government Contracts".

  There was a high level of demand for the Government's services to small firms, showing that they meet a real need.
  236
  The services generally are described in the new report "Small Firms in Great Britain" issued by my Department last December. In 1989 the main developments were:
  The launch of Business Growth Training, a major new package of training available for small business managers and their staff;
  Improvements to the Enterprise Initiative, including greater flexibility under the Consultancy Initiatives, the relaunch of the Export Initiative, the introduction of the Managing into the 90s programme, and a second Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (SMART). A special Action Guide to the Single Market for the smaller firm was also introduced; and
  An increase in the limit for loans under the Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  In addition the 1989 Employment Act has prepared the ground for the introduction of training and enterprise councils. They will be responsible for the delivery and development of training and other support services for small businesses and will be able to ensure that these meet the needs of local business communities.

  Disabled People (Training)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he is making in the establishment of training and enterprise councils to ensure that disabled people do not experience undue delays in receiving training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 10 January 1990]: Training and enterprise councils will set out their training proposals in their business plan. My Department will need to be satisfied that these proposals meet the training needs of the local community and that all clients including people with disabilities have ready access to training.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

London Underground: Automatic Ticket Gates
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the exercise of their responsibility for the safety of the travelling public, they will issue a direction to London Regional Transport that on all occasions when a responsible person is not in charge of an Underground station which is open to the travelling public, the ticket-operated machinery at the entrances and exits be left in the open position.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, London Regional Transport has a statutory obligation to operate its services with due regard to safety of operation. I understand that it is already its practice to ensure that automatic ticket gates are left in the open position if no member of staff is available to supervise them.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply is he, and are the Government, satisfied that LRT is in a position to enforce the admirable intention which he attributed to it? In particular, is he aware that some of us can give specific examples, in my own case of 1.20 p.m. on 18th December at Westminster Underground station when there was no member of staff either in sight or within call?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, of course I am very concerned to learn of my noble friend's experience. I shall certainly bring it to the attention of the chairman of LRT. I can tell my noble friend that the station supervisor is required to record in the station logbook the staff on duty and the condition of the station. It is a serious disciplinary matter for a member of staff to be absent from his or her place of duty.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still great uneasiness about the system? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said there have been occasions when there have been difficulties. I witnessed one myself in which a child's pushchair was jammed in one of the two outlets at a Tube station. At the other outlet there was a queue of impatient people. There was no member of staff in sight. There was no panic on that occasion but there could easily have been panic. Is the Minister aware that this is a matter about which the public feel uneasy and to which LRT should pay particular attention?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. I understand the noble Lord's concern. I agree that there was considerable public reservation about inconvenience and safety during the progressive installation of the gates in early 1989. However, I believe that the system has settled down as people have become used to it. Complaints have virtually ceased. The reliability of gates is good and LUL is developing ways of making them even easier to use. Fifteen million separate gate operations were recorded within one week last July.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that when there is a probability that a particular station will be without staff, St. James's ought to be contacted?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if there are no staff the station is closed.

Occupational Pensions Advisory Service
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked her Majesty's Government:
What extra resources are to be made available to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service in view of its proposed additional responsibilities for pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said that the activities of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service need to be funded more securely. We are actively considering how best to achieve that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that response is he aware that OPAS, which does a very good job on a purely voluntary basis, is currently suffering from additional financial constraints due to the fact that there has been some publicity about the Government's intentions in relation to OPAS for the future which has meant that to some extent voluntary donations have dried up? Is the Minister prepared to give consideration to some interim assistance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her words about OPAS. I know that the noble Baroness knows a great deal about OPAS as she is a long-serving trustee of the organisation. We understand that its finances are, frankly, precarious, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State put it in his speech to the Society of Pension Consultants some time ago. He went on:
"We must put them on a sound basis so that its future is guaranteed".
That is a matter that we shall continue to discuss with the industry. However, we are not in a position to say what conclusions we have reached.

GCHQ Staff Federation
2.41 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the Certification Officer's recent refusal to recognise the GCHQ staff federation as an independent trade union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we understand that the Government Communications Staff Federation (GCSF) is considering an appeal against the Certification Officer's decision. It would not therefore be appropriate to offer comment at this stage.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that on 18th December last the Certification Officer said that the federation set up to replace trade unions banned from GCHQ could not be recognised as an independent union because it was subject to the approval of the director? How does he reconcile that statement with the Government's earlier reported claim that genuine trade unionism is allowed at GCHQ?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Certification Officer stated in his ruling that the staff federation operates reasonably effectively and in much the same way as many other small trade unions. His decision therefore acknowledges that GCSF successfully represents the staff at GCHQ, over 50 per cent. of whom have joined the federation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Government still believe that the re-establishment of the trade union in GCHQ, as the federation has requested, would present a risk to national security? Secondly, will he confirm to the House that the failure by the Government to establish the trade union is in contravention of a number of international conventions? For example, the International Labour Organisation Conventions 87 and 98 make it quite clear that the Government are taking action which is contrary to the conventions. Will he also comment on that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government certainly do not accept that the original decision to ban the trade unions was incorrect. In our view, it is inappropriate for trade unions to be represented in an intelligence and security agency. The position at GCHQ is no different from that of the police and armed forces. On the question of the ILO conventions the Government do not accept that they are in violation of those conventions. In our view, Convention 87 cannot stand in isolation from Conventions 98 and 151, and Article 1(2) of Convention 151 takes precedence over Convention 87.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government's position on GCHQ is in direct contravention to that stated in their new Employment Bill which quite definitely makes provision for the right to belong, or not to belong,
518
to a union? Since that principle has been embraced by the Opposition, is it not time that the Government did the same with regard to GCHQ?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we went through all the arguments about GCHQ nearly five years ago, and in the Government's view the position has not changed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, reverting to the Question, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the certification officers have by and large discharged their duties over the years to the general satisfaction of both trade unions and employers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right, but it is for GCSF alone to decide whether it wishes to appeal against the decision.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to reply to the first of my supplementary questions; namely, whether his right honourable friend and the Government generally believe that the conversion of the federation back into a trade union would present a threat to national security?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, provided that it remains a federation, I do not think that it would.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that, when Mr. Blunt was completing his training as a spy, he asked his masters where he should best serve their purpose? First on the list was GCHQ, but they said that he had very little chance of getting in. Does that therefore show that, for about 50 years, it has been in our interest to give not one chance to potential enemies to infiltrate that important organisation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point, but we went through all those arguments when the unions at GCHQ were banned some years ago. This Question is about the staff federation alone.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that, with the knowledge of high authority in this country, Blunt occupied far more significant positions than GCHQ?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is very much another question.

University and Polytechnic Libraries: Funding
2.46 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What mechanism they intend to use in order to maintain spending on acquisitions for university and polytechnic libraries when the special allocation agreed between the University Grants Committee, now the Universities Funding Council, and the Department of Education and

519
Science for universities comes to an end in July 1990.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the special allocation was entirely the initiative of the University Grants Committee. As autonomous institutions, it continues to be for individual universities and polytechnics to decide their own priorities within the total resources at their disposal.
Baroness David: My Lords, as the Minister is no doubt well aware, I do not find that a very satisfactory Answer. Does he realise that universities spend infinitely less than they did in the equivalent terms of 1978 and 1979, that the figures for university spending on books and journals are down by 27 per cent. and 29 per cent. respectively since then, and that the figures for polytechnics are much worse? If the Government are serious about supporting International Literacy Year, I should have thought that to encourage spending on books for universities —where, after all, students are pretty hard pressed for spending on books —should be a major preoccupation.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, we went over that ground on 19th June in a similar Question from the noble Baroness. I do not think that she would expect me to bring any fresh answers today. The Government recognise the independence of our universities, and we certainly do not intend to take funding decisions for them. It is open to the funding councils to help, if they judge that appropriate. The Universities Funding Council has inherited a UGC initiative for a £9 million programme over the three years from 1987–88 for the purchase of books and periodicals. The first signs are that this initiative has helped to achieve an upturn in expenditure on libraries.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Viscount say that the Government are keen on the independence of universities. When we discuss certain forthcoming legislation, I look forward to seeing some indication of that from the Government Front Bench. Recognising, as does his honourable friend the junior Minister in another place, that under-financing of university libraries has adversely affected research and scholarship, will the noble Viscount say whether it is the Government's view that, no matter what happens to library funding, they wish to wash their hands of the whole matter and will not intervene in any circumstances?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, universities and, following the Education Reform Act, polytechnics are autonomous institutions. It is for them to decide how to budget the substantial public and other funds at their disposal. Total provision available to higher education institutions in 1990–91 from the funding councils and publicly funded tuition fees will be some 10 per cent. higher than in 1989–90.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it not the case that students in this country spend very much less on books than do students in other European countries?
520
Is there not all the greater need to have a good supply of library books as students cannot afford to buy the books that they need? I hope that the House supports the purchase of books.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Baroness that in many other countries they have student loans.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 will be taken.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to protect the environment by eliminating the use of chlorofluorocarbons and requiring Her Majesty's Government to carry out an audit of the use of chlorofluorocarbons, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Baroness Robson of Kiddington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
2.52 p.m.
The Lord Chancelllor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Allocation of business between High Court and county courts]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving the first amendment to this important Bill, perhaps I may say, as a member of the legal profession and as one who will be followed by many others of the legal profession in moving, supporting or opposing amendments, that I propose to see that my profession keeps its honoured name by speaking briefly, pithily, and, I hope, persuasively. Having said that, I move this amendment in that spirit.
We are dealing here with the question of deciding on the jurisdiction of courts, whether it be the High Court or the county court. I think that it is important throughout this Bill and all its stages to realise that the person who is supposed to be assisted in the main by the provisions of the Bill is, if I may so call him, the customer, the member of the public who comes before the court as a party to proceedings. It is in that spirit that I urge in this amendment that the interests of the parties be one matter among others which should be very seriously considered. The wording used in Amendment No. 2 is:
"the wishes of the parties concerned".
In conclusion, perhaps I may say that the phrase "the interests of justice" is very often mentioned in speeches. We should make very sure that those words do not cover only the interests of judges, practitioners or administrators. They must also cover the interests of the parties. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual grace and persuasion. It is felicitous that the first amendment to this Bill is one upon which barristers and solicitors can easily agree. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and I tabled exactly the same amendment simultaneously with that tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Prys-Davies. Then of course the clerks who look after these matters had but to amalgamate them into one amendment.
This is clearly a matter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should bear in mind when being guided by the criteria mentioned in subsection (2) of the clause. It is so plainly a case for doing something to remind the Lord Chancellor of the wishes of the parties concerned that I have no hesitation whatever in agreeing with what the noble Lord said.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I agree entirely with what has been said already, but will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he replies, indicate the status of those criteria? If these words are added, does it ensure that that is what the order will do? Can he confirm that the position is not, as some people have suggested, that all those criteria might in fact be ignored and other criteria substituted?
Subsection (2) says simply:
"any such order may differentiate between categories of proceedings by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order".
The next subsection states:
"The criteria so specified may, in particular".
Can we read "may" as "must"?
Lord Meston: I too should like to support this amendment. Dealing with the last point, it seems to me that none of these criteria, whether or not the words in the amendment are added, binds the Lord Chancellor to do anything. It strikes me that he may ignore them all completely. I hope that he will not do so. However, subject to that observation, this is a necessary amendment. It is entirely right that there should be some reference in this part of the Bill to
522
consumer choice and it is consistent with present law, which allows the parties to choose to some extent between court A and court B.
The Lord Chancellor: I am extremely happy to agree with the proposition that the object of the courts is to provide a service to the public, to those who have recourse to them. It is in order to ensure that the courts do that most effectively that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham set tip the Civil Justice Review to make proposals upon these matters.
It may be worth reminding ourselves of what the Civil Justice Review had to say on this matter. It found that too many general cases of relatively low substance and importance were being handled and tried in the High Court, and this was considered to be a major cause of excessive cost and delay. The review suggested that the main function of the High Court should be to deal with public law and other specialist cases and that general cases should go to the county courts unless they were of exceptional substance, difficulty or complexity. That is why the review suggested a new system of case allocation and transfer, to curb the tendency which the Civil Justice Review appropriately termed "upward drift". In order to achieve this it is invevitable that some restrictions will be placed on litigants' choice of forum, although the new system is intended to benefit all litigants by reducing cost and delay —in other words, not just the litigants in a particular case but litigants generally.
I should emphasis that the order that is proposed under Clause 1 will be concerned with t he allocation of cases between the High Court and the county courts. So far as concerns the parties' convenience, the more important decision will often be not the choice between the High Court and the county court but the choice of location within the county court, because that more than anything will affect the ease with which, for example, witnesses can attend. In practice, of course, the choice is normally made by the plaintiff's legal adviser. The Civil Justice Review considered that it was possible that some put their own convenience, or even expectations in relation to remuneration, before the interests of the clients.
The expertise of High Court judges —a scarce and valuable resource —is best directed at specialist business, and at more substantial or difficult general cases. The effectiveness of the system as a whole is undermined if too many smaller cases are handled and tried at an inappropriately high level. It cannot therefore be right for plaintiffs to have an unrestricted choice of forum regardless of the substance, importance or complexity of their cases.
I should make two points in conclusion. First, the list in subsection (3) is not exclusive. It would not prevent the convenience of the parties being taken into account in the order if in particular circumstances that seemed necessary. For example, the choice of the plaintiff to go to a particular court might well prevail unless there were other factors —such as complexity, importance or amount —which would dictate a different choice. Secondly, it will remain open to both the plaintiffs and the defendants to apply for transfer up to the

523
High Court. Cases will be transferred if the court is satisfied that they are suitable for High Court trial, and conversely transferred down from the High Court to the county court.
The list is intended to show the criteria that would be relevant for the purposes of this clause. It does not exclude other criteria. As I indicated, for example, the wish of the plaintiff will often be an important consideration. But the purpose of this clause is to provide objective criteria for allocating cases between the two levels of court.
I entirely agree with the view that the convenience of the parties is an important consideration in deciding on the location within the level of court at which that should happen. It would be contrary to the spirit of what the Civil Justice Review recommended if parties could agree in effect and thereby reach a binding conclusion that the case should be in one court or another.
An important consideration is this. It is the interests of all litigants that have to be served. If people choose the High Court for cases that are not suitable for that court then in effect one is misusing these very important resources. Other litigants will be impeded in the progress of the case by those unnecessarily clogging up that very important court. While I do not exclude taking account of the wishes of the parties in appropriate circumstances, the thrust of the clause is to identify by reference to objective factors that arise those cases which should go to the higher or lower level.
I hope that in the light of these considerations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may say that I am sure that we are grateful to my noble and learned friend for the broad statement of his intention on the clause, and for reminding us what the Civil Justice Review proposed. He has conceded that the convenience of the parties must be a factor to be taken into consideration, I should have thought at all stages. It is therefore a question of how that objective is best ensured by the wording of the Bill.
We have put forward an amendment which refers to "the wishes of the parties". There may be a better way of wording it. The criteria already under paragraph (c) refer simply to "the parties". We do not quite know what that means. Does it mean the nature of the parties, the status of the parties, the wealth of the parties or what about the parties? If the point that matters is the convenience of the parties, it might be worth my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor considering by Report stage putting down an amendment which refers to "the parties to the proceeding including their convenience". We ought not to part with the amendment without ensuring that such a provision is put in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has described it as important.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There may be confusion here. Surely the clause is concerned with the
524
allocation of business. The criteria by which business is allocated by statutory provision cannot be dependent upon the wishes of the parties. But the wishes of the parties on the question of inconvenience or hardship come into play by the concession of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when the application for transfer is made. With respect, there could be some provision that, when the parties are heard in opposition to an order of the court which seeks to implement these statutory provisions, such opposition on grounds of inconvenience or hardship shall be taken into account. That could conceivably be inserted as subsection (8). But one cannot draft such legislation; it is merely a concept.
The Lord Chancellor: I have sought to explain that as between the courts at a particular level the convenience generally of those having to resort to the court will be important. We come to that at a later stage. This clause is concerned with allocation of cases as between the two levels of courts. That must depend on the objective character of the cases and what is involved in them.
The wishes of the parties no doubt are matters that may be of very great importance in relation to location within a particular level of court. However, as my noble friend has said, we must be careful to distinguish between the objective criteria that are to be applied to particular cases in allocating between the various levels of court and the separate question of the convenience of the parties to be served within that level of court. For example, the plaintiff's choice may prevail where the plaintiff takes a case in a particular level of court unless the objective criteria show that it should be at the other level.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have his considerations very much in mind. I shall certainly carefully consider what he has said. However, at this stage I believe that the view that I have sought to put before the Committee is the correct one.
Lord Mishcon: The last thing that I wish to do at the very commencement of Committee stage is to find myself at variance with the noble and learned Lord. I hope to persuade him that many just as important amendments are acceptable. In view of what he has said, I do not propose to attempt to divide the Committee.
However, before I leave the amendment, I should like to put this thought in his mind. We are at the very commencement of the Bill. One would like to see the ideal that he has initiated in the Bill apparent on the face of the Bill at an early stage; namely, that the interests of the parties is a very important consideration. We lose nothing by putting those words in because the noble and learned Lord has said that it is a matter which must have consideration, but it may be secondary to the main objective. I know that I do not have to remind him that these are not exclusive criteria. Nor is there an order of priority set out in them. I am most grateful for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this context. If by Report stage the noble and learned Lord could provide for the interests of the parties, I am sure that the Committee will be extremely grateful and

525
we shall have achieved an objective which I believe he shares.
Lord Morris: Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, I wish the amendment stated that. It does not refer to the interests of the parties, but to "the wishes of the parties concerned". So often the wishes of the parties concerned are in direct conflict with their interests.
The Lord Chancellor: I share the aims of the noble Lord and should like to get the matter as correct as possible. However, I wish to avoid any confusion about the nature of the criteria to be applied as regards Clause 1. No doubt, when we have had a chance to consider some of the later clauses and the effects on the interests and convenience of the parties, we may be in a better position to assess exactly how our objectives may be met. I am grateful for the stance that the noble Lord has taken on the matter.
Lord Mishcon: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 4 or 5.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I ask Members of the Committee to have regard to the wide powers which are sought by the Government in subsection (4). Under the subsection the Government may:
"amend or repeal any provision made by or under any enactment relating to … the jurisdiction, practice or procedure of the Supreme Court; or … of any county court, so far as the Lord Chancellor considers it to be necessary, or expedient".
That is a wide enabling provision. It gives unlimited discretionary power to the Lord Chancellor of the day in relation to the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the courts.
It is an especially bad example of the growing use of what is called the "Henry VIII clause", so named for obvious reasons. It reflects the absolutism for which that monarch was notorious. It gives power to repeal or amend primary legislation by order—that is, legislation which, as is clear from the dicussion in respect of Amendment No. 1, is of concern to the people who are affected by the administration of justice.
I do not wish to weary Members by repeating everything that I said on Second Reading about the way in which this type of clause is increasingly used in one Bill after another. Almost invariably, the excuse given is flexibility —let the Bill provide the framework and the officials will provide the details. I suggest that there is something in the saying, "The devil is in the detail".
526
It is no real safeguard to say that such an order will be made only after consultation or that it will be subject to affirmative resolutions of both Houses. We all know that such orders cannot be amended. Indeed, it is the practice in this House —I do not know whether it is wise —that they are never voted against. From my experience, the other place exercises hardly any greater control.
If the subsection is accepted, Parliament will no longer be able to determine by primary legislation any question of the jurisdiction, practice or procedure of either the Supreme Court or the county court. It will have abrogated in an enabling Bill —which perhaps should be a separate Bill —all its power to the Executive. With respect, it is no answer to say —as did my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading —that the powers are necessary:
"in order to match the transfers to the resources". —[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 246.]
In other words, to make sure that we transfer down what is resourced to the courts.
We all greatly admired the way in which my noble and learned friend sat patiently throughout those proceedings, listened carefully to all that was said and answered fairly fully. Therefore., I am not surprised that at col. 247 he added to those words that I have quoted:
"I am sorry if I do not make myself plain —it must be the lateness of the hour—but perhaps I should proceed".
I am afraid that he did not make himself plain to me. I understand that the Government are saying that because they do not know when or how they will proceed they cannot say what they propose to do or how they propose to implement their policies. Therefore, they say, "We must have a blanket power". As I indicated when speaking to Amendment No. 1, my view is that the criteria which will be applied are unclear. It appears to be anything that the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify. As we have heard, not only is the list not exhaustive but each and every one of the existing criteria could be entirely ignored.
As I indicated on Second Reading, the nine Acts of Parliament which contain Henry VIII clauses giving powers to amend or repeal legislation, and which were introduced before the publication in 1932 of the Donoughmore Report, contained much more limited power to amend primary legislation than is now proposed. There was normally a time limit. The kind of case involved was the Local Government Act 1888 which gave power to amend legislation so as to change, if necessary, the date on which the first local government councillors were to be elected to the new authorities. Clause 1 contains no time limit and the powers given under it may well be exercised by the next Lord Chancellor but three. After all, we have been told that it will take one to five years to implement the Government's plans under the review.
Therefore, I believe that the time has come for us firmly to apply the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee with regard to Henry VIII clauses. In other words they should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases. They should

527
not be permitted by Parliament except on special grounds stated in the ministerial memorandum to the Bill. Until 1939 no Bill, however complicated, contained any such provision. Therefore, we are dealing with a comparatively recent drafting practice based entirely upon what the Government consider to be expedient and easy in the circumstances of the day.
There have been other occasions on which I have complained about the use of Henry VIII clauses, particularly in respect of local government legislation. I have always assumed that one of the reasons why the clauses are slipping through is that we no longer have a legislation committee of the Cabinet, presided over by the Lord Chancellor and supported by the law officers whose duty it was to look at the form as distinct from the policy and the content of legislation.
I am sure that none of the Lord Chancellors under whom I served on that committee —that is Lord Kilmuir, Lord Dilhorne and subsequent Lord Chancellors —would allow the Bill to come forward in this form. After all, this measure has been brought forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He is the one member of the Cabinet who, by the nature of his office, should be the foremost guardian of the rule of law.
We must now consider not only the policies of the Bill but the method by which it is to be implemented. I believe that, in effect, the Lord Chancellor has abrogated what should be one of his main functions; namely, to prevent Ministers —that is any Minister —from bringing forward legislation of this kind. It may be within the recollection of some Members of the Committee that a similar situation arose last year when we considered the Children Act. It was piloted through with the noble and learned Lord's political skill.
Clause 15 of that Bill gave extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State by regulation to modify or repeal a large part of the Act or add to the powers or duties of local authorities. After a forceful attack by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to leave out the words "modify or repeal" and insert the word "amend". Perhaps that was not a great victory but it was a step in the right direction. However, even the power to amend primary legislation in such circumstances goes very far.
In a measure which has wide constitutional implications I do not believe that we should give even the power to amend. After all, we increasingly acquiesce in the practice of ceding virtually uncontrollable power to the Executive because we all too readily accept the argument in favour of administrative convenience at the expense of constitutional principles. For those reasons, I beg to move that subsection (4) be omitted from the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said. It seems to me quite extraordinary that one finds in an Act of Parliament a provision whereby the normal legislative processes of Parliament are arrogated instead to the Executive.
528
It is even more extraordinary that that is put forward by my noble and learned friend the Lord High Chancellor who should be the guardian of constitutional proprieties.
Still more extraordinary is that that occurs after the events of last Session to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred. On that occasion in the Children Bill there were the words "amend or repeal". Lord Elwyn-Jones took up the main attack and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor hastened to agree that the word "repeal" was unacceptable. Therefore, one is bound to ask why that has reappeared in this Bill.
Then again last Session in that Bill the order-making power was subject only to the negative resolution procedure. From all sides of the Committee, and subsequently the House, there was expostulation. An amendment was moved and my noble and learned friend immediately accepted it. The most extraordinary thing of all perhaps is that this power under subsection (4) is not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, unlike subsection (1), but is subject to the negative procedure only so that a Minister having arrogated to himself legislative powers does not even have to lay a document before Parliament which he has to explain.
This is called a Henry VIII clause because Henry VIII took statutory power under the Statute of Proclamations to do this sort of thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said, during the first stage of bureaucratic aggrandisement in the 1920s, one found an increasing use of the Henry VIII clause. Then came the Donoughmore Scott Report. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred to certain provisions of that both on Second Reading and today. There were two essential matters which were both brought out in the debates on the Children Bill. The first was that the powers should only be used in quite exceptional circumstances and the second was that the situation should be explained and fully justified by the Minister claiming those powers. Not only did my noble and learned friend bring forward both provisions, but he did not claim at Second Reading that it was essential, nor did he explain in his opening speech why it was proposed.
In my respectful submission, we shall not have this matter right until Parliament asserts itself and brushes aside all these excuses about administrative convenience. Of course they are real. It is far more convenient for the Executive to bypass what it finds to be the devious parliamentary processes and proceed to immediate legislation by itself. However, that is unconstitutional by every understanding of the British Constitution. Therefore, since we shall not have this matter right until Parliament really asserts itself, the time has come when this provision, which is only the first of many contained in the Bill, must be immediately excised.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Some 30 years ago I was a member of the legislative committee to which my noble friend Lord Rippon has just referred. In the centre of that committee was the redoubtable and formidable figure of the late Lord Dilhorne, the then Lord Chancellor, flanked by Sir John Hobson who was the Attorney-General and myself as

529
Solicitor-General. We were instructed and briefed to interrogate the Ministers who were proposing legislation and bringing it before that committee. The then Lord Chancellor attributed a great deal of importance to the task which was given to us.
Ministers and their civil servants sitting behind them were interrogated not about the political points or social purposes of the Bill but only on two matters—namely, constitutional propriety and the terms of the actual drafting. It was considered by Ministers at that time as a Star Chamber. Of course it was intensely disliked by the civil servants. It was our duty to ensure —and this was a Tory Government under a Tory Prime Minister —that none of those elements (which we dislike so much and which have been raised today and referred to by my noble friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale) was allowed to creep in to the provisions. That was a constitutional duty given to us.
Apparently that has been abandoned because there is now presented to us by the first Law Officer of this Tory administration this particular clause in this particular Bill. He takes upon himself—it is not him personally but the office of the Lord Chancellor —the power to sweep aside and reject everything which we have decided and debated in the two Houses of Parliament because it suits the convenience of those administering a particular service. That is surely not good enough.
As we start upon a Bill which moves away from the old rules where the judges had certain powers and puts certain powers into the hands of the Executive and therefore into the hands of the civil servants, it is our duty to see that we do not have any Minister —as I say, personalities do not come into it but principles do—riding roughshod over the wishes of Parliament, even in a minor matter, as it is said that this is. The Bill deals with the jursidiction, practice and procedure of the courts. Why, when Parliament has pronounced, should a Minister and his civil servants say that something should be repealed? It is not good enough. As we start our task of dealing with this Bill, let us recognise the constitutional importance of the Bill and this particular subsection.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Although there are certainly precedents for authorising the amending of primary legislation by means of subsequent statutory instrument, I have always regarded it —and I think it is widely regarded —as an unsatisfactory and sloppy legislative practice. It is one which ought not to be encouraged, least of all, one should think, by a Lord Chancellor.
I am particularly interested in the Lord Chancellor's special justification for the provision in subsection (4). Why does he need this power to amend or repeal any provision relating to jurisdiction? Obviously jurisdiction is the most important matter. Why is it not right that he should come back to Parliament with primary legislation on this matter rather than resort to the growing practice of using this kind of clause and this kind of power? The truth is that in using statutory
530
instruments, whether by affirmative or negative resolution, Parliament tends to act as a rubber stamp on those occasions, as my noble friend Lord Rippon mentioned earlier. I am sure the Committee would be particularly interested in the specific justification by the Lord Chancellor in respect of this Bill.
Lord Coleraine: I rise with great reluctance, in the face of such powerful speeches from my noble friend and the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, to ask whether we are not discussing what is basically a constitutional molehill. The Committee should be aware that what the Lord Chancellor is seeking to do is to take power to alter such matters as the jurisdiction of the High Court. What are the enactments which the noble and learned Lords and my noble friends see as being so sacrosanct? Surely it is only right that my noble and learned friend should, if he is to bring into effect the very desirable provisions of the Civil Justice Review, have the right to make these alterations without coming back to the Committee with primary legislation.
Lord Mishcon: But for the speech of the noble Lord I had no intention at all of rising on this amendment at this stage. I do so because otherwise the Committee might —and I say t his with deep respect —be misled.
Shall we take an example of what is now the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, which is the very important matter of judicial review —the check upon the Executive, as it has so often been called? Let us take it for granted that Parliament decides in one year or two years' time to extend the jurisdiction in regard to judicial review. If Parliament so decided it would be open to the Executive to say that they did not like that extension of judicial review which was given by way of jurisdiction to the High Court. A Lord Chancellor —I am sure not the present one —would have the power under this Bill and might use it; hence my reference to the fact that I am sure the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would not do so. He might do so with a negative resolution coming before the Chamber. We all know where we are with negative resolutions, although we are not in a very much better state with affirmative ones; but there it is.
One other point has been left out of this argument, if I may say so. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will refer to it, but nobody else has; that is, subsection (5), which states:
"Before making any order under this section the Lord Chancellor shall consult".
There are various important personages in the judiciary with whom he would have to consult. We all know, however, that "consult" does not mean that he has to take from those very important personalities in the judiciary the advice that is tendered to him. It is therefore true—it may be that the person who drew up this clause did not realise the ambit within which it was drawn —that the jurisdiction of the High Court and the county court may in future, even if not now, make a very important contribution to our constitutional life which would be completely upset if a Minister decided by order that jurisdiction, apart from

531
practice and procedure, should not exist in certain circumstances.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps it may be permitted for a lay member of the Committee to intervene in a matter which has so far occupied the attention only of members of the legal profession. There are two points I should like to make in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rippon. The first is, as he referred to it, the apparent desuetude of the check within the Cabinet to such legislation. I have tried to discover what the current practice is. I am informed on very good authority that the legislation committee meets, but it meets not more than 48 hours before the publication of a Bill, at which point the civil servants will say, "You cannot possibly expect us to reprint or rethink in so short a time". It has therefore become, as it was not in the day of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, a rubber stamping exercise.
The second point relates to why civil servants behave in general in this way. I think we all know; but why in this particular case? I suggest that one reason is the ill-preparedness of the present system of county courts to take the additional burdens which this legislation will place upon them. That is to say that clearly a major transfer of jurisdiction to the county courts —I think this was agreed on Second Reading—cannot take place until their resources are adequate to deal with it.
The civil servants do not wish to commit themselves to the provision of such adequate resources and therefore would like the position to remain so that these changes need only be made by delegated legislation when the time has come for the executive of the day to find it appropriate. That may not be the whole reason. I suspect it is part of the reason, but in any event we would need —as I think other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, have said —an explanation as to why the Henry VIII clause is necessary in this case.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Are we not making too much of this? Is it yet observed that what subsection (4) provides is for orders to be made or for provisions to be included in an order under subsection (1) consequential upon subsection (1)? If the Lord Chancellor is to be given power under subsection (1) to confer jurisdiction on the High Court in relation to proceedings in which the county court has jurisdiction and to confer jurisdiction on the county court in matters in which it does not now have jurisdiction, surely it is obviously sensible that he should have power to make consequential provisions to avoid conflict with other statutory enactments.
It also seems not to have been observed that any provision under subsection (4) must be included in an order under the subsection, which is an order under subsection (1) and therefore comes under the affirmative resolution procedure and not the negative resolution procedure.
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think he has overlooked the fact that jurisdiction especially is at present governed almost
532
entirely by Act of Parliament. We are concerned here particularly with the County Courts Act 1984 and the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Parliament has decided that, broadly speaking, in this country matters of jurisdiction between one court or one set of courts and another shall be covered by statute. There is an exception —a very good and necessary one; namely, that the Lord Chancellor has for many years been given power to raise the pecuniary limits of county court jurisdiction to take account of inflation. Apart from that, matters of jurisdiction have been covered by Act of Parliament.
If this subsection stays in the Bill that will no longer be the case. The next two amendments stand in my name and they would leave out jurisdiction from the power to amend or repeal. I believe that is far more important than either the practice or procedure points. Broadly speaking, I do not see much purpose in Parliament legislating on practice or on procedure. It may legislate occasionally on procedure. In the County Courts Act —including some of its provisions which Members of the Committee will find are to be repealed in the schedule —we have enacted too much on procedure. But the vital part of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rippon is that power is taken to amend jurisdiction without consultation with Parliament whether or not consequential on the earlier power mentioned in Clause 1.
Therefore I support my noble friend. I do not believe it to be an effective excuse to say that this provision will be subject to affirmative resolution. We know that orders cannot be amended in either House. The experience of some of us in another place reminds us that orders for affirmative resolution arise late at night when the House is not well attended. I am always subject to correction —though I have been in this Chamber for 10 years —but I understand that if another place has given an order an affirmative resolution it is contrary to the convention of this Chamber to reject it. In my time during the past 10 years I do not believe that any such affirmative resolution has been rejected by any Members of your Lordships' House.
There is a further doubt about this matter. Clause 82(3) states that it is only orders made under subsection 1(1) which are subject to affirmative resolution. Orders made under subsection (4) or elsewhere in Clause 1 are subject therefore only to the negative procedure and that is even less favourable to those who think that there is a safeguard. I believe that the reasons we have been given for asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to think again about this power which he has taken are so strong that I hope my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham will feel obliged, if necessary, to press this matter to a Division.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may enter this argument as a layman like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and in support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I believe that the Committee would be most unwise to accept this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will not press it.

533
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we should be discussing the next amendments which are in his name, because they are the ones that matter. It is most important that this subsection should remain in the Bill at least for matters which are not of prime importance; namely, the practice and procedures of the Supreme Court. If the Committee agrees to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, then that provision goes out of the window and Parliament will have to be burdened with primary legislation on any amendment which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to make on such minor matters as practice and procedure. I believe that the argument is quite clear and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, will withdraw his amendment.
Incidentally, whenever we hear from the noble and learned Lord on the subject of the statute book it is sometimes about the Henry VIII clause, but on other occasions it is about the enormous expansion of the statute book. If the amendment we have been discussing is agreed to, the statute book will expand enormously and the amount of parliamentary time taken up in passing the extra laws which this amendment demands will be enormous. I have spent a lifetime in Parliament and time and time again I have heard it argued that less important matters should be dealt with by delegated legislation in order to relieve congestion in Parliament. I believe that to be a matter of prime importance. I very much hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Before my noble and learned friend replies to this very full debate perhaps I may put forward two or three very short points for his consideration. I will not come to the support of King Henry VIII, a monarch who it seems to me has always had a better press than he deserves. After all, he killed two of his wives and, worse still, two of his Lord Chancellors!
Turning from that general consideration of the moral position of Henry VIII, I put these points to my noble and learned friend. I believe that there is a distinction between enlarging the jurisdiction of the court and restricting it. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend Lord Renton has said, that the High Court jurisdiction is very largely the creature of the Supreme Court Act and therefore it is a creature of statute. It is in fact a court of almost unlimited jurisdiction.
To restrict that by a negative resolution might be a very serious matter. In referring to what my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge said, it might turn out to be necessary to enlarge the jurisdiction of the county court as a consequence of the passage of Part I of this Bill. I should not have thought that there was the same kind of objection to the use of the secondary legislation weapon to enlarge the power of the county court if the object of the exercise is, as I understand it, to transfer from the High Court to the county court certain categories of proceedings.
The Lord Chancellor: I regret to say that there has been a certain misunderstanding as regards some of
534
the matters that have been put before the Committee. In the first instance it is right for me to point out that all of subsection (4) of Clause 1 is governed by the words,
"in consequence of any provision made by the order".
I believe I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Rippon stopped reading immediately before that phrase, but I may be wrong. If I do him an injustice I shall happily correct it when I have had a chance to read the record. But that is the point. Subsection (4) is restricted to amendments that are consequential to an order under subsection (1).
The second point I wish to make is that my noble friend Lord Renton is wrong in thinking that one can make an order under subsection (4). That subsection is only concerned with what may be in an order under that subsection. The only power to make an order is contained in subsection (1). Therefore the basis on which my noble friend has spoken on that aspect of the matter is just incorrect. That means that subsection (1) is the important order-making power. The provisions of Clause 82 apply to it. Accordingly, what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said is incorrect also because subsection (3) states:
"No instrument shall be made under section 1(1) … unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wonder if my noble and learned friend will allow me to refer to what he has said. Why does not Clause 82 apply the affirmative resolution to subsection (4) as it does under subsection (1)? Does not subsection (4) in fact use the word "order"?
The Lord Chancellor: Subsection (4) refers to an order made under this section. The only order-making power under this clause is in subsection (1). Accordingly, Clause 82(1) is intended to refer to the only orders that may be made under Clause 1 of this Bill which is under the power contained in subsection (1).
Accordingly, I make it absolutely plain that what we are concerned with here is the affirmative resolution procedure dealing with provisions which are consequential on the main order made under subsection (1).
The purpose of that is to give absolute clarity to the statute book. It has, as I see it, nothing whatever to do with Henry VIII clauses. The clauses give the Lord Chancellor power to increase the jurisdiction of the High Court, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, to increase the jurisdiction of the county court and then to make allocations of proceedings between the two courts. That is precisely what the Civil Justice Review thought it was necessary to do.
Noble Lords could have legislation which set these matters firmly and in detail today. That is no problem. But there is all the problem in the world in seeing whether it would work properly. The need is to make sure that the county courts are able properly to cope with the work that is sent down to them. It does not mean that what is sent down today will necessarily be the last word on the matter. If the

535
county courts work well more can be sent down to them. If on the other hand it is found that they cannot deal with the matter properly for various reasons, the county courts will have less sent down to them. The allocation can be altered. What I am asking the Committee to do is to affirm that principle which is the principle of the Civil Justice Review and which appears to me to make absolute sense.
I cannot understand therefore what the effect would be of subsection (4) being left out. What is it supposed would happen if subsection (4) were left out? Let us suppose that I made an order under subsection (1) extending the jurisdiction of the county court. Let us further suppose that an earlier statutory provision in a particular case limited the jurisdiction of the county court. The power exercised under the later statute would prevail. All this provision does is to enable me in the subsequent order to draw attention to that fact and make clear what Parliament has intended, which is that the order under subsection (1) should apply.
The purpose of all this, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said earlier, is to serve the public and to enable the public to get the best possible service from the courts that the resources available to the courts enable them to give. I certainly think that the responsibility for the allocation of resources is one which the Lord Chancellor should take. It should rest on the Lord Chancellor's responsibility. I have made it perfectly plain that before making any order under this clause I shall consult the senior judiciary. Such consultation is a serious matter and is one which any Lord Chancellor would treat seriously. If the affirmative resolution procedure applies to provisions under this clause, as in my submission it clearly does, when I come to justify an order to Parliament, which I shall certainly have to do, I shall have to make it quite plain what the views of the senior judiciary are and what arrangement we have made for the allocation of proper resources. That is a matter for Parliament. It is for Parliament to judge whether the order is properly matched by the provision of resources that we are seeking to make at that stage.
I submit to the Committee, with the greatest respect to those who have taken a contrary view, that to leave this subsection out would simply be to put obscurity in the statute book. Great obloquy has been heaped upon the present Lord Chancellor for not going alonl, with the procedures that may have been followed some years ago. I have in general terms to take that as best I can. However, I believe that to leave this subsection out will be to create confusion in the statute book and certainly multiply the number of quite unimportant statutory provisions which would be laid before Parliament. This is an entirely justifiable use of this method of procedure.
Perhaps I should say in conclusion that I think I am right in saying that the passage in my reply to which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, referred is a passage in which I was dealing with the general order-making power in subsection (1) of Clause 1 and was not the particular point on subsection (4). I was seeking to deal with what I thought was an
536
intervention from a sedentary position from a part of the Committee which was not specified at the time.
In my submission the position is very plain. If the Committee were to delete the subsection it would be putting a quite unnecessary confusion into the statute book. It would be an impediment to the effective implementation of the Civil Justice Review on this matter.
Lord Mishcon: With deep respect to the noble and learned Lord, if his reading of the subsection is right he should not blame any participant in this debate who was in some doubt. I assure him that the wording of this subsection is not as clear as it obviously was to him. If the wording had been:
"An order under this section may, for the purposes of subsection (1)",
so that it was obviously an order limited to the matters mentioned in subsection (1), half the speeches that were made this afternoon would not have been made. The matter is not in my hands because it is not my amendment. However, I say at once that I shall withdraw my objection if it is made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the limitations to the order made under subsection (4) are within the purview of subsection (1).
The Lord Chancellor: I am grateful for that observation, but I must say that the only order-making power in the whole clause is in subsection (1).
Lord Mishcon: No.
The Lord Chancellor: That is my reading of it. It says:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision".
In no other place does the Lord Chancellor have a power conferred upon him to make any order under this clause. What subsection (4) says is what an order under subsection (1) may do. It is an elaboration of a consequential or incidental provision, consequential on the main provisions in the order. If it can be made any plainer I shall certainly ask parliamentary counsel to tell me how it can be done. At the present moment I do not see that it can be made plainer. I am happy to consider whether it can be made plainer. That is certainly the intention.
As I am on my feet again perhaps I should also draw attention to subsection (6) which makes it perfectly plain that no order under subsection (1) could confer power on the county court to consider applications for judicial review. No power to restrict the High Court's jurisdiction in judicial review could be exercised under this subsection. I understood the noble Lord to make a point of that kind in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend has just said, and it has been the theme of his argument, that the only order-making power is under subsection (1). I venture to ask him how under subsection (1) he can amend or repeal any provision. That can be done only by an order under subsection (4). That subsection, unlike subsection (1), is a negative procedure subsection. I ask my noble and

537
learned friend to accept the amendment, take the subsection away and redraft it to take account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. We can then consider it at Report and decide whether it is constitutionally and practically acceptable.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I should like to raise another point. I would accept that it is clear on the face of the Bill that the order-making power would be under Clause 1. I also accept that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is concerned to seek complicity and to make consequential arrangements. I want to put to him a different point which concerns me. It relates to the practice and procedure of the courts.
As I understand the position, the practice and procedure of the courts is laid down in the High Court by the rules of the Supreme Court and in the county court by the rules of the county courts. I believe I am correct in saying that both those rule-making bodies derive their power from statute. They make their rules under statute and can only make them under statute. What concerns me about the clause is that at present the rule-making bodies consist very largely, although not exclusively, of those who have the conduct of judicial business. I see the position under the clause as raising the possibility that a Lord Chancellor of the day in transferring business from the High Court to the county court might be able to make amendments to rules which have been determined by the body charged with making rules for the conduct of cases in court. I do not believe that possibility to be fanciful.
One of the debates which took place in this Chamber concerned whether work might be transferred down to the county court before that court had adequate resources. It is easy to see a political situation developing where the Government's concern —and the general cry —that justice should be done more speedily leads to a transfer of further business to the county courts at a time when the procedure under which county courts conduct their business would mean that that volume of business could not be handled. In that situation, is the Lord Chancellor to have powers contrary to the wishes of the rules committee to intervene and say that the nature of pleadings in the court should be curtailed; the time for delivery of proceedings should be curtailed; and that even various rights given to the parties in respect of advocacy should be curtailed?
I seek an assurance that under this clause the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not visualise that the Lord Chancellor of the day would have power to interfere with the rules which had been made by the rule-making bodies both in the Supreme Court and in the county court. Given that assurance, I would have no misgivings about the clause; however, without such an assurance I would have considerable misgivings.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor I am obliged to my noble friend for the point he made. The way I see the situation is that the restriction that If mentioned at the end of both branches of the subsection is in consequence of any provision made by the order. All the order can do is to confer jurisdiction on the High Court, or on the county court and allocate. Under that power it cannot alter anything that the courts' method involves. Therefore all that subsection (4) allows me to do is to make any consequential amendments to the practice rules which may be consequential upon the fact that the court has new work. For example, in the event of an extension there may be rules of court which specify certain types of action which must be taken in relation to a particular volume of work, or in relation to a particular type of case.
If I made an order adding a new type of case, it might be right to extend the rules without more ado to cover such a case, after proper consultation. Therefore I do not evisage any situation of the sort mentioned by my noble friend. Moreover, I do not think that the words—although, I shall seek advice on the matter —in their natural meaning confer the kind of power which my noble friend has in mind. However, I shall check the position: and if there is any doubt in the matter, I shall seek to make it plain. What has been suggested was not the intention. However, as my noble friend mentioned the point. I should perhaps say that the rule-making power under the Supreme Court Act confers power to alter statutory enactments. Therefore the process of procedural rules altering primary legislation is by no means a novelty.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: In so far as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor already possesses the power to which he referred, perhaps he could rely upon that alone without the provision to which I directed my amendment. In speaking about subsection (4), I assumed on Second Reading, and by what I said this afternoon, that the order-making power derived from Clause 1(1). Therefore, I took the view that it is not sufficient to rely upon either any affirmative resolution or upon consultation.
So far as concerns subsection (1) (which as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says contains the only order-making power), I have tabled a Motion on the Marshalled List that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. I find the whole of Clause 1 to be an enabling measure containing proposals which ought, as my noble and learned friend, Lord Hailsham suggested on Second Reading, to be dealt with largely by primary legislation in any event. It seems to me therefore that it is incumbent upon the Government, and especially upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a constitutional Bill to make perfectly clear just what is wanted. We have been told by various noble Lords that what is proposed has been brought forward with great haste and without proper consultation. However, I shall deal with that aspect when we reach the clause stand part stage.
My objection to subsection (4) remains as I stated; namely, that it is one of the worst examples which

539
can be found of a Henry VIII clause giving power to amend or repeal any provision made by or under any enactment relating to the matters set out so far,
"as the Lord Chancellor considers it to be necessary, or expedient".
We may have the utmost confidence in the present Lord Chancellor; but there may be future Lord Chancellors. The provision refers to any enactment —that is, past, present or future —and it gives a power which I think in principle is wholly wrong.
In my view if Members of the Committee cannot kill this Henry VIII clause now in these circumstances, having regard to the very sensible recommendations contained in the Donoughmore Report —which are now totally disregarded —then I think it would be a sad day for this Chamber. I hope that the principle of what is proposed will be considered by noble Lords, and in the circumstances I must divide the Committee on the matter.
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content" and those to the contrary shall say "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content!
The Chairman of Committees: I think the "Not-Contents" have it.
Noble Lords: Content!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees the fact that I think noble Lords sitting behind me really intended to divide the Committee but that they said "Not-Content" when they meant to say "Content". In the circumstances, perhaps the Question could be put again.
4.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I shall put the Question again: The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content" and those to the contrary "Not-Content".
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Ezra, L.

Beloff, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Galpern, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grantchester, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grey, E.

Cross, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Havers, L.

David, B.

Hooson, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

540

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Jeger, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kearton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kennet, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Rochester, L.

Leatherland, L.

Roskill, L.

Listowel, E.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Selkirk, E.

McCarthy, L.

Shackleton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Meston, L.

Stallard, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Molloy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Parry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Aldington, L.

Goodman, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Griffiths, L.

Allerton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hacking, L.

Arran, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Auckland, L.

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hertford, M.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L.

Blyth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Boardman, L.

Hives, L.

Bolton, L.

Hood, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brain, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Brightman, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Killearn, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Butterworth, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Caithness, E.

Knollys, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lawrence, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cox, B.

Manton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Margadale, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Derwent, L.

Middleton, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Morris, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Effingham, E.

Mountevans, L.

Elibank, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newall, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fisher, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pender, L.

Gainford, L.

Phillips, B.

Gisborough, L.

Porritt, L.

541

Quinton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Reay, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Reilly, L.

Templeman, L.

Rochdale, V.

Terrington, L.

Rodney, L.

Teviot, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

St. Davids, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Thurlow, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Shannon, E.

Tryon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Somers, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wigram, L.

Strange, B.

Wise, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("jurisdiction").
The noble Lord said: I can move the amendment briefly because the point which arises on this amendment and the next, which is grouped with it, is one which I raised during the previous discussion. It must have become clear from the previous discussion that, whatever we may feel about giving the Lord Chancellor power to amend enactments relating to practice or procedure, we ought to think twice, or more often, about giving him the power to alter the jurisdiction of the courts merely by an order repealing or amending previous Acts of Parliament.
The decision on the previous Division is an indication of what would happen if I pressed this amendment to a Division. All that I can suggest to my noble and learned friend, and of course I do so with humility, is this. In view of the powerful arguments used on both sides when we were discussing the previous amendment to delete subsection (4), instead of taking that power to repeal or amend previous enactments dealing with jurisdiction he should seriously consider putting into the Bill on Report what he intends to do with regard to jurisdiction. He would not lose much flexibility because, after all, the Civil Justice Review was specific.
My noble and learned friend has some pretty sure guidance in the early parts of Clause 1 as to the kind of orders that he may make, but when it comes to deciding upon the essential jurisdiction as between the High Court and the county court it may be that his mind is made up. I hope that it is. I hope that he would not have embarked upon the first part of the Bill without a clear idea as to what changes in jurisdiction he intended. Therefore this must necessarily be a probing amendment which would enable me to make that suggestion. It would enable my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say that in spite of everything that has passed he truly has an open mind. I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Whatever the correct or incorrect interpretation, there is no doubt that many Members of your Lordships' House are not totally ignorant of the law. Yet they are in considerable doubt as to the effect of the clause. Therefore I
542
am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would not wish to do other than to clarify it. If it is the case in this House that noble Lords with the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made the points that he did, it is incumbent on the Lord Chancellor to make quite clear exactly what the clause does. I am sure he will wish to do that.
There is no doubt that it is alarming to see on the statute book that the Lord Chancellor can by order repeal or amend any enactment concerning these matters of jurisdiction, practice and procedure. He may be able to do that by executive power. Once upon a time I used to be sent round the country by my Conservative colleagues. In those days they were very keen about the rights of Parliament and keen to see that the Executive was trammelled and controlled. The Conservative Party felt strongly then that the powers of Parliament should be maintained.
In those circumstances, as the noble and learned Lord is a Conservative Lord Chancellor, surely he wishes to ensure that when the Bill comes to another stage he makes absolutely clear those powers which he wishes to take, which he thinks ought to be taken. He will not take the excessive powers which on the face of it some Members of your Lordships' House believe he has taken.
Lord Morris: It is worth stressing that this is not an excessive power. Under subsection (4) as I read it the power is only to make an order to amend or repeal any provision as a consequence of an order under subsection (1) or to present orders that are incidental and transitional to that major power. In the circumstances it is by no means a draconian power.
The Lord Chancellor: The purpose of subsection (1) is to enable the Lord Chancellor to confer new jurisdiction, for example, on the county courts. The county court jurisdiction is statutory and there are restrictions on it, for instance, in relation to defamation which we shall hear about later. If I thought it was right in the light of the resources available to the county courts to increase their jurisdiction, then it would be right to make clear the effect of that on the existing statutory situation in the county courts. The whole purpose of the legislation is to enable the jurisdiction to be varied in order to make it possible to allocate cases between the two levels of court to the best advantage of the public as a whole.
To take "jurisdiction" out of this clause would be to take its base from it altogether. ft is primarily the jurisdiction that would be affected. The more incidental matters to which my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon referred are very incidental. Jurisdiction is the main matter to be affected in the way that the Civil Justice Review proposed.
I thought it best to indicate, possibly in relation to clause stand part, what I have in mind. At the moment I shall certainly make no order without full consultation. I intend to put a draft of the order out to those interested before I make any order at all. At the moment I propose to follow what the Civil Justice Review proposed; that is my present

543
intention. However, that is open to whatever suggestions may be made to me in proper consultation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will bear with me if I reiterate what I said to him on the previous amendment. There is all the difference in the world between restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court and enlarging the jurisdiction of the county courts. The purpose of the judicial review is mainly to enlarge the jurisdiction of the county courts in order to move work from the High Court to the county courts.
The difference between the two courts—despite the point validly and technically made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon —is that the jurisdiction of the High Court is virtually unlimited, subject to the rules of court, and so on. However, the jurisdiction of the county court is extremely limited. It is entirely the creature of statute and therefore anything one does must be allowable by some form of legislation. I should find no difficulty at all about enlarging its jurisdiction for the purpose of the judicial review, but I should have considerable anxiety about restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Lord Chancellor: In view of what my noble and learned friend said, I should add that there is no power to restrict the jurisdiction of the High Court under these proposals. The only power is, by order, to make provision conferring jurisdiction on the High Court. That is additional jurisdiction because there are restrictions on High Court jurisdiction by statute in regard, for example, to consumer credit arrangements and such matters. The second power is to confer jurisdiction on the county court.
There is no question of my having a power under this statute to restrict the jurisdiction of any court whatsoever. The powers of allocation are referred to, but regarding jurisdiction it is only conferring the jurisdiction that is empowered in subsections (1)(a) and (b).
Baroness Elles: The purpose of the Bill is to clarify and help customers and clients to understand the law better and be better serviced. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has clearly explained the purpose of the clause in relation to Clause 1(1). However, it would be helpful to those who have to read the Act later on if provision were made in subsection (4) to relate the matter back to Clause 1(1) and explain the purpose of this clause. That would help those who will in the future have to examine the Act to see what rights they have and what constitutional protection there may be for citizens.
The Lord Chancellor: I have already undertaken, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to see whether we can make it absolutely plain that subsection (4) is intended purely as an incidental or explanatory provision to the powers contained in Clause 1(1).
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Will my noble and learned friend explain what enactments, past, present or future, he may wish to repeal or amend? Will that be made clear in subsequent proceedings?
The Lord Chancellor: It depends on what one decides to do. I do not wish to pre-empt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about defamation, but let me take it as an example, without prejudice to the argument that he will no doubt put forward. At present there are restrictions on defamation actions in the county court under the statute. Supposing I thought it was a good idea to allow the smaller actions of defamation to proceed in the county court. Under the powers in subsection (1), I could confer jurisdiction on the county court to hear such actions. Then the effect would be to amend the existing statutory prohibition against it.
It would be right to make it clear so that everyone knows —as my noble friend Lady Elles pointed out —that the existing section of the County Courts Act was no longer effective. It was superseded by the order conferring on the county court jurisdiction in actions of defamation up to the value of £25,000 or something similar. That is just an illustration which occurs to me in answer to my noble friend's question.
However, before making any order under subsection (1) I shall publish the full detail of the legislation and consult people about it. It is difficult to get these matters absolutely right. Then I shall have the responsibility of making sure, once we decide what order should be made, that the appropriate resources are available to enable the county court to carry it out. Such a change requires to be done with a certain amount of notice. One does not have the necessary resources available long before the work comes, and one has to be careful about that. The resources would have to be there when the work came.
Lord Morris: In answer to a previous question, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stated quite clearly that Clause 1 did not give power to the Lord Chancellor to take jurisdiction away from the High Court. It gives him power to confer jurisdiction on the High Court only in relation to proceedings.
However, under subsection (1)(g) he also has the power to make orders specifying proceedings which may take place only in the county court. Those proceedings could previously be taken only in the High Court. Does that not take away the power from the High Court? Perhaps I have totally and completely misunderstood that answer.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, I think the noble Lord may be correct in saying that subsection (1)(g) would enable the jurisdiction of the High Court to be restricted in the circumstances of that particular part, but the point I am making is that the only powers to deal with jurisdiction as such are the powers in (a) and (b), which are to confer jurisdiction, not to restrict it.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this further discussion. I wish

545
to take up the consequences of the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I do so by referring first to subsection (1) of Clause 1, subparagraph (a) of which enables the Lord Chancellor by order to make provision conferring jurisdiction on the High Court in relation to proceedings in which the county courts have jurisdiction; and subparagraph (b) of which provides for the conferring of jurisdiction on the county courts in relation to proceedings in which the High Court has jurisdiction. He cannot do either of those without amending or repealing existing statutory provisions.
A number of less important statutory provisions of the County Courts Act 1984 have been repealed. They are listed on pages 114 and 115. Scarcely anything in the Supreme Court Act of 1981 has been repealed; there are but one or two very small references. Thus in exercising his power under subsection (1) he will have to use his power to amend or repeal provisions under existing enactments or, as my noble friend Lord Rippon has pointed out, in future enactments, including this one, relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of the county courts.
That brings us back to the point which so many of us regard as fundamental. I think even those who supported my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the Division Lobby in the recent Division regard it as fundamental that when Parliament has already made enactments, relating to jurisdiction —I leave aside practice and procedure —we need something more than an affirmative resolution and consultation in order to justify making that change.
However, I have done my best, as have other noble Lords. I can only leave it to my noble and learned friend in all his sincerity, and with all his ability and consciencious attitude, to think about the matter again between now and the Report stage. I certainly hope that he will do so, as we must come back to it at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a very simple question? Does the power in this Bill enable him to amend the Bill by order, because, if that is the case, there is hardly any point in going on with the discussion?
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand the provision, the order is to repeal any provision made by or under any enactment —that is to say, an enactment which presently exists which is affected by an order made under this provision. I do not see in what circumstances it could possibly affect a provision of this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may ask whether the noble and learned Lord means to inform the Committee that the words "any enactment" would not refer to an enactment which was passed after this Bill, giving therefore the power under this Bill to alter, vary or repeal that enactment? Does he say that it is an enactment which exists only as at the date at which we are speaking?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, because a subsequent enactment, if it did not do so expressly, would impliedly repeal any power to alter it. The last word of Parliament would prevail. Let us take the defamation example: supposing in a year's time Parliament decided that defamation should be restricted to the High Court, and supposing I had made an order under this provision allowing defamation proceedings in the county court, the new Act of Parliament would supersede because it would impliedly repeal the power to put defamation in the county court; it would be saying defamation could only be in the High Court. So any later enactment, being the last word of Parliament, would repeal this provision as far as it was inconsistent with it.
Lord Renton: Yes, but we have to move a stage further. Supposing that Parliament has altered the law in the way that my noble and learned friend suggested, under this clause the Lord Chancellor could again make another order repealing that statute, which is nonsensical.
While I am on my feet, my noble and learned friend said that the words "any enactment" do not include disenactment. That cannot be right.
Lord Mishcon: If the noble and learned Lord would allow me one final observation, all this discussion, taking place at the instance of noble Lords whose opinion in this House is much respected, leads me again to repeat to the noble and learned Lord that I am sure that his interpretation as he gives it at this moment is a very honest one and, from the point of view of the language employed, a very clear one. Perhaps I may tell him that there is doubt which can lead to all sorts of difficulties in the future if at Report stage or at some stage when this Bill is before your Lordships' House there be not made abundantly clear, first of all, the limitation of the order to be made under subsection (1) and, secondly, the limitation on the powers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or any of his successors to deal with either future enactments or this enactment. Otherwise there is going to be doubt. If the noble and learned Lord will only say that he will consider this, as I believe he did say before, with a view to clarifying the language and making matters abundantly clear, he will have done a great service to the House.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should say generally, and in particular in reference to this point, that I believe debates in this House inform us all. After one has listened to various points which have been put forward, one sometimes sees ambiguities which were never seen before. Ingenuity is always capable of producing ambiguity which can sometimes arise in ways other than as a result of ingenuity.
Certainly, I would wish to take account of all that has been said. If the drafting of the Bill in any of its parts can be improved as a result of our debates, I shall take advice and come forward with appropriate amendments. I am happy to say that I have good advice upon which I can rely, and I shall consider whether any improvement can be made in the light

547
of the discussion we have had. I regard this Bill as of great importance and therefore I am extremely anxious to get it right. I am grateful to the Committee for helping me to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 6.
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("and the President of the Council of Circuit Judges").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. I hope your Lordships will find that this amendment has two merits: first, it is a very modest little one, and secondly it has at least the inferential support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I hope that it will be uncontroversial.
As has been pointed out, the purpose of Part I is to move down a mass of litigation from the High Court to the county court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, as one would expect, that he will make orders under this clause only after very full consultation. There are 400 county court or circuit judges at the moment. There will be many more as the transfer occurs. A clause which does not introduce them among the persons to be consulted seems, if I may respectfully so submit, a remarkable clause if very full consultation is to occur.
I accept immediately that the senior presiding judge is included. He happens at the moment to be the deputy Lord Chief Justice. He is a very busy person who obtains his information about the county courts via the High Court judges who are presiding judges. Although I am sure that his information is most helpful, it is not first-hand information.
I suggest that it is somewhat hurtful to a body of county court judges who are to receive a large increase in work that they should not be consulted. The Council of Circuit Judges is a highly responsible organisation which has provided the Lord Chancellor with its views on the Civil Justice Review consultation paper and on the Green Paper. Its president is always a highly responsible person. Thus the amendment proposed is a modest one.
Perhaps I may now rely on the inferential support of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I do so by reference to the debate on Second Reading on 19th December and the noble and learned Lord's reply at col. 245 of Hansard. We were debating the advisory committee and who should serve on it. A noble Lord suggested that it should include a county court judge. My noble and learned friend's reaction was:
"I was interested in the suggestion that a circuit judge should be a member of the committee. Obviously I shall consider that suggestion very carefully. I certainly envisage that the judiciary on the circuit bench may well have a role in relation to this matter".
That relates to the advisory committee which makes decisions. All that is required under the amendment is that the Lord Chancellor consults or seeks the views of the president of the Council of Circuit Judges. He does not have to follow them. He can totally disregard them.
The other inferential support in the same debate (reported in col. 246 of Hansard) related to the criticism which had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, of the introduction into the scheme of the legal services of the Director General of Fair Trading. To that criticism, among others, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"It would be for the judges and the Lord Chancellor to decide. It would not be for him [the director general] to decide but his advice would be available".
I stress the next words:
"I cannot see that obtaining advice from whatever quarter is bad".
That is why I have respectfully suggested that I have my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's inferential support for his consulting the president of the council that represents the 400-plus circuit judges who will receive —so it appears —this vast influx in litigation. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I should like to support the amendment by saying that it is a practical amendment. The purpose of the clause is to transfer work from the High Court to the county court. Therefore a much greater burden and greater responsibility will be placed on circuit judges. It seems obvious to me that there should be a direct conduit between the Lord Chancellor and the circuit judges. The obvious person to fulfil the role of spokesman for the circuit judges would seem to be the president of their council.
The Lord Chancellor: I certainly value the opinion of the circuit judges and I intend that they should be among those consulted on the draft order. However, they would not be the only people consulted; the Bar, the Law Society and those representing consumer groups would also be consulted.
I think I am right in saying that the Council of Circuit Judges is an informal and not a statutory body. In this provision I have expressed an obligation to consult the senior judiciary, including the senior presiding judge. The purpose of making consultation with the presiding judge statutory is to recognise in statute the existing arrangements. I believe that the appropriate statutory consultation is through the presiding judges because, as your Lordships know, they have responsibilities on each circuit. However, that does not mean that I am restricted to that.
On the other hand, one must be careful to see that arrangements are satisfactory. That is the channel through which I would expect to obtain the official views of the circuit judges. In addition to the circuit judges there are also the registrars, whose official title we propose to change later in the Bill, and a large number of groups to be consulted. The only question between my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and myself is whether one needs to include that particular office-holder on the face of the statute.
I only have reservations about that for the reasons that I have given, but I am very happy to consider the matter further if my noble and learned friend

549
will allow me to do so. Those are the only problems so far as I am concerned.
The Earl of Onslow: If my noble and learned friend did not put that on the face of the Bill, presumably he could add it by order afterwards.
Lord Ackner: In view of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's agreement to consider the proposal and also his statement in terms that he proposes to consult county court judges, I await the Report stage with enthusiasm and optimism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("and obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: I hope that the Committee will give me a little indulgence in dealing with the amendment at somewhat greater length than the previous one, particularly as to an extent it is bound to overlap with Amendment No. 9.
There are many illusions about judges. One is that they start work at 10.30 in the morning and disappear with a puff of smoke at 4 or 4.15. The other is that they are totally immune from and take no part in administration. In fact, they are responsible for the administration of the courts to a very high degree. The Committee may know, but it may be a long time since it was reminded, that the Beeching Commission decided that there should be a new administrative procedure for dealing with courts.
The Beeching Commission specifically provided that in order constitutionally to ensure that the Executive did not involve themselves in the areas which belong to the judiciary there should be set up on each of the six circuits two High Court judges known as presiding judges. They would be responsible to the Lord Chief Justice for the overall administration of those circuits. They would be answerable to the Chief Justice, who himself was answerable for the efficient working of the courts throughout the country. There is now a senior presiding judge who oversees the presiding judges.
In the Second Reading debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said that a great deal of what was proposed in the civil justice parts of the Bill had already been overtaken by work done by the judges. The work which has been done by the judges, particularly High Court judges, in reorganising the work in the High Court to ensure greater expedition has been very significant. In the civil justice review consultation paper, noble Lords will find it recorded that the waiting time from setting down the action until trial in the Queen's Bench Division (I use that as an example because the greatest amount of litigation takes place there and the greatest proportion of that will be transferred to the county court) was 20 months. As the result of increased judicial administration, it is now 10 weeks. If one wishes to have a date given with more than a 90 per cent. chance of being heard on that date, it
550
is three months. The risk of not being heard is due to other cases running beyond their estimated length.
I am told —this is direct from the judge in charge of the list —that the lists are now generally in a reasonably healthy state and, if there is urgency with an order for speedy trials, cases can and do come on very quickly. The judge writes that he recently had an asbestos case with liability and quantum in dispute. There were three medical and three engineering experts on each side. The case came on for trial 12 weeks after the plaintiff discovered that he had asbestosis, at which point he went to his solicitors for the first time. That is not a record. More recently, a difficult case was tried five weeks after the writ was issued. The judge in charge points out that, for the general list, the period of 10 weeks from setting down to trial is slightly below the target of 12 weeks, since that target is accepted as the minimum reasonable period to allow the parties to make their final preparation of trial.
I draw attention to those points as an indication of the significant import that judges have in the proper administration of the courts. Cases which are at present considered as appropriate to be remitted to the county court for trial are processed by being remitted to certain specified courts. I believe that the overall number is 40. The senior presiding judge and the presiding judges on the circuit involved ensure that it is working smoothly and, if it is not, they turn off the tap. By that process it is ensured that work which is done expeditiously in the High Court is not siphoned off to the county court, where it may well be discovered that it is not possible to carry out that work properly.
It was over 30 years ago that as a junior I was appointed to a Lord Chancellor's committee on county court administration —such a long time ago that Sir Denis Dobson, long retired as the Permanent Secretary, was a relatively junior representative of the Lord Chancellor on that committee. We then had the selfsame problems as exist now. How on earth does one ensure that a case which will take more than one day —and many of those cases will take more than several days —will have a continuous hearing? Despite the High Court judges monitoring the flow, there is still the problem of the county court judge finding that his list cannot begin with the case that needs two or three days because there are urgent injunctions and applications of one kind or another. He therefore starts at about 12 o'clock, overruns and must adjourn, and the adjournments are often for several months.
Inherent in the county court is the absence of recording facilities. All that a circuit judge is issued with is a hand-held set into which he speaks his judgment —not a very efficient-looking process. There are no recording systems for the evidence and no libraries. There are inadequate consultation rooms. But, worst of all, as noble Lords know, the present staffing situation in the county courts is quite disastrous.
I was particularly interested in a letter in yesterday's Times because I was the presiding judge on the Western Circuit for the usual four years. That was not during the reign of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham; it was during the time of Lord

551
Elwyn-Jones. The system there worked well. It is now becoming worse and worse. I wish to refer to a number of excerpts from that letter, which noble Lords may have seen yesterday. It stated:
"Enquiries of the Bournemouth County Court as to why we have not received a response frequently receive the reply, 'You have to appreciate we have many months of unopened mail yet to be dealt with'. I also have on my desk a letter from the Portsmouth Combined Court, dated November 27, 1989, in which the Chief Clerk writes: 'The Court has considerable arrears of correspondence and is only now dealing with that from August', A recent enquiry to Salisbury County Court regarding a bill of costs submitted for taxation some months before produced the less than helpful comment:'… Not yet taxed, Deputy Registrars for 3 weeks who tend to leave bills (sic)'. We are also experiencing considerable delays in the taxation of legal-aid bills, which means that my firm is subsidising the Legal Aid Board".
That is a letter from a well-known firm of solicitors in Hampshire.
In the Second Reading debate much was said about this being a problem of staff. It is not only a problem of staff; it is a problem of cash limits. One of the recent consequences on one of the circuits—and this rings hollow in view of the protestation of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he wants to increase speedy access to the courts —was as follows: a High Court civil case was due to be tried. As is often the case, there was no High Court judge available so a Queen's Counsel was asked to perform the role of a deputy High Court judge. The Lord Chancellor pays the daily rate of such a person, but the subsistence —his overnight stay at the hotels —must come out of circuit funds. There were no circuit funds available for his subsistence and there was therefore no trial. On another circuit, 13 assistant recorders were due to try criminal and civil cases. Again, the Lord Chancellor's Department was prepared to pay their daily rate. The circuit could not afford their subsistence, so 13 assistant recorders were cancelled and the work, which we are told everyone is so anxious to deal with, could not be dealt with.
At Second Reading, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, I thought rather blandly, "Well, of course, we train our staff so well that when they are properly trained, off they go to solicitors and banks". Where is the market discipline which should have retained them? The market discipline requires that people are properly paid or one loses them. It requires that, if courts are to be occupied by judges, someone pays their subsistence. It requires that, when bulbs blow in courts, one does not wait until more than 40 are required to be replaced before one realises that funds must be found.
The purpose of the amendment is to assist my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have no doubt that his spirit—particularly his spirit —is very willing, but, vis-à-vis the Treasury, his flesh is immensely weak. The letter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice quoted at Second Reading, a letter from his judge, said that in the past two years things had got worse. It is in the past two years that active contemplation has occurred about Part I of this Bill and transfer to the county court.
This is an earnest and sincere wish to assist the Lord Chancellor. If he is able to say to the Treasury,
552
"I and everybody want work transferred to the county court but I cannot do it because the Lord Chief Justice, through his presiding judge, through his network of information throughout the country, tells me with chapter and verse that the county court is in a shambles and it can barely deal with its work now, let alone the new jurisdiction resulting from the Children Act; I cannot move without his concurrence and I cannot get his concurrence because he very properly says that the county courts are being under-resourced", then the Treasury would either have to do something about it or be answerable to Parliament for failure to ensure that the ringing words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about how anxious he is to improve access to justice are being frustrated.
This simple amendment is essentially to ensure that those who are at the receiving end of the trial cases—judges, not the civil servants —and who have to administer justice should have a say, not merely be consulted, which could be ignored. They should be in a position to say, "We know what the position is throughout the country. It does not justify any action yet. Provide the system with the funds it requires and then we will agree". I have considerable faith in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but I do not have blind faith and that is what this subsection requires: a total resignation to the dictates of the Executive without any control as to whether it can fund what it proposes to do.
In many ways Part I is a disaster from the point of view of the Government because it has enabled the situation in the county courts and in the circuit courts to be opened up for public scrutiny and it is common ground that the present situation is a scandal. Therefore to that extent Part I has performed a very useful function; but it will not be useful if the control of the judiciary through the Lord Chief Justice is not kept firmly in place. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly I should like to say that I listened with great attention and some horror to the account given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. With the greatest respect, commending the noble and learned Lord for his frankness, I question whether this is an appropriate way in which to bring pressure upon the Treasury or to seek to improve the efficiency of the Lord Chancellor's Department as regards administration. I suggest to the Committee that these matters lie within the direct remit of government and that it is essential for government in cabinet to allocate funds appropriate to that purpose.
The other question arises: where does the ultimate responsibility lie; and is it wise, when it lies with the Lord Chancellor, to divide the responsibility, as proposed by this amendment? The making of the order under subsection (1), the specifying of the criteria under subsections (2) and (3) and the amendment, repeal and ancillary provision under subsection (4) are all the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor who, as such, is answerable to Parliament. With respect, I question whether there is any need to move from consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President

553
of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor and the senior presiding judge and, so to speak, in effect confer a veto upon the Lord Chief Justice. It is a cathartic division of responsibility which may not commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It was impressive, as it always is, to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, There is no doubt at all that he has a very serious point in respect of the under-provision at present for the county courts, to which it is a major purpose of this Bill to transfer a great deal of business. Therefore I believe that the Committee will start out with great sympathy with his objective.
However, his method was somewhat startling. Apparently it is intended to use the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as a kind of blackmailing weapon against the Treasury. Apart perhaps from showing less respect than most of us feel for the office of the Lord Chief Justice, it was certainly a rather unusual constitutional expedient. Also, if the Committee accepts the amendment, it will put the Lord Chancellor in a very strange position. He is the Minister responsible for these matters to Parliament and to the public. If there were to be a disagreement between him and the Lord Chief Justice he would have to say, "I am terribly sorry. I think this should be done but I cannot do it because you have equipped the Lord Chief Justice with a veto on my action". That would be quite extraordinary legislation. It is not for me to speak for him, but I should have thought that it would be a matter of some embarrassment to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and certainly a matter of very considerable embarrassment to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Perhaps I may raise another point which is of less importance. In subsection (5) is listed a number of very distinguished figures who must be consulted, including the Lord Chief Justice. But it is proposed in this amendment that alone of them he requires not only to be consulted but must have his concurrence obtained, which seems to suggest that in the process of consultation his view is distinctly more important than that of all the others put together. Again I wonder whether that shows a proper respect to those distinguished judicial figures.
Therefore, although I am deeply impressed by the ingenuity with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, used this amendment to make a legitimate point —and it is a point on which I agree with him and, the Committee may recall, one which I made at Second Reading—about the inadequate provision for the county courts and the necessity of improving it rapidly before this Bill comes fully into operation, this particular expedient seems to be a quite extraordinary one. It is one which, if the Committee adopts it, might well expose the legislation in question and those who put it forward to a measure of derision.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said that one of the vices of subsection (5) is that one can consult and ignore. I appreciate that there are fields in which it is
554
possible for a Minister to consult and virtually ignore. However, I doubt whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or any successor of his would think that that was a course that was open to him where the statute expressly names senior judges as having to be consulted.
I am sure that I have no need to warn the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but perhaps I could warn his unknown successors of this. If any of the holders of this office —and although I speak only for myself I am sure that the same is true of others—advised very strongly that it was wrong to make orders for such reasons as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has mentioned, and that advice was ignored, the Lord Chancellor of the day would be acting within his powers, but he would be gravely mistaken if he thought that the advice that had been tendered to him would remain confidential. It would certainly be the duty of one or more of the senior judges to make it clear to the public that they did not think that the provision could work in the present circumstances. I have no doubt that they would do so. I certainly would do so.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to add one brief word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, have said. As the noble and learned Lord moved the amendment, I could not help but feel that he was moving what is in effect an unconstitutional amendment. He was giving a veto in a matter of public expenditure to someone who was not answerable to Parliament. With all the good intentions in the world, he has contrived an unsuitable form of amendment to achieve what I am sure we all desire: proper finance for the purposes of Part I of the Bill.
I hope that in the light of what has been said he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My aim in rising is twofold. First, I wish to try to be constructive with regard to the matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred. The issue was very fully discussed at Second Reading with many examples given. Out of courtesy, perhaps I may pay a tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He was kind enough to write to me on some matters that I raised at Second Reading. I refer to matters that all of us regret are occurring (and have occurred for some time) in the county courts relating to personnel, proper finance and general administration.
Secondly, I am conscious that the Committee usually likes economy of debate where possible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, moved Amendment No. 7 and spoke to Amendment No. 9. He stated that he felt it was a way of dealing with the critical condition of the county courts and of ensuring that nothing absurd happened by adding to their jurisdiction before they were in a proper state to deal with the matters that were being passed to them.
With economy of debate in mind, and without moving it at this stage, I refer the Committee to Amendment No. 10 which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I believe

555
that it achieves the objective that the noble and learned Lord had in mind. However, it does so in a way that is rather more constructive and enables the noble and learned Lord to speak to the Treasury in his usual measured but very forceful terms. It enables him to say, "You do realise that I cannot carry out the purpose of the enactment of a clause in the Bill which has had the concurrence and sanctions of Parliament because I am not satisfied that my order can be made because conditions prevail which require more money to put them right".
Perhaps I may say with deep respect that all these points appear to be covered in my amendment. It provides that:
"The Lord Chancellor shall make no order under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) … unless he is satisfied that sufficient resources to offer a reasonable level of service to litigants are being provided to the county courts, including provision of facilities for the hearing of cases"—
a point that was also mentioned in parenthesis —
"which last for more than one day so that they can be heard on subsequent consecutive days".
That provision enables Parliament —this Chamber —to show its view that support has to be given by the Treasury to the noble and learned Lord in order that the purpose of the Bill can be carried out.
Perhaps I may save the Committee from being burdened by a further speech from me when Amendment No. 10 is reached. The amendment provides what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I believe all of us, want. However, it does so without any of the constitutional or other difficulties that have been pointed out by participants in the debate.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I wish to add a very few words. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, save for one point. It is not only a question of money. Obviously we must do everything we can to support the Lord Chancellor's Department in obtaining more money to make the fulfilment of Part I of the Bill feasible.
I have made inquiries on my own circuit. In one crown court town the courts do not sit until 11.30 on a Monday morning because the department cannot afford the money to pay overnight subsistence to its staff. The situation is serious although not so serious as in other parts of the country.
If the clause is enacted without amendment the Executive and not the judges, have the final say on how the court should be administered. That goes to the root of the problem about how business should be allocated within the court system. A fear that I have heard expressed many times at the Bar and by judges is that the Lord Chancellor's Department is slowly but surely taking control not only of the Bar and of the solicitors' profession but of the judges as well. That is the underlying fear.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor assures us that that is not his intention. However, we must consider the safeguards that are provided in the Bill. We are taking so many matters on trust. The power will be provided. That is the great
556
concern. I shall not spell it out at any greater length. It is the underlying concern of most people on viewing the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: I regard it as the primary responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to secure the proper resourcing of the courts. I do not think that it could be right to expect the judges to do so. On the other hand, the whole system can work only if the Lord Chancellor takes proper account of the views of the judges.
Since I have come to office and have had the responsibility of being president, under statute, of the Supreme Court, I have endeavoured to make arrangements in the administration of the courts in conjunction with the judges. The presiding judges have a very important part to play in that. They usually speak directly to the circuit administrator for the circuits for which they are responsible. If there are difficulties to be resolved at a higher level, they come through the senior presiding judge, and the heads of division, and we there have to examine the matter and seek to resolve it.
I think it entirely appropriate that before making an order the Lord Chancellor should consult with the four heads of division and the senior presiding judge. The principal purpose is to try to ensure that anything done by the Lord Chancellor is in accordance with their views and has their agreement because they will be operating the system from day to day. The judges must sit in the courts and administer the judicial aspects of the cases before them. It is the job of the Lord Chancellor to do his best to serve them in that capacity and therefore it is highly appropriate that he should consult the senior judiciary. Any order made under the power is subject to the affirmative resolution of Parliament.
I believe that one of the issues with which Parliament will expect the Lord Chancellor to deal in any attempt to make an order under this section will be the attitude of the consulted judges. Although my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has primary interest in the Queen's Bench Division, Chancery Division-type and Family Division-type on-circuit work is also done. Those different interests must also be served.
An important matter which must be considered most carefully in relation to the Bill and its operation is the work under the Children Act which will be given to the county courts. Therefore important responsibilities across the whole field must be considered.
With the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, I believe that the Lord Chief Justice will be put in a somewhat false position. For example —and I hope that this will not happen —supposing I assure him that all will be right in a year's time and that we shall have everything that is required and then for a reason perhaps beyond my control that does not happen but he has given his consent, he would be put in a false position. If he agreed with me in consultation that the matter should go forward he would be doing so upon the assumption that I was responsible for producing the

557
correct resources in order to provide the proper level of services when that was put to the test.
Therefore, I believe that the system we have set up in the Bill is correct. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner is right in saying that one of the results of our actions is to focus attention on the county courts. As he has explained, they have already received a large influx of work as a result of the transfer down by the judge in charge of the list of cases previously in the High Court. If too much is going down they have a system under which they are warned by the presiding judges. The county courts are now dealing with a good deal more work than they were a short time ago. There are difficulties, as I have explained, and I am doing my best to remedy them. I explained some of the steps which are being taken to do so.
I believe that it is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility fairly and squarely to deal with the matter and that he is the person responsible to Parliament for doing so. Although I entirely agree with the purpose underlying my noble and learned friend's amendment, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is correct in saying that the Lord Chancellor should have that responsibility. Precisely how he should properly discharge it and what the statutory provision should be we may discuss in a little more detail when we deal with the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ackner: I do not comment on the reference to "blackmail", which was an unworthy word for my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to use. One can rely upon the Lord Chief Justice to consult with his judges. One can rely upon him to have in mind solely the interests of judges and to refuse his consent where necessary because that is appropriate—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? I used the word quite deliberately in the light of what he said in his speech. Perhaps before making any further comment he will read his speech in Hansard and, as a fair-minded man, I believe that he will accept that the use was justifiable.
Lord Ackner: I have listened to the comment. I do not comment further upon it.
The concern of the Committee can be put in a sentence. The underfunding to which reference has been made is not being taken seriously by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department. It is not being taken seriously or it would not have been allowed to reach the level described when it is contemplated that a great deal of extra work will be placed upon it not only as a result of the Children Act but from the High Court.
The situation is not being taken seriously when one can receive the following statement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, during the debate on the humble Address. She was then holding the brief for the Lord Chancellor. She said:
"Additional money has recently been allocated to the court service from within the departmental resources to stabilise staff
558
numbers and maintain performance at the required level". —[0fficial Report, 23/11/89; col. 227.]
We heard nothing about that from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading. However, my inquiries reveal that the additional money was recently allocated in the following circumstances. A short time ago an award of increased pay was made to the staff in the county courts. But it was made only on the basis that the money would be found from the already allocated cash, which necessitated a number of staff having to be stood off. It gave rise to even more increased problems and, I have been told, the cash recently injected was to enable the staff that had been lost to be rehired. If that is correct it is an indication that the matter is not being taken seriously.
The quotation to which I wish to refer from the Second Reading debate is taken from the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said:
"It seems to be the case that the training that we give to the staff in the courts makes them extremely valuable once they are trained to, for example, solicitors in private practice and to local authorities. It is a difficult task therefore to maintain in the county courts and in the court service an adequate supply of fully qualified staff'.—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 242.]
If that had been stated by a commercial organisation it would have been laughed out of court. There is no difficulty in retaining properly qualified staff if you are prepared to pay them, but that is not allowed to occur. My attempt to involve the judiciary was in order to ensure that something should be done.
No explanation has been given as to how the situation has been allowed to accrue (luring the past two years and to result in the letter to which I made reference. Things have been getting worse and worse during the past two years. Respectfully, I have no confidence in the proposition, "We will do our best", because the best is of little value unless the Treasury can be made to take action. It is perfectly clear that the Lord Chancellor's Department lacks the clout to do it.
I have made my submissions. I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert —
("( ) No order under subsection (1) shall specify that proceedings for defamation shall be commenced or taken only in the High Courts.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to an interesting and important matter. All Members will remember a quotation about the value of the character and reputation of a lady or gentleman. Sometimes they are valued at more than life itself. Whatever be the value, I do not believe that any Member of the Committee would doubt that one's reputation is a very valuable asset which one would want to safeguard.
The present situation in law is that if you want to protect your reputation which has been attacked, at present you can only do so by issuing a writ in the

559
High Court if the matter has reached the litigious stage because you can get no satisfactory recompense from the proposed defendant. Anyone who has any knowledge at all of libel actions in the High Court will know that it is a very expensive exercise indeed if it is pursued until the very gates of the trial court.
Many defendants take advantage of the fact that they have means but the plaintiff does not. Therefore, they feel, whatever be the strength of their case, that if they only carry on long enough defending the case, the plaintiff will not be able to pursue it further.
The second matter which I bring to the Committee's attention is that the efforts by many of us, both on these Benches and others, to obtain provisions to make available legal aid to those who cannot afford an action for libel and who have a meritorious case, have met with no success. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be the first to admit very frankly that no question of legal aid applies at present to libel actions and there is no prospect, unless I am very much mistaken, for legal aid to be available for libel actions in the immediate future. I believe that he has other priorities. If he tells me that I am wrong about that, I still make my plea for the people who are so often forgotten. The rich are remembered because they are able to do things and the poor are looked after by legal aid. However, there is a great number of our citizens who are stuck somewhere in the inconvenient middle. They are not eligible for legal aid but nevertheless do not have the means to bring a libel action when their reputation has been attacked.
The third matter which I bring to the attention of the Committee as a matter of law is that the County Courts Act 1984 does not enable anyone to go to the county court and prosecute a libel action unless —and I believe it is Section 15 of that Act —both parties consent. I have already said that some defendants feel that allowing the case to proceed in the High Court is possibly the best way in which to deter the plaintiff from continuing with his action. Thus there are very few cases indeed where both parties consent to a libel action being heard in the county court, and so at present the county court has no jurisdiction.
Members of the Committee may have often heard that libel actions are heard before a judge and jury and may wonder whether there is any provision for a jury in a county court if jurisdiction were given to it to hear libel actions. The answer is that the rules provide that in certain cases —and defamation is included —the county court can try an appropriate case but, as I said, at present that is limited to cases which have the consent of both parties. There is no difficulty about a jury being obtainable in a county court.
Therefore, the purpose of this amendment, which I hope Members of the Committee will find meritorious, is to see to it that no order can be made —and I believe that this is a fairly subtle way of bringing the matter to the Lord Chancellor's attention —which would bar county courts in the future from hearing defamation actions. The whole thrust of the amendment is that if this went into the
560
Bill, Members of the Committee may feel that the noble and learned Lord would take an early opportunity to see that defamation actions were brought within the jurisdiction of the county court. I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with great interest but I strongly counsel against extending the power to hear libel actions in the county court at this time. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is well aware of the anxiety felt about the present defamation law, and the practice concerning it is very serious indeed. I hope that at some time serious attention may be given to the changes to the libel law proposed by the Faulks Committee which was set up when my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was the Lord Chancellor in 1970. I also hope that at some time we shall have a major debate about what should be the true libel law of this country.
With great respect to the very proper arguments produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I counsel against libel law going to the county court, because very often a newspaper will receive what is in effect a blackmailing action. Very often the newspaper will pay out small sums because it is cheaper to do that than defend an action even when it knows that it is an absolute scoundrel who is making the claim. Therefore, there is the other side of the coin.
We shall come to provisions in this Bill about conditional fees and what that may lead to which I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appreciates will be very hotly contested. That may be an opening —and I do not believe that editors of newspapers and television programmes have quite appreciated this —to many more defamation actions. In view of the present state of the law, if I was an editor I should be quaking in my shoes.
While I see a lot of the justice of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, I believe it would be a mistake at present to extend the power to have defamation actions tried in the county court. However, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider very carefully a real review of the law of defamation which I believe at the moment sticks out like a sore thumb in the law of this country as not being that which it should be in a civilised country.
Lord Ackner: I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson. He and I were old sparring partners from the county court up to the High Court and in libel actions in particular. Like many practitioners before me, I came into the libel field merely as a result of there being a sudden fall-out of all the talent and I was the one who resulted from scraping the barrel. Mr. Justice Faulks had become a judge, Mr. Justice Milmo had become a judge, Mr. Beyeus QC had died and Gerald Gardiner QC had become Lord Chancellor, I came in as a QC. I then realised how incredibly complex, specialised and technical was that field of law. It is contemplated imposing upon county court judges—very few of whom have ever been near a libel action —a whole

561
lot of extra work. To contemplate them trying libel actions at this stage, unless my noble and learned friend is to adopt the suggestion of the Civil Justice Review body that there should be a higher grade circuit judge, and not the one grade of circuit judge which exists at present, would be quite wrong.
On the point of complexity, perhaps I may quote briefly from the judgment of Lord Justice Harman in the case of Broadway Approvals v. Odhams Press, in which I unsuccessfully appeared. He said:
"As a comparative newcomer, the law of libel seems to have characteristics of such complexity and subtlety that I wonder whether a jury on retiring can readily distinguish their heads from their heels".
That is not, I respectfully submit, the type of jurisprudence to put into the county court, at least at present.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I rise to say a very few words on this issue. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who always puts his case with such persuasiveness, I ask the question (if only rhetorically): what does he hope to get out of this amendment if it were to be accepted?
In the first place we have the fact to which my noble friend on the Cross-Benches has adverted, that we are putting on the county courts a lot of new work which the present provision makes extremely unlikely they will be able to digest without a great injection of resources. Therefore, I do not see my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench making an order of this kind even if he were otherwise disposed to do.
In the second place, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, the status quo is that the county courts have no jurisdiction to try defamation cases unless both parties consent.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: With respect, they can on counterclaim, without consent.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. But with that sole exception they cannot do it unless both parties consent. The chance of any Lord Chancellor —let alone the present one with his wisdom —in his right senses making the order, which is prohibited under the amendment, restricting defamation cases to the High Court, to where in practice they are already restricted, is just about equal to that of an icicle in June. I wonder what he hopes to gain out of it.
There is only one footnote I should like to add to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is part of the conventional wisdom on this subject that the middle classes are excluded by reason of the absence of total availability of legal aid from bringing certain types of action. That has never been my experience. I say that quite categorically. In the field of defamation, however, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has made it abundantly plain that it is true that, if one does not have any money but brings an action against a newspaper, one can nevertheless obtain something because they will pay you to go away rather than incur the expense of a High Court
562
action. The chances therefore of a frivolous, vexatious or blackmailing action by a middle-class plaintiff are unfortunately only too high at the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: We have had an interesting debate and, as the Committee may know, I have intimated that I propose to carry out a review of the law of defamation. We are seeking to prepare some material, including reviewing the reports which have been available for some little time, to see whether any action can be taken on all or any of them. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for us to pre-empt this matter in the way he is seeking to do at the present moment would not be right. I think perhaps he is drawing my attention to it rather than believing that it would necessarily be effective immediately.
I certainly have in mind all that he said, but it would not be right for the Committee to commit the legislation in this way at this stage. If I were minded —which, frankly, at present I am not —to increase the jurisdiction of the county court in respect of defamation actions, I should certainly wish to consult very widely on that part of any such order. The noble Lord may take it, however, that his words have been listened to with care and I certainly will not forget the particular problems of defamation to which he drew attention. With that assurance he may feel able to withdraw this amendment.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend a short question. I believe I am not the only layman who is slightly concerned about the size of libel damages and a general oddity, it appears, about the outcome of libel and slander actions. When my noble and learned friend has thought this over and considered what he is going to do, will he then do it just by his order-making powers under this Bill or will we need a new defamation Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: If I were proposing to do that which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes —in other words, to give jurisdiction to the county court —one could do it under the powers of this Bill. If one were to deal with the kind of complexities referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner, however, that would have to be a Bill of its own. At least it would not be part of this exercise. It would be big enough, I think I can assure my noble friend, of itself to justify a pretty substantial Bill if we were to try to deal with all the difficulties that exist in the law of defamation.
Perhaps I should say finally that it must have been a pretty good barrel of which my noble and learned friend was at the bottom.
Lord Mishcon: I thought I detected a slightly illogical note in the arguments advanced against this amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, talked of the complications and complexities of libel law. I am not sure that there are not many cases tried in the county court which require very much more legal experience and expertise so far as

563
county court judges are concerned. If I was doubtful about that point then something would be wrong with our administration of justice because, as the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls pointed out, the county court judge would have to deal with the matter if it were raised by way of counterclaim. Either he is fit to deal with it or he is not; or those who plead defamation in a counterclaim are exceedingly badly served, which is something I suppose the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would want to look at immediately.
It should not therefore be the question of complexity that pronounces defeat for this amendment. It is a question of fairness. It is the idea that people can protect their reputations when they feel that they have been impugned by going to an administration which ought to be, if Part I succeeds, a more efficient and economical way of dealing with the matter.
The noble and learned Lord has been gracious enough to say that he will be taking these matters into account when he makes his orders and that very careful consideration will first be given to what has been said in this debate. Being used to taking the temperature of the Chamber from this side —a very necessary knowledge that one has to acquire over a period of years —I have an idea that on this occasion the amendment might not succeed. It is with that in mind and wanting very much to see that the noble and learned Lord carries out his promise to consider the matter further that I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Before the noble Lord sits down, is it his understanding, as it is mine, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he could make this provision in any event by order under Clause 1, just as equally, even if it were put into the Bill, he could take it away by order under Clause 1?
Lord Mishcon: I am not at all sure that taking up the point would better my chances of getting the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("(5A) No order shall be made under this section so as to increase the jurisdiction of any county court unless the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are satisfied that the arrangements for the despatch of business in the county courts affected by the order are adequate.').
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the earlier amendment I asked for the Committee's indulgence to enable me to proceed to this amendment because the two are connected. The words of this amendment may not suffer from the alleged constitutional defect of the earlier one because it provides that:
"No order shall be made under this section so as to increase the jurisdiction of any county court unless the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are satisfied".
It may be that the constitutional point that was raised is adequately satisfied by that wording. My
564
arguments in support of this amendment are those which I have already mentioned at such length that I do not propose to take the matter any further.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Mischon Lord Mischon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("(5A) The Lord Chancellor shall make no order under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that sufficient resources to offer a reasonable level of service to litigants are being provided to the county courts, including provision of facilities for the hearing of cases which last for more than one day so that they can be heard on subsequent consecutive days.").
The noble Lord said: I am appreciative of the gesture made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in not moving Amendment No. 9. Therefore I hope that I shall be able to attract his support for Amendment No. 10. When I spoke previously I talked about economy of debate and therefore I know that the Committee will not expect a further long speech on this amendment.
The Committee heard not only at Second Reading but also today about the sorry situation which exists in some of our courts. In particular our attention has been drawn to conditions in the county courts. On the last occasion examples were given of the London courts as well as some of the provincial ones. I believe it appropriate to bring to the Committee's attention three examples. They are all recent. They arise out of the suffering caused by problems concerning what I would describe as little people. I know the Committee will understand what I mean by that. The examples come from the citizens' advice bureaux.
The first report comes from Hertfordshire and concerns a client who had completed all payments under an administration order, but four months later the creditors had still not received the money from the county court. The second example comes from a citizens' advice bureau in South Wales. It reports about a client replying to a summons for a debt. He made a repayment offer. Five months later the client had still not heard whether the court had accepted that arrangement for an instalment order. In the meantime the size of the debt had increased. The third and last example again comes from a citizens' advice bureau in Manchester. It reports on a client injured by a gas appliance in 1984. She was finally awarded compensation and costs late in 1988. The costs were disputed by the defendants and the matter was referred back to the county court for taxation in June 1989. By the end of that year no date had been fixed for the hearing of the taxation proceedings.
I bring to the attention of the Committee factors which I do not believe are disputed and certainly not by the noble and learned Lord who is as worried about them as we are on this side of the Committee. I refer to the conditions in the county courts. If there is not a provision in this Bill clearly stating that there can be no more transfers of jurisdiction to the county court and unless the noble and learned Lord can be satisfied with what is contained in this amendment, then I feel that as legislators we have miserably failed in our duty. It will mean that all the

565
debate that has taken place concerning conditions in the county courts will have been so much verbiage without any action whatever being taken in regard to that matter.
Lastly, I refer to the matters about which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have to be satisfied before he makes this order. There should be:
"sufficient resources to offer a reasonable level of service to litigants … being provided to the county courts, including provision of facilities for the hearing of cases which last for more than one day so that they can be heard on subsequent consecutive days".
They are minimum requirements and I hope that, without more ado, the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept this amendment so that we may proceed with other matters. Unless something is done regarding the present situation, we are wasting our time on Part I of the Bill and we are also not fulfilling our obligations to the public.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because in this part of the Bill we are really participating in a charade unless my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can assure us that he has received an assurance that he has, and will have, sufficient resources made available to him by the Treasury in order to make sense of what we are trying to do in Part I of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, there is no point going over and over again into all these matters if at the end of the day the Lord Chancellor unfortunately has to say to us: "I will if I can and if the Treasury let me".
In another place we would have sent for a Treasury Minister and asked him to tell us, before we continued with hour after hour of debate, whether there was to be a sufficient supply of funds in order to make sense of the proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, everything depends on the resources. I presume that the Government would not have started on this part of the Bill unless they were satisfied that there was very good reason to suppose that there would be sufficient resources to make sense of the proposals. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to assure us that we are not participating in a charade and that, if we approve the various clauses in this part of the Bill, then in the course of the lifetime of some of us, at any rate, we shall see that they come to pass.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The proposals in the Green Papers were highly criticised and those in the Bill which are based on the Green Papers are, in the view of many of us, deeply flawed. There is obviously a temptation to try to float in those proposals on the back of the widely approved Civil Justice Review which, unlike the Green Papers, was based on wide consultation and commanded general assent.
As has been indicated, we would be dishonoured if we allowed Part I of the Bill to pass into law without being satisfied that it really did what it purports to do. I am not one of those who regard the Treasury as a hostile force in occupation and in command of Whitehall. On the contrary, I
566
consistently supported my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the Legal Aid Bill because I thought that it was entirely consistent and sensible that he should say, "I have had additional resources from the Treasury, but I certainly cannot accept any open-ended commitment".
As regards this part of the Bill, the Committee is entitled and indeed bound to see where we stand financially. Speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to sort out what is meant by the financial memorandum and what my noble and learned friend said at Second Reading. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that the initial cost will be £5·1 million a year, rising to £6·5 million after three years. But it does not make it clear—perhaps my noble and learned friends will make it clear—whether that £6·5 million is a continuing annual sum as the cost of Part I. In addition, my noble and learned friend said at Second Reading that the Autumn Statement vouchsafed to his department £70 million. He said that that would not all be available for the purpose of Part I but he did not say how much would be available.
As I understand it, we have to consider financing under three headings. The first is the rectification of the immediate situation. An alarming picture was painted by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, and it was supplemented just now by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I cannot see in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill what if any sum is being allocated so that the county courts can cope with their present business.
Secondly, there is the transitional provision. I do not know whether this is purely administrative; but what sum will be needed over and above what is needed to enable the courts to deal with their additional burden? What additional sum is needed by the courts to enable them to cope with the additional burden which my noble and learned friend proposes to lay upon them? What are those burdens?
Finally, after three years, what continuing sum will be required not only to keep the courts ticking over and coping with their present business but also with their increased business? I hope that my noble and learned friend can help us on those matters.
6 p.m.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment which has the same moving spirit as Amendment No. 9. The amendments are clearly not intended to wreck or inhibit the Bill, but rather to ensure that it works as the Civil Justice Review intended. We heard at Second Reading and we have heard again today the widespread misgivings about the capacity of the county court system to cope with its existing workload, let alone with the burden imposed by this Bill and by the Children Act 1989. We also heard from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the extra resources to which reference has just been made. We can only suspend our judgment about those and see how they will work in practice.

567
Meanwhile, I should like to refer the Committee to what is said on page ix of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill. It says:
"The increase in the volume and substance of county court cases will be phased over a period of years, and will be adjusted as necessary to reflect the capacity of the courts to absorb new work".
That is obvious common sense and no doubt should happen in practice. I hope that this amendment will be accepted so that what is said in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is written into the Bill.
Viscount Bledisloe: I support the amendment and in particular the portion of it which deals with the hearing of cases on subsequent consecutive days. Cases can run over into a second or further day either because they were obviously going to do so from the first or because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, they do not come on, although they are expected to, at 10.30 a.m. There may be other reasons. They may go more slowly than expected because the advocate is not very good or because the judge talks too much. Cases can run over for a large number of reasons.
When cases run over in the county court it is often difficult to refix them quickly. They cannot be heard the next day because the judge has a list and there is nobody available, as there would be in the High Court, to take over that list so that he can continue with the case. It may take some time before a case can be refixed at a moment when not only the judge can hear it but the parties can be available and the same counsel can be there. That is intensely unsatisfactory.
It is more unsatisfactory in a county court than in the High Court because with fewer facilities for recording the evidence and so on, it is more difficult to know on a subsequent day what happened earlier. I have had this experience and I have felt the deep dissatisfaction of clients who thought their problems would be resolved one way or the other. They have had to come back a month later only to find that the judge has half forgotten the details of the case or that the same counsel is not available and new counsel does not know what is going on. This is deeply unsatisfactory and is presumably also rather expensive because everyone has to go back and get the case going again.
Before more serious and more important cases are transferred, there must be a real assurance that those matters can be coped with. I refer not merely to the case that is planned to last for three days, so that the judge can set time aside for it, but to the case that runs over. There must be facilities for another judge to be available to take the hearing judge's list. This amendment is eminently satisfactory and has no constitutional problems attached to it. To reject it would be extraordinary because that would suggest that the Lord Chancellor intended to make transfers to the county court when he was not satisfied that sufficient resources were available. Surely that is something which the noble and learned Lord would not wish even to contemplate doing, and therefore the amendment is desirable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I agree with almost every word that has been spoken so far about
568
the state of affairs in the county court. I doubt whether the amendment itself will do much good. I particularly agree with what has just fallen from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about the crucial importance of continuous hearings in the county court if work is to be transferred to them. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we have not yet begun to appreciate the extra resources that will be required simply for implementation, with the intentions behind the judicial review involving the transfer of work from the High Court to the county court. They are much wider than people think.
It is not simply a question of staff, although staffing is extremely important. It will involve the provision of courtrooms at considerable expense. It will involve the provision of facilities for staff which will require premises on quite an expensive scale. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the new family jurisdiction which will undoubtedly attend the county courts under the Children Act will be an extra source of requirement imposed on the county courts.
This amendment in itself is simply a statutory restriction on the powers of the Lord Chancellor. I am sure that my noble and learned friend would not attempt to do more than he thinks can in one way or another be achieved. The problem will arise not at the stage at which he enlarges the jurisdiction of the county court, important as that may be and relevant as the various factors that have been raised may be. It will arise at the moment of allocation of particular cases from the High Court to the county court, at the point of entry when proceedings are commenced to decide where and in what circumstances the cases are to be tried. Therefore, I do not think that this amendment will improve matters. However, I agree that it attracts attention to a problem which must be faced if we are to make a success of this part of the Bill.
Lord Hacking: I apologise to Members of the Committee for my premature intervention just now in the wrongful belief that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was moving his amendment and in the mistaken belief that the Question had been put. Perhaps I may now tell noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord, somewhat belatedly, that his amendment certainly had my support as indeed does that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
The Committee has heard a great deal about the inadequacy of resource in the county court. I should like to draw attention to another matter which I believe should create a certain amount of unease among noble Lords. It certainly causes me to feel uneasy. The civil income of both the High Court and the county courts exceeds the non-judicial expenses. I am able to tell the Committee that because in another place the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend the Attorney-General answered a Question on 3rd November last year put to him by Mr. Peter Archer. In his Answer, the Attorney-General said that in the year 1988–89 the county court fee income amounted to £97·4 million and that the Supreme Court fee income amounted

569
to £52·5 million. If my arithmetic is correct that amounts to a total income of £149·9 million. The non-judicial expenses —by that I mean all expenses, except the salaries of the judges—amounted to £143·9 million. Again, if my arithmetic is correct, that gives a surplus of income over expenditure of £6 million.
It is interesting to compare the latter figure with those which are set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred. We are informed there that in the third year the increased costs will amount to a figure of £6 million. Clearly the figure in respect of the resources which we are urging the noble and learned Lord to make available to the county courts should be far higher. However, it is disturbing to note that even the income received by both the county courts and the Supreme Court is not put back into administration. That is a matter which should be of concern to Members of the Committee and that is why I have drawn attention to it.
I wish to make but one further observation about the amendment not moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I think that what has been proposed deals only with the present situation. Important though it is, the proposal seeks only to place a restraint upon the action of moving more work to the county court within the provisions of the Bill until such time as sufficient resources are available. I draw attention to that fact because at a later stage in this debate, when we come to consider Amendment No. 77, I shall seek to persuade noble Lords that there is also an onward responsibility to set out a mechanism under which the income achieved by the civil courts —that is, both the High Court and the county courts —is turned into resource and that there is a relationship between the income of the courts and the resources which they make available. If that mechanism is set up and if the noble and learned Lord accepts the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, either in principle or in its present form, perhaps we shall then have a regime in which this most sad and lamentable state of affairs will no longer exist.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: It is only with the greatest trepidation that a layman intervenes in such matters. However, listening to the debate on this amendment and to the related debate on Amendment No. 7, I could not help finding a great deal of what was said painfully familiar. In understanding any problem it is important to try to get a sense of the whole size and shape of the matter. The debate has encouraged me in the belief that the difficulties of the law, of medicine and of universities have a great deal in common.
I found the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on Second Reading to be very powerful but disturbing. Moreover, listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, this afternoon
570
and hearing him say that the under-funding is not being taken seriously, I heard something with which I think any vice-chancellor in the country would agree. Listening to him talking about an unfunded pay increase reminded me of a most powerful speech made on 6th December last by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Government have received warnings on the matter before, but such warnings do not seem to have been heard. I begin increasingly to suspect that the Government resemble my former family doctor, who said that he made it his professional policy to ignore half of his patients' symptoms. In this case I think that we need to spell the symptoms out a little more clearly.
I think that the point made by my noble friend Lord Hooson about the importance of judges controlling their own courts is one which any fellow professional would recognise. However, I shall not persist with that point at this stage. The question of trust arises in this matter. It strikes me that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have expressed their trust in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor —and they mean it. However, we do not trust the Treasury. The business of the Treasury is to try to keep down expenditure. Some of us think that the Treasury is quite alarmingly good at that task.
It is not the business of Parliaments to trust the Executive. It is not the business of Parliaments to encourage the Treasury. It is the business of Parliaments, even if they think that 99 times out of 100 it will be all right, to make provision on the assumption that there will be that hundredth case. It is in fact the business of Parliaments to be distrustful. That has been true as long as there have been Parliaments in this country. It is no good the Government saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, put it on 21st December of last year, that, "it will be all right on the night". We need such a provision in the Bill. I support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: The county courts are a service given to the public in the administration of justice. It is extremely difficult at the beginning of a year to estimate precisely the volume of work that may accrue. We must try to estimate the necessary provision and try to obtain it in competition with a good number of other very worthy causes which have a call on the Exchequer. I believe that the court service is regarded —indeed, I certainly regard it as such —as a very important call on the public purse.
The situation so far as concerns the county courts is that we have had difficulties. I certainly acknowledge that fact. However, I am not going to depart from what I said on Second Reading about the difficulty of retaining staff, especially in the South-East. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner seemed to think that that problem was confined to the county courts. Anyone who has the responsibility in large organisations in the South-East knows how difficult it is to retain qualified staff. We are doing our best in that connection, and I have initiated some further matters.
One of the most important difficulties lies in the administrative aspect of the county courts. Part of

571
the reason for that is the amount of routine administrative work that the staff have to do. The two main matters that I mentioned on Second Reading will have a considerable effect on easing our problems with regard to existing staff.
The first of those matters is the summons production centre to deal with the production of bulk issue by creditors who have many summonses to issue. The Committee will understand the drudgery of trying to do that by hand. We already have some technology in position to assist with that procedure. We have it in mind shortly to open a summons production centre capable of handling a substantial proportion of that work. The result will be the release of the full-time equivalent of about 50 staff. One of the important aspects of the matter is the interest that one can create in the work. The type of work that will be handed down from the High Court to the county court will be more interesting than the routine work that it has had to do to date.
The second matter —it is exceedingly important —is that at the moment the courts handle a great many small amounts of money which are paid in by a debtor against whom a judgment —not enforced by the bailiffs —is taken. The debtors pay the money to the court. The court has to gather up all the cheques and pay them to the creditors. The Committee will immediately see that there is a great deal of room for mistake and difficulty in identifying the payments. People go in with money. They are given a slip and are supposed to relate it to the action in which they were sued. Unless they have the correct reference number there is considerable difficulty in connecting the money paid to the action.
I have sought when I had the chance to examine the matter —I have visited a number of county courts over the past year or two —to try to reduce that burden. We have now initiated arrangements which will curtail the amount of such money that has to be handled by the county court. In many cases it is much more convenient for the debtor to pay the creditor —for example, a public utility —directly unless a question of enforcement arises. Of course when the bailiff comes on the scene the matter is different.
That curtailment of suitors' cash, as we call it, will release —on the estimates that I have received —about 300 staff for work which is much more interesting than they are now doing when handling that money.
The important matter in the county court which must be dealt with is the one to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and others referred —the facility for continuous trials. That was the real inhibition in sending work to the county court in the past. It has been overcome to some extent because otherwise the High Court judge in charge of the list, to whom my noble and learned friend referred, and his colleagues would not send cases down to the county court. That was one of the inhibiting factors. We now have nearly 50 trial centres in operation providing facilities for continuous trials. We are seeking to make arrangements for another 25 or so.
We cannot have a continuous trial arrangement everywhere because again, as my noble and learned
572
friend pointed out, we want to have continuous trials in places where there is more than one judge as no one can tell what will happen on the day. A case may settle or a case may go on longer and so on. We can only get the swings and roundabouts together if there are a fair number of judges sitting together. We therefore have to make arrangements for continuous trial centres where a number of judges are available. I believe that that is the most critical aspect of making it work.
It is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility, dischargeable to Parliament, to obtain the necessary resources. I am engaged on doing just that. I have made arrangements under which no change will be made without the necessary resources. I must point out one matter which may have escaped the Committee's attention. At present High Court judges send down considerable numbers of cases to the county court. It would save a great deal of trouble if those cases started in the county court instead of going to the High Court and having to be sent down. That causes no additional trouble. In fact it would create a saving. If the Committee approves Clause 1, the orders that I could make under it would deal with that matter and so produce a saving in administrative costs.
So far as the necessity for arranging proper resources are concerned, I am entirely at one with what the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, aims to achieve. I doubt however whether it is appropriate to put it in its present form in the Bill. It contains part of the accountability to Parliament which is inherent in ministerial responsibility. The primary responsibility for that lies in the voting of supply in the other place. The central responsibilty is a parliamentary responsibility. I have no doubt that the proposal is fundamental but it should be achieved by accountability to Parliament, which is what I am now seeking. Accordingly, I do not feel that to put the amendment into the Bill would be a helpful change. The proper constitutional arrangement is that the Minister has to account to Parliament and it is from Parliament that the Minister has to obtain the necessary resources.
I mentioned on Second Reading that I believe that I am in a position to obtain a further 350 staff in respect of existing commitments and a further 100 in respect of the transfer arrangements although all 100 will not be required in the first year, (1991–92). The total number of staff that will be available as a result of the changes that I mentioned is of the order of 350. They will be saved from routine administrative tasks and put on to more interesting ones. The central matter is that of continuous trial centres, and on those we are making good progress.
Lord Renton: Will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? I believe the point would be worth his clarifying, if he would. When he mentions the number of staff that it is intended to obtain is he saying that he will receive the resources for them or that he knows that there will be staff trained and available?
The Lord Chancellor: I am saying that provision has been made to enable me to obtain 350 staff. In so far as it is necessary, we have to have training arrangements for staff and we devote a great deal of effort to that training. One of the results is that we have staff who are quite valuable to other people, as I mentioned earlier. A good deal of effort is devoted in the Lord Chancellor's Department to this.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I apologise for intervening but is my noble and learned friend able to say how much is required to bring the existing courts up to a standard where they are able to cope with their existing task?
The Lord Chancellor: I estimated that primarily by reference to staff numbers. One of the difficulties about all this is to estimate the workload that the court may have in a particular year. This year the increase in workload has been quite high. However, it is difficult to estimate at the time when one is preparing the necessary estimates for the public service. However, on the whole we seek to do that to the best of our ability.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again, but now is the time when the estimates for his department are put to the Treasury. Does he not know how much is required now to bring the existing courts up to a state where they are capable of dealing with their existing load? He must have put in or at least prepared figures.
The Lord Chancellor: I have obtained figures which are part of the totals referred to in the Autumn Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to Parliament. I indicated that one of the consequences of what has been allocated in that Statement is that it will enable me, all being well, to have 350 additional staff for existing commitments, and up to 100 further staff for the implementation of changes. These arrangements strike me as reasonable.
Of course I have to accept that it is not easy to mirror expenditure with income exactly. The purpose of the fee income regulation is, taking one year with another, to try to balance the two. But it is quite difficult to estimate in advance precisely how many items there will be and we have to fix the fees before the items come in. So a variation between income and expenditure in one way or the other is not at all unexpected.
I submit to the Committee that this is a matter which ought to be left to the accountability of the Minister to Parliament. To seek to put it in this form in the Bill—
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to intervene, especially with so many eminent lawyers asking questions. Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answer this? When he puts in his estimate, if he receives all that he has asked for and is satisfied, he can then staff the county courts to do the job that
574
he wishes. If he does not get what he has asked for, what will he do? Will he hold up the work until he receives the money? What actions will he take if he does not receive the response from the Treasury and the money which he thinks is adequate for the job?
The Lord Chancellor: The money to which I have been referring is the money allocated in respect of the courts and the Lord Chancellor's department generally in the Autumn Statement. That is a statement to Parliament of what is to be expended out of the public purse on these services.
When I come to consider what order should be made under this provision, I shall certainly wish to ensure, for example, the stage we have reached with the continuous trial centres. Unless there is a reasonable distribution of continuous trial centres over the country as a whole, I should not wish to proceed with the order; I should want to examine these matters as we proceed. I have in mind that if the approximately 25 further trial centres are available, we shall have a reasonable spread.
Members of the Committee will not forget that a good many of the cases are already going down. The additional number going down if the order were to take the shape that I have in mind at the moment would be about 1,500 per year. The total number of trials taking place in the county courts al the moment is of the order of 10,000 per annum. The total addition under this order would not be great, but one of the considerable savings involved would be that cases which would ultimately be tried in the county courts would start there.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, he has addressed a good many of his observations to staffing problems. I wish to inquire whether he is taking any steps to deal with the wholly unrealistic cash limits imposed upon the circuits which resulted in the examples which I gave. Judges or deputy judges were being told that their services could not be used because the subsistence could not be paid by the circuits, although the daily rate could be paid by the Lord Chancellor. Buildings could not be cleaned, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out on Second Reading, because there was no cash. Clocks could not be put right after the winter and summer time changes because it costs money to get a clocksmith in from outside to do that. Building proposals have been scrapped and I have even been told that certain security requirements have been delayed because of the cash limits.
That has nothing to do with staff. It will not in any way be affected by employing more staff. What is happening is that these cash limits are screwing down the service to such an extent that it is in the shambles which was described by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. My noble and learned friend has not addressed any observations in regard to that. I wish to know what is happening about these wholly unrealistic cash limits, not only in relation to the county courts—as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out —but in relation to the crown courts throughout the entire country.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Before my noble and learned friend replies to those points, it seems that something has gone seriously wrong with the provisions for justice in the county courts over the last two years. During that time we seem to have had the situation which has just been described and which is becoming worse. Presumably in the Autumn Statement of 1988 my noble and learned friend sought what he thought would be sufficient to remedy or at least to put into good working order that for which he is responsible; namely, the county courts.
If all the stories we have heard are correct —and I have no reason to doubt them —that was not sufficient. The situation does not seem to have improved. Over the course of the past year, if we believe what we have heard, the situation has become very bad indeed. Are we to assume that the estimate in the 1988 Autumn Statement was wholly wrong and too little? If that is so, are we to accept that in 1989 there has been such an increase that we can rely upon it to put the situation right at present before the new extra load comes on to the county courts?
If not, I say with great respect to my noble and learned friend that in other circumstances, if the departments of other ministers had such an indictment laid against them for two years, the ministers would have been very much harried in another place. It seems that for two years the situation has been becoming increasingly worse. With what confidence does the noble and learned Lord face 1990 under the present system, having regard to what he sought in the Autumn Statement?
The Lord Chancellor: I spoke particularly in relation to staff numbers because that is the most important resource. As regards the situation of individual courts, we sought to devolve this because budgets are best handled at local level. I have explained already that the burden of work in the county courts this year turned out to be quite high. So far as the Crown Courts are concerned, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred, I believe that the waiting times in those courts are as low as they have been for a considerable number of years. We have concentrated on the Crown Courts in past years, and in this I include my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Havers. These are areas where the liberty of the subject is primarily at issue, and our efforts have produced considerably reduced waiting times.
So far as the county courts are concerned, it is an exaggeration to say that there have been difficulties all across the country. I have given figures for the output of work of various kinds. It is true that there can be deficiencies, but considering the volume of work done the financial provision which we made was a reasonable one. The difficulties are particularly great towards the end of the year if the burden of work has increased, but I am reasonably confident in the arrangements made for the year to come. I am not a prophet but I am doing my best to secure the necessary resources to deal with what we forecast as the likely level of work.
The Earl of Onslow: Could my noble and learned friend enlighten another non-lawyer on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking? It appears that the courts' income is more than the courts' expenditure, which, as Mr. Micawber said, is a very happy state of affairs. If that is so, how much of the courts' income comes from the Treasury and —another pocket —through legal aid, therefore obviously threatening or affecting public expenditure, and how much of it comes out of litigants' real pockets and consequently does not come out of public expenditure? If the latter fears the burden, it should be possible to provide more judges at no public expenditure cost. Or have I got it totally wrong?
The Lord Chancellor: I would not say that my noble friend had it totally wrong, but the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, gave are exclusive of judicial salaries; they comprised costs other than judicial salaries, so we do not need to consider judges' salaries in this regard. These figures show that there is roughly a £6 million advantage so far as fee income is concerned over expenditure, but that is what happens if one has more work than one bargains for. The expenditure has to be estimated before it is known exactly how much work there is. Considering that the total budget is of the order of L143 million, £6 million is not very far out especially as the estimate was made a long time before the start of the year. My noble friend can be reassured on that aspect of the matter.
I do not think I have a breakdown of the amount of court fees which are paid by the Legal Aid Fund, but it does not really matter for this purpose because we are talking about court fees, and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made was that, if there is more income than expenditure, one should be in a good position to increase expenditure. I see that. Of course the methods of control of public expenditure require us to conform to the estimates, and if it happens that the workload increases one is apt to get a little more money than one would otherwise. But that is part of the public financial arrangements.
A Noble Lord: The noble and learned Lord has said that in his view the amendment is not particularly helpful. Can we take it that at least he sees it as harmless, and therefore if some Members of the Committee take the view that it is helpful there is really no great reason for opposing or objecting to it?
The Lord Chancellor: That obscures the real point. What your Lordships want to achieve is the carrying out of the objective recommended by the Civil Justice Review. To put an obstacle in the way of the Lord Chancellor doing that does not of itself achieve very much. The Lord Chancellor hopes to get the necessary resources and do what is wanted, and to put an obstacle in his way in the form of this amendment does not appear to be particularly constructive.
There are details of the amendment which I could mention. For example, it is not sufficient that

577
resources are adequate at the moment. The wording of the amendment is:
"satisfied that sufficient resources to offer a reasonable level of service to litigants are being provided to the county courts".
The question that I have to ask myself is: if I am to make one of these orders, are the resources going to be available at that time in the county courts to give proper facilities in response to the order when it takes effect? The whole object of the order is to add to the work of the county courts. There is no point knowing what they have now; it is a question of what they have when the order takes effect. This wording does not really take account of that, but apart from that it is just an obstacle to progress rather than a help to the Lord Chancellor.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I wish that the noble and learned Lord had offered a more redoubtable defence to the amendment because then I should have no difficulty in accepting his assurance in regard to trying to put right the sorry present state of our county courts and Crown Courts. I would then have accepted the situation quite placidly and would not have wanted to press the amendment.
I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord. He said, looking at the wording of the amendment, that it is fundamental that this should be done. He then went on to say that he and any future Lord Chancellor would be accountable to Parliament and presumably would be accountable on the basis of saying, "I have not carried out the provisions of Part I because I have not had sufficient resources", or for some other reasons Part I had not been carried out in a satisfactory way.
We are legislating here on the basis in regard to Part I that we are out to secure a cheaper and more efficient service in our courts. If we are not trying to achieve that, there is no point in our going through these amendments and there is no point in passing Part I. What we are trying to do is to strengthen the noble and learned Lord's hands, and to do it quite legitimately, enabling him to say in his accountability to Parliament and in argument with the Treasury that it was a matter of policy of Parliament that this should be done for the sake of justice, its efficiency and its economy: "I have a provision in this Bill that unless I am satisfied that an efficient situation can be created in order to carry out the provisions of Part I I cannot make an order; the policy cannot be carried out".
That is all that the amendment calls for. I propose to strengthen the noble and learned Lord's hands, not to obscure any issue because no issue is obscured by this. It may be argued with some tautology, "You merely talk about being satisfied with the present situation but really you ought to be satisfied before the order is carried out that you can provide for the future situation". Obviously that is the very terminology of the amendment and anyone would realise that that is its purpose. The amendment is not only helpful to the noble and learned Lord; it makes our work throughout the stages of the Bill, and certainly Part I, worth while instead of being,
578
as somebody has described it, a mere mirage. In the circumstances, I believe that the amendment ought to be passed by the Committee, otherwise all our efforts are useless.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Addington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Airedale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bancroft, L.

Meston, L.

Beloff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Monson, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Brain, L.

Parry, L.

Byron, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Renton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Selkirk, E.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sherfield, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stockton, E.

Hacking, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elton, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Arran, E.

Ferrers, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborougli, L.

Blatch, B.

Goodman, L.

Blyth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Greenway, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brookeborough, V.

Marylebone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Hayter, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Henley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hesketh, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hooper, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kenilworth, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Kimball, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Elles, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lawrence, L.

579

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Rochdale, V.

Long, V.

Rodney, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Romney, E.

Lyell, L.

Roskill, L.

McCollofDulwich, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selborne, E.

Margadale, L.

Shannon, E.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Munster, E.

Nelson, E.

Teviot, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Onslow, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vinson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Westbury, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Radnor, E.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Renwick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disgreed to accordingly.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("except for applications for judicial review challenging decisions by local authorities under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 (Housing the Homeless) or the failure of a local authority to determine a claim for Housing Benefit or Community Charge rebate").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 11, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendment No. 32, which is in identical terms.
It has been very strongly represented to us on this side of the Chamber by the National Consumer Council, the citizens advice bureaux and the Law Society that the county court should have power to undertake judicial review of a local authority decision on an application for accommodation by a homeless person under Part III of the Housing Act 1985. A homeless person has no right of appeal against a decision under the 1985 Act.
An aggrieved person who considers that he is homeless and whose application for assistance has not been adequately met by the local authority may only proceed to challenge the position by way of judicial review in the High Court. According to the evidence that the citizens advice bureaux and the consumer council have collected, those proceedings are felt to be complex and lengthy, so there is a need for more speedy relief at a local level. We are advised that there is widespread demand for a cheap and accessible way for homeless people to challenge a local authority decision on homelessness.
Some noble Lords will recall that the Civil Justice Review found that a significant number of respondents had pressed for the creation of a cheap, accessible, local method for challenging local authority decisions in cases involving homelessness. Last year the National Children's Home published a worrying report and came to the conclusion that an accessible means of appeal is urgently needed. That report was in respect of the need to house
580
vulnerable, young, single, homeless people. Many Committee Members will recall how concerned the House was last year over the issue when we discussed the provisions of the Children Bill.
The National Children's Home found that a significant proportion of local authorities misinterpret the law when deciding whether a person is vulnerable and it went on to give examples. We are also told that many decisions were taken by officers unfamiliar with the details of the legislation. Some did not think that the law had any relevance to them. It therefore appears that local authorities are able to get away with poor decision-making because vulnerable, homeless people find it difficult to bring High Court actions for judical review.
Although I speak as strongly as I can and with as much conviction as I can in support of the amendment, I appreciate that I do so in the presence of some of the greatest authorities in the land on the law of judicial review. I appreciate that in a sense the amendment might be in some difficulty if we have regard to legal theory. Nevertheless, we on this side of the Committee are persuaded by the evidence that the Committee should find a means of enabling aggrieved, homeless people to challenge the local decision locally. To allow an application for a review of a decision to be heard in the High Court would be a small step towards a cheaper and more accessible means of challenging the decision of the local authority. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Roskill: I am sure that the Committee appreciates the motives which underlie this amendment and the other amendment to which the noble Lord spoke but I hope that Members of the Committee will not yield to the noble Lord's blandishments for the following reason. Judicial review is a comparatively new creation in our legal history. It was Sir William Wade who not long ago described the judges as having had a burst of judicial activity in bringing about his much-needed reform for the control of the Excutive. When Order 53 was introduced in 1977 it became plain that, unless it was controlled by those judges who sat in the Divisional Court —the then Lord Justice Donaldson, my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls, took control of that Divisional Court in 1979 and 1980 and got the matter under control —there was a grave risk of disparity of decisions developing. It so happened that in a case in the Court of Appeal over which I presided in 1978 or 1979 with the present Lord Chief Justice, the then Lord Justice Lane, the question arose as to whether the Chancery Division should exercise jurisdiction over judicial review. We gave a very emphatic no to that question and there were a large number of reasons for that view. I understand from my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls that that is still the position, unpopular as it was at the time.
Judicial review has continued to develop but it has developed as it has over the last 15 years or so only because it has been strictly controlled by one court with judges sitting there who are specialists in the field and are nominated by my noble and learned

581
friend the Lord Chief Justice. I believe that at the moment there are 13 or 14 Queen's Bench judges who regularly sit in that court. If the control is allowed to go to the county courts all over the country, questions of great difficulty —I accept what the noble Lord said; namely, that there are difficult problems with housing —will be dealt with in courts which have no experience of that highly technical field.
The question of jurisdiction is a difficult one. Some of us are all too familiar with complaints in Whitehall that judges interfere too much with the ordinary course of Executive adminstration. The balance which must be struck between those who believe that the power should rest in the Strand and those who believe that it should rest in Whitehall is a delicate one and must not be disturbed. It has been carefully laid down, partly in this House in its judicial capacity, partly in the Court of Appeal and by judges in the Divisional Court. With great respect to those who tabled the amendment and those at whose instance it was moved, it would be wrong in principle to allow that careful and sensitive jurisdiction to he widely exercised. Everyone understands that housing matters such as are contemplated in the amendment are highly delicate and difficult. But judicial review is easy to obtain. It is not expensive to go to the Divisional Court. In many of those cases legal aid is easily obtained.
In a homelessness case dealt with in this House a few years ago, it was plain that the boundary between judicial interference and Executive discretion was dangerously near being impinged upon. Nothing would be worse for the general efficiency of government than that judicial review should get out of hand. It is quite valuable. It has been invaluable and the matter should rest where it is—in the courts which control it.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I entirely share the view expressed so cogently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. I must point out that as I understand the position it does not matter whether the provision is included or not because the Lord Chancellor of the day could put it in if he wanted to. Even if it is not included in the Act, a future Labour Government could put it in by order which would require only the affirmative resolution. So we need not worry too much about that. The present Lord Chancellor will probably not include it. A future Lord Chancellor may do so, but it is all governed by order, not by statute.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, for some help. Having had to deal with homeless families over many years, I know that it is essential that cases should be dealt with quickly. That is a great problem to those of us who have had to deal with homeless families. Leaving aside the legal situation, where can the case be dealt with most expeditiously?
Earl Russell: Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I think I hear a conflict
582
here between right and right. I do not want to join issue with the justice of what the noble and learned Lord said.
There is another side to the story. It is easy to underrate how difficult it is to deal with the social security system. By now I think that I probably know a little more about it than does the average citizen of this country, but if I had to make my living out of handling the social security system I should be lost very rapidly indeed —the bulk of regulation is so great and the language in which it is put I remember was described quite recently by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as somewhat impenetrable.
Constantly handling that kind of thing tends to generate a state approaching mild paranoia in claimants. In that state there is a very great distrust of authority. If authority is arrayed in wig and gown in the High Court, not instantly available, not local and maybe some distance away, that state can become a great deal worse.
None of that in any way denies anything that the noble and learned Lord said. As I observed, it is a conflict between right and right. However, I think we can only approach the task of resolving that conflict if we concede both rights and not just one of them.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I merely say that it is a curious irony that the High Court is by far the quickest and simplest way of raising issues of judicial review. I would not make that claim for any other part of the work of the High Court but the judicial review jurisdiction has been developed in such a way that anybody who thinks he has been the victim of an abuse of power by local or central government —I use that phrase in a very loose sense —has only to go along to the Crown Office in the Strand and explain his problem. Within certain obvious constitutional limits he will receive advice about the kind of form that he ought to fill in —it is only a question of filling in a form and supporting it with a simple affidavit —and in some cases within hours and certainly within a very few days the matter will go before a single specialist judge. There is a fee, I believe of £10, payable on the proceedings. The matter goes before a specialist judge who straightaway will say whether or not there is a case fit to be investigated.
I believe that it was Lord Justice Woolf who pointed out that being able to have the opinion of a specialist High Court judge for £10 must be about the best value for money known in the legal profession. So there is a great deal to be said for it.
If the specialist judge —I repeat that it is a specialist judge —sees that there is something in the matter, then there is nothing capable of stopping both the judge and the applicant, because if necessary, the judge will virtually conduct the case for the applicant. The respondents will find themselves having to come forward and explain. In fact it is much more efficient, cheaper and quicker than the county court could possibly be.
I should like to add that I think that there is some confusion between the nature of judicial review and

583
an appeal. I cannot help but wonder whether the average citizen who is aggrieved by those forms of decision does not in fact want to appeal. He wants to say that the local authority wrongly exercised its discretion. That is not a matter which is susceptible of judicial review because Parliament has said that it is the local authorities which have to decide these matters. What it amounts to is a plea for a statutory right of appeal. That might well be held to be appropriately dealt with by the county court but it is a different animal. There one is saying to the court, "On the facts this local authority —or this national authority —arrived at the wrong decision. Look into it and substitute your decision". That is an appellate proceeding. If it is properly set up under statute it can be very effective, although I am bound to say that there would no doubt be considerable delay if the county courts were asked to take it on.
But the Divisional Court under judicial review has to ascertain whether the authority has been exercising properly the powers given to it by Parliament or indeed whether it has been ignoring its duties. It is not concerned with the merits of particular decisions. Therefore I venture to think that the idea behind the amendment is also misconceived, although I should be very sorry to see the amendment adopted in any event.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: As a Scottish lawyer I rise with some hesitation even to speak about English law, about which regrettably I know very little, far less would I attempt to interfere with its progress. However, on this occasion I venture to speak because this is not a purely legal issue. The reasoning behind it has a socio-political dimension.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Roskill and Lord Donaldson, have presented a formidable case for leaving the totality of these matters in the higher courts. One of the problems is that the law can become extremely and unnecessarily technical. We need look only at the development of industrial law which was brought in as a simple process for a reasonable man to understand. It now runs to volumes of cases and has become extremely complicated. One wonders whether there is any necessity for this type of review to be highly technical or so complicated. All that the judge is asked to do is to have a look at how the local authority has carried out its statutory business.
It has to be noted that this amendment does not at all take away the judicial review from the superior courts. In the way in which it has been worded it is designed to deal with matters of housing benefit and community charge rebate. The amendment attempts to keep within the locality what are perhaps minor issues when one considers the whole of life, but major issues to the individuals involved, where it is of the essence that there should be a quick and cheap decision so that the individual can know as quickly as possible where he stands in relation to the local authority.
I respectfully suggest that were this amendment to be carried it would bring a measure of swift justice at the local level in an area which affects social needs
584
and the local authority. It is not the type of review that requires the High Court judge's decision. As I say, it is not an overall transfer. It covers a very limited area with a very limited purpose. I suggest that it is important that in these areas people in the locality should be made aware of what is going on and the decisions that are being made in the name of the authority.
Dealing with what are to the individual important matters at a local level would bring home to the people in the area and perhaps other people with similar problems what was happening in that locality. I should say that this amendment has the support of the Law Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The latter group is particularly well placed to assess the needs of individuals within society and the problems that they face. It can be seen whether the present system in fact brings a measure of swift and cheap justice to people who may be in dire straits. They are, on occasion, quite pathetic individuals who need their affairs to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Not for one moment do I suggest that everyone who is rendered homeless is a pathetic individual but many of them are people who need a great deal of care and looking after in the stressful times that they are going through. Accordingly, on the social basis if nothing else I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
Lord Hacking: Notwithstanding the very careful advice that has been given to us by the two noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and not forgetting that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was the senior judge of the commercial court, his court had the reputation of being the fastest court in the land, I commend this amendment to the Committee and ask for its support.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have argued, the amendment raises social issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has said, the passing of this amendment does not offer any serious prospect of disturbing the process of judicial review. When I address the Committee on Amendment No. 31, I shall argue that the main instruments of judicial review should remain in the High Court, and in the Divisional Court of the High Court.
I challenge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on one point in his submissions, although his advice has largely been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The noble and learned Lord referred to county court judges who may be taking these cases of judicial review as lacking in experience on matters of judicial review. When I had the honour of appearing in the county courts as a member of the Bar, and before the High Court, I was frequently struck by the great knowledge of law that was needed by county court judges for the wider dimensions of law that they had to apply. I foresee no difficulty with experienced and sensible county court judges taking such judicial review as is provided for in the amendment.
The matter has also received the attention of the Civil Justice Review body. The noble and learned

585
Lord, Lord Griffiths, was a member of that advisory committee. I think that I am right in saying that in the Civil Justice Review no recommendation was made on this issue. However, I refer to paragraph 750 on page 141 of the Civil Justice Review in which the problem was noted. I believe that it is important that the Committee take note of it.
"A significant number of respondents pressed for the creation of a cheap, accessible local method for challenging local authority decisions in cases involving homelessness. Preference was expressed for a right of appeal to a County Court in such cases rather than applications to the High Court for judicial review, the latter being seen as a complex, lengthy and expensive method by which to obtain reconsideration of a decision which needed, of its nature, to take place with the utmost urgency".
It is an urgent social problem. Members of the Committee who live in the City of London see with their own eyes evidence of young persons who are homeless. They know that it is an urgent social problem. The purpose of the Bill is to provide access to justice. That is an urgent form of access that I commend to the Committee.
Lord Griffiths: I rise only as a member of the Civil Justice Review. The passage to which my noble friend Lord Hacking referred reflects the view of many people that there should be a right of appeal from decisions on homelessness. If such a right were to be given I should have thought that the county court was clearly the right place for such appeals.
As the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has already explained, an appeal is an entirely different process from judicial review. The objective of judicial review is for the judges to ensure that the executive, and indeed all persons holding public office and duties, exercise their powers as Parliament intended. It has two facets. One is to explain the limits of their powers. That is the usual case on judicial review. The argument is whether or not those concerned have exceeded their powers. Another function —very much more rarely needed —is to strike down a decision which, although it may have been within the strict limit of the powers, is clearly an abuse of them. It is a very limited function of review, and it is a very responsible and delicate task. It is not an appeal.
I can assure the Committee that the passage in the Bill which inhibits the Lord Chancellor from passing the function of judicial review to the county courts had the full support of the Civil Justice Review.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Committee will not feel disposed to disregard the highly authoritative advice that we have been given by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill. There is no question that consideration of a serious social problem motivates those who support the amendment. However, with great respect, the amendment goes the wrong way about it.
As Members of the Committee have been told, the issue has nothing to do with an appeal. It has nothing to do with providing a system under which appeals could be made to the county court against decisions
586
of local authorities. There may be a great deal to be said for that, but the amendment does not relate to it. The amendment deals with the much more difficult and complex subject of judicial review.
As has been hinted to the Committee, the question of judicial review is one for which our courts are entitled to very great credit not least because it has been handled with great tact and restraint. If judicial review were to be unduly frequently exercised it would undoubtedly provoke a strong reaction from Whitehall, from local authorities, and from Government, because it involves challenging decisions which elected people have taken in matters of public administration and public decision. It is greatly to the credit of those who have handled it and —if I may say so in his presence—in particular to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls that it has been so handled as not to provoke any reaction of that kind. However, if it were to be suggested that it should be made widespread, and exercised in any county court even in a limited number of areas, then a quite different and difficult situation might be created.
The Committee has had the great advantage of advice from those who know more about the subject than anyone else in the country. I hope it will accept that advice and reject the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Will the noble and learned Lord comment on the point that the purpose of the amendment might be better served by strengthening the powers of the local ombudsman?
Baroness David: I too have put my name to the amendment. I appreciate what noble and learned Lords have said about judicial review. I understand what it is. It is not an appeal.
However, there is a very real social problem here. I take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, when he states how easy and quick such a procedure is. From all the evidence that we have had from the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, it is not all that easy for homeless people to walk in, obtain a form, fill it up, and find the f10. That should be remembered.
The Lord Chancellor: I thought for one moment that I should be able to agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Rippon. However, I think that at the very end he unfortunately fell into a small error. Subsection (6) makes it perfectly plain that the Lord Chancellor cannot confer such jurisdiction on the county courts.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: Could not a future Lord Chancellor make an order under Clause 1(6) repealing that provision? Having repealed that provision, could he make the amendment now required?
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: No, certainly not, because subsection (6) quite plainly restricts the scope of subsection (1). It is plain that if one exaggerates the effect of subsection (1) it may be easier to suggest that such provision should not pass into law. But

587
the matter is quite plainly restricted by that provision. That is why the noble Lord has moved the amendment.
I accept the social problem referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Homeless cases are extremely difficult. It is always necessary to remember that the homelessness law is creating a priority in favour of particular people over others on the housing list. In the case on homelessness referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill, I had the privilege of being one of his colleagues on the judicial committee. A very difficult and delicate case it was.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths has said, it is plain that the Civil Justice Review was flatly against judicial review being anywhere except in the High Court. At paragraph 120 it stated that all public law cases should be reserved to the High Court. On the other hand, the review body referred to the problem of a local method of challenging local authority decisions in that area. However, it was thinking primarily by way of appeal. Although it did not go into the matter in great detail, it is plain that the primary option was for an appeal. No doubt an appeal provision would indicate the criteria which the Appeal Court would have in mind and would not leave the issue open as is the case in respect of judicial review.
As regards the suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I believe that where a decision properly taken by a local authority is being challenged it is difficult to regard it in any sense as maladministration. The local authority represents the interests of those other than homeless applicants and, therefore, it has a right to explain to whoever is to adjudicate the reasons for its decision and, if necessary, to support those reasons by evidence, argument and so forth.
With great respect, I doubt whether the local authority ombudsman would be the correct person. As was said by my late noble and learned friend Lord Diplock when rejecting an argument which I put forward in a case, the ombudsman is for dealing with administration but the courts of justice are for giving justice to people and the two are distinct. Whether the homeless person was unjustly refused a home is a matter of justice and, therefore, for some form of adjudication. Strictly speaking, the ombudsman does not have that role.
I hope that, having heard my comments, the noble Lord will consider that the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Hacking: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down can he help the Committee in respect of the matter of appeal? In its report the Civil Justice Review was careful enough to record only views that had been expressed to it on the issue. It recorded the fact that preference was expressed for a right of appeal to the county court in such cases. However, is there not a fundamental difficulty because the appeal system is not available in respect of the decisions of a public body such as a local authority or when a homeless person is trying to remedy a decision made by a public authority? That is where
588
judicial review comes in; it is the reviewing of decisions made by public authorities.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord is right in saying that at the present time the only method available for dealing with these matters is judicial review. My understanding of the report of the Civil Justice Review —and it is confirmed by my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths —is that the preference for which previously there was argument and representation was some form of appeal. There are plenty of statutory provisions for which there is a right of appeal to the courts in respect of a decision of a local authority. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of those. However, normally they provide some form of criteria on the basis of which the county court judge can decide the appeal. The judicial review is an entirely different process available only where Parliament has not thought it appropriate to allow such an appeal. The argument put before the Civil Justice Review was that in such cases some form of appeal should be provided rather than that judicial review should be available. However, none exists at the moment.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are grateful for the assistance of Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment. I have listened carefully to the authoritative advice given to the Committee by the noble and learned Lords. However, the fact remains that many people believe that it is difficult to obtain a judicial review of a decision. We accept that we are talking about a judicial review and not a right of appeal.
We must study carefully what has been said during the course of the discussion and decide whether it is an issue which we should bring back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that this is a good time to break and suggest that we do not return to the business until twenty-five minutes to nine. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft order in Council is to give Northern Ireland Electricity explicit statutory authority to contribute to preparations for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. The order will allow NIE to take steps to facilitate implementation of the general privatisation proposals which the Government will bring forward in due course and to

589
influence the detailed working out of these proposals. The draft order mirrors powers provided to water authorities and electricity boards in Great Britain under Section 1 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. That Act was, in effect, an enabling measure which paved the way for the presentation to Parliament of the substantive legislation to privatise those industries.
I should stress at the outset that the present draft order, like its GB counterpart, does not itself permit privatisation to proceed. During the course of this year the Government intend to publish their proposals for the privatisation of NIE, and substantive legislation will be needed to give effect to these. The draft order is presented now for two reasons. First, it will enable NIE to begin planning to ensure that once the Government's proposals have been approved by Parliament they can be implemented quickly and methodically. Secondly, it will enable NIE both to be involved in working out the practical details of the privatisation proposals and, where appropriate, to suggest how they might be improved. To help it follow through the ramifications of the Government's proposals and develop its own suggestions, NIE may well wish to obtain specialist advice on a range of economic, financial, technical and legal issues. The order will establish NIE's powers to engage in these and related activities and to incur expenditure on them.
NIE already has authority to do such things in support of its duty to provide an efficient and economical electricity supply system for the Province. The order will merely remove any doubt that NIE might not have the powers to do that in matters related to privatisation.
In 1988 the Government confirmed that their policy of transferring the electricity supply industry to the private sector would apply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is only fitting that Northern Ireland should share in the benefits which the private sector can bring to the operation of such an important utility. Exposure to the pressures of the capital market; the application of private sector management skills; a more directly commercial orientation in the running of the enterprise —all these factors together have, we believe, the potential to produce real improvements in the performance of the industry, in the interest of consumers and shareholders alike.
Progress in developing proposals for the privatisation of NIE has been good. An initial examination of the key elements involved —structure, regulation, method of sale, and so on —has been completed and further work is being carried out by Government and their advisers on these and related issues. Expert advice on the privatisation is being sought as appropriate by the Department of Economic Development: its financial, economic and legal advisers have already been appointed and it will call upon other expertise as circumstances demand. NIE also, for its part, will want to take expert advice in these areas so that it can contribute to detailed development of privatisation proposals in the months ahead. The present order will facilitate this. As I have said, Government will
590
not bring forward their proposals until later this year and I am therefore not in a position tonight to give details of what they will be.
This order now before the House does not invest government with additional powers, nor does it allow privatisation of NIE to begin. The powers it confers on NIE are limited, in that NIE may only react to proposals for privatisation put to it by government. NIE may seek modifications of related proposals giving effect to government's basic privatisation proposals, but cannot seek to modify the basic proposals themselves. The powers conferred, or rather clarified, by this order are therefore modest, but they are nevertheless important. It is only proper and sensible that NIE should be able: o contribute its practical experience and expertise to the development of sound proposals. The successful privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland will depend in no small measure on the active and full participation of Northern Ireland Electricity. I therefore commend this order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th October be approved. —(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his introduction of this very short but important order which we are asked to approve. It is important because, as the Minister explained, it enables the department and Northern Ireland Electricity to take the necessary steps to pave the way for the transfer of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland from the public to the private sector although, of course, privatisation itself is an issue for another time.
We on these Benches are opposed to the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland. For that reason we are unable to extend a welcome to the order. However, that does not require us to be totally silent about the general circumstances.
We should be interested to know whether the Government consider that there are particular and specific reasons why the industry in Northern Ireland should be privatised. If so, what are those reasons? It is well recognised that Northern Ireland Electricity faces many complex and difficult problems which, in combination, are probably unique to Northern Ireland. Each area of activity, whether it be generation, supply or distribution, has intrinsic problems of its own which operate to the disadvantage of the industry. I am advised that it is not apparent that those problems will simply vanish with the privatisation of the industry. Rather, they will follow the indsutry as it moves from the private to the public sector.
The House will know that during the past nine or 10 years it has been necessary in Northern Ireland, in order to protect the consumer, to cap the electricity tariff at a figure equal to the highest tariff operating in the rest of the United Kingdom. I understand that there is a very real risk that

591
privatisation will lead to a significantly higher tariff. If that were to happen, then we do not see how it can be said that privatisation will benefit the customer. Therefore, we are particularly interested to know whether the Government are satisfied that the tariff is not likely to increase or whether they are, in any event, prepared to cap the tariff. Of course, that might be rather puzzling.
I noted that there was very little reference in the speech of the Minister to the interests of the employees of the industry in Northern Ireland. It may be that I missed one or two sentences but I do not think so. That prompts me to ask what importance the Government attach to retaining the confidence of those who work in the industry.
The Minister advised the House that preliminary studies have been undertaken by the department and outside experts and that more studies are to be commissioned. Can the Minister tell the House how much money has been spent or is due to the consultants for their services to date? I sent a note to the Minister yesterday asking whether the information was available but I understand that that note has probably gone adrift and I am sorry about that. If it is necessary for the department to obtain authorisation for that payment, I am particularly interested to know whether that has been authorised by any one of the appropriation orders put before the House during the past 18 months.
I should also be interested to know when the department considers that it will be in a position to publish the relevant conclusions of the experts in a White Paper. Meanwhile, as I understand that studies have been commissioned and the department has received reports, can the Minister confirm whether those reports have been disclosed to Northern Ireland Electricity? We should also like to know how the department and the industry propose to work together over the next 18 months. For example, is it intended to set up a joint working group of representatives of the department and the electricity service so that they have a full understanding of each other's position?
We are all agreed that the order points to major changes which lie ahead. Hitherto, Northern Ireland Electricity and its employees have been the guardians of the industry in Northern Ireland. From these Benches we urge the Government to listen carefully to the advice which they tender.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no intention by the Government not to listen very carefully to any advice tendered either by NIE, the consultants, the noble Lord or, most important, as he underlined, employees of the industry. Of course, we shall watch their reactions with great interest.
This draft order is intended to ensure that NIE can participate effectively in the discussions about the future of the electricity supply industry in the private sector in Northern Ireland and that it can help to shape that future. Clearly that is important because it is its future which we are talking about and will be discussing when we come before your Lordships later in the year with a fully fledged privatisation order.
592
The noble Lord cast doubt upon the very concept of privatisation of the electricity supply in Northern Ireland. It probably goes without saying that I do not accept those views. I have acknowledged that there will be challenges in privatising Northern Ireland Electricity because of the nature of the system, and I go along with him that far. However, they are challenges which can and will be met. We have been told in the past that it would be inappropriate to privatise this or that industry. Most recently we were told that the water industry ought not to be sold and that this would be the most unpopular privatisation ever. The reality however has been very different, as I am sure it will be for Northern Ireland Electricity.
The great majority of privatised companies have seen higher output and investment, improved morale, better industrial relations and increased profits. As I said in introducing the draft order, the commercial disciplines to which the industries are exposed in the private sector, the freedom from interference on investment decisions, the private sector's greater incentive to contain costs and the threat of competition or takeover, are all factors which exert pressure for greater efficiency.
The noble Lord, although he did not put it in quite these words, was concerned that there might be a "rip-of' of consumers. There is certainly no intention whatever that that should happen. Whatever proposals we bring forward, the future interests of consumers will be properly addressed and protected. Consumers should not feel threatened. As I said, we believe that the privatised industries have proved to be more accountable and more responsive to their customers than their public sector predecessors.
I cannot at this stage predict future tariff levels; but in general the Government believe that the private sector will be better at containing and, indeed, in areas, reducing costs than the public sector has been. The intention is to ensure that the regulatory regime will give the private sector an incentive to minimise costs. Having said that, there will clearly have to be a price control mechanism. Details have yet to be worked out, but the RPI minus X formula being adopted in Great Britain is clearly one possible method. The joint working party of the Department of Economic Development and Northern Ireland Electricity is already in existence and has met on a number of occasions.
I should at this point thank the noble Lord for the note to which he referred in his speech, but regret that I only received it about three minutes before coming into the Chamber and therefore I am not able to provide the figures for which he asks on the costs of the consultants employed by the department. I should say, however, that there is no intention to publish the reports. The recommendations and conclusions will be taken into account as appropriate in the privatisation proposals that the Government will publish in due course. The results of the consultants' work so far have been disclosed to NIE and discussed with it. That was one of the points made by the noble Lord. With regard to how much we paid for that, as I said, I do not have the figures

593
available but I reassure him and the House that the department has authority already under appropriation orders for this expenditure. Money for consultancy has been voted by Parliament.
We believe that by careful formulation of our privatisation proposals and taking account of the principles I outlined in opening this debate, we will be able to confer significant benefits on the consumer and the industry through greater efficiency, better use of resources and the introduction of new thinking and new skills. All of these issues will have to be discussed at greater length when the substantive legislation for the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity is introduced. The present draft order is a small but significant part of a much larger process and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Personal Social Services (Special Agencies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
7.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December be approved.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this order is to provide the Department of Health and Social Services with powers to set up special agencies in Northern Ireland. Comparable provisions already exist in the National Health Service Act 1977 which allow the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Wales to set up special health authorities to perform such functions as they may direct. No equivalent legislation is available in Northern Ireland and the order I am asking the House to approve today will bring the Province into line with England and Wales.
The main provisions of the order have the same effect as those in the 1977 Act. They provide for the establishment of special health and social services agencies using subordinate legislation orders subject to negative resolution. They also give the department power to direct special agencies to carry out specified functions. In addition, the order applies to special agencies the general provisions applied to boards by the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 which is the principal legislation governing the health services in Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will I am sure be interested to know that the first purpose for which the new order will be used is the establishment of a health promotion agency. Until the Health Education Council was disbanded in 1987 it provided health education and promotion support services —such as materials and training—for Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales. In that year the council was replaced by two new special health authorities; the Health Education Authority, in England, and the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. Both were set up using powers contained in Section 11 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to which I have
594
already referred. In the absence of comparable powers in Northern Ireland, a health promotion unit was set up under the auspices of the department. This interim measure has ensured that a service has continued to be provided pending the establishment of a Northern Ireland health promotion agency as an independent statutory body.
With their strong commitment to health education and promotion, the Government consider that a statutory body is needed to provide the impetus required in this important field. The scale of our commitment has been demonstrated by my recent announcement of an increase in the Northern Ireland health promotion budget for 1990–91 by more than 60 per cent. to some £900,000. This amount will be available to support the programmes of the new agency covering important topics like stopping young people from taking up smoking, preventing alcohol misuse, improving nutrition and encouraging greater exercise participation.
As I have explained to the House, the order will create powers similar to those already in force in England and Wales under the National Health Service Act 1977. It will put Northern Ireland on a par with those countries. I commend the order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December be approved. —(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining as briefly as he has the terms of this order. We on this side of the House very much welcome the order. We would do well to remind ourselves that there are circumstances where a special statutory agency can play an important role in improving health care. We have seen in England and Wales how such an authority can stimulate interest in the problem, promote co-operation between professionals and statutory authorities, and of course help to mould public opinion.
I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with three brief points. First, will the Minister assure the House that the members of staff to be employed by the special agency will not be transferred to the agency without their full consent? Secondly, is it intended that the special agency will publish an annual report, and that it will be available to members of the public? I assume that such a report will be published and that that is probably covered by one of the 'read-over' provisions of the order. Thirdly, will there be a separate governing body for each agency? If so, will it have a lay membership and will its chairman be a lay person?
We fully support this order. I thank the Minister for the way he introduced it and we hope the new agency, when it is set up, will be successful.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I should like to underline what I said earlier, that the health promotion agency is the only special agency planned at present. If I have any other plans, I shall naturally come before your Lordships to discuss them in due course; but, as I say, I have none at present.

595
The health promotion agency, as the noble Lord readily agreed, has a very important job to do. That is one of the reasons why it is better to function totally independent of government. Lay members will be appointed, and they will be totally independent of both the department and government. Equally, there will be no compulsory transfer of staff without their full consent.
As regards annual reports, there is no statutory requirement to produce them; but there is a requirement to produce an annual operational plan on which there will have to be wide consultation. In taking account of the next operational plan, there will have to be a review of the last one in order to see what has been achieved. Therefore, there is no hole-in-the-corner activity planned in this respect.
The agency will take account of the health promotion needs identified in the annual reports from the directors of public health of each board and from the department's chief medical officer. They are germane to the agency's thinking and promotional activities. The chairman of the agency will be a lay person in the same way as many of the members. I believe that covers all the noble Lord's questions, and with the very welcome and complete agreement between myself and the noble Lord, I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.1 to 8.35 p.m.]

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert —
("(6A) No order shall be made under this section so as to prevent a judgment or order for the payment of a sum of £5,000 or more (not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into court, or a judgment or order arising out of a registered agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974) from being enforced by writ of fieri facias.")
The noble Lord said: This is a somewhat technical amendment. However, it is necessary to consider it in this part of the Bill because as presently drafted the Bill would enable an order to be made under Clause 1(1) requiring certain judgment debts to be enforced only in the county court. It is necessary to explain, if only briefly, the reasoning behind the amendment.
In a carefully reasoned passage the Civil Justice Review recommended that judgment debts for £5,000 or more other than those arising out of regulated agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 should be automatically enforced by the sheriffs. That was Recommendation No. 70 which I understand was generally welcomed. For some reason which I do not understand, the Bill does not
596
incorporate that recommendation. Accordingly, I have drawn attention to that in this amendment, albeit in a modified form of the recommendation.
One of the reasons why people prefer litigation in the High Court, a tendency which in the simpler cases the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor regretted, is that enforcement is by way of the sheriffs. That appears to be the consumer's choice. The sheriffs are preferred to the county court bailiffs. They are a privately funded body and they are generally regarded, and rightly so, as more efficient than the overworked county court bailiffs. Accordingly, this amendment provides that large debts—presently those in excess of £.5,000 —can be transferred away from the county court to be enforced by the sheriffs, relieving the overworked county court bailiffs who are provided and paid for out of public funds.
The amendment is phrased in somewhat negative terms but I hope that, whether or not it is accepted by the Government, they will indicate why, having regard to the interests of the users of the courts, they have not accepted this recommendation of the Civil Justice Review, particularly in view of the Government's indication that they regretted the preference of the consumer in the simpler cases to choose the High Court. In that context, perhaps the Government will take the opportunity to indicate whether in the county court there will be implementation of the long overdue provision for interest on judgment debts. This is in the nature of a probing amendment but, nevertheless, I hope that the government will give us some indication of their intentions. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: As post-prandial amendments go, this must be one of the least stimulating. But it is right that attention should be drawn to it because as we are in many cases adopting what the Civil Justice Review proposed, we ought to know why this proposal has been rejected. Perhaps I may quickly refer to the salient points which are to be found at pages 115 and 116 of the report. The report says that,
"The consultation paper sought views on whether all debt claims should start in the County Court and be processed there".
That point is then discussed in detail. In paragraph 622 concern was expressed that,
"if all debt cases were to be processed in the County Court, creditors might no longer be able to use the High Court Sheriff to execute the judgment".
The report then goes on to say in paragraph 624 that the debate over who should execute judgment debts is a longstanding one. It is recorded that complaints were made about the ineffectiveness of the county court bailiffs and that this,
"led to calls for wholesale transfer of enforcement to the High Court sheriffs".
Then, in paragraph 627 under the heading, "The distinguishing factor", it is said that,
"It is generally assumed that the main distinction lies between consumer debtors and business debtors with bailiff enforcement appropriate for the former and Sheriff enforcement for the latter. A similar, less well recognised distinction applies as between individual or small creditors and larger commercial creditors. Individual creditors may be more appropriately served by bailiff enforcement".

597
The report then deals with one possible way of achieving the distinction and concludes by saying,
"The only workable mechanism is to set a monetary figure to operate as a form of classification … In order to keep the balance between consumer and commercial debts it is suggested that bailiff enforcement should apply to all County Court judgments up to £5,000, with all County Court judgments over that amount being enforced by the Sheriffs".
Regulation 70(i) which is to be found on page 116 reads:
"Responsibility for executing County Court judgment debts should be as follows: —

(a) All judgments below £5,000 and those arising out of regulated agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 should continue to be enforced by County Court bailiffs.

(b) Above that figure judgment debts should automatically be transferred to the Sheriffs for enforcement".

Both I and the noble Lord do not understand why that recommendation, which is well argued in the report, has not been adopted. We therefore tabled this amendment in order to be the wiser.
Lord Coleraine: The Law Society supports the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I must say that I adopt his arguments. However, the Law Society goes a little further. The recommendation of the Civil Justice Review which was read out by the noble and learned Lord continues at the end of the second part to provide that it should also continue to be possible to transfer county court judgments over £2,000 to the sheriffs provided that they are of a commercial nature. That was achieved under Section 106 of the County Courts Act which provided in subsection (1)(a) that if,
"a judgment or order for the payment of a sum of money has been given or made by a county court … the judgment or order may, subject to rules of court, be transferred to the High Court".
The Lord Chancellor is empowered under subsection (3) of that Act by order to specify an amount for the purposes of subsection (1). Moreover, by any such order he is able to,
"specify different amounts for different descriptions of judgment or order".
I am not clear whether the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. If they are accepting them —and here I am probing —I should have thought that Section 106 of the County Courts Act was the ideal way to achieve that aim. However, I see from the Bill that this is one of the enactments which is to be repealed.
The Law Society strongly considers that the sheriff should continue to be able to execute judgments where there is a county court judgment of £2,000 or over, certainly in the case where it relates to a commercial debt. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to help us in the matter.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The situation is that I intend to accept the proposal of the Civil Justice Review in this connection, just as I propose in the order to accept the general form of bands which it proposed, subject to anything which may emerge on the consultation which I shall hold before we make the order. Therefore there is no question of rejecting
598
this proposal; it is intended to put it into effect by an order made under the provision. The only question is whether that should endure for all time or whether the changing patterns of litigation may require it to be reconsidered at some later time.
Therefore what we intend to do is really in accordance with the Civil Justice Review. We intend to retain a distribution of enforcement business between bailiffs and sheriffs broadly as at present. In order to achieve that aim I propose that new arrangements for the transfer of county court judgments for enforcement in the High Court will be laid down in the order to be made under Clause 1 of the Bill. The position will be reviewed in due course and all those concerned with enforcement will be consulted before any changes are made.
The background to this is that, at present, county court debts are enforced by county court bailiffs and High Court debts by under sheriffs. County court judgments for over £2,000 can be and frequently are, as has just been mentioned, transferred to the High Court for enforcement under Section 106 of the County Courts Act 1984 and the order made under it.
The Civil Justice Review recommended that all High Court judgments, of whatever value, should continue to be enforced by the sheriffs; that county court judgments above £5,000 (except those arising from regulated consumer credit agreements) should be transferred to the sheriffs for enforcement; and that county court judgments between £2,000 and £5,000 should be eligible for transfer, either on application or of the court's own motion. The first part of that is dealt with by the amendment, but the second part is not.
I certainly intend to accept these proposals in principle, but of course when the order is made it will be possible to adjust the figures if necessary in light of the consultation. However, al the moment I have no reason to suppose that we should wish to do so because the Civil Justice Review is comparatively recent. Therefore, my intentions are in line with the position desired by the proponents of this amendment and with the supplementary point which I have just made about debts between £2,000 and £5,000.
However, I do not regard it as necessary or desirable to set this out in statute. Indeed, there is every reason not to do so because it is part of the order-making arrangements which I suggest and because the key to using the new allocation arrangements to enhance the efficiency of the court service is their flexibility and the ease with which they can be adapted to follow the changing patterns of litigation.
That is my present intention and I have given assurances to that effect in correspondence to various interests such as the Sheriffs' Association —I think that is what it is called —and the under sheriffs, and so on. I repeat those assurances with ease here in this Chamber.
Lord Meston: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his response and indeed for the support I received in connection

599
with this amendment. I am only sorry that I could not make the matter more stimulating for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. It is reassuring in this respect to know that the Government intend to accept the provisions of the Civil Justice Review. Perhaps it would not have been necessary to table this probing amendment had there not been, as has already been said, a great mass of hidden secondary legislation underlying Clause 1. That point has however been commented upon, and will no doubt be commented upon again during the course of the evening. With the assurance that I have received, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert —
("( ) Within five years of the implementation of this section, the Lord Chancellor shall establish a committee known as 'the Review Committee' to report to the general public on how far orders made under this section have succeeded in improving the administration of the courts, with particular reference to the volume of work removed from the High Court, and reductions in waiting periods for trial.").
The noble Lord said: I observe that no amendment has so far been accepted by the noble and learned Lord. In the post-prandial atmosphere that has already been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my hopes are high with the present amendment. Again, I say that because it is based largely upon the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. We are carrying out some of the recommendations of that review which, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, is recent and should therefore be treated with contemporary respect. In the course of its recommendations at page 21 (paragraph 114) it states that there should be provision for:
"evaluation of their effectiveness by a fixed date and by reference to specified criteria, including the volume of work removed from the High Court and current waiting periods for trial".
Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, questioned whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had any ideas about what would happen if the resources were not sufficient or the recommendations contained in Part I were not being carried out. The Civil Justice Review recommended that if the present proposals proved ineffective there should be consideration of other measures which might include a unified civil court; in other words, the merger of the High Court with the county court. That gives rise to two points, the first being that Parliament and the public should have a review at a fixed period. We say in the amendment that it should be within five years of the implementation of the section. Secondly, an opportunity should be given not just to consider what has been done, and what could not be done, but whether what has been done is sufficiently beneficial to see that the programme contained in Part I is carried through, and that if it is not, alternatives can be looked at. It is with some confidence that I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am in sympathy with the broad concept of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, as to his amendment, I find it strange that there should be a report to the general public. Generally, when we ask Ministers to report progress upon the exercise of powers given to them by Parliament, we require that the report should be made to Parliament. On reflection, the noble Lord might think that that would have been a better way to deal with the matter.
Five years is rather a long time. I should have liked to have seen a progress report within, let us say, three years. In the circumstances that is what would be expected.
I wish to follow up the next part of the noble Lord's speech when he referred to the formation of one civil court consisting of the High Court and the county court. There is a better form of amalgamation. High Court judges, of the Queen's Bench Division at any rate, already have powers to decide civil and criminal cases. They did so when they went out on circuit. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and I used to do it on the South-Eastern circuit. That was of great value in arranging the lists. Criminal cases were taken first and civil cases were taken next. Although the work was much lighter than today, the administration worked smoothly.
There is a strong case for leaving the High Court as it is but for an amalgamation of the county courts and the Crown Courts. They are already de facto amalgamated to a great extent. They are manned by the same judges (the circuit judges) who sometimes try criminal cases in the Crown Court, which is theoretically a branch of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court Act, and at other times try civil cases under the County Courts Act. Curiously enough, not only are they the same judges; they sit in the same buildings which are often called Crown Courts; and they have the same staff. The de facto amalgamation has gone a long way already and we might just as well have it placed on the statute book. I should have thought that it could even have been done in the Bill, but the whole thing has been a bit rushed and it has not been thought through.
My conclusion is that although I accept the motive and the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved the amendment, I cannot go along with it as it stands. I hope, as I am sure he does, that something will come of it because he has made some constructive suggestions.
Lord Boardman: I, like my noble friend Lord Renton, support the spirit and the motive of the amendment, but like him I have grave reservations about it. A report to the general public does not seem appropriate. Like my noble friend, I believe that if we are to have a report, it should be to Parliament. Secondly, I wonder whether a committee to report within five years is appropriate because it is a continuing exercise. A continuing review through questions in another place and here in the normal process of parliamentary government is far more appropriate than setting up a special committee.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I venture to support the generality of the amendment. There are two reasons for doing so. One is that so much of what is intended to be done under Clause 1 will be by subordinate legislation, not all of it subject to affirmative resolution. Even if it were, it is liable to escape parliamentary notice and this proposal will give parliamentary notice. The second reason, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is that we may want to move to an alternative system. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested not the unified civil court but the amalgamation of the county and the Crown Court. As I read it, there is nothing in the amendment which would in any way run counter to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to see.
The important thing is that in some years' time we can assess whether what is proposed is working; whether sufficient resources have been devoted to it; whether there are sufficient courts, sufficient buildings and sufficient judges. We can then decide whether to continue in that way or move to some alternative way. As for what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said, it seems to me that it may be desirable to have a periodic review but there is nothing that I can see in the amendment that would prevent such a review. There is nothing to prevent the noble Lord from implementing that at Report stage and carrying the amendment further. I therefore venture to commend the amendment to my noble and learned friend.
9 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I had hoped before the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Boardman, spoke that the advice to the noble and learned Lord from the Committee would be unanimous in favour of accepting the amendment or the principle.
The noble and learned Lord has told us in the course of the Committee's proceedings that it is his intention to implement the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. We are grateful to hear that from him. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in his address to the Committee, the Civil Justice Review has made this recommendation. It is to be found in paragraph 114 on page 21 under the title at the side of the paragraph, "Further action". It says:
"these measures should provide for evaluation of their effectiveness by a fixed date and by reference to specified criteria, including the volume of work removed from the High Court and current waiting periods for trial".
The noble and learned Lord therefore has the support of the Civil Justice Review which he says he has every intention of implementing. Perhaps he will therefore be persuaded to accept the principle of the amendment if not the amendment itself.
Lord Ackner: I wish to associate myself with the general philosophy of the amendment. However, I have noticed that, in Schedule 1 on page 66 which deals with the advisory committee, that committee will provide an annual report on the discharge of its functions. The report will be laid before each House of Parliament. I would have hoped that what was sauce for the goose would be sauce for —and this is
602
not a disrespectful word —the gander; I use it merely as a figurative observation. In view of the situation which we have described ad nauseam of the county courts and the circuit, I should have thought it would be most helpful if an annual report was made as to what developments have taken place as a result of the powers given under Section 1, with what consequences and the state of the resources, with particular regard to their deficiencies.
The second point I wish to make is that, while there may superficially appear to be much to be said for amalgamating the county court bench with the Crown Court, my noble friend Lord Renton has overlooked the situation of the High Court jurisdiction in the Crown Court. The Civil Justice Review's original consultative document produced the highly dangerous view —I say highly dangerous because that was the view taken by the Court of Appeal, the High Court judges and, modestly, by myself—that in order to operate the Crown Courts a body of High Court judges should be stationed around the country permanently. That is contrary to the recommendation of Lord Beeching that that was highly undesirable and no doubt would ultimately cause the destruction of the High Court Bench. Any move in the direction of amalgamating the two must have particular regard to the High Court jurisdiction and ensure that the High Court Bench, which is the thin red line which protects the citizen from the abuse of power, is not wrecked.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree entirely with the spirit of the amendment. It is right that the court service should be monitored having regard to the waiting times and the way in which it transacts its business, the volume of business handled and so on. The same is true of the High Court. We prepare figures annually; a copy of the court service report is sent to the Law Society and the Bar and to anyone else who has expressed an interest in receiving it.
I think it is better that this should be done annually. I understood my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to suggest that in relation to the figurative phrase which he used. Certainly I am entirely in favour of an annual report. It would be right to lay it in the Library of both Houses and it should set out the state of business and the volume of business, having regard to the criteria that the Civil Justice Review had in mind.
I believe that that is effective and also that five years —which is what was suggested —is a long time. I suspect that it had in mind some more major review of the whole situation. If we were to do that we would have to put more detail into the statute.
My suggestion is that it would be preferable that the Committee should accept the undertaking that the Lord Chancellor will lay before your Lordships by putting it in the Library and making publicly available a court service report annually dealing with the criteria of performance that the Civil Justice Review mentioned. I am sure that we all have the same interests in mind and I believe that that is the best way in which to serve them.
Lord Mishcon: I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, as will be all those who participated in the debate on the amendment. We are grateful for his assurance that he regards it as beneficial that there should be a report. I was looking for a report that contained a little more detail as to how Part I was performing than the noble and learned Lord originally mentioned. He himself anticipated that that might be the desire.
I was not quite so clear about whether that was a personal undertaking of the noble and learned Lord. May he continue in his office personally for a long time, politically possibly not quite so long. That personal undertaking would not be binding in any way upon future Lord Chancellors unless it was in the Bill. Therefore if he says that at Report stage he will bring forward an amendment on behalf of the Government to deal with the matter of the report, I shall willingly withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I wonder if he would make it quite clear that he has in mind that it would be a report to Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor: That is what I have in mind. Perhaps I may be allowed to consider this as I had in mind a rather less formal report before the amendment was proposed. As the noble Lord knows, we already provide a court service and I had intended to continue that, but if a more formal obligation is required I shall consider it. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to do that without any commitment because I have not had a chance to consider fully its possible ramifictions but I shall certainly consider it carefully before Report stage and let him know the result of my consideration.
Lord Mishcon: I should be extremely discourteous, which I never want to be, if I were not to accept what the noble and learned Lord has just said. But in his consideration would he mind taking into account that I believe those who have participated in the debate were looking for a report, be it annually or biennially as he may consider fit, which really told Parliament —and I emphasise the word "Parliament" and accept the error of my ways in talking about the general public —how far in effect Part I had gone, what the difficulties were, and what was hoped to be achieved in order to get over those difficulties? If the noble and learned Lord would merely consider that —I ask for no more —between now and Report stage I am sure that the proper course for me to take is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: I shall certainly consider that. The report that I had in mind would have been as informative as possible. The idea was that the public should know the nature of the service being provided, and any deficiencies would be highlighted. That is helpful for a number of reasons, and I shall consider that aspect also.
Lord Mishcon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I rise to oppose the question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I do so in the context of the debates we have had this afternoon. I think it is generally agreed that Part I of the Bill is in essence an enabling part, and many will feel that it ought to be a separate Bill. It is an enabling measure couched in the widest possible terms.
Clause 1 is the key clause because, basically, it represents an abdication of parliamentary responsibility in regard to the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the courts to the Executive. There is perhaps a glimmer of light. I was very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for what he had to say about judicial review. It had occurred to me that there might be a possibility that a future Lord Chancellor might simply make an order under subsection (4) repealing subsection (6), and then subsequently make an order transferring the jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor has assured me and the Committee in the clearest possible terms that that cannot be done. I assume the reason is that it would be regarded as doing by a side wind what the statute did not wish to be done, and therefore it might be struck down by the courts. That is significant because the exception in fact now proves the rule. But for subsection (6) the Lord Chancellor could make an order doing that. It is only because specific provision is made in the clause preventing it that we have any safeguard at all under subsection (4).
Therefore, I think we should consider whether or not to strike out jurisdiction altogether from subsection (4), thus making subsection (6) unnecessary; or, in the alternative, bear in mind that the measure is couched in far too wide terms and that therefore by the Report stage one needs to have a series of amendments dealing not only with jurisdiction in relation to judicial review but also tying the Lord Chancellor's hands in respect of the powers he seeks under subsection (4). That is why I think it is important, when we discuss matters such as an annual report to Parliament, that it be put in the Bill so that it must be provided.
The clause represents a surrender of parliamentary control over matters which should be the subject of primary legislation. I have already indicated, not only in relation to this Bill but to others at other times, the way in which I deplore the tendency for more statutes to consist of a series of enabling powers under which the details are spelt out by statutory instrument. In this case I would suggest to the Committee that it is not just the detail; there are matters of considerable substance left unresolved, as the debate this afternoon has shown.
With the Executive dominating the other place, a process now known, thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as elective dictatorship, an independent judiciary and legal profession are the only defence of our rather frail constitutional rights. I firmly believe that the duties and responsibilities of the higher judiciary in respect of

605
the administration of justice and of the courts should not be whittled away by any Act of Parliament of this kind.
If these provisions are welcomed it is on the assumption that their main purpose is to implement the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. Everyone says that that is a wholly desirable purpose. However, I suggest, with due respect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that that is in some respects a false prospectus.
In the debate on the Second Reading the Lord Chancellor defined the aim of the legislation as seeking:
"to ensure that in future all civil cases can be dealt with at an appropriate level. In particular the Bill will enable general cases to be redistributed between the High Court and county courts according to their substance, importance and complexity". —[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 124.]
That may be my noble and learned friend's aim but I cannot see it adequately reflected in Clause 1. Clause 1 provides no clear indication of how the Lord Chancellor's aim is to be fulfilled, what will happen in any particular circumstance or what in general will be the nature of the orders that he makes. All we know is that in one case judicial review will not be effective.
So Clause 1 is just a framework enabling in effect the Lord Chancellor to do much as he likes. I should of course say the Lord Chancellor of the day whoever he may be since there is no time limit on the exercise of the powers under Clause 1.
I do not believe that consultations with the Lord Chief Justice and senior judges are a sufficient safeguard against the abuse of power by an Executive which increasingly dominates Parliament. I believe that there must be consent, and that must be written into the Bill.
I do not believe that Clause 1 as it now stands adequately reflects clear plans for the implementation of the Civil Justice Review. In that connection I refer the Committee to the statement on the Civil Justice Review made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 6th April last year (cols. 1293 to 1295 of Hansard refer). In a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Colwyn he set out at some length the Government's intention:
"by means of primary legislation, to reserve the High Court for public law and other specialist cases, and for general cases of unusual importance, substance or complexity".
To that end:
"The upper financial limit of county court jurisdiction will be removed. Entry to the High Court and eligibility for High Court trial will be regulated. The criteria for allocation of cases will include financial limits applied to particular classes of business".
Changes were also to be made with regard to personal injury cases, debt cases, housing possession cases, small claims jurisdiction and so on. Nothing was said about defamation cases. County courts would be given new powers to speed up trials, to split trials and to regulate proceedings.
I believe that matters of that significance to the public ought in any event to be in a separate Bill. But if we are to have that separate Bill tacked on to the Courts and Legal Services Bill then I do not
606
believe that there is any reason, even for administrative convenience, in the present state of our county courts about which we have heard that would justify giving the Lord Chancellor the enabling powers sought in Clause 1 as at present drafted. The noble and learned Lord himself has said that the implementation of the programme involved in the Civil Justice Review will take up to five years.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, while welcoming the objectives of Part I of the Bill, nevertheless on Second Reading (at cols. 151 to 152 of Hansard of 19th December) expressed the view that:
"if it were put into operation tomorrow the result would be a total shambles".
Moreover, he expressed the belief that:
"it should have taken a form in which primary legislation played a greater part".
That is a view which I strongly support.
I believe that the citizen has a vital interest in the administration of justice. It is not enough to say that legislation has a reforming objective and then leave it to the Executive—that is, mostly to officials—to settle the details and somehow make it work.
Again in the course of the Second Reading debate (col. 131) the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said:
"it is so easy for legislators to walk happily away from Parliament saying, 'We have now reformed matters. We have now done great things' ",
leaving someone else to carry out the enactment. He was speaking in the context of the present critical personnel and financial position of the county courts. However, I should say that his comment stands as a general declaration of principle. At one point this afternoon he indicated that in certain circumstances there might be no point in passing Part I of the Bill. Just because a Bill is called a reforming measure does not mean that it is a good Bill.
Nor do I believe that with legislation of this constitutional significance it is enough to say that we have a high regard for the present Lord Chancellor. I entirely agree with the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The business of Parliament is to be distrustful. The purpose of legislation is not to give powers to enable good Ministers to do what they think is right; it should be drafted in a way that ensures that bad Ministers cannot act arbitrarily. We all know that for practical purposes in regard to many of these matters Ministers tend to come and go—if not in or out of government, at least sideways —with such frequency that in practice "Minister" means "appropriate civil servant".
In winding up the Second Reading debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"I can certainly assure your Lordships that I shall do my best to produce a system which will be effective and beneficial for those who succeed us for however long that system may last". —[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 247.]
I am sure that that is so, but I do not believe that personal trust in a particular Lord Chancellor is a sufficient reason for passing an enabling Bill which is intended to last for any length of time. I strongly believe that the form as well as the content of legislation needs closer attention.

607
Perhaps I may conclude by once again using words much better than my own. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was absolutely right when he said on Second Reading that:
"almost every principle of the methodology which law reform ought to attract or which ought to be followed in law reform has been disregarded by the Government in relation to the Bill".—[Official Report, 19/12/89; col. 151.]
That is why I oppose the proposal that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Noble Lords have just heard a powerful speech made by a noble Lord of great legislative, parliamentary and ministerial experience and will want to give due weight to it. I have no quarrel with the thrust and intention of Clause 1. However, I wish to draw attention to a point implicit in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. The clause starts, as so many do, with the words:
"The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision".
That is symptomatic of the highly authoritarian spirit which animates the Bill and so much of the Government's activity.
I do not quarrel with the purpose and intention of Clause 1; but I want to question one or two aspects of its drafting. The first arises from subsection (6). Why has that not been conflated with the similar provision as to mandamus, prohibition and certiorari in Clause 3(3)? There may be a good answer, but at first sight it seems that a great deal of space, time and effort might have been avoided by conflating those two provisions.
Subsections (2) and (3) are far more important. Simultaneously last Session we had the sudden recrudescence in three Bills of the Henry VIII clause, which even with a second bureaucratic surge after the 1939–45 war had not been seen since the Donoughmore Report. Simultaneously we had this piece of drafting nonsense.
Subsection (2) gives in permissive and not mandatory form a general power. Subsection (3), again in permissive and not in mandatory form, gives particulars of the generality. Of course anything that is done under subsection (3) could be done perfectly well under subsection (2) without wasting some 10 lines of the statute book. My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton twitted me with wanting to add to the statute book by providing that when an Act of Parliament is amended or repealed it should be done by Parliament itself and not by the Minister arrogating to himself legislating powers. However, I should point out that concomitant with that I would omit those lines of subsection (3) and the whole of subsection (4).
But what is done in this Bill in subsections (3) and (4) goes considerably further and is more absurd than what was done in the last Session. Perhaps the Committee would look at Clause 82. Clause 82(1) gives a power to make orders. Clause 82(2) states that:
"Any such regulations or order may make different provision for different … classes of case".
I should have thought that that was unnecessary. But it is a formula much beloved of the draftsman and
608
now it probably comes out automatically from a computer. In those circumstances, I am bound to ask what subsection (2) adds to Clause 82(2). I hope that my noble and learned friend will specifically answer that question. If subsection (2) of Clause 1 did not exist, could he not do anything that that empowers him to do under Clause 82(2)?
But one goes further. I should be grateful if he could say whether anything he may do under subsection (3) could not be done under subsection (2). If the answer to those questions is yes, as I think it must be, it means that one is merely cluttering up the statute book with a prolixity of verbosity contrary to what was recommended by the Renton Committee. That is the second point that I wanted to make.
My third point concerns subsection (4). Somehow my noble and learned friend has convinced himself that there is no power to make an order under subsection (4). He asserted three times that it is only under subsection (1). So presumably he has convinced himself that it is only under subsection (1) that an order can be made. My noble and learned friend may have convinced himself but he has not convinced me. That means that either he or I must be in a state which theologians call invincible ignorance. If no order can be made under subsection (4) why does it begin, "An order under this section may"? If there is a provision to amend or repeal a statutory provision, is that made under subsection (4) or under subsection (1)? I simply cannot follow my noble and learned friend's argument. It seems to me that that is clearly yet another example of a Henry VIII clause.
I ask one other question. For dozens of years there has been profound dissatisfaction about the state of our statute book. That led in 1975 to the setting up of the Renton Committee on Preparation of Legislation. Matters have not improved since then. That is partly due to the reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, earlier —that the legislation committee seems to have abdicated its responsibilities. I fear that it is also because parliamentary counsel are under nobody's control. Formerly they came under the Treasury. Now they come under the Prime Minister who of course has many other things to do than to supervise the drafting of every Bill.
A short time ago Sir Robert Andrew was appointed by the Government to make recommendations about the Government Legal Service. He recommended that parliamentary counsel should come under the law officers. That recommendation was rejected, no doubt much to the satisfaction of parliamentary counsel. However, I was assured by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal at the time that that was unnecessary because every Bill was read by the law officers.
I believe that I am therefore entitled to ask: were subsections (2), (3) and (4) drawn to the attention of the law officers? I do not for a moment ask what advice they gave because I have always held strongly that what law officers advise should be confidential, although the Ministry appeared to take a rather more relaxed view at the time of the Westland issue.

609
However, I am entitled to ask whether those and similar provisions were drawn to the attention of the law officers.
It seems to me that the drafting of the clause is so unsatisfactory that it would be better to take it away again and redraft it.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: If the two greatest legal minds in the country at the present time disagree about the meaning of this legislation, what hope is there for ordinary mortals such as the rest of us to understand what is going on? Is that not a strong argument for at least having another look at the wording of the clause?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: If I may say so with respect, the noble Baroness has spoken with great common sense. The argument has been demonstrated before us. We have a former President of the Probate and Admiralty Division, a former Conservative Solicitor-General, and a Treasury Minister saying one thing, and we have a very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Rippon on the generality of the matter.
As legislators we are presented with a difficult position. When one has sat on the same Benches all one's life on the side of a government it is difficult when one is trying to reverse what is being proposed by a noble and learned friend. I hope that that is understood. However, we are trying to point out the fact that this is a matter of principle; it is giving to the Executive powers which we do not believe it should have.
Members on these Benches have always stood for ensuring that the powers of Ministers are limited and that they are expressly given by Parliament. When there is doubt about them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, they should be taken away and looked at again. They should be put before this House with certainty because, if there is uncertainty when they are before this House, what will happen when they go elsewhere?
The Bill looks as though it has been concocted. For reasons to which we shall come later the second part has been determined, rightly or wrongly. However, it appears that Part I has been drafted without being properly and seriously considered and thought through. The issue is of the greatest importance. It is easy to say, "They are a lot of laywers making lawyers' points. They are a lot of judges who, because they are judges, are making their speeches. They are a lot of banisters and ex-barristers looking at their own interests". It is easy to say that, but we are dealing with one of the most important constitutional Bills of our time and it should be made absolutely clear.
We must try to avoid the personal aspects in the argument: we must look at it purely as a matter for the Executive. With his great persuasiveness, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will explain that he is taking powers which are perfectly reasonable and sensible. Others do not appear to
610
agree. Members on these Benches were brought up to believe that we had to make perfectly clear the powers of a Minister and always wished to do so. Powers should be given only when Parliament has fully understood and accepted them and they should be limited by the exact words of statute. None of us on these Benches likes the idea of secondary legislation. We want to be able to give to Ministers their powers and say, "This is what your have been given so now go and do it and do not go a step beyond it".
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has expressed the position extremely well. What hope have ordinary Members, let alone members of the legislature, of understanding, accepting and believing in the Bill if we have the present confusion and conflict? After the powerful speeches that have been made in criticism of Clause 1, I ask my noble and learned friend —who is taking these powers in his personal capacity only because he holds his great office at the present time —to look at the matter most seriously and understand the concern which has been expressed today.
Earl Russell: Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I have no objection in principle to the objectives of the clause. I believe that making litigation cheaper is a laudable objective provided that that can be made compatible with the interests of justice. One must also concede that there must be a place for enabling legislation. The bulk of legislation and the bulk of the things which governments wish to do is now so great that without enabling legislation this Chamber would very often have to sit beyond midnight, when issues may not receive adequate scrutiny.
Nevertheless, having said that there is a place for enabling legislation, we should ensure that it is restricted. In each case the burden of proof should rest on those who wish to take enabling powers and that burden of proof should be heavy. In particular, I believe that the argument should be taken in this House. In another place, if the Members do not like enabling powers or if they do not like a statutory instrument, they may perfectly properly vote it down and reject it. For good reasons, we in this House exercise great restraint in doing that. Accordingly, the House must be particularly concerned with the powers of revision and scrutiny. It must be particularly concerned with the detail and with the viability of proposals put before it.
When measures are put forward in an enabling form, it is, to put it no stronger, a great deal more difficult for the House to give them the scrutiny they deserve. The noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, said that enabling powers were being used more and more frequently. I cannot but agree with that. I recall the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of my noble friend Lady Seear on the Northern Ireland education reform order. That was a very large measure indeed and one to whose revision this House could, as it showed in discussion, have made a very useful contribution. It was denied the opportunity to do so. The measure was an order and it could not be amended.

611
As I have said, there is a proper place, but that proper place should be defined in a way which enables us to decide whether it has been properly delineated. I look at subsection (2) and I find that orders may be made by reference to such criteria as the Lord Chancellor sees fit to specify in the order. I shall not know what those criteria may have been and, until I know, I cannot reach a decision on whether I believe that the powers are proper ones for this House to allow. The phrase evades the scrutiny of this House and I believe that that is a matter for regret as regards the dignity of the House.
I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, said about Henry VIII clauses. Nevertheless, in fairness, I must concede that there is a place for Henry VIII clauses. King Henry VIII himself—and I do not swear to my recollection but I believe that this is correct —first used the power in an order for varying the price of wine. In that context, where inflation, deflation or a change in economic circumstances may demand variation, there is a proper place for using such a clause. I do not believe that it is always improper. However, I believe that it is usually improper and I think about that, as I think about enabling powers, that it must carry with it a very heavy burden of proof.
In that context, I look at subsection (4) and ask myself whether there is a sufficient delineation of the circumstances in which the Henry VIII clause may be invoked. Are we told in precisely what circumstances the Crown may vary legislation? I find that subsection (4) states:
"An order under this section may amend or repeal any provision made by or under any enactment relating to the jurisdiction, practice or procedure of the Surpeme Court".
I cannot help thinking that that is a great deal too wide. When I think about it, I do not know what it will mean. I cannot decide, without knowing what it is to mean, whether I am for it or against it. If I cannot decide whether I am for it or against it, the only proper parliamentary response is to say that, until I am sure, I am against it.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I rise merely to point out that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor very wisely, but after much persuasion, said on several of the amendments to Clause 1 that he was prepared to consider the arguments made. I merely wish to ask him, particularly when considering Clause 1 in the light of our debates, to bear in mind the very powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether I would be deemed impertinent if I asked the Committee to view some of the speeches that have been made on clause stand part with a degree of common sense. I believe that that plea was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she referred to hearing two eminent lawyers differ as to whether Part I was a perfectly sensible and proper arrangement for subordinate legislation and another very learned Lord speak in terms which suggested that there were
612
many faults in the drafting and that this was not a subject for subordinate legislation in the way it had been dealt with in this Bill.
My plea for common sense is based upon this supposition. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to put into effect certain administrative acts in order to carry out the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. Those recommendations in the main are for the transfer of certain jurisdictions from the High Court to the county court. He may decide that it would lead to economy and expedition if one day something was transferred from the county court to the High Court. He is in no position, and admits it, to reduce the present jurisdiction of the High Court. He has said so and this is clear from the Bill.
My point on this clause was a very different one when I found I had to vote against the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on something to which I shall quickly refer in a moment. Are we to imagine that we as legislators should have in Part I a full scheme —which in any event obviously is turning over in the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the moment —where items are set down in a Bill, where powers, jurisdiction, procedure and so on are dealt with and cut into tablets of stone unless there is amending legislation for the transfer of work from the High Court to the county court? If we imagine that we are misusing, in my respectful view, the whole purpose of primary legislation, enabling legislation and subordinate legislation. Quite obviously within the limits of not being able to take away jurisdiction from the High Court the obvious way of dealing with the detail of this matter must be by way of an administrative order which comes before Parliament.
I do not in any way detract from the noble speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. I call it a noble speech because he was speaking in general terms about the way in which Parliament ought to limit the rather expansive way in which subordinate legislation is coming before us. On that general principle I stand behind him from these Benches. However, when one is dealing quite literally with what jurisdiction and procedures one intends to transfer for administrative convenience, can one really envisage this being put into an Act of Parliament so that every time one wants to alter or add to it one presumably either does it by order —in which case why can it not be done by order from the start—or there has to be amending legislation? I finish on this note. My quarrel, if I can call it that, with the noble and learned Lord was that subsection (4) was frightening. The Lord Chancellor can make an order which revokes any enactment that deals with jurisdiction or anything similar to that, whether it is concerned with practice or procedure. That looked very frightening until the noble and learned Lord said that in his view he could only do that within the purview of subsection (1). That means only for the purposes of transferring the jurisdiction, for example, to the county court. He said that it is only for that purpose that he can do away with an enactment either by repeal or amendment.

613
I then made a plea to the noble and learned Lord and said in so many words that it may be as a result of my lack of intelligence or power of interpretation of statutes that this provision is not clear to me and to others who have participated in the debate. This power is so limited. I asked the noble and learned Lord whether he would take away the measure and look at it again with a view to clarifying the limitations of subsection (4). He said that he would without agreeing with anything that I had said. Nevertheless, he undertook to do this.
With that undertaking, is it seriously suggested by those who have contributed a view to the Committee that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill? If one is to stop subordinate legislation from carrying out the purposes of Clause 1, is it seriously suggested that the detail of the transfers should be incorporated in a Bill which will become an Act? I repeat that the Act can only be amended —and because we want it to be flexible we know that it will be amended from time to time—either by the subordinate legislation to which the objectors to Clause 1 seem to pin their faith or by amending legislation which would waste the time of Parliament and take a long time to carry through, thus ruining its flexibility. That is the reason why I thought it was proper to ask the Committee at this stage where this kind of argument was leading and whether the whole argument was necessary if subsection (4) is looked at again.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: At Second Reading of the Bill I made two observations which are relevant to the present discussion. This Bill contains about 120 pages and 13 schedules. There are two quite separate purposes behind the Bill. One is to give effect to the Civil Justice Review in so far as it pertains to the county court and the High Court jurisdiction, practice and procedure. The other is to alter radically the constitutional structure of the legal profession.
Perhaps I have said too much in the past about these matters, but I repeat now the two criticisms which I made and which have been illustrated by what has been said as regards Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. Part I of the Bill —I am not now speaking only of Clause 1 —ought to have been a Bill in its own right. If it had been a Bill in its own right, we would not be in this muddle. If it had been a Bill in its own right, there would not have been so much confused draftsmanship and so much need for secondary legislation.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may say a few words following the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and that of the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, who I thought brought this discussion into perspective. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had gone to his colleagues in the Government and said that he wanted time to implement the Civil Justice Review and that he required a separate Bill, he would probably have been turned down and given time for the implementation of the Civil Justice Review only if it were made, as it has now been made, Part I of the Bill. I should have thought that it is a matter of
614
commendation for the noble and learned Lord that he has persuaded his colleagues that this important matter should be put at the forefront of the Bill.
Had he not managed to do so, I fear that the Civil Justice Review would never have been implemented. It is very much to his credit that he has been able to do this. Nobody has so far given him credit. I very much wish to do that. It may be that he will not be able for some time to implement it in the way that noble Lords would wish because he may not be able to get enough money for it. But when and if he can get enough money he will be able to implement it. It is a crying shame that he should be attacked in this way.
Secondly, if we follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, this will not be described as an abdication of parliamentary procedure. If it is introduced as a separate piece of legislation and all other matters are introduced as separate pieces of legislation it will be described as an inundation of Parliament. We are already the most highly occupied Parliament in the world in respect of legislation. No other legislature spends so much time on legislation. Yet here is the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, asking us to double that amount of time. It is absolutely crazy in modern times.
We must get the balance right, but [if we go along the lines suggested by the noble Lord we shall be working for 365 days a year, morning, noon and night. That is not the way forward. To return in the last decade of the century to Lord Hewart and the Donoughmore Committee is backward looking and futile. We must pay regard to the balance between primary and secondary legislation but I regard the present balance which the Lord Chancellor is putting forward as just about right. I do not believe that enough credit is given to the scrutiny given by Parliament to delegated legislaton or the opportunities there are for objection when delegated legislation is brought forward.
Henry VIII did not have the advantage of subsection (6). Indeed if he had been given that advantage he would have chopped the head off whoever happened to propose that subsection (6) should limit his powers. Of course he did not. The important subsection compelling the Lord Chancellor to consult means that he will not act without due consideration of the views of those who matter most among the judiciary.
If we do not allow this kind of balanced legislation to be put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or by governments in the future we shall be bogged down with primary legislation. That cannot be a good thing for the country. The way forward proposed by the noble and learned Lord is the right one. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and I have heard it said many times, that while one has personal trust in a Minister —in this case the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—one does not know what kind of ogre will succeed him. However, we must have regard to the immense apparatus in this country for criticism of the government. One must have regard to the continuity of government as represented by the Civil Service, much maligned though it is.

615
It is not easy for one succeeding Lord Chancellor to undo the work of a previous Lord Chancellor which has had not only the approval of Parliament but also the agreement of the country and of the judiciary. Therefore I would ask noble Lords not to pay too much regard to what is to my mind
616
something of an antiquated and ossified protest about a Henry VIII clause. Henry VIII did not have any of the vast apparatus of the restraining factors which inhibit the actions of modern government. I think that the balance is just about right in the Bill and I commend the noble and learned Lord for having brought it forward.
10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Fellow feeling makes us wondrous wise and having arrived in my room at 8 o'clock this morning and sat in the Appellate Committee, I am now conscious of what the junior hospital doctor must go through every day. I say that by way of an anticipatory apology because I do not think that I follow the constant references to the fact that there can be no reduction of the High Court jurisdiction under this Act. If one looks at page 2, paragraph (e) states that the Lord Chancellor may by order specify,
"proceedings which may be commenced only in a county court".
Then under paragraph (g) it says that he may specify,
"proceedings which may be taken only in a county court".
I should have thought that means that he can say hereafter that all actions for personal injuries shall take place only in the county court and that all actions for tort and for breach of contract can take place only in the county court. I should have understood that as reducing the jurisdiction of the High Court because you cannot then go to the High Court for such actions. However, if I am wrong I pray in aid the defence of the hospital doctor.
The second point I wish to make is this. Congratulations have been offered to my noble and learned friend for managing to get Part I of the Bill through at this stage. I do not join in those congratulations because I think that this is all part of the unseemly haste to which reference has been made. It has gone through in a rush and that is why there have been complaints about the drafting. Further, it has not taken the form of primary legislation because that takes a great deal longer and requires a great deal more thought. The situation leaves the Executive with the option to fill it in just as they wish without parliamentary scrutiny.
The Bill has been rushed in for the simple reason that the "Legal Services" referred to in Part II cannot be justified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as saving any cost or adding any expedition. That is so because he has, on the one hand, the Royal Commission saying, "What you propose to do will involve more cost and less access"; and, on the other hand, as we know from the constant inquiries made by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver, no form of research or study has been carried out to evaluate the consequences of Part II. Therefore, Part I has been put in as the only keynote upon which the noble and learned Lord can say, "Look how committed we are to assisting the public".
We were told not to refer to legal aid because it is not included in the Act. However, my noble friend Lord Irvine very understandably said, "I will refer to it because it pours doubt on the Government's commitment to improve access". In the same way, he referred to the county court situation. He said that it made the phrase which appears in the Official Report of 19th December 1989 at col. 122:
"Our keynote is to improve access to justice for all who need it"
tantamount to humbug. That is not judicial language and of course I do not adopt it. However, congratulations for producing a Bill which ought to be free standing should not be offered in the context
618
of this case where, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said, we are floating Part II on its back so as to at least point to something to justify the prospect of assisting the Government in making out their keynote phrase, "We are concerned to improve justice".
Earl Russell: The noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Henderson of Brompton, made some powerful points which compel attention. However, I should like to be allowed —if I may adopt legal language —to confess and avoid some of those points. I am well aware of the threat of an overwhelming flood of primary legislation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, is also aware of that threat. One of the parliamentary moments I shall not soon forget is when he dropped the Water Bill. If I had been a security man I should have been in danger of a heart attack at that moment. I do not wish to argue —I do not imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, wishes to argue —that everything should be embodied in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, might perhaps consider the possibility that there is some undistributed middle between his argument and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon.
It is not being suggested that everything should be put into primary legislation. It is being suggested that the general principles should perhaps be spelt out in rather more detail than they have been spelt out in the Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about subsection (4). It was a point well made, which I hope may receive some attention; but at the very lowest level, I should like to ask whether the wording of subsection (2) could also be included in any reconsideration which might be given to the clause.
Lord Boardman: We have been debating whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. If Clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill, then Part I falls. It is common ground in all parts of the House that the objective of Part I is to deal with clogging up of litigation through the courts and the delays and problems that are caused. For the past seven hours or so we have been debating what Clause 1 does and the problems that it creates. In that time, a number of assurances have been given by my noble and learned friend that the points raised have been much in his mind although he has not given an undertaking about what he will do. It is therefore now appropriate for us to decide that Clause 1 should remain part of the Bill. We shall have the opportunity to return to those points at a later stage.
The Lord Chancellor: It might be appropriate for me to comment before the Question whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill is put to the Committee. I do not propose to go over everything that has been said. However, as I understood what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said in his speech on Second Reading, when he criticised parts of the Bill as ignoring every principle of law reform, he

619
expressly excepted from that criticism Part I, and we are now dealing with Part I. I do not necessarily agree with all he said about the other parts of the Bill; but that criticism was not applied to Part I for the good reason that Part I proceeds on the report of the Civil Justice Review which is outside government.
I invite the Committee to make it clear by amendment, if the Committee wishes, what principles should be adopted. The central principle that I have adopted is that judicial review should remain the exclusive province of the High Court. I believe that to be the fundamental safeguard for powers such as this. That means that any order that I or any successor of mine makes under the clause will be subject to that judicial review. One of the principles upon which judicial review operates is that the purpose for which Parliament gave the powers is fundamental to a proper use of them.
I thought I had dealt with subsection (4) and made it quite clear that I would try to make it even plainer than it is. I am sorry that I have not convinced my noble and learned friend. Perhaps the best way to resolve the problem is to alter the wording to make it clearer. I shall certainly try to examine it.
I shall look at subsection (2), but its purpose is to make it clear that different types of proceedings may be treated differently and to introduce the criteria. I have tried to specify and to give as much notice as possible of what I have in mind as criteria. These are the criteria that occur to me at the moment. I do not rule out the possibility that with refinement and consultation other criteria might emerge. However I am being as straightforward as I can in indicating the nature of the criteria that have so far occurred to me. Apart from the question of the interests and wishes of the parties, no one has suggested any improvement on these.
The purpose of the clause is to enable us, within the constitutional safeguard that the judicial review is restricted to the High Court, to make flexible arrangements as between the two courts about what should be done. As I said earlier, I intend that the allocation will be on the basis recommended by the Civil Justice Review. However, difficult questions are involved in that; for example, specifying degrees of complexity and so on. I think it is quite possible that experience of working a distinction of that kind might show up difficulties in its formulation. We want to be able to improve that as time goes on. Therefore it is abundantly practical to do it in this way. As I have said, the constitutional safeguards are included.
I wish to say one more word about subsection (4). The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also started reading it but it is important to read the end of subsection (4)(a):
"In consequence of any provision made by the order".
That is a provision of the type mentioned in Clause 1(1)(a) to (g). I envisage that the cases would be dealt with and allocated according to the suggestions made by the Civil Justice Review. Members of the Committee know what that is so I shall not take up time by specifying.
620
Regarding the courts themselves, to some extent I have dealt with them and I wish to put on record some further facts about them. If we base ourselves on the figures suggested by the Civil Justice Review —that is, an upper limit of 50,000 cases for a county court and a lower limit of 25,000 for general cases in the High Court—the number of additional trials that would move to the county courts from the High Court would be around 1,500. The total number of full trials in the county courts is about 10,000 in any one year at present. The additional burden in the county courts over and above those now being dealt with and the cases being sent down is not a very high proportion of the cases being dealt with at present.
This low number of additional cases is because many are already being transferred down. A number of circuit judges are currently sitting as deputy High Court judges, hearing cases in the High Court of the kind that would be transferred to the county court under the new arrangements.
Much has been said about present difficulties in the courts and it has been suggested that these are of recent origin. I do not propose to deal with every detailed point that has been made but there are one or two facts which I should like to mention.
At the beginning of 1987 the average waiting time for all cases in the Crown Courts was just over 13·5 weeks. By autumn 1989 it had fallen to 11·5 weeks. The number of outstanding cases has been reduced significantly and the average waiting time for custody cases in London is currently lower than at any time during the past eight years.
Turning to the county courts, at the end of 1987 only about 55 per cent. of the main office work —for example, the originating process and the production of orders of the court —was dealt with within five working days of receipt. That figure rose to around 80 per cent. in the first quarter of the present financial year. In the past year the system has been under pressure, with some courts experiencing particular difficulties. One factor has been a larger than usual increase in workload. Following a number of years when the increase was around 3 per cent. —even less in 1988 —the increase so far this year is over twice the usual level. There are about 270 courts, which deal annually with over 2 million summonses, 1·3 million warrants and 180,000 divorce petitions, so that increases of the magnitude I have mentioned have a considerable impact.
I have already mentioned the action I am taking to reduce the burden of routine administrative work on the court staff, and I do not think I need repeat that. My belief is that, considering the volume of work with which the county courts deal, the number of complaints which are made —which is not something about which I am in any way complacent —has to be seen in perspective.
In my submission, these powers are correctly circumscribed. I have given as much indication as I possibly can of the criteria which will be used. My intention is that these be the criteria, but I do not think it would be wise to rule out others. Accordingly, I hope that the Committee will feel that it is right that Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.

621
So far as congratulations are concerned, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has made some submissions, and I am content to leave that to your Lordships.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I hope the Committee will feel it has been right to have a general debate on the scope of Clause 1. I am grateful to those Members who have given some support to the anxieties that I have expressed. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for indicating that he is prepared to look seriously at the drafting of some of the clauses.
If I may say so with respect, I have found merit in all the speeches to which I have listened, with the possible exception of that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I did not feel that what he had to say was relevant to the argument that we had been trying to present. I believe not only that there has been a deterioration in the quality of legislation but that there has been too great an increase in the quantity of legislation. The fact that one asks for legislation to be well drafted does not imply that one wants more of it. My view is that we should not have had 50 Acts of Parliament affecting local government in the last 10 years had some of them been properly drafted in the first place. That is another consideration entirely.
I also agree with the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not say that there should be no subordinate legislation. I would not go further than the Donoughmore Committee, which, although subsequently there were no examples of Henry VIII clauses, did say in those ossified days to which reference has been made that the Henry VIII clause should, as I have indicated, be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases and should not be permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds stated in the ministerial memorandum of the Bill. I wish that that could become policy.
I am grateful, as I have often been in the past, to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for agreeing with me in general, through of course not in particular. He may tomorrow read the speech made tonight by the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, in Chesterfield, expressing the view that Labour's new charter of rights was like the emperor's new clothes: it is all bluster and no substance. I hope he will not think I am cynical when I say that I see some substance in the Liberal leader's view that Labour still wants to enjoy the same unchecked degree of central power that has been used and abused by the present government. They still have some hopes on the Benches opposite that they may be able to exercise those untramelled powers themselves.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is always amusing, even at this time of night when it is much appreciated. May I say in all frankness that part of my speech was due to the caution born of the realisation that these Benches may be in a rather
622
more responsible position in a few years' time? I shall then welcome the criticism of the noble Lord on the subordinate legislation that is put forward.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: The noble Lord may well be the Lord Chancellor; we may have a solicitor as Lord Chancellor, or even, one day, a major-general. All I would say is that I believe some aspects of Clause 1 give substance to the idea that the question of constitutional reform is now rising to the top of the political agenda. I only hope that this Chamber will show that it still has the will to safeguard the essential rights of the people of this country and prevent the abuse of power by the Executive. Having said that, and having received assurances from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he will look at the way in which Clause 1 is presently drafted, I shall not seek to go further tonight.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Transfer of proceedings between courts]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 4, leave out ("by any procedure provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have reached a fairly late hour and this has been a day and evening of heavy grind. I wonder whether before I move Amendment No. 16 I could have an indication from the Government as to what their intentions are with regard to further sitting this evening. I should he very happy to move instead of my amendment the Motion that the House do now resume.
Viscount Davidson: It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should continue at least until 10.45 p.m., so my noble friend can carry on.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I do not know what the usual channels are in this connection. I was assured that the Committee would adjourn between 10.30 and 10.45 and not that we should sit at least until 10.45.
Viscount Davidson: It is rather difficult tonight. The usual channels are not working very well. There are too many channels. It may be convenient to the Committee if I say that we should adjourn not later than 10.46.
Lord Renton: Therefore I shall speak to Amendment No. 16 and, as suggested in the groupings, also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28.
I am drawing attention to what I find a very difficult and rather unusual piece of drafting. We find at the top of page 3 that Section 40 of the County Courts Act is to be rewritten as proposed. The new subsection (1) of Section 40 reads:
"Where the High Court is satisfied that any proceedings before it are required by any procedure provision"—
and I have moved the amendment to leave out the words "procedure provision" in order to find a peg on which to hang the matter—

623
"to be in a county court it shall —

(a) order the transfer of the proceedings to a county court; or

(b) order that they be struck out".

In considering this, the High Court will have to consider what is a procedure provision. It will have to turn to subsection (8) at the top of page 4. There we find that:
"In this section 'procedure provision' means any provision made" —
believe it or not—
"under section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990"—
that is, Clause 1 which we have been discussing at some length nearly all day —
"or under any other enactment".
Under Clause 1 we need to refer back, alas —and I do so with some reluctance because it has been referred to ad nauseam —to subsection (4) where we find reference to:
"any enactment relating to … the jurisdiction, practice or procedure of the Supreme Court".
It may well be that a procedure provision, quite apart from the definition given at the top of page 4, is a term of art already in the statute law, but I have not been able to find that that is so.
I have looked at the Notes on Clauses which by courtesy of the Government have for some years been made available to us on complicated Bills of this kind. There is no indication there as to whether it is already a term of art in statute law or whether this is something new. I suspect that it must be something new because the draftsman found that it was necessary to refer back to Clause 1. Just the same point arises in the amendment of Section 42 of the 1984 Act which we find referred to in Clause 2(3). One sees in the middle of page 4 exactly the same words relating to transfer to the High Court by order of a county court. Again on page 5 in the new subsection (7) of Section 42 as rewritten we find the same definition of "procedure provision"; namely, that it means any provision made under Section 1 of this Act or any other enactment.
I hope that I may be forgiven for being a little bit puzzled by this, but when we enact matters which must be interpreted by the High Court we should not place Her Majesty's judges of the High Court in any state of doubt. They will have to refer to Clause 1 in order to interpret the powers of the High Court in the case of new Section 40 and the powers of the county court in the case of new Section 42 —and they are fairly full powers of transfer —in the light of the definition of "procedure provision" which they must find by reference to Clause 1.
Quite frankly, this is a rather difficult method of drafting. It is a kind of internal cross-reference. That is not entirely unusual but in this case it does not lead to clarity, at any rate as it seems to me. This is therefore a probing amendment, an effort to obtain clarification as to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind and to invite his attention to it just in case after he has considered the drafting he may be able to make the matter much clearer so that the judges of the High Court and the county courts respectively may be sure that they
624
are exercising the powers given in the way that Parliament intended. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I was puzzled by a slightly different point from that which puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Renton; namely:
" 'procedure provision' means any provision made—

(a) under section 1 … or

(b) by or under any other enactment".

That is obviously nonsense. It cannot be right. I am not sure what my noble and learned friend has in mind. All I can do at this hour is to ask him to look at paragraph (b). Procedural provision cannot mean any provision under any Act. Whatever it does mean, it cannot mean that.
10.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: Indeed, it is intended to mean exactly that. It is intended to make a little easier the wording of the new Section 40. With respect, if, instead of "procedure provision" one reads the definition of procedure provision into the section, one will find that it makes perfect sense.
The point is that if, by virtue of an enactment made by or under any statutory provision, the proceedings are to be in a county court, then the High Court has two possibilities: either it may transfer the case to the county court —in other words it may deal with the case by transferring it to the county court —or, if it wishes, it may strike the case out. That is all that it says. It seems to me to be simple.
One could do it in other ways, but the idea is by using the phrase "procedure provision" to produce a comprehensive phrase which shortens the statement of new Section 40(1) to make it apparent. The emphasis is on the power of the court when faced with a restriction of the proceedings to the county court. What does the High Court do? This is what it has been told to do.
With respect, it is quite simple. If my noble friend can suggest some better way of achieving the same result, I should be happy to consider it. Perhaps we could do that before Report stage.
Lord Renton: As my noble and learned friend said, and as is clear, "procedure provision" under the definition given in subsection (8) of the new Section 40 and subsection (7) of the new Section 42 refers to any statutory provisions. Surely there are procedure provisions which arise from time to time under the rules of court. Therefore it would mean that if there were a procedure provision which arises from a rule of court it would, by implication, presumably be excluded by the definition which limits the meaning only to statutory provisions and not any provisions made under rules of court.
The Lord Chancellor: The provision is "by or under any … enactment", and the powers to make rules of court are under the County Courts Act and the Supreme Court Act. So these rules are made under enactment also.
Lord Renton: That is very interesting and helpful. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.

625
With that clarification, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I may not call Amendment No. 18.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 7, leave out from ("court") to end of line 8.
The noble Lord said: In addressing the Committee on Amendment No. 17, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 25 tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord. I anticipate that this will probably be the last set of amendments that the Committee will consider this evening. If I give an undertaking to the Chamber that I shall end my peroration no later than 10.45 p.m., and if the noble and learned Lord responds to the request that I make to him on all three of these amendments —to take them away for further consideration —then the Committee should be able to rise by 11.46 p.m. —I mean 10.46 p.m. It is my intention to be helpful to the Committee and not to extend to it an hour of further business.
All these amendments address one issue in the proposed new Sections 40 and 42 of the County Courts Act 1984. Therefore the parallel of the amendments which I am presenting to the Committee lies in the power of the order to strike out under Clause 2 subsections (1) and (3) of the Bill.
The Committee will see that Clause 2 seeks to re-enact the provision currently in the County Courts Act under Section 40 concerning the transfer of proceedings to the county court. It then seeks to re-enact Section 42 of the County Courts Act in reference to the transfer of proceedings from the High Court to the county court.
Applying the same test —that the court is satisfied that the proceedings ought to have been brought in the other court —the High Court, under subsection 2, and the county court, under subsection (3), have two courses of action available to them. One is to give an order of transfer of the proceedings to the other court. The alternative is that the proceedings should be struck out. It is my submission to the Committee that the order for striking out, whether given in the High Court or county court, is an extremely draconian measure and should not be included in the Bill. It imposes very severe consequences on the parties—consequences of having to restart proceedings in the other court, and of delay and additional cost.
In his amendment to subsections (1) and (3) the noble and learned Lord adopts the form of the provision that is to be found in Section 34(2) of the County Courts Act. I think I am right in saying that there is no parallel existing legislation referring to the transfer from the High Court to the county court. Of course there are certain circumstances in which the High Court can strike out proceedings. But it does not exist currently, as I understand it, under the High Court's power to transfer proceedings from the High Court to the county court. I shall be corrected if I am wrong. To that extent the noble and
626
learned Lord is seeking to introduce new legislation, albeit now putting it under the more cautionary terms of his amendment.
I seek to persuade the noble and learned Lord to consider all three of these amendments again. The noble and learned Lord has been wiser than me because he has tabled the parallel amendment under subsection (3), while I have not done so. But it is the same issue that exists under Clause 2(3). I seek to persuade the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that this provision should not be here. I am very grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls is still with us at this late hour, because this is a matter that directly concerns the conduct of business and the relationship between the High Court and the county courts.
I suggest that there are four reasons why this matter should be given further consideration and why the power of striking out should not be contained in these two clauses. First —I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls will correct me if I am wrong—it is a provision that is rarely used. I cannot recollect an occasion when the court has chosen to make that draconian order. It will have chosen to make the sensible and right order to transfer the litigation into the proper court and if any sanctions were needed then the court will have applied a sanction —an order for costs against the party which commenced the proceedings in the wrong forum.
That leads me to the second reason. That is the need test. We must look at the provision afresh. If the amendment is needed, then I suggest with all respect to the noble and learned Lord that we have to satisfy the test that it is a needed power. If it has not been used and is of an unnecessary severity then it should fail the need test.
I am asking the noble and learned Lord to take a fresh look at the provision for two further reasons. The striking out provision is hardly compatible with a Bill whose aim in Part I is to increase access to justice. Also it could cause injustice in circumstances where lay persons are conducting the litigation and the lay person has made the mistake of commencing proceedings in the wrong forum. The Committee will see in Clause 1(3) that a more complicated criterion is now required. In my submission, that increases the risk that injustice could arise as a result of the application of the striking-out provision.
In short, I suggest that justice will be fully served by having only the order for transfer. That is what the matter is all about and there is no need for this draconian striking-out power. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: While the provision for striking out is drastic, I envisage that it will be used only sparingly. I suggest that the answer to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is to be found in Amendment No. 18 tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It will properly qualify the circumstances in which proceedings will be struck out. They will be struck out only if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew or ought to have known of the requirement which he has overlooked.

627
The innocent lay person who quite properly the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is concerned to protect will be protected by the qualification which is to be added by Amendment No. 18.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The debate appears to have proceeded upon the basis that a novel provision is being introduced by my noble and learned friend. If I attend any future Committee debates on the Bill I must bring with me a copy of the County Courts Act. However, I am certain that the provision is taken from the transfer provisions of the County Courts Act 1984.
Lord Hacking: That is right.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Under that provision, if one begins one's case in the wrong county court and the question of transfer arises, it can be transferred to another convenient county court or struck out.
It so happens that I was involved in a case concerning the Anglian Water Board in which it issued proceedings in a court which appeared to it to be reasonable and convenient. A village Hampden decided that it was not the right court. He proceeded to challenge the issue and the county court judge struck it out. We in the Court of Appeal were then faced with exactly the problem which has been discussed tonight. We said, "No, this really will not do. Of course transfer it to a court which is convenient to the village Hampden (the Anglian Water Board can put up with it) but do not strike it out". I do not wish to single out the Anglian Water Board but it happens that it was involved. However, if it tried to do so again that would be a different matter and I should be strongly in favour of striking out the case.
I am perfectly happy to accept the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, although, with the greatest respect to him, I do not believe that it is necessary. It is the way in which the courts would operate the provision in any event.
The Lord Chancellor: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls. Originally I intended that the court would have fairly wide discretions as regards subsection (1)(b). However, on reconsidering the matter, and seeing that in Section 34(2) of the County Courts Act, which is a good precedent, there appears the phrase used in Amendment No. 18, I thought that it may be as well to express it.
The object is to prevent people abusing the possibility and in that case giving the court the power to adopt a draconian remedy in the belief that it will prevent such an event happening again. The remarks made by my noble and learned friend suggest that the power given under the County Courts Act has been effective in that respect. As far as I can judge, it has been seldom used. I hope that this power will be used even less because I hope that such events will not occur too often. I shall consider what the
628
noble Lord has said. If he will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment, I might be allowed to move my Amendment No. 18 and complete the proceedings.
Lord Hacking: In view of the representations made by the noble and learned Lord, I readily agree and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 8, after ("(b)") insert ("if the court is satisfied that the person bringing the proceedings knew, or ought to have known, of that requirement,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
British Railways (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]
Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
North Yorkshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
Port of Tyne Bill [H.L.]
Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Australia, and Menley & James, Australia Bill [H.L.]
Spitfire Quay (Southampton) Bill [H.L.]
Standard Life Assurance Company Bill [H.L.]
Read a first time.
House adjourned at a quarter before eleven o'clock.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES
  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MEDICINAL DRUGS
  DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MEDICINAL DRUGS
  NEW ROAD AND TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
  NEW ROAD AND TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION
  URBAN PROGRAMME RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS
  URBAN PROGRAMME RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS