Sitting of 14 November 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
    Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Constitutional Reform
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals concerning constitutional reform he plans to discuss with representatives of the Irish Government and the political parties of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): It remains our objective to transfer substantial power and responsibility to locally elected politicians on a widely acceptable basis within a framework of stable relationships. To this end, the talks held earlier this year were constructive and valuable and, I believe, laid a useful foundation for further developments. I am currently in contact with the four main constitutional parties and with the Irish Government to establish whether a basis for fresh political talks can be found.
    Dr. Godman: Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, briefly to offer my deepest sympathy, by way of a supplementary question, to the families of those who were so horrifically murdered or injured both yesterday and today in Belfast? Do not these apparently daily murders make plain and stark the need for political developments to take place? In the short run, however, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it is his intention to set a time limit beyond which talks will not be pursued by Her Majesty's Government until after the next general election?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the sympathy, which I endorse, that has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the families concerned.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's view that talks on political development constitute a contribution to moving towards stabilisation and peace in the Province. We are continuing to explore with the parties. I have not yet concluded the
    1212
    exploration, and I think that it would be a mistake for me to make any premature statement about our next intentions, but I shall keep the House informed.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that the people of Northern Ireland will appreciate his expressions of sympathy and those of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), directed to those who suffered in the terrible massacre that took place last night and to the relatives of the person who was murdered this morning?
    When the Secretary of State sees the Republican representatives again, will he put to them the revulsion that was felt by the Unionist community and by a large section of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland when Mr. Haughey attempted to foist into the Anglo-Irish Conference a new Minister for Defence? It is clear from the man's record that he was an ally of a man who escaped from Northern Ireland and who is wanted in Northern Ireland to pay part of the price for the crime that he committed. He was found guilty of attempting to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment man.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening expression of sympathy. I should say in the context of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that at no stage during the time that I have been Secretary of State has the Minister for Defence for the Republic of Ireland taken part in the conference.
    Mr. William Ross: What protest did the Government make to the Dublin authorities about the attempt to get Dr. James McDaid into such a key position? Would the Secretary of State have been prepared to sit at the same table—[Interruption.] I repeat, would the Secretary of State and his colleagues have been prepared to sit at the same table with that man, within the confines of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? If not, how could they have avoided it?
    Mr. Brooke: I shall first answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have just said that at no stage during the time that I have been Secretary of State has the Irish Defence Minister taken part in any conference talks. On the first part of the question, events moved so rapidly in Dublin last night that by the time that I had heard that the Minister had been appointed, I gather that he had also resigned.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Devolution may in due course come to Northern Ireland, but before it arrives do not the Government have it in their power, at a stroke, to restore some degree of democracy to the people of Ulster by establishing a Select Committee? I appeal to the Secretary of State not to deny the people of Ireland the basic and fundamental right of full democracy.
    Mr. Brooke: Later I will have the privilege of answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on that matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is a subject in which I take the keenest interest.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is quite outrageous that people should stand up in this Chamber and attack the character of someone who is not here to defend himself? I am the only Member of this House who knows Dr. James McDaid—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen for a change. Dr. McDaid's

    1213
    constituency and mine are separated by the border, so we work together on common issues. I categorically state that that man in no way supports the IRA or any paramilitary organisation.
    Given the stark position on the streets of Northern Ireland, is it not the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility to set a date for the reconvening of talks, so that they can begin where they ended? Whatever difficulties individual parties may have with resuming talks, are they not put well into the shade by the stark reality of events on the streets?
    Mr. Brooke: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about his parliamentary neighbour. On the question of reconvening the talks, I said consistently in the summer that our talks had concluded and that we would need to re-examine the basis for fresh talks. I think that the hon. Gentleman will know what I mean when I say that in the context of coming towards the end of a particular available time, whether it is the time for talks or the time for a general election, there is reluctance among certain parties—and I make this remark generally—to turn their cards face upwards if there is any danger that other people will not have turned their cards face upwards by the time the whistle blows.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as time moves so does opinion on this matter in England, Scotland and Wales? If there is to be detailed discussion of constitutional change, does he accept that the politicians who represent constituencies in England and Scotland and Wales will need to be consulted, and that he may well find that opinions have shifted substantially since the House last discussed the issue?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I say that I had some difficulty in persuading everybody to come round a table when I was talking only to the parties in Northern Ireland. If I were to bring in everybody else within the United Kingdom, it might be some time before we foregathered.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no romanticism or glory in shooting babies—or, indeed, shooting and murdering anyone? As the whole House has shown this afternoon, recent events in Belfast have considerably underlined the need for the political leaders within the Province to come together to find some solution to the problems that is acceptable throughout both communities and within the island of Ireland?
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the previous set of talks had concluded, and that we were looking at the new basis for talks. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it is the three strands that will form the basis of any future talks, and that against that background there will always be the Anglo-Irish Agreement, until the two Governments feel that they have something that transcends it?
    Mr. Brooke: I share the hon. Gentleman's views in the context of the six-week-old baby, just as I do in the context of the children in the school playground who were under threat this morning when the attack was made on the taxi driver. As to coming together for further talks, I think that I speak for all those who were involved in the talks in the summer, which we concluded, when I say that those who took part in them felt that they were valuable and looked forward to the possibility of being able to hold talks again.
    1214
    It was further agreed that their structure, and the basis on which we conducted them, was a sensible way of covering all the questions which are at issue.

    Transport Workers (Security)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to enhance the security of taxi drivers and other transport workers in the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) has recently announced changes in the regulations and administrative arrangements governing taxis. Those are aimed at reducing the risk of terrorist attack to both drivers and passengers while, in the public interest, continuing to allow the easy identification of legitimate taxis and drivers.
    Mr. Barnes: The terrible attack on a taxi driver in St. Mary's primary school yard today, which also affected the school children within that area, must be condemned and sympathy should be expressed to everyone who has been affected by this terrible act.
    Representations have been made to the Secretary of State via the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union on behalf of taxi drivers. There might be no ready and easy solution to the problems that taxi drivers face, but there are those, such as the Peace Train organisation, who have taken up the taxi drivers' case and are concerned to alter public opinion and attitudes generally in Northern Ireland. It is that, along with political and economic change which, in the long run, will bring about a change in the situation.
    Mr. Brooke: With regard to the incident this morning, we do not know at this stage whether the injured man was operating a taxi or not. However, it is clear that he was not displaying a taxi roof sign. In any event, the new regulations cannot eliminate the risk to taxi drivers. They may reduce the risk of attack, but they cannot prevent random sectarian murders.
    On the hon. Gentleman's further point, although we have conducted an interim review of the regulations we shall be conducting a wider one. I pay tribute to him for his support for the Peace Train.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As the Secretary of State rightly said, it is pretty well impossible to protect people in a particular occupation. With a view to improving the security of all occupations, does the Secretary of State agree that there is an urgent need to aim for a common sentencing policy throughout the United Kingdom? Given the reluctance of some courts to convict on forensic evidence and the fact that terrorists do not usually leave a signed visiting card at the scene of the crime, will it not become more and more difficult to obtain convictions?
    Mr. Brooke: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of forensic evidence in cases in Northern Ireland about which we are all aware. However, I assure him that the resources of the Government forensic services are being increased and streamlined to meet that need. I am not precisely sure that I know what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind on sentencing policy, but I am happy to engage in exchanges outside.
    Mr. Stanbrook: All terrorist crime is detestable, whoever the victims, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that the recent upsurge of violence has made more urgent the granting of the Chief Constable's request for at least 400 additional men in his establishment?
    Mr. Brooke: I share my hon. Friend's analysis of the issue and later this afternoon I shall be announcing in a more detailed answer an increase in the RUC manpower establishment of 441 extra policemen.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Secretary of State agree that most politicians and Church leaders have asked that there should be no tit-for-tat shootings? However, will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me, speaking as the Member of Parliament for Belfast, South, that those engaged in terrorism are not inclined to listen to such appeals, and that the security situation must be dealt with? We sympathise with victims in north Belfast, with those in south Belfast last evening, and with the driver of the car who was attacked this morning. Does the Secretary of State accept that even the 400 new officers that he has announced will not be deployed primarily in countering terrorism? The Chief Constable's earlier statement that he was deploying a special search squad to deal with loyalist terrorism is itself not very helpful, when the whole of the city of Belfast is left wide open to roaming terrorists from both sides.
    Mr. Brooke: I received an assurance today from police and Army commanders that there will be an enhanced security presence in those areas thought to be most at risk in the light of last night's attacks in Belfast. There will be increased RUC patrolling, and two further incident rooms have been established in addition to the special measures introduced by the Chief Constable in north Belfast last month. All possible lines of inquiry are being pursued. The unit to which the hon. Gentleman referred will of course be deployed in the situation that we are now considering.

    General Practitioner Budgets
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider extending the opportunity for general practitioners in Northern Ireland to manage their own budgets immediately.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I will be issuing next month to every general practitioner in Northern Ireland a prospectus about general practice funds. It will invite expressions of interest in fund holding, which will be available from April 1993.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are already 1,700 fund holders in Britain, and that a great many more are in the pipeline? That points to the great success of Conservative health service policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that the Conservative party is formally represented in Northern Ireland and will have candidates in the next general election there, we should remove the anomaly whereby Northern Ireland citizens—who are of course British subjects—have to follow the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he give an assurance that that anomaly will be removed as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hanley: Northern Ireland enjoys an integrated system of health and social services care, and therefore
    1216
    there are far greater demands on its health boards in dealing with reforms, which do of course bring massive benefits. The boards have to deal both with health reforms themselves and community care reforms. We are just as determined that people in Northern Ireland should benefit from the Government's reforms, including fund-holding practices, and therefore they will be introduced at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Flannery: I hope that both communities in Northern Ireland will unite against any extension of the Government's desire and mania to privatise the health service.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that Conservative Memberts get upset when that is said, but that is the fact of the matter. We can see that the Government's action is another nasty step towards privatisation, and I hope that both sides in Northern Ireland will unite against it.
    Mr. Hanley: I want to make it absolutely clear that general practitioners voluntarily choose to run fund-holding practices and are not forced by the Government to do so—and GPs will take that step only if they can see benefits for their patients. Last year, 300 practices in Britain decided that was the way forward, and another 300 have done so this year. Fund-holding practices are gaining ground in popularity, and patients are certainly enjoying the extra benefits that flow from the GPs' scheme.

    Prevention of Terrorism Act
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the total number of residents of Northern Ireland who have been questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and (a) subsequently charged and (b) convicted or had an exclusion order placed upon them since 1974.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I regret that it is not possible to provide that information in the form requested.
    Mr. Corbyn: It is highly regrettable that the Minister cannot provide information that must be available to the police and to the Northern Ireland Office about the number of people in Northern Ireland who have been questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and subsequently charged and convicted. If the pattern in Northern Ireland is the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Minister will know that the number of persons there subsequently convicted under the Act is very small. Many of us would like to know what happens to the information that is collected during questioning when there is no subsequent conviction. There is clearly a civil liberties aspect to what happens to that information.
    Dr. Mawhinney: If the information had been available in the form requested, I should have given it.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree—unlike the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is exactly that: a measure to prevent terrorism? Its success is not necessarily based on the number of convictions; often, it is based on the number of assaults and atrocities that are prevented by the questioning of certain people. That is terribly important. The police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army save many lives by means of the Act.

    1217
    It is not necessary to bring convictions every time, but it is necessary to prevent terrorism. Has the hon. Gentleman not got the message yet?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have certainly got the message. I entirely agree that the Act forms a vital part of the resources needed by the security forces to combat terrorism. I also share my hon. Friend's regret that not every hon. Member appears to understand that.
    Mr. Mallon: Despite—or, perhaps, even because of—the horror of terrorism, we must protect and defend the integrity of the law and its enforcement. The Minister will be aware that, in 1989 and 1990, 726 complaints of ill treatment were made. I am allowing for the fact that, in a substantial number of cases, investigations could not be concluded, and many complaints were withdrawn. In some instances, I believe, spurious cases were cobbled together for propaganda purposes.
    Is the Minister satisfied that not a single case was substantiated by the independent Police Complaints Commission, or does he share the scepticism of Lord Colville and others, who feel that nought out of 726 does not reflect the world that we in Northern Ireland inhabit?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman has considerably broadened the original question. He knows—not least because he and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions—that we take seriously people's right to register a complaint, and that complaints are investigated seriously. He also knows that the Government set considerable store by having in hand arrangements that will inspire confidence across the face of the community in the activities of the security forces and the RUC. We are constantly examining policy in that light.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced by a Government led by Lord Wilson? Is it not unfortunate that, since that time, some members of the Labour party have gone soft on terrorism?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend has made his own point with extreme clarity.
    Mr. Trimble: I, too, must express slight surprise at the Minister's inability to give the figures that were requested in the original question. Surely it would have been possible at least to give the number of people who had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the number of people subsequently charged.
    If the Minister had given those figures, would they not have shown—especially those relating to the number convicted of terrorist offences—that, over the past decade, there has been a consistent and significant decline in the number of people convicted? Is not that a consequence of the increasing sophistication of terrorist ant-interrogation techniques, such as the ability to destroy forensic evidence? Does not that point to the need to give serious consideration to other methods of dealing with terrorism?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I must repeat, however, that, if I had had the information in the form in which it was requested, I would have given it.
    Mr. McNamara: The House will welcome the Minister's assurance about the protection of people when they are in custody, but unfortunately the Minister's
    1218
    perception is completely different from that of the community as a whole. Yesterday, when the Government were defending their postition at the United Nations in Geneva on interrogation procedures and denying that anything untoward was happening, settlements were being awarded in Belfast courts to people who had claimed that they had been assaulted in just those circumstances. Should not the Minister introduce video recording of all interrogations?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, made a statement which, on reflection, I think he will want to amend. It is not the perception of the whole community in Northern Ireland that the security forces behave in a way that is deliberately detrimental to the rights or interests of various people in the Province. It is important to get that correction—if he will allow me to use that word—on the record. Of course, it is necessary constantly to review policy and constantly to keep in the forefront of our thinking the need for the security forces and the police to have all the resources necessary to do the job that they do on behalf of all of us, the need for which has been so tragically illustrated again in the last 24 hours. At the same time, we must keep in mind the need for the security forces to do that job in a way which not only remains within the law but inspires confidence in the whole community.

    Agriculture Ministers
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Agriculture Minister in his Department has any proposals to meet the Agriculture Minister of the Republic of Ireland to discuss co-operation.
    Mr. Hanley: I regularly met Mr. O'Kennedy, the Republic of Ireland's former Minister of Agriculture and Food, and his Minister of State, Mr. Walsh, to exchange views on a broad range of topics of mutual interest and concern. I look forward to meeting Mr. O'Kennedy's successor, Dr. Woods, so that we can continue this co-operation in the future.
    Mr. Amess: I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that co-operation between member states of the European Community is particularly desirable when considering the provision of help to those most in need. To what extent is there co-operation with the Replublic of Ireland to help our rural communities?
    Mr. Hanley: In view of the similar social and economic conditions in the border areas of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the potential for co-operation between the two Administrations is considerable. Having established our respective rural development frameworks, we have now set up the cross-border steering committee, which comprises officials of the two Departments responsible for rural development. That committee, which had its first meeting last month, will examine progress on local programmes and will co-ordinate action in response to joint plans developed by the two cross-border communities. I have every confidence, therefore, that Dr. Woods and I will be able to co-operate in resolving the issues referred to us by that committee.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the call by the farmers unions in Scotland and Wales for a ban on the importation

    1219
    of Irish beef, has the Minister made any representations to Republican Ministers about the widespread use of clenbuterol, or angel dust, in the Republic?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's question. He is absolutely right that putting clenbuterol into animals for slaughter is bad for the reputation of people in general, bad for the reputation of the Republic of Ireland and particularly bad for the reputation of Northern Ireland. We have a clean and green image and produce the healthiest meat possible for consumption and we must do nothing to harm that image. We regularly discuss this matter with the Republic of Ireland, as any deficiency on its part would hurt us, too.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on tourism in the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: Very encouraging progress is being made in promoting Northern Ireland as a serious holiday destination, improving the quality of the overall tourist product and increasing the contribution of tourism to economic development. In 1990, a record year, over 1·1 million visitors spent £153 million in Northern Ireland and there was a 40 per cent. increase over 1989 in the number of pure holiday visitors. Projects to increase and improve tourist accommodation and amenities are being developed with assistance from Government, the International Fund for Ireland and the European Community.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent news. Can he comment on the co-operation between the Province and the Republic in marketing the whole island of Ireland to ensure that even more overseas visitors come to that beautiful country?
    Mr. Brooke: The number of pure holiday visitors from the Republic increased by over 50 per cent. last year, but the Northern Ireland tourist board is working with Bord Failte on a joint marketing programme designed to increase the number of visitors to the island of Ireland as a whole. With the help of the International Fund for Ireland, the two boards operate a joint Ireland desk in the British Tourist Authority office in London and undertake joint marketing programmes in north America and Europe. Facilities are being developed to exploit the potential in genealogy-based tourism throughout Ireland.
    Mr. Beggs: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and congratulate all those involved in promoting tourism in Northern Ireland. I should like it to be understood that we in Northern Ireland do not expect our tourism promotion to be taken over by Bord Failte. If district councils in Northern Ireland are to have a meaningful role in promoting tourism and job creation within their areas, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that he will ask the planners to deal more sympathetically with applications that have district council approval for facilities to cater for the tourists who are coming now and the many more that we expect in the future?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the efforts of those involved and his endorsement of them. It is gratifying that, whereas 10 years ago only one in nine of visitors to Northern Ireland
    1220
    was a pure holiday visitor, the figure is now one in five. I shall draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) when he returns from America the matters concerning district councils and planning.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that supplementary question, will the Minister also have a word with the planners about hotel accommodation, especially in the County Antrim area, and find out why so many obstacles are being put in the way of hoteliers who want to improve their facilities?
    Mr. Brooke: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North is concerned to improve hotel accommodation throughout the Province, so I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Secretary of State have any further plans for undertaking joint initiatives between the Province and the Republic? Does the Secretary of State accept that the tourist industry in the island as a whole was affected adversely by British Airways' decision to stop the London-Dublin link? Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will have discussions with the chair of British Airways to try to reintroduce that important link between London and Dublin?
    Mr. Brooke: I was asked specifically about tourism in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the decision by British Airways was a commercial one based on the traffic, but I shall discuss that, too, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North when he returns.

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Measures to improve security co-operation, particularly in the border area, are regularly discussed at Anglo-Irish Conference meetings, most recently on 17 October. At that meeting both Governments reaffirmed their determination to work together to enhance security co-operation in every way possible. Close and active security co-operation remains a major objective of the British Government in their discussions with the Irish Government and both Governments are fully committed to achieving further progress.
    Mr. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend make sure that close co-operation with the politicians in the south, whoever they may be, remains the keystone of the Government's security policy? Can he confirm that relations between the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner of the Garda are good and that they meet frequently? Is he satisfied with the present arrangements for hot pursuit?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to stress the importance of close security co-operation between the two Governments. Relations between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner of the Garda are very good, as are relations between their respective forces.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Has the Minister noticed the press reports that a member of the Ulster Defence Association inner council has claimed that there could be further cross-border attacks by loyalist paramilitaries—a report that was echoed recently by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Will the Minister therefore continue to give the highest priority to the cross-border security co-operation mentioned in the question?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. As he will be aware, for the most part attacks have been going in the direction opposite to that to which he drew attention. We deplore attacks in either direction across the border.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of the citizens charter to Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Although the principles set out in the citizens charter White Paper apply throughout the United Kingdom, the structures for the administration of public services in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain. Accordingly, when the White Paper was launched in July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he would publish a separate Northern Ireland charter. It will usefully reinforce the important principles contained in the White Paper as they will be applied in the Province. The Northern Ireland charter will be launched shortly.
    Mr. Hayward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that his answer does not imply that the standards applied in Northern Ireland will be different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I can certainly offer my hon. Friend and the people of Northern Ireland that assurance.
    Mr. Alton: Given the creditable support that the Minister has previously given to integrated education in Northern Ireland, will he ensure that provision is made within the citizens charter to develop integrated education and to facilitate the opportunity for children in Northern Ireland to enter such education? Is not that the best investment that we can make in the long-term future for that troubled area?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind personal comment and for his continuing support over many years for the policy of integrated education. The best possible defence of that policy is that it is now available in statute as a third option which the parents of Northern Ireland can exercise. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the citizens charter and the parents charter which will follow from it in Northern Ireland will not undermine that policy initiative.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that the best right for the people of the United Kingdom under any citizens charter would be the right to live and to go about their daily work without the continual threat of terrorism? We have had 20 long years of murder and destruction in the Province. What can the Minister tell the people of Northern Ireland after a night of carnage in the city of Belfast?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the right to life and to not being molested or attacked is fundamental. He will also know of the bravery and dedication of the security forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary as they have sought to pursue terrorists and those who wantonly break the law. He should also be in no doubt of the effectiveness of that policy bearing in mind the fact that the Chief Constable said recently that more than four out of five terrorist incidents are thwarted and never take place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is a commendable advance by the RUC and the security forces, although it should not lead to complacency, because we shall not be satisfied until five out of five incidents are thwarted.

    Training
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of expenditure on training in Northern Ireland in 1978–79; what is the figure for the current financial year; and what is the percentage increase in real terms.
    Mr. Hanley: Public expenditure on training was £23·4 million in 1978–79 and £90 million in the current financial year, an increase in real terms of 45 per cent. There is also substantial private investment by employers in training for their staff which the Government encourage through the manpower training scheme.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Ulster can only benefit in future from a more highly skilled work force? In that context, are not the figures excellent? Do the figures include expenditure on work experience and, if so, what is that figure?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that peace in Northern Ireland will be hastened by a healthy economy and by a well-trained work force. As for work experience, I am grateful for the reminder. Action for Community Employment—ACE—is providing an extra £50 million in 1991–92 and 9,850 places of work experience.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Does the Minister agree that it is rather pointless to train individuals in any field if, when they are qualified, their qualifications are not properly recognised? For example, when will the Minister reintroduce plumbers' registration in Northern Ireland so that consumers are properly protected?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is one of the greatest plumbers ever elected to the House. I shall raise the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who is currently trying to drum up inward investment into Northern Ireland from north America.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings

    1223
    with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. French: Has my right hon. Friend seen the opinion poll in The Guardian this morning which shows very strong support for his stand on Europe, with the vast majority of people having confidence in the benefits for business purposes of a single market, but showing understandable scepticism about the implications of a single currency? Did he also notice that twice as many people would trust him to negotiate on Europe for this country as would trust the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: I did notice with some interest that particular survey. I believe that a majority of people in this country want to make a success of our membership of the Community. There have been many positive developments, a large number of them led by this country such as the introduction of the single market. I see no reason for us to be fearful of developments in the Community—it is often an opportunity, not a risk.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time out of Question Time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell us why over the last year the unemployment record of his Government is by far the worst of any in the European Commuity?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment is rising right across the industrial world almost without exception—in the United States, Japan, Italy, France and Canada. What we are beginning to see in this country—and I welcome it very much—is a sharp slowdown in the rise in unemployment. This is the third successive month that that has happened. I very much hope that that trend will be continued. It is too early to be entirely sure, but it looks as though the tide may well have turned.
    Mr. Kinnock: In the last 12 months net unemployment in the whole of the European Community has gone up by 940,000. Of that total, 768,000–80 per cent.—has been in this country. Is not it clear from those figures that the unique disadvantage suffered by the people of Britain is that they have this Government with the right hon. Gentleman's policies, which depend on putting people out of work?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman might look close to home before he makes that general assertion. Unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 37 per cent. since the last general election. The number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres is now beginning to rise. That is a welcome sign. The change in the unemployment position is welcome and I very much hope that it will continue. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that and not tried to isolate the problems of this country as he is well aware that they are occurring everywhere else.
    Mr. Kinnock: My reference arose because the Prime Minister was trying to obscure his record. If he is interested in looking close to home, he should note the fact that while unemployment in my constituency has,
    1224
    tragically, gone up by the figure he mentioned in the course of the past 12 months, it has gone up in his constituency by 110 per cent. That is very close to home.
    Will he now answer the question why in the other 11 countries of the European Community the total rise in unemployment in the past 12 months has been 130,000, while in this country, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, unemployment has risen by nearly 800,000?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Shouting of that kind does not help.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his constituency and mine, but he neglected to mention that in both constituencies the latest figures show a fall in unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman was genuinely concerned about unemployment, he would now withdraw from the table his minimum wage policy—a policy which would increase unemployment dramatically.
    Mr. Butcher: Given the opinion poll results in The Guardian today, which show that a clear and growing majority of people are against further moves towards European monetary and political union, does my right hon. Friend find it rather curious that both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party favour unilateral disarmament on the question of federalism? To what does he attribute their unaccustomed bravery on that issue?
    The Prime Minister: I find Opposition Members' position on Europe curious. They appear to be prepared to sign up indiscriminately to anything—to a federal Europe, to huge extensions in competence and to control over foreign policy, defence and immigration. There is no sign from either the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or the Leader of the Opposition that they would draw the line anywhere on transfer of authority to Brussels.
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister agree that although there is scope for compromise on many matters at Maastricht, the one issue on which it is impossible to compromise is the difference between those who believe that Britain could and should join in a single currency and those who believe that we should not do so at any price and that we should never even have joined the exchange rate mechanism? Had he not better make that clear to both the Conservative and Labour Members who still believe that Britain could stay out of the developments that will take place in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might also bear in mind the fact that his party should take account of many of the dangers of what is proposed, for at the moment the Liberal Democrats seem prepared to sign up indiscriminately to what is proposed from anywhere within Europe.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is proud to have reduced the basic rate of tax from 33p in the pound to 25p and the upper rate from 98p to 40p? Can he confirm that we shall have one

    1225
    Budget next year and shall not burden the British people with a massive payment of back tax, as is suggested by crackpot Opposition Members?
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that we shall have one Budget next year—and that we shall have one the year after and the year after that, as well.
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flannery: When will the Prime Minister apologise to the British people for the disgraceful inequities and sheer misery caused all over the country by the poll tax, which he was one of the first people to promote? Does he realise that his failure to do so brings his integrity into severe question? May I suggest that he apologises in a broadcast from No. 10 Downing street, which I understand he occupies temporarily, and that he should give some thought——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking a long time. If that is done, I hope that it can be done here.
    Mr. Flannery: He could then give some thought to the inequities of the council tax, so called, which is the nasty twin brother of the poll tax and which will leave debris—caused by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party—all over the country.
    The Prime Minister: In case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, we are in the process of replacing the poll tax.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend of today's unemployment figures for Wales, where both the actual and the seasonally adjusted rates have fallen? Does not that confirm that what we really need is a continuation of my right hon. Friend's policies, not a regional assembly for Wales, which would be an unnecessary quango that would cost the people of Wales £1 million a week?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. Unemployment has fallen not only in Wales but in Scotland and in the northern region and I hope that it will soon fall elsewhere, too.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wigley: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the welcome emphasis that he placed at the Commonwealth conference on the extension of democratic government throughout the Commonwealth with the continuing reluctance of the Government to give any form of democratic control over their own lives to the people of Wales and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions, I believe that union in the United Kingdom and the present system of government serve us extremely well. There was a referendum on devolution some years ago and the people of Wales forcefully expressed their view against the principle of devolution on that occasion.
    Mr. Marlow: Could my right hon. Friend reinforce the point that he has just made? There are two alternatives. One is the preferred alternative for Scotland and Wales: the status quo. The other alternative for Scotland is independence. The crackpot halfway-house idea of the Labour party, in which Scottish institutions look after Scottish affairs and Scottish Members of Parliament dabble in English affairs, would be unacceptable to the people of England.
    The Prime Minister: I am in no doubt that the right future for this country is to maintain the union between the United Kingdom and Scotland. Other proposals have no credibility. The self-styled Scottish convention was self-appointed and is unrepresentative, and the introduction of tax-raising powers for Scotland would make it the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and would destroy and inward investment that has done so much for its standard of life.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister take time this week to write to the broadcasting authorities to say that he is willing to take part in a live, televised debate between the party leaders during the next general election campaign?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to put questions like that now.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish Conservative party has debated devolution and that the proposals now on offer from the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are flawed and fraudulent? Will he further confirm that they were not an issue in the recent by-election in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government remain fully committed to the union—a point which is well recognised in Scotland. The reality of change is certainly understood by the Scottish business community which well knows the impact that some of the alternatives would have on Scotland—they would not have a happy impact.
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sillars: When will the Prime Minister of England and that lackey of his in St. Andrew's house admit that they are bereft of all moral and political authority to govern the people of Scotland? Why will not the Prime Minister accept the challenge of a referendum? Is he feared that he will lose and that independence will win?
    The Prime Minister: The right to govern Scotland flows from general elections. The hon. Gentleman may have noted what a Labour Member said the other day:
    "The party which holds a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament has a mandate for the whole United Kingdom."
    Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the recent improvements unveiled in the Guy's hospital patients charter, with 3,500 more patients treated in the first six months, with better staff conditions and with lower waiting lists? Can he compare these facts about the national health service with the fictions put out by the Labour Front Bench?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Just a few months ago, Opposition Members were telling us that trust hospitals would fail and that they should be judged by the simple test of whether they do more or less work on NHS patients. With regard to Guy's, we now know that they do more and are a success. We will have more of them.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Later.

Lockerbie
3.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Lockerbie investigation and its implications.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has today announced the issue of warrants for the arrest of two Libyan intelligence officers against whom, on the basis of the evidence available, the Procurator Fiscal has brought charges alleging their involvement in the descruction of Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988. The American authorities have taken similar action. The text of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement are being placed in the Library of the House.
Two hundred and seventy people were killed at Lockerbie. The relatives and friends of those victims have suffered and continue to suffer great pain and sorrow and the House will be thinking of them today. As the Lord Advocate has said, a demand is being made of the Libyan authorities for the surrender of the accused to stand trial. I repeat that demand on behalf of the whole Government and I know that the House will unreservedly endorse it.
The accusations levelled at Libyan officials are of the gravest possible kind. As the warrants which the Lord Advocate will be making public make clear, the charges allege that the individuals acted as a part of a conspiracy to further the purposes of the Libyan intelligence services by criminal means and that those means were acts of terrorism. This was a mass murder which is alleged to involve the organs of government of a state. Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime, not only in Scotland and America, but in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30 October over the destruction of flight UTA 772 in September 1989. We are consulting the United States and other friendly Governments, many of whom lost nationals in Pan Am flight 103, about the next steps.
I understand that the investigation has revealed no evidence to support the suggestion of involvement by other countries. I pay tribute to all those whose untiring work under the direction of the Lord Advocate over almost three years has produced this remarkable outcome. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and all those in many parts of the world who have helped with the gathering of evidence and information. We are grateful for all the help given to the investigation in many countries.
We expect Libya to respond fully to our demand for the surrender of the accused. The interests of justice require no less. This was a fiendish act of wickedness and it cannot be passed over or ignored.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I join him in congratulating the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and all other law enforcement agencies and forensic experts, both here and in other countries, whose dogged work, obviously of great brilliance, has resulted in the successful outcome of the investigation.
Nothing can ever console those bereaved by that atrocious act of terrorist mass murder for the loss of their loved ones. However, they may be reassured to know that not for one day have the police rested in their
1230
determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. I note that the investigation continues. Have we learnt all that we can learn and implemented all appropriate recommendations—such as reconciling baggage tags with passenger lists—emerging from that terrible tragedy?
The Libyans have for some time been sending signals that they wish to resume relations. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a test of their sincerity will be whether they deliver to the forces of law and order the men for whom warrants of arrest have been issued? If Libyan protestations of non-involvement in that terrorist act are true, they have nothing to fear from a fair trial. If they do not hand over those men for trial, we shall all know what conclusions to draw. In those circumstances, we shall have to consider what action to take in accordance with international law. For Libya can be received back into the world community only when it is clear beyond doubt that it is no longer involved in instigating, assisting and carrying out acts of terrorism that sicken the civilised world.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly, as he says, the investigation continues, and one cannot be certain that other evidence may not come to light. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessor have kept the House informed of developments in aviation security since the disaster. The right hon. Gentleman referred to professions which have been repeated over and over again by Ministers and others of the Libyan Government, that they have turned their backs on terrorism and are now opposed to it. I have warned my colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to be very reserved and cautious about such professions. The right hon. Gentleman set a test with which I would agree.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but did not press me on, action which might follow. The House will not expect me to go further than I have today. We are following a course of law. There has been an independent investigation and a decision to issue warrants against two individuals. The next step is to require the handing over of those individuals for trial. Other steps may have to follow, but they are not for today.
Sir Hector Monro: May I add my praise of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, in particular the chief constable, Gordon Esson, and detective chief superintendent Stewart Henderson and his team who led the investigation, and also the Lord Advocate and his team for their tremendous support for the police in Dumfries and Galloway?
The people of Lockerbie have welcomed among them the relatives of the 270 who lost their lives in the town. They hope that today's announcement will go some way to easing the sorrow and the memory of those who died in the disaster. The feel that the best result is to bring those murderers to justice. I know that my right hon. Friend will do his very best to do that.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has represented the people of Lockerbie through this period of anxiety and, for some of them, torment with great dignity and perseverance. I am sure that he is right in his conclusion.
Sir David Steel (Tweddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): In addition to the well-deserved tributes that he has paid to

1231
the local people, will the Foreign Secretary also recognise the work that was carried out by Army units and other voluntary organisations, such as the mountain rescue teams, which had the anguished task of collecting the human and material remains of flight 103, which enabled the evidence to be pieced together and thus led to the charges that have been brought today? If need be, will he contemplate the possibility of going to the United Nations Security Council to press for the transfer to justice of the alleged perpetrators of that uniquely terrible international crime?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is right on his first point, and I add to his words of thanks. For the reason that I have already given, I should rather not be carried further on the consequential steps today. We do not need to use an intermediary to make the demand that has been made by ourselves and the United States. We can do that direct to the Libyans, and that is what we are doing.
Sir John Farr: What steps have been taken towards identifying the explosive that was used? Was it Semtex, and if so, what co-operation have we received from Czechoslovakia in terms of giving Semtex and other modern plastic explosives an identifying character, which the previous Czechoslovak Government refused to do?
Mr. Hurd: I should rather not be drawn into describing the evidence in any particulars. As I have said, my hon. Friend can find the Lord Advocate's announcement in the Library. For obvious legal reasons, I should rather not paraphrase it or embroider on it. My hon. Friend asked a perfectly reasonable consequential question. For some time now, we have been in touch with the Czechoslovak authorities about the production and distribution of Semtex and especially about finding a means of identifying particular batches. Those discussions continue.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What obligations does the Foreign Secretary think that he has towards the British community of about 5,000 engineers and other workers who are working for Brown Root, Sir Alexander Gibb and partners and 36 other British companies which are involved in the great man-made river project? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my colleagues and I who went to Libya, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), were assured vehemently—I do not want to be naive about this and can only report back that we were assured vehemently—that Libya was not responsible for the terrible thing that happened at Lockerbie? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore proceed with the greatest caution, remembering that it is far from clear that the Libyans were responsible for the tragedy of the 1986 bombings and that that responsibility might lie elsewhere, perhaps in Syria?
Mr. Hurd: We are proceeding with care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at what is available in the Library and that he will study it with care in the light of what he heard in Libya to the contrary effect. The hon. Gentleman referred perfectly reasonably to the fact that we have about 5,500 British nationals in Libya. The hon. Gentleman gave the figure correctly. There is no immediate threat, but we shall obviously need to watch the position in that country very carefully. All the British nationals there know that, in the absence of direct diplomatic relations, the scope for consular protection is,
1232
in practice, limited, but they should—and no doubt will—keep in close touch with the British interests section of the Italian embassy there.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In fairness to the Governments of Iran and Syria, with whom we have diplomatic relations, and in view of his comment about there being no involvement from other countries, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the widespread and detailed reports that the job was commissioned by the Government of Iran from Syrian nationals, who were seized, and was then subcontracted to individuals in Libya, are wholly untrue? In view of the publication of those widespread and detailed reports, and in fairness to our friends in Iran and Syria, does my right hon. Friend feel that he has a duty to make it abundantly clear that, following detailed research, he has discovered that those reports are simply untrue?
Mr. Hurd: The police investigation deals with evidence, not rumours. But it has taken a long time because several lines of inquiry had to be followed not by the Government but by the Scottish police—my hon. Friend will accept that. I deliberately put in that sentence that there was no evidence about the involvement of other Governments because of the consideration which my hon. Friend mentions. He mentioned one part of a line of inquiry. Members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command cell in Germany arrested in 1988 clearly had bomb-making equipment, some of which was superficially similar to the Lockerbie bomb. They may well have had plans to attack civil aviation which were derailed when the arrests were made. But the thorough inquiries along that line failed to reveal any direct link between that group and Lockerbie. There were notable differences—especially the timer—between the bombs in which they were involved in making and the Lockerbie bomb.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure on business today. We have business questions after this and an important debate. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue for a further five minutes, after which we must move on.
Mr. David Trimble: May I also send congratulations to the constabulary of Dumfries and Galloway? I understand the Secretary of State's reluctance to discuss the consequential steps that Her Majesty's Government may have to take if the Libyans are not forthcoming, but will he give an assurance that he is taking suitable precautions against the consequential measures which the Libyans might themselves adopt? I have no doubt that he recalls the last time that the Government assisted the United States Government in actions against state-sponsored terrorism from Libya. The Libyans retaliated by making substantial supplies of munitions for arms available to the IRA. Shipments came into Northern Ireland during the period when the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, undoubtedly much to his embarrassment.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he has not already done so, that the co-operation that he is supposed to get from the Irish Republic in this matter is a broken reed.
Mr. Hurd: I do not want to be drawn on co-operation with the Irish Government. I informed the Irish Foreign Minister yesterday of the broad scope of the announcement that I intended to make today. The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: in any steps decided on in consultation and concert with other friendly Governments we shall have to weigh carefully the consequences and precautions that need to follow.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the chances of the Libyan authorities responding favourably to the extradition request? If, as one must suspect, the chances are pretty low, does my right hon. Friend understand that the House will press him on what course of action the British Government intend to take? Can he at least say today that our Government have a firm and strong plan in mind, especially as we were somewhat weak in dealing with some of the Syrian terrorist episodes from official sources.
Mr. Hurd: I would rather not speculate in answer to my hon. Friend's point, but I note what he says. I am sure that the pressure of which he speaks will reflect strong public opinion.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if the perpetrators of this atrocity are eventually caught, no one will be happier than me? Does he agree that it is unwise to use words such as "success" at this stage and to hand out applause to the various parties involved before a fair trial in front of all the evidence has taken place?
Mr. Hurd: I think that, whatever happens hereafter, anyone who studies the documents in the Library or anyone who has followed the investigation will realise that it was a remarkable and complex investigation. That is what I have said.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Under what legal authority were the warrants issued? Was it the domestic application of a multilateral convention? If so, is not that an excellent precedent for dealing with war crimes committed in Iraq and Yugoslavia?
Mr. Hurd: That is not really a question for me, but the warrants were clearly issued under Scottish law. It was a straightforward matter and the crimes committed were committed under Scottish law.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I, too, congratulate the Scottish police force and its international colleagues on the excellent work that they have done. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest tribute that we can pay to the innocent victims is to ensure that the perpetrators of the crime are brought to justice? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how that will be done? Will it be done through an international organisation such as the United Nations or will there be individual state action? Given the obvious Libyan involvement, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will be no diplomatic recognition of Libya while Gadaffi remains in power?
Mr. Hurd: I do not want to range wider than I have. A crime of mass murder has been committed. There has been an independent investigation, and as a result warrants have been issued against two individuals who are officials of the Libyan Government. We and the United States Government have asked that the two individuals be handed over. We have done that directly and there is no ambiguity about it. We await the response.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Later, after business questions.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My point of order is on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: That does not matter. I will take the point of order later. That is the usual procedure.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order at the usual time.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As a former Law Officer, why was I not called to ask a question about a prosecution in Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: I think that we shall have the business statement from the Leader of the House first.

Business of the House
3.51 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY I8 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill

TUESDAY I9 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill

WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER AND THURSDAY 2I NOVEMBER—Debate on the European Community on a Government motion

FRIDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Debate on nuclear defence on a motion for the Adjournment of the House

MONDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Motion on the Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 20 November, to consider documents Nos. 4173/91, 4174/91 and 4175/91 relating to copyright and neighbouring rights.
[Wednesday 20 November
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents

4173/91

Copyright

4174/91

4175/91

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xii ( 1990–91) and HC 29-xviii ( 1990–91)].
Dr. Cunningham: When we debate the Education (Schools) Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science publishes the report that he commissioned on the future of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, which seems to have been suppressed by the Secretary of State? Is not this a clear example of the double standards of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? He introduces a Bill requiring schools to publish more information about their activities while he is suppressing information about the activities of his own Department. There could be no greater deception of the public and parents.
When can we expect to see the terms of the motion that is to be debated next week on developments in the European Community? I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that it would be of interest and, no doubt, of benefit to all his right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as to the Opposition, to see the terms of the motion as soon as possible. In addition, it would be helpful if we could also know, and quickly, who will be speaking from the Government Front Bench during the two-day debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will quickly be able to help us with that information.
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 136?
1236
[That this House notes with deep concern the state of health care within the Parkside and Riverside health authorities which has prompted five consultants and 10 general practitioners to call for an inquiry into allegations that both authorities are failing to meet legal requirements on patient care; and further urges the Government to conduct such an inquiry as a matter of great urgency.]
As the right hon. Gentleman will see, the motion, which concerns the Parkside and Riverside health authorities, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Is the Leader of the House aware that doctors and consultants have alleged that those authorities are failing to meet their statutory duties in patient care because of a lack of resources? Is not this a serious state of affairs? Does not it cast great doubts on the efficacy of the Government's policies towards the health service? Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health next week about the two authorities?
Will it be possible to have a debate next week on electoral reform in the Conservative party? Has the Leader of the House seen the quotes in newspapers today about his colleagues behaving as if they were "rooms full of imbeciles", to quote the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)? What about the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who had to climb on to the table to get his ballot paper? After all that the Government have had to say about the conduct of elections and ballots in trade unions, is not it shameful that they cannot even guarantee one person one vote in their own party?
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's question about the Education (Schools) Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made it clear in the House on 6 June that the review of HMI, to which reference was made in a newspaper this morning, was internal advice to Ministers, and that he did not intend to publish it. It is for Ministers to make up their minds on any internal advice from Departments, and there is often a great deal of it from different areas within Departments.
My right hon. and learned Friend has made his decisions clear. He has informed the House about a number of relevant facts and about other matters that follow from those decisions, and I have no doubt that he will do so again in the debate next week. The Government will be making the position absolutely clear.
Dr. Cunningham: But not publishing the report.
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. and learned Friend will make his position on the decisions that he made absolutely clear, and he will fully report to Parliament on them.
On the question about the European debate next week, I confirm that, because of the great importance of the matter and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the extensive interest in it not only in the House but elsewhere, we are arranging for the motion to be published tomorrow. The House will be able to consider the terms of the motion well in advance of the debate.
Dr. Cunningham: What about the Government's speakers?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to consider such matters. I shall, in the usual way, inform the Opposition and others about who those speakers will be.

1237
The hon. Gentleman requested a statement on the Parkside and Riverside health authorities. I do not think that that is necessary, because the facts are clear. Indeed, those facts dispute a great number of the allegations. More money is spent in Riverside and Parkside districts than anywhere else in the North West Thames region. This year, patient care activity at Parkside is likely to be up 30 per cent. on last year. Riverside is carrying out routine elective surgery and waiting lists are falling. No less than £206 million is being invested in the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital, which will be the most modern teaching hospital in the country. In view of those facts and that statement, I do not think that a further statement is necessary.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to a certain election, in which there was a great deal of interest. Under our rules it is for the outgoing chairman and his committee to decide how the election is conducted.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Following the statement of our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the relative benefits of the investigative and prosecuting services in England and Scotland? As the investigation has resulted in an announcement—although our right hon. Friend was shady in saying so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shady?"] Our right hon. Friend was cautious in saying that the investigation has resulted in charges of the murder of 260 people, conspiracy to murder, and various statutory contraventions of aviation legislation. As that is due alone to the particular characteristics of the investigative, prosecuting, criminal and corroborative services in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate, just as a reminder that when those who are accused are convicted, if found guilty, they will not thereafter get away with it as they do in England, thanks to the rottenness of English law?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. and learned Friend paid tribute to the work of the investigating authorities in this case and he has made his point about the Scottish authorities. I do not think that it is necessary to have a debate and I do not want to enter into the issue now.
Mr. James Wallace: Following the clear precedent set by the Secretary of State for Health with regard to expenses for the Cleveland inquiry, can we expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an announcement next week that he will give funding to the Orkney islands council to assist with the expenses being incurred there with regard to the judicial inquiry into events in South Ronaldsay rather than the whole burden falling on some 15,000 poll tax payers in Orkney?
Before we debate the Education (Schools) Bill next week, can we be told whether the Government intend to withdraw the current Bill and issue a new one, because, as things stand at the moment, the section requiring information from schools in England and Wales applies to Scotland only and the section requiring information from schools in Scotland applies to England and Wales only? Will there be a league table of Cabinet Ministers on their attention to detail?
Mr. MacGregor: We have no intention of withdrawing the Bill, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall draw his first point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend has given the good news that we are to have a two-day debate on Europe next week, but will the announcement that we are to learn the terms of the motion tomorrow cause embarrassment on the Opposition Benches? Given that they have changed their minds seven times on the principle of the EC, that may not give them enough time to change it again, or it might encourage them to incorporate in their amendment the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) as expressed in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week.
Mr. MacGregor: As I understand it, it is many more on the Opposition Benches than the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. I have no doubt that those points will be made in the debate. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large number of times that the Labour party has changed its policy on the issue. Ours has been clear for many years.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, on average, one member of the armed forces dies on duty every week, some of them while training, but the Ministry of Defence refuses to disclose full details of the boards of inquiry, causing deep distress to the relatives who are entitled to the facts? May we have a debate on that next week please?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate, but I should like to say something about it, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an early-day motion on the subject. We well understand and greatly sympathise with the grief and distress of the relatives of service men and women killed in the course of their duties. It is never the Ministry of Defence's intention to exacerbate that by withholding information on the circumstances surrounding the death. However, there are legitimate reasons why some documents, including boards of inquiry reports, must remain confidential to the Department. To assist bereaved relatives the MOD will always provide, on request, a statement summarising the board of inquiry report and will be as helpful as possible in answering any subsequent questions.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). My right hon. Friend will know that a constituent of mine, Simeon Ferrante, died on parachute training and during the two years since that date his father has been trying most energetically to get to the facts, not just to find out what happened to his son, but to ensure that a similar accident does not happen again. The problem with the board of inquiry is that there is no alternative way of testing the evidence and making clear whether the MOD has some faults to put right. It is essential that we have a debate so that the MOD understands that its policy of secrecy puts it always in the wrong.
Mr. MacGregor: I have given a fairly full answer to the question and I would simply say to my hon. Friend that, as he will know, there are ways in which he can pursue the

1239
matter in the House. I will just repeat that the MOD endeavours to be as helpful as possible in answering any questions on individual cases.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the remarks made by the Leader of the House to the Committee studying the question of changing parliamentary hours, when he suggested that Members of Parliament should have only a four-day week, will the right hon. Gentleman have a few words within the next few minutes with the Secretary of State for Energy, and tell him to withdraw that section of the Coal Industry Bill that seeks to allocate a larger number of working hours—up to 48 hours a week—to miners? That shows the Government's hypocrisy, for they are prepared to recommend four-day weeks for Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers, but longer hours for miners working underground.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very surprised with the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has not read my comments to the Committee. I said that Members of Parliament also have substantial constituency functions to undertake, and Fridays and weekends are often the only times when right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies outside London can perform them. I was looking for ways in which, included within the very lengthy period that we spend in the House during the week—which is well beyond 48 hours—Members of Parliament could more easily attend in their constituencies during weekdays. I am sure that I speak for nearly every right hon. and hon. Member when I say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is misleading the public if he is suggesting that Members of Parliament would work only a four-day week if sometimes the House did not sit on Fridays.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing support in the country for a national lottery? Will he arrange a debate on that subject—if not next week, then before Christmas—so that the views of the House may be heard?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to discourage my hon. Friend, but such a debate certainly cannot be arranged for next week and, as we have a great deal of business to complete before Christmas, I do not see much opportunity for a debate in Government time before then.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on early-day motion 137, which concerns the proposed closure of Westwood hospital?
[That this House notes that, shortly after this Government rubber stamped approval for the second hospital trust in Bradford, the trust announced closure proposals for Westwood Hospital for mentally handicapped people which will involve dumping patients into varying degrees of community care in order to sell off the land for residential development from this tranquil sheltered site which should be the basis for a village community for the mentally handicapped; and recognises that instead patients will be treated like pawns by a group of trust managers who put profit and puffed up salaries before patients whilst riding roughshod over the wishes of relatives and patients alike in an act of betrayal towards the mentally handicapped, one of the most vulnerable sections of our community.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that second Bradford trust hospital was based on a false prospectus, because during the period of the application—which was
1240
so eagerly rubber-stamped by the Government—no mention was made of the fact that the trusts would close a hospital for mentally handicapped people against the policy of the Department of Health, which encourages village communities for such people? Instead of the site in question being used to benefit the mentally handicapped, it will be sold off for residential development and the hospital will be closed—which will be a serious blow against the provisions for mentally handicapped people.
Mr. MacGregor: I looked into that matter, because the hon. Gentleman has raised it before. The Bradford project to which he refers long predates the establishment of the local NHS trust and is all about providing more homely community facilities for the people concerned. All the revenue from the sale will be reinvested in community services. The hon. Gentleman should support that project, rather than denigrate local efforts and mix them up with NHS trusts—which are, across the country, already demonstrating that they are a successful method of reforming the NHS—as is the case at Guy's.
Mr. Christopher Gill: In view of the considerable constitutional implications of the outcome of the Maastricht summit, will my right hon. Friend consider devoting more time to debating developments in the European Community, so that all the views of Back Benchers can be expressed? If my right hon. Friend cannot devote more time to hearing the views of Back Benchers, how are the wishes of the British public to be adequately expressed?
Mr. MacGregor: We are allowing substantial time to enable the House to debate those matters, including a two-day debate next week. My hon. Friend will realise that I must bear in mind the very important business that the Government have to get through in the current Session, which will require many Second Reading debates before Christmas.
Mr. Brian Wilson: In view of widespread concern about the workings of opted-out hospitals, and of the implications for an area such as my own if an application is approved, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate both on what was in and what was out of the Select Committee on Health's report on that topic? Must we wait for such a debate until the Privileges Committee has succeeded in swatting the Tory sneak?
Mr. MacGregor: I am making arrangements with the Clerk for the Committee to meet as soon as is practicable, but I certainly do not think that we shall be able to have a general debate on the matter in the forthcoming weeks. As I have said, we have a great deal of other business to handle.
Mr. James Cran: It is indeed welcome news that we are to debate the future of the European Community next week. In the light of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), however, will my right hon. Friend think again about the amount of time that is to be allowed? I know perfectly well what my right hon. Friend has done to secure a two-day debate, but the fact remains that most Back Benchers will be crowded out. Essentially, the debate will be reserved for Privy Councillors, former Ministers and the like, and we shall not get a look-in.

1241
If my right hon. Friend is unable to do anything about that problem, will he at least ensure that no statements are taken on those two days? Statements would further curtail Back Benchers' time.
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. Given all the business that is ahead of us, I feel that two days constitute a large amount of time. I shall, of course, endeavour to avoid the scheduling of statements on those days, but sometimes—today, for instance—a statement is needed urgently, and can be made only on a specific day.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I understand that a new Director of Catering has been appointed, and I wish the lady well. May I ask her to examine, as one of her first duties, the continued abuse of our catering facilities by outside organisations? An organisation known as the Tobacco Alliance, for instance, is currently writing to newsagents throughout the country telling them that they are invited to tea at the House of Commons, provided that they bring along their Members of Parliament. That, surely, is a breach of privilege.
Mr. MacGregor: I seem to recollect that the way in which catering facilities are made available for activities in which outsiders can participate was examined recently. I did not know of the specific case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that those concerned will take note of what he has said.
Mr. John Browne: Further to what was said by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 776?
[That this House, conscious of the fact that real care for the men and women of our armed forces has enabled our country to rely, even to the point of ultimate sacrifice, upon their loyalty, steadfastness and efficiency in times of grave national threat, is astounded to note that, when digging a trench during an official Army exercise in Canada in July 1989, three men of the Grenadier Guards (Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey) detonated a six year old unexploed shell which was not only rendered them limbless but caused them such grieivous wounds that Mr. Ray and Mr. Povey are still, after almost two years, in receipt of hospital treatment; notes that the Ministry of Defence find themselves unable, on the grounds of unattributable negligence, to pay compensation; and calls upon the Prime Minister to review this case personally and to ensure that, regardless of the possible legal responsibility of some unknown nation who failed to 'clear' the shell some six years previously, Her Majesty's Government is seen to follow truly a policy that shows an appreciation of human understanding, human dignity and the value of a human life on earth by awarding generous compensation and a return of the accumulated legal costs to these youthful British Grenadiers.]
Despite the successful conclusion of the case, the tabling of that motion indicated that something is very wrong with the present legislation relating to compensation for those who are injured in the course of their duties in the armed forces. The problem, essentially, is that currently the onus is on an injured soldier, sailor or airman
1242
to prove negligence by the Government. Surely the onus should be on the Ministry of Defence, as a good employer, to prove negligence by its personnel. In the meantime, the Government merely suggest that service men take out personal accident insurance. Surely the Ministry of Defence should take out blanket insurance cover for all its personnel.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the matter has been discussed before. As I recall, the early-day motion concerned a specific case. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces spent a great deal of time in reaching a conclusion that proved satisfactory for all concerned.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that a debate on internal matters be held next week to avoid a repetition of yesterday's unseemly and undignified scene? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the event of any such debate, the parliamentary Labour party would be entirely willing to supply scrutineers for internal Tory elections to ensure the fairness that, apparently, did not operate yesterday?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not agree; I think that the process was perfectly fair. What yesterday's events demonstrated was the great enthusiasm within the Conservative party to discuss and vote on European matters.
Mr. Michael Latham: Since, in practice, most of next week's two-day debate on Europe will be dominated by the thunder and lightning of the twilight of the gods and godesses in the Privy Council, will my right hon. Friend consider extending Wednesday's debate, when there will be no vote, to midnight to give the ordinary squaddie a chance to take part?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that that is an appropriate description. I have to take into account the need to give adequate time for debate and also the wish, expressed in most of the responses to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), that the House should not rise too late at night on these occasions. I shall give thought to my hon. Friend's request, but without commitment.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I draw the Minister's attention to clause 17 of the Education (Schools) Bill which relates to an exclusively Scottish matter in what is otherwise an English Bill? It is yet another example of Scottish matters being shoehorned into English legislation. It means also that decisions will be taken by Members of Parliament with no knowledge and experience of or participation in the Scottish education system; the Conservatives have no electoral mandate in Scotland. Will the Minister consider transferring this particularly Scottish clause to the Scottish Grand Committee or to a Scottish Standing Committee for consideration, or drafting a separate Scottish Bill in order to allow informed comment and decision making on it?
Mr. MacGregor: But I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that Scottish Members are entitled to participate and frequently do so in many debates and votes

1243
on many English matters, including the whole of the region of East Anglia. I have not heard them complain about their ability to do that.
Mr. John Bowis: Further to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friends about the European debate and in the interests of fairness to those who sit on the Opposition Benches, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has done his mathematics to ensure that there will be time for at least a 10-minute speech to be made by each of the 42 Labour party Members who have distanced themselves today from the position of the leader of their party, including the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I suspect that quite a number of those 42 will, for one reason or another, not wish to participate in the debate.
Mr. David Clelland: Is the Leader of the House aware of the 22,000-signature petition, handed in to No. 10 Downing street on Tuesday, which calls for urgent action by the Government to stem the badly misnamed practice of joyriding? Why are the Government not giving the matter urgent priority? People's lives are being disrupted daily by that practice, and every day that the Government delay further lives are in danger of being lost.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's description of joyriding. That is absolutely the wrong word to describe the dreadful practice that takes place. I agree also with him about the need to have legislation as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is important that it should be drafted correctly. The Government intend to bring forward legislation as soon as they possibly can. As I hope and believe that such legislation has support on both sides of the House, I hope that we can pass it speedily.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the work of the national health service trusts? Is he aware that Guy's hospital, the flagship trust, has been able to report that there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of patients treated and a substantial reduction in waiting lists and that it will be giving NUPE employees a Christmas bonus and a salary increase in January? Is not that the sort of progress that anyone who cares for the national health service will welcome?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the excellent progress report from the Guy's NHS trust. I am sure that it will be followed by others. I hope that a great deal of publicity will be given to that progress. It illustrates how well the reform is moving after a very short time. I cannot, however, promise a debate next week.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: During next week's debate on nuclear defence, will the House have an opportunity to debate the case of the British nuclear test veterans? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's continued refusal to pay just and adequate compensation to these victims of Britain's nuclear tests is becoming less and less credible as more and more evidence accumulates?
Mr. MacGregor: That will be a matter for the Chair, but the debate will be fairly wide, as it is to be on the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House guarantee that in next Friday's debate full account is given to the supremely important issues raised in early-day motion 157?
[That this House recalls that five months before the start of the Gulf War, on 19th April 1990 (Official Report, column 1013–4) the honourable Member for Newport West requested the Government to initiate investigations at the International Atomic Energy Agency into the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme, and that the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the Right honourable Member Jiff Bristol West, replied that Iraq was a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, "and as such has undertaken not to develop nuclear weapons. We expect Iraq to abide by her international obligations. We do not envisage taking the specific action outlined by the honourable Member."; notes that in a parliamentary answer on 11th November 1991 the Minister of State at the Foreign Office the honourable Member for Grantham, replied to the honourable Member for Newport West "We now know that Iraq circumvented IAEA safeguards in seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability. This is a cause for concern. The IAEA is considering how to strengthen the system.".]
It recalls that five months before the start of the Gulf war the Government had refused a request to increase the international surveillance of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme on the extraordinary grounds that Iraq had signed the international non-proliferation treaty and the Government believed that Iraq would abide by its obligations and would not build nuclear weapons. As those conditions still exist and 30 other countries might be deceiving the international community, is not it crucial that we now have proper international surveillance of all those unstable countries that might be building nuclear weapons as Iraq would have done? If the war had not started, Iraq would have continued to deceive the world and would have nuclear weapons by now. Is not the most important issue to create world peace by reducing the proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows well the Government's position on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It seems that he has already made his speech for next Friday. It is likely that that could be covered in the debate, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised it.
Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House further on the proposed closure of Westwood hospital? Is the Secretary of State for Health required to approve the closure and the disposal of the grounds—estimated to be worth at least £11 million—for residential development? Is he aware that, in the bogus consultation exercise before the establishment of the second trust in Bradford, there was no word about the closure of the hospital or the flogging off of the grounds? Is he aware that earlier this year——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a debate on this. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question about next week's business please?
Mr. Madden: The chairman of the health authority told me earlier this year that there was to be a 50 bed——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a bogus question for the business statement because it is not asking for a debate on a particular point. However, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to the request made to the Leader of the House to extend next Wednesday's debate to midnight, may I point out that I have the Adjournment debate that night and I would rather be called at 10 o'clock than at midnight?
With regard to next Wednesday's meeting of European Standing Committee B, will the Leader of the House impress upon his ministerial colleagues the need to dispatch the relevant documents to the members of that Committee in plenty of time? The Department of Energy has set a fine benchmark in that regard and other Departments should attempt to achieve that record.
Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have noted with interest the view that he expressed. It shows the different considerations that I have to take into account when reaching decisions on questions of business. I shall bear it in mind.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am anxious that, wherever possible, Departments should get the documents to the members of the European Standing Committees as early as they can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will have noted the tribute paid to the good lead given by his Department. I am keen that as many Departments as possible should send out the documents quickly. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is not always in our hands, because some of the documents come rather late from the European Community to the Departments.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In light of a dramatic increase in crime nationally and, in particular, in my constituency, can we have a statement next week on police numbers and police authority budgets? Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary whether he would be prepared to meet Labour Back Benchers individually to discuss policing problems in their constituencies?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's second point is not for the business statement. On the first point, with the business that we have next week, it is unlikely that we shall be able to have a specific statement on the question of police numbers.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given notice of my point of order to you and to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is in his place. It relates to the Education (Schools) Bill which is due for its Second Reading next Tuesday. Page 382 of "Erskine May" concerns the citing of documents not before the House and makes it clear that a Minister may not
"read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the Table."
It is well known that the Education (Schools) Bill, which seeks to privatise the schools' inspectorate, is a matter of great controversy. The Bill is based partly on an internal review of Her Majesty's inspectorate which the Secretary of State has refused to publish. I disagree with his refusal, although I realise that he is entitled to take that position. He says that it is a confidential document.
That document was today leaked in part in The Independent and the newspaper also contained my allegation that the Secretary of State may have misled the House in relation to figures that he quoted last week in the House. Normally, when Ministers face the problem of leaked documents, they refuse to make any comment on the content of the document or, sometimes, on its existence. In doing so, they maintain clear security from the contents of page 382 of "Erskine May". In this case, the Secretary of State has today issued a public statement disputing various parts of the report in The Independent and he has sought to quote from other aspects of the internal review which he has said is so far confidential. If I may——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. It would be more correct to raise the matter in debate. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier, but a question on the matter was raised with the Leader of the House during business questions and he answered it. It is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Straw: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to take time to consider the point of order and it is, indeed, a point of order. By his statement today, the Secretary of State has shown his readiness selectively to quote from the review outside the House. Hon. Members of all parties may wish to quote inside the House next Tuesday what the Secretary of State has said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt wish to quote from the report. In those circumstances, and given the readiness of the Secretary of State to quote from the report outside the House, surely it is incumbent on him now to lay the report on the Table. It is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker—although you may wish to take time to consider it—because page 382 of "Erskine May" makes the position absolutely clear. If a Minister wishes to quote from a report or state paper, he must lay it on the Table.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will explain briefly to you, to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and to the House why the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in what he has just said. I announced to the House in reply to a parliamentary question that we were carrying out the review of Her

1247
Majesty's inspectorate. I made it clear that it would be an internal review carried out by my officials and that it would remain confidential on the usual basis that advice to Ministers remains confidential.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn correctly said, there appears to have been an unauthorised leak to The Independent——
Mr. Frank Dobson: As opposed to an authorised leak?
Mr. Clarke: Not an authorised leak, but a very unauthorised one.
Not surprisingly, I have commented on the newspaper article. My comments address the article and point out that the proud possessor of the leaked document has drawn some fairly ridiculous conclusions from what he had in front of him.
The question whether I misled the House has been raised. The hon. Member for Blackburn has previously bandied about the numbers. He refers to numbers that were put forward for the size of the inspectorate, which The Independent says come from the review carried out by officials on the basis of their proposition. I have given the House the figure of 175 members of Her Majesty's inspectorate, based on the opinion of the senior chief inspector and myself about the number of people required to carry out my policies. The independent, all-powerful HMI needs 175 people to carry out its duties. That figure remains accurate and perfectly straightforward. I have not misled the House in any way and the hon. Member for Blackburn should not make such ridiculous statements.
Mr. Speaker: I think that this is all part of the debate that will take place next week. It is not a matter of order for me. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] I repeat that it is not a matter of order for me. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with me. I did not issue the document.
Dr. John Cunningham: We are entitled to seek your advice, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has been quoting from the report and the rules in "Erskine May" are clear—if Ministers refer in the Chamber to documents or to reports, they should table them. Is not the best way to clear up the matter in the interests of the Secretary of State and of parents whose children will be affected—of whom I am one—for us all to see the report?
Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish that the Opposition would at least listen to what I say. The hon. Gentleman will find that I did not quote the report, and I advise the Opposition to concentrate not on nonsense in The Independent but on the policy of the Bill which will be debated next Tuesday. It will create a stronger and more powerful inspectorate and will introduce regular reports to parents on the results of its inspections. The Opposition should stick to the issue rather than to silly legalistic nonsense.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a simple fellow, I seek your ruling on a simple question. If it is in order for a male
1248
member of the House for the most honourable reasons to take his dog into the Division Lobby—the dog looking after him—why is not it in order for a female hon. Member to take her baby into the Division Lobby? After all, hitherto at any rate, women are the only things that bear babies.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for such matters. I think that I shall leave it at that.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on early-day motion 142 which has been tabled by 17 Opposition Members and which criticises my conduct in an issue in my constituency. Are we to allow a situation to arise in which two local councillors, one of whom will be my opponent in the general election, can instigate on the Order Paper without any investigation an early-day motion that criticises me and which is signed by 17 Opposition Members, none of whom has taken the trouble to talk to me about the rent rises—[interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow the hon. Gentleman to finish.
Mr. Hind: If that is to be allowed, it will mean that, with his colleagues, every Conservative candidate for a Labour-held seat could initiate early-day motions that could equally be signed in ignorance by Conservative Members and we shall have 650 early-day motions every day. They would blight the Order Paper and abuse the system. Is not it time that the matter was sorted out and that members of the Opposition talked to other hon. Members instead of stabbing them in the back for political purposes?
Mr. Speaker: I deprecate the use of the Order Paper for personal attacks on hon. Members, but the early-day motion involved was in order. If it had not been in order, that would have been brought to my attention by the Table Office but that was not the case. We had better proceed.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice on this morning's Hansard. I refer to columns 1061–78 and to oral questions. Some Scottish Back Benchers have every sympathy with your earlier strictures on the need for Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers to offer concise answers to questions. If one reads the exchanges between the Front Benches, one sees that that is where most of the time was taken up. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of Scottish Questions next month, to remind Front-Bench spokesmen and Ministers of your earlier strictures.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has done that himself. In the interests of Back Benchers, I must stress that lengthy questions and answers from the two Front Benches take time from the Back Benchers, and I hope that that will be borne in mind.

Orders of the Day

  Coal Industry Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: There is considerable pressure to speak in the debate, and I propose to put a cautionary 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. However, if Members called before that time bear the limit in mind I hope that it may be possible to relax it later in the evening.
  4.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is of great importance to British Coal, enabling the corporation to continue the restructuring of the industry which is essential for its future.
  Clause 1 extends the availability of restructuring grant by three years from March 1993 to March 1996 and raises the ceiling on the payment of grant from £1,500 million to £2,500 million. That ceiling will be increasable by order to £3,000 million. Restructuring grant was introduced by section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987. It provides support for British Coal's expenditure on redundancy, early retirement, transfers and retraining. It also assists the finances of British Coal Enterprise.
  The existing ceiling on the grant is likely to be reached during the next financial year. Without restructuring grant British Coal would face heavy losses and a financial crisis. It is clearly necessary to raise the limit, but the increase is only an increase in the limit. It is not based on a specific view of what any future manpower rundown may be.
  The actual requirement for restructuring grant payments will be determined primarily by the degree to which British Coal succeeds in cutting costs further and winning business.
  Clause 2 concerns the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The 1908 Act is most important. Has the Secretary of State arranged for it to be available for us to read? The Act concerns more than just the number of hours to be worked. It has wider implications.
  Mr. Wakeham: The Act is available in the Library. I do not have a copy of it here, but I shall explain what the Government have in mind.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
  Mr. Wakeham: I had better make a little progress first, then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Clause 2 concerns the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. That Act, which regulates hours of work, has long been recognised as out of date by most of those working in the industry—mineworkers and management alike.
  Mr. Martin Redmond rose——
  Mr. Wakeham: The 1908 Act restricts hours of work to a prescribed period of no more than 7·5 hours. Everyone
  1250
  working in the industry knows that to be too rigid a constraint. The limit reflects neither the latest mining methods nor good mining management.
  Mr. John Cummings: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman will not know anything if he shouts instead of listening.
  Mr. Cummings: I was 29 years underground.
  Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the arguments he may learn something to his benefit.
  The 1908 Act does not take account of the technology that has been the backbone of the industry's modernisation and increasing competitiveness. Mechanisation has been under way in the coal industry since the 1950s.
  Over a period of 40 years or so the 1908 Act has been becoming increasingly impractical and constraining. It is by adopting greater flexibility in working practices, by developing improved modern management and by investment in modern mining technology that the industry has achieved the improvements in productivity that are so vital to its future.
  The safety of mine workers is of paramount importance. The Government's policy is that the much-improved standards that have been achieved must be maintained. The Government will not bring forward any measure that will prejudice safety. Unnecessary fears have been raised by the Opposition.
  Mr. Redmond: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be special legislation for those working underground'?
  Mr. Wakeham: That question arises in relation to the European directive——
  Mr. Redmond: Not just that.
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question; perhaps he will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer.
  What replaces the Act depends entirely on whether it is possible to meet the conditions of a European directive that covers these matters. The hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to safety. Before we presented this legislation we consulted the Health and Safety Executive, which advised us that no questions of safety arise under these proposals.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Health and Safety Executive consists of paid public officials whose responsibility is to the Health and Safety Commission, which has not been consulted?
  Mr. Wakeham: As I understand it, the Health and Safety Executive is presenting its views to the Health and Safety Commission. The latter will then know what the position is.
  The commencement order for this Act becomes operable after Royal Assent. I give an undertaking that I have no intention of signing the necessary papers to operate the commencement order until a European directive is in place—or at least until I have come to the House to explain what is happening. I have no other intentions at the moment. Opposition Members would be a little wiser if they allowed me to explain the Govenment's

  1251
  intentions before being so free with their criticism. I shall explain what I intend to do and then allow hon. Members to intervene.
  The safety of mine workers is of paramount importance. Government policy is to maintain the much-improved standards that have been achieved. The Government will not introduce any measure that will prejudice safety—the fears that have been raised are ill-founded.
  The repeal of the 1908 Act will not prejudice safety. The improving record of mine safety is due primarily to technology. Last year there were 11 fatalities at British Coal workplaces and I am sure that we all agree that that was 11 too many. But at the beginning of the century, when the 1908 Act was introduced, there were more than 1,000 fatalities a year.
  The harsh labouring conditions of that era led to the legislation which prescribed a limit of 7·5 hours per shift. But, like so many industries, coal mining has seen major improvements in working conditions over the past 80 years. The industry has long left behind the days of hewing coal by pick and shovel. No one who has a genuine interest in the future of the industry wants to see its efforts being hampered by the antiquated legislation of a bygone era. Conditions in the coal industry have been transformed by mechanisation and by the application of modern technology. Outdated constraints clearly need to be removed if the coal industry is to be able to compete.
  The proposed European directive on working time would present the British coal mining industry with a difficult challenge. The directive is still under debate and the outcome is uncertain, but it is clear that a combination of the 1908 Act and the directive could increase the industry's unit costs. It could also reduce the earnings of its employees.
  If the directive comes into force, it will apply immediately to British Coal as a public sector body, while private sector companies will not have to comply until the United Kingdom implementing legislation came into force. To ensure that British Coal would have time to negotiate new working agreements, we are including a provision in the Bill to enable the 1908 Act to be repealed by order at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister said that the Government regard safety in the mines as important, so would not it have been reasonable if the Government had entered into a modicum of consultation with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, whose statutory responsibilities involve safety? Does not he understand that one reason for the advances in safety in the mines has been the existence of legislation such as that which he proposes to dismantle?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's second point is far from realistic, but the first part of his question was perfectly reasonable. To conclude the negotiations in time we have to repeal the Act in steps because the European directive, if agreed, will come into force immediately. I do not intend to sign the order repealing the 1908 Act until the European directive comes into force, but by the time that happens we must have held the negotiations because the directive comes into force immediately.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I concur with the Secretary of State's remarks about British Coal's excellent safety record, but does he agree that all the
  1252
  advances in safety in mining took place during the period of nationalisation when there was a mines inspectorate, an independent body under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy? Even now, under the Health and Safety Executive, it can make independent judgments.
  Mr. Wakeham: I have considerable doubt whether the hon. Gentleman is right that all the improvements in safety have taken place since nationalisation. I certainly agree with him that we should pay tribute to the significant improvements in safety since 1946 when the mines were nationalised. They have largely been a result of enormous improvements in technology and investment.
  Mr. Skinner: The Government say that they will oppose the bureaucrats in Brussels in respect of the advances in the social charter, so why must they take orders from the Common Market on increasing the hours of underground workers? The right hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the House, who last week suggested to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House that Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers should work a four-day week. This hypocritical Government are introducing a measure to increase the hours of miners. If it is all right for Members to work a four-day week, why is it not right for the miners?
  Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that my hon. right hon. Friend's proposals for a shorter working week necessarily applied to Cabinet Ministers, or even to hon. Members, who perform many duties outside the Chamber.
  The European directive's impact on the private and the public sectors will vary significantly. The public sector must implement it immediately, but it cannot do so while the 1908 Act is in place. I shall not sign the order repealing that Act until we have an alternative because I fully recognise that a proper regime must be in place.
  Mr. William O'Brien rose——
  Mr. Wakeham: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. O'Brien: Coalmining has certainly moved away from the hewing of coal at the coal face and has introduced mechanisation. The right hon. Gentleman assured the House that before signing any document he will wish to ensure that safety is the paramount consideration.
  Will the Secretary of State consider the conditions that prevail underground? As a result of mechanisation, there are conditions which must be reckoned with. Before he signs away the 1908 Act, will he consult the people working in the industry about the current conditions underground, including dust and other hazards? Instead of agreeing to longer hours per shift for people working in those conditions, will he consider the demand for shorter working hours? That is how we should be making progress in the mining industry. There should be shorter days underground, not longer days.
  Mr. Wakeham: It is not for me to negotiate the hours of work or anything of that kind. The 1908 Act will not cease to operate in the British mining industry until it is replaced by an alternative which will be arrived at either through a European directive or as a result of proposals in the House. I have no intention of producing such proposals at the moment.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The implication of the proposal to repeal, not to revise, the

  1253
  legislation is that there will be no statutory control from this Parliament over the minimum and maximum number of hours that people work underground. However, the Secretary of State has not mentioned another option whereby the British Government, in negotiations in the European Community, try to ensure that the same requirement in the 1908 Act is part of the directive. The Secretary of State has not addressed that. He has not told us why it cannot be perfectly permissible and legitimate for a similar provision to be contained in European Community legislation.
  Mr. Wakeham: The European directive will cover the same issues about hours of work as those covered in the 1908 Act, although not necessarily in the same way. However, that matter has not yet been negotiated. I will not repeal the 1908 Act or stop it operating until we have an alternative which can be discussed. We cannot move into a period when there are no regulations. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right. The European directive could be as restrictive and restraining as the 1908 Act. As I have said, we believe that there are shortcomings in that proposal.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: No, I have been most generous in giving way and I must now make progress.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute, but I must first make progress or we will be here rather longer than we should.
  The coal industry's performance over the last five years has been remarkable by any standards. British Coal has raised productivity by over 100 per cent. since the 1984–85 strike. It has cut colliery unit costs in real terms by over 40 per cent. during the same period and last year British Coal achieved a bottom-line profit for the first time in 13 years.
  Those achievements, which I am sure are welcomed on both sides of the House, would not have been possible without massive support from the Government. That support includes the £6 billion provided under the Coal Industry Act 1990. That £6 billion provision enabled the corporation to carry out a major financial reconstruction. The debt burden of the corporation was reduced by over £4 billion and it was relieved of annual interest payments of some £400 million. As a result, British Coal's financial results now more accurately reflect the performance of the current ongoing business. I have been informed by the chairman that British Coal is once again on course this year to make a bottom-line profit.
  That excellent improvement in British Coal's performance has not been achieved without difficulty and sacrifice. The market for British Coal has been in decline for decades and in recent years British Coal has also needed to deliver coal prices falling in real terms. In the past five years over 70 collieries have closed and the number of employees has been reduced by over 100,000.
  This problem is not new. The coal industry has faced difficult periods of adjustment and reconstruction in the past, including during the term of office of the Labour party from 1964 to 1970. In April 1964, there were 576 pits.
  1254
  By the time Labour left office in 1970, the number had fallen to around 300—a reduction of nearly half, down by 280 collieries and about 170,000 men. It is a tribute to the work force and management that the recent contraction in the industry has been achieved without disruption.
  British Coal has been able to offer alternative jobs to any man who has chosen to remain in the industry. Those who have decided to leave have received substantial sums in redundancy payments. They can also obtain retraining and counselling through schemes run by British Coal Enterprise.
  The Government's commitment to the industry goes far beyond providing the finance needed to ease the problems of redundancy. I want to reaffirm the Government's commitment to an ongoing economic coal industry and its long-term future. Since 1979 we have approved investment expenditure of over £7·5 billion in the coal industry. That is more than all other Governments since the war taken together. We have also provided grants totalling over £11 billion in addition to the £6 billion provided last year. We expect to provide nearly £700 million in grant this year.
  Our commitment to the coal industry is not only demonstrated through financial assistance. Last Session, for instance, we tackled the long-standing problem of subsidence. The provisions of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 should greatly improve the coal industry's relationship with those under whom it mines.
  What of the future for British Coal? Our main aim is to ensure that we achieve the largest coal industry that is economically sustainable. The main challenge for the industry is to try to win the best possible outcome from the contract negotiations with the generators. The measures that I have described are essential to the future of the industry and would be necessary whether the industry's future lay in the public or the private sector.
  Of course coal, not just in this country but worldwide, faces challenges over the next five to 10 years. Here in Britain the power generators, the market for the bulk of the corporation's coal, are turning increasingly to environmentally friendly gas. Our policy and the policy of all Administrations over the past two decades has been to support diversity of fuel supply. Nuclear, renewable energy and gas all now have key roles to play as well as coal. Increased use of gas in generation brings enormous benefits to the electricity consumer and to the environment.
  The consumer benefits from the lower electricity prices that will result. The environment benefits from lower levels of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions. The threat of global warming and the problems of acid rain are reduced. The Government are not going to hinder the development of the competitive market that we have created with the privatisation of power generation by interfering with the use of cost-effective gas. We are not convinced by doomsters who say that all coal not extracted now will never be accessible in future. It is foolish to subsidise coal extraction now when improvements in mining technology are likely to make much of that coal exploitable on an economic basis in later decades.
  I turn for one moment to the Labour party's plan for the coal industry. On the surface that plan is straightforward. It is, according to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), to maintain the coal industry at its present size—by protecting it at all costs from the rigours of competition that everyone else has to face. How would the Opposition do that? They

  1255
  would stop coal imports and restrict the mining of opencast—or so they say. They would "deter" the use of gas for power generation and phase out nuclear power—or so they say. They would renationalise the national grid, at huge cost to the taxpayer, and attempt to force the generators to burn high-cost coal—or so they say.
  The coal industry recognises that it has to live in the real world—not in the twilight zone that some Opposition Members seem to inhabit. For the truth, as most people now know, is that Labour could not fulfil any single one of the pledges that I have just outlined.
  Restrictions on imports would be contrary to the European internal market—less than 14 months away—and to our obligations under GATT. They could not restrict opencast coal mining without putting at risk 10,000 deep-mined jobs. They could not "deter" the use of gas because gas stations are already being built and the gas has already been contracted for.
  The hon. Gentleman's pledge
  "to maintain the coal industry around the size it is now"
  is not worth the paper it is written on. He could not fulfil his pledge—nobody could. I challenge him to say specifically what he would do to fulfil his pledge and to say what the costs to the consumer, the environment and the taxpayer would be.
  I make just one other point on Labour's plans, although I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) is not here to take note. That concerns the inherent contradiction between Labour's environmental commitments and its energy policies. There is no way in the world that the Labour party could ever meet its commitments on carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions at the same time as meeting its commitments to the National Union of Mineworkers. If Labour is determined to phase out nuclear power and to deter the use of gas, at the same time as meeting the environmental obligations that it has set itself, it would have no option but to destroy the coal industry. Opposition Members can seek to protect the environment or they can seek to preserve the coal industry at its present size—but their policies will not do both.
  The Government believe that the best protection for the coal industry is to become economic and we have demonstrated our commitment to that objective, with finance, support and action. I believe that it is time for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to give the House a proper explanation of his party's policies and what it would do—and perhaps with a little more precision than is usual for him.
  I do not normally comment on what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says before breakfast, but I have received a message from the management of British Coal that they are incensed at his suggestion this morning that there would be any reduction in safety standards in the British coal industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to withdraw any such suggestion.
  Finally, British Coal must face the challenges to its market head on. No one can deny that much has been accomplished in the years since the miners' strike. Much still needs to be done. British Coal must fight for every tonne of commercially viable business. It must build on the increases in productivity already achieved. Further productivity gains are essential if the growing competition from other fuels and imported coal is to be met.
  1256
  The Government have provided strong backing and very large sums of taxpayers' money to enable the industry to restructure and increase productivity further. The Government will continue to give strong support to this important industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: As the House will recall, on Thursday 31 October, in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Government said that they would
  "continue to prepare for the privatisation of the … British Coal Corporation."—[Official Report, 31 October 1991; Vol. 198. c. 6.]
  On Friday 1 November, they published this Bill. Nothing could be clearer—the Bill is intended as the next step on the road to coal privatisation. It does two things. First, it doubles the money available for redundancy payments from £1,500 million to £3,000 million, and extends the date that that will be available beyond the existing deadline of 1993. That is necessary, because, if privatisation occurs, there could be as many as 30,000 redundancies in 1993–94 alone.
  Secondly, the Bill would reduce the cost of mining by reducing safety standards, by repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. Before the Secretary of State quotes British Coal in support of his contention that lengthening mining hours will not affect safety, I remind him that Mr. Moses of British Coal once gave his opinion that a 10-hour shift would not be objectionable.
  We will vote against the Bill because it tampers with the safety of mines and miners. It is a disgrace that the Government have brought it forward.
  Let us look first at the doubling of the restructuring grant to pay for redundancies. The previous Coal Industry Bill was before the House almost exactly two years ago, in November 1989. It doubled the redundancy fund from £750 million to the present £1,500 million, and extended its period of availability to the present limit, 1993. We said then that that was to finance as many as 30 pit closures with the loss of 30,000 jobs in the three and a half years until 1993. The Secretary of State accused me of scaremongering. British Coal called us Jeremiahs.
  I invite the House to consider what has happened. In November 1989, there were 77 collieries in operation. Since then, British Coal has closed 21 collieries and announced the proposed closure of another five. Against our estimate of 30 closures in three and a half years, we have seen 26 closures in the first two years. That is worse—far worse—than anything we predicted. When the Tories challenge our predictions now, people should remember what they said about our predictions two years ago.
  Mr. John Bowis: I understand the passion that one sometimes hears from hon. Members who have been down the mines, but then I look at the record and see 295 pit closures under Labour Governments, and I am not surprised to find that Labour mining Members are to test the loyalty of their leader at a meeting. If Labour Members do not trust the Labour party to look after the mines, why should the miners?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman from that well-known mining area of Battersea has been sent in by

  1257
  the Tory Whips to ask a question based on a totally misleading article in today's Evening Standard, the best that he can do is to keep quiet.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have worked down the pit for more than 30 years, so I know exactly what the conditions are. The figures that were given and the suggestions that were made two and a half years ago were on target. Notices have been issued to collieries in west Yorkshire that, within the next six months, there will be a further rundown of manpower. In my own colliery, Sharlston, there is an indication that there will be a rundown of manpower. The figures that we gave the previous time we discussed mining legislation were correct.
  Included in the Bill is the intention to take away the concessionary fuel allowance for miners' widows and retired miners that has been available ever since the industry began. Why should that happen in this legislation? May we have an assurance that retired miners and miners' widows will not lose that fuel allowance?
  Mr. Dobson: I regret to say that I cannot offer any assurances about what the Government or British Coal might do. In the light of the assurances that have been given by successive Secretaries of State for Energy and chairmen of British Coal, it is clear that nobody in their right mind would accept any assurance from any of them because they scarcely ever deliver.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall give way in a moment.
  I do not have the up-to-date figures for the number of job losses since November 1989, but when 18 pits closed, 20,000 jobs went too. Those closures not only harm miners, their families and the coalfield communities, but the whole country.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose——
  Mr. Dobson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me get on a bit.
  Taxpayers will have to pay out a fortune if pits are closed. Enormous sums will be required in benefits, and there will be not only a massive loss of income tax, but also of other taxes, including VAT. Those are the consequences for the taxpayer of this scale of closure.
  Another consequence of pit closures for the rest of the country is the effect on the balance of payments. In the first nine months of this year, 15 million tonnes of coal were imported. I remind the Secretary of State that foreign coal also produces sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide and cannot be said to make a big contribution to the environment. That 15 million tonnes in the first nine months of this year compares with the 15 million tonnes that were imported for the whole of last year and grotesquely exceeds the 4 million tonnes that were imported in 1982. We all know that PowerGen are investing in more and more coal handling facilities at ports around the country and that they intend to import more and more coal and to put more and more British miners out of work by closing more and more British pits.
  During the summer the Government appointed Rothschild merchant bank to advise them on coal privatisation. Lest anyone should think that an objective,
  1258
  professional and expert approach will necessarily be adopted, I remind the House that the privatisation unit at Rothschild is run by an exceedingly neutral and objective person—the Tory candidate for Hampstead and Highgate. At great expense to the taxpayer, Tory merchant bankers have produced secret reports that can be considered in secret by Tory Ministers. The Secretary of State has refused to publish any of the Rothschild reports. Some of them have been leaked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I published the information that Rothschild considered that only 28 of the then 60 collieries would remain after privatisation, I faced the usual charge of scaremongering. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) went on the radio in the east midlands to say that I did not know what I was talking about—[Interruption.] Well, the next thing that happened was that the Financial Times produced another document that proved that Rothschild had whittled down its figure of 28 to just 14 collieries that might survive the privatisation process.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman specifically deny that it was he who leaked the Rothschild report to the power generators and that the Labour party was entirely responsible? In doing that, does he accept that he has jeopardised British Coal's commercial position and sold down the river the prospects of every single person who works for British Coal?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble——
  Mr. Hughes: Answer the question.
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, I will answer that question in a minute, but I shall make my own speech in my own way—[Interruption.] Let me make it clear that if the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) had read the Rothschild report, which I made public—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes. If he had read it, he would have found that Rothschild recommends that the Secretary of State should get involved in the discussions between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen to ensure that, for a start, it got a good contract. I sold no one down the river—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."] Well, I shall tell the hon. Member for Harrow, West and his hon Friends that I have not received any complaints from any miners in this country about releasing information about the Tory bankers who advise Tory Ministers behind the backs of the miners and their families and who seek to treat them like chattels to be bought and sold.
  Anyone reading that report from Rothschild will understand why the Secretary of State kept it secret. It envisages a deep-mined output of just 20 million tonnes in this country, and imports of 30 million tonnes; reducing the number of deep mines by 1993–94 to 20, which will then fall to 14 or even 12. It also envisages 33,000 redundancies in 1993–94 and that most of the British coal industry will end up in foreign ownership. In other words, there will be more pit closures and more redundancies. The Government need this legislation so that they can find the money for the redundancy bill that will prepare the industry for privatisation.
  Mr. Peter Rost: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Rothschild report also recommends a miners' buy-out as one of the privatised options? As the Rothschild investigation considered that to be a reasonable prospect, does the hon. Gentleman support it?
  Mr. Dobson: Either the hon. Gentleman has another version of the Rothschild report or he has not read the one that I have. The report specifically warns miners to be wary of investing and buying shares in their own pits. Creswell and Gedling collieries in the Nottinghamshire coalfield have closed in the past three weeks. If the miners there had owned shares in their own pits, they would have lost their savings as well as their jobs. That is what Rothschild warned. It does not recommend the course of action to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The Secretary of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends still deny our assertion that the coal industry will be virtually destroyed. On Monday, the Secretary of State once again described me as a Jeremiah. I assume that that was intended as an insult, but modern Tories are an ignorant lot. I went to a grammar school in York that was founded during the reign of Henry VIII by an archbishop of York. It was wise to learn a little bit about the Old Testament. I learnt that Jeremiah prophesied dire consequences if the people in charge did not mend their ways. He was denounced by the powers that be, who ignored him. They did not mend their ways. The destruction that Jeremiah predicted then happened. I do not take it as an insult if I am called a Jeremiah. He was certainly a better forecaster than any Tory Minister. In deference to one of my newest hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I should add that that Tudor archbishop of York would probably have been on our side in this debate because his potted history relates that he was born a poor scholar in the parish of Hemsworth near Pontefract. Let us have no more Tory talk about Jeremiahs.
  We do not need a prophet's crystal ball because we have the Rothschild report. We know what the hard-faced Tories think should happen to the coal industry. They want to run it down, close it down and sell it off. They would be closing the cheapest and most efficient coal industry in Europe. It costs three times as much to mine a tonne of coal in Germany as in Britain. The dearest coal in Britain is cheaper than the cheapest coal that is mined in Germany.
  As the Secretary of State referred to Radio 4, I shall do so. This morning on Radio 4's "Today" programme he said that we needed to import cheap coal to stop the rise in the price of electricity. As he is not a physician, I cannot say, "Physician, heal thyself." But as he is an accountant, I can say, "Accountant, read thine own figures." Over the past five years coal has not increased in price whereas electricity has increased in price by 30 per cent.
  It is not the fault of British miners that electricity prices have risen. The coal industry and the coalfield communities look set to be sacrificed on the altar of the Tory privatisation dogma. They have already been severely damaged by electricity privatisation and now they are being damaged by preparations for coal privatisation. The impact of coal closures on not only miners but on entire communities is truly awful. As that impact is felt we get crocodile tears from Tories around the country who feel that their seats might be at stake.
  Speaking about the closure of the Coventry colliery, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) is reported as saying that he wanted to
  "make sure that everything is being done to protect the interests of my constituents who work there."
  I wonder whether this is what he meant. It is taken from the Coventry Evening Telegraph of 9 November this year:
  1260
  "Humiliated miners have been forced to play bingo for the chance to work. Hundreds of miners were given raffle tickets and were told to wait in the pit canteen for their numbers to be called out.
  The 'winners' received an interview with private contractor Thyssen which is recruiting salvage teams at the colliery. The losers were simply ordered into the redundancy line. On Tuesday there was a queue of men three deep and 50 yards long desperate for work with the contractors. The following day, they were giving out tickets to the men who were told to wait in the canteen where a man with a microphone called their numbers out."
  I assume that that is what a Treasury Minister sees as protecting the interests of his constituents. That is the humiliation which is heaped on miners, their families and their communities. We do not oppose generous redundancy terms for the miners. We do not want them to he made redundant in the first place.
  On safety, we start off with some clear facts. British coal mines are the safest in the world. They are twice as safe as those in Germany, five times as safe as those in the United States and 50 times as safe as those in South Africa, Colombia or the Soviet Union. Any Government should take pride in that record, seek to keep it up and, if possible, improve it. Any Government who had pride in this country would seek to promote the raising of standards around the world to match our standards. Any Government with any real pride in our people would get on to our European partners and say, "Bring up the standards in your coal mines to our standards." God knows, not many British industries are three times as efficient and twice as safe as their German counterpart. But that is true of the coal industry.
  However, the Government are not thumping the table and telling other countries to bring their standards up to our level. Quite the reverse. They are repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908—the only legal limit on the hours worked underground—and applying the European directive on working time.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I agree with my hon. Friend that British mines are the safest in Europe and probably in the world. However, they are not as safe as they used to be. British Coal is not using the safest method of supporting the roof. I have here a death certificate of a miner killed at Allerton Bywater colliery only a few weeks ago. Under cause of death it says:
  "following and due to a fall of roof associated with the application of tension to roof bolts in the course of his employment at Allerton Bywater Colliery".
  The chief inspector of mines has told the Energy Select Committee on two occasions that that is not the safest method. The safest method of supporting roadways is by arch girders. British Coal is no longer using that method.
  Mr. Dobson: Indeed. I was going on to refer to the way in which the Government, including, I regret to say, the mines inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, have gone along with proposals from the management of British Coal which damages safety. This morning British Coal was apparently so incensed by what I said that an official rang the Secretary of State to complain. I have to say that no one rang me.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I wonder why.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know how often British Coal rings me on other matters.
  The European directive sets minimum standards for all workers in all workplaces. It does not even pretend to

  1261
  cover especially hazardous work in especially hazardous workplaces. The directive makes it clear that Britain can still apply laws and regulations which provide greater protection for health and safety.
  It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State for Energy to say that in future he will rely on the European working times directive at the self same time as the Secretary of State for Employment is foaming at the mouth, denouncing it as a gross interference in British affairs and seeking to persuade his fellow Ministers in Europe not to adopt it.
  The Government's proposals affect the safety of miners. Setting aside issues such as decent industrial relations and promises that other people have made, one would have thought it common courtesy for the Secretary of State at least to ask the miners whether they thought that the change was reasonable. Has the Secretary of State consulted the miners? No. Has he consulted the underground supervisory staff? No. Has he consulted the colliery managers? No. He has included the provision in the Bill without even consulting the Health and Safety Commission. It is no good him saying that he consulted the officials of the executive. The commission is responsible and it has not received a paper. Its secretariat told me that it might not even be able to consider it before Christmas. However, the provision was put in the Bill on 1 November.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  This is the legislative approach of Tombstone: legislate first, ask questions afterwards. The proposal epitomises everything that the Government are about. They are a Government of know-alls. They think they know better than the people whose lives are at risk in the mining industry what is good for safety in that industry.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose——
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  In their comfortable offices in Whitehall they think that they know what is best for the safety of men working a mile or more below ground. The industrial accident that Ministers are most likely to suffer is to trip on a carpet or cut their finger on the sharp edge of a piece of paper. Yet they think they know more about safety than a man working a coal cutter three miles under the North sea off the Durham coast.
  However, I have to say that that has not been a common characteristic all along.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: In a moment. Let me finish that point.
  When the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Secretary of State for Energy he appeared before the Energy Select Committee and said that no steps to repeal the 1908 Act would be taken without consultation with the miners. He said:
  "I think if the industry were agreed that this"—
  getting rid of the 1908 Act—
  "was beneficial to the industry and the talks I have mentioned could take place successfully"—
  that is with the representatives of the miners—
  "I would presume any Government…would be very happy to change the legislation…The reason why the
  1262
  legislation was originally put in was very much on safety grounds, the importance of the protection of safety. Judgement on that would have to be taken by the Health and Safety Commission and, if it were judged to be totally safe,"—
  after all the consultations and if the industry agreed,
  "and no deterioration in safety resulted,"
  he said that perhaps changes could be made. Why has this Secretary of State not kept the promise of that Secretary of State? In legal terms, they are both the same person. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission produced a preposterous report which, although all the witnesses mentioned safety in their evidence, did not mention safety in its part of the report. Even the MMC stated that if there were to be changes in working practices they should take place after consultation.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech there are references to the 1908 enactment as a great piece of safety legislation. I have read the Act. Has the hon. Gentleman bothered to go to the Library to read it? There is nothing in the Act that is remotely connected with safety. It deals solely with hours worked below ground. If the Act has been amended to introduce safety provisions, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us. Has it been amended to include safety considerations rather than simply hours worked?
  Mr. Dobson: Dearie me. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the length of working hours has no connection with safety——
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: —he should not be in the House.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right. If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, he should not be in this place.
  Miners believe that a coal mine is an especially hazardous place in which to work. The deputies believe that and so do the colliery managers. Surely they are right to take that view. If they are right, surely miners are entitled to special laws, including legislation on working hours, which have a clear bearing on safety. Surely miners are entitled to expect special laws to cover the time that is worked underground.
  When the Secretary of State responded to an intervention on this issue, he seemed to suggest that he did not believe that there was a need for special legislation for miners. It seems that he does not believe that they need any special protection.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way for the moment.
  The Secretary of State suggests that as practices down the mines have changed since 1908 there is no need now to have such short working hours. I remind Conservative Members that in 1908 the bulk of miners lived in terraced houses within five or 10 minutes walk from the pit. Nowadays, some miners, especially because of successive mine closures, have to drive 20 or 30 miles to work. They have to change and then they go down the pit. They get on a manrider and travel perhaps two or three miles before they reach the face. The hours that pass between leaving their own front door and returning to it are longer now than they have ever been in history.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  I recognise that the Secretary of State is not likely to be convinced by anything that I say to him. However, I have referred to the 1908 Act and I have read the debates that took place on that measure. If the Secretary of State is not convinced by what I have to say, I recommend him to read Hansard of 6 July 1908. On that day, 120 Tory Members voted against the measure passing through the House. For good measure, they then voted against the introduciton of old age pensions. Those Divisions took place on the same day.
  Mr. Wakeham: I was reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was telling us that he went to the Old Testament to learn how to run a modern coal industry, and when he went on to tell us about the debates that took place in 1908. I want, however, to make the position clear.
  I am proposing that the 1908 Act be replaced by the European directive. If the directive is not satisfactory and is not agreed, the 1908 Act will stay and we shall then consider what to do. We have no proposals yet. Secondly, during the process of preparing the Bill the Department has, of course, kept the Health and Safety Executive informed of proposals to amend the 1908 Act. The executive will he recommending to the Health and Safety Commission later this month that this repeal would not diminish safety in mines.
  Mr. Dobson: The HSE is not sacrosanct. The executive is heavily involved in general measures relating to mine safety and in proposing changes that everyone in the industry, with the exception of the top brass of British Coal, think will make mining more dangerous. I am not surprised when I hear what the executive's officials may have done. If the Secretary of State is not convinced when we say that miners deserve special treatment, I recommend him to read the closing speech that was made on behalf of the Government on 6 July 1908. The then Minister read an extract from a book that spelt out the advantages of shorter working hours for employees and for employers, and for society as a whole. He then said:
  "But it may he said that these arguments are general, and that special circumstances existed to differentiate the case of coal-miners from that of many other industries in this country. Others have spoken of the heat of the mine, the danger of firedamp, of the cramped position, of the muscular exertions of the miner, at work in galleries perhaps a mile under the ground. I select the single fact of deprivation of light. That alone is enough to justify Parliament in directing upon the industry of coal-mining a specially severe scrutiny and introducing regulations of a different character from those elsewhere."—[Official Report, 6 July 1908: Vol. 19, c. 1331.]
  That is a quotation from the speech of the then President of the Board of Trade, Winston Churchill. I agree with what he said that day. Today, 83 years later, the new Tories, under the man they tried to portray as "Nice Mr. Major", say that there are no special dangers down the mine. I do not think that they can believe that. So why are they proposing to introduce change? They are doing so because it is the first step along the road to privatisation. It is intended to attract foreign buyers for British Coal. It is intended to cut costs by cutting safety. It is intended to make our mines more attractive to companies such as Peabody Coal in the United States, which has recently been prosecuted and fined about £500,000 for deliberately, regularly and comprehensively fixing test filters in its
  1264
  mines. In effect, the Government are saying, "Come to Britain. We are levelling down our safety standards to yours."
  That is why we shall vote against the Bill. That is why we shall oppose privatisation. That is why, after the general election, the incoming Labour Government will abandon privatisation and bring new hope to the coalfields and the coalfield communities.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: This Coal Industry Bill must be one of the shortest of its sort ever to come before Parliament. It is, however, consequential to the future of our coal industry. It implies a great degree of uncertainty, but equally it presents a challenge to the management of British Coal to fight for every ounce of viable business that it can obtain. That will mean continuing to reduce unit costs, while increasing productivity.
  Clause 1 complements that process and shows the Government's continuing commitment to the industry. It allows, where necessary, generous redundancy terms for men who wish voluntarily to leave the industry. It is worth saying that this Bill has nothing to do with privatisation or the Rothschild report; it will give the tools to British Coal so that it can compete successfully for the coal contract post-April 1993.
  We already know what is possible—over five years, the miners have increased productivity by 108 per cent., while prices have reduced in real terms by 40 per cent., representing an annual cash reduction to the generators of £150. What the people of Sherwood and many others want to know is why National Power and PowerGen have not reflected those bargain purchases from British Coal in lower electricity prices.
  The current price paid to British Coal is 180p per unit of energy, with 24 units to the tonne. When processed into electricity, it arrives at our domestic power points costing £20. Therefore, for the generating companies to say that by importing coal at the present world price of 145p per unit would benefit the consumers is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. What it would do is close our collieries, place this country at the mercy of international coal traders, and give Britain an added trade deficit of about £900 million per annum, for a hypothetical saving of just over £1·25 per week for the average household.
  Any industry, whether public or private, depends for its success on markets. What British Coal needs to know now, to enable its investment programme to proceed to meet the threat from coal imports, is the size of the United Kingdom coal market post-1993. Will it be 40 million, 50 million or 60 million tonnes? What we do know is that pre-emption means that no fewer than half the power stations' fuel markets in England and Wales are entirely removed from the danger of competition. Nuclear power survives on the back of the coal industry, subsidised by the fossil fuel levy. If the reverse were true, coal would be delivered free to the generators with a cash bonus of £10 a tonne.
  Gas has also been given favoured status, supposedly to help Britain to meet its modest sulphur reduction targets. So far, the contracts signed for plants coming on stream up to 1995 are equivalent to 25 million tonnes of coal. To help the process along the way, the Labour party acolytes on Humberside county council fell over themselves to be the first to grant planning permission for gas generators at

  1265
  Killingholme, replacing coal requirements by 3 million tonnes and with a loss of 3,000 mining jobs. The synthetic anguish and wringing of hands by Labour Members fools nobody. However, what stings the coal industry is that all but a few of the new gas plants will produce power at a total cost about 15 to 30 per cent. above that of British Coal.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to say that the Labour council in Humberside is responsible for the Killingholme port? That was forced through this House by Government policy and their votes. Will he reflect on the fact that, if the Bill is passed, redundancy arrangements will be forced on the coalfields, and especially the pits in Nottinghamshire? Those pits already have 40 per cent. of places that they cannot fill because miners have already been moved there from other pits. If the Bill is passed, there will be a mass pit closure programme in Nottinghamshire, and mainly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to be serious, or will he come through the Lobby with us tonight?
  Mr. Stewart: There were two parts to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The first referred to his colleagues on Humberside county council. There is no question but that they granted planning permission for Killingholme. Planning permission was not required from the Department in London. I shall deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question later in my speech.
  What is worse, the part of the fuel market to which I have referred will be closed to competition for no less than 15 years, because the only way to obtain the gas is to sign a binding 15-year contract. That means that, with the pre-emptions, all coal plants—even the biggest and the cheapest—will be pushed off base loads, forcing 12GW of modern coal plants to close prematurely. We must not sanction the contracts lying on my right hon. Friend's desk—and by that I mean that there should be no more contracts for gas generation.
  Accepting that half the coal market will have gone to privileged fuels by 1993, what are the real business prospects for British Coal, the miners and the coalfield communities? They will be doubtful if the little Englander view prevails both here and in the boardrooms of the generating companies. I use the metaphor in the knowledge that Scottish Power has recently signed a five-year contract with British Coal. It is ironic that Scotland, with an over-production of electricity, is already contracting its surplus to industry south of the border. Talk about playing golf while Rome burns; just leave the canny Scots to pick up the bargains.
  Forget the doubters: British Coal knows that it has only one way to go, and that is forward. Nevertheless, its greatest threat comes not only from coal imports but from the Labour party. First, there were the financial consequences of Labour's blind support for a dictatorial trade union leader, who is now as popular in Walworth road as a fox cub in front of the Quorn hunt.
  When Labour's support was needed in the House to block the building of the Humber port, which will be capable of handling 10 million tonnes of imported coal, Labour Members showed their true colours and left the Commons at 8 pm. Only 49 of the 229 Labour Members
  1266
  felt any sympathy for British miners and voted against the Bill. At that time, their motives were questioned but the questions remained unanswered. Now, all is revealed through Labour's policy decision to ban opencast mining.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: Will my hon. Friend remind the House how many Conservative Nottinghamshire Members of Parliament attended that unfortunate debate, compared with the attendance of Labour Nottinghamshire Members? If all Labour Members, who were supposedly so opposed to the Bill, had turned up, the Bill would not have become an Act.
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is correct. All Nottinghamshire Conservative Members were present at that debate, and they voted against the Bill. If the Labour party had put its money where its mouth was and voted with us, the problem facing us today would not have arisen. As I said, at that time the motives of Labour Members were questioned, and the questions remained unanswered. Now all is revealed through Labour's policy decision to ban opencast mines. The implication of that for Nottinghamshire's deep mines is catastrophic. Thousands of jobs will be lost.
  Thirteen of the 14 Nottinghamshire collieries require low-chlorine coal from opencast sites to sweeten their product, on a ratio of 6 tonnes deep mined to 1 tonne open cast, before it is accepted by the power generating companies. The loss of that low-chlorine coal by itself is disastrous, but the loss of the £200 million annual profit from British Coal's opencast division, which is used to subsidise deep-mined coal, would increase prices by almost £5 a tonne, leaving British Coal with no market or jobs for its miners. That bombshell, coming from the Labour party at a time when Nottinghamshire miners are continually breaking production records, shows Labour's lack of faith in and support for the coal industry, and why Nottinghamshire miners abandoned socialism in 1985.
  Notwithstanding that threat, I am confident in backing our miners, because only they can offer the generators long-term contracts which guarantee falling prices, paid for in sterling and free from exchange rate fluctuations. It is an offer that no other coal supplier at home or abroad can make.
  One may well ask why, with such a generous offer, the chief executives of our generating companies are not queuing up at British Coal's door. For a start, they are inexperienced in the commercial world, having spent their earlier years in the cosy surrounds of a nationalised concern. Since privatisation, they have yet to make a major decision. Remember, the present coal contracts were fixed for them by my right hon. Friend.
  With such complacency, it would be an abrogation of our duty to allow two commercial companies to ruin a major industry and its jobs and to wipe out a multi-billion pound investment made on behalf of taxpayers. Therefore, the time has come for my right hon. Friend to exercise our 40 per cent. shareholding in National Power and PowerGen and instruct the chief executives to sit down with British Coal and negotiate a mutually beneficial contract from 1993.
  What I have advocated is possible and not just a dream, but it would be remiss of me not to consider the nightmare scenario of colliery closures at a time when we are increasing restructuring grants by £1,000 million. The death of a pit is the end of an era, in some cases lasting

  1267
  more than 100 years. Gedling colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) closed a week ago after a four-year battle by the miners to make it successful. Nobody, not even the Labour party, could change the geological conditions. On behalf of the 400 men from Sherwood who work at Gedling, I thank my hon. Friend for his endless time and effort, not only during the past few weeks but over years, to keep that colliery open. He was such a regular visitor that he was given his own pit boots and locker.
  However, we must ensure that there is life after death by creating new workplaces on the former colliery sites. The target number of jobs should equal those lost from the indigenous mining communities. A prime example of that can be seen at Blidworth in my constituency. Within hours of the colliery closing, Newark and Sherwood district council started work, in conjunction with other agencies, on a rebuilding programme. Two years later, the new developments are on stream, bringing the target of 400 job opportunities even closer.
  The only criticism is the time taken to put the financial package together before work could begin. Grant applications have to be made to the EC, the Rural Development Commission and the Department of the Environment, with approvals taking months at a time when speed is of the essence. A simple change of policy, making British Coal Enterprise Ltd. responsible, would be a first step. It has a proven track record, creating 71,000 new job opportunities since it was formed seven years ago.
  A closure dowry based on a ratio of £X million for every 100 jobs lost would enable BCE to take control on day one, working in partnership with local authorities and matching pound for pound any EC contribution. By doing that, we would eliminate the 12-month delay. Time wasted cannot be recovered, so it is crucial that we have a system designed and ready to implement the moment that any colliery closes.
  Britain has commercial coal reserves at today's extraction rates to last more than 200 years, whether in clean coal power generation, gasification, liquefaction or chemical derivatives. It is one of our most valuable assets, like the land that produces our food. No one in his right mind would ever suggest that our farmers become nothing but park keepers as a result of surplus food in the world. Agriculture is part of the common agricultural policy and I urge my right hon. Friend to see the British coal industry as part of an integrated European energy regime. It would keep our industry competitive and offer a future to our miners. They deserve no less.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: I shall be better able to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) when the usual conventions no longer apply in three weeks' time.
  In the meantime, I pay tribute to my predecessor George Buckley. No one could but admire the fortitude with which he bore his last painful illness and the way in which at the same time he stuck to his constituency work which he performed with great conscientiousness. He had been equally conscientious as a councillor when I worked with him and he was a fine and scrupulous justice of the peace.
  I recall, and perhaps you recall, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during one election period George Buckley
  1268
  was accused of being an extremist. He was extremely hurt by that and announced that he was a moderate and a patriot. I declare here and now that I intend to follow that same path.
  Above all, I should say that George was a family man. He looked after his family; he cared for them. I am sure that the House will join me in sending our condolences to his widow and children.
  Because Hemsworth has always had a large Labour majority, it sounds like a great monolith, but it is very far from that. It is a series of villages in the south-east of Wakefield metropolitan district which were essentially rural in character. But over the years, because of coal mining and their transformation into pit villages, they have become rural areas with urban problems, with poor communications. But each village has a fierce patriotism. The patriotism is not to Hemsworth unless one lives in Hemsworth. To someone who lives in Upton, Upton is the centre of the universe. Perhaps Upton people are right to say that because they have a tremendous history. I am sure that they will have a tremendous future. They populate the world. It is said that one cannot go anywhere—I know that this was true in west Africa—without meeting someone from Upton who will give good and wise advice.
  There is also the village of Ackworth, where Geoff Boycott took his first faltering steps at the crease to become the greatest cricketer that the world has ever seen and a great Yorkshireman. Ultimately, because we pray for him every night, he will change his politics.
  The constituency has been destroyed because of the destruction of its industry, mining; a destruction that was completely unnecessary. We are left with real problems of unemployment and all that goes with that with the drifting away of hospital care so that everything is centered outside the constituency; with the drifting away of real jobs so that people have to move outside. One reason for that drifting away is that, as a result of the Government's failure to obey European Community rules, we are not getting the money that we should under RECHAR.
  Cato used to end all his speeches with the words, "Delenda est Carthago". I will conclude all my speeches with a plea for money from RECHAR. We have already sown the seeds of what needs to be done to bring about job regeneration in my area. The small extra amount of money for that purpose already approved by the Commission would make a tremendous difference.
  The mining part of the community that I represent is extremely important, even though only one working pit is left. Our history and our traditions are in mining, and those traditions remain even when people move into other kinds of industry.
  I want to consider for a moment the true price of coal. A very good friend of mine, George Gough, died last Saturday from emphysema. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) in the area and promise that I will assist him in his fight. The true price of coal centres on the lack of safety that is to be found in the mines, which reflects the lack of concern that is often shown.
  The fear the Frickley colliers have now is that when their mine is privatised—and they are convinced that will happen soon, unless there is a change of Government—safety standards will fall. They look forward to other assistance from Europe in respect of the social charter. The Minister said that the Government are waiting for certain European directives, but failed to mention that the

  1269
  Government are blocking several directives that would assist workers in my constituency. I think particularly of consultation on change, which must take place under the social charter but which has not been observed. The miners of Frickley have in no way been consulted over their futures. I warn again that I will be fighting for that, too.
  Featherstone is another area that once relied on coal and it is also where I taught for 12 years as deputy head of a comprehensive school which I established. I am extremely proud of the comprehensive education system. My school vied with eight grammar schools and produced results better than any of them—and for many more children. That is why I am proud of the comprehensive system and why I will support my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) in all his splendid work to make education once more a human thing with human values.
  Also in Featherstone we have a rugby team which will win the cup this year. I look forward to the Prime Minister being present that day—but, of course, by then it will be a Labour Prime Minister.
  I will co-operate with and fight alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for the interests of coal and do all that I can to assist my party's energy team in that fight.
  I want to make sure that Hemsworth can continue to be proud of its history. I will rail against its present problems and I will certainly fight for its future.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: It is truly a privilege to follow a maiden speech, and I am sure that I express the view of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House in extending a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and complimenting him on his words. Given the hon. Gentleman's background, he will clearly represent the constituents who elected him last week. I thank the hon. Gentleman also on behalf of us all for his glowing and deserved tribute to his predecessor.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth stuck, within reasonable bounds, to the conventions of the House in not making an over-contentious maiden speech, but he came very near to being contentious—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—when he suggested to a Nottingham Member of Parliament that Boycott was one of the best cricketers in the world. Given that I was born and brought up in Middlesex and spent my childhood idolising Compton and Edrich—[HON. MEMBERS: "More rubbish"]—the hon. Member for Hemsworth ought to be more careful in his support for Boycott, or he will fall out with many of his own right hon. and hon. Friends. As to his reference to rugby league, I plead ignorance and will not interfere with private griefs.
  I declare a small and indirect formal interest in the affairs of the coal industry and in British Coal. If ever there was a clear indication of the Government's understanding of the changing needs of industry, the effect of change on a particular industry, and the Government's willingness to take on board the social consequences of change, the last
  1270
  five years and the Coal Industry Bill clearly demonstrate the Government's balanced commitment to honouring their duty to consider the wider public interest.
  I am committed to the coal industry, but not blindly so, as are some Labour Members. I am committed to Nottinghamshire miners, which is hardly surprising—but that is not the case, or has not been, with Labour. I am committed also to the wider public that we must all represent. That requires an understanding of the environmental impact of energy production and usage, and of the price of that energy to commercial, industrial and domestic users. It is the Government's role to understand and to respond to the need for balance.
  Labour is clearly unwilling to address that issue, and tailors its words to suit its audience. If one considers the commitments of various members of Labour's Front Bench whose portfolios touch directly or indirectly on energy, one finds total conflict, one with the other. In that regard as in others, we wonder what the policy of Labour Members would be if, heaven forbid, they ever sat on the Government Benches.
  There is no way that we can be sure, from the statements of members of Labour's Front Bench, what the Opposition's policies would be in the context of the Bill and of the industry that we are trying to preserve and strengthen. If coal was just another industry or a medium-sized company in the private sector whose product was not as much in demand as previously, or had been superseded by another product that it could not make or compete with it, that industry or company would slim down or might even close altogether—with the same tragic effect on families and communities as has been seen in the coal industry. Given the social changes that have been necessary, and the consequences of those changes, I doubt whether any incoming Government would have looked after the coal industry as the present Government have.
  Dr. Kim Howells: We are discussing not a medium-sized company like any other, but a company that is concerned with one of our great energy assets. Energy, by any definition, is out of the ordinary: it is very close to the cockpit of politics. The need of a nation for energy—for the consistent supply of electricity, for instance—is vital, unlike the need for the products of many medium-sized companies.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I do not disagree with that. I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I meant that, in the case of any other industry, we probably would have let nature take its course. Firms slim down; firms close. There would have been no more than the statutory redundancies. Over the past five years, however, the Government have taken account of the very point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. All that has happened proves that they have taken on board the social consequences of change, while also recognising the future needs of a very special industry—the energy industry.
  Yes, the coal industry has slimmed down; yes, it may even have to slim down further. But no, it will not disappear—because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly implied, it is a vital resource. It therefore has a long-term future. By producing this Bill, and by everything that they have done, are doing and will do, the Government are endeavouring to give British Coal the time and the means to meet what we perceive as longer-term needs.

  1271
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already given a thorough airing to the detail of the Bill—as, perhaps to a lesser extent, has the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—let me address one or two other points. The Government have given British Coal Enterprise Ltd. some £60 million of public money, which has generated some £500 million of private-sector finance. Labour always scorns and derides the role of the private sector, but, as a result of that investment, an estimated 70,000 job opportunities have been created.
  Mr. Illsley: But how many actual jobs have been created?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I used the phrase "job opportunities" deliberately. I know how difficult it is to establish exactly how many jobs are involved in such cases. I mentioned the figure of 70,000; my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to 71,000. Let us not argue about a couple of thousand in either direction. An awful lot of jobs have been created by the £60 million of public investment and the £500 million of private investment. We can be certain of one thing: the private sector does not put £500 million into an enterprise that has no end product—in this instance, jobs.
  Mr. Illsley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "job opportunities". There is considerable dispute about exactly how many jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise. Opposition Members would take issue with the 70,000 figure; the number of actual jobs is very much smaller.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. I thought that I had met him halfway: even I did not say, "Oh yes, I am right, it is 70,000." The figure concerned is fairly large, and it is represented by efforts, to the tune of over £560 million, to recognise the special needs of mining communities. The Bill extends the possibility of doing that.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is no longer present. I listened with anger to what he said this morning on Radio 4. I felt that it amounted to criminial misrepresentation to suggest that the Government—or, more particularly, the management and staff of British Coal—would consciously risk the lives of men working below ground by cutting safety provision.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I would not trust them further than I could throw them.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: That is a gross remark to make about the management of British Coal. It is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cummings: At least he is a miner.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is not much of a miner in my book. Perhaps the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) will tell us just how many mines his hon. Friend has gone down to find out what he rabbits on about from the Front Bench week after week.
  The remarks that were made this morning on Radio 4 were not only unworthy of a Member of Parliament—they lowered party politics to the level of the gutter—but were
  1272
  certainly unworthy of someone who seeks to become Secretary of State in, heaven forbid, an incoming Labour Government.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about safety. I do not know of any colliery manager, deputy or workman who would deliberately plan to send people to work in unsafe conditions. As I have said, however, because of the recent drive to increase productivity and thus lower the prices of coal—in order to maintain the market—roadways in mines are being protected by roofbolts rather than arched girders. The chief inspector of mines has told the Select Committee on Energy twice that arched girders are safest. The use of roofbolts has led to men being injured and even killed. am not saying that the managers want to create unsafe conditions; they are being forced to do so by the economics of the coal industry.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I accept that the hon. Gentleman's experience is much greater than mine, but I find it hard to believe that the Health and Safety Executive would allow the use of a technique that had not been tried and proven, at least in another country. I cannot believe that an untried system that was considered dubious would be permitted.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not an ex-miner, but I know that he will spend an enormous amount of time in following up what the hon. Gentleman has said. If it turns out that the new technique is indeed unsafe, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be the first to say that he wants to hear more about it.
  Mr. Lofthouse: The system that I described is American. The safety there is four times worse than ours, and that statistic is based on recorded accidents in only 40 per cent. of unionised mines.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am in no position to challenge what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Constituents of mine have been using the roofbolting technique at Littleton colliery, just outside Cannock. I have discussed it with those responsible, as I did not understand how the system worked. If it had not been safe, it would not have been introduced into the United Kingdom—from Australia, incidentally, rather than the United States—and the men would not be using it. None of my constituents have made any representations to me about its safety.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has drawn attention to the fact that it might have been Australia rather than the United States. It is a great shame. on a matter so important, that, when my hon. Friend tried to place information before the House, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who raised the matter, started gasbagging to his neighbours as though it did not really matter. That was outrageous.
  We have to acknowledge the role that gas can play, is playing and certainly must play, as well as the environmental benefits that flow from it. Gas must have a reasonable share of the future energy market. The Labour party cannot talk about coal to one audience and about environmentally safe energy to another.
  Renewables must also have a share of the energy market. If my mailbag is anything to go by, people are

  1273
  complaining that the Government are not forcing the pace fast enough on renewables so that there can be an even quicker rundown in the use of fossil fuels.
  The Labour party is inconsistent. None of us can avoid recognising the adverse effect that the burning of fossil fuels has on the environment. Although all these alternatives are coming on to the market, I am certain that British Coal understands and can meet all the challenges. All it is asking for is that it should be given the time and the resources to fulfil its essential role in the future mix of energy generation and to ease the social consequences of the changes that will take place over the coming decades.
  British Coal has shown that it can be competitive. Its productivity post-Scargill has proved that. Contrary to Opposition claims, no generator in his right mind would want to rely over-heavily on imported coal. Security of supply, at a known contracted price, is absolutely essential if the generators are to fulfil their contracts with their distributors. British Coal would be even more viable and would have an even more secure future if United Kingdom coal, the lowest-cost coal in Europe, were competing on an equal level with Germany and Belgium, which still heavily subsidise their coal industries. The European Commissioners either turn a blind eye or are unable to enforce their rules and regulations.
  The Bill deals with the possible funds that will be needed up to 1996 to handle all these complexities and changes, but let us not forget that there is more to British Coal than just taking the stuff out of the ground—although I acknowledge that that is its prime purpose.
  Looking ahead, let us not forget some of the current research that is being undertaken by British Coal. It should be on the record. We have had many debates about the industry in the past few years, but rarely have we talked about the research work undertaken by British Coal into advance clean coal technology, small and advanced power generating systems, heating development, waste utilisation, atmospheric pollution, low CO2 power generation and options for its abatement, the coal science of nox formation and mineral behaviour, and liquid fuels. All these research projects are in the long-term interests of the nation. It would be mad to ignore all these potential gains for the long-term future of what is an almost inexhaustible home-based fuel.
  Most of the heat and anger generated today relates to whether or not the 1908 Act should or should not be repealed, but let us understand what that Act was all about. The 1908 Act set a limit on the amount of time that a mineworker could be underground. Those of us who never were mineworkers may not be aware that a different limit was set for deputies. No limit was set for management. I assume that management go underground and spend a fair amount of time there, but, I repeat, no limit was set for them.
  When I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I said that no reference to safety is to be found in the 1908 Act, or in any subsequent amendment to that Act. I admit that I have not read all the Hansard reports of the debates, so it is perfectly true that there may be a reference to safety in Hansard. However, safety was not the purpose of that Act.
  1274
  Opposition Members know that it is what is contained in an Act that counts, not the speeches that were made in support of it.
  The present limit for mineworkers is 7·5 hours. That is made up of a seven-hour period that can be extended at the manager's discretion by half an hour. Opposition Members must tell us whether that is the absolute maximum that they are looking for. Is that what they say is provided for in the 1908 Act? Is that what is fussing the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras?
  The 1908 Act sets a strict limit not on hours of work but on the hours that may be spent underground, whether or not the mineworker can properly be judged to be working. It has already been acknowledged that travelling time is included as part of working time. Someone pointed out to me today that miners can travel in an underground train in conditions that are somewhat better than those enjoyed by the average south-east commuter. It was also pointed out that at least miners have a reserved seat.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The 1908 Act dealt with health and safety. The hon. Gentleman, however, referred to miners travelling on a train. If he had ever worked underground, he would know that, when miners leave their paddy train, they have to walk a mile or a mile and a half to reach the coal seam. The hon. Gentleman should also remember that he has never smelt the stale air underground after seven hours there, and should take into account the fact that the stale air that miners breathe after seven hours underground, even though it is safe from the point of view of the regulations, makes them feel tired.
  It is at that point that the safety factor is essential. One can have all the safety regulations in the world, but if a person in middle management is also tired after that time, the problem is made even worse. That is why the hours worked are seven and a quarter, plus winding time.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's views, and I do not dispute what he says. He believes that the 1908 Act was a health and safety measure, but his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, from a sedentary position, that it was not—that it was the other way round. There is total confusion on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Cummings: It is the hon. Gentleman who is confused.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: It is vital to set out how long a person should work underground. I do not wish the safety risks to be increased. All I am saying is that none of the papers that I have read, or the Act that I have perused, remotely addresses the safety factor. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras may believe that the 1908 Act was a health and safety measure, but most people acknowledge that the Act that addresses health and safety is the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Section 2(1) says:
  "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
  That is the position now, and even if the 1908 Act is repealed, that will continue. We will not have diminished that statement one iota.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras stands accused of introducing safety as a smokescreen. He is trying to play on emotions that should not be played upon

  1275
  in the House. If the hon. Gentleman's real objections are founded on a desire in some way to prevent or frustrate privatisation, he should have said so. Productivity is just as vital in a nationalised industry as in a private-sector industry. Nothing will have changed.
  If the British miner cannot get his industry in a condition to compete four square with the rest of the world, we are in trouble, and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras should make up his mind about what he wants. If he is saying that he would rather have no deep-mining industry than one that is thriving in the private sector, let him say so. That seems to be the message from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not believe that the knee-jerk reactions of Opposition Members remotely address the real purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that British Coal has a future. Conservative Members will ensure its future this year, next year and for a long time to come.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I join in the tributes paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his maiden speech. It was agreeable, amusing and knowledgeable and his politics are rooted strongly in the locality that he represents. He will be able to see, as was everyone else, how warmly his speech was received. He brings one other quality to bear and that is the role of education in politics and the need to tell people what is happening and why it is happening. That is one thing that we can do in the House tonight.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth, I represent a mining constituency. When I came to Chesterfield in 1984 a quarter of all the jobs in that great centre of the north Derbyshire coalfield were dependent on coal. If the Rothschild report is carried through, the entire north Derbyshire coalfield will close. There will be only four pits in Nottinghamshire and those who defended the Union of Democratic Mineworkers throughout the strike will learn how foolish it was for any miners to put their confidence in the Government.
  I speak with some interest in the matter, apart from the fact that, for five years in all, I had the privilege of being Minister of Power and Secretary of State for Energy. Although we shall be defeated in the Lobby tonight, I can try to explain to people who listen to the debate or read Hansard what the Government are really doing. They are deliberately financing a further rundown in the mining industry at the expense of the safety of miners and their working conditions in the hope that profit can be made for private owners by a small number of pits with the rest of the coal being imported or coming from opencast mining.
  I was astounded at the suggestion that the 1908 Act had nothing to do with safety. Does anyone honestly believe that if we abandoned all controls on pilots flying jet aircraft and said that they could fly for 24 hours a day, it would have no effect on safety? Does anyone honestly believe that if an industry becomes more technological, we need fewer safety requirements? After all, a man who is tired and carrying a pick and shovel cannot do much to affect the safety of others. However, with the high investment underground today, a tired miner can do enormous damage to the pit and to other workers. If the
  1276
  hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) does not understand that exhaustion is a danger in a high-tech industry, he does not understand very much at all.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way because many miners want to speak. I shall use my brief speech to explain to people who read the debate what the Government are doing. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) will have plenty of opportunity to speak because very few Conservative Members are interested in the industry and many are not here to listen to the debate.
  One reason why privatisation is advocated now is that the pits were re-equipped with public money and now that they are available for privatisation a lot of profit will be made from them for somebody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—shortly to be my right hon. Friend—said, the money is not for investment but to finance redundancies. Another hon. Member intervened to say that some of the money is probably to be used to end the concessionary coal. That is widely suspected. To repeal the 1908 Act is to return to Victorian conditions. It is no good mentioning the European directive, because even if it is introduced—other Ministers do not want it—it provides a lower level of safety than the 1908 Act and would be no substitute.
  I want to look at this policy in the light of the policy that has been pursued by the Conservative party since 1979 and before. The first policy for the mining industry was prepared by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in preparation for the great miners' strike of 1984–85. Coal was stocked, police were recruited, the riot squads were trained and the Association of Chief Police Officers was prepared for the task given to it. I shall come to the question of Orgreave in a moment. I was on the platform with Arthur Scargill at the Durham miners gala in 1983 when he warned that 70 pits were on the hit list. It was dismissed completely. In June 1984 Mr. Ian MacGregor wrote a letter to every miner, a copy of which I have. It said:
  "I have been accused of planning to butcher the industry…I have no such intention or desire…This is a strike which should never have happened. It is based on very serious misrepresentation and distortion of the facts … Your leaders have told you that the Coal Board is out to butcher the coal industry; that we plan to do away with 70,000 jobs; that we plan to close down around 86 pits, leaving only 100 working collieries. If these things were true, I would not blame miners for getting angry or for being deeply worried, but these things are absolutely untrue. I state that categorically and solemnly. You have been deliberately misled."
  That was the chairman of the Coal Board who had been appointed by the then Prime Minister to butcher the industry. A total of 109 pits were closed, 70,000 jobs were lost and many of the people on the dole who we hear about now in the monthly figures are unemployed miners. Communities have been destroyed. In one ward in Chesterfield which is in a mining area, unemployment is above 25 per cent. Coal imports have been deliberately encouraged to undermine the strength of the British mining industry. When I became Secretary of State for Industry in 1974, I discovered that the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), had instructed the generating board to import Australian coal. When it

  1277
  arrived it was so costly that it was more expensive than British coal. The generating board sold the Australian coal at a loss to Electricity de France. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) remembers the story well.
  People talk about the Coal Board not wanting to endanger the health and safety of miners. However, if we import coal from South Africa and Colombia, where conditions are appalling, and tell our own miners to meet the price, we are telling them to lower their working conditions to the level of conditions and wages in South Africa and Colombia. There is no fair competition in the import of coal.
  Opencast mining is the final insult to mining areas. They lose their pits and then their environment is destroyed. It is disgraceful to talk about being environmentally conscious and dealing with the sulphur in coal while allowing the present level of opencast mining. Desulphurisation techniques have been known for years and with scrubbing plants it would be possible to use coal with no risk.
  The Government speak as though they have just discovered that gas is cheaper. We always knew that it was and there has never been any dispute about it. The question was whether it was sensible to burn gas. The Rothschild report says that there is no prospect of exporting coal, but we could export the gas and then burn our coal. It is a deliberate strategy.
  The argument is that the Government are only following market forces. What a lie! Nuclear power is three times the cost of coal. Market forces? When shall we hear Conservative Ministers say that the nuclear industry will survive if it can compete with the cost of South African coal? No market forces are involved here. It has been emerging for some time that the cost of nuclear power is three times the cost of the pits that are being closed on economic grounds. There is a statutory requirement that the generators should use a certain amount of nuclear power, but there is no statutory requirement that they should use coal.
  Let us consider agriculture. Do Tory Ministers ever say to farmers that if they cannot compete with the foreign price of food, the Government will close the farms? Of course they do not say that. They tax foreign food up to the level at which British and Community farmers can produce food.
  One should not leave out of the account the cost of closures because it would have taken 15 years of running a so-called uneconomic pit to have lost as much as is lost by closing the pit. One still has to pay for subsidence and pensions. The cost of the strike was £5 billion or more. One might add to the calculation the fact that the Yorkshire police had to pay £400,000 to people whom they had wrongly charged with riot at Orgreave. That was the proof of the policy of the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  This has been a political strategy from the beginning. I have never believed a word that Conservative Ministers have said about their regretful adoption of market forces and about how they would love to help the industry. That has never been the case. After 1926, 1972, and 1974, this Government decided to break the power of the National Union of Mineworkers. It gives me some satisfaction that
  1278
  the Prime Minister who took on Arthur Scargill was slung out by her own party, whereas Arthur Scargill is still the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. Why is that? The reason is that he told the miners the truth. He said from the beginning that the industry would be butchered. The Government are butchering the industry and they did butcher the industry, so it is somewhat pleasing to me that Arthur Scargill still enjoys the confidence of the miners.
  We know what will happen with privatisation. Enormous profits will be made. The East Midlands electricity board—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for furnishing the figures—paid £7 million to the City to be sold off. Its shares have gone up by 88 per cent. and its directors have had a 225 per cent. wage increase. The chairman now gets £3,500 a week. That is what privatisation is about. It is about lowering the wages and the health and safety standards of the people who do the work and about boosting the profits of the speculators. If the Conservative party had the honesty to say that that is why they are doing it, we could at least believe them, but they tell us all the time that everything is due to market forces.
  If we are to make sense of the difficult decisions of energy policy, we must have a national energy policy. We shall have to phase out nuclear power because it is not cheap, it is not safe and it is not peaceful. We shall have to stop the coal imports and no one should tell me that we cannot stop them. We could stop them by saying that imported coal had to be produced under the same conditions under which coal in Britain is produced. We could keep coal imports out by saying that miners in the exporting countries should have the same wages and the same conditions. We shall have to stop or limit opencast. We shall have to put money into flue gas desulphurisation. We shall have to try to export coal. Our coal is far cheaper than European coal, so why do not the Government, who talk about the level playing field, do something about it? Why do they hire Rothschilds to say that there is no prospect for the profitable export of coal? We should also go for energy conservation and alternative energy.
  The wealth of this country was built on coal. The prosperity of our industrial society was built on coal and on the products derived from coal, such as chemicals. This country's future depends on coal because, when the oil runs out, there is 1,000 years of coal under our territory—if one includes coal under the North sea. A policy that was designed, politically, to butcher the coal industry and to punish the National Union of Mineworkers is not just a betrayal of the industry, but a betrayal of the national interest. That issue will remove one or two Conservative Members when the election comes and will bring to power a Government who will put coal back in its proper place as the heart of our energy policy.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. John Hannam: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his excellent maiden speech.
  I am sorely tempted to pick up some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). but I will refer only to one. He implied that concessionary coal would be in danger after any future privatisation. His hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) could

  1279
  correct him, because he received an answer in the past few days which confirmed that the same amount of concessionary coal finance will continue to be paid.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I have not intervened because I hope to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) refers to my question, he will inform the House about my second question. The Secretary of State replied that it was for British Coal to decide whether it wanted to buy out concessionary coal. That was an important answer.
  Mr. Hannam: It was made clear that the concession would continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that whoever controlled British coal—whether British Coal or a privatised company—would still have that obligation. 'That point should be made clear.
  I recall attending many Coal Industry Bill debates over the years and being a member of many Coal Industry Bill Committees. I do not recall one Coal Industry Bill that did not present a large increase in funding for the coal industry during the 20-odd years during which I have been involved. Throughout those two decades, the industry has experienced two contrasting scenarios. In the 1970s, money was provided to fight the battle of trying to maintain an artificially high level of production of coal, which resulted in artificially high levels of electricity generation from coal. Coal Industry Bills reflected the huge subsidies that were needed for that policy.
  In the 1980s, a different scenario evolved. The coal industry slipped down quite dramatically to its present size, and at the same time it improved its productivity threefold over the average of the 1960s and the 1970s. The 1970s and the 1980s were contrasting decades for the coal industry. No Government in history have been as committed to Britain's coal industry as the present Government. Since 1979, they have invested more in British Coal than all the Governments since 1945 put together. There has been more than £7 billion of investment in the industry, and a further £17 billion in grant aid has been made available. That is the equivalent of £2 million in British Coal every working day since the Conservatives came to office.
  The response from the miners has been superb. In 1985, the average miner produced 571 tonnes of coal each year. The figure has now soared to 1,187 tonnes per miner per year. It is right that we all pay tribute to the determination of the miners to keep their industry afloat in ever more difficult times.
  We all know that the peak of pit closures occurred not during Conservative periods in office, but during Labour periods in office—from 1964 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979—when 295 pits were closed down. Since 1979, there have been just 140 closures—less than half Labour's level over the same time span.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that more pits were closed when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Minister than were closed under almost any other Minister? The redundancy arrangements offered to miners under his pit closure programme were far less generous than those offered by this Conservative Government over the past 12 years.
  Mr. Hannam: My hon. Friend's point is relevant to the Bill. We have heard of the prospect of the coal industry
  1280
  contracting but becoming more competitive all the time. The Government have not only provided massive investment for the industry—more than all other Governments since the war put together—but written off debts and put British Coal on a solid financial footing. They have also tackled the long-standing problem of mining subsidence.
  The Bill will continue the commitment to provide generous grant support for the process of restructuring. That continued support has enabled British Coal to achieve its vital restructuring without a single compulsory redundancy. I find it hard to believe that anyone could vote against the Bill on the grounds of the increased resources and the amount made available for redundancy payments and retraining costs.
  Having said that, I agree that the debate offers the House a chance to consider the future of the industry. Regardless of any future privatisation plans, which I do not believe bear on the Bill, the tough challenges facing coal production throughout the world mean that difficult decisions and changes still have to be made. We are still in that process.
  We have read the Rothschild report, or at least a leaked copy which has been circulating. It projects a dramatic fall in demand for coal in the United Kingdom from 90 million tonnes in 1990–91 to about 65 million tonnes in 1994–95 and to about 60 million tonnes by 2000. The report forecasts a reduction in deep-mined coal of about 65 million tonnes from about 58 collieries at present, to 25 million to 30 million tonnes from about 20 collieries in 1993–94. The report also predicted a rather dramatic further fall to about 14 collieries thereafter.
  I have spoken to some energy experts about the report. Their general view is that, if the expansion of gas generation of electricity continues at its present level and if the generators import up to a third of their reduced coal demand, the Rothschild report's forecasts could come true. However, I am not so sure. I feel strongly—I have talked to a number of energy experts—that, after the initial burst of increased use of gas and oil and after the stepping up of coal imports, there will be a medium-term levelling out as prices of gas from the new gas technologies become less competitive.
  I also believe that, as imports of coal on the world market increase, that will influence the world price of coal. I do not believe that the scenario projected by the Rothschild report as the ultimate and most serious scenario is necessarily the one that will happen.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the Rothschild report, but in view of its status, is not it strange that the Secretary of State did not even mention it in his speech?
  Mr. Hannam: I am not responsible for what my right hon. Friend said, but he painted a clear picture of the coal industry as it will be affected by the Bill. The Rothschild report has not been published. It is a leaked document, and it would be wrong to expect my right hon. Friend to comment on it. I am talking about the future of the coal industry, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on how he sees the coal industry developing, because that is an important issue.
  Traditionally, coal has always been a main source of fuel for our power generators, but during the past 20 years

  1281
  —under Governments of both parties—much diversification has taken place. Renewables, nuclear energy and gas now play a key role. I believe that we shall always have a substantial market for coal in this country. I take seriously the point about the potential for the exports of coal. That will increasingly come into focus in the coming years.
  However, our aim should be to ensure that, when we talk about a market for coal, we mean a market for British coal, competitively and efficiently mined. A privatised coal industry will have the best chance of achieving such a target, but in the meantime I am concerned that morale and confidence are being sapped by the uncertainty.
  Unfortunately, at the moment, as contracts are being negotiated and likely to be completed by 1993–94, and with world prices of coal not yet affected by any major jump in imports, I understand that it is very difficult for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to make any projection about the future level of coal demand except in the most general terms. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to agree to some extent with my premise that, in view of factors such as those I have mentioned—an increase in the costs of gas generation after a flush of stations are completed, an increase in coal import costs and improvements in environmental protection technology—there must be a strong chance of our coal industry achieving even greater productivity under privatisation, thereby attaining a median level—not the Rothschild bottom level—of deep-mined production much closer to 40 million or 50 million tonnes. That is what I believe could happen, rather than the frightening lower level forecast by Rothschild.
  Mr. Meale: The hon. Member talked about morale in the industry and the importance of maintaining it, but there is another aspect. Does he not believe that the introduction of the Bill, which would increase the hours worked underground, would involve offering bigger redundancy packages, and therefore more job losses in mining areas, and would therefore seriously undermine the morale of mining communities?
  Mr. Hannam: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill's intention is wrong. It has no such aims, but takes account of the changes likely to occur because of the European Community, and it prepares the ground for any legislative changes.
  I return to the point that I was making about a healthier future for the coal industry than that which is generally supposed. The Rothschild report states that a 10 per cent. across-the-board cut in costs for deep-mined coal would create 10 million tonnes more than the central reference case that it set out. Last year, British coal's productivity rose by 9 per cent., and this year it stands 12 per cent. higher. Therefore, a 10 per cent. rise during the two to three years when the contracts come into place is eminently feasible.
  According to the National Association of Colliery Managers, with which I had a meeting last week, the present contracts with the electricity generators which are due to expire in March 1993—one of the crucial dates—give a price for British Coal of £1·80 per standard unit of gigajoule. At current world prices and exchange rates, imported coal delivered at the coast would cost about £1·30 per standard unit.
  1282
  The 50p gap is undoubtedly too wide to close immediately in 1993–94. Unless a European carbon tax is imposed which would blow all our calculations sky high, a staged reduction in price—possibly in two tranches of 10 per cent.—could be achieved by the industry. Colliery managers believe that that could be done in the next few years. How that is achieved will depend on the view taken by generators, the Government and the industry about the long-term security of supply and the balance of payments needs, but it must be considered carefully as we approach another era of restructuring in the coal industry.
  Where do the Opposition stand? We have read reports in the Evening Standard of meetings that have taken place or that are proposed between coal-mining Back-Bench Members of Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition. Clearly they get no satisfaction from the fact that their party has a cohesive policy for the coal sector. The Labour party talks about maintaining the present size of the industry. Everyone knows that, in view of the new gas generators being built, that will be impossible—that is the reality of the market.
  We hear of restrictions on coal imports, but such a protectionist policy would be unacceptable to GATT and to the European Community. The Labour party talks of forcing generators to burn coal irrespective of cost and to phase out nuclear power. That must run counter to their green party image, as it would create more carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, therefore making it impossible to reach their target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at the 1990 level by 2000. It would also mean a return to heavy subsidies which, as Germany is learning to its cost, are unacceptable to the European Community. The German coal industry is having belatedly to follow the restructuring path that we have been painfully following. The Germans plan to axe 30,000 jobs and to reduce national output from 70,000 tonnes to 55,000 tonnes over the next few years.
  The policies proposed by the Labour party add up to a sham attempt to fool miners and electricity customers that they can have their cake and eat it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put the arguments fairly and squarely to the Opposition spokesman, who, as usual, replied with a lot of wind power but no facts.
  I support the Bill because I see it as a further sign of the Government's support for a competitive coal industry. I do not pretend that the path ahead over the next few years will be easy for our miners, but there is a good future for coal as an integral part of our energy scene. I hope that, as the present period of uncertainty over contracts comes to an end, our miners will be given the chance to rise to the challenges ahead, as they have done during the past few years.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have to remind the House that speeches between now and 8.50 should be limited to 10 minutes.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Perhaps we should say that we are really discussing the coal industry (privatisation) Bill, phase two. The Bill is getting the industry ready for privatisation.
  I pay tribute to the first-class speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). He replaces a

  1283
  first-class lad. I might mention that George left owing me a bottle of wine, so I hope my hon. Friend will remember that.
  The Bill refers to restructuring, redundancies, and the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. Indirectly, the Government are giving away taxpayers' money. By giving it to the Coal Board, they intend to send it back to their friends in the City. One needs only to look back through the great privatisation sales to realise who has made the profits from them—not the little shareholders dabbling in a few hundred shares but the big City finance chiefs. Of course, one expects that from the Government.
  Let me get the record straight. The hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred to coal imports. We played a small role in fighting the importation Bill, and there were no crocodile tears then. When I asked those two hon. Members to try to cajole their hon. Friends into our Lobby, they disappeared. I would not want Nottinghamshire miners to be misled by their crocodile tears now.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), because the Rothschild report reveals the Government's true intentions. The tragedy is that the Government will not for once stand up and tell people exactly what they intend for the industry and the country. They have faithfully followed the market forces philosophy since 1979, and the Bill goes the same way. It does nothing for the industry and nothing for the long-term interests of the country. It demonstrates the economics of the cat house. The Government had better go back to the cat house and find out what economics should be about.
  Like King Canute, the chairman of British Coal seems to stand on the beach and allow all the privatisation and all the coal imports that the old Central Electricity Generating Board wanted and the two new generating bodies appear to want, while he does nothing. Yet he has a large salary. I do not understand why. The industry for which he is supposed to fight is declining each week, let alone each year. But does the chairman's salary decline? It does not. Does Hobart house decline? No.
  Restructuring is taking place in coalfields throughout the country, bringing savings from the vast reductions in manpower, yet we still have Hobart house, that ivory tower. When will that be subject to restructuring? Why has British Coal not moved to Doncaster—to Coal house St. George's, in Thorne road? The concept of nationalisation has gone. King Canute and the rest of his cohorts on the board do not wish to get involved in trying to save the industry.
  The closure of pits and the annihilation of coalfields means the dereliction of pit villages. Regrettably, the Government are not providing the alternative jobs that are so vital to mining communities. It is time that they reconsidered their market forces philosophy.
  The sums mentioned in the Bill do not represent the true cost that the country will have to pay. We must realise that the taxpayer will have to pay at least £200 million more each year because of the rundowns and job losses in the coal industry, and the resulting state benefits. My estimate is a little conservative. The cost will probably be a lot higher. Jobs connected with the mining industry will also be lost if the Bill is passed, and that will increase the
  1284
  £200 million tremendously. The Government have no long-term employment policies, only a policy of continued unemployment.
  The Government also fail to take into account the Bill's likely impact on our overseas balance of payments. Because of the reduction of mined coal in this country, there will be a need to import coal and that will affect our balance of payments—apparently we have not solved the export problem. The Government do not seem to have considered the import-export problem or our balance of payments at all. The market forces philosophy works only from day to day.
  When the cartels have total control—as the Government appear to want—the country will start to pay the price that the cartels expect. The poor old taxpayer and consumer will have to pick up the bill for the Government's bad industrial policies. No wonder we are in such a mess.
  Why are we repealing the 1908 Act? I listened intently to the Secretary of State, but I did not hear him say the word that would answer that question. The word is "privatization". I wish that the Government would stop trying to kid people.
  The former Prime Minister wanted us to go back to Victorian values. I do not want a return to those Victorian values—women worked down the mines then, and they would still be doing so under Conservative legislation. Perhaps children will be next. Before anyone starts laughing he should consider the social policies that the Conservative party has adopted since 1979. This legislation is designed to increase the number of hours worked underground, but the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. They screamed their refusal to implement the social charter, and they are wholly opposed to the minimum wage. The Government should stick this Bill somewhere I cannot mention, and we should vote it down this evening.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: In an indifferent speech the Secretary of State aroused suspicions about the 1908 Act. He has only himself to blame. He did not tell us much about the directive; he merely gave us some Eurogobbledegook about the directive applying immediately to British Coal but not to the private sections of the industry. It would have been more sensible to bring the directive to the Floor of the House, once it is agreed, in legislation that would, if necessary, repeal the 1908 Act. That will have to be done anyway. Perhaps the Secretary of State did not brief himself properly. He certainly did not quell our suspicions; on the contrary, he further aroused them by the manner in which he handled the repeal of the 1908 legislation.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave us the impression—indeed, he said—that gas was cheaper than coal. Perhaps it is, but the revenue costs of running a gas-fired power station and a coal-fired power station are roughly similar. Even in terms of running costs, coal is competitive with gas at today's prices. The difference lies in the capital costs of constructing power stations. This Bill will subsidise redundancies and the creation of new jobs at the expense of mining jobs. Often those new jobs are created by British Coal Enterprise in the service sector. Many of them are part-time. But why not subsidise new clean coal-fired power stations to preserve jobs in the coal industry which

  1285
  create wealth and maintain a decent standard of living for those in it? It is not a question of subsidy or no subsidy; it is a question of where subsidies are most sensibly deployed.
  Dr. Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend is highlighting one of the central hypocrisies of the claim that gas will solve all our environmental problems. Gas-fired stations are being bolted together because that is cheaper than retrofitting the desulphurisation systems of the coal-fired power stations which might use this great fuel.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. Coal stands up well in any like-with-like comparison.
  I am one of a dwindling band of Members who represent constituencies that still have at least one publicly owned deep mine. My constituency, together with Carmarthen, covers the entire anthracite coalfield in Britain and one of my purposes in speaking tonight is to speak up for that coalfield, which tends to get ignored.
  I recently wrote a letter to the new chairman—I also wrote one to the former chairman—of British Coal. I suggested that British Coal set up a small mines company to develop and mine the anthracite in west Wales.
  Dr. Kim Howells: A good idea.
  Mr. Davies: It certainly is. Anthracite is still in demand even for domestic purposes. People cannot get enough of it, particularly if it is anthracite of the best quality. It is also a clean coal. We have heard a great deal about the environment; everything that is burned creates carbon dioxide, but anthracite has a low sulphur content. The dust from it can be used in the new-technology clean-coal power stations.
  The Welsh anthracite field is the only one west of Poland, so I thought that there would be a tremendous market for it from here all the way to Poland, the more so since 1992 is on the way. The east Germans have had problems with brown coal pollution, so in my naivety I thought that there would be a splendid market for this splendid product. As for imports, the Chinese tried and failed, the Vietnamese have occasionally tried but have not got far and perhaps the South Africans will try. But we can compete with the imports if and when they come. The problems that arise in respect of soft coal and bituminous coal do not arise with anthracite.
  In my constituency there is some activity among the small private mine operators. Planning applications are being sent in to the county council asking for permission to extend or construct small mines. So the market seems to think that there is profit to be made—hence my belief that my idea for a British coal operation was in tune with market forces.
  Such a venture would not cost much. The mechanisation does not need much money spent on it. Our two main assets are the coal itself and the skills of the miners. I was not asking for enormous investment in the new venture. Unsurprisingly, however, the answer was no. It was not a reasoned no or an analytical no: it was a British Coal no. I have been in the House for 20 years, so I and other long-serving Members know what a British Coal no is. It is a no pregnant with the inflexibility and lack of
  1286
  imagination that have characterised the senior management of British Coal for so long—factors that have contributed to the sad state of the coal industry today.
  I was told that demand for anthracite was falling. The next paragraph of the letter directed me to the headquarters of the opencast executive in south Wales. After 20 years here I know about that executive, too. I was told that its members might talk to me. That executive wants to gouge out more parts of my constituency. Eighty per cent. of the anthracite produced in Britain, and hence in my constituency, is produced by the opencast executive; only 20 per cent. by small mines.
  We are told that opencast coal is cheaper to produce. I do not know if that is true. It is certainly not cheaper for the environment or in terms of noise, or dust in the atmosphere, or even the gases that come up from opencast mining. New research suggests that methane and other gases are released by opencast mining. They are not released by deep mines, slant mines or drift mines. Opencast mines are not cheaper, either, in respect of the sterilisation of the coal. The sterilised coal is below the coal that the opencast machinery can reach. Why not impose on opencast companies the condition that they must construct concrete tunnels so as to reduce the costs of getting at the coal which cannot be reached by machines? Overall, I do not believe that opencast mining is any cheaper.
  In the past we have tolerated opencast mining in west Wales because we have accepted the argument—perhaps we should not have—that profits from it are used to maintain the deep mines. That loyalty is disappearing and it will disappear even further if British Coal and the opencast executive are privatised. There is no more loyalty. In future, we will fight every planning application in west Wales to extend opencast mining. We believe that the balance of 80 per cent. to 20 per cent. is wrong. That balance must be redeemed, reduced in favour of deep mining, slant mining and the proper mining of anthracite. I cannot believe that British Coal or the Government will achieve that. However, I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do it.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I want first to apologise for the fact that I have not been here for all the debate and for that reason, if for no other, I will try to be relatively brief because other hon. Members wish to speak.
  My constituency is about as far away from the coal mining areas as it is possible to get. It shares a border with the English channel and its immediate acquaintance with mining relates to clay mining. People from my part of the world who know their ancestry will be aware that the clay miners reckon that they are as hard a bunch of men as there could ever be. They would not in any sense take second place to coal miners. It would be a bad mistake for me to carry that particular idea forward in the Chamber tonight, so I will not do it.
  In the relatively few years that I have spent in this place, I have noticed the increasing tendency of people who write to me to be concerned about the environment. Twenty years ago the words "ecology" and "environment" were probably not used in the normal course of conversation. These days they are the main topic of conversation.
  Ever since 1983 I have noticed that when people write to me about environmental matters, their contributions

  1287
  have become relatively better informed and more subtle. It is clear from my postbag that, while at one time it was thought the debate was that nuclear fuel was dirty and therefore by implication everything else was clean, people are beginning to realise that, inevitably in life, sometimes things are not that easy.
  One cannot simply say that nuclear fuel will always be dangerous. Increasingly people now understand the polluting effects of fossil fuels. One needs only consider the horror stories from eastern Europe to understand how dangerous and devastating fossil fuel pollution can be. It would be impossible to calculate the damage that this country has suffered from the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution. However, I believe that that damage is incalculable, vast and grave.
  When we consider what is in this country's long-term interests, when we consider the advantages of fuel resources available to us and when we consider how fortunate we are to have such stocks of fossil fuels, even if we consider the damage to communities when traditional industries can no longer manage, the one ingredient that we cannot ignore is the environmental bill which must be paid.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his postbag is full of letters from people lobbying him to support nuclear power? That is not my experience nor, I would imagine, the experience of the majority of hon. Members. The opposite is usually the case. The environmentalists lobby against nuclear power. The hon. Gentleman appears to be lobbying for it.
  Mr. Nicholls: I partly agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, when I consider my postbag in 1983, the environmental views were straightforward. Nuclear power was bad and, by implication, any other form of power was good.
  Nowadays, when people write to hon. Members, they do not write to say that they are pleased about something; they write in to complain. They write in to complain about the nuclear power industry. However, it is my experience—one that the hon. Gentleman may not share in his part of the world—that there is a growing realisation that life is not quite that simple. Even those who believe that nuclear power is ultimately a polluting industry now realise that the argument is not quite so straightforward. In a sense, one gets ought for nought. People realise that there is a price to be paid for fossil fuels as well. That is a welcome development because, although it makes the argument more difficult, it shows that people are beginning to realise that there is a subtlety in the argument which perhaps did not exist before.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy replies to the debate, he will consider the implications for the environment. So often our debates in this place polarise and Conservative Members defend their communities while Opposition Members defend theirs. I come from an agricultural community and I can understand how the care for one's community sometimes overrides all economic logic. One need not apologise for that as it is a simple fact of life. At times I have to tell farmers that, like it or not, an economic price must be paid which may be too great for the preservation of a lifestyle which they and their forefathers enjoyed. Opposition Members must be aware that a balance must be struck and
  1288
  a price must be paid. That price may be too great from an environmental point of view. I do not say that flippantly or lightheartedly, nor do I take any comfort from saying it.
  There seem to be contradictions in Labour's position on pollution and what it means in terms of fossil fuel which simply cannot be resolved. We have heard that coal is good and clean and that point was emphasised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). However, it is not clean or cheap. As I understand it, Labour wants to discourage the use of gas in power generation. That can be achieved only by burning more fossil fuels and by increasing the amount of coal that is used. An environmental price must be paid for that.
  Unusually these days we are all communautaire——
  Mr. Skinner indicated dissent.
  Mr. Nicholls: Well, apart from those who are completely prehistoric. These days we try to be more communautaire than thou. No doubt the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would say, "En passant".
  As I understand our responsibilities and obligations in Europe, we no longer have the freedom of movement that we might want in terms of banning imports. The days when we could defend good old British bulldog industry by slamming on trade tariffs and erecting a barrier against the rest of the world have gone. Will it be possible in the context of our presence in the European Economic Community for us to restrict coal imports? I doubt whether that will be the case. As I understand our obligations in Europe and in GATT, even if restriction was a good idea—and we could debate that if we had to—that will not happen again. I cannot see how that aspect of Labour party policy can be squared.
  If it were possible to diminish the use of gas, to increase British coal production and to erect trade and tariff barriers to ensure that we cannot import foreign coal, what would the consequences be for those who want to use the power that is generated? Understandably we hear a great deal about how increases in the very staples of life bite on those who can very often least afford those increases. The consequences of erecting barriers—even if we could do that—to produce and use fuel at a price that we could achieve only if we erected those barriers would have a direct effect on the cost of power.
  It is easy to debate in this House and reveal inherent contradictions between one side and the other and to make simplistic points about how one side must be right and the other wrong. I do not do that in this debate.
  The Labour party is utterly impaled on the horns of a dilemma from which it cannot escape. On the one hand, Labour Members know where their roots are and they know how much they matter to them desperately. On the other hand, they know that the price of preserving their communities in the way that they want will be too high for their own country to have to pay.
  The words of the Green party are not usually cited by Conservative Members to justify their own position. I cannot think of many times when I have been able to say that the Green party is very much on our side in this matter. The Green party has said that the Labour party's position is
  "wobbly, ineffectual and dictated by the unions."
  That view was quoted in the Daily Mail in September last year. At the end of the day, those who pay the piper must call the tune.

  1289
  There is a price to be paid for not realising that the days of production of coal at the expense of all other power fuels are over. We need to know more about that price. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help us on that point tonight.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: In his maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) demonstrated great knowledge and ability. Hon. Members will be glad to hear him speak again. The most significant aspect of my hon. Friend's speech was the reference to his predecessor, George Buckley. His comments will certainly endear him to his hon. Friends.
  As the debate rages on, the Government will surely not attempt to deny that the moneys provided in the Bill will be regarded by thousands of miners as the prelude to the Government's plan to privatise the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the speed with which the Government introduced the Bill and his comments add credence to my view. It would be weak for the Government to deny it, because the ink of the Queen's Speech is hardly dry, and it stated that the Government will
  "continue to prepare for the privatisation of the … British Coal Corporation."
  All hon. Members are guilty of using flowery language. I am certainly as guilty as everyone else. However, certain language to which I take exception is used when the Tory party tries to defend the privatisation of the coal industry. I read—I do not know whether it came from the Department of Energy or from Conservative central office; I suspect that it was the latter—that privatisation of the coal industry will drive a stake through the heart of Dracula, the leader of the NUM. What a way for a party to defend its proposals. Yes, a "stake" is involved—the jobs of 30,000 to 50,000 miners.
  The Government must be reminded that the average age of the labour force in the coal mining industry is about 30 years. The prospect of being flung on to the scrap heap in a period of rising unemployment is daunting for young men with wives, children and mortgages. The dangled prospect of £30,000 is not much if one is trapped in the dole queue in an area where employment prospects are practically nil.
  That point enables me to raise with the Minister the matter of aid to mining areas, which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth. Hedley Salt, chairman of the Coalfield Communities Council, wrote to me on the subject of RECHAR and additionality. Much-needed economic generation is taking place in Germany, Belgium, Spain and France because RECHAR money has been made available to them. However, the United Kingdom Government will not honour the regulations that they agreed. The RECHAR programme is covered by the same European Commission regulations as the structure funds in general. I repeat that the Government agreed those regulations. We hear talk nowadays about being good Europeans. The Commissioner will not release the funds unless the United Kingdom agrees, as Germany, Belgium, Spain and France have done. It is stated that the moneys have to be
  1290
  additional to any funding by a member country which qualifies for assistance—hence the word "additionality", which is associated with funding.
  I am advised by the Coalfield Communities Campaign that RECHAR moneys—£100 million—allocated to United Kingdom coalfields in December 1989 have still to reach the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is urgent that the Minister's Department and the Government honour what they agreed, or that money and many other benefits will be lost to the United Kingdom.
  I now refer to the proposals regarding the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. The Secretary of State did not provide a good defence of the Government's proposition. I wish that I had time to go into the matter in more detail, because the proposals in the Bill are seriously flawed. It is no use any hon. Member saying that the length of miners' hours has nothing to do with safety. That argument was demolished in speech after speech by my hon. Friends. The 1908 Act currently limits the shift length for underground miners to seven and a half hours.
  The 1908 Act was introduced and subsequently amended because of the realisation of the dangers caused by excessive working hours in the mining industry. As well as providing legislative protection, it underpins the collective agreement which provides for a basic shift of seven and a quarter hours plus winding time for underground workers and eight hours for surface workers. It is a disgrace that the Government's proposition was incorporated in the Bill without any consultation with the unions. The only consultation that the Government had was with civil servants. Some of my best friends are civil servants, but what the hell do civil servants know about working in the mining industry?
  The clear view of both miners and my hon. Friends is that the proposed abolition of the 1908 Act is to pave the way for privatisation by deregulating vital safety provisions and allowing the employer to introduce an extended normal working day in the guise of a flexible shift. What upsets and angers my hon. Friends is that the Department of Energy is praying in aid the proposed European Community directive on working time as a justification for that change. I wish that I could go into the matter in more detail. The Government's attitude is two-faced—they are also devoting all their energies to preventing the directive from coming into force. The directive is based on minimum standards—but I am caught out by the time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to the House. I say that on behalf of the party he beat as opposed to the one that he put into third place—the Conservative party, which was marginalised in that by-election. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's choice of best cricketer in the world, because I am a Glamorgan supporter, or with his preference for league rather than union rugby, because I am a Welshman by background. However, I am sure that, if he can add support for those sports to his campaigning on behalf of his electorate in west Yorkshire, he will serve his people well. I wish him well in that job.

  1291
  It is obvious from the speeches of the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and from that of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that underlying today's debate is a debate on Britain's energy policy. We would not have needed much of today's debate if we had a proper energy policy. One of the frustrations of being in opposition for so long to what is, in effect, a minority Government is having to watch this country go on for such a long time without any energy policy.
  If we had a rational energy policy, we could ensure not only that coal had a role to play now, but that it could continue to play an important role in the future. The hon. Member for Teignbridge cannot argue simply that nuclear power is cleaner and environmentally more safe and that it should therefore always take precedence over coal, because we can do things to coal that would make it environmentally far more acceptable. In addition, nuclear power is potentially far more dangerous to the world than any activity in a colliery.
  I should like to make a couple of points about the Bill's two substantive provisions before turning to its hidden agenda. My hon. Friends and I will vote against the Bill on Second Reading because——
  Mr. Keith Mans: Only the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: No, it will not only be me. My colleagues and I will vote against the Bill, and not for any obscure reason. We do not believe that its two main provisions have a necessary part in this year's legislative programme unless they are intended to enable the privatisation of British Coal next year if the Tories are still in power. That argument is self-evident from the words and figures.
  The Bill's first provision is to extend the power of the Secretary of State to make grants to the British Coal Corporation beyond the 1987 legislation. The figures are clear, and the Library note confirms them. The Secretary of State's capacity to make grants is at present limited to £1,500 million. The table provided in the Library note projects that we shall not come up against the upper ceiling of the present capacity in either this or the next financial year. It is true that we have had to continue to increase the amount of money that is paid by the Government—by the taxpayer—for restructuring the industry, but we will not reach the ceiling either this year or next year. We could address the issue of whether we need to raise capacity just as well next year as this year.
  I have not heard a single argument—there was not a sentence in the Secretary of State's speech—to suggest that the upper limit will be reached in the coming year. It will not be reached as a result of any programmed present redundancies, or by any new contracts with the generating industries, because they will not be renewed until early 1993. Therefore, I can see no immediate obvious or even superficial justification for the provisions.
  The same argument applies to the repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had some difficulty about attributing this and therefore did not say that that eminent legislation was passed by a Liberal Government. At that time, Winston Churchill was a Liberal Minister. I am glad that he finds such favour with the Opposition.
  Apart from the fact that the 1908 legislation was commendable and is still valid, it is unnecessary to repeal
  1292
  it, because the European Community directive is intended to establish minimum standards. Let us assume that the directive is fully supported by the Government, who do not wish to amend one jot or comma of it and who are willing to sign up to its immediate implementation. The directive does not impose any stricter standards than the 1908 Act.
  That legislation is a tougher regulatory measure governing hours of work than the current European Community directive. The last draft of the directive that was considered by the European Parliament refers to a normal minimum of eight hours' work. That is made clear in the Library note and is generally known. For historical reasons, to which many hon. Members have referred, the 1908 Act has a lower minimum. If one wished to do so, one could sign up for the directive while keeping the 1908 legislation in force.
  There must therefore be another reason for the Government's proposals, and it was not honest or honourable of the Secretary of State to pretend otherwise. He said that he would not introduce his power to repeal the 1908 Act until the directive was in force, but it is not necessary entirely to repeal the legislation when the directive comes into force, because they are compatible. Under the European Community legislation, one could have tougher standards in national law without any difficulty. One could not have more standards, but there is no argument on that.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) tried to get himself out of a large hole——
  Mr. Dobson: Out of a pit.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed, out of a pit.
  I was amazed that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South could believe that the provisions have nothing to do with safety. One need only read the 1908 debate—as I have done—to see clearly that the Liberal Government addressed that question. To complement the quotation from Winston Churchill's reply to the debate on the then Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Bill that was given by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I should like to draw the House's attention to other words of Winston
  Churchill in the same speech, which are as self-evidently true today as they were then:
  "We have reminded the hon. Gentleman of it often; but why should cheapness of production always be achieved at the expense of the human factor? The hon. Gentleman spoke with anxiety of the possibility of a rise in miners' wages as a consequence of this Bill. Has he considered the relation of miners' wages to the selling prices of coal?"
  At that time, miners' wages were only 60 per cent. of the selling price of coal. It is very often possible to have better wages and cheaper production costs. It does not necessarily follow that decent wages and working conditions with fewer hours mean a higher cost to the consumer.
  The peroration was typically Churchillian. He said that, in 1847, Parliament
  "trusted the broad generous instincts of common sense; they drew a good, bold line; and we to-day enjoy a more gentle, more humane, more skilful, more sober, and more civilised population the blessings of which have followed their acts."—[Official Report, 6 July 1908; Vol. 191, c. 1332–34.]
  Winston Churchill's argument was based on health, welfare and scientific considerations, and aimed to support the work force. Although I have never worked as a miner,

  1293
  I was brought up in south Wales and have been down pits there and in the east midlands coalfield. I am aware of the conditions in which miners work. The air, the cramped conditions, the sometimes incredible heat in the pits and the importance of the job require that those working there be given special protection by legislation. I challenge any hon. Member to say that those who provide one of the most fundamental sources of Britain's ability to earn its way in the world by supplying our energy needs should not be afforded proper legislation by this House. The Secretary of State's argument was no defence.
  Like the debate, the Rothschild report conceals the hidden agenda, or does so until it is leaked. The agenda is hidden in both senses of the word. The Rothschild report was hidden because it was a secret and we could not see it, and the legislative agenda is hidden because the Government in fact have a clear view about privatisation. I and my colleagues who have had this portfolio have argued consistently over the years that our national coal assets should belong to the Crown, that these rights such as those for oil and gas should belong to the Crown, and that the Government should give licences rather than that there should be a private monopoly, which is what the Government presently propose.
  Only in that way will we continue to sustain a competitive coal industry. Only in that way will we avoid the outcome of which the right hon. Member for Llanelli warned us—more and more opencast mining, to the detriment of our environment and the industry which has served us well.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I declare an interest as a consultant to the Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers. As is customary in these regular debates on the increase in funds for British Coal, I shall also take the opportunity to expand on the problems facing the coal industry. It is always a feature of these debates that we listen to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who rewrites history to a certain extent. For sheer brass-neck gall, it is usually a virtuoso performance.
  The Bill is certainly short but it involves a substantial amount of money. It is the latest example of the Government's massive commitment to the British coal industry since 1979. Since that year about £24,000 million has been invested in coal by the Government. That investment has produced modern equipment which, as we have heard, has led to a much safer record in pits. It has led to a massive programme of alternative jobs through British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and to the most generous redundancy terms. I submit that that is an unparalleled record of commitment.
  As both Conservative and Opposition Members have said, the industry has responded to that investment. Since the end of the strike productivity has increased by 100 per cent. and is continuing to climb. That compares favourably with the 2·5 per cent. increase in productivity achieved under the Labour Governments from 1961 to 1979, although I recognise that in that period there was a Conservative Government.
  We have also seen the industry cut its unit costs by 40 per cent. The 1990–91 results show that it has made the first
  1294
  profit for 13 years. That is no mean achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to the enormous increase in the amount of coal produced per man. I am proud that my constituents who work at Littleton colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) continue to produce record amounts of coal. They are currently ahead of their target of 27,000 tonnes a week. I salute the contribution that my constituents have made at a difficult time.
  The figures that I have given show that the industry has enjoyed favoured status. There have been great demands on Government spending and everyone in the coal industry and the coal communities should recognise and acknowledge the priority that the Government have given it. That is a real priority, not the phoney type of priority that we get from Labour Front Bench spokesmen. It is no wonder that the miners of Britain know that the Conservative party is the miners' friend.
  British Coal has made advances and a new attitude is permeating its management. At long last the nationalised industry is recognising that the United Kingdom private sector, which is extremely active abroad, has something to offer us here. The private sector already employs some 40,000 people and has capital equipment valued at about £2,500 million tied up in the winning and processing of coal in the United Kingdom.
  Of course, the private sector has always been responsible for the winning of opencast coal, but in recent years a refreshing new approach has begun to appear elsewhere. In the past three years or so British Coal has invited the private sector to tender for a variety of work such as surface plant hire, road haulage, some development and maintenance work and the washing and processing of coal at the pithead. That growing partnership between the public and private sectors must be in the interests of the modern British coal industry. But much more can continue to be done.
  I welcome the opportunity that my right hon. and hon. Friends are taking to repeal the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. It has been instructive to listen to the debate today. As I understand it, the regulations have been broken for years on end. If the matter is of such importance to safety—none of us puts safety other than first—and miners are so at risk, why did not any Labour Government prosecute? Why are not the trade unions beating a path to the door not of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, based in his coal mine of Holborn and St. Pancras, asking him to demand that the Government enforce the Act?
  I suspect that Labour Members' opposition to repealing the Act is an example of the Labour party being rooted in not 1948 but 1908. Today's management and unions want to get on with producing an effective and efficient coal industry. If their safety was being impaired, the unions at least would be demanding that the Act be enforced.
  Other things could be done and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister is not taking the opportunity to do them in the Bill. I should like to see the limit on the number of men allowed to work underground lifted altogether. When my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was Under-Secretary of State for Energy, I was his parliamentary private secretary. I was delighted that we lifted the limit of 30 men to 150. It seems

  1295
  that that limit could be dispensed with altogether. That would offer the realistic prospect of the private sector working mines which British Coal considers unworkable.
  Our overriding concern must be not for the producer but for the consumer. We need to ensure that industry and the householder have the cheapest possible supply of energy. Competition in power generation, so derided by socialists as Conservative party dogma, is making that a reality. That competition has brought pressure on British Coal to keep its costs under control and it is doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) highlighted the need for power generators to secure long-term contracts for coal in the same way as gas contracts have been made. I understand his point. Concern for the consumer must be paramount but if the generators believe that they can screw down British Coal with the threat of imports, they would do well to consider the consequences of refusing indigenous British Coal.
  First, the world market in coal is small and a large uptake by the United Kingdom could result in a sudden large increase in price. Secondly, long lines of supply could be disrupted in times of crisis. Thirdly, coal mines which have been closed would be expensive if not impossible to reopen. The generators would be at the mercy of overseas suppliers who have alternative forms of supply.
  Mr. Dobson: Market forces.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that is market forces. I am pointing out to the generators what market forces could do to them if they were not cognisant of the need to take advantage of long-term contracts with British Coal.
  The Labour party has offered nothing constructive at any point in the debate. Indeed, it knows that since it was in government the industry has been contracting and a continuing degree of contraction is inevitable. We have had contradiction after contradiction from Labour Members. They profess anxiety about unemployment. I do not doubt that that anxiety is genuine. But everyone knows how difficult conditions are in the coal mines, although with modern equipment they are far less difficult than before.
  What does the Labour party want? Does it want 200,000 to work in those difficult conditions or does it want a modern, efficient industry in which the minimum number of people are subjected to work in those intolerable conditions? My constituents in Staffordshire would much prefer to work in a clean environment than to have to work with all the risks which exist even today in the coal industry.
  There was a contradiction of attitudes when we debated the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill, as it then was. The measure was enacted in 1990. The Opposition spent all the time that was available to them seeking to impose yet more intolerable burdens on British Coal. When doing that they said that they were supporting the interests of the coal industry.
  What is the Opposition's view on the size of the industry? If they want to maintain it at about its present size, how will they ensure that that happens? Would they restrict coal imports and break EC rules? Would they ban the use of gas, when stations are being built and the gas is already contracted for? Will they phase out nuclear power and increase CO2 emissions? The Labour party seems to want to have it both ways. It wants to portray itself us
  1296
  green as the Benches upon which Labour Members sit, yet it wants to protect and cosset an industry that is perhaps not the greenest in the world.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not take up his remarks. He may be among those Conservative Members who think that we should not perceive clause 1 as controversial. As it extends the period of finance beyond the date on which the contracts with the generators cease, we can perceive that there is likely to be an act of folly. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, it is clear that clause 1 has been designed with a view to shedding many jobs and closing many pits.
  The Minister will say that clause 1 is designed to provide for redundant miners. He will argue that they should be treated decently, and so they should. However, in providing funds for redundant miners, there is far too little regard for the economic and social consequences that befall the coalfield areas. There is the effect upon the community, the cost of physical restoration and the scale of employment need. I read in my local newspaper today that in the past few years 4,500 jobs have been lost in heavy industry. There is a buoyant note from the Department of Employment to the effect that 3,200 jobs have been created for ladies working part-time. There is no conception of the effect of the reduction of income and the weakening of economic capacity. There is little conception of the effect on young people who have seen the reality of employment starvation.
  Happily, the Government will not be in power for very long now. They will not be allowed to see the coal industry diminish to a level at which enormous imports are unavoidable, imports that show that they have no thought for the morrow and the effect of their actions on the balance of payments.
  It would not be so bad if we saw a real drive for increases in export achievements. I suggest to Conservative Members that they read the early-day motion that I tabled yesterday, which shows the effect of the rather short-sighted policy of the electricity supply industry. It has introduced enormous additional pricing. The Minister is aware of this, because he has received representations from the trade union movement. Powerful and logical arguments were advanced to him not long ago. The Government appear not to appreciate, know of or care about the effect of enormous price increases on the hitherto successful and exporting engineering steel industry, which has had to curb production. Apparently the Government would rather see people watching imported television soap operas than see Britain create the wealth that it needs, or the overseas earnings that will be required to pay for the coal that the Government wish to import.
  I represent the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. It is an organisation with a long title but it is a most necessary body whose members are fulfilling a necessary and statutory role. It is regrettable—indeed, deplorable—that the Secretary of State should have embarked upon the preparation of clause 2 without consulting those with experience. He should have consulted those in the mining industry who have a duty to care, and not only the Health and Safety Commission. He should have gone beyond the leaders of

  1297
  British Coal, who have been queueing up to see changes in regulations and who have been bitterly critical of those who have said that people in the Department of Energy and at Hobart house want to dismantle the coal mine safety regulations.
  The Department has had to have drawn to its attention the rock on which its privateering vessel would have wrecked itself—the rock of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. After spending four or five years pressing behind the scenes and arguing behind closed doors for the dismantling of the safety structure, the removal of the colliery deputy and the scrapping of the statutory priority for safety, it found that it would not be able to take that approach because of the provisions that are set out in the 1974 Act.
  The 1974 Act requires the improvement or maintenance of existing standards, so the Government, in a rather furtive and deceitful way, have sought to make use of a draft directive. They have sought to allow it—I misquote Kipling—to be twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools.
  Labour Members, however, are not fools, and nor are the members of NACODS. We and they know why the Bill has been introduced. It is designed to assist privatisation. That is the Government's intention. They have no other purpose. Despite the claims of Conservative Members, the Government do not wish to save miners. They have no love for them. Conservative candidates like miners if they have them in the constituencies that they are contesting during elections. Conservative Governments do not like miners because they continue to support the Labour party.
  Think of what we have seen. The Government's claimed affection for the mining industry over the past few years has known no bounds. I can see from my home the Dearne valley, where pits have vanished—Corton Wood, Wath, Manvers and Kilnhurst, for example. We have seen all the evidence of Conservative care—the destruction of the economy and the loss of jobs—in the name of profit. Some of those who wanted to see the privatisation of the coal industry will not take a long view. Like those who run some of the public utilities, their salaries are so inordinate that they need hold a job for only two or three years. They are not obliged to look ahead, but the House must do so.
  Safety is important. The 1908 legislation is important, because conditions underground may be worse now than they were 83 years ago. There is more machinery, more isolation, a great deal more noise and much more tension. Conservative Members should not seek to create conditions in which men can be compelled to work underground for more than eight hours, and that would be the consequence of clause 2.
  The Government must act consistently. I gave notice to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), a former Secretary of State for Energy, that I proposed to make the following point this evening. On 7 November 1988, I asked the then Secretary of State whether he would give an assurance to the House that, as the Government had no mandate to privatise the mining industry, they would not do so, and would take no significant steps to prepare that course. The then Secretary of State said:
  "I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There will be no attempt at partial or back-door privatisation in the Parliament."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) then intervened to talk about safety. He
  1298
  asked for an assurance that there would be no deterioration in safety standards, and the then Secretary of State replied:
  "I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be no lessening of the regulations governing mine safety."—[Official Report, 7 November 1988: Vol. 140, c. 3.]
  The Bill is a complete betrayal of the pledge or assurance that was given on 7 November 1988, and there has been no explanation or justification for the Government's change of mind. Do they think that we do not remember what Ministers say about important matters such as the future of the coal industry? We have had deceit and betrayal and now we have the insult of the Government's introduction of the Bill. By all means let us have money for redundant miners, but let us have justice for mining communities and a great deal more common sense in the House.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The House must understand what the Bill actually means. So far, those who have spoken have told us what they think it means. Clause 1 increases the grant from £1,500 million to £3,000 million. It is a pay-off for the miners for the closure of 30 pits and the loss of at least 30,000 jobs. That will be the effect for the coalfield communities, about whom many hon. Members have spoken.
  The Government talk glibly about how wonderful coal is. Britain has proven reserves for 300 years. Indeed, there is more coal than that, but those reserves are not proven. Nevertheless, I have received tonight, fresh from the Library's research department, figures for imports of coal which show that if they continue at their present rate for the next few months, Britain will have imported 20 million tonnes of foreign coal this year. That is four and a half times the 1983 level.
  I ask the Government to be honest. Is it their intention to close down our industry and bring in foreign coal? There is an increasing reliance on foreign coal from countries such as South Africa, Australia and Colombia. We have heard about the sorts of conditions in which the miners of those countries work. Joe Gormley said in the 1960s and the 1970s that the Arabs would not always live in tents. There will be a day when the South African and Colombian miners will not live in tin huts. The Government should remember that when pushing through a Bill to increase coal imports from those countries.
  There has been a big increase in opencast mining. We hear a great deal from Conservative Members about the environment. They should come to my county of Northumberland, which is the country's largest producer of opencast coal. It is devastated by coal hills—and if that is not environmentally unsound, I do not know what is.
  We should be concerned about miners' jobs. It costs £8,900 a year to keep one miner on the dole. That is an enormous figure when he could have been digging coal. Of course, the Government do not want the miners to dig coal. They want to have only a few pits where they can get their grubby hands on the profits. What about the families of the miners? What about the children? What about the lads in Newcastle and Oxford who we see on television saying that they have no jobs and no hope? Once, we had the pits and the shipyards, but they are gone because the Government have destroyed those industries and jobs and have left the people without hope. The riots during the past few weeks have been laid at the doors of the young

  1299
  people, but they have been left without hope of a job. They simply have an employment training scheme that gives them the dole plus £10. I do not know how the Government can say that it is a wonderful training scheme.
  What about the safety issues and the hours that miners work? I looked up the Second Reading debate of the 1908 Act and I found a wonderful sentiment—that a man should work eight hours, sleep eight hours, and do what he pleases for eight hours—and that is 24 hours in a day. That is a good and genuine sentiment. Ken Moses, the technical director of British Coal—whatever that means—said that he did not think that there was anything very hard about working 10 hours or more underground. He has never worked underground. He has certainly never worked 10 hours underground day after day, week after week.
  Many hon. Members have referred to safety in the mines. I have 27 years' experience of working in the mines, 14 of them on the coal face operating a machine. I have worked in a modern industry with new technology and it is very difficult. When the 1908 Act went on to the statute book, miners used shovels and picks. I have worked in conditions where I could not see my hands in front of me because of the dust from the machines, even though they had dust suppressors. I worked in the mines when the water was coming in and I was soaked for hours on end. The Bill will make miners work in wet conditions, with stones coming away from the roof, for 10 hours a day.
  Mr. Cummings: Twelve hours.
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is right.
  I am appalled that the Government have introduced this Bill without even having a word with the unions, and in particular the deputies union, which is responsible for safety. The Government did not even ask the unions and the miners what they thought about 10-hour shifts without the right safety conditions.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I accept that there must be some time limit, on safety grounds. What if the men were happy to work four nine-hour shifts rather than five seven and a half hour shifts, and the unions agreed to that? Currently, that is illegal. Is not that nonsense?
  Mr. Campbell: If that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, let us go and meet the miners and talk to them.
  Most accidents happen at the end of a shift. The records show that miners are more likely to be hurt at the end of their shift than at the beginning. Currently, they work seven and a half hours. It is a tiring job in an environment which is not comparable with normal working conditions. It is in the bowels of the earth and anything could happen. I have worked in the mines for 27 years and I have seen everything. My hair has stood up on my head with fright at some of the conditions. The Government are now asking the miners to work even longer in those conditions. They have not even tried to think about the consequences. If they were honest and if they were truly trying to do something worth while for the industry, they would ask the miners whether they wanted to work 10 hours, whether they wanted a week off, and so on. The Government have not met the miners or the union representatives to ask them what they want. They have not even asked the mines inspectorate what it thinks about the safety issues.
  1300
  I hope that the Bill falls tonight, but I regret that it probably will not. I just hope that, when it becomes law, it will not result in a large increase in injury and death in the mines.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I was unable to be in the Chamber for the early part of the debate. I listened with great interest to the speeches and especially that of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). He said that he had spent 27 years in the mining industry. I have no direct experience of the mining industry, but I spent many years in an industry close to it and also in an area close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I worked for a company that was then known as C. A. Parsons, and which is now NEI Parsons on Tyneside. I was a design engineer working on steam turbines, with the object of improving their efficiency. We went to great lengths to increase their efficiency by a fraction of a per cent. The benefit of doing that was that lower costs would be incurred in mining coal for the generation of electricity.
  That seems to highlight the dilemma facing Labour Members. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley described graphically the difficulties and dangers of the industry. The ideal would be to get coal out of the ground without anyone having to go underground at all. That would he better for all of us. But the dilemma then is what would happen to those who have spent their lives in the industry. I do not accept that they would all have to go on the dole and cost the country £8,900 per annum each.
  In the past 10 years, the number of jobs in the industry has declined from about 200,000 to 100,000, but those people are not all on the dole. Many have found other work. The number of people in employment in Britain has risen by 1 million during that period. One must look at the matter in the round and see how the industry can be run with the smallest number of people under the ground. The more efficient the industry is, the more efficient other industries are which depend on coal mining. If we can reduce the cost of electricity, that will increase the number of jobs in manufacturing industry and all other sorts of industry.
  Keeping costs down is also important for people who depend on electricity to heat their houses. I have been appalled at the cost of heating a number of homes in my constituency. Many people still rely on the old-fashioned red bar to heat their homes and the cost of electricity is important. Anything that we can do to reduce the cost of electricity is very much to the advantage of people who depend on electricity to heat their homes.
  Therefore, we have the dilemma that if we try to protect the industry for the sake of the jobs that exist now, it could be at the cost of other jobs and at the cost of the standard of living of people who cannot afford to pay the high prices which would result. I find Labour's policy confusing. It is one of protectionism. It pretends to be environmentally friendly while not being so at all.
  I remember some time ago taking part in a debate with the late Allan Roberts in the Granada television studios in Manchester when we both appeared on the front benches in a mock chamber in the studio. I compared Labour's policies with those of a dirty dinosaur, going round dropping slag heaps and not taking advantage of environmental improvements.

  1301
  One of the last jobs on which I worked when I was at Parsons was the Drax power station commissioned when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State for Energy. He failed to ensure the installation of flue gas desulphurisation equipment at that power station and it is having to be put in now by this Government at considerably greater cost. It is much more expensive to retrofit such equipment. Plenty of evidence was available at the time that that equipment should have been fitted, but if the Labour Government did not want to do something or recognise something that was to the disadvantage of the mining industry, they turned their back on it, closed their eyes and pretended that the problem did not exist. [Interruption.] That is perfectly true. When the order was placed for the Drax power station, there was no provision for flue gas equipment and it is this Government who are spending the money to put the problem right. That exposes the inadequacies of the Labour party's energy policies.
  The mining industry is not now active in my constituency, but there are plenty of signs of it. The old miners' hall in Bolton is a fine building and I am pleased to say that it has now provided a new home for the chamber of commerce, which moved in a month or two ago. I am pleased to see the building being put to such good use. There are still plenty of relics of the old industry about. Gullick Dobson near Bolton is a major employer manufacturing mining equipment.
  Some signs of the old industry create problems. Considerable environmental costs in subsidence and weak buildings often do not show up until later. The pump house, just off Tonge Moor road in my constituency, has experienced massive difficulties because an old mine shaft was discovered to be in a different place from where it was thought to be and the new building had to be modified, at massive cost to the owners. That has affected their ability to carry on the business. Another fine new building recently put up, Ashton house, was about to be taken over by a Government Department for offices when it was found that further structural foundation work would have to be done because of the old mining works there. Therefore, the industry has hidden costs and the important thing is to recognise them.
  I cannot understand the Labour party's attitude when it highlights the dangers and difficulties of the job and then says that we should distort the economic side so that more people should go underground than would otherwise be the case. We should not be afraid of privatisation because that will show the true economics; what is truly valuable. It can make sense for men to go underground and do a difficult and dangerous job only if it is profitable. Profit is not a dirty word; it shows whether an activity is worth while. If wealth is not created for the country, why send people down into the depths of the earth to do such a difficult and dangerous job? It is most important that all industries should create wealth. Unless they do so, how can we run the health service? How can we find money for the welfare state and for all the benefits that we want? If the mining industry is not profitable, for goodness sake do not let us send men underground working in difficult and dangerous conditions.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the nuclear industry is not profitable, yet the Government prop it up with thousands of millions of pounds in grants a year?
  Mr. Thurnham: The nuclear industry should be profitable. It may not be profitable because in many cases the wrong decisions were made about the type of power stations to build. I have no doubt that if one took advantage of the latest designs available, it would be possible to construct a profitable nuclear power station; environmentally, they are much cleaner. It might be sensible to look at gas as the fuel to burn, but it will not be there for ever and we must consider a balance of provision.
  I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak. It is right that we should be introducing the Bill, but I am concerned at the massive sums of money that we have written off in the industry. If it is a worth while industry, contributing to the wealth of the country, we should be able to invest in it without having to write off such monumental sums as £5,000 million. Therefore, let us look forward to a profitable industry with as few people working underground in dangerous conditions as possible, while creating wealth for themselves, the industry and Britain.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. John Cummings: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on a magnificent maiden speech. I closely identify with his endearing remarks about his predecessor, a dear friend of us all and a good colleague.
  I find no joy in taking part in this debate. The prince of darkness, the new area director in the north east, through deception and duplicity, has today announced the closure of Murton colliery where I used to work, with a loss of 1,000 jobs in an area with 20 per cent. unemployment. That pit has made £5·2 million profit since 1987.
  There will be many troubled spirits as a result of the Bill but the Londonderrys and the Joiceys will be dancing a fandango this evening in the knowledge that the Bill is likely to become law and reverse the actions achieved by the sweat and blood of my predecessors who, for several generations, have introduced enlightened legislation since the 1908 Act. For longer shifts there will be a price to pay in human suffering, agony, and great distress.
  In my maiden speech, I said that I was a sixth-generation child of the mining industry, and looked back with great tenderness on the hardships and efforts of my predecessors in Murton colliery. I know a man of 80 years of age, who after 51 years working in the industry is wracked with pain and extremely distressed. He is my father. After 51 years, his state of health is distressing to behold. He worked seven days a week, and at times 12 hours a day, out of choice, to provide for his wife and family.
  However, at least my father had that choice. He could have used the legislation and told his colliery manager, "No—I am working seven and three quarter hours plus my winding time." If the regulations are changed, miners will not have that choice. Management will determine the length of shift. I foresee a legion of gentlemen such as my father in years to come.
  Mr. Hood: If my hon. Friend's father had chosen to work beyond seven and three quarter hours plus his winding time, he would have been paid overtime. The Bill's purpose is not to pay more overtime but to get miners to work longer hours for the same or less pay.
  Mr. Cummings: My hon. Friend is correct.
  The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked whether miners want a nine-hour day or a 40-hour week. We cannot answer that question because there has been neither consultation nor conciliation in respect of the Bill. For a proud industry with a first-class record of consultation and conciliation prior to 1974, it is disgraceful that the Bill has been brought to the House in the way that it has.
  As to the closure of Murton colliery that was announced today, I refer to the output of its last five coal faces. E102 was worked with partial extraction and was profitable with 29 weeks of production. E110 was worked with partial extraction, and was profitable for 24 weeks. E112 gave 30 weeks production of partial extraction, and was also profitable. E104 was worked with partial extraction for 16 weeks and was profitable. The cumulative profits of those five coal faces since 1987 totalled £5·2 million.
  The deceit arises because coal face E115 was worked with full extraction at the insistence of management, but against the better judgment of unions and of miners who had worked that seam for decades. The consequences were total disaster, losses, and today's announcement of the colliery's closure.
  Mr. Skinner: It stinks.
  Mr. Cummings: It stinks to high heaven.
  Until six months ago, there were four collieries in my constituency—Dowdon, Vane Tempest, Easington and Murton—sharing common pumping costs of £4 million. Dowdon went, and that cost was shared between three collieries. If Murton goes, it will have to be shared between two collieries. As sure as night follows day, we are looking at the imminent closure of Vane Tempest and Easington.
  The prince of darkness arrived in July, with a salary in excess of £70,000 a year, but with not one idea or positive suggestion to make the industry viable and contribute to the national economy. He was brought into the area to destroy it. He is destroying not just the area but the community.
  Anyone who walks through the village of Murton—where my family has worked since 1842—will see a finely-woven tapestry of social history and commitment. Generations before the state thought about providing homes for the elderly, the people of Murton were doing so out of their own pay packets. There are 26 acres of welfare ground, cricket pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens, and football grounds, paid for out of pay packets and pockets at the pick point. Murton also has a 50 m Olympic-sized swimming pool—the only one of its kind between Leeds and Edinburgh—all provided for by the people of the community themselves.
  When the colliery closes, I fear that we will see the death of that community and of its various welfare systems. That closure will affect other businesses in the area. Mineworkers who took redundancy and invested in small firms beholden to business coming from British Coal are finding that their investments are being wiped out.
  1304
  Many statesmen and Ministers want to make a name for themselves. I suggest that the name of the Secretary of State for Energy in 1991 will be engraved in the hearts and minds of the people of Murton, for it was he who murdered Murton, and that will not be forgotten.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his maiden speech. I was particularly pleased with the comments on his predecessor, George Buckley, with whom I shared digs in 1987.
  I oppose the Bill, because it will further the privatisation and contraction of the coal industry by closing collieries and increasing redundancy among mineworkers. These days, redundancy schemes are not voluntary, simply because there is not a sufficient number of collieries to which mineworkers can transfer.
  The Bill will also buy out concessionary coal entitlements and introduce longer working hours by repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. The Department of Energy is introducing a measure that relates more to health and safety than energy, but it has no powers of enforcement in respect of health and safety or employment legislation. The Bill seems to have been hijacked as a way of repealing the 1908 Act.
  That the Government have no idea of safety measures has been shown tonight by the speeches of Conservative Members. We have seen already measures that will allow women to work underground again. That was done not for the sake of equality, because only certain qualified women will be allowed to work underground. As my hon. Friends have said, it is only a matter of time before children are sent back down the mines.
  The extra grant that the Bill provides is for redundancies after 1993. As we know, the new contracts to be negotiated next year will come into force after 1993 and will cover much reduced coal tonnages. Despite all the pleading by British Coal and the Government about commercial confidentiality and the rest, we know that those contracts will involve substantially lower tonnages. Imports will increase by as much as 30 million tonnes.
  Mention has been made of the greenhouse effect and environmental implications, but the same amount of CO2 and greenhouse effect gases are given off by imported coal as from British coal. We should consider also the situation in other countries. America has increased its coal burn to 1 billion tonnes, and China to much the same level. It is no use pointing the finger at British Coal and accusing the industry of being responsible for the greenhouse effect and global warming.
  After 1993, there will be another wave of closures. British Coal's chairman has already said that his industry will contract to meet the lower tonnages, rather than fighting to take a larger share of the market. According to the Rothschild report, about 14 collieries will be left by the end of the century.
  Some of the money will go towards buying out concessionary fuel entitlements. The Government have said that those entitlements will be safe; yes, they will, because some are protected by statute. That, however, will not stop the Government offering pensioners money in exchange for their entitlement. We have already seen the problems that occurred earlier this year with social security payments. The concessionary coal liabilities do

  1305
  not make the industry particularly attractive to the City—and there are also industrial deafness and subsidence liabilities. How will the Government deal with those problems without earmarking funds?
  In 1986, the Nottinghamshire area director, Albert Wheeler, introduced what is now known as the Wheeler plan, which brought flexible working to the industry. Since then, the industry has been considering ways of introducing flexible working hours over a seven-day cycle. British Coal and the National Union of Mineworkers have undertaken studies, whose results are now available, to show how a shift system could be introduced. The NUM's proposals provided more machine-available time than those of British Coal.
  In a press release that accompanied the Bill, the Government observed:
  "In practice the 1908 Act has little relevance to the modern coal industry since it reflects the working conditions, practices and technology of a bygone age."
  That is deliberately misleading. The 1908 Act simply underpins the collective agreement that sets mineworkers' hours; it does not mention seven and a quarter hours plus winding time, which appears in the five-day-week agreement. That agreement was signed on 18 April 1947, and revised in December 1960. It was revised again in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
  The five-day-week agreement is still in force. Even if the 1908 Act were repealed today, the agreement would have to be addressed, because it sets out hours of work. How will the Government amend that provision? In his latest Green Paper, the Secretary of State for Employment suggests that collective agreements should have legislative force. Will the five-day-week agreement retain legislative force? Will the Government allow negotiations to take place between the NUM and British Coal with the aim of amending the agreement, or will its repeal simply be imposed on the industry as wage agreements have been over the past few years?
  Morale in the industry is at rock bottom. Not many mineworkers care what happens to it. Recently, a colliery manager called all the men into the canteen and told them that, if productivity did not improve, he would recommend closure. To a man, they stood up and cheered: they could not wait.
  Other misleading statements have been made about the 1908 Act. It is not good enough to say that the Act relates only to hours of work. It was originally intended to protect mineworkers from the effects of long hours working underground; as hon. Members have pointed out, nowadays those long hours are compounded by the time that it takes to travel distances of up to 40 to 50 miles a day to get to and from the colliery.
  Some hon. Members have referred to what was said in the House when the 1908 Bill was moved. Introducing the Bill, Herbert Gladstone said:
  "There is the constant anxiety due to the incessant watchfulness necessary on the part of every responsible man in the pit."
  He also referred to
  "the darkness, the loneliness, the danger, the discomfort of working continuously in a high temperature."—[Official Report, 22 June 1908; Vol. 190, c. 1355–56.]
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has pointed out, there is also the dust and the water.
  1306
  This year, the Select Committee on Energy produced a report that described roof bolting as not the safest method of providing support underground. Many of the points made in 1908 are still relevant today. There is still darkness, and certainly there is still loneliness. In 1908, 1 million men were employed in the industry, but now there are only about 70,000; the loneliness must be much worse than it was then. There are still high temperatures as well, and, once underground, the men must remain there until they are wound out of the colliery.
  The aim of the repeal of the 1908 Act is to increase productivity through a greater use of machinery over a six or seven-day cycle. That has nothing to do with the European directive. Over the past five years, productivity has increased by about 100 per cent., but all that the mineworkers have in return for that are lower wages containing a larger incentive-based element, and agreements that have simply been imposed on them.
  Can the Government actually repeal the 1908 Act by this method? Article 16 of the directive allows national legislation to remain, and the Act is relevant to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). While I may not agree with many of his views, none the less I respect the strength and sincerity with which he advanced them. The House is all the better for hearing views that are based on such vast experience. I have served with the hon. Gentleman on the Select Committee on the Environment and I am only sorry that he is not in the Chamber now.
  I welcome the Bill. The Conservative party's record of support for the mining industry over the past 10 years is second to none. No one could possibly say that a considerable amount has not been spent on the industry since 1979, with the amount spent between 1948 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned that earlier.
  Opposition Members should remember that electricity can be generated by other methods. I sometimes think that they overdo the case for coal. I believe in a balanced form of electricity generation and an even-handed environmental and economic approach.
  I welcome the developments in the coal industry involving low—nox burners, fluid bed dissolvers and flue gas desulphurisation to cut sulphur dioxide emissions. None the less, in environmental terms there are still problems with CO2 emissions and there are increasing problems over the disposal of coal ash and gypsum. Those two aspects of generating electricity by coal will become more important and more worrying. We cannot continue to fill landfill sites with substances that are the by-products of generating electricity by coal.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talked about nuclear power, one of the alternatives to coal. One reason for speaking in the debate is that it is important to introduce a sense of balance. There are no coal mines in or near my constituency, but the north-west relies very much on the jobs of those in the nuclear industry to support local prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman said that the nuclear industry is not safe, cheap or peaceful. However, when he was Minister of Technology he had a considerable amount to do with the

  1307
  nuclear programme. It is a little odd that he should say that now. When he was in office he promoted no end of nuclear power industry projects.
  It is also relevant that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the word "environment" when referring to the nuclear industry. Earlier speakers pointed out that in the past the nuclear industry was considered to have a damaging effect on the environment and that the spotlight was hardly ever directed on the coal industry. During the past few years the nuclear power industry has spent a great deal of money ensuring that nuclear power stations are as safe as possible. Apart from the front-end costs and the capital building programme, there are also the back-end costs of decommissioning. Many of those costs were not in the past—and it is unlikely that this will happen in the future—included in the cost of coal for electricity generation. We hear nothing about the costs of landfill, ash, gypsum and CO2 emissions.
  I ask the Government to ensure that when the different methods of electricity generation are considered they should be assessed on what is often referred to these days as a level playing field. We must take into account the back-end costs of producing electricity by coal in just the same way as we take those same costs into account when we assess the cost of producing electricity by nuclear means.
  Mr. Hood: Is the hon. Gentleman giving the same consideration to the ring fencing of nuclear power?
  Mr. Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the costs of nuclear power are higher than coal?
  Mr. Hood: Yes.
  Mr. Mans: The reason why that appears to be the case is that the back-end costs of generating electricity from coal are not included in the financial calculations. When one looks at the generation of power from coal, where are the costs of subsidence and of the extra devices that have to be fitted to generating stations, as well as the cost of disposing of ash and gypsum and the overall cost of CO2? Costs are not assessed on the same basis. If they were, I should go further down the road with the hon. Gentleman.
  The Opposition's policy on electricity generation appears to be leading in one direction only—towards the increased use of coal to produce electricity. Alongside that policy, however, some members of the shadow Cabinet have an environment policy which is to stabilise CO2 emissions by the year 2000. Again and again Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have pilloried this Government for suggesting that that target is impossible and for going instead for the year 2005.
  The Opposition's policy is clearly inconsistent. To pacify the coal lobby they insist that more electricity should be generated using coal. To pacify the environment lobby they say that they intend to stabilise CO2 emissions by the year 2000. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) suggested that that is not a problem for this country; it is everybody's problem. He suggested that there was no need to look at CO2 emissions from power stations in this country. I submit, however, that there is every need to do so and to get the equation right. If the Labour party wants more coal to be burnt in electricity stations, it will have to say that it cannot possibly meet its target, or the Government's target, of stabilising CO2 emissions by either 2000 or 2005.
  1308
  The Bill will put the coal industry on a firmer financial footing. I support the help that has been given to the industry in the past. All that I ask is that when the energy needs of our country are examined, the different methods of generating electricity should be assessed in a way that means that we can compare the relative costs in social, economic and environmental terms.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Three hon. Members have been seeking to catch my eye for some time. I hope, with a little co-operation and good will, that they will all be able to speak before the wind-up starts at 9.20.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his excellent maiden speech. He has great knowledge of the mining communities where he has lived for most of his life. I feel sure that we shall hear much more from him, especially in debates of this nature.
  I do not understand why this two-clause Bill is necessary. Why do we want to repeal the 1908 Act? A recent Department of Energy press release claimed that the new EC working time directive would necessitate the repeal of the 1908 Act. That must be one of the most hypocritical statements ever made by a British Government. They are fighting tooth and nail to stop the directive being approved. I understand that attempts are to be made next month to find a common position. I understand that that common position will be considered by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers before a final decision is made.
  Leaving aside the dubious political argument, the legal argument that the European directive would require repeal of the 1908 Act is manifestly absurd. If that is the case that the Department and the Secretary of State are making for the repeal of the Act, it does not hold water. The directive, like all others about health and safety at work, is intended merely to be minimum legislation and is not intended to replace more advantageous legislation within member states.
  I have been looking at some of the early articles of the framework directive which governs all other directives, including those on working time. I have a directive dated 29 June 1989 which states:
  "This directive shall be without prejudice to existing or future national or Community provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers at work."
  Therefore, the argument that the European directive would mean an end to the 1908 Act is legally questionable. Were the 1908 Act still in force on 1 January 1993 when the directive is intended to come into place, the provisions of the framework Act and possibly the working time directive would prevent its abolition. Why do we need to repeal it? Why do the Government need to use the excuse—if that is what it is—of the European directive? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me if I am wrong, and prove it. I shall be surprised if he can. The Government's great haste in rushing the Bill through may be because they want to wipe the 1908 Act from the statute book before January 1993 so that they are not caught by the provisions.
  The second part of the Bill makes provision for a large amount of money. That really means providing for the

  1309
  privatisation of the coal industry. The Government have made it clear that that is their intention and the large amount of money is to enable them to see that through.
  Since 1984, the Select Committee on Energy has repeatedly produced reports on the coal mining industry. The 1986 report said that never again should the Government allow the industry to be run down so rapidly that it created the social consequences that we saw up to 1986–87. We now find ourselves with the Rothschild report. It seems obvious that if, God forbid, we were to see the return of a Conservative Government, the industry would be privatised. However, before the privatisation programme, the industry would be cut down to the size suggested by Rothschild.
  The big problem is that the Government have allowed the industry and the mining communities to be savaged but there has been very little assistance to enable those communities to recover or create alternative employment. In my area, the Wakefield metropolitan district council area, 28,000 jobs have been lost since 1985. There has not been one farthing of Government support, Government grant or European grant to help the communities recover. My constituency now has only one pit and if Rothschild has his way, it is on its way out, together with many more. There were eight pits in my area prior to the 1984 strike. The Prince of Wales called coal from the area Pontefract gold, but if Rothschild has his way, there will not be any. One can imagine the social problems that have been created.
  Apart from those considerations, it is irresponsible of the Government to run down the coal industry and to sterilise billions of tonnes of coal. I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say this afternoon that British Coal had informed him that the closure of the pits did not mean that billions of tonnes of coal would be sterilised. That was a strange remark. Only yesterday, I got a report from British Coal in which it replied to the Select Committee's report on clean coal technology and the future of the coal industry. The report made it clear that millions of tonnes of coal would be sterilised. How irresponsible is it to allow a major industry and a major source of our energy supply to be run down, and to allow the coal to be sterilised for ever? If the Rothschild report is right, capacity will go down to 30 million tonnes which would meet only half the country's demand for the generation of energy.
  We may have to rely for half our coal on imports. When we cannot meet our demand, for how long will imports be cheaper than British coal? The children in the primary schools in my constituency can give the answer to that question. It is the height of irresponsibility to throw away our good fortune in having a colossal energy source under our feet and to sterilise it simply because of the political dogma followed since 1984. That is the problem that we face and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will have second thoughts.
  The repeal of the 1908 Act threatens safety. Despite the genuine efforts of the miners and the management to maintain the markets, men are now being put in positions more dangerous than any since the coal industry was in private ownership. That is not scaremongering. I assure Conservative Members that that is the case, and that men are in danger and are being killed as a result of British Coal's policy.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on his maiden speech this evening. I also associate myself with his kind remarks about his predecessor, my good friend and colleague George Buckley. George was an especially good friend although, for 20 years, we lived 30 miles apart and never met. He was active in the Yorkshire coalfield while I was active in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I met George only when I came here, and it was a pleasure for me to meet such a good and conscientious man of the people. I do not envy his successor, because he has a hard job in trying to follow him. George may have been small in stature, but he was a giant of a man to all who knew him.
  The Bill is a preparation for privatisation. During the run-up to the general election, the Government do not want to hear the word "privatisation", but that is what is in store for the coal industry—or is it? I believe that there is a third option.
  I and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) have twice met the new chairman of British Coal. Reference was made to the high wages that the new chairman earns. On his appointment, the wages were increased from £90,000 a year—which he thought was a poor salary—to £220,000 a year. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian challenged the Prime Minister to comment on the increase, and he answered that the chairman must be worth that salary. The Government must have thought that he was worth the money when they gave him the job and they must value his advice.
  The truth is that the new chairman of British Coal has told the Secretary of State that he cannot privatise the coal industry in its present state and that the Rothschild report may understate what is really in store for the coal industry.
  The industry may be run down to 12 or 14 pits, and there may be no interest from the private sector, because long-term contracts may not be negotiated, especially in view of the amount of imported coal. The imported coal is heavily subsidised, as we have said many times in the House. If the matter is left to an incoming Tory Government—God help us all if they are re-elected—the choice will be whether to keep a public coal industry or to close it. The third option is the elimination of the coal industry, and we should not overlook that possibility.
  I was a miner for 23 years before coming to the House. I was a union representative for 14 years, and I know a lot about the industry and how important the legislation to protect the hours of working is to miners. When I was a union official, most—if not most, a good part—of the serious or fatal accidents that occurred at my pit involved men who were working excessive hours. I am talking not about someone working in an office for a couple of hours but about men working 3,000 ft underground in heat of up to 120 deg, who must swallow salt tablets to stop themselves fainting during their shifts. I remember when I worked at Ollerton colliery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) that the management had to use haulage bogeys to take fresh water to the miners, who were drinking it faster than it could be ferried to them.
  It is bad enough when people are asked to work long hours. In the coal industry, people are now working not two hours' overtime or nine or 10-hour shifts but 12 or 14

  1311
  hours or sometimes more per shift. The legislation is not intended to legalise what already happens in the industry. It is not intended to legitimise the longer working day in the present industry. It is to accommodate the six or seven-day working week. As I said earlier, that is the thin end of the wedge which brings us closer to the day of ruin.
  The former Prime Minister used to talk about Victorian values, and some of my hon. Friends have mentioned them this evening. Victorian days involved 12-hour shifts and six or seven-day weeks, and we are certainly returning to those arrangements. Women are now eligible to work down the pits under previous legislation, but there is protection for kids, for the 16-year-olds who come into the industry. There has always been protection to prevent them from working long hours and being exploited and bullied. The repeal which we are considering will open the way for the exploitation of young kids. We are being led back to Victorian times.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: One element—that of the private mines—has not been mentioned this evening. I understand from the figures given to me by British Coal that more than 1,600 men are employed in private mines. We know that safety standards in private mines are absolutely abysmal and well below those of British Coal. Those miners are open to even more exploitation than the exployees of British Coal.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. The safety record in the private sector is worse, because it reflects the fact that those in the private sector are already forced to work longer hours. Miners in the private licensed mines used to receive a few extra pounds for each shift to entice skilled workers away from the coal industry. Now British Coal is getting rid of miners and private enterprise has too much manpower, so it is lowering wages. Miners now work in the licensed mines for less than they were paid in British Coal's mines. That has been happening for some time, but the Secretary of State and the Minister should know that.
  I am conscious of the time, so I say only that it will be a sad day if the Government are allowed to change the legislation, not only for the miners and their communities or for those who, directly or indirectly, are involved in or seek employment in the industry, but for the whole of society. We have treasured our coal. I do not want to rely on quotations from Nye Bevan, but he was right when he said that we were a country built on coal. That is certainly the case, but the Government are walking away from that fact by encouraging imports of coal to destroy the fabric of our communities. The mining communities have been hammered enough. The Government govern not by consent or even by diktat but by spite—spite against the mining communities.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief, because I understand that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to speak. I look upon him as the authentic voice of the Labour party, and I want him to be heard. I respect his views, although I do not agree with them.
  I welcome the opportunity to speak. The Government have clearly shown during their 12 years in office that, whatever the Opposition may say, one does not spend £2 million of taxpayers' money every working day with the
  1312
  objective of closing something down. The Government's objective was to make the industry more efficient, to bring it into the latter part of the 20th century and to make it possible for British mines to produce competitively. All that has been achieved. People with a genuine interest in mining will welcome that.
  Coal must still form an essential part of our energy policy. So long as there is coal in the United Kingdom that can be extracted efficiently from the ground, I see no day when we could envisage an energy policy that did not embrace coal. That would be nonsense.
  The Bill will produce the finance necessary to allow the mines to operate efficiently and effectively, and will give the people who work in them the opportunity to feel that they are part of an industry no longer hooked on public subsidy. Whatever one's views on public subsidy, the plain fact is that people involved with industries that receive public subsidies always know it and they have that awful feeling that other people are supporting them. That is not true today in many areas that previously had public subsidies.
  I do not say that in order to condemn the people who work in those industries. I have tremendous admiration for anyone who has spent a lifetime in the mining industry, especially at the coalface. I have a genuine respect for people who live their lives in that way. Their unique quality is demonstrated in many ways, not least their loyalty and service to the Crown in times of need. Mining communities have always proved admirable in that way.
  I see that the clock is moving on, so I shall leave much of what I wanted to say until another day, and let the hon. Member for Bolsover speak.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talked about subsidies, and that leads me straight to the idea which has sometimes been muttered during the debate—that the mines should not have a subsidy. Yet most mines are interspersed with farming communities. There are a lot of fields, then a pit village, a pit tip and another dozen fields. The farmers get the subsidies, but the miners are supposed to get none.
  The real trouble is that we hand over £18 a week for every family in Britain—a total of £14,000 million—through the common agricultural policy. The farmers live cheek by jowl with the pits that are shutting down. Some small farmers say, "We are not getting the money either," and they are right. The tin-pot agricultural policy over there in the Common Market has sent the money to the German farmers and all the rest.
  A load of hypocrisy is talked on the subject, and the business about the hours adds more. The Government say, "We are not having any social charter. Get it out of the road. We will not be infected by it." Then, when an idea about making miners in pits work up to 48 hours comes along, the Government, with all their hypocrisy, say, "Oh, yes, we shall have to implement that Common Market directive—in order to make the miners work longer."
  There is more hypocrisy to do with imports. The figures for this year show that £20 million-worth of coal will be imported to Britain by the end of December—the equivalent of closing 20 average-sized pits and getting rid of between 20,000 and 25,000 miners by throwing them on the scrap heap. They will then have to get money from the dole or the Benefits Agency, which will cost taxpayers a

  1313
  great deal more on top of the £25 billion that the state is already paying out for the unemployed. That is the economics of the madhouse.
  What is more, 20 million tonnes of imported coal means another £1,000 million added to the balance of payments deficit. The Tory Cabinet comprises so-called business men. Nineteen former Tory Cabinet members enjoy 59 directorships between them. Theirs is the party of big business, yet the Cabinet, littered with all these people with all their business acumen, is making Britain bankrupt because of Ministers' desire to shut pits.
  We are on solid ground when we say that we will oppose this Bill. When we get into government, as we shall some time early next year, we will tell the Common Market to stuff its directive on hours. We will make sure, too, that imports are reduced to the same levels as they were under the Labour Government. If we do that, we will save jobs for the miners and make this country richer as a result.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) on a magnificent maiden speech and I agree with him and others who have praised his predecessor, George Buckley, who was a good colleague of ours.
  The Secretary of State's ringing declaration that this Bill has nothing to do with privatisation is an example of the double-speak that the Tories use when they start talking about the British coal industry. The Bill clearly belongs to a continuous line of Government action and legislation aimed at the so-called ultimate privatisation of British Coal. As the Queen's Speech put it, the Government
  "will continue to prepare for the privatisation of…the British Coal Corporation."
  One of the barriers to what the Government would regard as a successful sale is the amount of regulation covering coal mining activities. That is why the abolition of the 1908 Act was sprung on us, on British Coal's management and on the work force. The Government have done this despite repeated warnings from the Energy Select Committee and from elsewhere that such moves should take place only after full consultation and agreement with the unions. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who spent many years on both sides of the Dispatch Box defending the interests of the nation and the British mining industry, pointed that out in his speech.
  A former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), on being asked about a change in the hours of work legislation by the Energy Select Committee in 1986, said that
  "if it had gone through all its processes. If the unions and the Health and Safety Commission all said it was okay",
  it would be all right. This Secretary of State does not feel the need to go through such a consultation process. He wants to keep the Government's proposals for the future of the industry a deep and dark secret—and so they remained until the Rothschild report saw the light of day a few weeks ago.
  The Secretary of State may try to dodge the issue but tonight he is asking us to allow him and British Coal to pay
  1314
  for the top-of-the-range redundancy levels which the interim report from Rothschild urges as a necessary prerequisite for privatisation——
  Sir William Clark: Who wrote this?
  Mr. Barron: I did. The report is not part of a plot hatched by the Opposition to make the Government look bad. It is part of the Government's plot to trade mineworkers' jobs and one of the nation's most valuable assets for a fast buck. That looks bad not just because the Government commissioned the report, but because they refuse to address its contents. All the ducking and weaving since the report was made public has convinced no one.
  The report has informed the contents of the Bill, so will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary tell us whether the Government are going to reject the advice in the Rothschild report about the future size of the coal industry? Are the Government prepared for the industrial coal market to disappear, something that is implicit in the Rothschild report? If, as we have been told, that is only one of the options, the Minister should tell us what the other options are. If he does not, the uncertainty of the past few months—which has become worse in the past three weeks—will continue to hang over the coal industry.
  The Secretary of State said that one of his justifications for further cuts in the coal mining industry is the growth of environmentally-friendly gas generation which we are led to believe is cheap. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) disputed that in terms of the cost of gas and he had every reason to do so. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) referred to that as well.
  The debate about the price of generating electricity with gas is one of the most ill-informed debates to enter this place. As evidence of that, I want to refer to comments of Mr. Colin Webster, the marketing director of National Power. He is hardly someone who has made friendly remarks about the coal industry of late. He presented a paper on 5 April in which he stated:
  "I am bound to conclude that looked at from the perspective of the economics of heat and power, it makes no sense to replace existing coal-fired plant with CCGTs unless gas prices are lower than today's."
  That is not the coal lobby talking—that is the view of senior people in National Power who know exactly what is happening in terms of electricity generation in this country. That removes the Government's mask which they have worn over the past few months as they have tried to pursue the idea of cheap gas. That was simply another attack on the British coal industry.
  If the Government sanction all the deals on gas burn that have been agreed to in principle, we will witness the transfer of 40 per cent. of power station coal consumption to gas. Recent information has shown that all but a few of those plants will produce power at a total cost above that of British coal at present prices. Some could be between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. higher. Even retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation at the big coal stations would not make them more expensive than some gas burn. That part of the power generation market will be closed to competition for 15 years because that is the length of some of the gas contracts that have been signed.
  At the press conference when the Bill was published, the Secretary of State said that cuts in the mining industry are part of a plan for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Those comments were quoted in The Observer

  1315
  the following Sunday. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to required levels will not be achieved by ceasing to mine coal in Britain.
  No one would disagree about the need for a plan. However, what plan was the Secretary of State talking about in front of the journalists? Under pressure he simply blurted out a few words, but nothing follows from them. He made no mention today of a plan about what the Government are going to do about carbon dioxide emissions. They seem to think that bringing foreign coal into this country and burning it in place of British coal will do something to limit carbon dioxide emissions. What nonsense.
  At least the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is trying to be sensible. With regard to a carbon tax he said at Energy Questions on Monday that if that
  "were done unilaterally ahead of the rest of the world, it could put British industry at a severe disadvantage."—[Official Report, 11 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 766.]
  He was absolutely right. He should not introduce such arguments when we know what the Government are after—attacking the British coal industry.
  The Bill and the Rothschild report, with their prospects for the closure of 30 collieries in England and Wales, do nothing to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we produce. They merely pave the way for an increasing proportion of those emissions to come from the burning of imported coal. We need a plan, but we need a sensible plan—one that Britain and the rest of the world can agree. The Government obviously do not have such a plan, or it would have been mentioned today. The Government's prime motivation is to carry out an act of revenge on coal miners and coal mining communities.
  These days, the Government pretend to care about the environment. However, they use it as a weapon to bash the coal industry. If only they had had the sense to invest in cleaning up our power stations, as the Germans have done, we would not watch electricity industry representatives and Ministers rushing around trying to find cheap fixes to meet their European obligations. If only the Government had concentrated more resources on the development of clean coal generators, we would not be light years behind the United States, Japan and other coal-producing countries in Europe. They profess wholehearted support for clean coal technology, but, by forcing British Coal to search for private sector money, the potentially world-beating topping cycle developments at Grime thorpe have been delayed and delayed.
  Why is it that the first and second phases of planned underground gasification demonstration plants are to be made in Spain and Belgium? It is because those Governments have been arguing for coal utilisation while our Government have sat on their hands wanting to take a swipe at miners and their communities. The next Labour Government will look after the future of that great national asset. Whenever the Government want to call a general election, that is what we will do.
  Some Conservative Members have made their last speeches in a Second Reading debate on coal. We have enjoyed them. The Secretary of State for Energy, on the Monday of the Labour party annual conference, phoned a few national newspaper editors to talk the Conservative party out of a general election this month. The following Tuesday, the chairman of the Tory party stood up at the Tory party conference and said, "We are going to wipe out
  1316
  Labour at the next general election." They cannot both be right. They did not want an election on 7 November. Instead, there are two fewer Members on the Conservative Benches than there were in July. Conservative Members know what is in store for them when they have the guts to call the general election. Opposition Members cannot wait to take the majority off them.
  An integral part of Labour's plan to look after the coal industry will be the adoption of European proposals for the coal industry. Clearly, decisions reached in the forums of the European Community have affected and will increasingly affect our energy industries with the advent of the single-energy market. In the past, I have argued that using the spot price of coal on the world market as a benchmark for comparison with the British coal industry is simplistic and short-sighted. Recent discussions within the European Community endorse that view.
  A current Commission-approved discussion paper that the Secretary of State must know about on state aid for the coal industry states that there is an urgent need to define the reference price for European coal. That is, a price that would establish an acceptable ceiling on production costs, taking account of the regulatory effect on the world market and a premium for security of supply. The reason for that is that the spot market varies with the dollar exchange rate and, for a long time, has been affected by the dumping of coal into Europe—something about which British Coal has complained to the Commission. We still never hear Ministers support the anti-dumping case. The reference price would allow aid for a long-term market to be established.
  When the Council of Energy Ministers meets with those proposals before it, Opposition Members and the British coal industry would like to know what attitude Britain's representatives will adopt. Will they support the proposals that would provide for the coal industry's future? Will the Secretary of State bat for the British coal industry in the way that the German Government bat for theirs? It seems perverse that the expensively subsidised and more expensive German deep-mined coal industry has not suffered the rigours through which our coal industry has been put. The agreement that has been reached——
  Mr. Hannam: The agreement is just about to be reached.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Exeter may say that an agreement is about to be reached, but agreement has been reached this week. It will reduce our production by 15 million tonnes between now and the year 2005.
  Mr. Hannam: No, the year 2000.
  Mr. Barron: No, it is the year 2005 when the figure will be 15 million tonnes. The British Government have been practising euthanasia on the British coal industry and the Rothschild report is about to take that even further. Its proposals will make what has happened up to now look like a day out at the seaside.
  It seems odd that the coal pfennig has been given the green light by Brussels when we have been continually led to believe that state aid for our coal industry would not be allowed. Industries in Europe, however, will receive state aid until the year 2005. That is not good enough. Nobody could believe that the Government do anything for the British coal industry because they are absent from the debate and have not done anything to help our plight.

  1317
  The Secretary of State and his Back Benchers talk about how the Government have supported the coal industry. That is yet more Tory doublespeak for a decade that has seen the Government inspire a decline in coal production from 120 million tonnes per annum to 91 million tonnes; for a decline in employment from 223,000 jobs to 74,000 jobs and for the closure of more than two thirds of our collieries. If that is support for an industry, I should not like to be part of an industry that the Government were against.
  Thurcroft colliery in my constituency is now threatened with closure because of a short-term geological problem, yet it has 20 million tonnes of workable low-sulphur reserves. If the colliery were allowed to overcome that problem, it could soon continue to earn the money that it has earned ever since the pit was sunk earlier this century. However, the Government are intent on that pit closure by which the nation will lose that asset of 20 million tonnes of coal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) referred graphically to Murton colliery in the north-east and spoke about what it means to a community to lose 600 jobs. That is what is threatened at Thurcroft at the moment.
  Even when the Government have closed the pits, their vendetta against our communities continues. What other complexion can we put on their refusal to conform to the EEC regulations on RECHAR? What reason can there be other than the Tory party's vendetta against our coal mining communities?
  The Secretary of State said that British Coal's market has been in decline for decades. That was certainly the case until the early 1980s, but British miners then started to lose their jobs to imports. That is what the Government want to continue to happen to miners even after all that they have been through to achieve their productivity increases of 100 per cent. in the past six years. Despite that, the Government want to take away thousands more jobs by importing coal.
  The Secretary of State also said that the restructuring grant limit is
  "not determined by any view of the future of the industry."
  I hope that I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman correctly. However, only last year in discussions on the level of restructuring grants, I was told by the then Under-Secretary of State that that was
  "linked to expected redundancies. It is for British Coal to decide what manpower it requires…However the Government need to make some estimate of the number of redundancies in order to seek the necessary estimate provision for restructuring grant."
  Everyone knows that the Bill is part of the privatisation process. The Government and their Back-Benchers know it. We know it, miners and their families know it, and the country knows it. That is why we shall oppose the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The debate has been characterised by deep-seated differences of opinion, but it has been recognised on both sides of the House that the British coal industry faces formidable challenges. That was certainly recognised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth
  1318
  (Mr. Enright) in his maiden speech. He made it clear that he will represent the industry in his own way. I disagreed with much of what he had to say, but I welcome him to the House from this Bench and look forward to debating these issues with him on many occasions.
  We can certainly agree that coal sales are dominated today by the contracts between the generating companies and British Coal. The contracts specify both prices and volume—70 million tonnes this year, falling to 65 million tonnes next year. They have been cleared by the European Commission because they were transitional contracts. They expire in March 1993. Thereafter, the market will not be easy. Several large gas-fired electricity generating stations will begin to operate and that will inevitably take away a proportion of the market.
  Just as natural gas displaced some of the coal and coal gas in the domestic market during the 1960s, so gas-fired stations will affect electricity generation in the 1990s. That is inescapable. But despite those structural changes, there will continue to be a large market for coal. Like Opposition Members, we want to see British Coal secure as much of that market as possible.
  Negotiations for contracts after 1993 have not started, so we do not yet know the tonnages or the volumes. However, we know that the volumes will depend on the efforts of the managers and mineworkers in responding to those opportunities. Any Government and any industry in the public or private sector has to face those challenges in not only Britain but other countries.
  Mr. Barron: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I wish to make one more point. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned Germany in his closing remarks. The German coal industry has been held out as something of a model by Opposition Members. It has recently announced a likely 30,000 job losses in the years ahead, on top of the 26,000 or so redundancies made during the past three years. The restructuring that we are seeing is mirrored on the continent.
  Mr. Barron: The Minister mentioned volumes. Will he or the Secretary of State reject the volumes mentioned in the Rothschild report—25 million tonnes deep-mined and 15 million tonnes opencast?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Rothschild report, let me make it crystal clear that we have appointed advisers, including Rothschilds, to analyse options for privatisation of the industry. As part of that, it considered a range of possible developments in the energy sector. No decisions on the timing or form of privatisation will be taken until after the general election. Those decisions will be taken by the Government, not advisers. Rothschilds and the other advisers have absolutely no role in decisions on the future of individual collieries.
  It is perhaps characteristic of the hon. Members for Rother Valley and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that they take the most pessimistic scenario and present it as fact. We are determined to ensure the development of the largest possible economic coal industry that the market can support. We are confident that when the new contracts are negotiated the industry will respond to keep the lion's share of that market throughout the 1990s and beyond. Productivity improvements over the

  1319
  past five years, admittedly from a very low base, have been highly impressive. Moreover, the industry is beginning to lose the industrial image that it once had of a strike-torn and unreliable supplier. I am confident that that, too, will help in the years ahead.
  Mr. Benn rose——
  Mr. Hardy rose——
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman made speeches. I ask them to forgive me for not taking interventions.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way? I have not spoken in the debate.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes.
  Mr. Ashton: The Government have encouraged the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to consider buying into any sort of privatised industry. If the Government are re-elected—God forbid—is it not a fact that privatisation would come in 1992 and that in 1993 contracts for the supply of coal to the power stations would be awarded? With massive imports, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers would not be able to match the price of that coal and would have to advise its members to take wage cuts to meet the contracts. Is not that the reality?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Absolutely not. We believe that the best chance of keeping out imports is to improve the efficiency and productivity of the industry. We believe also that that will be best done in the private sector. That is why in due course we shall be making proposals to do just that.
  I recognise that there will not be an easy transition. That is why we are introducing the Bill and why clause 1 extends the overall limit on the payment of restructuring grant by a further £1·5 billion. I remind the House that since 1979 the Government have approved over £7·5 billion of new investment and have provided for grant aid of about £17 billion to the industry. That has been provided by the Government—by the taxpayer—and is a measure of the Government's commitment to the industry. We are continuing to invest in it at a rate of over £1 million for every working day.
  Restructuring grant represents a specific commitment by the Government to the work force. The money supports British Coal's costs of redundancy, transfers between collieries, retraining for jobs outside the industry and the excellent work of British Coal Enterprise. The money helps BCE to carry out a range of initiatives, including the provision of soft loans for new businesses, managed workshops for new businesses, low-cost premises for expanding businesses, training for ex-mineworkers and job shops. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), when they set out their ideas for extending and expanding the work that I have described in the affected areas. We shall consider their proposals carefully.
  Restructuring grant has been paid by the Government since 1987. It has been raised in progressive stages to the present limit of £1,500 million. The grant provides support for 90 per cent. of the costs of the corporation when it pays redundancy sums to mineworkers. It allows the corporation to pay its mineworkers lump sums of up to £37,000 on leaving the industry, which is generous by any standards. That is why Labour should be supporting the Bill instead of criticising it. If we are to continue the high
  1320
  levels of payment to those affected by restructuring, the Bill is essential. If we are to continue the retraining and employment schemes, we need the Bill.
  The Labour party should know about the cost of restructuring because it did so itself when in government. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, between 1964 and 1970 it was a Labour Government who shut nearly 280 collieries. As a result, 170,000 men lost their jobs in the mining industry during those years. In that period, however, there were not the generous redundancy terms or the restructuring payments that are now available.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister accept that the flaw in his argument is that no figure is projected for the next financial year which will take the amount needed over the present limits agreed under the 1987 legislation? We do not need to increase the limits for at least another 18 months.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do not yet know the precise figures required—that is up to British Coal: It controls individual collieries and it will decide the sums required. It is a restructuring grant paid to British Coal, to fund up to 90 per cent. of the sums that may be required when British Coal shuts collieries as part of its restructuring exercise.
  Mr. Allen McKay: In the finances that are being made available, is there anything to continue the concessionary fuel arrangements? If privatisation occurs, will the Government guarantee everything that currently exists, will that be left to the private owners, or will the miners be sold down the river?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that entitlement to concessionary coal will be preserved. I am happy to put that on the record once again.
  If Labour Members oppose the Bill, they and the miners will know that the redundancy terms on offer—which are generous by any standards—the transfer payments available for those wishing to move to other pits, the retraining help, and the managed workshops are all being provided by a Conservative Government, despite opposition from the Labour party. They know that all that would be put at risk if there were the prospect of a Labour Government. Frankly, it is not an adequate response for Labour Members to pretend that they can somehow keep the market for coal at its present level.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley referred to a national plan for energy. He did not tell us what was in that plan, other than mentioning something called a reference price. He did not tell us what the reference was. He avoided any of the hard decisions that would have to be made if he wanted to stabilise the industry at about its current size, as promised by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The hard decisions——
  Mr. Barron rose——
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not give way as I am responding specifically to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Will the Labour party shut down the new gas-fired generating stations, break those contracts and lay off the men? Will it restrict the use of the electricity interconnectors to France and Scotland? Will it ignore the European single market and GATT by restricting coal imports? If so, that is hardly in line with Labour's

  1321
  new-found enthusiasm for the European single market and free trade. Without facing at least some of those hard choices, Labour's promises remain, quite simply, empty phrases.
  We have heard from Opposition Members a wholly misleading account of clause 2. The 1908 Act is an obsolete restriction that is not appropriate for modern mining methods. It has been overtaken by local practices and informal agreements—and that has been the case since mechanisation of the industry began in the 1950s. If it is true, as alleged by Labour Members, that the 1908 Act is so essential for safety today, why did not the previous Labour Government enforce it? I wish that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had dealt with that point in his speech, because he was the Energy Minister when the letter of the Act was being breached. He did nothing about it then, so how can the Opposition claim that the Act is pivotal to safety in today's mines?
  Repeal of the 1908 Act will not jeopardise safety—we would not let that happen. The coal industry has a good safety record and it has a strong safety culture reflecting the accumulated wisdom of the management, the work force and the mines inspectorate. The Act plays no part in the safety regime. Therefore, we intend to repeal the Act when alternative regulations governing working times are in place. That does not affect our commitment to safety and it has nothing to do with privatisation. For Opposition Members to suggest otherwise shows that they have either not understood the Bill or are trying to bolster a weak case with irrelevant scares.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House have commented on the environment.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10 o'clock when the Division bell goes, the House will have been sitting for seven and a half hours, from prayers through questions, statements and this debate. Is not that a long enough period for miners to be working down the pit? Some of us will believe that we have done a good job during that period.
  Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friends have made the good point that the Labour party is posing as the party of carbon dioxide reductions while at the same time it wants to force electricity generators to burn more coal, phase out the nuclear industry and, in its phrase, to "deter" the generators from using gas for power generation. That is a neat package for increasing the output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  But when talking to a different audience at a different time, the Labour party poses as the green party, committing itself to the tough and demanding target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. That is a glaring and continuing contradiction between its energy and environmental policies, and it cannot disguise the fact.
  However, I shall at least admit that that contradiction does not exist on the Liberal Democrat Bench. I have been examining the Liberal Democrats' environmental document called, "Costing the Earth". They want—I suppose that there is some merit in honesty—an immediate energy
  1322
  tax with the highest rate on coal specifically designed to switch fuel use away from coal. Their energy tax is targeted at coal reduction.
  I then looked at the section of the report headed "Economic Impact" where there was nothing at all about the damage to the coal industry. It was not even mentioned. That is how it dismisses the coal industry. There may be some honesty there, but please do not let us hear from the Liberal Democrats that, if they vote against the Bill this evening, they have anything constructive to offer either existing coal miners or those displaced by restructuring.
  This evening we have seen the old familiar Labour party of intervention, protectionism and high prices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for reminding us of that in the last speech from the Opposition Back Benches. What we do not know is how it squares those beliefs with its later beliefs in market forces, the EC and industrial efficiency. I shall leave that to be worked out by the political analysts.
  I am concerned about the practical effect of the Labour party's opposition to the Bill, which would be to hamper or prevent the necessary restructuring of the coal industry which we all know to be necessary. The Bill will allow British Coal continued and necessary access to restructuring grant. Without that, British Coal will be unable to continue the present level of redundancy pay or the redeployment, retraining or job placement schemes that it supports.
  The Bill also empowers the Secretary of State to repeal an obsolete and out-of-date Act of Parliament from 1908 which threatens the industry's productivity and the earnings of its work force. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 196.

  Division No. 10]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Alexander, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bright, Graham

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amess, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Benyon, W.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cran, James

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  1323

  Curry, David

  Knapman, Roger

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Day, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Dover, Den

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Farr, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Madel, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Maples, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gill, Christopher

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Ground, Patrick

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grylls, Michael

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hague, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Hayward, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hill, James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hind, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

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

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rost, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kilfedder, James

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  1324

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Trotter, Neville

  Shelton, Sir William

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Speed, Keith

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Speller, Tony

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Stevens, Lewis

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thorne, Neil

  Thurnham, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tracey, Richard

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Donald

  Dewar, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Eadie, Alexander

  Battle, John

  Enright, Mr Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bellotti, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fearn, Ronald

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joseph

  Flannery, Martin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Blair, Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foulkes, George

  Boyes, Roland

  Fraser, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gordon, Mildred

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clay, Bob

  Graham, Thomas

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cox, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cryer, Bob

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cummings, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hinchliffe, David

  1325

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Nellist, Dave

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Howells, Geraint

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  Hume, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kennedy, Charles

  Reid, Dr John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Richardson, Jo

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Robertson, George

  Lamond, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Rooney, Terence

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Loyden, Eddie

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

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

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Stephen, Nicol

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Madden, Max

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Vaz, Keith

  Marek, Dr John

  Wallace, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walley, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springbum)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Martlew, Eric

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Meacher, Michael

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Meale, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Murphy, Paul

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Government that they might wish to make a statement on what has been said this evening on the wire: that Mr. Marlin Fitzwater, on behalf of the American President, is to consult the British Prime Minister about a response to what has happened in relation to the Libyan findings and that apparently he does not rule out a military response? Some of us, especially those who have recently been to
  1326
  Libya, think that war solves nothing. We are conscious that 5,500 of our fellow countrymen work in Libya and we wonder whether we can have a statement before any rash action is taken. We should at least wait until a trial takes place.
  Mr. Speaker: Having not seen the tape this evening, I am not aware of this matter. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

  COAL INDUSTRY BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament which is attributable to—

  (a) increasing to £2,500 million, with power to increase by order to £3,000 million, the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of grants made under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, or

  (b) enabling such grants to be made in respect of costs falling to be charged to accounts in respect of financial years ending after March 1993 but not later than March 1996.—[Mr. Wood.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  PUBLIC HEALTH
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 12) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2077), dated 13th September 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th September, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENERGY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Eric Illsley be discharged from the Energy Committee and Mr. Joe Benton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alan W. Williams be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Huw Edwards be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

PETITION

  Tobacco Advertising
  10.15 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of Yorkshire Action on Smoking and Health. It calls upon the Government to sign the EEC directive to ban tobacco advertising. There is clear evidence of a relationship between tobacco advertising and the likelihood of children starting to smoke.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Brewing Industry
  10.16 pm
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Mr. Stan Crowther: I declare an interest in this matter, as I am the parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I am pleased to have an opportunity to draw the House's attention once again to the upheaval that has taken place in the brewing industry and the licensed trade since the beer orders of December 1989.
  There can hardly ever have been a piece of legislation that has so utterly failed to achieve its stated objectives. We were told that the orders were introduced with the intention of increasing competition, thus providing more choice for customers and holding down prices. In fact, competition has been reduced, prices have rocketed, thousands of public house tenants have been forced out of the trade and thousands more have felt that they have no reasonable option other than to accept the terms being imposed upon them by the brewers and accept long leases at enormously increased rents, with full responsibility for repairs. The brewers have decided to destroy the traditional tenancy system. It is on its way out.
  It must be understood that the brewers' actions have not been forced upon them by the legislation. The beer orders did not require them to do anything of this sort. In that connection, I should like to quote from a letter that the Secretary of State wrote to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who was concerned—rightly so—about a letter that a tenant in his constituency had received from Grand Metropolitan Estates. The Secretary of State wrote:
  "I can assure you that the action the company has taken has not been forced on it by any of the measures the Government has introduced following the MMC's report on the brewing industry."
  The Secretary of State went on to say that he was concerned that the letter from Grand Metropolitan Estates tried to imply that the orders had forced the company into the action it was taking against the tenant. The Secretary of State was right. The orders did not require such action to be taken. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Selby for allowing me to quote from the letter.
  In discussions with me, representatives of all the major brewing companies have admitted that the orders did not force them to take those actions against the tenants. I have been told that the companies were merely prompted by the orders to "review" their commercial strategy. Whitbread and Bass have both used that expression. What they mean by "reviewing" their commercial strategy is that, because they will have to dispose of 11,000 tied houses, they are determined to squeeze every penny they can out of those that remain. The way in which they do that is to abolish the old tenancies and to introduce long leases under which full repairing responsibility is placed on the tenants. On top of that, they introduce massive rent increases.
  In your constituency, Mr. Speaker, the case of Mr. David Harper of the Clifton Arms is typical. I have spoken to your constituent and he is happy that I should cite his case, because it demonstrates the way in which things are happening. In Mr. Harper's case, less than two years ago, his rent was doubled from £12,000 to £24,000. The amount was then increased by another £2,000 because it was
  1328
  related to the retail prices index—I do not know why. Now his landlord, the Allied Brewery group, has invited him to accept a 10-year lease at a starting price of £36,000 a year. Before he can even accept the lease, he is required to put the place into good repair, which may cost him another £30,000. Such things are happening all over the country.
  Many public houses have been grossly neglected for years by their owners, yet the owners now demand that the tenants pay all the cost of putting the public houses into good order. In some cases, the costs are enormous. I know of at least one case in which the cost is likely to be £80,000, which is a measure of the neglect by the brewers of their own properties.
  I have details here of scores of cases, but as I cannot take up the time of the House in referring to all of them, I will pick one or two examples. There is a Whitbread house, the Kings Arms, in Temple Sowerby near Penrith. The present rent is just under £12,000, but the proposed rent is £22,000. The capital cost of the repairs which the tenant must pay before he can even have the lease is £10,000. There is a Whitbread house, the Seven Stars, in the Wirral. The present rent is just under £15,000, but the rent now being demanded is £35,000.
  There is the Black Bull at Birstall in West Yorkshire, which I know. It is a nice, small public house for which the rent is £16,120. The owners now want £30,000. It is impossible for the business at that pub to be increased to such an extent, because it is a very small house. There is a John Smith house called The George at Stanningley near Leeds. John Smith is now part of Courage, although Courage is now called Fosters. The present rent there is just under £14,000, but the proposed rent is £33,000.
  One of the worst cases is that of the Broadway hotel at Dunscroft in Doncaster. It is again a Courage house, for which the present rent is £18,000. The company now seeks a rent of £42,000. That is happening all over the country and the tenants will be required to accept all the costs of repairs.
  Earlier this year, the Secretary of State met the representatives of all the major brewery companies, having received a deputation from the National Licensed Victuallers Association. To his great credit, he persuaded the brewery companies to accept the principle of independent arbitration. I thought that we were making progress. Unfortunately, matters are not quite as simple as some of us thought they were. Bass, for example, requires a tenant to put down a deposit of £ 1,000 before he can even contemplate arbitration. In many cases, the arbitrator may be appointed only from a list of people approved by the brewer. Many of them usually earn their living by carrying out valuations on behalf of brewery companies. The most astonishing thing—indeed, it is almost unbelievable—is that tenants are required to sign a lease before the rent has been fixed. What type of arrangement is that? In normal commercial life, no one would dream of doing such a thing. It is not surprising that, in those circumstances, very few tenants are invoking the arbitration procedures.
  I asked Grand Met how it justified the rent increases being imposed. As many hon. Members know, Grand Met is no longer a brewer, as it has transferred all its breweries to Courage, or Fosters, as it is now called. Grand Met is essentially a pub-owning company, apart from its other interests. When I asked Grand Met how it could justify the high rent increases, I was told that tenants could easily afford them because tenants would now receive all the

  1329
  proceeds from the amusement machines instead of sharing them with the brewers, although they still have to pay a high licence fee and rent.
  I was told that the tenants would also make more profit from guest beers. How are they to do that? Grand Met said that tenants could negotiate a discount of £30 or £40 a barrel. I said that, as brewers never sell beer at a loss, why did not the brewers knock £30 or £40 off the price of a barrel to the tenants of their tied houses in the first place? I did not receive an answer, but the sum involved would have been about lop a pint, which could be taken off the retail price and still leave brewers with a profit.
  I also asked Grand Met what percentage of its tenants had left the trade completely since the beer orders were introduced less than two years ago. The answer was 40 per cent. My inquiries suggest that roughly the same figure applies to all major companies in this country. That is appalling. The tenants gain great skill and experience over the years in serving the public and in running their public houses. They have disappeared from the scene, but I am sure that that is not what the Government intended.
  Meanwhile, the concentration of ownership has continued apace. When the MMC's report was published, the four biggest brewery companies had 58 per cent. of the market. They now have 70 per cent. of the market, and the proposed merger between Allied and Carlsberg will push that figure even higher.
  The latest scheme devised by Bass to circumvent the beer orders—the intention, not the letter, of the orders—is to sell 372 public houses to a company called Enterprise Inns, which has immediately signed a contract with Bass to supply Bass beers to all those public houses. Nothing has changed—they are as tied as before, but they are now excluded from the beer orders, so that they have no guest beers.
  I am repeatedly told that all the fuss is being caused by a vociferous minority of licensees. No one can persuade me that the 3,000 licensees who went to Blackpool to take part in a protest march during the week of the Conservative conference are all mindless militants. They are ordinary, decent licensees who want to continue to do their job of serving the public. They see their livelihoods put at risk and the traditional tenancy system disappearing. That is what concerns them.
  Despite what I have said, I am not especially critical of the brewers. They operate in a hard commercial environment. They are looking after their commercial interests, but unfortunately they are doing so at the expense of the tenants and customers, the very people who are supposed to benefit from the legislation. That is the paradox that the Government will not acknowledge and that is why I must criticise them. I do not criticise them for getting it wrong in the first place. Anyone can make a mistake. I criticise them for refusing to accept that they made a mistake and for refusing to take any action to put matters right, when it was patently obvious that everything was going disastrously wrong.
  In another measure, the Government extended the Landlord and Tenant Act protection to the licensed trade but they would not bring it in immediately—it had to be implemented some time in the future. Protection that does
  1330
  not come into effect until half the people whom it is supposed to protect have already disappeared from the scene is hollow protection indeed.
  Many hon. Members believe that the Secretary of State should immediately instruct the Director General of Fair Trading to review the position urgently and in detail, so that we can discover whether there is still some possibility of saving something from this awful mess. He should not wait until 1993, which is the present proposal. By then, all the damge will have been done.
  I am reminded of the famous poem, by Robert Southey, about the battle of Blenheim, when little Peterkin asks:
  "But what good came of it at last?"
  Old Kaspar replies:
  "'Why that I cannot tell,' said he,
  'But' twas a famous victory.'"
  Almost two years after the beer orders went through the House, we are entitled to ask the Minister what good came of them at last. The Government certainly cannot claim that it was a famous victory. The customers are definitely no better off. Tenants have suffered great distress; many thousands of them have been forced out of their homes and businesses. The brewers, who spent millions of pounds campaigning against this legislation, have shot it to pieces.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. James Hill: I had applied for an Adjournment debate on this subject, but I realised that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) had a prior right, representing as he does the NLVA.
  I have today won a concession from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in as much as he is going to give a delegation from the Southampton and district licensed victuallers an opportunity to see him at the Department to talk over some of these matters. Worthy servants of the brewers are being turned out of their livelihoods and homes by these draconian rents, set in the main by estate agents who have no concept of the harm that will be done to these people.
  I thank the Secretary of State for this concession, and I am sure that, with good will on the part of the Government, we can arrive at a successful outcome.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) for raising this important subject. He has tirelessly put the views of the National Licensed Victuallers Association to the Government during the course of these discussions and changes.
  The hon. Gentleman suggests that the orders have failed, but the main order, to break the tie, is not yet in effect, so it is premature to say that the proposal has failed to introduce competition. We must wait and see what its impact is before making that judgment.
  To review the position before this judgment can be made would be far from helpful. It would create a great deal of additional uncertainty for tenants, customers and all in the brewing industry. Perhaps, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that that could make matters worse. It would certainly encourage the brewers to look again at their commercial strategy. The hon. Gentleman was critical of the way they had done that as a result of the orders while the review was under way. It would be wrong to encourage such a move before it is possible to form a view on how the orders have worked out in practice.

  1331
  I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the closure of pubs, which was a common feature of the industry before the orders were thought of, has nothing to do with the Government's policy or the MMC inquiry.
  If a pub is closed, that is a commercial judgment by the publican and the brewer depending on the relationship between them. It is usually by the brewer. That commercial judgment is made on the basis of the pub and its location. Hundreds of pubs closed before the orders and, unfortunately, some pubs are closing now. Closing a pub does not help a brewer to comply with the important brewing order; it is essential that the House understands that, as many hon. Members have problems involving pubs, and they need to answer that point, which shows that the brewing order is not the cause of the pub closure.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham made some interesting points about independent arbitration. The Secretary of State and I have worked hard in discussions with the brewers to get improvements in the way in which they treat their tenants. One of the important points was to get the offer of independent arbitration where all else has failed. I will certainly consider the points that the hon. Gentleman made when I read Hansard and consider the ways in which it may be possible to dilute or circumvent the effect of independent arbitration in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  The Government are committed to pursuing a vigorous competition policy in the brewing industry and elsewhere. We will continue to look closely at mergers in the brewing industry which fall for consideration under the fair trading legislation. Although the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report did not think that concentration in brewing was a problem, the authorities do not wish to see undue erosion of competition in brewing, and that will obviously inform our assessments and judgments in future transactions.
  There has been little change in the combined market share of the six national brewers owning more than 2,000 pubs since February 1989. The increase in concentration of the big four, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is entirely due to the Grant Met-Courage pubs-for-breweries deal. Those transactions were considered fully by the MMC. The number of pubs freed from ties as a result of the undertakings required by the Secretary of State will be much greater than would have been required under the orders. It was the tie which the MMC thought created all the problems. That explains the judgment in that case.
  I do not accept that recent acquisitions of regional brewers and closures of breweries are the result of the beer orders. Regional brewers are not affected directly by them. The industry has long been characterised by mergers between brewers, closures of breweries and sales of public houses. The decisions of regional brewers such as Boddingtons and Greenalls to cease brewing were commercial ones taken by the managements of those companies and they were not forced on them by any of the Government's measures.
  An important way of encouraging vigorous competition in the brewing industry is to give regional brewers the chance to expand. The beer orders do just that. Regional brewers have opportunities to acquire further premises from the national brewers, and they can sell their beers to a greater number of "free outlets" after November 1992. Regional brewers such as Morlands, Greene King and Wolverhampton and Dudley have already seized the opportunity to expand their estates.
  1332
  The guest beer provision also provides opportunities. The Publican on 17 June reported:
  "the guest ale tidal wave is swelling, as many national tenants prepare to take a non-brewery tied beer".
  The Morning Advertiser of 24 September reported on an in-depth survey that it had carried out into the effects of the guest beer provision. This found that some 40 per cent. of the tenanted pubs of the national brewers were now offering guest beers. That figure could well increase significantly. The survey found that Wadworths, Youngs, Fullers, Marstons and Adnams among the regionals had all done particularly well from the provision, accounting together for nearly 30 per cent. of the guest beer market.
  Several new micro-brewers have sprung up. The Morning Advertiser of 30 October reported the story of Jim Botur, who spent his redundancy money from Matthew Brown on starting his own independent brewery. He said:
  "We have received a lot of support from both free trade customers and tenants who are now able to stock a guest beer in their pubs. We were confident that the new Beer Orders would give us the opportunity we needed."
  The hon. Gentleman referred to recent increases in the price of beer which, I agree, have been large. As the brewers do not have to comply with the main measure of the orders until 1 November 1992, it is too soon to judge what impact the orders will have on prices. I notice that the steepest price rises in past years have been in pubs tied to the national brewers. The beer orders target precisely those brewers, by ordering a reduction in their tied estates by 11,000 outlets. Customers will have more choice of outlet and beer. They can shop around if some prices rise too far. We have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to review the orders in late 1993, when their effectiveness can be properly assessed.
  Mr. Richard Alexander: Apart from what the customer may or may not find with the price of beer, is it not the case that what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has described would not have taken place if the beer orders had not been passed by the House?
  Mr. Redwood: I am not sure whether that is true. We can never be sure, because those events took place. However, there were changes under way in the brewing industry before the beer orders were drafted and put to the House. We saw leading brewers thinking about segregating property from brewing, and we saw one major brewer thinking about introducing new styles of lease, which is the main burden of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. One can argue that there were changes under way in the brewing industry before the beer orders came along. I am not sure whether all those changes are the result of the beer orders or the threat of the beer orders.
  I and the Secretary of State are worried about the notices to quit that some brewers have issued to many of their tenants. The major brewers do not have to evict tenants to comply with the requirement that they release pubs from ties by 1 November 1992. Closure of a pub does not help them to comply with the orders in any way. Most of the notices have been issued to allow the brewers to renegotiate existing agreements; few will result in eviction.
  The Secretary of State and I have urged the brewers concerned to keep the number of notices sent out to an absolute minimum, and to make their purpose clear to tenants. The timing of notices was determined by the fact that all tenants will be protected by the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act 1990 by July 1992 as a result of the legislation that we enacted last year at the

  1333
  tenants' request. I remember seeing a delegation from the tenants at that time. The Government moved swiftly to meet their requirement to introduce the landlord and tenant legislation.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in certain cases, it has been extremely difficult for some smaller pubs to be able to pay the amount of money that some of the brewers have been asking them to pay?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is impossible.
  Mr. Cash: It is a simple point, but it has caused certain distress.
  Mr. Redwood: I know that tenants are worried by the extent of the price rises for their rents that the brewers are suggesting.
  Mr. Winterton: Are you?
  Mr. Redwood: But that will be determined by the marketplace. There will be independent review in cases where agreement cannot be reached. Of course I would like tenants to have realistic rent demands and then have successful businesses on the back of them, and I hope that the rent demands will turn out to be realistic in relation to the actual security of tenure offered under the new style of lease and in relation to the business opportunities offered under that style of lease as well. The hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out that there is a larger range of business opportunities available under the new leases, and that, of course, will be reflected in the rent charged under those lease arrangements.
  The longer-term leases which many brewers are insisting should replace existing tenancy agreements represent a different kind of lease with a different rental
  1334
  price on them. Over the summer, the Secretary of State and I met to encourage them to adopt best practices in dealings with their tenants. At our prompting, all the major brewers have now agreed to allow independent arbitration or assessment of rent in difficult cases where agreement cannot be reached. They have accepted the need to be flexible towards tenants who would have real difficulties in taking on a long-term lease, treating those nearing retirement with special consideration. That flexibility might involve the offer of a short-term agreement or a long-term lease with an appropriate break clause. The brewers have also agreed to consider offering compensation to such tenants in exceptional circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
  The Secretary of State, in the letter he sent to all hon. Members, said that it would be unrealistic to expect the removal of all differences between brewers and their tenants. We have been encouraged to hear from the president of the National Licensed Victuallers Association that he has seen some softening in the brewers' approach since our meetings with them. I understand the NLVA's continuing fears, but I am glad that its most recent letter to the Secretary of State began by saying:
  "the reaction of the national brewers to the recent series of meetings held with yourself and John Redwood MP would initially seem to be both positive and encouraging".
  I shall, of course, continue to watch the situation closely and will read all the comments that have been made tonight, including those made from sedentary positions in support of the hon. Member for Rotherham. I shall also do all that I can to ensure that brewers behave responsibly towards their tenants. However, I am convinced that a further review of the industry at this stage would only create additional uncertainty, which would not be in the interests of the industry, the tenants or the customers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. and Mrs. Beurton
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he intends to take to stop the self-confessed spy Ursula Beurton from profiting from the sale of her book; and if he will refer the case of Mr. and Mrs. Beurton to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide what case there is to answer in light of Mrs. Beurton's admission in the book that she and her husband were Soviet intelligence officers.

  The Attorney-General
  The case of Mr. and Mrs. Beurton has been drawn to the attention of the acting Director of Public Prosecutions. Taking into account all the circumstances, in particular their ages, the lapse of some 50 years since any Official Secrets Act offences may have been committed and the context in which they were then operating, the acting Director has decided that it would not be in the public interest to take any action against them in respect of these offences. There does not at present appear to be any basis for civil proceedings in respect of the publication of the book.

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the names, salaries and former and present occupations of each member of the Legal Aid Board; and how often the board has met.

  The Attorney-General
  The names and occupations, or former occupations, of the present members of the Legal Aid Board are:

  John Pitts (Chairman)—Former Chairman and Chief Executive of the Tioxide Group. Chairman of the Shildon and Sedgefield Development Agency.

  Martin Acland—JP, General Commissioner of Income Tax and Former Executive Director of Mercantile Credit Co.

  Diana Beale—Advice Worker and member of the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux.

  Allan Blake—Associate Dean of Leeds Business School. Formerly Head of Department of Law at Leeds Polytechnic.

  Lyn Devonald—Solicitor.

  Kenneth Farrow—Barrister and Recorder.

  Geoffrey Hibbert—JP, former Personnel Director, Shell International Petroleum Co.

  David Sinker—JP, Chartered Accountant and Director. Formerly advisor to the National Board of Prices and Incomes.

  John Smith—JP, former Personnel Director and Assistant Managing Director, Associated British Ports. Member of Industrial Tribunals.

  Peter Soar—Solicitor. Former Chairman of Cambridge Duty Solicitors Scheme.

  The chairman of the board is paid £22,930 per annum. All other members are paid £7,109 per annum. With effect from 1 December the salaries will increase to £23,355 and £7,785 per annum respectively. There have been 29 full meetings of the board since 1 April 1989.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many members of staff are at the disposal of the Serious Fraud Office in dealing with the BCCI issue.

  The Attorney-General
  The director of the SFO is satisfied that the staff resources available to her are sufficient for this purpose, and that there is sufficient flexibility to enable the fluctuating requirements of current cases to be satisfactorily met. It is the policy of the Serious Fraud Office not to disclose the deployment of operational staff involved in particular criminal investigations.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking arising from the report on national insurance contributions which his permanent secretary agreed with the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department's official response and indications of any action required will form part of the evidence to be given by the Permanent Secretary on 20 November 1991 to the Public Accounts Committee. The formation of the Contributions Agency in April 1991 has already enabled the Department to improve the effectiveness of its management of contributions business by, among other things:

  (a) setting financial and business targets and providing an information system to monitor costs and progress

  (b) reorganising its operations to centralise contribution correction work which does not involve face-to-face contact with employers or contributors, achieving substantial efficiency savings and tighter control of queries;

  (c) developing a dedicated inspectorate with more, better-informed and better-trained staff able to tackle non-compliance, and provide guidance to employers, the self-employed and contributors to prevent errors; and

  (d) publicising its contributions business in employer and contributor charters and through conferences and surveys monitoring the agency's performance.

  The Department already has in hand a substantial programme of action, which includes the specific issues raised by the NAO report.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards equalising the retirement ages of men and women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in the House on 26 June at columns 997–1006.

  Cold Weather Credits
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits; if he has costed its proposals; and what action he now proposes.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a letter dated 17 October 1991 from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits. Its proposals have not been costed in detail, but it quotes an
  619
  estimated cost of £500 million per year. We have recently introduced improvements to the cold weather payments scheme for the coming winter by introducing automatic payment based on forecasting as well as actual periods of very cold weather, and by abolishing the capital rule. We will continue to keep this scheme under review.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will explain the procedure whereby he notifies changes to the social fund directions and the stage in the procedure at which the changes take effect.

  Mr. Scott
  Changes to the social fund directions are normally made through an amendment to the Social Fund Manual. When an amendment is made to the manual, the date from which it takes effect is indicated by the date on the amendment. This date has in the past been the month and year, but will in future be a specified day.

  Five Countries Meeting
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total estimated cost of the five countries meeting on 3 to 8 November being hosted by his Department; who are the delegates and how they were appointed; and if he will publish the minutes of the meetings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The total estimated cost is somewhat less than £40,000. Delegates are chosen by their own countries and a full list is as follows. As discussions are informal no proceedings will be published.

  Delegates

  United Kingdom—Department of Social Security

  Sir Michael Partridge, KCB, Permanent Secretary

  Mr. Nick Montagu, Deputy Secretary, Resource Management and Planning Group

  Mr. Alec Wylie, Chief Executive, Social Security Agency, Northern Ireland

  Australia—Department of Social Security

  Mr. Derek Volker, AO, The Secretary

  Mr. Jim Humphreys, National Manager, Operations

  Dr. Owen Donald, First Assistant Secretary, Social Policy Division

  Canada—Department of National Health and Welfare

  Mrs. Margaret Catley-Carlson, Deputy Minister

  Mr. John Soar, Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security Programs Branch

  Mr. Ray Laframboise, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch

  New Zealand—Department of Social Welfare

  Mr. Robin J. Wilson, Deputy Director-General

  Mr. Alan Nixon, Assistant Director-General, Programmes and Services

  United States of America—Social Security Administration

  Mr. Louis D. Enoff, Principal Deputy Commissioner

  Ms. Janice Warden, Deputy Commissioner for Operations

  Mr. Renato A. DiPentima, Deputy Commissioner for Systems

  [Mrs. Geraldine Novak, Director, International Activities Staff

  Mrs. Gertrude Wiggins, International Activities Staff]

  Mortgage Assistance
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the comparable figures to those contained in his answer of 22 October,Official Report, columns 577–78, for 1987, 1988 and 1989; and if he will give unemployed claimants receiving mortgage assistance as a proportion of unemployed claimants.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [pursuant to her reply, 7 November 1991, c. 87–88]: The following information was incorrect:

  Supplementary benefit 1987

  Number

  Per cent.

  Unemployed

  207,000

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages

  28

  As proportion of all unemployed claimants

  10

  Lone Parents

  74,000

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages

  10

  The correct information is as follows:

  Supplementary benefit 1987

  Number

  Per cent.

  Unemployed claimants receiving help with mortgages

  160,000

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages

  48

  As proportion of all unemployed claimants

  9

  Lone parents receiving help with mortgages

  58,000

  As proportion of all claimants receiving help with mortgages

  17

ENERGY

  Standing Charges
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will now introduce legislation abolishing standing charges on gas and electricity consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No. Standing charges are intended to reflect those fixed costs of supply which do not vary according to the actual consumption.

  Royal Portbury Dock
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what assessment he has made of the effects on coal mining employment in each coalfield in the United Kingdom of the development of a coal-importing terminal proposed for the Royal Portbury dock;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed Royal Portbury dock coal importing terminal on the south Wales coalfield in respect of(a) deep mines and(b) licensed mines.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such assessments have been made.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had regarding a rail link for the proposed Royal Portbury dock coal importation terminal.
  621
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Bass
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice and powers have been given to officials who will enforce the bass conservation measures.

  Mr. Curry
  Bass conservation measures are currently enforced by British sea fisheries officers (BSFOs) with powers arising from the Sea Fisheries Act 1968, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and in relation to fishing boats the Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990. Advice is given in the context of compulsory training programmes for BSFOs.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates he listed the sea bass fishing nursery areas; and how many warrants have been issued since those dates to officials to patrol and enforce the conservation measures.

  Mr. Curry
  The Bass (Specified Area) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990 came into force on 27 June 1990. No new warrants have been issued in respect of this legislation because existing warrants held by officers of the sea fisheries inspectorate acting as British sea fisheries officers (BSFOs) cover all fisheries legislation. Instruments of appointment held by sea fisheries committees' officers trained and appointed as BSFOs include the enforcement of the bass legislation.

  Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give details of how he intends to allot the extra £16·5 million in compensatory allowances payable on hill sheep and cattle in the 1992–93 scheme year.

  Mr. Curry
  The additional £16·5 million expenditure on hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1992–93 shown in the autumn statement represents the extra money necessary to meet the average 14 per cent. increase in headage rates announced on 11 February 1991. The terms of the 1992 scheme will be announced as soon as decisions have been reached in the light of the autumn review.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of sheep scab there were in the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; what were the corresponding figures for 1971 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the last 12 months 160 cases of sheep scab were reported in the United Kingdom, compared with 69 in 1981 and none in 1971.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for approval of occupational pension schemes were received by the Inland Revenue; and 622
  how many were approved in each year since 1988–89; and what was the cost per scheme of approving(a) insured schemes,(b) large self-administered schemes and(c) small self-administered schemes in 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of applications received and approvals given since 1988–89 are as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Number of applications

  57,328

  50,251

  32,347

  19,281

  Number of final approvals

  20,780

  30,082

  14,178

  12,144

  1To 31 October.

  The difference between the numbers of applications and approvals each year is largely a reflection of the need for schemes to amend their rules to comply with recent legislation before they can be approved.

  It is not possible to provide a precise cost for approving schemes. Many pension schemes are not capable of approval in the same year that an application is received. Estimated costs for each type of scheme, based on a recent sample of approvals work, are:

  Cost per scheme

  £

  (a) Insured schemes

  19

  (b) Large self-administered schemes

  173

  (c) Small self-administered schemes

  205

  EC Budget
  Mr. Ridley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects the United Kingdom's gross contribution to the European Community budget to be in 1991–92 and in 1992–93, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The United Kingdom's gross contribution, after abatement, (but excluding receipts) to the European Community budget is forecast to be £3,827 million in 1991–92 and £5,397 million in 1992–93. The contribution in 1991–92 is lower than it would otherwise have been as a result of a refund of earlier years' contributions and higher than usual abatement.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council on 11 November and of the meetings of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union on 11 and 12 November.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Brussels on 11 November and the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union met afterwards on 11 and 12 November. I represented the United Kingdom at both meetings.

  The Council discussed the Italian Government's programme for economic convergence, the first such discussion of a member state's programme under the Council's new framework for multilateral surveillance. The Council focused on the need for improved budgetary discipline.
  623
  The Council agreed to bring forward the remaining tranches of the Community's balance of payments loans to Romania and Bulgaria subject to confirmation from the IMF that their programmes for the two countries would remain on track. The Community will also continue to encourage the members of the G24 outside the Community to increase their assistance to the two countries.

  The Council also discussed two proposals for aid to the Soviet Union. It was agreed that the existing 500 million ecu food credit should be disbursed as soon as possible. I urged that the Commission's new proposals for a further 1·25 billion ecu loan should be considered swiftly. It was agreed that the Commission should send a task force to Moscow to consider the operational details of the loan and that ministers should aim for agreement on the first tranche of such a loan on 25 November. I stressed the importance of including provision for feed grains in that first tranche. It was also agreed that both loans would allow a substantial element of the food to be bought from Eastern Europe.

  A Commission proposal to revise the financial perspective of the EC budget was also discussed but without agreement and the proposal was remitted to the Budget Council for further consideration.

  The Council reached agreement in principle on the VAT technical system directive and the administrative co-operation regulation. These provide for the operation of the intra-Community VAT system in the single market, and enhanced administrative co-operation between the fiscal authorities of member states in support of that system. These measures are vital steps toward the abolition of fiscal frontiers in the Community and the creation of the single market. Agreement brings a welcome end to uncertainty, allowing business and others with an interest, to plan with confidence for the completion of the single market.

  I again argued strongly that while tax free and duty-free shopping could not be retained indefinitely in the single market a transitional period longer than that proposed by the Presidency was needed. Member states agreed that intra-Community duty-free shopping should continue for almost eight years: until 1 July 1999. This will be reflected in the VAT technical and excise movements and control directives. Agreement on this transitional period allows businesses a reasonable period of time in which to make the necessary changes to their marketing and investment strategies.

  Full legal agreement on these two texts was not possible in the absence of texts in all Community languages, and given the need for certain technical clarifications. I made clear that the United Kingdom's agreement was subject to parliamentary scrutiny, which I look forward to completing shortly through a debate on this and the earlier agreement reached at the 24 June ECOFIN. Consideration of the draft excise movements and control directive was deferred until the next Council meeting.

  In the afternon of the same day and in the morning of 12 November Economics and Finance Ministers reconvened at a meeting of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union. Three main issues were discussed: economic and social cohesion, the role of the European Parliament, and the institutional provisions for stage two.
  624
  I stressed that economic and social cohesion in the Community was best achieved through sound macroeconomic policies and progress on the single market. Many member states agreed that proposals for financial arrangements to promote cohesion could be discussed only in next year's review of the future financing of the Community, not in the intergovernmental conference.

  There was a brief discussion of the role of the European Parliament in economic and monetary union. I expressed the view that its involvement should be limited. Economic policy would remain largely a national responsibility under EMU, and hence accountability should properly be to national Parliaments. There might, however, be a role for the European Parliament in scrutinising the activities of the Commission and European Central bank. The role of the Parliament was discussed further at an inter-institutional meeting with MEPs in the afternoon of 12 November.

  On the institutional provisions for stage two, there was broad agreement on the principle of establishing a European monetary institute and for developing the ECU.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Examinations and Assessment Council
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of the responses from local education authorities and the School Examination and Assessment Council made in relation to standard assessment tasks taken by seven-year-olds last term.

  Mr. Eggar
  The School Examinations and Assessment Council will publish reports of the evaluations which it commissioned from the National Foundation for Educational Research and from Leeds university in due course. It is for LEAs themselves to decide whether to publish their own evaluations.

  School Rolls
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the number of infant schools with(a) fewer than 50 pupils,(b) 50 to 100 pupils and(c) more than 100 pupils, respectively;

  (2) if he will list the number of primary schools with(a) fewer than 50 pupils,(b) 50 to 100 pupils,(c) 100 to 150 pupils,(d) 150 to 200 pupils and(e) more than 200 pupils, respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  Provisional information for January 1991 on the number of maintained infant and primary schools in England, by size of school, is given in the table. The primary school figures include infant schools and middle-deemed-primary schools.

  England

  Infant schools

  Up to 50 full-time pupils

  53

  51 to 100

  237

  more than 100

  2,368

  Total

  2,658

  Primary schools

  Up to 50 full-time pupils

  1,294

  625

  England

  51 to 100

  2,344

  100 to 150

  2,667

  151 to 200

  3,948

  more than 200

  8,792

  Total

  19,045

  HMI (French Visit)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the report from Her Majesty's inspectors following their visit to France.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes, in due course.

  School Classes
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of primary school children are taught in classes which cover more than one year group.

  Mr. Eggar
  The primary school staffing survey carried out in 1987 showed that 28 per cent. of primary school children in England were being taught in mixed age classes. Mixed age classes were defined in the survey as those where more than 30 per cent. of pupils are in age ranges other than the largest for the class.

  Primary Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the written material submitted to his Department which he is considering regarding primary education.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering a wide range of evidence about performance and standards in primary education. Evidence is regularly available to him from HM inspectorate, and from other sources, much of which is published.

  GCSE
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the consultations entered into with(a) parents,(b) teachers and(c) local education authorities prior to his announcement of a reduction in the percentage of coursework in GCSE.

  Mr. Eggar
  Decisions by my right hon. and learned Friend on the restraint and control of coursework in the GCSE examination take account of consultations with, and advice from, the School Examinations and Assessment Council established under the Education Reform Act 1988 as the Government's principal advisory body in the field of public examinations. The council includes several members with teaching or local authority experience.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of applications by students for mandatory grants for the current academic year were(a) processed and(b) paid by 1 November.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on 6 November 1991, at column 134.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Administrators
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to introduce regulations to require the administrators of a company to make a full disclosure of their relationship with the company they are administering.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no such plans.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to exclude partners from the auditing firms criticised by his Department's inspectors from the working of the Accounting Standards Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Departmental Accommodation
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department intends to reoccupy 1 Victoria street following refurbishment; and whether his Department will give up any of its other central London accommodation.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department intends to move back into 1 Victoria street, following refurbishment, and the intention is to relinquish at least two other central London offices.

  Auditing Practices Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his representative on the Auditing Practices Board has received any documents prepared by a working party headed by any partner from the auditing firms criticised by his Department's inspectors.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each year in which the quality initiative section of the enterprise initiative has been operational(a) what sum of Government money has been spent,(b) how many separate grants have been provided,(c) what is the average amount provided by the Government for each grant,(d) how many enterprises have applied for arid received certification by third party certification authorities confirming compliance with the requirements of BS 5750 and(e) how many grants have been provided to trade associations for the purpose of preparing guidelines and model quality manuals for the use of their members in developing their own manuals.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is provided by financial year and covers the quality element of the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Project spend (£ million)

  2·8

  10·0

  13·3

  Completed projects

  903

  3,263

  3,782

  Average project spend (£)

  3,101

  3,065

  3,517

  627
  A recent survey carried out by scheme contractors has indicated that 95 per cent. of firms taking the quality consultancy scheme have applied for, intend to apply for, or have achieved certification under BS5750. To date, under the quality consultancy scheme, one trade association has applied for strategic advice on the preparation of quality procedures common to member businesses.

  China
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are made on the importation of products manufactured in the People's Republic of China in order to ensure that they have not been produced in prison labour camps; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Such trade is governed by the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act 1897, as amended in 1988. For enforcement of the Act, the Government have to rely in the main on the private sector or others to supply sufficient information to Customs and Excise.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the regional takeup of each of the enterprise initiative schemes; and if he will place copies of such tables of regional takeup in the Library.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on regional takeup of the consultancy help available under the enterprise initiative is published in the Industrial Development Act annual report. A copy of the report for the year ending 31 March has been placed in the Library of the house—House of Commons paper number 593. The relevant information is contained in tables 1 to 4 of appendix 25.

  Electronics Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the recession upon production and employment in the United Kingdom electronics industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 November 1991]: There is no official assessment of the effect of the recession on particular industries. However, the electronics industry has made great strides during the last decade in terms of improved growth and productivity and is now very much better placed to take advantage of the upturn in the economy as it occurs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lancashire Constabulary
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers in the Lancashire constabulary in 1979 and at the last date available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In December 1979 there were 3,089 police officers on the strength of the Lancashire constabulary. By the end of August 1991 this had increased by 121 to 3,210 police officers.

  Television Franchises
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from members of the public concerning the process for awarding of the television franchises.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the Broadcasting Act 1990 came into force on 1 January 1991, the Home Office has received 25 representations from members of the public; 20 of them have been received since September and were prompted by the Independent Television Commission's announcement of the channel 3 licence awards on 16 October.

  Absent Voting
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to ensure that form RPF 7B concerning applications for absent voting on grounds of blindness or physical disability are available in large print, in Braille and on tape.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are not aware of any demand for form RPF 7B to be made available in Braille or tape format. If there is such a demand, then we would be prepared to consider meeting it where practicable. We are currently considering the possibility of producing the form in a large print version.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police stations that are holding prisoners on remand; and how many are being held at each station.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On Tuesdaty 12 November, prisoners were held in police cells in the following force areas:

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  46

  Bedfordshire

  32

  Cambridgeshire

  21

  Cheshire

  44

  Cleveland

  22

  Cumbria

  12

  Derbyshire

  50

  Devon and Cornwall

  23

  Dorset

  3

  Durham

  21

  Dyfed

  15

  Essex

  11

  Gloucestershire

  8

  Greater Manchester

  227

  Gwent

  23

  Hampshire

  17

  Hertfordshire

  18

  Humberside

  67

  Kent

  37

  Lancashire

  97

  Leicestershire

  36

  Lincolnshire

  17

  Merseyside

  89

  Metropolitan

  122

  Norfolk

  28

  North Wales

  15

  North Yorkshire

  35

  Northamptonshire

  26

  Northumbria

  34

  Nottinghamshire

  42

  South Wales

  63

  629

  Number

  South Yorkshire

  95

  Staffordshire

  10

  Suffolk

  12

  Surrey

  9

  Sussex

  45

  Thames Valley

  31

  Warwickshire

  8

  West Mercia

  35

  West Midlands

  43

  West Yorkshire

  99

  Wiltshire

  31

  Total

  1,719

  Details of the individual police stations in which these prisoners are detained are not collected centrally.

  Policing, Docklands
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for increasing the number of police officers based and working in the London docklands.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the commissioner. But we are satisfied that the Metropolitan police will have adequate manpower, and that the commissioner's plans for their deployment take adequate account of the docklands development.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he had regarding his Minister of State's visit to Glanely high school, Michaelston road, Ely, Cardiff, on Wednesday 6 November;

  (2) what discussions he had with the chairman of the education committee of the South Glamorgan county council and his director of education concerning his Minister of State's visit to Glanely high school, Michaelston road, Ely, Cardiff, on 6 November either(a) before his visit and(b) after the visit;

  (3) what was the purpose of the visit by his Minister of State to a school and parish priest's office in Ely, Cardiff, on Wednesday 6 November; how many officials accompanied him and from which sections of his Department; at what total cost; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what consultations he undertook regarding the constituency boundaries of the Cardiff West constituency, prior to his Minister of State's visit to the Glanely high school and other locations in Ely, Cardiff, on 6 November.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover rottweiler and doberman pinscher breeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which creates criminal offences relating to dogs that are dangerously out of control in a public place, already applies to all breeds of dog including the doberman pinscher and the rottweiler.
  630
  Section 1 of the Act, which imposes stringent requirements relating to certain breeds of dog and their owners, applies to types of dog bred for fighting or having the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose. As neither the rottweiler nor the doberman pinscher is a. type of dog bred for fighting, section 1 cannot be applied to them.

  I have no plans at present to use the reserve powers of section 2 of the Act which enables me to impose restrictions on any breed of dog which I consider presents a serious danger to the public. I shall continue to keep under review the need to use these powers in the light of experience of the operation of existing measures to deal with dangerous dogs.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for(a) begging and(b) sleeping rough and how many people have been convicted of (i) begging and (ii) sleeping rough in the Metropolitan police areaa during the period from January to October 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 13 November at columns 536–38.

  Youth Remand Centre (Reconstruction)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposal he has for the reconstruction of Her Majesty's youth remand centre at Pucklechurch or in another convenient location.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I announced on 24 July at columns 598–600 the outcome of a review of the prison estate. This included proposals to close Pucklechurch remand centre in 1993–94, to convert part of Gloucester prison to a remand centre for male young offenders in 1992–93 and to reopen in 1993–94 Eastwood Park, following its closure as a young offender institution in 1992–93, as a female establishment.

  We are considering representations on these and other review proposals. I hope to make a further announcement soon.

  Hotels (Fire Safety)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish new guidance on fire safety in hotels.

  Mr. John Patten
  Two guides on fire safety in hotels have been published today. The first, a new guide, is entitled "Fire Safety Management in Hotels and Boarding Houses". It is a simple, commonsense and practical guide comprising good housekeeping measures with a check list which managers can use to make sure that their hotels are as safe as possible from fire. The guide has been produced jointly with the Fire Protection Association and the Scottish Office. It is a blueprint for the 1990s and will help to make British hotels and boarding houses the safest in Europe.

  The second guide is a technical document entitled "Guide to Fire Precautions in Premises Used as Hotels and Boarding Houses which require a Fire Certificate". It has been produced by the Home Office and the Scottish Office and is mainly aimed at fire authorities although it will also

  631
  be relevant to all professionals in the field of fire precautions. The guide updates guidance produced in 1972 and incorporates the EC recommendation on fire safety in existing hotels.

  Copies of both guides have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Royal Parks
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applies to apprentices currently employed in the royal parks; and how many apprentices working in the royal parks received redundancy notices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am advised that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 does not apply to the apprentices currently employed in the royal parks. Redundancy notices have been issued to the 27 apprentices, but before contracts are signed I shall require contractors to enter into a deed to maintain apprentice training in the royal parks.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost and purpose of the work commissioned from land use consultants into the management of the royal parks; and if he will place a copy of their report in the Library.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Land use consultants have been commissioned by my Department to prepare various reports over the last 10 years on several of the royal parks covering their historical significance, strategy plans for their long term conservation and management, and assessments of staffing needs at the time. Records of the cost of the original historical surveys are no longer available. The cost of the other studies has been £154,000. The reports will form an important framework for the future management of the royal parks by the ground maintenance contractors. I am arranging for copies of the strategy and manpower reports for Regent's park, Hyde park and Kensington gardens, and for the staffing report for St. James's and Green park, to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many registered disabled workers are currently under redundancy notice in the royal parks; and what plans he has to ensure their continued employment by future contractors.

  Mr. Heseltine
  There are nine staff in the royal parks who are registered disabled and who have received notice of redundancy. All staff who have been made redundant, including those who are disabled, will be granted a job interview with the preferred tenderers, and must be informed of the tenderers' decisions before the contracts are signed. Tenderers will also be required to submit details of their company policy and practice regarding the employment of disabled persons. The Department will therefore be able to take these decisions into account in awarding contracts.

  Rifle Club
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Property Services Agency will complete their work in the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club.

  Mr. Yeo
  The major part of the electrical work affecting the rifle range has been completed. There will be further minor work next year but disruption will be kept to a minimum and the work is expected to be complete by the summer.

  North Sea
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to encourage North sea states to produce a directory of the North sea coastal margin in order to protect North sea ecosystems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom delegation to the North sea task force will be presenting a draft of our North Sea Coastal directory to the seventh meeting of the task force to be held in Antwerp from 19 to 22 November. This directory has been compiled for my Department by the Nature Conservancy Council, and subsequently the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, in order to bring together informaton on the conservation interest of the coastal zone. It will be a valauble contribution to the next quality status report on the North sea. We very much hope that other North sea states will support similar studies for their areas. Copies of the draft are being sent to interested organisations in the United Kingdom.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received during 1991 over the use by planning applicants of untruthful or misleading statements in their applications; what remedies he proposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The number of such representations could be established only at disproportionate cost. It is for local planning authorities to satisfy themselves that information given in planning applications is accurate. Under the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988, applicants can be required to furnish evidence to verify any statement made in a planning application.

  Boundary Commission
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the Local Government Boundary Commission's report No. 608 and recommendations regarding the boundary between Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Commission's final report was sent to my right hon. Friend on 9 September 1991. I regret that its notices informing the public that no decision could be taken for at least six weeks, and it was now open to them to make any representations directly to him, were defective. They have now been re-published, thus extending that period to the end of the year. There will be no avoidable delay in reaching a decision as soon as possible.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate how many regulations he intends to issue after 31 January 1992, with regard to extending compulsory competitive tendering to more local authority services; what individual services such regulations will apply to; and when he intends to issue the regulations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number, content and timing of the necessary orders will depend on the outcome of our consideration of responses to the consultation paper "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services", published on 5 November 1991, and on parliamentary approval of the provisions in the Local Government Bill.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations and comments he has received, either direct to his Department or through the PA Consulting Group(a) in favour of and(b) against extending compulsory competitive tendering to professional and technical services and if he will publish them.

  Mr. Portillo
  The publication of "Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services" has launched the process of consultation on our proposals to extend compulsory competitive tendering to professional and other services provided by local authorities. Comments have been invited by 31 January 1992. We shall place copies of non-confidential responses in the Libraries of the House of Commons and of the Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost to his Department of awarding the contract to investigate the viability of extending compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional and technical services, to PA Consulting Group; at what price other companies submitted bids; and if he will publish the evaluation procedure his Department used in awarding the contract and a summary of the specification.

  Mr. Portillo
  The cost to the Department was £55,000. The consultants were asked to examine the technical feasibility of extending the legislative requirements for competitive tendering to professional services. It is not our policy to comment on bids or evaluation procedure for individual consultancy contracts.

  Local Authorities (Trading Accounts)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce primary legislation to establish internal trading accounts within local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  At the earliest opportunity after the election.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give, for each London borough, the total uniform business rate collected and the net amount of uniform business rate which is redistributed outside London under the pooling arrangements.
  634
  Mr. Portillo
  The following is the most useful, information that I can give. In 1991–92 authorities in London, including the City of London, will receive £1,780 million from the non-domestic rates pool and contribute, provisionally, £3,121 million. The table gives the estimated receipts of the 1991–92 non-domestic rates up to 30 September for those London authorities who have made a return to the Department.

  Estimated receipts of 1991–92 non-domestic rates 1 April to 30 September 1991

  £000

  City of London

  361,286

  Greenwich

  16,316

  Hackney

  36,901

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  28,628

  Islington

  46,812

  Lewisham

  12,030

  Tower Hamlets

  36,687

  Wandsworth

  19,263

  Barking and Dagenham

  17,932

  Bexley

  14,006

  Bromley

  21,538

  Ealing

  37,921

  Enfield

  25,546

  Harrow

  14,454

  Havering

  18,069

  Hillingdon

  53,478

  Hounslow

  50,406

  Merton

  17,248

  Newham

  23,276

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  15,140

  Waltham Forest

  12,268

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has carried out in the last 10 years into the presence of red squirrels in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The most important national work on red squirrel populations is carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Forestry Commission. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology of NERC collects records of the presence of red squirrels and intends to publish the results in an atlas of mammal distribution in the United Kingdom. The Forestry Commission carries out surveys and maps the presence of red and grey squirrels on its land at regular intervals.

  Protected Species
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of licences issued to take species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, indicating the species involved in each case.

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of licences issued to take protected bird species are given in the United Kingdom's annual derogation reports to the European Commission under the terms of the EC directive (79/409) on the conservation of wild birds. Copies of each report for the years 1981 to 1990 are placed in the Library of the House.

  In the case of non-bird species, 14 licences have been issued in this period to take unlimited numbers of the edible dormouse.

  Thamesmead Town Centre
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the planning application for the development of the Thamesmead town centre.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspector's report is under active consideration and it is hoped to issue a decision shortly.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish planning guidelines for local authorities dealing with wind energy planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Preliminary guidance about this was given in a written answer by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 28 March at col.543. It advised local planning authorities to pay attention to the desirability of energy sources which do not emit harmful gases and to the need to protect the local environment from damage and loss of amenity.

  Officials in my Department, the Department of Energy and the Welsh Office are preparing a draft planning policy guidance note about renewable energy which we hope to issue for public consultation later this month.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to amend part VI of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to release capital receipts from the sale of council houses for investment in the provision of new housing.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (part IV, not VI) requires local authorities to set aside part of their capital receipts to meet outstanding loan debt and other liabilities, and this remains a sensible and prudent requirement. It has also enabled a greater proportion of capital receipts to be recycled in the form of new credit approvals to those local authorities where housing needs are greatest. Local authorities are free to spend the remainder of receipts on new capital investment. The balance between debt redemption and new investment is set in regulations and is kept under review.

  Wildlife Sanctuaries
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to establish a register of wildlife sanctuaries, hospitals and rescue services, with a requirement that before registration such bodies have suitably qualified members of staff or qualified veterinary consultants who must visit the sanctuaries at least fortnightly;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation to ensure that wildlife sanctuaries, hospitals and rescue services are subject to regular spot checks by local authority environmental health inspectors or other appropriately qualified inspectors.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government recognise the excellent practical work already undertaken on a voluntary basis by the growing number of wildlife sanctuaries, hospitals and rescue centres. Existing legislation already protects captive 636
  animals against ill-treatment. The Government are not persuaded of the case for further statutory measures either for registration or inspection. In this field, it would be preferable for the bodies themselves to develop and agree voluntary codes of practice and thereby avoid incurring unnecessary costs and bureaucracy.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grants his Department proposes to give to those organisations in the United Kingdom which will provide shelter and comfort to homeless people over the Christmas period; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has made £96 million available over three years under the rough sleepers initiative in central London. This has provided 500 places in hostels, with another 400 to come; 500 bedspaces in flats and houses leased from private owners and 250 places—out of an anticipated 1,850—in permanent housing.

  We are also providing grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to over 80 voluntary organisations in England for practical projects to prevent and relieve homelessness.

  My officials are also in discussion with Single Homelessness in London about the provision of shelters for homeless people in central London this winter.

  Responsibility for housing in Scotland and Wales lies with my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Housing Renovation Grants
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will amend publicity issued by his Department in respect of housing renovation grants to make it clear that the mandatory rights of owners to receive grants are subject to the availability of resources in the local authority; and if he will make statement.

  Sir George Young
  No. Under part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 a local authority must approve a grant application for works to make a property fit for human habitation or for works to comply with a statutory notice. There is no provision under the Act to make such grants subject to resource availability.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has made in respect of the application by Blackburn borough council for supplementary credit approval for mandatory renovation grants.

  Sir George Young
  Blackburn's application is currently being considered along with the bids received from other local housing authorities. Decisions on these will be announced shortly.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department proposes to take under the Housing Defects Act 1984 to assist in the resolution of problems arising from the collapse of balconies at blocks of flats and maisonettes at Rowner, Gosport, originally owned by the Ministry of Defence but now leased to the borough of Gosport or owned by private purchasers.
  637
  Mr. Yeo
  I am considering whether the housing defects legislation is relevant to this case in the light of the report to the borough of Gosport by the Building Research Establishment. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many designated bathing waters there are in(a) the United Kingdom,(b) France and(c) Italy, respectively.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the EC Commission report "Quality of Bathing Water 1989–1990", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tecnazene
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had with the National Rivers Authority to take steps to prevent the contamination of water courses by the fungicide Tecnazene.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: With the cooperation of the National Rivers Authority my Department has carried out a survey of Tecnazene and its metabolites in rivers and effluents from potato washing and processing. The Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food has suggested a provisional water quality standard of 1 microgram per litre for tecnazene. The results of the survey, and the NRA's data, have been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which is currently reviewing the registration of this fungicide.

  RNIB Needs Survey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; what action he will be taking in relation to its findings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: I welcome the publication of this report, which gives us for the first time comprehensive and authoritative information about visually handicapped people in Britain. It will be of value to my Department when advice is given on the planning of programmes and the delivery of services in which attention is given to the special needs of visually handicapped people.

  Local Authority Investments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each month from January 1991 and subsequently outstanding local authority investments by amount outstanding and the net change between periods using the categorisation that appears in the CSO's financial statistics, and differentiating between those banks which have eligible status and those which do not.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: The most recent quarterly figures for local authority investments were published in table 4.8 of "Financial Statistics", October 1991 edition. Figures for the third quarter will be available in the November edition.
  638
  Whereas the quarterly information on investments is collected from all authorities, the monthly information is collected only from a sample of authorities. The sample is not large enough to provide reliable figures in the detail requested.

  Information on local authority bank deposits used in table 4.8 is collected from banks by the Bank of England on a quarterly basis. Monthly figures, used for the provisional calculation of the local authority borrowing requirement, are estimated from information on all public sector bank deposits.

  No separate statistics are available for local authority deposits with eligible banks, which are banks whose sterling acceptances are eligible for discount at the Bank of England. The list of eligible banks, which is entirely a matter for the Bank of England, is determined on a functional basis, reflecting levels of activity arid commitment to the sterling acceptance market. Whether or not a bank is on this functional list carries no implications for its competence or credit-worthiness.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each month from January 1991 and subsequently outstanding inter-local authority investments by amount outstanding and the net change between periods.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: Information from the Department's quarterly survey of local authorities is as follows. I regret that no reliable monthly information is available.

  Local authority investments with other local authorities

  Amount outstanding

  Change from previous quarter

  £ million

  £ million

  1991 Ql

  960

  -159

  Q2

  1,335

  + 375

  Q3

  1,231

  1-104

  1 Q3 provisional.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish an update of his tables showing illustrative council tax bills for 1991–92 with the inclusion of an eighth property band.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: I do not propose to do so since the inclusion of an eighth property band makes no significant difference to the council tax figures for bands A to G published on 23 April.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the proportion of Government aid moneys given to the Simple Truth Campaign which was spent on Kurds living in Iraq; and if he will provide a breakdown of how the public moneys provided by the Government were spent.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave on 11 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes).

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 14 November.

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

  Tibet
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors he regards as part of the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We believe that human rights, as set out in the universal declaration of human rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, should apply to all people.

  Redistribution of Wealth
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards reducing the gap between the richest and the poorest 10 per cent. of the British population.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is to improve incentives to work and to save. Over the period 1979 to 1988—the latest available information—real incomes in all parts of the income distribution have risen.

  EC Regional Body
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the proposals to establish an EC institution representing the regions of the EC; what are his proposals regarding United Kingdom regional representation on the body; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We support proposals in the intergovernmental conference on political union for a new consultative body to represent the regions at Community level. Negotiations continue on the detailed arrangements. United Kingdom representation will be considered after the IGC.

  Minister for Youth
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will expressly designate a Minister with specific responsibility for youth.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The opportunities and problems facing young people are often not specific to that age group, and young people are themselves not a homogeneous group. They can best be served through specific actions spanning a range of Departments.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in(a) Merthr Tydfil and Rhymney,(b) Mid-Glamorgan and(c) Wales employ more than 200 people; and what percentage these are of the total number of companies in each case.
  640
  Mr. David Hunt
  Available information is given in the table. The analysis excludes agriculture and horticulture, activity heading 0100, of Standard Industrial Classification (revised) 1980.

  Units employing 200 or more persons

  Percentage of all units

  Merthyr and Rhymney travel-to-work1

  40

  1·8

  Mid Glamorgan

  128

  1·5

  Wales

  647

  1·1

  Source Census of Employment, 1989.

  1 Data for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney parliamentary constituency are not available.

  Investors in People Awards
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many companies in Wales have to date qualified for Investors in People awards; and whether he will list them, indicating the number of employees in each company.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Four companies in Wales have so far met the Investors in People standard. They are:

  Employees

  Monsanto PLC (Newport)

  480

  Tulsa Holdings Ltd (Newport)

  176

  Pirelli Cables (Aberdare)

  152

  Quattech Services Ltd (Treforest)

  3

  Low Pay
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in the constituency of Clwyd, South-West are paid less than £3·40 an hour; how many of these employees are(a) women,(b) part time and(c) in manual occupations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the numbers of employees earning less than £3·40 per hour is not available for sub-areas of Wales.

  Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the causes of the recent flooding in the Conwy tunnel; and what remedies he proposes to prevent further flooding.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There has been no flooding of the Conwy tunnel. The westbound carriageway was closed for two hours on 1 November to deal with a faulty heat/gas detection sensor.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if detergents used for cleaning of the Conwy crossing tunnel will be discharged into the Conwy estuary; and how the discharge will be treated.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Detergents are discharged into the public foul sewer. The type used in the tunnel are of a fully biodegradable kind.

  Penmaenbach Tunnel
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the anticipated annual cost of the maintenance of the Penmaenbach tunnel arising from the cracks in the lining of the tunnel.
  641
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To date, the only maintenance cost associated with the cracking since the tunnel was opened to traffic in June 1989 is about £2,000 for minor remedial works. Future costs cannot be predicted, but are not expected to be significant.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration was given in the plans for Penmaenbach tunnel of the possibility of cracking of the lining of the tunnel.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The probability of shrinkage cracking in the tunnel lining was always recognised. The lining's main purpose is to provide a smooth surface to aid illumination and assist ventilation.

  Convey Estuary
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual quantity from all sources of raw, untreated sewage, presently discharged into the Conwy estuary.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available. The consented volumes of discharges are entered onto public registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority.

  Housing Starts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses, private houses and housing association houses have been started in each of the months in 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of dwellings started by district councils, private sector and housing associations for each of the months between January and August 1991 is given in the table:

  Local authority

  Private sector

  Housing association

  January

  42

  576

  157

  February

  0

  435

  196

  March

  3

  589

  222

  April

  20

  615

  236

  May

  0

  552

  172

  June

  9

  786

  274

  July

  0

  658

  213

  August

  4

  690

  155

  Roads, Mid Wales
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to build a dual carriageway in mid Wales during the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Health authority capital allocations 1981–82 to 1990–91

  £ million

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Annual total

  1981–82

  Discretionary allocation

  0·888

  0·731

  1·115

  0·504

  1·264

  —

  0·256

  1·484

  0·859

  7·101

  Centrally funded developments

  0·830

  0·140

  0·656

  0·522

  0·452

  —

  0·193

  1·761

  0·884

  5·438

  1982–83

  Discretionary allocation

  0·992

  0·624

  1·256

  0·568

  1·416

  0·200

  0·296

  1·680

  0·968

  8·000

  Centrally funded developments

  0·381

  0·168

  0·567

  0·668

  0·129

  0·010

  0·024

  2·608

  0·894

  5·449

  1983–84

  642
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Our policy is to undertake selective improvements to the A470 which is the main north-south link through mid Wales. That policy is set out in "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s". The 1991 supplement to that, published in February, details the substantial programme of major improvements.

  Burns and Plastic Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now direct health authorities within Wales not to place contracts for specialist burns and plastic surgery outside Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The placement of contracts for specialist burns and plastic surgery is a matter for individual district health authorities. However, it is expected that contracts at the historic level for these services for patients in south Wales will continue to be placed with St. Lawrence hospital, Chepstow. I understand that patients in north Wales are continuing to be referred to specialist centres in England.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of inward investment into Wales which is located in(a) Powys,(b) Dyfed excluding Llanelli and(c) Gwynedd, during the financial year 1990–91; and if he has any plans for increasing this amount.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Statistics held by Welsh Development International show the following percentage shares of inward investment projects secured in Wales:

  Projects

  Forecast jobs

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Dyfed (excluding Llanelli)

  2·0

  1·5

  Gwynedd

  3·4

  2·5

  Powys

  2·0

  0·4

  Total

  7·4

  4·4

  Health Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate the funds he has made available to each of the local health authorities for capital expenditure over(a) the past 10 years and(b) the sum proposed in the present year 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  643

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Annual total

  Discretionary allocation

  1·000

  0·624

  1·272

  0·568

  1·408

  0·208

  0·288

  1·664

  0·968

  8·000

  Centrally funded developments

  0·245

  0·318

  0·140

  0·499

  0·234

  0·003

  0·020

  0·455

  0·456

  2·370

  1984–85

  Discretionary allocation

  1·437

  0·644

  1·504

  0·528

  1·646

  0·305

  0·311

  0·789

  1·434

  8·598

  Centrally funded developments

  0·676

  0·195

  0·055

  1·961

  1·315

  0·010

  0·047

  1·297

  1·902

  7·458

  1985–86

  Discretionary allocation

  2·697

  1·209

  2·823

  0·991

  3·089

  0·573

  0·584

  1·482

  2·692

  16·140

  Centrally funded developments

  2·658

  0·077

  0·055

  0·014

  5·488

  —

  0·411

  1·082

  1·504

  11·289

  1986–87

  Discretionary allocation

  3·576

  1·603

  3·743

  1·314

  4·096

  0·760

  0·775

  1·965

  3·570

  21·402

  Centrally funded developments

  1·291

  0·358

  0·337

  0·103

  1·498

  0·320

  0·077

  1·912

  1·719

  7·615

  1987–88

  Discretionary allocation

  4·086

  1·831

  4·277

  1·501

  4·680

  0·868

  0·885

  2·245

  4·079

  24·452

  Centrally funded developments

  0·155

  0·066

  0·036

  0·628

  0·817

  —

  0·153

  1·315

  0·912

  4·082

  1988–89

  Discretionary allocation

  4·935

  2·212

  5·166

  1·814

  5·653

  1·049

  1·069

  2·711

  4·927

  29·536

  Centrally funded developments

  0·399

  0·380

  0·259

  0·023

  0·798

  —

  —

  3·847

  0·608

  6·314

  1989–90

  Discretionary allocation

  6·915

  1·967

  7·308

  1·741

  7·168

  1·963

  1·589

  3·572

  6·732

  38·955

  Centrally funded developments

  0·466

  4·536

  3·036

  0·259

  2·570

  0·202

  0·040

  5·308

  0·345

  16·762

  1990–91

  Discretionary allocation

  6·277

  3·205

  6·184

  1·710

  8·054

  1·968

  1·113

  7·938

  8·072

  44·521

  Centrally funded developments

  0·070

  3·716

  1·400

  0·061

  4·095

  0·948

  0·095

  4·082

  2·242

  16·709

  1991–92

  Discretionary allocation

  8·582

  4·382

  8·454

  2·337

  11·010

  2·690

  1·522

  10·852

  11·034

  60·863

  Notes:

  (1) The discretionary allocation figures given above represent "start of year" allocations. They do not reflect any additional capital resources made available in-year as a result of land receipts or brokerage loans; nor do they take account of any funds which health authorities may have vired during the course of any of the years in question from revenue capital.

  (2) The figures also exclude further capital expenditure which has been incurred on behalf of health authorities concerned in respect of major building schemes and the purchase of IT equipment or other major items of equipment by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  (3) All figures are at cash prices.

  (4) During the course of 1991–92 health authorities will also receive specific allocations for centrally funded developments.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what checks he made before the appointment of Touche Ross as his consultants on the reform of local government in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Selection followed the guidance set out in "Seeking help from Management Consultants" produced by the Treasury and published by HMSO.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan TEC concerning the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school in 1991 not so far in a job or training place under the youth training guarantee.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State holds regular meetings with the chairman of TECs in Wales. He is satisfied that sufficient financial resources have been made available to the South Glamorgan TEC for youth training provision. The TEC and the careers service are working closely with employers and training providers to ensure that the Government's guarantee is met.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines were given for his departmental civil servants and Cardiff Bay development corporation consultants attending meetings with individual political parties on Saturday 9 November.

  Mr. David Hunt
  If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Labour party meeting held on 9 November to discuss the predicted effects on groundwater levels of the Cardiff Bay barrage, I can confirm that my Department did not give any guidelines on conduct, and was not represented at that meeting.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltic States
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps are proposed by the European Community to assist the Baltic states in their efforts to create genuine independent economic conditions and policies.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Foreign Affairs Council on 4 November agreed negotiating directives for the European Commission to negotiate trade and co-operation agreements with the three Baltic states. These would
  645
  provide a framework for the liberalisation of trading relations between the European Community and the Baltic states, and encourage the process of economic reform. The Community has also extended its PHARE programme of technical assistance to include the Baltic states.

  Sovereign Republics
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for British representation in the sovereign republics of Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan, Turkenistan and Kirghizia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British interests in these republics are represented by the embassy in Moscow. We are discussing the question of resident representation in Kiev and St. Petersburg with the appropriate authorities. We are keeping the question of resident representation elsewhere in the republics under constant review.

  Tibet
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the policy of the Government of the People's Republic of China to transfer Chinese citizens to Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A number of individuals and organisations have drawn reports of such transfers to our attention. There is however little or no reliable independent confirmation that such a policy exists. According to the most recent Chinese census figures, over 95 per cent. of the population of the Tibet autonomous region is Tibetan while 3·7 per cent. is Han Chinese.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to propose a United Nations or non-governmental organisation sponsored fact-finding delegation to Tibet in the near future to examine allegations concerning the violation of human rights and the destruction of the environment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do so. A number of delegations concerned particularly with human rights have recently visited Tibet, including a delegation from the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister specifically raised Tibet when discussing human rights with Chinese Premier Li Peng in Peking in September.

  Departmental Papers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Department's papers have been made available to the public since 1 October 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Between 1 October 1990 and 31 October 1991, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—excluding the Overseas Development Administration—made the following papers available to the public on request:

  Africa

  Decline of the One-Party State in Sub-Saharan Africa

  646

  Famine in Africa

  South Africa: Chronology March-December 1990

  South Africa: Chronology

  Asia: Far East

  Burma: A Missed Opportunity

  Heroin in South-East and South-West Asia

  New Hong Kong Airport

  Vietnamese Migrants in Hong Kong

  Reform in Mongolia

  Asia: Near and Middle East

  Oil Pollution in the Gulf

  Lebanon after the Taif Agreement

  Jerusalem: A Background

  Asia: Gulf Crisis

  An Offence against International Law

  Dismantling of Kuwait

  Effects of the UN Sanctions on the Iraqi Economy

  Foreign Hostages in Iraq and Kuwait

  International Community rejects Compromise

  Iraqi Claims to Kuwait

  Iraq: the Wasted Potential

  Life in Iraq-occupied Kuwait

  Multinational Force

  Oil Pollution in the Gulf: Iraq's New Dirty Weapon

  Rape of Kuwait

  Saddam Hussein's Legacy

  Suffering in Iraq

  Why Sanctions could not be given more Time

  Wider Repercussions of the Invasion of Kuwait

  Saddam Hussein: A continuing menace

  UN Security Council Resolution 687: Iraq: Weapons of Mass Destruction

  Europe

  Assistance to Eastern and Central Europe

  Britain and NATO

  Britain in the Community: Europe in the 1990s

  Changes in Soviet Aid Policy

  Energy problems in Eastern Europe

  Know How Fund: Czechoslovakia

  Know How Fund: Hungary

  Know How Fund: Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Soviet Union

  USSR and Eastern Europe: Problems in Trade Relations

  Britain and the Baltic States

  Disarmament

  Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review No. 19

  Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review No. 20

  Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review No. 21

  Arms Control and Disarmament Quarterly Review No. 22

  Arms Control Agreements (Revised)

  Arms Control at the United Nations

  British Non-Proliferation Policy (Revised)

  Chemical and Biological Weapons: Negotiating an International Ban

  Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty

  Economic

  Aid to the Developing World

  Directory of Overseas Export Services

  International Debt

  Talking Points on Britain's Economy

  World Food Supplies

  Consular

  Annual Review of Consular Work 1990

  Checklist for Travellers

  Consular Assistance Abroad

  General

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing): Basic Facts and Figures

  Miscellaneous

  Children in the 1990s

  Combating Drug Abuse in the 1990s

  647

  Human Rights in Foreign Policy

  International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)

  Tropical Forests

  Twelfth World Trade Union Congress, November 1990

  WFTU: New Wine in Old Bottles

  UNCED 1992: The United Kingdom Approach

TRANSPORT

  Harbour Revision Orders
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. pursuant to his reply of 7 November,Official Report, columns 189–90, if he will name the further two applications for harbour revision orders for which the authorisation of specific works projects fell within annex 11 to Council directive 85/337/EEC, indicating in respect of each with whom he consulted and what procedure he adopted before deciding that an environmental impact assessment was not necessary.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The two other applications for harbour revision orders which fell to be considered within annex II to Council directive 85/337/EEC were in respect of Portsmouth Flathouse quay and Portsmouth Mile End quay. In both cases this Department consulted the Department of the Environment about the need for an environmental assessment and they in turn consulted the former Nature Conservancy Council to establish whether the project was likely to have any impact on the SSSI at Portsmouth. In neither case was any significant environmental implication identified, and, having regard to the scale and location of the proposed works, no environmental assessment was called for by the Secretary of State.

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which trust ports have included environmental objectives in their objectives of sale under the privatisation process.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Medway ports authority has included in their objectives for sale the following objectives:"consultation procedures with local authorities and environmental bodies will be maintained.
  "The Authority would wish to see … the continuance of existing environmental and conservation protection."

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the trust ports which have submitted schemes for privatisation contain sites of special scientific interest or other recognised designation within their harbour limits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Tees and Hartlepool port authority, the Medway ports authority, and the Clyde ports authority have sites of special scientific interest within their harbour limits.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, columns 189–90, which of the 35 applications for harbour revision orders since 1988 contain SSSIs or other similar designation within their harbour limits.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information cannot be provided in the form requested except at disproportionate cost.648
  However, there are SSSIs and areas with similar designations in the vicinity of the following harbours which have applied for harbour revision orders since 3 August 1988:

  Bristol

  Colliestone

  Great Yarmouth

  Harwich (Parkestone Quay)

  Heysham

  Langstone

  Manchester Ship Canal

  Medway

  Newport (Gwent)

  Portsmouth

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library in respect of each trust port seeking privatisation a copy of the objectives on the sale as agreed between him and the authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: Yes.

  South Circular Road
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations there have been into the safety of the South Circular road at its junction with Lancaster avenue and Rosendale road, London SE21.

  Mr. Chope
  As part of a backlog inherited from Lambeth council, the previous trunk road agents, our consultant agents for the A205 south circular road are currently undertaking safety studies at both the Lancaster avenue and the Rosendale road junctions. We expect a report with recommendations for appropriate action to be received early in the new year.

  Oxleas Wood
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EC first suggested that the road proposed for Oxleas wood did not meet the environmental requirements of EC directives.

  Mr. Chope
  The Commission wrote to the Government in October 1989 about a complaint that it had received alleging that the United Kingdom had not complied with the European directive 85/337/EEC on environmental assessment in respect of the east London river crossing. A response was made to the Commission in December 1989.

  This directive is concerned with procedures that member states are required to follow to ensure that the environmental effects of certain projects are assessed. The environmental merits of the east London river crossing are not at issue. That, as the Commission fully recognises, is for the United Kingdom Government to determine.

  Association of County Councils Report
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations his Department has had with the Association of County Councils over the contents of their report, "Towards a Sustainable Transport Policy", launched on 7 November.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend has written to the Association of County Councils welcoming the report as a contribution to the increasingly important debate on how we should respond to the continuing
  649
  growth in demand for travel, both in urban areas and between them. We look forward to working together with the Association of County Councils and the other local authority associations in improving the measures available to deal with the country's transport needs.

  Hot Air Balloons
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what restrictions are imposed on the flight of hot air balloons over built-up areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Rule 5, paragraph (1)(a) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 1991 provides that an aircraft—a term which includes a hot air balloon—"shall not fly over any congested area of a city, town or settlement below (i) such height as would enable the aircraft to alight clear of the area and without danger to persons or property on the surface, in the event of failure of a power unit…; or (ii) a height of 1,500 feet above the highest fixed object within 2,000 feet of the aircraft: whichever is the higher".

  The term "congested area" is defined in article 106 of the Air Navigation Order 1989
  "in relation to a city, town or settlement"
  as being
  "any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes".

  Traffic Calming
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to clarify the law on the application of traffic calming measures.

  Mr. Chope
  If road humps conform to the Road Hump Regulations 1990, then they are legal. A clarifying power in the Road Traffic Act 1991 places it beyond doubt that, additionally, the Secretary of State has the power to authorise humps on roads including those subject to 30 mph speed limits or less.

  We have been considering the extent to which changes in the law are needed to clarify the powers to provide other traffic calming measures. Amending legislation will be sought at the earliest convenient opportunity.

  Trunk Roads
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the trunk road schemes in the United Kingdom for which environmental impact assessments have been prepared under EC directive 85/337/EEC since it came into force on 21 July 1988;

  (2) if he will list the trunk road schemes for which draft line orders have been published since 21 July 1988, but which he deemed did not require environmental impact assessment under EC directive 85/337/88.

  Mr. Chope
  All schemes in the national programme have for many years been subject to a very full environmental appraisal. An environmental statement has been published in respect of the following schemes:

  Al Alconbury to Peterborough

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  A10 Wadesmill High Cross and Colliers End Bypass

  Al 1 Roudham Heath to Attleborough

  All Besthorpe to Wymondham

  A11 Four Wentways to Newmarket

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  650

  A47 Walpole Highway to Tilney High End

  A47 East Dereham to North Tuddenham

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass (Keswick Section and Trowse Newton)

  A140 Scole Bypass

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  Ml-Al Link (Re-alignment of Naseby—Sibertoft Supplementary Order)

  M25 Junctions 15–16 Widening from Dual 2–4 Lanes

  M40 Widening: junctions 4–5 Buckinghamshire

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  A16 Spalding to Sutterton Improvement

  A17 Leadenham Bypass

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  A46 Leicester Western Bypass

  A564 Stoke-Derby Link Derby Southern Bypass

  A564 Foston Hatton Hilton

  A13/A117 Junction Improvement

  A13 West of Heathway-Wennington—Mar Dyke

  A406 ELRC Proposed Design changes (A13-A2016)

  A406 Gunnersbury Avenue Improvement

  A406 Golders Green Road/Brent Street Junction Improvement

  A406 Bounds Green to Green Lanes Improvement

  Ml Junction 1 Improvement

  Ml Widening: Junction 9 Northbound

  M5 Widening Warndon-Strensham Junctions 6–8

  A167 Durham Western Bypass

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness Bypass

  A66 Stainmore to Banksgate

  A500 Basford/Hough/Shavington

  M56 Widening Junctions 4–6

  M6 Widening Between Junctions 20 and 21A

  M6 Widening and Improvements Junctions 30 to 32

  M62 Widening Junctions 14–17

  M62 Widening Junctions 17–18

  M65 Bamber Bridge-Whitebirk Section (Blackburn Southern Bypass)

  M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road Denton—Middleton (A576-M62)

  M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road Denton—Middleton (M67-A576)

  A3 Milford Bypass

  A23 Pease Pottage-Handcross

  A27 Crossbush Bypass

  A27 Patching Junction Improvement

  A27 Westhampnett Bypass

  A34 Newbury Bypass—Andover Road Junction

  A249 Iwade Bypass

  A249—M2 Bobbing Improvement

  A249 Brielle Way

  A249 Stockbury—Sheerness

  A259 Brookland Diversion

  M20 Improvement Junctions 5–8 (Maidstone Bypass)

  A30 Okehampton—Launceston Improvement

  A30 Shallowater Hill Improvement

  A30/A39 Indian Queens, Fraddon and St. Columb Road Bypasses

  A31 Ashley Heath Grade Separated Junction

  A35 Tolpuddle Puddletown

  A39 Wadebridge Bypass

  A417 Brockworth Bypass

  A419 Latton Bypass

  Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass and A36 Link

  M5 Junction 18 Improvement and Avonmouth Relief Road

  Second Severn Crossing and Approach Roads

  A5 Fazeley/Two Gates/Wilnecote Bypass

  A49 Onibury—Stokesay Improvement

  A49/A465 Hereford Bypass

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Queensway Stoke on Trent

  A435 Norton Lenchwick Bypass

  A435 Studley Bypass

  A1(M) Walshford to Dishforth

  A63 Selby Bypass

  A65 Manor Park Improvement

  A65 Gargrave Bypass

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass

  A65/A660 Burley-in-Wharfedale Bypass

  A650 Airedale Route Section 3 Crossflats—Cottingley Bar

  651
  The schemes for which no environmental statement has been published are:

  Al Gatenby Lane Junction

  Al Tempsford Overbridge Scheme

  A6 Burton Latimer Bypass and Black Lodge

  A11 Stumps Cross to Fourwentways

  All Four Went Ways Junction Improvement

  All Newmarket to Red Lodge

  A13 West India Dock Road (Final) Scheme

  A16 Ludborough Bypass

  A16 Stickford Bypass

  A17 Wigtoft Sutterton Bypass

  A19 Easingwold Bypass

  A35 Yellowham Hill to Troytown

  A38 Bell Bridge to Alrewas

  A46 East Norton Bypass

  A49 Weaverham Diversion

  A52 Ashbourne Relief Road

  A59 Mellor Brook Bypass

  A66 Bowes Bypass—County Boundary

  A516 Etwall Bypass

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass (Northern Section)

  A568 Widnes Eastern Bypass (Southern Section)

  A585 Dock Street Fleetwood

  A638 Doncaster North Bridge Relief Road

  Ml—Al Link Road Rothwell Interchange.

  Trunk Roads (Fencing)
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the London regional office of the Department of Transport has previously erected wire fencing of the type recently erected along the central reservation of the A4 at Cranford along any other trunk road in London; and what information the London regional office of the Department of Transport or the Secretary of State has on similar use of such fencing on trunk roads in England.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: This combination of fencing has been installed along some 24 miles of trunk road in north, west and east London. There is no central record of how much wire fencing of a similar design to that on the A4 has been used on other trunk roads in England.

  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of supplying and erecting the wire fence recently erected along the central reservation of the A4 at Cranford.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: About £125,000.

  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any consultation took place with the local authority, the local community, the Metropolitan Police or any motoring organisations prior to the erection of the type of fencing recently erected at Cranford.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The Metropolitan police were consulted in the course of regular liaison meetings and are in agreement with the measures taken. The London borough of Hillingdon, which is the Department's agent for these works informed local residents by letter that the works are being carried out.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Light Rapid Transit Systems
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the consequences of the proposed legislation on Private Bill procedure for Bills on light rapid transit systems introduced in the current Session.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Transport and Works Bill published this week does not affect the introduction of private Bills in the current Session. Their progress thereafter is a matter for Parliament.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Employment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide training and employment for the young unemployed aged 18 to 24 years in Stoke on Trent, North constituency.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provision of training in the Stoke on Trent, North constituency is a matter for the Staffordshire training and enterprise council to answer. Staffordshire TEC, which covers Stoke on Trent, North, is meeting the Government's requirement of providing an employment training place for people in the Government's guarantee and aim groups who wish to enter ET. The TEC has, in addition, been able to open recruitment to ET for all people who have been unemployed for six months or more. The guarantee group is those aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for six months or more but less than 12 months and the aim group is those aged 18 to 49 who have been unemployed for two years or more and those people with disabilities regardless of the length of time of the latter's unemployment.

  Female Work Force
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the work force is female.

  Mr. Jackson
  At June 1991, the latest date for which estimates are available, 42·6 per cent. of the work force in the United Kingdom was female.

  Students (Summer Jobs)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will review the progress made by students who applied for temporary jobs during the long university summer vacation compared to non-student applicants for summer jobs;

  (2) whether students applying for summer jobs in the long recess are treated by jobcentres differently from non-student applicants.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to take steps to make it easier for university students to secure temporary work during the summer vacation.
  653
  Mr. Jackson
  I appreciate that the long summer break on limited financial support can be a difficult time for many students and this year there are likely to have been fewer vacancies on offer to them.

  The Employment Service, through its network of jobcentres, does all that it can to help students find temporary vacational work. All temporary jobs notified are put on display in jobcentres and many students use these facilities. This service will continue to operate.

HEALTH

  Child Labour
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to inform businesses about the risks and penalties relating to employment of child labour.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 sets out general restrictions governing the employment of children under minimum school leaving age. Local authorities may make byelaws under that section to regulate further the hours and conditions of children's employment. The purpose of all the provisions is to enable children to work to the extent that their health, education and general welfare are not adversely affected.

  Anyone, apart from the person employed, who is found guilty of contravening the provisions of section 18 or of any byelaw is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Local education authorities are responsible for enforcing the provisions and ensuring that they are complied with.

  Section 1(1) of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 prohibits the employment of any person under school leaving age in an industrial undertaking. This legislation is enforced by Health and Safety Executive inspectors. The maximum penalty on conviction in the magistrates court is £2,000.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to introduce legislation banning the advertising of tobacco products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans to introduce legislation to introduce further bans on tobacco advertising. Our system of voluntary agreements continues to provide a flexible and effective way of controlling such advertising. On 9 September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the conclusion of a revised voluntary agreement on advertising which introduces a range of new controls many of which are designed to protect children.

  Health Authorities (Referrals)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that all health authorities will be able to fund extra-contractual referrals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All health authorities have reserves set aside for extra-contractual referrals based on information about patient flows. In addition, health authorities have other uncommitted reserves which can be used to cover extra-contractual referrals. Evidence to date suggests that the reserves will prove sufficient.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people die each year from asthma in the United Kingdom; and what action he plans to take to help reduce this number.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the number of deaths in the United Kingdom with an underlying cause of asthma for the years 1986 to 1990. The greater use of self-management protocols agreed between patient and doctor, and the availability of peak flow meters, which give advance warning of an impending asthma attack, on GP prescription, should help to reduce the numbers of deaths.

  Number of deaths in the United Kingdom with an underlying cause of asthma—all persons, all ages1

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1986

  2,206

  1987

  2,107

  1988

  2,213

  1989

  2,191

  1990

  2,055

  1 Source: OPCS ICD Code 493

  Women Employees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS's employees are women; and what percentage of trusts are chaired by women.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available data for England relate to the position at 30 September 1990 and show that 76 per cent. of all directly employed staff in the hospital and community health service were female. A total of 17 per cent. of trusts are chaired by women. This represents 5 per cent. of first wave trusts and 24 per cent. of second wave trusts.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of deaths from coronary heart disease in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, with reference to the number in 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of deaths for which coronary heart disease ' was stated as the underlying cause of death in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in 1989 is given in the table.

  Country

  Numbers

  Wales

  9,686

  Northern Ireland

  4,508

  Scotland

  18,107

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 410–414.

  Eye and Dental Checks
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will simplify the form filling required of retirement pensioners without other significant income who seek free eye tests or dental checks.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The review of the NHS low income scheme is examining all aspects of the administration of the scheme including the potential for simplifying claim form AG1.

  Cochlear Implants
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total funding allocated to health authorities for cochlear implant operations in each of the past five years; and what funds will be made available in the next three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Funding has been agreed for the three-year period 1990–91 to 1992–93. Details of funding made available in the first two years of the scheme are given in the table. It will continue at a similar level in the third year. Decisions about arrangements beyond 1993 will be made in the light of the evaluation of the programme which is being undertaken by Professor Mark Haggard of Nottingham university.

  Central funding of cochlear implant operations

  Funding

  Centre

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (£)

  (£)

  University College Hospital/ Royal Ear Hospital

  200,000

  220,000

  Manchester Royal Infirmary

  160,000

  190,000

  Nottingham General Hospital

  160,000

  200,000

  South Hants Hospital, Southampton

  150,000

  180,000

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  150,000

  190,000

  North Riding Infirmary, Middlesbrough

  150,000

  170,000

  Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge

  —

  180,000

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of cochlear implant operations conducted in the last three years in each health authority; and what assessment has been made of the current waiting list.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often, and when, the central heating systems at Broadgreen hospital were checked for Legionnaire's disease.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Closed water systems, such as central heating, which do not generate aerosols will not infect patients or staff and are therefore not tested for the presence of legionella.

  In 1988 the Department issued a code of practice on "The Control of Legionellae in Health Care Premises", published by HMSO, which provides detailed advice and guidance on the design, operation and maintenance of hot and cold water systems, cooling towers and other systems which can harbour legionella. It is for hospital managers to ensure compliance with that guidance. A copy of the guidance is available in the Library.

  The code of practice does not, however, recommend routine testing of water systems for legionella on the basis that the bacteria are ubiquitous in the environment. Instead the guidance recommends measures designed to minimise the risks of legionella multiplying in water systems in a way that could cause outbreaks of disease.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the national health service is now receiving each month in receipts from private abortion clinics for the incineration, on national health service premises, of the 656
  remains of aborted unborn children; how many hospital furnaces are being used for incineration of the remains of the aborted unborn; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether private abortion clinics may offer abortions in the United Kingdom to foreign women via advertising in magazines with an international circulation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is a condition of approval under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act that places must not advertise, outside the United Kingdom, their facilities for the treatment of abortion patients.

  HIV
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people who received national health service transfusions of blood contaminated with the HIV virus; how many have subsequently been diagnosed HIV positive; and how many have died.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No individual has knowingly been given HIV-contaminated blood. Measures to safeguard the blood supply against HIV infection were applied when these became known and available.

  There have been 50 reports in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of HIV infections in people who received blood in the United Kingdom. All these occurred before the screening of donations was introduced in October 1985. Of those persons infected, 22 are known to have died.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in the United Kingdom have refused to treat people suffering from HIV and AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Community Midwives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his plans for reviewing the terms and conditions of community midwives.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. These are the same as for other nursing and midwifery staff.

  Alder Hey Children's Hospital
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wards have been closed at the Alder Hey children's hospital, Liverpool, since it became a trust; and how many children are on the waiting list.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Ian Hill, the chairman of the Royal Liverpool children's hospital and community services NHS trust, for details.

  Incontinence Pads
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 256, what statutory provisions exist for charging for incontinence pads by local health authorities to those who are not in-patients or in nursing homes.
  657
  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no statutory provisions allowing health authorities to charge NHS patients for incontinence pads in the course of treatment. Health authorities nevertheless have discretion to provide the level and form of service they judge to be appropriate.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 256, whether he will now provide details of the guidance issued to health authorities on the supply of incontinence pads; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The NHS management executive issued guidance on the supply of incontinence aids—EL(91)28—on 18 February, and guidance on charging—EL(91)129—on 24 October. In addition, the report of a departmental review, "An Agenda for Action on Continence Services", was issued to the health service with a ministerial letter—ML(91)1 of 31 July—and listed key features of an effective local continence service. Copies of this guidance are available in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants his Department proposes to give to those organisations in the United Kingdom who will provide shelter and comfort to homeless people over the Christmas period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The responsibility which the Department exercised last winter for providing emergency shelters for people sleeping rough in central London was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment with effect from 1 April 1991.

SCOTLAND

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to assist towards the improvement of the railway system in Scotland from Glasgow to connect with the Eurotunnel; when these proposals will be implemented; and what asssessment he has made of the proposals by ScotRail for such services in 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Investment in railways in Scotland and the provision of services between Scotland and the channel tunnel and beyond are matters for British Rail. My right hon. Friend and I have, however, taken every opportunity to impress on British Rail the importance we attach to the provision of fast and efficient links to ensure that Scotland is able to take full advantage of the benefits the tunnel will bring.

  Skye Ferry
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the price of a single fare ticket for a car on the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry crossing between Kyle and Kyleakin; and if he will list the prices for each of the last 15 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:658

  Fare rates (£)

  With effect from

  Off-peak

  Standard

  (Winter)

  (Summer)

  11 April 1976

  1·00

  n/a

  6 March 1977

  1·00

  1·15

  6 March 1978

  1·10

  1·30

  5 March 1979

  1·20

  1·45

  30 July 1979

  1·40

  1·45

  16 March 1980

  1·65

  2·00

  1 March 1981

  1·75

  2·10

  1 March 1982

  1·75

  2·10

  1 March 1983

  1·75

  2·10

  4 March 1984

  1·90

  2·25

  3 March 1985

  2·10

  2·50

  2 March 1986

  2·20

  2·65

  1 March 1987

  2·25

  2·70

  6 March 1988

  2·90

  3·60

  26 February 1989

  3·10

  3·80

  25 February 1990

  3·30

  4·00

  24 February 1991

  3·65

  4·50

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of solicitors in Scotland; and how many of them have withdrawn from the civil legal aid service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of enrolled solicitors in Scotland as at 31 October 1990 was 8,510. No reliable information is at present available on how many firms and fee earners currently provide civil legal aid or on whether this figure has changed in the past few years.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations the Legal Aid Board has received from Glasgow Bar Association about the levels of legal aid and the board's procedures for payment; and what has been the outcome of the board's consideration of points made to it.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have asked the chairman of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to write to the hon. Member on this matter.

  Local Income Tax
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the level of income tax supplement which would require to be levied in each region, district and island area to raise the local revenue required for 1991–92 local authority budgets under a system of local income tax, taking into account variations in the tax base between local authority areas.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Approximate rates of local income tax required to replace the budgeted income from the community charge in 1991–92, including rebates and after receipt of community charge grant, are given in the table. The calculations assume resources equalisation—that the yield of 1p in the pound is the same per adult in all areas. It is not possible to calculate equivalent figures on the basis of an unequalised local income tax base.

  Note: The local income tax rate for Scotland has been estimated for 1991–92 by dividing the total amount to be raised from the community charge (net of community charge grant) by an estimate of the yield of 1p in the £ on the basic rate of income tax for Scotland. Income from the community water charge is not included.
  659

  Local Income Tax Rate

  (pence in £)

  Borders

  3·1

  Central

  4·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3·4

  Fife

  50

  Grampian

  3·3

  Highland

  3·5

  Lothian

  7·2

  Strathclyde

  4·0

  Tayside

  4·7

  Orkney

  0·1

  Shetland

  —

  Western Isles

  0·7

  Berwickshire

  0·2

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0·6

  Roxburgh

  0·5

  Tweeddale

  0·4

  Clackmannan

  2·1

  Falkirk

  0·5

  Stirling

  2·0

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1·0

  Nithsdale

  1·0

  Stewartry

  0·5

  Wigtown

  0·9

  Dunfermline

  1·2

  Kirkcaldy

  1·2

  North East Fife

  1·4

  Aberdeen City

  2·1

  Banff and Buchan

  1·0

  Gordon

  0·6

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0·l

  Moray

  0·4

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0·3

  Caithness

  0·1

  Inverness

  0·1

  Lochaber

  0·9

  Nairn

  0·2

  Ross and Cromarty

  0·8

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·4

  Sutherland

  0·5

  East Lothian

  1·5

  Edinburgh City

  2·5

  Midlothian

  1·3

  West Lothian

  0·8

  Argyll and Bute

  1·8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1·4

  Clydebank

  2·3

  Clydesdale

  1·7

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0·9

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1·0

  Cunninghame

  1·9

  Dumbarton

  2·8

  East Kilbride

  2·1

  Eastwood

  0·5

  Glasgow City

  2·0

  Hamilton

  1·8

  Inverclyde

  1·4

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  1·2

  Kyle and Carrick

  2·2

  Monklands

  1·8

  Motherwell

  1·3

  Renfrew

  2·1

  Strathkelvin

  1·9

  Angus

  0·7

  Dundee City

  1·9

  Perth and Kinross

  0·9

  Cochlear Implants
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the total funding allocated to relevant Scottish health boards for cochlear implant operations; and what funds will be made available in the next three years;
  660
  (2) if he will list the total number of cochlear implant operations which were conducted in Scotland in the last three years; and what assessment has been made of the current waiting list.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government announced their decision in 1990 to allocate £200,000 over the next three years to establish a cochlear implant programme in Scotland. £150,000 per annum has been allocated to Ayrshire and Arran health board to enable the service already initiated there through public support to be developed and consolidated. £50,000 per annum has also been allocated to Lothian health board to establish a second implant centre for Scotland.

  A total of 20 cochlear implant operations have been conducted in Scotland to date. Charitable funding had allowed seven operations to take place at Crosshouse hospital, Kilmarnock prior to central funding in 1990–91. Central funding will enable eight implants per year to be undertaken at Crosshouse hospital and three implant operations per annum in Lothian. A further three operations are expected to be carried out at Crosshouse hospital per annum from charitable funds.

  There are currently six people on the short-term waiting list for cochlear implant at Crosshouse hospital who are categorised as urgent cases. The board has also assessed a further 30 people who would be expected to benefit from an implant and another 64 who are considered to be low priority cases in terms of expected benefit. At present Lothian health board has identified six people as suitable for cochlear implant. The board expects to undertake three of these operations before March 1992.

  Housing Improvement
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the number of housing improvements and modernisations carried out by(a) Edinburgh,(b) Dundee,(c) Glasgow and(d) Aberdeen district councils in each year from 1974–75.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information, as supplied by the relevant housing authorities, is set out in the table.

  Comparable information for 1974 to 1978 is not available.

  Modernisation and improvement of dwellings

  Aberdeen

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Dundee

  1979

  192

  —

  2,745

  580

  1980

  322

  324

  1,981

  263

  1981

  131

  407

  1,364

  232

  1982

  2,537

  541

  2,397

  218

  1983

  1,964

  620

  4,817

  194

  1984

  1,307

  747

  3,182

  88

  1985

  1,298

  959

  23,894

  297

  1986

  1,471

  353

  21,755

  294

  1987

  1,091

  1,015

  27,616

  254

  1988

  406

  522

  13,136

  326

  1989

  161

  541

  9,939

  356

  1990

  8,036

  550

  12,255

  74

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chief Executives Forum
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose of the Chief Executives Forum; and how it is funded.
  661
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Chief Executives Forum brings together the chief executive officers of almost 100 public bodies in Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to strengthen communication links and provide a mechanism to share best management practice within the Province's public service. The forum is to be funded for a three-year period by a grant-in-aid from the Department of Finance and Personnel of approximately £100,000 per annum.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on current levels of inward investment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the last financial year we have secured 13 inward investment projects involving both the private and public sector. These projects are expected to create 1,294 jobs.

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the constitutional political parties in the Province.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for an early introduction of devolution of government in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions are currently being held between Northern Ireland's political parties and with the Irish Government.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to carry out any further talks between the interested parties on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. (Dr. Godman).

  Select Committees
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions he has given oral evidence to Select Committees.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not given evidence myself in my present capacity, but Northern Ireland Office Ministers including my predecessor as Secretary of State have given such evidence on four occasions in the past three years, most recently on 16 October when my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) appeared before the Select Committee on Energy.

  I am particularly pleased that seven Select Committees have visited Northern Ireland in the past 18 months to look at matters for which I have responsibility. I was able to meet two of those committees during their visit.

  Security
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest terrorist killings in Northern Ireland.
  662
  Sir Patrick Duffy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since I last answered a question on the security situation in Northern Ireland on 11 July, 41 people have been killed in terrorist-related incidents. Of these 36 were civilians, four were members of the Army, including one member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and one was an RUC officer.

  The response of the Government and the security forces to terrorist activity has been and will continue to be firm and resolute. It is already the case that a high proportion of attempted terrorist attacks are aborted because of pre-emptive activity by the security forces. Moreover, in the period from 1 September to 13 November, 115 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences, of whom 14 have been charged with murder and 23 with attempted murder.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the change in real terms of the annual spending on the national health service in Northern Ireland since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  Net public expenditure on the health service in Northern Ireland in 1991–92 will be an estimated £1,015 million, an increase of almost 42 per cent. in real terms, as measured by the GDP deflator since 1978–79.

  Murder Sentences
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his Department's policy concerning guideline sentences for persons convicted of the murder of members of the security forces.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government are conscious of the great debt which the community in Northern Ireland owes to members of the security forces. All life sentences are regularly reviewed. A provisional release date is set only when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that a period appropriate to the nature of the crime, and the offender's role in it, has been served and that the risk of reoffending is minimal. The case of each terrorist convicted of murder is dealt with according to those criteria.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application of the patients charter to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  I aim to publish a charter for patients and clients of the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland towards the end of this year.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for (i) the continued use or (ii) the replacement of plastic bullets.
  663
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The security situation in Northern Ireland continues to require the protection of life and property from organised and vicious attacks. No method for dealing with such attacks is entirely free from risk. The plastic baton round provides the security forces with an option in circumstances where the only realistic alternatives are the use of live rounds or withdrawal from the scene and consequent risk to life and property.

  The existing baton round launchers are no longer in production and are therefore increasingly difficult to maintain. Careful consideration is being given to a replacement baton round system, although no final decision has yet been reached.

  Social Security Offices
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the changes he has made in social security offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been several significant changes in social security office operations and recommendations in Northern Ireland within the past year. A new Social Security Agency has been set up and the 34 social security offices have been reorganised into 11 districts under new management structures. These districts are committed to the provision of a good quality service to the public.

  Engineering
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what encouragement is being given to encourage the study of engineering in further education institutions in the Province.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Education encourages further education colleges to provide courses which meet the identified training needs of Northern Ireland industry, including the engineering sector. Engineering courses at colleges have been identified by the Department as a priority area for the allocation of additional resources for teachers, capital equipment and staff development.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposals for interconnectors with Scotland and the Republic of Ireland following the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Hanley
  Heads of agreement for a 250 MW interconnector between Northern Ireland and Scotland were signed in September by NIE and Scottish Power. NIE hopes to have the interconnector operational by late 1995/early 1996.

  The re-establishment of the interconnector with the Republic of Ireland is under review.

  Health Care
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what co-operation takes place between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on health care; and if he will make a statement.
  664
  Mr. Hanley
  There have been regular and useful meetings between the Health Ministers for a number of years, I have met Dr. O'Hanlon TD, Minister of Health, on two occasions during the past year. Staff from both Departments meet to review areas of existing co-operation and to examine the possibilities for further co-operation as and when the need arises. There are also exchanges between chief executives and managers and long-standing co-operation between professional staff north and south.

  The arrangements for co-operation cover the whole spectrum of health care and discussions and initiatives have included health promotion; the provision of highly specialised treatments to each other's patients; joint emergency planning exercises; the export of health care services to other countries and the purchasing of equipment and supplies.

  Co-operation of this nature has been of mutual benefit to both health services and the populations they serve.

  Student Support
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to improve the financial situation of many students to enable them to continue third level education apart from the student loans regime.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total resources—grant plus loan—available to each full-time student for the 1991–92 academic year have been increased by 6 per cent. The availability of this support, together with new and more flexible access fund arrangements, should mean that no student need suffer undue financial hardship.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish his Bill to privatise the Northern Ireland electricity industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following an extended and thorough consultation period, I have recently authorised the draft Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order to be laid before Parliament. I anticipate that it will be printed and available to the House before the end of November. The draft order is based on the Electricity Act 1989 and I am convinced that it will bring lasting benefits to electricity consumers in Northern Ireland.

  Employment
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the levels of employment in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  At June 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 525,680 employees in employment plus approximately 75,000 self-employed people. This represents an increase of almost 25,000 employees and 40,000 self-employed people over the past five years.

  Traffic How, Limavady
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles per day use the one-way section of Catherine street, Limavady; what are
  665
  the highest and lowest hourly flows; and how many of these vehicles are in each of the categories used in road traffic surveys.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. On 3 May 1991 the highest hourly flow was 1,121 vehicles.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles per day use Linen Hall street, Limavady; what are the highest and lowest hourly flows; how many of those vehicles there are in each of the categories used in road traffic surveys; and at what level of hourly traffic flow he would assess this street to be at its maximum possible number.

  Location

  Date of last survey

  Number of vehicles per day

  Lowest hourly traffic flow

  Highest hourly traffic flow

  Number of heavy goods vehicles per day

  Roe bridge, Limavady

  14 August 1991

  14,691

  17

  1,503

  1,836

  Roe bridge, Dungiven

  20 September 1991

  8,125

  6

  847

  894

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles per day use the two way section of Irish Green street, Limavady; what are the highest and lowest hourly traffic flows; and how many of these vehicles are in each of the categories used in road traffic surveys.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. On 3 May 1991 the highest hourly flow was 725 vehicles.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the last three traffic surveys were carried out on(a) the Roe bridge, Dungiven,(b) the Roe bridge, Limavady,(c) Linen Hall street, Limavady,(d) the one-way section of Catherine street, Limavady and(e) the two-way section of Irish Green street, Limavady; and what is his estimate of the change in traffic flows at each of those places since the last survey was carried out.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Location

  Date for last Three Surveys

  Roe bridge, Dungiven

  February 1991, May 1991, September 1991

  Roe bridge, Limavady

  January 1991, April 1991, August 1991

  Linenhall Street, Limavady

  June 1986, September 1989, May 1991

  Catherine Street, Limavady

  June 1986, September 1989, May 1991

  Irish Green Street, Limavady

  June 1985, June 1986, May 1991

  There has been no significant change in traffic volumes at these locations since the last surveys were carried out.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been paid in each of the last three years by the Local Enterprise Development Unit for consultancy fees in respect of clients seeking assistance from the Local Enterprise Development Unit; and what percentage of the grant aid paid to those clients in each of those years these fees represent.
  666
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that he was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 9 January 1990,Official Report, column 577. More recent information is riot available in the form requested. On 3 May 1991 the highest hourly flow was 951 vehicles.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table to show for(a) the Roe bridge, Limavady and(b) the Roe bridge, Dungiven, the number of vehicles per day, the highest hourly flow and the lowest hourly flow; and how many of those vehicles are in each case in each category used in traffic surveys for each of the bridges in question.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested in relation to consultancy fees, expressed as a percentage of the total grants paid to clients in each of the last three years, is given in the table:

  Year

  Consultancy Fees

  Fees as a percentage of Total Grant Aid

  £'000

  per cent.

  1988–89

  713

  3·5

  1989–90

  641

  2·4

  1990–91

  507

  1·6

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Republican remand prisoners there were in Crumlin road prison every year from 1976 until the present date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not available.

  Rates Collection
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total sums were collected by the Housing Executive in respect of rates for the Department of the Environment in each of the last three years for which figures are available; what was the cost of collection; what sums were transferred to the rates after the costs of collection were deducted; and how many dwellings were involved in each of those years.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been informed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that it is not possible to disaggregate the total value of rates collected as both rent and rates are collated and collected as one amount. This, also applies to the cost of rate collection.

  The Housing Executive has an agreement with the Department of the Environment (NI) under article 21(a) of the Rates (NI) Order 1977 by which it pays the rates chargeable in respect of each of its properties whether they

  667
  are occupied or not. The executive receives an allowance of 10 per cent. when payment in full is made on or before the prescribed date in the agreement.

  Over the last three years the rates paid by the executive to the Department were as follows:

  Net Rates Paid

  Years

  £'000

  1988–89

  31,321

  1989–90

  33,912

  1990–91

  35,827

  The number of properties involved were:—

  Rateable Properties

  Year

  Number

  At 31 March 1989

  180,576

  At 31 March 1990

  176,097

  At 31 March 1991

  172,032

  Social Fund
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any additional funds are to be made available for social fund payments in Northern Ireland in the current financial year.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am glad to be able to announce that the budgets of all district offices are being increased by a total of £1 million for loans and £0·4 million for community care grants. Details of the revised budgets are being placed in the Library. These increases are additional to any extra expenditure which may be incurred on automatic cold weather payments under the greatly improved arrangements which will apply during the approaching winter.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has reached a decision on the Royal Ulster Constabulary's manpower bid.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have today conveyed to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland the statutory approval required under section 6 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 for an increase in the total strength of the RUC regular force from 8,250 to 8,489 and of the full-time RUC reserve from 3,000 to 3,202. My approval of this increase in the RUC establishment of 441 extra officers endorses the decision of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to support in full the Chief Constable's request for additional manpower. It will now be for the authority and the Chief Constable to make arrangements for the new officers to be recruited and trained; but I understand that it will be possible for that process to start immediately.

DEFENCE

  Press Reports
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the remarks of Admiral Sir Julian Oswald concerning the safety of Royal Navy marine nuclear reactors, the operational condition of Polaris submarines and the dunking, naming and in service dates of the first Trident submarine, reported in The Times of 29 October 1991, were agreed with his Department before publication.
  668
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As is the normal practice, Ministers agreed in advance that Admiral Oswald should give an interview; and Ministers take responsibility for all interviews properly given by senior serving officers and officials.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the planned in service date for HMS Vanguard of December 1994 became declassified information.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It remains our practice not to make public the exact date upon which a warship becomes operational.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the planned dates of the first dunking and the official naming ceremony of HMS Vanguard.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not our practice to make public the precise dates of submarine construction and related programmes.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who it is planned to carry out the official naming ceremony for HMS Vanguard.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We expect to be able to make an announcement nearer the time of the event.

  Polaris Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision over any further refits for Polaris submarines.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the usual practice to disclose details about the nuclear submarine refit programme.

  Staff Cars
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total requirement for(a) grade A and(b) grade B staff cars in each service, and for civilians employed by his Department; and how many procurement authorisations for such vehicles were given in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Current total requirements for grade A and grade B staff cars are:

  Grade A

  Grade B

  Royal Navy

  47

  332

  Army

  88

  1,017

  Royal Air Force

  30

  753

  Vehicles used by MOD civilians are included in service totals, but there is no fixed allocation. Procurement authorisations in the last financial year were:

  Number

  Grade A staff cars

  0

  Grade B staff cars

  451

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how many service personnel in
  669
  each service are allocated to(a) driving and(b) maintaining staff cars; and what is the approximate annual cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All service personnel in possession of a valid driving licence may be called upon to drive a service vehicle. Maintenance of staff cars is carried out with that of other service vehicles. The work is performed by MOD civilian and military staff, and contractors.

  Nuclear Weapon Safety
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify those nuclear weapon safety arrangements in force in the United Kingdom which Dr. Sidney Drell recommended in the United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee panel on nuclear weapons safety as a model for the United States to follow; and what assistance or information was given by his Department to the panel.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Section III Of Dr. Drell's report recommends setting up an advisory committee similar in function to our own nuclear weapons safety committee. On the question of assistance or information given by my Department, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 28 June,Official Report, column 581.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security personnel he provides at Menwith Hill station and at Hunter's Stones post office tower; at what cost in each of the past three years, to date; and how many security staff are provided at each location.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  MOD police and civilian patrolmen are employed at Menwith Hill. Security at the Hunter's Stones site is not the responsibility of the MOD.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people, in each of the last three years, to date, have been issued with summonses for trespass and other breaches of byelaws at Menwith Hill station; in how many cases such people have been(a) fined,(b) found not guilty and(c) had summonses withdrawn.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what health and safety guidelines have been issued to those service personnel whose duties will bring them into contact with depleted uranium;

  (2) what information has been given to service personnel deployed in Kuwait about the health and safety risks involved in clearing depleted uranium munitions;

  (3) what steps he has taken to minimise the health and safety risks associated with the clearance of depleted uranium munitions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Existing service procedures and instructions cover the health and safety aspects of the handling, transport and storage of ammunition containing 670
  depleted uranium. In addition, specific advice on the detection and clearance of depleted uranium was provided to British forces involved in clearing ordnance in Kuwait.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the health and safety risks resulting from(a) the chemical toxicity of depleted uranium and(b) the radioactivity generated by depleted uranium.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The explanatory memorandum on anti-armour ammunition with depleted uranium penetrators which was placed in the Library of the House in March 1979 makes it clear that depleted uranium has a chemical toxicity similar to that of lead and is a material of low radioactivity. The properties of depleted uranium have been taken into account in the procedures adopted for its transport, handling and storage.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from the Atomic Energy Authority regarding the health risks associated with the use of depleted uranium during the Gulf conflict.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has a copy of a commercially produced, theoretical appraisal by Atomic Energy Authority Technology of the possible consequences of the use during hostilities in the Gulf of ammunition containing depleted uranium. The assessment of the situation in Kuwait is a matter for the Kuwait Government. Her Majesty's Government have not received a request for assistance with the production of such an assessment.

  Armoured Divisions
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 November,Official Report, column 297, in what form information on the percentage change in capabilities of British armoured divisions is held.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Assessments of the percentage increase in 1st Armoured Division's future capability were carried out as part of the Ministry of Defence's examination of our defences for the 1990s. There is no requirement for a comparable historical analysis and, therefore, no information is held on the percentage change in capabilities of British armoured divisions.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current proportion of Army personnel who are(a) private soldiers,(b) non-commissioned officers and(c) officers, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 36 per cent. of the Army are currently serving as private soldiers, 52 per cent. are non-commissioned officers and 12 per cent. are officers

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current proportion of Army personnel with(a) the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers,(b) the Royal Corps of Signals and(c) the Corps of Royal Engineers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 10 per cent. of the Army are currently serving in the REME and 10 per cent. in the Royal Engineers; 8 per cent. are serving in the Royal Corps of Signals.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total maintenance backlog of(a) unavoidable and essential repairs and (b) urgent repairs for service accommodation as of 1 April.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Post-service Training
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 November,Official Report, column 296, when work began on the production of a guide detailing services available to personnel after they have left the service; and if he will place a copy of the guide in the Library when it is completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Work on preparation of the guide began on 11 September 1991. I shall arrange for copies of it, and of the revised Employment Service booklets, to be placed in the Library when they are completed.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel have been killed in southern Africa during the last five years; and what were the circumstances of their deaths.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been four deaths since 1 January 1986; a staff sergeant was killed in a climbing accident in Botswana in February 1986; two corporals were killed in a road traffic accident in Namibia in March 1989; a sergeant died in a further road traffic accident in Zimbabwe in September 1990.

  Helicopters
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available to police forces helicopters that are surplus to the needs of the armed forces and encourage Army helicopter pilots who may be facing early redundancy to seek to transfer to the police service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not, at present, have surplus helicopters, nor do we expect to have to make Army helicopter pilots redundant.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Regional Aid and Job Creation
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish reliable data on whether regional aid helps to create jobs, given recent criticism by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, we shall publish information on the employment created or safeguarded in projects supported by regional selective assistance in the next annual report on the Industrial Development Act 1982. The information will cover the period from 1st April 1982 to 31st March 1990.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But will he assure the House that when the Government publish the information they will take into account the report of the National Audit Office which calculates that there have been serious gross mistakes in the way that the figures have been collected in the past? I refer to a 50 per cent. slippage, and to figures relating to 31 per cent. more jobs than planned and 69 per cent. less jobs than planned. It is therefore impossible at present to decide whether projects that have been initiated are good or bad for job creation purposes.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. The Government are studying the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We shall seek to ensure that everything necessary is done to ensure that all forms of public expenditure continue to give good value for money. Significant progress has already been made in ensuring that the database used for recording the number of jobs created and safeguarded is accurate.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that large sums allocated by the European Community for regional development in Scotland and elsewhere are being held up by the Treasury because of the additionality rule and are not being paid to the regions concerned? Will he comment on that factor; or will he expedite the procedures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am happy to look into what the noble Lord says. The Question relates to criticisms by the Auditor General. To my knowledge that was not one of the criticisms he made.
Lard Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while data can be produced on regional development which will obviously show some factors being more effective than others, regional
648
development has contributed greatly to the essential regeneration of industry in the North-East of England?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. We are committed to an effective regional policy with a substantial and continuing budget. There is provision for £567 million to be spent over 1991–92 to 1993–94 for England alone.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, with regard to an effective regional policy, will the Minister explain to the House why Her Majesty's Government are refusing to receive £100 million from the European regional aid commissioner under the RECHAR programme destined for the coal and steel communities? What is the squabble about? Why do not the Government solve the matter and obtain the money that is urgently required in those communities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if the noble Lord puts down a Question on that subject I shall be happy to answer it. But it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not true that regional aid has generally been beneficial? However, would it not also be a good idea to ensure that there is proper monitoring of the aid to make absolutely certain that real jobs are created and that a lasting improvement results?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that there is adequate monitoring and that value for money is achieved by our policy of targeting assistance on selective schemes with the results that I have given.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain Her Majesty's Government's position, which becomes all the more inexplicable in this regard since they already pay into the Community regional fund far more than they ever take out? Will he also explain why their regional policy within the Community has proved to be the failure that is revealed by the annual report of the Commission?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as an example, our regional assisted area map has to be drawn up with the agreement of the Commission. However, we pursue our own regional policy. The measures are designed to help redress regional imbalances and they are succeeding in so doing.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the purport of the statement by the National Audit Office is that there has not been, as there should be, adequate monitoring? It is no good the noble Lord stating that there has been adequate monitoring. The report states that that is not so.
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the criticisms which the Comptroller and Auditor General made was that the inadequacy of the database made it difficult to establish reliable, acceptable figures. However, as I said, significant progress has already been made in improving the situation. The data on jobs achieved have already been completed and corrected up until April 1982, ambiguities in the definitions of jobs

649
created or safeguarded have been removed and various other improvements have been made to meet the criticisms of the Auditor General.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I was interested in the noble Lord's response to his noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth. He stated that the Government conducted an active regional policy. Does he accept that under the administration of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, in constant prices regional aid stood at £1.8 billion a year? That was halved when the present Government took office to £989 million per year and slashed even further to reach an annual £242 million in the late 1980s. Is that an active regional policy?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have stated that we are pursuing an effective regional policy aimed at redressing regional imbalances. There has been a change in our policy. For example, we abandoned the regional development grant scheme, which gave grants automatically, in preference for a policy which was more selective and is therefore proving more successful.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, when the noble Lord responded on the difficulty of achieving accurate results from the monitoring he said that it was difficult to establish accurate and acceptable figures. Will he tell the House where the greatest difficulty lies? Is it in obtaining accurate figures or acceptable figures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not recollect using the word "acceptable". However, we shall have to verify that in Hansard.
The important point that I should like to emphasise is that the database to which the Auditor General refers on which the department records the jobs is not the database used for deciding whether individual claims for payment should be met. It is used for recording statistical information and for evaluation and forecasting purposes. Steps have been taken to improve it in that regard.

MoD Supply Systems: Bar Coding
3.10 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to introduce bar code systems for the more efficient control of navy, army and air force stores at all levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, all three services are working towards early introduction of bar code based systems. A bar coding implementing steering group was set up in 1988 to co-ordinate the implementation of bar coding in MoD supply systems.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that forthcoming Answer. Will he arrange for the publication of a progress report in the near future so that we may be better informed about the admirable developments that are taking place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the bar coding implementing steering group to which I have referred already produces an internal annual report. We shall consider whether it is appropriate to publish that. The steering group is in regular contact with industry, especially with the Automatic Identification Marking Association.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it would be inappropriate for the report to be made available to Members of this House?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have said that we shall consider that.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend tell me what a bar code system is? I always thought that it was concerned with the conduct of barristers.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am happy to be able to tell my noble friend that a bar coding is a form of automatic identification of information. The required information is printed on to a label in such a manner as to allow reading by machine and subsequent transmission to a computer data base. The information contained within the bar code is decided by the user.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister accept that this is not a frivolous matter? It is important. Is it not the case that the Ministry of Defence has bar coding systems different to those used by other government departments and private industry? Is it not in the national interest that there should be compatibility between electronic data systems used by producers, manufacturers and all government departments? Does the noble Earl believe that the Ministry of Defence bar coding systems conform to the international article number standard, which is the fundamental standard used by everyone else?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence has agreed a standard bar code symbology—that is code 39—which is used by the United States Department of Defense and by NATO.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is that bar coding system compatible with international standards as approved by the Article Number Association which runs standards in private industry? Is it not most important that the Ministry of Defence should be in agreement with private industry? It is, after all, a major procurer of private equipment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot now tell the noble Lord precisely whether the system accords with recommended international standards; I shall advise him at a later date. However, it is used by NATO and by the United States Department of Defense, which I believe is just about the right criteria.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, is the NAAFI introducing bar codes?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the NAAFI is not introducing bar codes. It has a different system which operates a computerised floor management system in its principal warehouses.

Medway Tunnel Project
3.13 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the reasons for the delay in the construction of the third Medway crossing.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Medway tunnel project is to be financed primarily by Kent County Council, which is therefore responsible for its progress. Kent County Council has applied to the Department of Transport for resources in the form of transport supplementary grant and credit approvals. We expect to announce decisions on the distribution of resources to local highway authorities in the usual way just before the Christmas Recess.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the project affords an interesting commentary on the somewhat costive nature of our procedures? First, there was an Act of Parliament authorising the tunnel; then the present project, which is at the top of Kent County Council's list of grants. Still nothing has happened. Can my noble friend be sure that something will happen this Christmas?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend whether the project will qualify for the transport supplementary grant which is necessary for it to proceed. It would be wrong to make an announcement on one particular project when about 108 other local highway authorities are awaiting announcements on schemes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that Members on these Benches fully recognise the importance of this third crossing both as regards general economic development and tidying up the area around the Isle of Sheppey. What measure of agreement had been reached before the new direct route from the Channel Tunnel to Stratford was agreed upon? Are we still awaiting agreement? Is it not right that in a Written Answer on 11th November the Minister, Mr. Freeman, said that discussions will be taking place directed by British Rail for public consultation on the new link. Will that vitally affect the crossing? If so, how long must we wait before the crossing is determined?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware, nor do I believe it likely, that the proposed route for the Channel Tunnel will have any bearing on the tunnel under the Medway. It is a local road scheme, necessary for improving access to the Isle of Grain and to the Chatham maritime estate.
Lord Pender: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that because of strong local disagreement about the proposed approach roads to the crossing, the resulting public inquiry is likely to be prolonged?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the approach road. I am unaware of any opposition to the project. Kent County Council would like to begin work on the tunnel in April next year.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend arrange for consultation with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has an interest, even a responsibility, for the prosperity of Chatham dockyard? The tunnel will make a great deal of difference to it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware of the importance of the tunnel not only because of the interest of the Department of the Environment but also that of the Department of Trade, which sponsors English Estates.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is there any danger of the EC objecting to the project once it has been agreed? Will my noble friend ensure that it is not suspended as was the Winchester bypass?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is another question and one that should be directed to Kent County Council, which is responsible for the scheme.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that there will be an environmental impact assessment on the tunnel before agreement is reached? I understand that such an assessment has been carried out in respect of roads leading to the tunnel but not for the tunnel itself. There are important environmental considerations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a matter for Kent County Council, which is the promoter of the scheme.

Unemployment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in October 1991 seasonally-adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,472,900.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that that is the 19th consecutive monthly increase? Does he agree that with such a massive number of people now unemployed and with further increases to come there will be no decrease in that number during 1992? Is the Minister aware that the two greatest worries at present are the continuing and substantial increase in youth unemployment and the continuing increase in long-term unemployment? Both are most serious matters. As present policies are manifestly unsuccessful, will the Government consider and implement the many constructive suggestions made from these Benches in yesterday's debate on unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I will confirm that this month's rise in the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed is the smallest for over a year. It is the third consecutive month that the rate of increase in unemployment has fallen. The figure for seasonally adjusted unemployment rose by 15,700 in October compared with 32,300 the previous month and 55,900 the month before that. In addition, over 400,000 people left unemployment in October, more than in any month in the past three years.
I should also point out that the numbers on the claimant count fell last month. That run of figures provides clear evidence that the worst effects of the recession on the labour market are behind us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that as recently as yesterday your Lordships' House had a full-length debate on this subject? Is it really necessary to continue this today, even on the weekly Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend reminds me of a debate which took place yesterday. During that debate I was glad to have his support from the Bench on which he now sits. We had that debate and I believe that the Government gave a full reply.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the unemployment percentage which we have in this country is well below the national average of the EC, particularly when unified Germany is included, and is among the lowest in the world? That is not at all bad considering we are in the middle of a world recession.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that. The European Community figures are muddled at present because of the impact of eastern Germany. We only have a figure for western Germany and, therefore, the figures are not complete. The figures for the United Kingdom are about average within the EC.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the recent figures show a serious and disturbing trend in the manufacturing industry? Is he not aware that in the month of September jobs in manufacturing fell by 18,000 and in the past 12 months they fell by 348,000, which is 280,000 more than the previous year? Does not the noble Viscount agree that that is an extremely serious trend in manufacturing which is the backbone of the nation? What do the Government intend to do to stop that rot?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have answered that on a number of occasions. I agree with the noble Lord that his figures are correct. However, jobs in manufacturing have been reducing since 1966 during the governments of both parties. Therefore, it is not a question of one party reducing the numbers.
The percentage of GDP of manufacturing has remained consistent over the past 10 years. That indicates that manufacturing output is being
654
effectively carried out. Many of the jobs are being reclassified as service jobs because many services have been contracted out.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, if we all wish to help the unemployed—and I am sure we do—is it not right to stop denigrating every aspect of this country's economy so that we create a little more confidence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend. This Government have put forward more provision to help the unemployed than any other previous government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the effects of unemployment are now being felt throughout the economy? Is he aware of the report which appeared in the newspapers today of massive underwriting losses in the insurance industry? The bulk of those are apparently due to UK mortgage problems. Those arise because of repossessions as people who are unemployed cannot afford to keep up their payments. What will the Government do about that situation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we receive conflicting reports. Recently the CBI and the IOD surveys showed increasing business performance and optimism consistent with increasing economic activity. Only yesterday a further CBI survey showed that manufacturers from nearly all regions expect a recovery over the next four months.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that the constructive suggestions that were made in yesterday's debate on unemployment did not emanate only from the Labour Benches?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that any of us have the entire wisdom on this matter.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that the fall in claimant count to which he referred results more from the massage of the statistics than from the generation of genuine jobs? Does he further agree that the number of genuine job seekers is far above the figure to which he has referred?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, no, I do not accept either of those propositions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, despite what the Minister said earlier about conflicting reports, can I draw his attention to the Stock Exchange and the Financial Times today which have expressed grave anxieties about the smallest increase in employment for some time? As they both agree, that is a very dangerous sign for the future. Will the Government take cognisance of the Financial Times and the Stock Exchange as well as the wisdom of these Benches? Will they try to correct their policy in order to reduce unemployment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not certain that the Government drive their policies on the back of the Stock Exchange. I believe that one reflects the other. We have put in place sufficient assistance so that

655
those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs have the best possible help in finding another job, and quickly.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister give the up-to-date statistics of how many people are working today and how many people were working 10 years ago?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the workforce in employment is over 26 million, which is 800,000 more than there were in 1979. There has been an increase of 2.6 million jobs since March 1983.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I trust that the noble Viscount will confirm, as he did a week ago, that the figures for employment which he now gives include 6 million part-time workers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, they do. It is important that part-time workers are in the economy. That is a sign of increased market flexibility. The survey carried out by my department shows that only 6 per cent. of those working part-time do so because they could not find a full-time job. The majority prefer part-time work.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the lack of interest shown by the government Benches in yesterday's debate and the complacency with which they deal with this matter each time it is raised is causing a great deal of anxiety outside this Chamber? Is he not aware that in the first nine months of this year over 33,500 firms collapsed, which is a 71 per cent. increase? Firms are collapsing at the rate of 200 every working day. Is that not a matter of anxiety for the Minister? Does he recognise that the price which is being paid for that part of government policy is hundreds of thousands of jobs and lost businesses and homes? Does he agree with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is an acceptable price to pay? Will he tell us what price will be paid before we reach a solution?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that any government enjoy seeing increasing unemployment figures, and yet that is what most governments have seen. It will not be a new situation for any Labour Government. Those figures have increased each time the Labour Party has been in power. At present we are trying to make certain that we create a climate for businesses of all sizes to thrive. We are trying to do that. There are more small businesses in this country than ever before; at the end of 1989 there were 1.2 million more businesses in the United Kingdom than there were in 1979. That is a measure of our success.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the catering, leisure and tourist industries are good examples of his last statement? They present enormous job opportunities at the present time.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend. The leisure industry has seen an increase of some 25 per cent. in the number of jobs
656
available. Some noble Lords have said that those are not real jobs. My goodness, the people working in them feel that they are real jobs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that the figures issued today show that in London the rate of unemployment is now above the national average? Will he also confirm that the figures show that there has been virtually no increase in the number of vacancies? Is he aware and does he agree that there is no prospect of a fall in unemployment over the next year mainly because the Government insist on maintaining interest rates, in real terms, at double what they were last year? If the Government want to do something about unemployment, will he advise his colleagues substantially to reduce interest rates immediately.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the rate for Greater London is approximately the same as for the total of the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Lord. However, what is important is not the number of vacancies but the flows out of unemployment. They have been averaging 275,000 over the past few months, they reached 359,000 in September and are over 400,000 this month. That shows that many people are obtaining jobs.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people in your Lordships' House believe that the way in which he has answered some difficult questions in regard to a difficult problem deserves the thanks of the House?

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on terrorism.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I need briefly to describe the purpose of bringing this Bill before your Lordships and then I will describe the main provisions of each of the clauses. The Piper Alpha disaster was the most serious accident to occur in the history of offshore development. It was a dreadful reminder that safety can never be taken for granted. We must never forget the tragedy and distress that it brought to the families of those who died or were injured, to all the survivors and to those who took part in the rescue operation. All our energies must be harnessed to the prevention of accidents offshore.
The public inquiry before the learned judge, Lord Cullen, into how the disaster occurred and what could be done to prevent similar disasters was extensive and thorough. The fact that the Government immediately accepted all 106 recommendations in his report is a tribute to its breadth and quality. The offshore industry itself also accepted the report in its entirety.

657
Since the report into the Piper Alpha disaster was published in November last year, much has already been done to implement the report's recommendations as soon as possible. I mention three points by way of illustration of progress so far.
First, on 1st April responsibility for offshore safety was transferred from the Secretary of State for Energy to the Secretary of State for Employment, administered on his behalf by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The transfer was agreed on the basis of a substantial increase of resources to the commission rising from £13 million in 1990–91 to £35 million 1994–95. This will allow for a fourfold increase in the number of HSE people working on offshore safety.
Secondly, a revised code of practice on standby vessels was published jointly by HSE and the Department of Transport in July. It incorporates improvements in design and provision of equipment on those vessels as recommended by Lord Cullen.
Thirdly, many of the 106 recommendations require action from the offshore industry itself. For example, the preparation of an evacuation, escape and rescue analysis for each installation. HSE is in regular contact with the industry to monitor progress and to ensure that those analyses will be completed by the end of the year.
But much still remains to be done, in particular to improve and reform the existing health and safety legislation which applies to offshore installations. Lord Cullen saw two main elements to that. First, regulations should be made to require the operator of every offshore installation, fixed or mobile, to submit a "safety case" for acceptance by the HSE. The safety case would need to demonstrate that the risks of a major accident from the installation and connected activities had been adequately assessed and suitable measures applied to control the risks and ensure the safety of personnel. The Health and Safety Commission are making this their first priority, and plan to issue a consultative document, with draft regulations and guidance, in the new year. The new regulations would be implemented progressively for new and existing installations starting in 1993.
The second main element recommended by Lord Cullen was that existing offshore health and safety legislation should be progressively replaced by new regulations. Those new regulations should set the objectives to be achieved rather than the detailed measures which an operator should take to counteract the health and safety risks posed by their offshore operations. Lord Cullen called them goal-setting regulations. They will underpin the new safety case regime by defining the necessary standards to apply to every installation.
The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way for the second of these main legislative tasks—the reform of the existing offshore health and safety legislation. It marks an essential step towards constructing the new goal-setting regulatory regime. It will not of itself alter the existing regime. It deals with the technical legal
658
changes which are necessary to allow the development of the goal-setting regime to take place. It is an important first stage in a process.
Clause 1 of the Bill has three objectives. First, it extends the general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to offshore safety. That means the Act will cover both the safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations or engaged on associated pipeline work, and the safety of installations and pipelines and of their construction and dismantling.
The second objective is to bring present offshore safety legislation within the main body of health and safety legislation by making it into what the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 refers to as "existing statutory provisions". That will allow the existing offshore safety legislation to be enforced by the HSE. And it will also allow the existing statutory provisions to be progressively replaced by new regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
The third objective is to ensure that the existing statutory provisions can be repealed or modified by health and safety regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and to allow such health and safety regulations to be made about any matters covered by the extended general purposes of the Act.
Each of those objectives must be met in order to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations for the reform of the existing offshore safety legislation. It is the Government's intention, should the Bill receive parliamentary approval, to introduce new goal-setting regulations on a rolling programme over the next three to five years. The regulations will be made following wide consultation with all interested parties.
The Government have taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring forward additional measures dealing with important aspects of safety and security of the oil and gas industry and also important changes to penalties for certain offences under existing health and safety law. Clauses 2 to 5 cover those changes.
Clause 2 deals with the proper construction and safe operation of onshore pipelines and prevention of damage to them; and it also deals with the protection of the public from dangers arising from the transmission, distribution, supply or use of gas, including the supply of liquid petroleum gas through tanks.
I deal first with the safety of onshore pipelines. Although most legislation concerning safety of pipelines onshore is already "existing statutory provisions" under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, two important parts are not: the avoidance of damage to pipelines and the notification of accidents involving escape or ignition of the contents of pipelines. Part of Clause 2 therefore extends the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the proper construction and safe operation of pipelines onshore. Clause 2 makes Sections 27 to 32 and 37 of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 "existing statutory provisions" and allows their repeal or modification by health and safety regulations. Again, as in Clause 1, health and safety regulations may be made for the purposes of the

659
extended scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. These provisions will be enforced by the pipelines inspectors who transferred to the HSE on 1st April.
I turn to the second part of Clause 2, the safety of gas supplies. Since 1st February 1984, HSE has been responsible for most of the consumer gas safety law. But the Secretary of State for Energy retained the powers to prescribe certain standards of pressure, purity and odour of gas. These standards are set out under the Gas Quality Regulations 1983 which have effect as if made under Section 16 of the Gas Act 1986. The standards of pressure, purity and odour are in essence safety standards. For example, pressure is important because if it is not sufficiently maintained, appliance flames may go out with possible escape of gas creating a risk of explosion. The opportunity is now therefore being taken to transfer responsibility for these safety standards to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive.
The opportunity is also being taken to deal with a difficulty on the use of liquid petroleum gas-LPG. The existing general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act cover only gas supplied through pipes. LPG is supplied to a large number of users through refillable or replaceable tanks and cylinders kept at or near the users' premises. These are not covered consistently by existing regulations which protect consumers from incompetent gas installation work.
Clause 2 therefore extends the general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to cover the protection of the public from dangers arising from the transmission, distribution, supply or use of gas, including LPG. It also makes Section 16 of the Gas Act and regulations made under that section so far as they relate to safety, "existing statutory provisions" under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Again it allows the legislation to be enforced by the HSE. Regulations can be made to repeal or modify this law and such regulations can be made about matters covered by the extended general purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.
Clause 3 contains a number of provisions consequential on Clauses 1 and 2. The principal changes are those necessary to make a clean break between the Secretary of State for Energy's petroleum exploration and development licensing and health and safety. Currently licences for offshore exploration and development contain model clauses on health and safety. The clause will allow those model clauses to be revoked and removes any requirement on the Secretary of State for Energy when exercising his licensing functions. In future the Secretary of State for Energy will grant licences solely on the basis of economic development of petroleum resources. But Clause 7(3) provides for revocation to come into force only by order of the Secretary of State. That will not he done until the safety case regulations and the new goal-setting regime is in place. There will be no diminution in safety standards. The safety regime, which will operate once the model clauses are revoked, will be considerably strengthened since it will be illegal to operate an installation without a safety case having been accepted by HSE.
660
Clause 4 deals with penalties for certain health and safety offences. For some time both the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have been concerned at the level of penalties levied in magistrates' courts. In the year 1989–90 the average fine for all health and safety cases taken by HSE in any court was £732. That figure must be seen in the light of a maximum fine of £2,000 in a magistrates' court and unlimited levels of fine in a Crown Court. The Government have concluded that they must make provision for higher maximum penalties for certain health and safety offences. Some action has already been taken; the Criminal Justice Act will have the effect of increasing the maximum fine in magistrates' courts from £2,000 to £5,000 from October 1992 for all health and safety offences.
This Bill makes further provision for higher penalties in a number of ways to demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to good health and safety standards supported by significant penalties for those who fail to meet those standards. The further provisions are in two categories.
The first category of offence is under Sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for which the maximum fine a magistrates' court may impose will be increased to £20,000. Offences under these sections are likely to be more serious than other offences because cases are brought when there is a general failure to manage health and safety adequately. This failure to manage health and safety could be a general company failure; it could be a failure to properly control a specific hazard; or it may be a deliberate decision not to comply with these general duties under the Act. Whatever the reason, failure to manage properly health and safety is likely to lead to a number of accidents over time, which could be serious or fatal. It is therefore more serious than a one-off failure to comply with a specific health and safety duty. That is why we want these general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to carry higher penalties.
The second category of offence is failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition notice or to comply with a court remedy order made under Section 42 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. For these offences, the penalties on conviction will be increased in a magistrates' court from the current maximum of £2,000 to a maximum fine of £20,000 or six months' imprisonment or both. On conviction on indictment these offences will carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment or both. These offences are especially serious because they show at best culpable neglect and at worst deliberate flouting of a duty under law by the employer despite specific issues having been brought to his attention by an inspector.
The clause also deals with certain offences under present offshore health and safety legislation. The penalties on conviction on indictment for some offences may be up to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. The first part of the clause will also allow these penalties to be maintained in future regulations dealing with offshore safety. Maintenance of the penalties takes account of the distinctly separate

661
situation offshore where failure to follow certain health and safety regulations could prejudice the whole installation itself together with all those who work on it.
Every accident is a tragedy not just for the person injured but for the family, friends and colleagues. Accident prevention must be the first priority for employers, workers and the regulatory bodies such as HSE. But those who break the law must realise that they run the risk of very serious and substantial penalties. These new penalties are a signal to those with health and safety duties that the Government mean business.
Clause 5 deals with security of oil and gas installations. Similar statutory provisions already exist in respect of the telecommunications, electricity and water industries. The purpose of the clause is to empower the Secretary of State—in this case the Home Secretary—to issue directions to operators of an offshore installation, onshore terminal or oil refinery to preserve their security. Before issuing any such directions the Home Secretary would be required to consult the operator concerned and the Health and Safety Executive. Consultation with the HSE is necessary to avoid any possible conflict between safety and security. Operators would have to comply with such a direction, notwithstanding any other duties. A direction will be laid before Parliament unless the Home Secretary judges disclosure may prejudice national security or the commercial interests of any individual. In such circumstances, following notification from the Home Secretary, persons are prohibited from making disclosures about any such directions.
Directions could be general or specific in nature. General directions might reflect a warning that the industry faced a particular threat or they might address some widespread shortcoming which had been brought to light. Specific directions might be given to an individual operator if the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that there were particular shortcomings in security measures at the site which needed to be rectified.
The Government and the oil and gas industry take the subject of security at onshore and offshore installations very seriously. Arrangements already exist to give advice to operators on the measures necessary to protect the site adequately. I hope that your Lordships will understand if I do not go into too much detail on what those arrangements or measures may be.
I am glad to say that, by and large, operators are generally ready to take action in response to such advice. But some operators have not been so in the past. Necessary improvements can be deferred or overlooked. This can lead to varying standards so that some sites have very good security while at others there is room for improvement. It is these circumstances that the clause will cover ensuring that the Home Secretary can act to remedy matters where necessary.
I turn now to Clause 6 of the Bill. This deals with the parliamentary mechanism for extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Your
662
Lordships will wish to note that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland and the definitions in the Bill reflect this. Clause 6 will enable the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation to be enacted with the minimum possible delay soon after the Great Britain legislation becomes effective. This will be achieved by the negative resolution procedure.
I turn to the final clause. For the most part the Bill will come into effect on Royal Assent. The exceptions are those parts dealing with the model clauses—to which I have already referred—and those parts dealing with gas safety. Clause 7 also, as I said earlier, limits the application of the Bill to Great Britain.
This Bill is an important part of the implementation of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. I have, of necessity, concentrated on the main provisions in the Bill. I look forward with interest to your Lordships' views on the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount Ullswater.)

Lockerbie Disaster: Investigation
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the conclusion of the Lockerbie investigation and its implications. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the conclusion of the Lockerbie investigation and its implications.
"My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has today announced the issue of a warrant for the arrest of two Libyan intelligence officers against whom, on the basis of the evidence available, the Procurator Fiscal has brought charges alleging their involvement in the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21st December 1988. The American authorities have taken similar action. The text of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement are being placed in the Library of the House.
"Two hundred and seventy people were killed at Lockerbie. The relatives and friends of these victims have suffered and continue to suffer great pain and sorrow. The House will be thinking of them today.
"As the Lord Advocate has said, a demand is being made of the Libyan authorities for the surrender of the accused to stand trial. I repeat that demand on behalf of the whole Government. I know the House will unreservedly endorse it.
"The accusations levelled at Libyan officials are of the gravest possible kind. As the warrant which the Lord Advocate will be making public makes clear, the charges allege that the individuals acted as part of a conspiracy to further the purposes of the Libyan intelligence services by criminal means

663
and that those means were acts of terrorism. This is a mass murder which is alleged to involve the organs of government of a state. Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime not only in Scotland and America but also in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30th October over the destruction of Flight UTA 772 in September 1989. We are consulting the United States and other friendly governments, many of whom lost nationals in Pan Am Flight 103, about the next steps.
"I understand that the investigation has revealed no evidence to support suggestion of' involvement by other countries.
"Let me pay tribute to all of those whose untiring work under the direction of the Lord Advocate over almost three years has produced this remarkable outcome. In particular, I salute the work of the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and all those in many parts of the world who have helped with the gathering of evidence and information. The Government are grateful for all the help given to the investigation in many countries.
"We expect Libya to respond fully to our demand for the surrender of the accused. The interests of justice require no less. This fiendish act of wickedness cannot be passed over or ignored." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement and vie welcome this important development which takes place after nearly three years of intense and dedicated work by all concerned. The relatives and friends of the victims of this dreadful crime are very much in our minds at this time.
As the House will appreciate, it would not be proper for us to discuss the merits or otherwise of the charges at this time. That will be decided by a court when and if those who are accused are brought before a court. We do of course strongly support the demand of the Lord Advocate that the accused be surrendered to stand trial.
I have one short question to put to the noble Earl. The position is that the sheriff in Dumfries has issued a warrant and further that an indictment has been handed down by a grand jury in Washington. Can the noble Earl say how the warrants will be enforced if Libya refuses to hand over the two individuals named? If he is not in a position to answer that question now, may I assume that his right honourable friend will keep us informed of developments over the next few days?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I share entirely the sentiments expressed so adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, on this matter and also repeat the hope that the Libyan Government will co-operate. It was a dreadful thing for 270 people to be killed in a terrorist attack of this kind and we think of the implications for their families everywhere.
664
I have a different question to ask the noble Earl. The Statement claims that there was evidence of a conspiracy but that there was no evidence to support suggestions of involvement by other countries. Can he, however, tell us whether there was evidence of the involvement of individuals of other nationalities; that is, of nationalities other than Libyan? Was there any evidence of assistance being rendered in other countries by people of nationalities different from the two Libyans concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. Our thoughts are very much with the families. I am grateful for the strong support that both noble Lords have given to the actions of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
With regard to the question posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as a first step we expect Libya to respond promptly and positively to our demand for surrender of the accused and we await that response. Today the announcement concerns the judicial process. We shall then have to decide urgently—and we are considering this—what further steps may be needed. We are in close consultation, as I said, with the Americans on this. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that we shall keep the House fully informed as matters progress. I can also confirm that copies of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement, to which I referred in the Statement repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, will be placed in the Library of this House.
With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, we have no evidence about individuals from other countries being involved.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House can ever forget the unfolding horror of that evening, especially those who know Lockerbie. Does my noble friend agree that our noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, for the tenacious manner in which he has pursued this case, deserves our congratulations, as indeed does the very small police force of Dumfries and Galloway, on which the awful event was visited that night? The police dealt not only with the immediate aftermath but also carried out the investigation. I would mention particularly the chief constable, John Boyd, who was at the time responsible, and also George Esson.
While today's announcement is certainly successful in so far as it goes, we shall only really have success in this affair when the two Libyans responsible are in the dock being tried, either in Scotland or in the United States of America. Will my noble friend ensure that not only this country and the United States but all civilised countries bring every possible pressure to bear on Libya to release those two evil men up to justice, and that if Libya does not do so she will be treated as an international leper?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay, who knows the area well. I shall certainly pass them on to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. In addition to congratulating the Dumfries and Galloway police I should also like to mention the forensic service, without which the Lord Advocate would not have been able to take matters as far as he has. I can assure my noble friend that we are working closely with all friendly governments on the matter. It is worth recalling that there were not only Americans and Britons on the plane; there were French and German nationals among the victims as well as citizens of other countries.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I endorse everything said by those who have contributed. It is unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is not in his place but I fully understand why he is not here. He is simultaneously issuing a statement in Edinburgh, as Scotland has been, to use the jargon phrase, the nerve centre of this inquiry. It is quite understandable that he should be there dealing with the interest expressed in this event which he himself described as a unique criminal inquiry.
In his statement the Lord Advocate describes the work of the forensic scientists as "extraordinary". From the little knowledge I have of that work, "extraordinary" may be too modest a word for the meticulous work which has been carried out by the scientists. I do not propose to substitute another word, but "extraordinary" is perhaps rather modest.
During the three years of this inquiry we on this side of the House have taken extreme care not to do or say anything which might in any way have prejudiced the course of the investigation and any subsequent proceedings. We shall continue to pursue that course as matters develop. It would be wrong to let this occasion pass without congratulating the Lord Advocate on his part in the investigation. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The Lord Advocate has supervised not a local inquiry but an international investigation and has done so with diligence and dedication while under many pressures from various sources, press and otherwise. The dignity and authority with which he has conducted the public aspects of the inquiry have brought great credit to the office of Lord Advocate, and the whole proceedings to date have, I am certain, enhanced the reputation of the Scottish police and the Scottish legal system not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the civilised world.
Before I conclude my remarks, perhaps I may make two points. The Lord Advocate closed his statement in Edinburgh today with these words:
"I must remind the media that, for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, proceedings became active when the Sheriff granted warrants for arrests. The chief constable and I cannot and will not comment on the evidence on which these charges are based".
I draw that to the attention of the House in case some extravagant words are used in the course of exchanges on these charges which could seriously prejudice any trial which may take place in the future.
I have one final point. We heard in the Statement that,
666
"Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime not only in Scotland and America but also in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30th October over the destruction of Flight UTA 772 in September 1989".
I presume that that is another aircraft and not Pan Am Flight 103. What response has been received from the Libyan authorities in respect of the arrest warrants which have been granted in France?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, regarding my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and all those involved in this international investigation. I can confirm that Flight UTA 772 was a different flight from the Pan Am flight. The incident occurred some 10 months after the Lockerbie disaster. Some 170 victims were involved. Warrants for the arrest of four Libyan officials were issued by the examining magistrate on 30th October and the French authorities are pursuing the matter. I am unable to tell the noble Lord any more at this stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does that mean that there has been no response from the Libyan authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it means that I am unable to tell the noble Lord more at this stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will keep me in touch.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which is fairly non-controversial. We on this side of the House support the Bill but I should like to make some comments on it.
We all know that getting oil from the seabed is a very dangerous business. That, as the Minister said, was brought home to all of us as a result of the horrendous Piper Alpha disaster. But the workings in the North Sea have been taking a toll in human lives and injuries ever since they started. Only on Saturday, the press carried a report of what is the longest hearing in Scottish legal history—the inquiry into the accident and fire on an oil rig operated by Arco British and owned by Odeco which resulted in the death of an employee. The report indicated that this could have been prevented had those in charge of the rig exercised proper control. The principal witnesses did not show up at all, thus occasioning sharp criticism from the Sheriff Principal. That accident took place three months after the Piper Alpha tragedy when everyone should have been very sharply aware of the hazards. It is not surprising that the union involved should be calling for the owners and operators to be prosecuted.
It is as well to remind ourselves when considering a Bill of this kind just how horrific the Piper Alpha tragedy was. On the evening of 6th July 1988, the lives of 165 people out of a total of 226 on board were lost. Two more lives were lost in a rescue attempt. Some bodies were never recovered. It was a total disaster for

667
the families and the communities from which those men came. In so far as we can through legislation we have to try to ensure that nothing like it can happen again, although it is of course true that the operations are themselves inherently hazardous.
As the Minister said, following the Piper Alpha disaster the Government set up an inquiry under the Honourable Lord Cullen. Some of the recommendations of his report are carried through in the Bill. Lord Cullen recommended that there should he a single regulatory body and, on balance, favoured transfer-ring responsibility to the Health and Safety Executive. That, as the Minister explained, has now been done. Clause 1 extends the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to cover safety, health and welfare of persons on offshore installations or engaged on associated pipeline work. It would appear that inspectors will in future be able to institute proceedings for offences committed outside Great Britain. There are increased penalties for breach of the regulations. There are, however, some aspects of Lord Cullen's report which are not addressed in the Bill.
One of the most important sections of the report is that dealing with the need to establish a "safety culture". Paragraph 18.45 states:
"Companies with a good safety record arc dedicated to the proposition that safety starts with the unfailing commitment of the most senior management, and that of the chief executive officer in particular".
In paragraph 18.46 we find:
"It is essential to create a corporate atmosphere or culture in which safety is understood to be, and is accepted as, the number one priority".
Paragraph 18.47 says:
"Safety objectives have to he built into both short and long term plans, and achievements against those defined objectives have to be part of personnel performance assessment".
From this, according to Lord Cullen (at paragraph 18.48) it follows that:
"It is essential that the whole workforce is committed to and involved in safe operations".
I should like to emphasise the latter. Yet, the inquiry received evidence from the unions representing employees that this was not done. Employees who identified safety hazards were often afraid or unwilling to come forward with the information because of fear of victimisation—the fear that their contracts might not be renewed. Many of the companies concerned strongly opposed the recognition of the unions to which their employees belonged, even though it was acknowledged in the report that unions play a key and constructive role in training safety representatives elected by the workforce. Indeed, at Piper Alpha, the safety representatives do not appear to have been elected at all; they were the supervisors themselves.
The unions drew attention to the Norwegian practice, where union recognition is automatic and safety representatives play a key role in evolving health and safety policies. Lord Cullen, although saying that his remit did not extend to industrial relations—and this, of course, was understood—was clearly impressed by the evidence given by the unions. One of his recommendations specifies that safety representatives should be protected by legislation
668
against victimisation. He also endorses the idea of a review of the 1989 regulations on safety representatives and safety committees.
Lord Cullen was also very critical of the inspections which preceded the disaster. He described them as "superficial" and clearly felt that there was a need for more thorough inspection. However, I note that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says that there will be no increase in expenditure or manpower as a result of this legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister said in his opening speech that resources had been made available to ensure that there would be increases in the inspectorate. But I understand that the Health and Safety Commission may have difficulty in attracting the right number of properly qualified people, because private industry can offer salaries which are so much higher. It is essential that resources are made available to ensure that the intentions of the Bill are carried out.
Of course I understand and support the need for the clause relating to security. However, I should like to see some wording inserted in the Bill indicating that health and safety considerations are paramount and will take precedence over other concerns, including that of security. We may, perhaps, follow up this issue in Committee.
So far as concerns penalties, I welcome the proposals that these should be increased. I also accept the Minister's assurance that these are indications that the Government take the whole health and safety issue very seriously. However, £20,000 is not a great deal of money for a multi-million concern and the two-year prison sentence—which may or may not be imposed—may not be all that much of a deterrent. It has always seemed to me to be somewhat anomalous that a director can be disqualified for a fiduciary misdemeanour, but that this sanction is not applied if the company of which he is a director is responsible for death or injury to employees or members of the public. I believe that the possible loss of office would concentrate the mind more effectively and would, perhaps, help to bring about the creation of the kind of "safety culture" so strongly urged by Lord Cullen.
Finally, I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We shall seek to explore some of these issues in Committee, but in the meantime, we support the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for explaining the Bill so clearly. I should say at once that our general attitude to it is one of support, in so far as it follows the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. As has been said, the Bill's main provision is that responsibility for offshore safety should now be transferred from the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive. The reasons why Lord Cullen recommended that change are set out in his report. I need say no more than that we are in full agreement with them.

669
However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I should like to highlight two or three of the recommendations in the report. They are not included on the face of the Bill, but in my view it is important that they should be faithfully implemented by the new regulatory body. First, as the noble Viscount said, the report recommended that the principal regulations in regard to offshore safety should take the form of requiring that stated objectives were to be met—they were referred to as "goal setting regulations"—rather than prescribing that detailed measures were to be taken.
In the foreword to the last available annual report of the Health and Safety Commission, the chairman noted that,
"the European Community has now to be regarded as the principal engine of health and safety law affecting the UK",
and that directions concerning occupational safety may now be introduced on the basis of qualified majority voting. I was glad that he went on to say:
"We have made clear to our European friends some of the difficulties we see in an over-hasty provision of new law, particularly without assurance that it can be enforced with equal determination in all Member States. We have also sought to insist that Member States should make their own arrangements for subsidiary detail, subject to European agreement on general principles".
In my view, the Health and Safety Commission here struck just the right note, for, committed Europeans though we on these Benches are, there is the danger that in this matter the European Commission could overstep the mark.
Next, there is reference in both the summary and recommendations of Lord Cullen to the importance of training. Indeed, management was severely criticised in the summary for its failure to ensure that training for emergencies was in practice provided as was intended. I had so much to say on the subject of training yesterday during the debate on unemployment that I shall spare your Lordships any further comment. However, it is of literally vital importance that the report's recommendations on that matter are actually implemented.
That brings me to the subject of employee involvement. I believe that the noble Baroness has already quoted from paragraph 18.48 which, if I may paraphrase it, says how essential it is for the whole workforce to be committed to, and involved in, safe operations. It continues to say that the first line supervisors are a key link in achieving that aim, as each is personally responsible for ensuring that all employees not only know how to perform their jobs safely but are convinced that they have a responsibility to do so.
As has been said, Lord Cullen went on to stress the value of a safety committee system as a means of providing for new ideas and solutions to safety problems to be brought forward and for passing verbatim and uncensored safety comments up the management line. He also said that the system helps to reinforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own safety and that of his fellow workers. I agree with the conclusion of Lord Cullen that the employee representatives on these committees need not be drawn from trade unions. The essential
670
point is to ensure that all employees are involved in the promotion of safety at work. I should have liked to see some reference to that issue in the Bill. It is possible that we shall return to the matter in Committee.
Indeed, the question arises as to whether there is more that the Government should be doing to improve employee involvement more generally.
On a number of occasions in the past I have argued that the time has come to make it a statutory requirement that in every organisation employing a certain number of people there should be consultative bodies of some kind. In that connection—I hope that I do not digress too far from the Bill—I was interested to receive from the Institute of Personnel Management last week a consultative document in which, while reiterating its preference for a voluntary approach to that matter, it nevertheless says that in view of the relatively slow progress made during the past decade action should now be taken:
"to place the employer under a statutory duty to disseminate to all employees certain types of information which relate to matters affecting their security and well being, and which is not commercially confidential".
It is only fair to add that the institute does not consider that the current situation warrants an extension of that duty to include an obligation to consult, believing that the requirement that the employer should regularly provide information to employees is likely to prove a sufficient stimulus in that respect. Nevertheless, the fact that the IPM has now decided to advocate the introduction of limited legislation on employee involvement is most significant. I realise that the subject is a broad one, but if the Minister can—I fear at very short notice—say anything positively encouraging about that matter I should be glad to hear it.
I now turn briefly to a consideration of one or two of the Bill's features. Clauses 1 to 3 have, I hope, been covered adequately by what I said at the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I welcome the provisions of Clause 4 which increase substantially penalties for offences relating to contraventions of the regulations.
The next comment I wish to make about the Bill relates to its financial and manpower effects as set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. There it is stated:
"There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill."
That surprises me because it raises the whole question of whether the resources, including staff, needed to enforce the Bill's provisions will be adequate for that purpose.
The Minister will be aware that in the debate on health and safety at work initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, last January, several noble Lords questioned whether the number of HSE inspectors was adequate for the duties that they were required to fulfil. Specifically, and I hope that I am not stealing his thunder, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, claimed that judging from the figures contained in the previous year's HSE report, inspectors were in a position to make, on average, only one visit per day, and that in the previous 10 years the number of inspectors had fallen from 759 to 554. At the time, the

671
noble Earl, Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne, was unable to refute that allegation. In his conclusions, Lord Cullen stated that the need for adequate resources to meet the changes involved in transferring responsibility for safety to the Health and Safety Executive was obvious.
I appreciate that some, at least, of the people now employed by the Petroleum Engineering Division of the Department of Energy may be transferred to the executive, but if before the assumption of the heavy additional burden there is doubt as to the adequacy of resources available to the HSE to carry out inspections, how much more justifiable may those doubts now be. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government are doing to satisfy themselves that the manpower available to the HSE will be sufficient to enable it to discharge its new responsibility in such a way as to enhance the safety of all those who work at risk offshore. We may also wish to pursue that matter in Committee.
In conclusion, I merely repeat that my noble friends and I are happy to support the Bill, subject to the reservations that I have described.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Ullswater for so clearly explaining the purposes of the Bill, which I welcome. The Bill carries out many of the recommendations of the inquiry undertaken by the learned judge, Lord Cullen, following the Piper Alpha disaster. It was clear at the time that his inquiry would take many months. When the Statement was made in your Lordships' House I said that we could not expect to have the recommendations in less than a year, or more probably two years. I am glad that no time has been lost by the Government and that they have introduced the Bill in what has to be a shorter than usual Session.
I must declare an interest. As some noble Lords will be aware, I have been with an international oil company in a non-executive capacity since 1975. I am glad to say that it is one that has a good safety record. It is only a week since the Bill was published. My impression is that the oil industry as a whole is glad to see it. It is generally accepted that the Health and Safety Executive should in future take over responsibility for safety from the Department of Energy. In any case, the Department of Energy is losing many functions because of gas and electricity having departed, and it may well lose its separate identity after the next election. The way in which the present Permanent Secretary's appointment was announced encourages that speculation.
Piper Alpha was a platform permanently in place over the oilfield. In addition to that disaster, there was also a bad accident on a mobile drilling rig. The inquiry into that rig blow-out was published a few days ago only. It was the Ocean Odyssey to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. There was one death in that incident. It could have been very much worse.
I was probably the member of the Cabinet at the time most concerned when North Sea oil was discovered in 1970–71, and then on to 1974, because
672
no Department of Energy existed in those days. I have been anxious about safety ever since. In the early days it was the divers who suffered most casualties. They were voluntarily taking too many risks. That position has been much improved since. It was a new industry which has brought many benefits to Britain, but it is undertaken in hostile and harsh conditions. The offshore structures and the diving, pipeline and supply boat operations require safety, and that is best maintained if every individual involved is encouraged to participate.
The best practice includes inviting from everyone involved suggestions for alerting people to dangers and for making improvements. Everyone working on a platform or a rig should feel authorised to speak up and to share in promoting optimum arrangements for safety. Such team work should combine well with the framework now being created through the HSE which I am glad to know will be expanded for the purpose. It is important that the new members of the HSE will be well-trained people, qualified to carry out those functions. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say some more about that matter when he replies.
I should like to add a few words about a recently formed body—the Oil Industry Liaison Committee—which has been much in the news. It is based in Aberdeen and has been issuing statements about safety. Its status is still obscure as it does not appear to have been recognised by the trade union movement, although it purports to represent those working on offshore installations.
What has not been made clear in press reports—and I make no criticism because the oil industry is one which the press still find difficult to understand—is that the the Oil Industry Liaison Committee does not represent the employees of the oil industry. It is trying to speak for the employees of the contractors, the firms working on platforms. These men very often carry out maintenance work on the platforms for a period of weeks during the summer. Others—for example, plumbers or welders—employed by construction firms based onshore, are doing particular jobs on platforms under contracts. They are working for their own employers who are not the oil companies.
It is important that these itinerant members of a platform's complement, like the crew of a ship, should be well versed in safety along with the oil companies' own employees. In the press, they have been referred to as "oilmen". That is an easy description, but it is misleading because the impression is given that they work directly for the oil companies. They do not.
Of course, it is also important that the employees working for contractors should feel confidence in the safety measures applying to the installations on which they are working. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, the companies have been taking action in various fields while Lord Cullen's inquiry has been going on. For example, my own company has been installing new sub-sea valves and making other investments in failsafe measures.
The discovery of North Sea oil 20 years ago led to a new British industry being created with considerable benefits to this country. However, it is a fairly recent

673
industry in the world as a whole. We must adapt quickly to the exigencies and phenomena which accompany that industry. The Bill is one important step in the right direction.
4.32 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, like other speakers in this debate, I thank the Minister for the clarity and conciseness with which he explained clauses in the Bill. I also wish to congratulate the Department of Energy on appointing Lord Cullen to conduct this inquiry. I do not believe that that has been done sufficiently at least on this side of the House. It was a quite outstanding way of conducting an inquiry; I have never read the report of an inquiry which was done in such an outstanding way. It moves magisterially from proximate causes to underlying causes. It shows that this is not an isolated mistake, that it is the result of unsafe practices, unobserved procedures and inadequate and underfunded inspection. It lays the blame where it should lie and then with great mercy it does not name those who have direct, immediate blame. That is a civilised thing to do.
The report ends with comprehensive recommendations—wide-ranging but nevertheless relevant to Lord Cullen's remit. It is a quite outstanding piece of work. Anyone wishing to know how to write a report of an inquiry on such a subject should read this one from start to finish.
I do not believe it has been mentioned in the debate so far that the report also stresses that not all the recommendations are for the Government. In many ways most of them are not: they are partly for the authority that is to be established to run the safety concerns, the HSE, as it is to be. Many recommendations are directed at the authority and many more are directed at employers and relate to the practices that they should introduce. Some recommendations have significant implications for the workers in the industry and for the unions that represent them. It is a magnificent report.
Which then are the areas where we disagree or have reservations which we hope we can take up when the Bill comes into Committee? Many have been mentioned by previous speakers. I believe the Minister will discover that there is a fair degree of unanimity on this side of the House about how the Bill needs to be improved. One area which has not been mentioned on which I hope the Minister can give guidance and clarity refers to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Clause 1 of the present Bill adds something to Section 1 of the 1974 Act. It says that the Act now covers the health, safety and welfare of persons on offshore installations. That is to be added to Section 1 of the 1974 Act.
Many of us believe, however, that one of the most important aspects of the 1974 Act is Section 2 which states:
"It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare … of all his employees".
I wish to ask the Minister this. Are we to take the view that, although this is not mentioned on the face of the Bill, Section 2 of the 1974 Act, which puts a general
674
obligation on employers to promote health, welfare and safety, applies just as much to the offshore areas as to the existing ones? Even if it does, why should it not be on the face of the Bill? Why should not that important clause be put into the Bill?
Further, to repeat something which has been said before but bears repeating, I wish to deal with the duties of the inspectorate. I could burden the House—but I will not—with long quotations from the Cullen Report which perhaps we should discuss in Committee. Lord Cullen goes through what happened: the inspector; what the inspector did; how the inspector did not have enough time; how the inspector was not given enough information; how the inspector was well known, and how it was known by the employers that he was coming because that is the way offshore inspection works; how in general inspectors are insufficiently trained. Most important of all, there was a shortfall: repeated inquiries had been made through the Health and Safety Executive to the Department of Energy asking whether it would increase the members of the inspectorate; and how that was not possible, partly for reasons of money and partly for reasons that are not clear.
When we examine what Lord Cullen says about the way in which the inspectorate should operate in future, and the fact that there should be a senior inspector who should have access to the management board or be a member of it responsible to the director general; when we examine the job to be done, the implementation of all the safety case legislation, surely there must be more staff for the HSE? Surely, we cannot accept a situation—despite the encouraging words of the Minister in his opening speech—where on the face of the Bill we are again told that there is to be no increase in expenditure. That cannot be right.
If we are to take what Lord Cullen says seriously—and the Minister told us that the Government accept every recommendation in this report—it cannot be done without further expenditure. Can we be told that the Government accept that? Can we be given some idea of how much it will involve?
Finally, I wish to say something about the safety committees and safety representatives. Again, there is provision in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for statutory regulations enforcing upon employers some form of safety committee at the place of work. The Cullen Report is quite clear that the workers on the rig knew that the rig was unsafe. They had made representations to make it more safe. They required an effective consultative system with the protection of their representatives, in order to make their position clear. Although that matter is, in precise and specific terms, outside his terms of reference, Lord Cullen goes a long way to suggest that there should be some improvement in the present inadequate forms of safety representation. Surely that is a matter on which the Government could give us some undertaking tonight. However, with all those reservations, we welcome the Bill. We wish it God speed and we think it will do good.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this has been an interesting and informative debate. Your Lordships have made a number of general points on the Bill. It is perhaps better to leave discussion of the more detailed technical points to Committee. However, your Lordships raised a number of more general health and safety issues which I shall attempt to deal with. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said initially that what is required is a safety culture. I entirely agree with her. It is intended that we should have safety culture. However, we cannot provide for that culture in legislation. The learned Lord Cullen strongly recommended that there should be separate provision for the introduction of the safety case. That will require an operator to demonstrate clearly and in great detail the adequacy of his management system and its ability to cope with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked about safety representatives and safety committees. The provision for the appointment of safety representatives and committees is made by regulations under the mineral workings Act. Those regulations are the Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations of 1989. A comprehensive review of their effectiveness is about to get under way. This fulfils the commitment by Ministers made in 1989—endorsed by Lord Cullen—to review the regulations after two years of operation. Therefore to a certain extent I feel constrained from saying anything further on that matter.
The noble Baroness drew to our attention the problem of victimisation of employees if they make comments on safety matters. She drew our attention to the fact that that matter was mentioned in the recommendations made by Lord Cullen. I repeat that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Cullen Report. We intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that any representative who has been dismissed or otherwise victimised for this reason can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. However, such legislation falls outside the scope of the Bill we are discussing. This Bill deals with safety matters rather than employment issues We shall deal with the matter of victimisation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself.
For the present, victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable to the Health and Safety Executive as it undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. If there is any evidence of intimidation, HSE will look into it. The name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed in every offshore installation and anonymity is guaranteed to those who raise safety issues if they request it.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed the introduction of the Bill—inquired about the availability of inspectors and about the problem of financial resources. The recruitment of specialists in the petroleum field is constrained by a limited and highly competitive market. In addition new recruits
676
will require at least six months' training in specialist inspection techniques. Obviously there is a limit to the number of people who can be trained at any one time. HSE will aim to recruit new staff at the fastest possible speed commensurate with those constraints. The offshore safety division aims to increase specialist cadres by about 75 a year for the next three years. I believe those recruitment targets are ambitious. A review of pay and grading of offshore specialists has been put in hand with a view to achieving the targets and to ensure that realistic rewards can be offered.
The noble Baroness said she felt a fine of £20,000 was not much of a deterrent to a multinational company. Magistrates will of course still be free to commit cases to higher courts if they feel the penalty of £20,000 is inadequate in any particular case. In addition magistrates will be able to fine multiples of £20,000 in cases where more than one charge is laid against a company at any one time. In the meantime the Bill seeks to ensure that the rise in fines should be a signal to the industry. The Government welcome the higher fines as an indication of their intention in this area.
As regards the disqualification of directors, that is already possible under the disqualification Act where directors have been convicted of an indictable offence. Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act also allows prosecution of individual directors where an offence has been committed with their consent or connivance, or where the offence was attributable to neglect on a director's part. I believe the Bill takes care of a number of the concerns the noble Baroness mentioned. I have listened carefully to all the comments she made.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me whether Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies offshore. It already applies offshore by virtue of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act's application outside Great Britain under the order of 1989. I am afraid that many of the clauses I discussed today are not particularly intelligible to the layman as they extend other parts of Acts. However, I am certain I have dealt with that concern of the noble Lord. The Health and Safety at Work Act covers most of the operations offshore and in this goal setting formula, it is appropriate that this legislation is brought about for the review of the regulations.
The noble Lord paid tribute to the work of Lord Cullen. When the Cullen Report was published the Government also paid tribute to that report. Having read the recommendations and parts of the report, I consider it is an outstanding piece of work.
I have commented on the inspectors and their operations and the number of inspectors that we are recruiting. However, I am sure that we shall need to return to any detailed points in Committee. We shall also need to return to the matters that caused concern to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on the involvement of people in the operation of the Act.
I must re-emphasise the importance the Government place on improving offshore safety in the aftermath of the Piper Alpha disaster. We have already seen considerable improvements in safety provision and attitudes to safety, not least in the

677
acceptance of the fact that responsibility for safety is in the hands of everyone concerned: employers, operators and the workforce. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has long experience of this industry. He emphasised the important part that suppliers to the industry and those contracted to work in it can play in safety matters. We have a considerable task ahead of us to put in place the new legislation that will underpin safety offshore. This Bill, albeit a technical one, is an essential step forward. It needs to be enacted as soon as possible so there is no unnecessary delay in developing new safety standards offshore.
I look forward to further constructive debate in the next stages of the Bill's progress. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down perhaps I may ask him this question. How does he reconcile his very welcome statement that more inspectors are to be recruited and that they are to receive salaries commensurate with their responsibilities with the sentence in the paragraph setting out the financial and manpower effects of the Bill that:
"There will be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is my understanding that the duties of the HSE already include the duties of the inspectors offshore. That responsibility has already been transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of Employment. I indicated in my opening remarks that further resources will be made available in the future to the HSE in order to increase the number of inspectors. Therefore, the implication of this technical Bill, which is required to put everything in place, does not increase the financial burden.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) Order 1991
4.51 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this order gives effect in all petty sessions areas in England and Wales to Section 128a of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which enables magistrates' courts to remand defendants in custody for up to 28 days. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I knew that the noble Viscount was going to be brief but that was almost invisible. I have only two points to make regarding the order, which we do not oppose from this side of the House. The Minister will know that anxiety has been expressed that as a result of the order prisoners will spend longer periods of time in custody. The order
678
extends to the whole of the United Kingdom the provision which has been applicable in four experimental areas that magistrates' courts should be able to remand prisoners for up to 28 days. In particular, I understand that the Prison Reform Trust has expressed its anxieties to the Government quite forcefully.
Will the Government give an undertaking to monitor the impact of the order on the number of prisoners being remanded in custody and also the length of time for which prisoners remain on remand prior to being brought to trial? As I said, anxiety is being expressed by reputable organisations. I hope that the Government will at least give the undertaking I have requested.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right to say that anxieties have been raised about people spending longer on remand. The main fears were that defendants would spend longer in prison and that opportunities for bail would decrease.
It was made clear to Parliament that the Government would not extend the arrangements nationwide if the experiment showed the fears to be justified. However, the results of the evaluation of the trials published earlier this year in Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper 62 showed that the anxieties expressed in the debate on the 1988 Act have not been realised. There was on average no increase in the length of time spent in custody nor in the proportion of cases in which bail was refused after an initial remand in custody.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Regiments: Reorganisation
4.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their provisional timetable for the future reorganisation of the Scottish regiments.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I suggest that we can all rejoice over the changes which have taken place in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. The Cold War has ended and reductions in the burden of armaments can be undertaken safely. I welcome in particular the decisions taken at the end of last week at the NATO summit meeting on the reduction of nuclear weapons.
Today I propose to raise one element of the British Government's proposals for the Army and in particular within the infantry, namely the future of the Scottish regiments. It is a subject of limited scope suitable for a debate of this kind.
I remind your Lordships that it is proposed that four regiments carry out two amalgamations—one Highland and one Lowland—and that the 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards be placed in suspended animation. When amalgamations occur, in England as well as in Scotland, there are bound to be objections and anxiety in the recruiting areas of the regiments concerned. That is to be expected and is understandable. As regards the Scottish regiments I have to tell the House that reaction against the proposed

679
amalgamations comes from the whole of Scotland. The Government have been left in no doubt about the streng1h of feeling. Many signatures have been placed on a petition and numerous representations been made to Ministers. The main reasons for the objections are that the Scottish regiments have excellent recruiting and that despite this it seems that Scotland is to suffer a disproportionate reduction.
Today I hope to explore the Government's timetable. It appears that about three years will elapse before the two Scottish regimental amalgamations will be undertaken. I noted what my noble friend Lord Arran said in the debate on the Address on 4th November. At column 134 of Hansard he said that the amalgamations of the Scottish regiments will be implemented over the next three to four years.
"Of course if, over that period, we find that we have taken on a large number of commitments … which the Army at its then site cannot meet, we shall clearly have to look again at the decisions that have been taken".
That seems to be a realistic and sensible attitude, as I would expect. I hope that during the period mentioned the Government will bear in mind the considerations which I am about to put forward. I urge them to maintain a continuing assessment of commitments and defence requirements as world events unfold during the next three years.
On Tuesday, the day before yesterday, a Written Answer was published in the other place. In that reply 1994 was confirmed as the year in which the Government propose that the two Scottish amalgamations should take place.
There are informed views, which must be respected, that the proposed reductions will severely overstretch the Army, especially the infantry, in carrying out our present commitments, requiring as they do tours abroad and in Northern Ireland. I refer to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on 16th October, and also the letter in The Times of 18th October from General Sir Martin Farndale. Both have recently held key defence appointments, one as Chief of the Defence Staff and the other as Commander in Chief in Germany. They doubt whether an Army of 116,000, of which 12,000 men will always be in training, can effectively meet our commitments. I shall not expand now on their warnings.
Comparisons with EC partners of similar size are misleading. We should not try to compete with Germany or France in reductions. Britain is much more likely to have to contribute forces to deal with breaches of the peace or brushfire situations in different parts of the world because of our role in the past. Germany is in any case limited in military action to Europe by a section of the basic law upon which we in the United Kingdom insisted in 1950 when we were anxious to curb military aspirations in the new Germany. I believe that that is now to be changed. Nonetheless, Germany has been, and will be, preoccupied with defence in Europe. The same applies to the other European countries, although I hope that they will contribute increasingly to United Nations forces when they are required.
I must declare interests in speaking on the Scottish regiments. My home is in the regimental home of the Queen's Own Highlanders and one of my sons is in
680
that regiment. He was put down for it at the age of 10—not unusual in Scotland—and joined 12 years later, after Oxford, nearly 20 years ago. I was not myself in one of those infantry regiments, being a gunner. That means that I can speak about them all without being partisan.
Having started in the Army just before World War II, I served for most of it in a Scottish division and for three years commanded a Scottish field battery. In that capacity I worked for weeks at a time with individual battalions from all the regiments under discussion today. My operational place as a battery commander was with a battalion—usually the leading company—often on foot, with the small forward gunner teams carrying radios to control my guns and others some distance behind. At different times I was in various actions during the war with Seaforth and Camerons—now the Queen's Own Highlanders—Gordons, Royal Scots and King's Own Scottish Borders.
Also in the division was a battalion of Scots Guards in Churchill tanks. Later, when it was decided to take that tank brigade out of the division it continued to be assigned to operate with our division. More than once, I have gone into action with the Scots Guards in a tank provided by the squadron commanded by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, again with my vital radio sets with me. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk intends to speak in the debate. His brother, Lord Michael, also a general, was in the Scots Guards and was for a time in that tank battalion that I have mentioned. I presume that my noble friend will address the subject of the Guards and I can confidently leave that to him.
The Scots Guards are not to lose their name and identity. That is the most painful part of the amalgamations for the other regiments. Let us consider the Royal Scots. They are the first regiment of foot in the whole British Army. South of the Border, where third battalions of English regiments are to be disbanded, the pain is not nearly so acute because the name and the identity are not now affected.
Noble Lords will see that by chance I have been very close to all the Scottish regiments now affected, in action in war. Such is the ubiquitous role of the gunner, that I have also been in similar situations with non-Scottish battalions.
British infantry excel in their adaptability, tact and skill in dealing with local people in areas of tension, as well as with terrorism and difficult communal disturbances. That has been proved over the past 40 years since World War II in different parts of the world. Another outstanding quality is the infantry's dependability in extreme adversity. What is it that keeps groups of ordinary men—not a carefully picked elite—hanging on and fighting back, although exhausted and crippled by casualties, running out of ammunition and supplies, knowing that plans have gone wrong because of enemy successes, outnumbered and surrounded, continuously shelled in atrocious conditions of cold or mud and with no sign of relief? It is the resolve that their regiment will not falter or fail

681
in its allotted tasks. The Scottish regiments have exemplified the qualities required by infantry in extreme conditions of strain and duress.
What has surprised informed observers about the Government's proposals is that little notice appears to have been taken of recruiting and retention. The Scottish regiments have good recent records of recruiting and the soldiers stay in the Army on average for longer—a factor in cost-effectiveness. The highest rate of recruiting per eligible head of population in regimental areas has been achieved by the Queen's Own Highlanders. They are now faced with another amalgamation. The last one was only 30 years ago from two famous regiments—the Seaforth and Camerons. Their regimental area is the size of the whole of Wales and about half of that again will be added by the Gordons' area.
The recruiting situation appears to have been reflected in Operation Granby in the Gulf war. First, I remind the House that the Royal Scots were engaged in the fighting that took place on land and received several awards for gallantry. Mercifully, the casualties in that war were much fewer than we could have expected. However, it will be remembered that nine casualties were reported in the battalion of Royal Fusiliers as a result of friendly fire. A little later we discovered that three of the dead were in fact Queen's Own Highlanders, young men whose homes were near mine in northern Scotland. Virtually the whole battalion of Queen's Own Highlanders was deployed in the Gulf from Germany, not as a unit but in packets, in order to bring other units, including the Royal Fusiliers, up to establishment. We would not have known they were there if there had not been those casualties.
I am reminded of another debate on Scottish regiments in which I took part. That was in another place in July 1968. I wound up that debate as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on defence. The Argylls and the Scots Greys were at that time destined for disbandment and the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards again destined for disappearance. Two years later, we came into office and I moved from the Shadow Cabinet to the Cabinet. The Argylls' disbandment parade, which had been fixed for a certain date, was cancelled. They and the other regiments in the same slice were reduced to company and squadron strength while we looked into defence requirements. A year later it was possible to restore the position because it was found that more infantry were needed. All the regiments affected in that slice—not just the Argylls—received equal treatment. The three Scottish regiments—the subject of that debate—were all reprieved, the Greys preferring the option of amalgamation with the Carabiniers. Of course, the situation is different today. Nonetheless, I hope that the result of that debate may now augur well for the future.
In a remarkable and unique way, the Scottish regiments have historically helped to unite both Scotland and the United Kingdom. The last battle on British soil was fought at Culloden, four miles from my home. A Colonel Wolfe, on the Hanoverian side,
682
was the general who later won the battle of Quebec. In doing so, he was assisted by the newly formed Highlanders who stormed the Heights of Abraham. A great deal had changed during the intervening 13 years. There are other examples which I shall not go into now.
I do not need to tell my noble friend Lord Arran that there has been dismay in Scotland since July, not least among supporters of the Government. However, they realise that they are unlikely to fare any better with the alternative government. Prominent members of the Labour Party urge greater reductions, and the period from 1967 to 1970, to which I referred, is still remembered. The Scottish National Party is primarily concerned with Scotland and some of the public may look in that direction.
However, I remind noble Lords that at the annual conference of the SNP in 1967 a Motion deploring disbandment of Scottish regiments was defeated by a huge majority. Reasons given by speakers in the debate and reported in the press on the following day were that the regiments had been formed by London governments to hold down the Scots and to build the British Empire. That has been the SNP's traditional and fundamentalist attitude to such matters, but it is totally unrepresentative of Scottish opinion.
In a recent Written Answer the framework of a programme is set out. When my noble friend replies perhaps he will fill in more particulars with regard to the Scottish regiments. Is it intended that the regiments to be amalgamated should be stationed in Britain at the time—that means not in Northern Ireland? Is that proposal in the programme? Is it also planned that the Royal Scots and the KOSB go to Hong Kong in the meantime? Will they be amalgamated in Hong Kong or will they return home before that occurs?
The Government tell us that they will be assessing commitments during the next three years. I hope that if more infantry are required they will not try to convert gunners or sappers. I speak as a gunner. Of course gunners have to be able to act as infantry. The small forward teams of gunners always had to be well trained in small arms to join with the infantry in war in situations where everyone was needed—for example, to repel a counter-attack. I was wounded in such a situation when engaged in infantry fighting. It would be a false economy, however, to try to make gunners and infantry interchangeable. The infantry soldier is an all-rounder, but his training is not as simple now as it used to be. The Royal Artillery is being equipped with very effective new weapons. That is good news. However, special training is needed. The reduced ranks of the gunners will be required to meet the tasks presented by adequately manning their technological hardware.
If while carrying out their continuing assessment the Government find that they need more infantry, I urge them to remember the contribution which the Scottish regiments make and to recognise that they are parting with an asset, which may be intangible, but is of immense value to the country.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, it seems to me that the Scottish regiments are to be cut due to the dictates of the Treasury against the advice of the Army. When one considers that the Army has developed with a specific purpose in mind—the efficient conduct of war—that is worrying, to say the least. In a full scale defence review, we must start by analysing the changing threat, consider Britain's obligations and responsibilities, and finally make a financial judgment about the resources needed to meet them. The latter must be the last step, not the first as this Government seem to believe.
On these Benches we wish to see a peace dividend, but not at the expense of crippling the Army. At preset there is increasingly clear evidence that a reduction in numbers to a fighting force of 116,000 will not enable us to meet our present and prospective obligations. If the Government wish to save money they should consider scrapping the tactical air-to-surface missile programme which, even before construction, is obsolete in purpose due to the changes in Eastern Europe.
On my calculations the projected production costs of £3 billion at the higher end could feasibly release enough money to pay for 20 infantry battalions for 10 years. If infantry battalions are to be cut, it should be the weaker regiments that are cut—those which find it difficult to recruit and have few links with the local community. However, the Scottish regiments are among the best in those respects. They have contributed much to the strength of the Army in the past. That is why my party has been able to give a commitment to save the Gordon Highlanders.
With regard to the peace dividend, one can collect the dividend only if one has peace. As has been demonstrated in the past few years during which the British Army has gone to war twice, we live in uncertain times, especially with regard to the changing situation in Europe. To change the existing Army into a more technically-based army could prove in the long term to be more expensive than keeping an infantry-based army.
I admit to a personal interest in the Army, having recently been commissioned at Sandhurst. I was commissioned into REME which is a corps and not a regiment. In tactics lectures at Sandhurst we learned that the Army relies heavily on flexibility to meet its commitments. The financial constraints imposed on the Army will in the future apply a straitjacket on its ability to act freely. An article in the Daily Telegraph today referred to the situation at Sandhurst. The situation has become desperate. It has run out of blank ammunition. Wooden rattles have to be used to simulate machine-gun fire. During our infantry attack—it was farcical—we undertook flowing movement attacks, yet we used heavy machine-guns with links joining the bullets together. Having fired the machine-guns, we had to stop to pick up the links because none was available. If we required to fire the guns again we had to use those same links.
Financial restraints on a larger scale will force our hand. When one considers our future and perhaps growing commitments they will make it difficult for us
684
to act. The growing pressure can be seen in Northern Ireland. As the situation becomes more unstable the natural reaction will be to send more troops. That will put manpower constraints on other areas. We have instability in Eastern Europe, and in Yugoslavia. The proposed peace-keeping forces will need manpower from somewhere.
It is difficult to understand the financial cuts when one considers that the reappraisal of our position in Europe has not been fully justified politically. We are still negotiating with our political allies. We must re-evaluate the Army's position after such negotiation.
I wish to digress a little from the subject of the Scottish regiments. If the Army is to be cut—and the cuts in the Scottish regiments are but one aspect—there will be a growing commitment for the Territorial Army to be used. I should like the role of the Territorial Army to be fully explained. If the Army is forced into another Gulf situation, the Territorial Army might have to be used. At present the Territorial Army is suffering financial constraints. It is allowed to train only 35 days a year. The level of experience might make members unsuitable for the task.
When cuts in the Territorial Army are proposed, I should like the Government to consider the workings of the Queen's Order. The Queen's Order is the method by which the Territorial Army is called up. If that army is to be used, much groundwork needs to be done with regard to protection of the jobs of members of the Territorial Army and recompense for their employers.
The timetable for the cuts in the Scottish regiments has not been totally expressed. I hope that our future commitments will be fully evaluated before the regiments are cut and it is then found that there are not enough troops to carry out the tasks we hope to perform.
5.20 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, on 16th October in the debate on the defence estimates I spoke at some length on the defence cuts in general and the incidence of these on the Scottish regiments in particular. I declare an interest in so far as I live in the recruiting area of the Gordon Highlanders and members of my family have served in that fine regiment.
I shall not repeat what I said then, with one exception. It was made plain when cuts in the Army were considered that those regiments with a good recruiting record and low wastage would be retained in preference to those which had difficulty in maintaining their strength. Why then have four Scottish regiments to which both those criteria apply been selected to be halved instead of others which have difficulty recruiting and where wastage is high, some of which have one battalion? That does not make economic sense for wastage is very expensive. The noble Earl did not really answer that question on 16th October so I am asking it again.
What I want to ask the Government this evening is to initiate immediately a thorough review of the defence of this country and of our military

685
commitments worldwide or to give an assurance that the Select Committee on Defence in another place, sitting now, will do just that, so that as the world situation changes there will be a realistic basis on which future requirements may be assessed.
The prospect of the amalgamations of the King's Own Scottish Borderers with the Royal Scots and the Gordon Highlanders with the Queen's Own and of the so-called suspension of the 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards is affecting the morale of those regiments. Uncertainty about their future careers will most adversely affect the older men, NCOs and Officers for whom service in the Army is their chosen career and not just a short-term job or a stepping stone to another career. Inevitably they will be looking to safeguard their future and that of their families and cannot afford to let slip any opportunity of starting a new career which may present itself between now and 1993 or 1994.
Apart from that, planning for the suspension or amalgamations will have to start no later than next year. If as a result of a defence review it were to become apparent that the proposed suspension and amalgamations should not go ahead, it could well be difficult or impossible to return to the status quo if a number of the more senior and experienced personnel had already left or arranged to do so. That has happened before and could happen again. Therefore, a thorough review of our defence requirement is of considerable urgency.
5.23 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for tabling this Unstarred Question on the future programme for Scottish regiments including the Scots Guards. I wish to deal with the proposed plan for reorganising so many infantry regiments. I understand that there has been no in-depth analysis of the Army's ability to carry out its proposed commitment. The Government are shamefully advocating cuts in its strength which will leave it 10,000 men below the requirement.
I turn, first, to the Household Division. It is proposed to put the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards—my own regiment—2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards and 2nd Battalion Scots Guards into suspended animation. It is a well-known and incontrovertible fact that in the Brigade of Guards we must always balance our London duties with our full share of the operational role, whether overseas in the Rhine Army or elsewhere. Our battle honours added to our Colours in World War II bear witness to our pride in being rated eminent among other brother infantry battalions. We must never allow the pomp and circumstance image of our activities in London District to predominate.
It is universally agreed that the Household Division provides the finest pageantry in the world. A recent London Tourist Board report estimates that we contribute between £500 million and £1 billion to tourist revenue per annum. At present we are squeezed to carry out these functions with eight battalions. It would be utterly impossible for us to be reduced to five
686
by placing the three 2nd battalions in suspended animation. We would then have only two battalions overseas and attempt to perform London duties with the three remaining battalions. We would have to discontinue the Tower Guard, which 2 million tourists visit each year. The Queen's Birthday Parade would have to be reduced by 400 guardsmen, which of course would make it a much less glamorous spectacle. I understand that the Household Brigade arms plot might mean that a battalion would serve more than eight years in London District. That is totally unacceptable and wholly undesirable. I have commanded a battalion in London District and know that one year, two at the most, is enough.
I now turn to the Household Cavalry. Your Lordships may have read the letter written by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to The Times earlier this summer. It set out clearly the present neat and tight balance in the strengths of the three regiments of the Household Cavalry. The Life Guards are an armoured regiment in Rhine Army. The Blues and Royals are an armoured reconnaissance regiment at Combermere Barracks in Windsor. It is found that 40 per cent. of the troopers joining those two regiments can be persuaded to volunteer to join the mounted regiment in London. One cannot order people to ride horses. If one does they merely mount the horse on one side and fall off the other. It must be a desire that they wish to have kindled by the regiment.
The mounted regiment in London consists of a squadron of the Life Guards and a squadron of the Blues and Royals. The Ministry of Defence proposes to form a union of the two Household Cavalry regiments, making four squadrons; that is, two from each regiment. That would make it impossible to maintain the mounted regiment at present strength and efficiency. The best plan would be to keep the present two Household Cavalry regiments, one in Germany and the other at Windsor, and make both armoured reconnaissance regiments so that they could interchange between the overseas posting and Windsor. That would grant the wish of the Ministry of Defence to have one further armoured reconnaissance regiment.
After much thought and consultation with many officers, some very senior, I offer the following possible solutions to the Government. Naturally I have an enduring admiration for the Royal Air Force. During World War II I was often supported by tactical air forces, by fighter commands and even bomber commands at Caen. How right we are to bring forward the provision of European fighter aircraft to enhance its present capacity. However, I cannot see how three battalions of the RAF Regiment can be justified in the present climate. They were only created in the last war and their present function can surely be carried out by normal infantry battalions.
Secondly, I challenge the wisdom of retaining two Gurkha battalions in the United Kingdom order of battle. I fought alongside the Gurkhas of the 8th Indian Division when I was in 4th Armoured Brigade at the crossing of the River Sangro in Italy. I am full of admiration for their bravery. As your Lordships

687
know, by night they are particularly fearsome. However, the Gurkhas cannot be employed in Northern Ireland, nor were they used in the recent Gulf war. After 1997 there will be no place for the Gurkhas in Hong Kong. We should cease employing Gurkhas as part of the British Army. But let us offer to help the Gurkha battalion with the Sultan of Brunei, which I have seen when I have been there on banking tours, and those in the Kingdom of Nepal. We can offer training assistance and courses in England and perhaps we can send out an infantry battalion or smaller unit to train in Nepal. We should keep our long historical liaison with the Gurkhas and the Kingdom of Nepal. However, I see no place for them in the order of battle after we have given up Hong Kong.
Thirdly, I cannot think it wise to keep as many as three battalions of the Parachute Regiment. It may be that two would now suffice. Finally, as a suggestion, I wonder whether we need as many as three commando battalions of the Royal Marines.
I note that the timetable published last Tuesday does lot begin seriously until mid-1992 so there is time for the Secretary of State to digest those simple and self-evident enduring truths and amend his programme. When the noble Earl replies I hope that he will bear in mind that there is considerable disquiet on this subject among these normally loyal Back Benchers.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, although I am not a Scotsman and I only received part of my education in Scotland, I have a certain deal of sympathy with the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, as many Scottish battalions served under my great uncle in the First World War. I had the honour of serving for two years with the Gordons in Malaya some 20 years ago.
As the amalgamation of the Queen's Own Highlanders with the Gordon Highlanders and the Royal Scots with the King's Own Scottish Borderers is now planned for 1994, there is a distinct feeling within the Army that it may never happen. That is so for two reasons: first, there could be a change of government and with that, a change of heart; secondly, as the tail end of the reduction is reached the Government, despite being told often enough, will find that there are not enough infantry battalions to meet all the commitments which currently exist.
I found it distressing to read in the Sunday Times on 10th November that the Government plan to buy a sub-strategic nuclear missile called TASM at a cost of more than £2.5 billion. The report, if correct, goes on to state that it is not clear just who Britain plans to attack with such a nuclear weapon and under what circumstances. I find that particularly galling when one knows all too well that for a lesser sum of money we could preserve regular Scottish infantry battalions which carry out an excellent job. We need to preserve them.
This evening, I wish to restrict my comments to the Territorial Army in Scotland. The effects of the options for change as regards the Territorial Army are
688
still under discussion and the final decisions have yet to be made. Unlike the regular Army, where both jobs and housing are the principal anxieties during the rundown, in the Territorial Army if a battalion or company is to disband, the volunteer quickly loses interest and the cohesion of the unit is lost.
In Scotland the TA reorganisation appears both logical and rational. However, the loss of some 1,200 posts in Edinburgh and Glasgow, including the 15th Parachute Battalion, except for one element appears particularly harsh. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to assure the House that when a decision is finally agreed, the implementation will follow quickly and will not be delayed due to lack of funds or further indecision, otherwise volunteers will leave and not return.
Generally, TA battalions in Scotland are to be reduced from four or five companies to three companies and a headquarter company. It is most disturbing to learn that 21 per cent. of the new establishment is to he made up of regular reservists. If the battalion is not up to strength, that percentage will increase.
The problem which will face commanding officers in the future is how they will get the regular reservists in to train other than on the one mandatory day per year when they must have their kit checked and their fitness assessed by the medical officer. That is all part of the mechanism of the calling in and training of reserves. No commanding officer can expect to train his soldiers efficiently unless a high proportion of his TA soldiers come in. I hope very much that the number of regular reservists will be much reduced in TA battalions and that the current study being undertaken will be acted upon. If, as I believe, the law must be changed then I hope that parliamentary time will be made available for that to happen.
I must express anxiety also about the new infantry TA battalions in Scotland. There is a belief that those battalions committed to the RRC and general reserve will not receive the support weapons—both milan and mortars—with which they need to train in order to carry out their role effectively. I very much hope that the battalions will receive the equipment which they need to train and they will not have to resort to flags and rattles or—should I say? —pikes, staves and bagpipes.
If Britain is to continue to play a leading role in NATO and to be the backbone of the RRC, its strength must be credible and its forces properly equipped. The servicemen from Scotland are the best quality men and women which we have anywhere in Britain. They are the bravest and most dedicated and the best recruited. They are our security and deserve our strongest support either as regulars, reservists or volunteers while they are in uniform and serving the nation.
5.39 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on his magnificent speech. He has had considerable experience of the Armed Forces. I have not had very great experience. I went into the Army because when

689
I was at Oxford my father, quite rightly, thought that I would spend most of my time hunting. Therefore, I was shipped off—I am not sure if that is the right word—to the Black Watch depot where I was extremely fortunate. I must say that I greatly enjoyed myself at the depot and did all the necessary things that one had to do there.
I then found myself in not such a pleasant place, the St. Mary Hill barracks in Glasgow. It must have been one of the oldest and worst barracks in the British Army; it has now been pulled down. However, I enjoyed that experience.
I was in the Black Watch. Though the Black Watch is the senior Highland regiment, much of its recruitment in those days came from the factories and especially from the jute mills in Dundee. The Jocks were small men. They were not like the Highlanders. A lot of our NCOs were tall but the Jocks were small; but by heavens they were tough. The Germans in the First World War used to call the Highlanders, "The women from Hell". However, it would be right to call the Black Watch Jocks, with whom I was fortunate enough to serve, "The women from Hell". The reason for that name was of course because they wore kilts.
It is appalling that the Secretary of State decreed on 1st July—although I hope that it will not be carried out—that four regiments of the Highland Brigade are to be amalgamated. It is terrible that the Queen's Own Highlanders are to be amalgamated. The Seaforth Highlanders were amalgamated, I believe, in 1960, so it has happened before. I hope it does not happen again.
The Highlanders have always had fame in the British Army as being tremendous soldiers. They have probably fought in more wars than there are letters in the alphabet. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind and will not carry forward the amalgamations.
In this time of high unemployment it is foolish of the Government to allow the Secretary of State for Defence to amalgamate the regiments. It will mean throwing people onto the labour market and will cause a great deal of unemployment. As noble Lords are aware, at this time we are not popular in Scotland in that regard. Unemployment is hard on many Jocks in Scotland, especially in the north where it is not easy to find work. I can only say that I hope that that will not come to pass.
I have not told your Lordships much about the Army. As I was always a junior officer I have not had tremendous experience in the Army. I have had experience in other spheres but my experience in the Army was only for three or four years. I hope that I have not detained your Lordships for too long.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject today. As a past regular soldier in the Royal Scots, I can declare an interest.
Along with a growing multitude of people I am convinced that by the summer of 1994 the inequities to
690
Scotland on the proposed amalgamations will be corrected. The recent request from the King's Regiment, (which belongs to the unscathed King's Division) for support from the Scottish Division during its next tour in Northern Ireland is a strong signal that we need more Scottish soldiers, not less.
Yesterday I attended the defence Select Committee in another place and heard that there are options in the Options for Change. Proposed amalgamations are geared over a period of several years so corrections and changes can be made. In view of the request from the King's Regiment, perhaps corrections should be implemented soon.
Yesterday, in the same committee in another place I heard that the strategy for proposed amalgamations was based on recruiting. I must ask how that is justified for the Scottish Division—maybe it is a special case. The subject of recruiting has been well addressed in the debate. However, I must add another aspect—the potential. It is thought that one of the criteria for recruitment was population. Are we aware that more Scotsmen per capita take the Queen's shilling than in any other area of the country? Surely we should give Scotland better treatment, not worse.
The training of our future officers will be as important as ever, and more so in an Army that requires greater flexibility. A good yardstick of the quality and professionalism of a regiment is often geared by the amount of staff representation at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. The Scottish Division is better represented in all areas of training except perhaps one—drill—where we defer to the experts, including in my case the poor soul who was responsible for my performance at Sandhurst. He was of course a Scots Guardsman.
Sadly, the effects of these uninitiated proposals are already taking their toll. Our future military leaders are indicating by open choice, as they always have, that they are going for regiments with a certain future. I heard it rumoured that the Secretary of State for Defence considers that the Army in Scotland will be greater following the amalgamations than before. His argument about labelling various artillery regiments as Scottish cuts no ice. Gunners join the Royal Regiment of Artillery not the Scottish artillery, and the level of their representation will remain the same as before. Regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (which is half Welsh) and the 4th Regiment of the Royal Tank Regiment, add nothing to this particular equation.
It was recently reported in the press as an argument for the inequities of the proposed amalgamations, that anyway the Scottish regiments have been amalgamated umpteen times in the past. In over 350 years of loyal service, the Royal Scots have never been amalgamated or merged or whatever and neither have the King's Own Scottish Borderers. This arranged marriage was uncalled for and unwarranted. I was appalled to learn that these fine and well-recruited regiments were never even consulted about the proposals.
I will say again in this House that the officers and soldiers of these great regiments have agreed under loyal oath not to express their views publicly, but in private they feel immense betrayal. It is time for the

691
Secretary of State for Defence to admit that the Scottish Division is a special case and before any more damage is done he should exercise his options in Options for Change. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned earlier, it is worth remembering that in these unstable and potentially dangerous times, Scottish regiments have in the past helped save the Union. If the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside last week is any indication, these great regiments may be required again.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for putting down this Unstarred Question. The turnout on a Thursday at this time is an indication of just how strong feelings are on this subject. Personally, I have no intention of becoming an amateur strategist in company such as we have here tonight. There are many experts present. From the speech that I have heard and from my knowledge of him, I do not believe that anyone has any greater knowledge than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who raised the subject.
However, no one could be anything but anxious at the very great uncertainties that the Government have managed to create in dealing with the Scottish part of the defence review. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others, referred to the reply given the other evening by Mr. Archie Hamilton, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. For the first time an absolute indication was given of how the regiments would amalgamate, which regiments would cease to exist or be put in abeyance. We discovered that it will be 1994 before positive action will be taken concerning the Scottish regiments. However, I hope that the army is sufficiently concerned for its men that there will be much planning taking place concerning what may happen about family housing for those soldiers who may be made redundant and that some training will be available to help them in to civilian jobs.
Mr. Hamilton puts the Scottish changes into 1994. I can hardly believe that responsible Ministers did not know the date and were unable to be privy to the thinking of the Ministry of Defence. They prevaricated and spoke with many voices which caused quite unnecessary confusion. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Ian Lang, and the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, clearly suggested—and this is the difficulty—that the plan for a merger between two of the Scottish regiments would be positively reviewed. That was strongly implied in The Times of 2nd November. They were the two regiments which were mentioned in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election.
Mr. Hamilton, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, said that "a lot could change" between now and the planned mergers of 1993–94. That was said in the run-up to the by-election in Kincardine and Deeside. Noble Lords may be aware that we were to have a candidate there whose slogan was to be "Save the Gordons". Somehow or other it appeared that
692
some tacit understanding was reached with the group of people who were intending to put up such a candidate which persuaded them to think again.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, a very large petition containing 800,000 signatures was presented to another place on 16th October. In a debate in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, said that the Scottish regiments felt betrayed. The noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, said that there was a feeling of betrayal in some of the Scottish regiments. In our debate, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said that the Treasury was at the bottom of the changes which were finance-led rather than defence-led.
Rather unusually, I wish to put up a plea for the Secretary of State for Defence whom I knew very well in the other place. He is one of the most conscientious Members. I disagreed with him on very many things. I sat with him on committees for very long periods. I believe that he is perfectly clear in his own mind that he examined the matter very fully and that he did the best he could with the decisions that he had to make. If one returns to what he said at the Conservative Party Conference, one will get an idea of the quality of the man. For all my disagreement with him, I believe that he is a man of great courage, strength of character and with a strong sense of duty.
A lobby at the Conservative Conference, led by Lieutenant General John MacMillan, who is the most senior recently retired general officer commanding Scotland, protested at the plans which would lead to the demise of some of Scotland's most famous regiments. I am referring to the Guardian of 11th October. That states:
"Mr. King argued that change had to come. Britain could not go on as before, when there were now two million fewer people facing us as adversaries in the Warsaw Pact. He sought to reassure by pointing out that Britain's reduction of 21 per cent. were less than those of several of our allies".
Mr. King said:
"What people want to know is where they stand. That's why we haven't ducked it;"—
I would not expect Tom King to do that—
"that is why we didn't pretend it wouldn't happen. Of course, I know it's politically inconvenient to face up to it now, but we have put our duty to our servicemen first".
I believe that to be a perfectly reasonable and understanding attitude on the part of the Minister of Defence. He works out with his experts what he believes must be done. Whether the issue is Treasury-led or by common sense and the fact that the world has changed is less important. The fact is that the Minister made a decision with all the knowledge that he had.
The noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, made a suggestion which I notice was also referred to obliquely in the Daily Telegraph of 23rd October. With this quotation I shall finish:
"Defence ministers have assured Scottish Tories—furious about the merger of famous Scottish regiments—that their outfits will not lose their cap badges until the summer of 1994. Then the Queen's Own Highlanders will link up with the Gordon Highlanders and the Royal Scots with the King's Own Scottish Borderers. The delay, of course, could allow the electorate some say in their fate".
And as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, has also suggested today:

693
"A Labour government might just reprieve them at the expense of the fourth Trident submarine or fewer Tornados.
Should Labour reverse the Scottish cuts, defence boffins believe it will serve the Tories right. 'The Government could not have timed the cuts worse', says one. 'The whole plan has been scuppered by their dithering over the election. All these announcements, you see, were supposed to take place after the election, in the early days of the new Tory government"'.
I am very pleased that someone of the calibre of Tom King, the Secretary of State, decided that it had to be done and that the election was an irrelevance.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the timetable for implementing changes in the Army's regimental structure, part of our programme for Defence in the 90s was announced in another place last Monday.
I shall attempt to address most of my remarks this evening to the situation on the Scottish regiments, as opposed to the whole defence debate in general, since think your Lordships will agree that we have debated the matter two or three times in the past two or three weeks. Although I shall attempt to pick up some of the questions which noble Lords have raised I shall make most of the points concerning Scottish regiments. The changes will be phased in gradually over a period of four years. As far as Scottish Infantry is concerned, it is planned that the amalgamation of both the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers and of the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders, will take place in 1994. In the case of the Gordon Highlanders, this timing will allow the regiment's bicentenary to be celebrated before amalgamation with the Queens's Own Highlanders. In the Royal Armoured Corps, the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, recruited from Scotland, will amalgamate with the 1st Royal Tank Regiment in 1993.
It is important to view these changes in the wider context of the very far-reaching changes in Eastern Europe and the consequential effect upon the size of the future Armed Forces of the NATO and other allied nations—a point to which my noble friend Lord Campbell referred. Your Lordships will be well aware of events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, which have led us and our NATO allies to restructure our Armed Forces. We are all agreed that we need to restructure in a prudent fashion: we still live in an uncertain world. The development of ideas on the future size and shape of the Army has therefore been approached with suitable caution and in consultation with our NATO allies. The alliance is in agreement that we need to maintain flexible and effective forces. But it is the consensus of the alliance that it would not be appropriate to maintain forces at present levels. All nations of the alliance understand the need to reduce the size of their forces. And once again I have to make it quite clear that our reductions were based on our strategic requirements, not —I repeat, not—for financial reasons. The reduction in the British Army will be considerable. Indeed it is of a magnitude which does not make it possible to meet the wishes of all those who are anxious about the future of particular regiments or other units.
Nevertheless, we have paid particular attention to
694
regimental anxieties—whether the regiments be Scottish, Irish, English or Welsh. I can assure you that our decisions have not been taken lightly, nor without heartache. They have been taken with care and consideration. No regiment wishes to lose its cherished identity and there is not a regiment in the British Army which would not provide a compelling case for its retention. That is part of the strength of our system. I am not blind to the fact that our decisions have been met with considerable disappointment, but unless we deny the need for any response to the events of the past three years, that was inevitable. Your Lordships will know that amalgamations are not new and that the regimental system has always evolved and never remained static. Change is as much part of the tradition as is continuity. New regiments arise; but if the will is there, they will preserve within them the identities, the loyalties and affiliations of the old.
I recognise the depth of feeling among those associated with the Scottish regiments and the degree of support they receive from the local community. These affiliations will be the backbone of the new regiments.
I must at this point be quite clear. Scotland has not been singled out to bear a disproportionate share of the reductions. Despite the understandable sadness, the fact is that the proportion of Scottish units in the Army as a whole will increase rather than decrease. Four of the other five Infantry Divisions will be reduced by a greater percentage than the Scottish Division. Although the Scottish infantry will represent broadly the same proportion of the infantry as a whole as they do now, the Royal Armoured Corps Scottish representation will increase. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards remain unaffected and there will continue to be a Scottish presence in the amalgamated 1st and 4th Royal Tank Regiment. In much the same way none of the three Scottish artillery regiments will be affected. The 19 and 40 Field Regiments and the 16 Air Defence Regiment will continue as before. In short, Scottish units will provide a bigger share of armour and artillery—to dispute the point that my noble friend Lord Wedgwood has made.
Turning to the timetable in general, while the overall driving force behind it was an operational necessity, wherever possible we have tried to accommodate the wishes of regiments themselves. As I have already said, by amalgamating in 1994, the Gordons will be able to celebrate their bicentenary.
I should now like briefly to pick up some of the important points made by your Lordships this evening. I shall take first the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about when amalgamations will take place. Although it is not our policy to comment on future deployments of individual regiments, it is planned that both amalgamations will take place in the United Kingdom. As regards recruiting—which again my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—the past and present recruitment patterns was just one of the many factors which the Army board considered in coming to their conclusions. The board also considered future

695
recruitment predictions, past amalgamations and the need to maintain appropriate regional representation across the country. These and many other factors relating to individual regiments had to be balanced by the board with the needs of the Army as a whole when coming to their decisions.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked about a defence review. We have carried out a comprehensive review of our commitments in the light of enormous changes in the European security situation. There is no need for further review. I can say from my visits to military establishments that I have detected a very clear determination among our servicemen and women to help ensure that the reductions in the Armed Forces are implemented quickly and successfully It is now important for the well-being of all servicemen and women that we do just that.
It is not helpful to regiments to attempt to prolong this debate. That only gives false hope and continuing uncertainty which could be very damaging to the welfare of those currently serving and to the future of the new regiments.
My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk was concerned about the Household Cavalry. The structure of the combined regiment will mean that the Household Cavalry mounted regiment will be made up, as it is now, of two sabre squadrons, one from each cap badge, plus a jointly manned headquarters squadron. The Household Cavalry reconnaissance regiment will be one of two regular reconnaissance regiments. It will consist of four reconnaissance squadrons, two of each cap badge, plus a jointly manned headquarters squadron.
Each of the present cavalry regiments will have three squadrons, two of which will be in armoured reconnaissance and one in a mounted role at any one time. A second regular reconnaissance regiment will be formed through the amalgamation of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars and the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars. The regiment will act in support of the ARRC and he based in Germany, and the order of batty identical to the Household Cavalry reconnaissance regiment with which it will exchange roles and
696
station on arms plot moves. Two regiments will reduce from a total of eight sabre squadrons to six in line with reduced operational requirements. The corps TA reconnaissance regiment role is in support of the corps commander of the ARRC. It will consist of four reconnaissance squadrons and a headquarters squadron.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, referred to the Territorial Army, which I know is an important subject in your Lordships' House. Since decisions have yet to he taken, as the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, is perfectly aware, we are not in a position at this stage to comment specifically on its future role or on individual units. I can assure the House, however, that the essential role of the reserve forces will be maintained in our new force structure and consultations are going on at present with the TAVR associations. We hope to be able to make an announcement before the end of the year on the way ahead for the TA.
In drawing to a close, I must emphasise that the decisions we have taken are firm and final. We will need to reconsider our decisions only if there are major changes in future commitments which require additional long-term deployment. It would he misleading to those concerned if we were to suggest otherwise. In the years to come I am sure we will feel equal pride in the regiments which have risen from the old and which are the successors to traditions that will not be lost but will evolve. On many occasions the British Army has shown that it can adapt successfully to change and we have absolute confidence in its ability to make a grand success of the new structure.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments, the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past six o'clock.

  NHS TRUSTS: CLAIMS LIABILITIES
  NHS TRUSTS: CLAIMS LIABILITIES
  BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL
  BROADCASTING STANDARDS COUNCIL
  FIRE SAFETY IN HOTELS
  FIRE SAFETY IN HOTELS
  BALLISTIC MISSILES: DEFENCE
  BALLISTIC MISSILES: DEFENCE
  "BRILLIANT EYES" SATELLITES
  "BRILLIANT EYES" SATELLITES
  ABM TREATY
  ABM TREATY
  MINEWORKERS: REDUNDANCY PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  MINEWORKERS: REDUNDANCY PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS
  COAL MINES
  COAL MINES
  SINGLE INSURANCE MARKET REPORT RESPONSE
  SINGLE INSURANCE MARKET REPORT RESPONSE
  FCO PAPERS
  FCO PAPERS