Sitting of 20 October 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    DURHAM MARKETS COMPANY BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    CITY OF BRISTOL (PORTISHEAD DOCKS) BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday next.

    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Student Loans Scheme
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his latest estimate of the number of defaulters on payments granted under the student loans scheme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Nigel Forman): As at 30 September, 5,174 borrowers owed two or more monthly instalments. That represents 9.1 per cent. of those who should be repaying their loans on time.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that that figure is without doubt an underestimate for the future? There will be many more people struggling to pay and many people leaving their courses. Why do not the Government begin to scrap the scheme, so that people like me—who come from backgrounds that are not academic and who are not used to taking on debts in the family—are not dissuaded from taking up further and higher education? Many people will not take up higher education because of the Government's student loans scheme.
    Mr. Forman: There is absolutely no evidence that the student loans scheme has deterred participation in higher education—indeed, quite the contrary. The numbers have increased staggeringly during the past 10 or 12 years and will continue to do so while quality is maintained.
    Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend confirm that student support in the United Kingdom remains the most generous in the western world? Will he confirm that the number of students has increased, from a low point of less than 700,000 under the Labour Government, to substantially more than 1 million today? Will he further confirm that the target group of students was one in eight when Labour was in office, has fallen to one in four and is set to fall to one in three?
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the package of support for students in this country is generous by international standards. Grants and loans together are now worth about 40 per cent. more than three years ago when there were grants alone.

    Teachers' Pay and Conditions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent meetings he has had with teachers' trade union representatives to discuss teachers' pay and conditions of service.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I have asked the School Teachers Review Body to report on schoolteachers' pay and conditions in 1993–94. Teachers' pay is not a matter for negotiation between teachers' unions and the holder of my office.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with mass unemployment growing like a cancer in every town and city in Britain, teachers have got one hell of a job to do in trying to motivate young men and women to do

    303
    better, because those young people see their brothers and sisters and friends without a job for three or four years? At this time, is it not totally wrong for the Government to say to teachers and their representatives that they are not fit to do their job and that they should have a pay freeze?
    The Secretary of State should take it on board that I believe that, instead of a pay freeze for teachers and assessment of teachers, this Cabinet should be assessed. If members of the Cabinet had to pass a test, they would not qualify to do The Sun crossword.
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is certainly a very vigorous exponent of the National Union of Teachers' case. He is a much better exponent of it than many of its leaders—I increasingly think of the hon. Gentleman as a kind of thinking man's Doug McAvoy.
    I believe that teachers do an excellent job. Since 1979, they have received an increase in their pay of 46 per cent. in real terms. There is a minimum number of vacancies for teachers and people are crowding to join that very popular and successful profession.
    Mr. Rowe: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to invent a better system for dealing with those teachers who, through either sickness or incapacity, need to leave the service? It often takes months and months for them to do so, which means that the schools of which they are a member of the staff are left paralysed as to whether to appoint another teacher. Frequently those schools have to appoint another teacher, to the detriment of their other expenditure.
    Mr. Patten: I am not aware of any recent complaints about this issue, but if my hon. Friend wants to draw any particular complaints to my attention I shall look at them. The average age of retirement for teachers is 59, but, occasionally, some teachers, for a host of reasons, have to leave the profession early. It is quite right that their departure should be part of a smooth transition, in their interests and those of their families.
    At the moment, many people wish to join the profession. This autumn we expected 24,000 student teachers to enter teacher training colleges for the first year, but 29,000 did so because the profession is so appealing and buoyant under the Government.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State accept that his attitude towards teachers' pay and his many other recent attacks on teachers are lowering the morale of the teaching profession? What is his reaction to the comments made in an allegedly confidential document from the Conservative research department which, referring to the Secretary of State, spoke of
    "Too much 'fire and brimstone' and ill-defined attacks on education 'experts'"
    and said that he was doing little to raise morale in the education profession?
    Mr. Patten: In view of the personal attacks that the hon. Gentleman has made on me, I should like him to substantiate them by placing in the Library of the House any evidence of a single occasion when he can find attributed to me—in quotes or in any other form—attacks on the teaching profession. If he cannot do that, I hope that he will come here to apologise, because I greatly value the teaching profession. During our very successful party
    304
    conference in Brighton a week ago, we could see just how the teaching profession was applauded during my excellent speech.
    The boy who prepared the alleged report from Conservative central office was apparently a pretty inefficient character. He has now left the Department and he has resigned from the Conservative party. It is generally thought that he was a sleeper for the Liberal party.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the large increase in real pay given to teachers in the past 10 years and the fact that record numbers wish to join the profession now. Does my right hon. Friend agree that most good teachers welcome appraisal and incentive systems that are based on school needs rather than those of the local authority? As a result, most of them welcome the local management of schools, which gives them the opportunity to have their salary related more closely to their performance.
    Mr. Patten: Good educational standards such as those promoted by teachers underpin the values of our nation, and we should be grateful to them for that. The other side of that coin is to make it possible for performance-related pay to be available for the teachers in schools so that their performance may be recognised. The fact that there has been a 46 per cent. real terms increase in teachers' take-home pay since 1979, with the average salary for a teacher in England now being £20,630, speaks for itself.

    Two-year Degree Courses
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's policy on the introduction of two-year degree courses.
    Mr. Forman: The Government believe that there is scope for providing some existing courses on a more intensive basis, including accelerated degrees. It is for institutions to decide whether to develop such courses. The Government have no intention of imposing a uniform pattern.
    Mr. Cousins: If the Minister really believes in quality and standards in higher education, he must face the fact that many vice-chancellors are telling their staff that they have a Government who do not understand their problems and do not support them. Is he aware that, in every institution of higher education, people are being told that they must expect during the lifetime of the present Government a doubling of student numbers, with no increase in real resources? Is he further aware that we are facing the prospect of standards and quality in higher education being gradually reduced to something like fourth-rate battery chickens, directly as a result of the Government's policies and their decisions on resources?
    Mr. Forman: I am not sure that that supplementary question deserves a reply, but, as I am in a generous mood, I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the funding of higher education will continue to attract a fair share of resources within public expenditure and that the expansion of higher education, which is viewed on the basis of projections rather than targets. is likely to continue in the 1990s, while quality is maintained. We intend to maintain quality by ensuring that proper arrangements are in place at the institutional level and the level of the funding council.

    Student Loans Scheme
    Mr. Battle:: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students applied for student loans during the last academic year.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students applied for student loans in the academic year 1991–92; and what was the figure for the previous year.
    Mr. Forman: About 264,000 students applied for a loan in 1991–92. That compares with some 192,000 students in the previous academic year.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that, even before the term begins, students in Leeds are forced to pay half their maximum loans—about £400—on securing their accommodation? How on earth does he expect students to avoid being in debt to the tune of about £2,000 before their courses end? It is all very well for him to say that they will have jobs and therefore will be able to pay that money off, but why will the Government not bring forward proposals so that students are not saddled with crippling debt?
    Mr. Forman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not discovered as a result of his investigation of the issues that regional variations in housing costs are among the factors taken into account when access funds are used. The hon. Gentleman was talking about hardship cases—a familiar cry from Labour Members. The vast majority of students are not in hardship, there is no evidence of such hardship, and my evidence for saying that is that the take-up rate of student loans in the last full academic year—the loans are available to all students who want them—was about only 37 per cent.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister recall that, when we debated the Bill applying to student loans, we were told that there would be a big reduction in the numbers taking degrees? What has been the reduction?
    Mr. Forman: There has been absolutely no reduction in the number of people taking degrees. Indeed, the number of degrees taken has gone up consistently under Conservative rule and the quality of those degrees has been maintained. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
    Mr. Rooker: Although we welcome the recently announced Government survey of student incomes, we argue that such a survey is not strictly necessary. The Minister claims that there is no hardship among students. I urge him to check at random among all the higher educational institutes throughout the country to see the true situation. Will he take it from me that at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 72 per cent. of students eligible for the full grant are on an overdraft, one fifth of students whose parents are due to pay a contribution do not do so, or do not do so in full, and two thirds of students receive no extra support at all from their parents? Is he further aware that 22 per cent.—more than one fifth of students—have had to consider leaving university because of the financial hardship which they are suffering?
    Mr. Forman: May I begin my reply in a conciliatory spirit by welcoming the hon. Member for Birmingham,
    306
    Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to his new responsibilities on the Front Bench. Many of us on this side of the House think that he should have been there a long time ago.
    It would be good to know whether the evidence that the hon. Gentleman quotes includes students who have applied for a standard student loan. The first question that he should ask is whether they have done so. Access funds are targeted at students in greatest need and the hon. Gentleman will know from his research that there is provision in certain cases—mature students and those with dependants or disabilities—for special help to be available through the social security system. The overall package of student support is generous in this country; indeed, it is more generous than in most of our competitor countries.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Our excellent university of Lancaster has 10 applicants for every place available because we offer the courses that students want and have the fifth highest pass rate in the country. We are building more student accommodation.
    Mr. Forman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on always speaking up for Lancaster university. I can vouch for the fact that it is an excellent institution. It was the first university that I visited when taking up my responsibilities, and I agree with the main points that my hon. Friend made.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Do students from other European Community countries studying at universities in the United Kingdom have a right of access to those student loans?
    Mr. Forman: I shall need to let the right hon. Gentleman know about that and shall write to him accordingly.

    Local Management of Schools
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will alter the LMS budget formula.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): The local management of schools budget formula is a matter for each local education authority to determine within the statutory framework. We shall, however, be consulting later in the year on the need for revisions to the LMS framework to take effect from April 1994.
    Mr. Cohen: I welcome that reply, although I hope that the revisions will be brought forward to April 1993. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no Government-originated cuts next year in LMS budgets in schools? Does he understand that many experienced teachers are ending up on the scrap heap because the LMS formula discriminates against them?
    Mr. Forth: There is no evidence whatever for the hon. Gentleman's over-dramatic assertion. I assure him that the local management of schools systems is working extremely well and that all the heads and teachers to whom I talk say that they would never want to go back to previous systems. We believe in the system, in local school decision making, and we think that there is growing evidence that the more decision making is given to heads, teachers and governors, the better is the quality of education decision making at local level. We are fully committed to that.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: My hon. Friend will know of my concern about certain aspects of how the formula operates, particularly with regard to the average in and actual out of teachers' salaries. Will he assure me that, at the end of the review period, the matter will be looked at in detail? The curious effect is that it does not extend choice to governors in their appointment of staff but limits it, if the formula continues to discriminate against that aspect of our budgets.
    Mr. Forth: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concerns, which he has expressed frequently and most eloquently. I assure him that the review will cover all matters relating to the local management of schools, including the average actual that he mentioned. However, we must not lose faith with those authorities and schools that have demonstrated that they are well able to make the local management of schools system work, including the average actual salary matter. In our review, we shall take that very much into consideration. We must not penalise those who have made it work well, in an effort to bale out those who cannot or will not make it work properly.

    Access Funds
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the criteria used for determining the allocation of access funds.
    Mr. Forman: Very few. The allocation criteria are a matter for institutions, provided that they are consistent with the Department's general guidance on the use of access funds.
    Mr. Michie: The Minister should be aware of the reasons for setting up the access fund. It was to provide financial help to students in further and higher education whose education was being inhibited because of financial constraints, problems and difficulties. The Minister must be aware of the problem that I brought to his attention—a lone parent with two children was refused an access grant to finish her degree course, and that jeopardised her course's future. Will he look at the criteria again to make sure that it does not discriminate against lone parents, who are mainly women? Will he also increase the measly £26 million a year? After all, the Government can afford it because they took £70 million from student housing benefit.
    Mr. Forman: As the hon. Gentleman says, he and I have corresponded about his constituent, Sheena Borthwick, who is a student at Sheffield Hallam university. As he knows, decisions in this case and in similar cases are best taken by the higher education institutions themselves because they are closest to the problems. Access funds are generous if properly targeted, and the £26 million for this year is perfectly adequate for the task if institutions manage the funds properly and concentrate on cases of real need.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that students appreciate the availability of access funds which are directed to those who are most in need? Does he agree also that, during the general election, the Labour party was callous to suggest that there was money for all, money for the mushrooming number of students who are entering further and higher education, because Labour did not say
    308
    where the money would come from and did not come clean and tell young people who wanted to enter further and higher education how many of them would have been deprived of the opportunity to benefit from that education?
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour specialises in uncosted promises and unbankable assurances. There is no reason why we should pay any attention to Labour's higher education policy.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister speaks about uncosted promises. Will he confirm that when the hardship funds were set up the Treasury saved £100 million on housing benefit and income support that students could no longer claim? Will he also confirm that many local authorities are no longer able to provide discretionary grants to students who want to enter further education? Yesterday, there was an announcement about pit closures. The nation and many of the people who will be thrown out of work could benefit from training and education. Has the Secretary of State been asked by the Department of Employment to make extra money available through hardship funds and discretionary grants in areas where unemployment will result from the closures?
    Mr. Forman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new Front-Bench responsibility. The answer to his latter question is that the training and enterprise councils are taking a lead.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about discretionary awards and the position of local authorities. In 1992–93, local authorities enjoyed an overall increase in their education funding of some 7 per cent. Well-managed local authorities, of which many are Conservative, are able to manage within that sum and provide discretionary awards where they are justified.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend look into the unnecessary hardship being caused to students from Derbyshire where, for no reason other than budgetary and administrative incompetence by the county council, many students have not yet received their mandatory awards? Many others have been on their courses for more than a month and have not been told whether they will receive their discretionary awards.
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend mentions a regrettable fact which merely shows the typical behaviour of Labour-controlled Derbyshire council. I note what my hon. Friend says and urge all councils to pay mandatory awards as efficiently and swiftly as possible.

    School Governors
    Mr. Martyn Jones:: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what respresentations he has had about changes in governors' responsibilities following the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988.
    Mr. Patten: Many governors have told me of the considerable satisfaction their role brings. I pay tribute to them for the job they are doing in such large numbers.
    Mr. Jones: I am surprised that the Minister has not had representations on this matter or has not noted Denbigh high school in my constituency which is worried that under LMS, and possibly under grant-maintained status, it may well be penalised under any number of Acts, such as the

    309
    Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Protection Act 1975, because there is no provision for the protection of the corporate identity of governing bodies. Does the Minister propose to do anything about that?
    Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised that I have not noticed his letter because if he sent it to me, it was a mistake to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for education in Wales. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by telling him to whom to address his letters. On his other point, about the corporate identity of governing bodies, we shall be addressing this in the forthcoming education Bill. I shall draw the point made by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has responsibility for the school to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: When my right hon. Friend looks at the responsibilities of governors, particularly in administration of LMS funds, will he see whether it is possible, in the review that has been announced to the House, to look at the cost of inspections under the admirable new system? Is he aware of a school not far from the House that is being required to pay £25,000 for a school inspection out of budget? Is that not an enormous imposition on a school in one year?
    Mr. Patten: Charging for school inspections will be a matter for Professor Stewart Sutherland, Her Majesty's inspector of schools and the head of the Office of Standards in Education. If my hon. Friend will give me the name of the school, I will draw his point to the attention of the chief inspector.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Flynn:: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the numbers of children in nursery education.
    Mr. Forth: It is for local authorities to determine the scale and form of provision for the under-fives, but the House would wish to be reminded that 175,000 more under-fives attended maintained schools in England in 1991 than in 1979 and that 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds now enjoy education or group child care or both.
    Mr. Flynn: That is a complacent answer. Is it not a continuing waste and a disgrace that 32 local education authorities in England provide no full-time nursery education whatever? Will the Minister congratulate the Welsh Labour-controlled local authorities which provide such splendid quality and such a high proportion of nursery education? Can the Minister explain why a child is far more likely to get a chance of nursery education if he lives in a Labour-controlled area than if he lives in a Conservative-controlled area?
    Mr. Forth: That illustrates the rather pathetic dogma peddled by Labour Members, which roughly runs along the lines of, "If it is not supplied by a local education authority, it cannot be supplied at all." Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that what we have seen develop over the past 12 or 13 years is a mixed and diverse
    310
    system which responds to the real needs of people in communities. Some of that may well be provided by local education authorities. A lot will be provided by the excellent other sources which make provision of the kind that parents want. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. John Marshall: How many European Community countries start compulsory education at the age of five?
    Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The answer is, hardly any.
    Mr. Cryer: How many?
    Mr. Forth: It is difficult to be specific as the criteria by which the starting age is defined vary from country to country. However, we can be certain that this country is providing universal provision at age five and substantial provision before that in the maintained sector. That is well up with most of our European partners, and ahead of most.

    Physically Handicapped Children
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones:: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps the Government propose to take to help integrate more physically handicapped children into the general school system.
    Mr. Patten: It has been the Government's policy since the enactment of the Education Act 1981 that all pupils with special education needs should, wherever practicable, be integrated into the mainstream of school education. Our proposals for legislation will significantly improve all aspects of the arrangements for provision for these pupils.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State note that before coming to this place I spent 10 years teaching in a school in which physically handicapped children were integrated? I can testify to the benefits of that experience both for those children and for able-bodied children. I am worried, however, about whether the Government will ring fence the money necessary to adapt schools so that physically handicapped children can be integrated, especially at a time when schools are being charged from their own finances. As I understand it, there is no extra funding for physically handicapped children but only for children with learning difficulties.
    Mr. Patten: I had not realised the hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters. I pay tribute to what he did in the circumstances that he has outlined. If ever he wants to talk to me about these issues, I shall be pleased to see him. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in England—my figures are for England only and not for Wales—the numbers of handicapped children being educated in mainstream schools has risen from 15 per cent. in 1985 to 37 per cent. during the current year. The Audit Commission has recently drawn to the attention of local authorities in its excellent report entitled "Getting in on the Act" just how much more local authorities could and should do in this direction.
    Sir John Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the campaign against grant-maintained schools is that they will not provide places for children with special education needs? Will he allay that fear and the fears of the parents involved?
    Mr. Patten: I can certainly do that. All grant-maintained schools will have to take pupils with special education needs. I deplore the attacks by some on grant-maintained schools, including the claim that such schools will not take pupils with special education needs. That is a straight insult to the professionalism of teachers in grant-maintained schools. We have only to consider excellent secondary schools which have gone grant maintained, such as Bishopshalt school in Uxbridge and St. Helen's school in Bluntisham, Cambridgeshire, to realise what centres of excellence grant-maintained schools are in dealing with children with special education needs. The schools should be congratulated.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State rectify an omission by his junior Minister? When his hon. Friend met the Spastics Society in September he welcomed the society's report, "A Hard Act to Follow", but somehow omitted to mention another report which found in favour of the Spastics Society and the National Union of Teachers on exactly the same subject, entitled "Within Reach: Access for Disabled Children to Mainstream Education". In both reports the underlying theme is that resourcing is crucial. Will the Secretary of State confirm that provision of resources for children with special needs will be made over and above the general education budget?
    Mr. Patten: I welcome any report made by the Spastics Society which is directed to this important area. The society has responded positively to the consultation document issued by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools. The response has been positive. Resources and available moneys are always important, but equally important is the way in which money is spent. In that respect, report after report has pointed the finger at local education authorities.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on progress with the development of grant-maintained schools.
    Mr. Patten: There are now 278 grant-maintained schools educating some 200,000 pupils. A further 30 schools are now approved. I announced yesterday that Sawtry village college, Cambridgeshire had become the 300th school to be approved for grant-maintained status. The applications of 179 more schools are currently being considered within the Department or being published. I am delighted that so many schools and parents have opted for this successful new way of managing themselves in such a short period.
    Ms. Estelle Morris rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. There is so much noise in the Chamber that I can barely hear what is happening. I ask the House to calm down so that I can call Mr. Jacques Arnold to ask his supplementary question.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know that three of the schools that he mentioned are to be found in Gravesham, where parents voted by a majority of five to one, rising to nine to one, in favour of grant-maintained schools. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that since such schools were established, thanks to local decision taking
    312
    and local value for money, those schools are showing greater flexibility and providing better education for the young people concerned?
    Mr. Patten: The schools in my hon. Friend's constituency are beacons of excellence, providing improved standards while also looking after those children who need help and support, including those with special education needs.
    The point about my hon. Friend's question is that debate in his area about whether to go grant maintained was free and open and without political bias. I utterly deplore the tactics of a number of Labour party members, and particularly of some hon. Members in sending parents unsolicited letters on House of Commons writing paper making the most vindictive threats about education in their area.
    Ms. Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State made it clear in his White Paper that he wishes all schools to seek grant-maintained status. Will he explain to the House what evidence he had about the performance of grant-maintained schools before encouraging mass opt-outs? In particular, will he tell the House how many grant-maintained schools have been subject to a full inspection by and report from Her Majesty's inspectorate?
    Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is none, but they will be inspected shortly because all schools will be subject to full inspection under the four-yearly cycle. The answer to the hon. Lady's first question will be evident in November when we publish the A-level and GCSE results of all schools in Britain.
    I forgot to mention who had written the worst of the recent circular letters in Birmingham on House of Commons writing paper. For the avoidance of doubt, it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley).
    Mr. Wilkinson: Such problems as there are with grant-maintained schools are problems of success. In that regard, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reassure local authorities such as mine—Hillingdon borough—with a high proportion of secondary schools which have opted out, that there will not be a disproportionately large withdrawal of Exchequer grant from those local education authorities?
    Mr. Patten: We always look after Hillingdon as well as we can. The Hillingdon local education authority should be congratulated on the way in which it has promoted grant-maintained schools. It has done an excellent job. It has brought schools to maturity, to the edge of the nest as it were, and they have flown. They are now running themselves and producing excellent standards in an efficient and caring environment.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: If opt-out was meant to highlight dissatisfaction with local education authorities, is it not clear that Conservative councils cause far more dissatisfaction? Is the Minister aware that there have been more opt-outs in Tory-controlled Kent and Essex than in all Labour authorities put together?
    Mr. Patten: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and I am glad that she got her question in before closing time. It is not surprising that in some parts of the country the number of schools opting to go grant maintained has thus far been small because Labour local

    313
    authorities have done everything possible to prevent ballots. However, within the past two weeks, in Bradford, Nottingham and Salford schools have balloted and have opted for the first time to become self-governing, seizing the chance given to them by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the general election campaign.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the national average of the proportion of three and four-year-olds in pre-school education in each local educational authority area; and what is the figure for Redbridge.
    Mr. Forth: In January 1991, 48 per cent. of three and four-year-olds in England attended maintained nursery or primary schools. In Redbridge, the proportion was 29 per cent.
    Mr. Gapes: Information that I obtained from the Library shows that in the current year the Government are giving nearly £745 for every three and four-year-old in Redbridge—yet the figures that the Minister just provided reveal that Redbridge, which is controlled by a Conservative council, has a deplorable record by comparison with the average local education authority. When will the Government ensure that the standard spending assessment paid by taxpayers to the Conservative council in Redbridge is spent on educating three and four-year-olds in that borough?
    Mr. Forth: That is rich coming from the Labour Benches. The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten, if he ever knew, that the last Labour Government inflicted—[Interruption.] Oh, yes! Labour Members will hear this, Madam Speaker, even if it is so long ago that they have forgotten. It was the last Labour Government who inflicted damaging cuts in the provision for the under-fives, which fell substantially from 440,000 in 1976 to 415,000 in 1978. We will take no lectures from Labour Members about provision for the under-fives.
    Several Hon. Members rose.—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I ask for order in the House, so that we can hear right hon. and hon. Members' questions. There has been a great deal of barracking from the Benches on my right as well as from those on my left. I would like less of that from now on.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Arnold: Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's commitment to putting Britain first, will he confirm that the Government attach priority to getting this country out of recession and creating jobs?
    The Prime Minister: All across Europe and beyond, economic circumstances are very difficult and in recent months have worsened noticeably in a number of countries. We are seeking the right policies to bring back not just recovery to this country but recovery with low inflation. The interest rate reductions that we have been able to make and the increasing competitiveness of the exchange rate will enable us to lead this country back to recovery with the low inflation and sustained growth that we need.
    Mr. Bell: In the light of the statements made by the president of the Bundesbank and by the chairman of the Italian central bank that a general realignment was available to the British Government prior to Black Wednesday, will the Prime Minister answer the question that his Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to answer when he appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee or at the Dispatch Box? Was there or was there not a general realignment—either formal or informal—on the table?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to answer that categorically. No, there was not—formal or informal.
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Referring to matters that are in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some linkage between electricity privatisation and the current problems in the coal industry? This morning I heard from British Rail that if the proposed mine closures go through, British Rail will face a bill in excess of £200 million in terms of lost revenue and redundancy payments. Will my right hon. Friend please give a clear assurance that if there are to be any further privatisations, either of industry or of the nation's transport infrastructure, a full cost-benefit analysis will be provided to the House so that it may assess the full national implications?
    The Prime Minister: Many of the problems faced by the coal industry—those that it faces at present and those that it has faced over many years—preceded privatisation. They have far more to do with the demand for coal and the changing energy market in this country. It is for that reason that there has been a severe contraction of the coal industry, not only in this country but in France, Belgium and Germany, and elsewhere.
    As for my hon. Friend's specific question about the railways, the White Paper published in July was preceded by a great deal of thought, discussion and consultation inside government, and consultation continues on all matters.
    Mr. Ashdown: Having been found out seeking to close down the coal industry quickly by rigging the market, are not the Government now asking to be allowed to close down the coal industry slowly by rigging a review? Is that not the proposition that their Back Benchers are being asked to swallow?
    The Prime Minister: No, that is not an accurate reflection of the policy that the Government are following—as yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the

    315
    President of the Board of Trade made perfectly clear. No one doubts, and no one has disputed, that over many years, under all Governments, there has been a continuing and severe contraction of the coal industry, owing to factors that were unavoidable.
    The Government now face the fact that, even at existing coal prices—which we are now aware will be noticeably lower in future—the market is contracting, and coal stocks are growing daily. The Government cannot ignore that problem. The sooner they deal with it, the sooner we shall be able comprehensively to establish assistance measures that will provide alternative employment and alternative security in areas where people know that existing jobs have at best only a limited life.
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Spink: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the 1 per cent. cut in interest rates that was made on Friday, which will do so much to help all the people who have to repay mortgages and to help businesses, large and small? Does he agree that the key to resolving our unemployment difficulties and taking us out of the teeth of the world recession is low inflation, which we are achieving?
    The Prime Minister: We have now achieved low inflation in terms of both the retail prices index and the underlying inflation rate, at a level that we have not seen for many years. It is undoubtedly helpful to British industry that it has been possible to reduce interest rates to 8 per cent. I was particularly pleased by the consequential mortgage rate reductions that were announced today.
    As my hon. Friend suggested, however, we must bear it in mind that it is not simply a question of low interest rates. It is also vitally important for our future prosperity to restrain any reinflationary surge that may follow. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that keeping inflation low—one of the essential ingredients for the sustained encouragement of jobs, prosperity and growth—remains central to the Government's policy.
    Mr. John Smith: It is crystal clear that, whatever else he did yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade did not announce a review of the pit closure programme. Will the Prime Minister now agree to establish a genuine and independent review before any pit is closed for ever?
    The Prime Minister: So that there is no dispute or misunderstanding anywhere in the House, let me make clear the position of the 10 pits identified by my right hon. Friend, and that of the others that he mentioned in his statement. In our judgment, the 10 pits that he specifically named have no sustainable economic future, but the full statutory review procedure will take place. I have no doubt that, during the moratorium on the other pits, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will wish to hold its own inquiry, and the Government will give that their fullest co-operation.
    During the moratorium, the President of the Board of Trade will himself take views and evidence to consider alongside the information already available to him on all matters. In due course he will publish that material, in time
    316
    for consideration by the House and before any future debate in the House. His statement will be set in the context of the Government's energy policy and will set out the consequences of that policy for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. It is after that debate that future decisions will he made.
    Mr. Smith: I remind the Prime Minister of the question that I asked him, which was whether he would establish a genuine and independent review. If the Prime Minister really believes that he has a strong case, what has he to lose from an independent inquiry? What is he afraid of?
    The Prime Minister: Let me refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave. When we have completed the consultation and the examination—which, I repeat, will be made public and which, I repeat, will also be laid before this House—there will be every opportunity for every view to be taken into account before matters proceed.
    Mr. Smith: Is it not now clear that the only satisfactory alternative to constantly shifting statements from the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, and to the unseemly Dutch auction which is going on among Conservative Back Benchers, is for this House tomorrow night to vote to refer the whole matter to our own Select Committee and for that to be the responsibility of Members in all parts of the House?
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening, for I said that it was an assumption of the Government that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry would wish to consider this matter and that we would provide whatever evidence was necessary to the Committee. Notwithstanding the tremendous emotions that have arisen about this whole affair, it is bogus of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to recall the vast number of mines that were closed by the Labour Government, the large number of miners who were put out of work by his Government and the activities of his Government in recent years that played a significant part in reducing employment in the mining industry from 700,000 down to the present level.
    Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern that is being expressed about the closure programme is very much bound up with the wider concern about the direction of our economy, post-ERM? Does he not agree that with a low value for sterling it really is essential that we have a policy of import substitution, of "Buy British", and that we should not build gas-fired power stations when we have already got 50 per cent. too much gas generating capacity? If my right hon. Friend were to put those facts into the review, he would find that he had the enthusiastic support of people like myself, who are deeply concerned about what is being proposed.
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the changing level of the exchange rate offers the most remarkable opportunities for British exporters and also offers a better incentive for import substitution than we have seen for many years. My hon. Friend also needs to remember that we are by instinct a trading nation and that we must bear that in mind in all the policies that we follow. As I made clear a few moments ago, what the Government are seeking to do and will continue to do in

    317
    the period up to and including the public expenditure round is to look at the difficulties that this economy faces and at the right possibilities and the right policies, in order to build on present economic circumstances a proper level of growth for the British economy and for British industry.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Can the Prime Minister understand that it is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) who has spoken for Britain? Can the Prime Minister name one independent expert who is prepared to say that gas will produce cheaper electricity than coal? The President of the Board of Trade could not name one yesterday. Can the Prime Minister name one this afternoon—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: If that were not the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain to the House why the demand for gas among consumers across the country is rising dramatically and shows signs of rising even further.
    Mr. Rathbone: Despite all the difficulties being faced at this moment by this country and by other countries, will the Prime Minister give the House and the nation reassurance that we shall continue our efforts to aid countries in the developing world which suffer even greater difficulties than we do?
    The Prime Minister: We have a very proud record indeed in that respect, in terms of the quantum of aid that we provide, in terms of the quality of aid that we provide, and in terms of keeping open markets in this country for the exports of those countries which, in many ways, is the greatest assistance that we can provide to the developing world. In my statement in a few moments on the European Council, I shall also set out some extra help to other countries which face particular needs at present.

European Council (Birmingham)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Birmingham on Friday last. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber have business elsewhere in the House. Will they leave quietly so that we can hear what the Prime Minister has to say?
The Prime Minister: I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people for the effectiveness and speed of their organisation of the European summit.
Following the events in the financial markets a month ago, a number of EC member states asked for this meeting to help to restore confidence throughout the Community and to address the issues raised by the market turbulence. Amongst those concerns, clearly evident in the referendums in Denmark and France, was the unease that too many decisions were being taken centrally in Brussels. The summit conclusions on these and other issues are in the Library of the House.
Let me deal first with economic and monetary co-operation. At Friday's meeting we reaffirmed our commitment to pursue open market policies, to control budget deficits, and to reduce inflation. It was unanimously agreed that these are the basis for recovery and for the creation of new and lasting jobs here and in the Community as a whole.
The European Council also reaffirmed the necessity of the work set in hand by Finance Ministers after the recent turmoil in the currency markets. It was agreed that the work will involve Finance Ministers, the Monetary Committee, Central Bank governors and the Commission. It will cover recent economic and financial developments in Europe and the implications of changes in the economic environment in recent years. In particular, it will look at the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalisation.
One critical discussion concerned the negotiations for a general agreement on tariffs and trade Uruguay round settlement. Over the past two weeks, significant progress had been made between the Commission and the United States in all sectors of the negotiation. I asked Commissioner Andriessen to report to the European Council. At the end of our discussion, the Commission was given the authority to continue to negotiate with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion within the next 10 weeks. Subsequently, further useful progress was made in talks in Canada over the weekend. A GATT settlement would make a vital contribution to recovery and would be very much in Britain's interest. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it would lead to an extra $200 billion in annual world output.
In the Birmingham declaration we also took significant steps towards bringing the Community closer to ordinary people. The declaration agreed at Birmingham has a number of distinct elements. It recognises the importance of national identity. It acknowledges that the Community
320
can act only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties. It lays down that action at the Community level should happen only when necessary. It calls for new guidelines, so that when Community action is taken it takes the lightest possible form. It introduces better consultation by the Commission before proposals are brought forward. It calls for a greater role for national Parliaments in the work of the Community.
The declaration provides, for the first time, a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. We agreed that, at the Edinburgh European Council in two months' time, we must make a reality of that principle. All members of the European Council agreed to take decisions at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of future EC decision making. That change of attitude by the Council and the Commission is as important as the procedures and criteria to be introduced.
Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark reported to the European Council on the present state of discussion on the Maastricht treaty within Denmark. The Danish Government have published a White Paper and will produce specific ideas shortly. It remains their aim to ratify the treaty, and we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework that will allow them to do so.
The Birmingham Council also gave us an opportunity to review our action to relieve suffering in Somalia and Yugoslavia. The Community has given a lead in both countries. In Somalia we called for an immediate ceasefire to allow for the rapid deployment of United Nations troops and for the distribution of aid and agreed to try to expedite these deployments.
In Yugoslavia, at British initiative, a Community humanitarian force will be established. It will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in delivering humanitarian aid. The Community will speed up aid already pledged, which includes 120,000 tonnes of food. We have invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to hold a meeting of experts as soon as possible to make sure that that aid gets through without delay. There will be a follow-up meeting in a few weeks' time to ensure that effective action is being taken. Member states also pledged further staff and resources to strengthen the UNHCR effort. I can today announce a further £15 million of bilaterial aid to provide 22 more trucks, 10 Land Rovers, shelter, medical supplies and personnel. Deliveries will start very shortly.
A confident and successful Community is a vital interest of this country. Sixty per cent. of our visible trade is with the Community. Much of our external investment comes from the Community. Eight of our top 10 trading partners are in the Community. With less than three months to go to the completion of the single market, which could raise Community output by more than 4 per cent., it was vital to re-establish confidence in the interests of stability, recovery, growth and jobs in all our countries. The Birmingham European Council did precisely that.
Mr. John Smith: Let me make it clear at the outset that the Labour party welcomes the discussions and decisions on the former Yugoslavia and on Somalia.
We agree with the emphasis laid on providing winter shelter for the very large number of people who are now at

321
risk in the former Yugoslavia and on the strengthening of support for the humanitarian aid and relief provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
We are glad that the seriousness of the situation in Somalia is recognised, but does not the fact that it is so widely accepted that more needs to be done illustrate how irresponsible it would be to cut overseas aid even further as the problems of famine spread, not just in Somalia but throughout east, central and southern Africa?
Although the importance of a GATT agreement was acknowledged at the summit, little progress appears to have been made towards achieving it.
Those important matters apart, is it not now clear that this was a summit conceived in panic after Britain's humiliating withdrawal from the ERM, a summit which should have had jobs, growth and investment at the top of its agenda but did not, and a summit which turned out to be another missed opportunity of the inept and fumbling British presidency?
As we were told that a principal reason for calling the summit was to make a major reform of the so-called fault lines in the ERM, why was that brushed aside in anodyne references to the need for further reflection and analysis? If the Government had a case on that matter, why did not they use their presidency to make it? Was it because if they had done so other participants in the events leading up to black Wednesday such as the German and Italian Governments would have exposed the gross incompetence displayed by the Prime Minister and his Chancellor of the Exchequer? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether during the presidency his Government have produced one initiative which tackles rising unemployment, falling investment and low growth?
In the context of the declaration on greater openness, the Prime Minister said:
"The Community must send a signal to the citizens of Europe that we will listen to their worries and respond to their needs."
If that is such good advice, why does he not lead by example? What evidence is there that he listens to the deep worries and real needs of British citizens as our economy slides from recession into slump?
When the Prime Minister agreed at Birmingham that promoting subsidiarity involved greater openness, a better informed public, decentralisation of decision-taking and better consultations before proposals were made, did it ever occur to him that those desirable characteristics of good government were signally lacking in his own Administration at home? Is to refuse an independent review of the pit closures consistent with his profession at Birmingham about the need for a more informed public debate and more open government? Is that an example of better consultation procedures before proposals are made?
When the Prime Minister said that his EC partners should give the Maastricht treaty what he described as a human face, did he not appreciate that the social chapter is precisely that part of the treaty which other member states see as its human face but which his Government reject? Does he not realise that the social chapter is essential in transforming a market for business into a Community for people?
In summation, was not the Birmingham summit typical of the British presidency as a whole—inconclusive and largely irrelevant?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for occasionally touching on the
322
summit, even though when he did so he showed how little he really knows or understands about the Community. On the few summit points that he made, I am grateful for his support for what is being done for Yugoslavia and the humanitarian aid that is being dispensed there. It is the British Government and British aid that is leading the way in Yugoslavia. It is British medicine that is reaching people in Yugoslavia, and it was largely British planes which led the way in carrying that aid into Yugoslavia.
On the GATT round, it is not the case that little progress was made at the summit. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman must understand as leader of his party that it is not normally always possible to state in public what has taken place in private among Heads of Government. But we have made progress towards a GATT settlement.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about the fault lines in the exchange rate mechanism, for market reasons that is a matter which needs to be discussed in private. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a former shadow Chancellor, I am astonished that he has no apparent understanding whatever of that. As for the summit being called, as he put it, in panic, it was demanded by France and other countries and not by the United Kingdom. So I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will direct his remarks and criticisms to other sources rather than to us.
On the question of conversations with the Italian and German Governments, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consult them. He would then be better informed about what they had to say.
On the question of openness and other matters, as I made clear in my statement a few minutes ago, these are matters on which detailed decisions are now committed for the Edinburgh summit in just 10 weeks.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman returned yet again to the social chapter, utterly failing to understand yet again the impact that he is told by every employer and business man that it will have on jobs, prosperity and employment in Britain. If he is to lecture us on unemployment and jobs, let him drop his affiliation to the job-destruction measure which we in Britain will not accept.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Following the Birmingham declaration, does my right hon. Friend feel that he can claim the prize of 200,000 ecu offered by Mr. Delors for the first person who can define subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: The prize might have to be divided among all the Heads of Government, including the President of the Commission, who introduced a paper which dealt with subsidiarity—a paper of great clarity which moved the Community's position forward.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I understand that the summit is already known in Brussels as the summit that never was: called to discuss the exchange rate mechanism, it never discussed it; called to put pressure on the Danes, it did not do so; called to explain Maastricht to the people, it only briefly began that task.
I shall concentrate on the area that the Prime Minister said in his statement was a British initiative, an area that has been regarded by many as one of the successes in Birmingham—the action taken in Bosnia. We have to be grateful for small and for late mercies, but it was not the action taken too late at Birmingham which will cost lives

323
in Sarajevo and throughout Bosnia; it was the lack of action during the past three months. I ask the Prime Minister to reflect on the fact that every measure taken in Birmingham was a measure that he told me in August was impractical. I ask him to reflect on the fact that, as a result of that delay, humanitarian aid will have to go over winter rather than summer roads in Bosnia, and that the failure to stockpile food in Sarajevo, which I and others called for in August and September, will result in miserable deaths in a European city which we shall see writhing in its agony on our television screens as we come up to Christmas.
The story of the Prime Minister's actions as leader of the European Community—he was not alone in the lack of leadership but had a duty of leadership as President of the EC—will be a story that will look miserable and tortured for the next six months, and the epitaph written on it will be, "Too little and too late."
The Prime Minister: I have rarely heard a more arrogant assertion of inaccuracies. As the leader of the party that barely is, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be better informed about what this country has done. He ought to spend less time running down the work that has been done by British aid agencies, pilots, individuals and Government. We were among the first to put planes and aid into Yugoslavia. We put in as much aid as anyone. We put troops in, against the opposition of many people, because we believed that it was right to assist people who will face difficulty this winter. The medicines that are treating people in Yugoslavia come from this country, and so do many of the doctors. The right hon. Gentleman would be better employed bearing in mind the work that we have done and the leadership that we have given rather than attacking on every occasion what this country has done.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the effectiveness of the European Community will be judged not by its internal institutions but by its relations with the outside world, and in particular in the GATT negotiations? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that no country in the European Community will be allowed to prevent a successful outcome of the GATT negotiations upon which so much hangs?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly endeavour to ensure that that is the position. Once the Community's negotiators recommend an outcome to the Community, a decision can be taken by qualified majority. If there is an overwhelming majority in the Community, because negotiations were permitted to proceed last week, it is not now possible for one Community member to block an agreement, provided that the Commission reaches an agreement and that, as the Community's negotiators, it recommends that agreement to the European Council.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Did the Prime Minister refer at any time from the chair in Birmingham to the common agricultural policy? In that regard, if it is right to protect British agriculture against cheaper food from outside the EEC, at substantial cost to every British family, not to mention the food mountains, why is it wrong to protect British coal?
The Prime Minister: There was a very heavy agenda at Birmingham, as will be apparent from what I said a few moments ago, and on this occasion there was not a discussion on the common agricultural policy. We have had that discussion frequently and will no doubt return to it in the future, not least because of the reforms that have taken place, many of them led by the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in Birmingham, he was congratulated upon his very interesting speech at the Conservative party conference in which he said that the Maastricht treaty was not about immigration? I wonder whether he would comment on page 84 of the treaty, article K.1.3, which appears to read:
"immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries"
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could confirm that he obtained the legal advice upon that speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is familiar with article K.4.3, which makes it clear that the Council shall act unanimously in this area unless it decides, unanimously, that implementing action is to be adopted by qualified majority.
As I made clear the other day, the only common interest in immigration in the European Community is the external girdle around Europe. The justification for that is that over the next decade a genuine difficulty may be faced across the whole of western Europe by immigration from Africa north into Europe and from eastern Europe west into Europe. British immigration policy is not damaged by anything in the Maastricht treaty, and I repeat that point to my hon. Friend in case he is in any doubt.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): Is not the Prime Minister aware of the obvious contradiction in the Birmingham declaration between its passage about a Community close to its citizens and the passage that follows immediately which deals with proceeding, without hesitation, to ratify the Maastricht treaty?
Is it not a fact that the Danish people have said no in their referendum on the Maastricht treaty, that the French managed to get a majority by a knife edge in favour of the treaty, and that the British people have not even been asked? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has not gone back on the promise that he made to the House in his statement on 29 June after the Lisbon summit that we would not proceed with the Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty until the Danish Government had made clear whether they would present new proposals to their people in order to obtain their consent? Is it not clear that the Danish White Paper is simply a consultative document and that, therefore, we have not reached that stage? May we therefore be assured that there will be no early move to reintroduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?
The Prime Minister: The fact is that the Danes are going to go hack at the end of their consultation period to seek the assent of their people in the constitutional referendum that is necessary. The Danish Prime Minister has made that clear. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the French result, but the fact is that the French won the referendum by the same sort of majority that the Danes lost by. In the United Kingdom the long-standing

325
principle is that these matters are decided in this House, in the United Kingdom Parliament. In due course, after we have had the paving debate that I promised the House, we shall reintroduce the Maastricht treaty in this Session of Parliament.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the conference was a successful occasion as it showed further progress towards developing the European Community? Can he say a little more about the plans for greater openness by the Council of Ministers?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly say that a whole series of proposals are now being examined in the hope that they will be finalised by the Edinburgh summit. That is our intention. Among the matters we have in mind, for example, before decision making is done, is the much greater use of Green Papers, familiar to the House in our legislative procedures but less familiar to the House in terms of the European Community's activities. That is an illustration of the sort of matter that is at present under consideration.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Did the Birmingham summit advance the cause of European union?
The Prime Minister: The Birmingham summit was called not for that purpose but for the purposes I set out. European union—depending on its definition—[Interruption.] There have been many disagreements about the definition, from the time it was first set out in the treaty of Rome—is certainly not imminent. If by European union the right hon. Gentleman means currency union and a single currency, I have expressed the view that I have expressed to the House before: I believe that the required convergence of European economies will take far longer than is set out in the timetable to which others signed up at Maastricht but to which we did not, and I believe that current events make that clearer hour by hour.
Mr. Tim Renton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress made at Birmingham, but can he ensure that by the time of the Edinburgh summit there is a list available, agreed by the Commission, of those detailed areas from which it will withdraw on the ground that such matters are better handled at national level? Is he aware that in that way we shall be able to worry not just about the meaning of the word "subsidiarity" but see how it will work in practice?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is the intention.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Prime Minister confirm that at Birmingham Chancellor Kohl put forward proposals on subsidiarity that are much more far reaching than those the right hon. Gentleman outlined today and were in line with the proposals put forward by the Germans to the Council of Ministers in Brussels? Are Her Majesty's Government actively considering those proposals put forward by Chancellor Kohl?
The Prime Minister: Chancellor Kohl's proposals were certainly far reaching, but they were not more far reaching than those put forward by the United Kingdom Government. We have been in discussion with the German Government for some time over the question of subsidiarity. We share the view that we need to move in that direction. That is no longer just the view of the British
326
Government, as it was some time ago. it now has solid support from the German, French and other Governments. There has been a sea change in attitude among the European Heads of Government, brought about by a range of events over the past year or so, not least the continued advocacy of the case by the British Government. So that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Germans are in favour of greater subsidiarity, but he is incorrect in saying that their proposals are more far reaching and wide ranging than are ours.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, and not be too modest about it, that it is as the result of his personal intervention with our French partners at Birmingham that the dispute between Europe and America over farm subsidies is likely to be resolved and that there will be concluded a GATT agreement which will do far more than anything else for world trade and getting the economy out of recession?
The Prime Minister: It is absolutely clear that nothing could be more beneficial for world economic circumstances at present than a satisfactory speedy GATT agreement. I confirm that I have had a number of conversations with the Commission, with individual Governments in the Community and with the United States. I shall continue to do so for the reason I set out, which is that there is nothing more important on the economic agenda at present than the satisfactory conclusion of a GATT agreement.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: In seeking so unsuccessfully to put flesh on subsidiarity, did the Prime Minister draw to the attention of his fellow Heads of State the opinion of Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, the jurist and the former president of the European Court, that the definition as given in the treaty is gobbledegook? What is the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to that view?
The Prime Minister: My view is the same as that of the Lord Chancellor of this country, who does not agree with the noble Lord to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest adverse consequences of failure to reach agreement in the GATT round is that not only would it be extremely damaging to ourselves but would be devastating for third world countries? Is he aware that agreement will be best achieved by the way in which he is proceeding rather than by silly megaphone negotiations? Does he accept that, generally speaking, the weird notion that we can solve Britain's economic problems independently of and in isolation from the Community is the greatest delusion since the Indian rope trick?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's final point. In terms of economics and trade, nowhere in the world is an island these days and international co-operation is vital in the self-interest of jobs, prosperity, growth and our future.
My hon. Friend is also entirely right in saying that the principal gainer from a satisfactory GATT agreement will be the third world. On the one hand, it now receives aid from the west and, on the other, it must be deeply frustrated by seeing the west then close its markets to third world exports and products. The third world wishes to export, become self-sustaining and build up its own

327
industries. That is vital, as is an early settlement of the long-running and damaging oilseeds dispute between the Community and the United States.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Prime Minister has expressed his support for the principle of subsidiarity and a greater role for national Parliaments. How does he reconcile that principle with his refusal to allow the nations of Scotland and Wales to have Parliaments of their own? Before he goes to Edinburgh, will he recognise the overwhelming demand of people in Scotland that there should be a Parliament to serve the people of Scotland so that they may have a greater role under the principle of subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: I am inclined to refer the hon. Gentleman to the 40 or 50 times that I have answered that question before.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Did the Danish Government say in Birmingham how soon they expected the completion of their inter-party talks on the conditions for a second referendum in Denmark? If those conditions are not acceptable in Brussels, does not that mean that the second referendum in Denmark will not take place and that the Maastricht treaty will be dead, regardless of anything that we do?
The Prime Minister: The Community is anxious to assist the Danes in the difficulties that they face at the moment. We hope to put in place at the Edinburgh summit a framework to do that. That was agreed at Birmingham a few days ago. The Danish Prime Minister is in the process of consulting the other Danish political parties and much wider. He then proposes to set out what he believes is necessary to enable him to put the treaty for consideration before his people again at a further referendum. It is impossible to put a precise timescale on that at present, but it is clear that the Danes wish to proceed with it as speedily as practicable.
Mr. Robin Corbett: On behalf of all my colleagues who are privileged to represent the city of Birmingham, may I thank the Prime Minister for his expression of thanks to the people of that great city and its city council for their efforts in making arrangements for the summit? May I also, on their behalf, invite the Prime Minister back to Birmingham as soon as possible so that he can explain directly to those people and their city council what positive results came from that summit, or what positive results he expects from the Edinburgh summit, which will get the people of the west midlands back to work?
The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his remarks. The organisation in Birmingham was remarkable and was dealt with at great speed. The convention centre there is of a high order and everything that was necessary was readily provided, including the striking of a remarkable memento coin that was handed to all the European Heads of Government. I reiterate my thanks to the people and council of Birmingham.
On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall happily send a copy of the Birmingham statement
328
immediately, but he will have to wait for a copy of the Edinburgh statement until after we have had the Edinburgh summit.
Sir George Gardiner: In the light of my right hon. Friend's experience at Birmingham, is he confident that the Edinburgh summit will produce not only a practical definition of subsidiarity but a precise legal definition that will stand up to tests before the European Court?
The Prime Minister: That is certainly our intention. The definition is already legally underpinned by article 3b of the Maastricht treaty. We must negotiate and agree a definition among all the 12 members of the Community, but I believe that there is a will among the Twelve to reach an agreement, and we committed ourselves to doing so in Birmingham.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Did not this jamboree prove to be a grossly embarrassing sideshow, a gross waste of public money, which served only to increase opposition to the Maastricht treaty? Is it not clear that there is no escape via subsidiarity because nobody knows what it means? If the Prime Minister knows what it means and puts it on a piece of paper, Jacques Delors is willing to give him 200,000 ecu.
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman's wish is father to the thought. I doubt that those people in Yugoslavia who have got extra aid, those in Somalia who will get extra help, people who see the prospect of a GATT agreement moving that bit nearer and people who can now see the changes that will clearly come about in terms of subsidiarity would recognise an iota of truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In present circumstances arising from Birmingham, what is more important to my right hon. Friend—the good will of a couple of elderly European politicians intent on imposing their blueprint on an increasingly reluctant Europe, or the good will of his hon. Friends? If it is the latter, would not it be the height of political wisdom for my right hon. Friend to delay the return of the Maastricht treaty to this House until such time as the Danes have ratified it? God willing, they may never do so.
The Prime Minister: Surely there is no doubt about the good will of my hon. Friend. I for one have never doubted it. I look for his support now and in the future on the programme on which we jointly contested the general election. He mentions our colleagues in Europe. This country, as with their countries, always has to put the national interest first and always will. A part of our national interest must mean that we have a central say in the decisions taken in Europe that affect this country, its jobs, its industry and its prosperity, and that we are determined to do. It may be the ambition of some to see this country isolated as a sour little outpost of western Europe, but it is not my ambition.
Mr. John McAllion: Does the Prime Minister understand that the case for subsidiarity from Brussels to Westminster, which he supports, is the same as that for subsidiarity from Westminster to Edinburgh, which he does not support? As he has such poor understanding of the concept of subsidiarity, I advise him not to take up Jacques Delors' offer of a job in the

329
Commission and 140,000 ecu for the first person to explain subsidiarity on one side of a piece of paper. Alas, as with his present employment, that is another job for which the right hon. Gentleman is uniquely unsuited.
The Prime Minister: I have no wish either now or in the future for a job in the Commission.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the role of national Parliaments will be fully recognised and reflected in the work of the Community?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and one of the agreements made at Birmingham was that we shall be looking for ways to agree at Edinburgh that will enhance, not diminish, the role of national Parliaments.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister stop wringing his hands at the Dispatch Box in an attempt to explain to his Back Benchers the cosmetic changes to Maastricht? Why did he not seize the opportunity at Birmingham to sell British coal from the most efficient coal industry in Europe to our European partners instead of announcing last week plans to butcher that industry?
The Prime Minister: There is no hand wringing at all; the hon. Gentleman is mistaken about that. He spoke about British coal. If, for example, he had spoken about imports from Germany and German subsidies, I would have had to tell him that the scale of such imports to the United Kingdom coal market is .002 per cent. Much of it is anthracite and other coal that is not readily available here, and virtually none of it goes to power stations. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to raise too many myths.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Did the Birmingham summit consider the serious situation that is developing as a result of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia insisting on the continued use of that name? Is he aware of the great strength of feeling about this in our Community partner of Greece? Will he take all possible steps to avoid conflict in that area?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a question that has been discussed on a number of occasions in the Foreign Affairs Council and in the European Council at Lisbon. It is a particularly intractable problem which the Community is actively seeking to solve. There were no discussions in the formal meeting, but I understand that there were bilateral discussions at the Birmingham summit even in the limited time that we were there.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Reverting to the Delors prize for the definition of subsidiarity, would the Prime Minister be interested to know that I am putting in a 95-word attempt at that competition? Does the Prime Minister recall that, on a number of occasions, and particularly on 29 June at column 594 of Hansard, he asserted that there is a definition of subsidiarity in article 3b? Indeed, on that occasion he said that it was justiciable. Does this not mean that either the Prime Minister has signed a treaty containing an unsatisfactory definition of this concept or that all this kerfuffle is unnecessary? Which is right?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is probably too late for the award, although I am sure that he would
330
be a powerful contestant. At the summit at Birmingham, Mr. Delors made a substantial presentation on subsidiarity, how it would be brought about, and how it would proceed. From that, the hon. Gentleman will find that a clear, practical definition, apart from the legal definition that is justiciable and that exists in article 3b, will be available. Therefore, he is too late for the prize.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in a speech on 7 September in the Queen Elizabeth hall, he said that he would not wish to bring the Bill ratifying Maastricht back to the House until what he called the "Danish difficulties" had been resolved? As Birmingham showed that the "Danish difficulties" have not been resolved, will he consider not bringing back the Bill until at least after the Edinburgh conference?
The Prime Minister: It is now clear from my discussions with the Danish Prime Minister and from what the Danes have said how the Danes will resolve their difficulties. They have set out alternative options on which they are negotiating. They then propose to come to the European summit at Edinburgh and then to proceed. Therefore, the way is open, at a time convenient to the House, for us to reconsider the treaty to which, on behalf of the country and with the consent of the House, I gave our name.
Ms. Clare Short: The Prime Minister said earlier that there was discussion of Government deficits. Later, he said that he did not believe that we would move to economic and monetary union in the timescale laid out in the Maastricht treaty. He knows, as we know, that the times for convergence imply an enormous cut in Government expenditure. As we in Britain are on the brink of a terrible slump and need to borrow to invest, and as there is a terrible depression spreading across Europe, was there discussion of modifying the terms of convergence so that the people of Europe can borrow money to invest, thereby creating jobs rather than furthering depression?
The Prime Minister: There was not a discussion of deficits as such in the way suggested by the hon. Lady. There was an agreement, based on discussions on deficits that we have had on many occasions, of the desirability of containing deficits as one of the essential prerequisites to growth and prosperity. As I said in an earlier answer, I do not believe that the convergence timetable is practical at the moment. With the possible exception of Luxembourg and France, none of the countries, including Germany, meet all of the convergence timetable, and some of them seem very far away.
On the basis of sound economic policies, quite apart from any convergence criteria set at Maastricht, these convergence principles are right for sound economic management—nobody doubts that, certainly among the European Heads of Government. However, as I said earlier, in the present circumstances it is becoming increasingly unlikely that countries will reach convergence conditions on the timetable set out in the Maastricht treaty. That is not a new judgment; I made it when I declined to commit the country to entering a single currency on the timescale agreed by our European partners.
Mr. Peter Viggers: With national economies in recession throughout the world, does my right hon.

331
Friend agree that what we most need now is a restoration of trading confidence, which will most easily follow from agreement under the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Does he agree also that as a major trading nation we would stand to benefit greatly from such an agreement? Does he believe that there is now a genuine political will within Europe to achieve a GATT agreement?
The Prime Minister: I agree unreservedly with every word that my hon. Friend has spoken. I believe that there is a genuine political will across Europe. I hope that it extends in precisely the same measure to each and every country in Europe. Certainly the Heads of Government agreed on the desirability of securing a settlement. Our negotiators have been sent back to negotiate first with the Americans. When those negotiations are completed, they will return to the general negotiations in Geneva to reach a settlement. I fervently hope that that will be possible.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that one of the stated objectives of the United Kingdom's presidency was the widening of the Community, or the speeding up of that process, will the Prime Minister accept that there is genuine concern among many of us on both sides of the Chamber that there seems to be an inability within the Community to resolve a European problem, which is that of Bosnia and the surrounding areas of that state?
As the Prime Minister has already said that there was not a substantive debate at Birmingham on the issue, will he tell us what diplomatic initiatives he envisages between members of the Community in addition to the humanitarian aid, which we all welcome while recognising the complexities of the situation? What is being done to ensure that refugees from what appears to be genocide are shown the hand of friendship by this country as well as by other members of the Community?
The Prime Minister: Many refugees—I do not have the number immediately to hand—have been admitted to this country in recent months. The London conference set out a series of objectives that few people expected to be met in terms of seeking to reach an agreement in respect of the tangled conflict in Bosnia. It is not an agreement that is readily available with the ancient hatreds—I can put it in
332
no other way—that have been reopened by the combatants in the dispute. United Nations negotiators are in constant touch to see what can be done. Progress appears to have been made time and again. It has then been broken, as it were, and the word has been broken of one or other of the combatants who put their hand to progress. That is a matter of great regret to me and everyone else.
There is a difficulty that the hon. Lady and the House generally must face. I share her view of the humanitarian difficulties that will be faced this winter, and that is why the United Kingdom has taken so much action, but I do not believe that it would be a practicable proposition for this country, or any collection of countries, to put troops into the middle of the dispute to hold the combatants apart. With great regret, I do not believe that that would be possible or practicable. I believe that there would be a blood bath of unprecedented proportions and that the troops who would be there would be there for an indefinite period. I do not believe, given the terrain and the circumstances, that such a move would be possible. That means that we are driven back to negotiations, and negotiations are being carried out on behalf of the United Nations.
We must rely on the good will of the combatants—to my great regret, it has not always been forthcoming. We shall have to continue to try to do that and in the meantime alleviate the hardship as much as we can. In terms of alleviating the hardship, there is a decision to send 1,800 British troops, who will stay there. There will be rather more initially to establish the troops in post. It is a difficult decision. It will not be an easy task for the troops, nor will it necessarily be a safe one. I took the decision because I share the view that has been expressed by the hon. Lady and by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, that during the winter, whatever we do and whatever anybody else does, many men, women and children will die, quite apart from those killed in conflict, as a result of the terrible dispute in former Yugoslavia.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. On that note I am drawing this session of questions to a close—[Interruption.] I am always in a no-win situation when it comes to statements. We must now move on.

Points of Order
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not seeking to extend Question Time, as you will readily appreciate, but my point of order arises from education questions. At the end of questions, the Secretary of State for Education impugned the integrity of Salford city council, which I represent in this place. He suggested that Salford city council unfairly interfered in a successful ballot in which 70 per cent. of parents at Earlham community high school in my constituency voted last week and yesterday to stay with the local education authority. I have to place on record in this House that that ballot was carried out fairly, without interference, and the people spoke. The Secretary of State should not abuse the procedures of the House in the way he did at Question Time.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other methods of making his point known.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the most essential democratic rights in Britain is the right to lobby Parliament. You will know of the demonstration and lobbying which is to take place on Wednesday as a result of the grave situation in the coal industry. Will every effort be made to ensure that as many as possible of those lobbying—obviously a limited number, we know that, and there is no doubt about it—will be able to see their Members of Parliament and that those involved in the coal industry will not be told at St. Stephen's entrance that they cannot get in? I hope that every effort will be made by the Serjeant at Arms and his staff—I am sure that that will be the case—and by the police to ensure that those exercising their democratic rights in Britain will be able to lobby just as others do and that there will be no form of discrimination because the people who happen to be lobbying are miners.
Madam Speaker: I am deeply concerned that British citizens who want legitimately to lobby their Members of Parliament should have access to these premises so to do. I am already involved in negotiations to ensure that as many people as possible will be able to do that tomorrow, although the House will understand that there are limits.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I worked in the steel industry for about 20 years before I entered the House and I wish to raise a matter on which the House was seriously and inadvertently misled yesterday concerning that industry. Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said:
"I had to go to Corby in 1979 when the Labour party closed the steelworks".—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 209.]
On 1 November 1979, the then Member of Parliament for Kettering applied for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on the urgent matter of
"the announcement by the British Steel Corporation today"—
1 November 1979—
"that it will begin a speedy run down of the iron and steel works in Corby."—[Official Report, 1 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1479.]
Is it not right that that matter should be corrected tomorrow by the President of the Board of Trade along
334
with his other U-turn? Would it not be a good thing if he relinquished his responsibility for energy and concentrated on—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to continue yesterday's debate, but he knows that there are ways and means by which he can do that, either by tabling a motion or by raising the matter, if he catches my eye, in tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already raised a point of order. I have to deal with those of other hon. Members.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). There is a story going around that members of the public will be admitted to Parliament square tomorrow—Parliament square, not the precincts of this building—only if they are in possession of a letter from a Member of Parliament saying that they have an appointment to lobby that Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] I am rather surprised that the Government Whip should be supporting that process.
Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the Sessional Orders carried at the start of this Session of Parliament make it clear that the public have a right of entry to Parliament square and have a right to lobby their Members of Parliament, as you have just explained to us? I should be grateful if you would make it clear to the police that any restrictions, such as that members of the public should carry letters from Members of Parliament, would be contrary to the Sessional Orders that we have agreed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. With reference to the remarks of my hon. Friends, and particularly to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), Labour Members of Parliament are happy to send such letters to their constituents because they support the motion to save the pits. Some Tory Members of Parliament might not want to do so. The result may be an imbalance in the lobby, with members of the public who do not have letters from Tory Members of Parliament kept out.
I refer also to an earlier point of order raised during Question Time. You, Madam Speaker, know that there will be a close vote tomorrow. It is supposed to be an orderly vote, yet the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) was hauled out of the Chamber by the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), to be told how to vote tomorrow night. A lot of arm twisting, bullying, and intimidation is going on. We want to make sure that it will be a clean vote and a clean Lobby.
Madam Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members will make up their own minds how to vote tomorrow. That has nothing to do with the Chair. I made it clear earlier that I am as keen as anyone here to see that citizens of this country who want to lobby their Members of Parliament are allowed to do so. Tomorrow will be an extremely difficult day for the House authorities and the police. I am already involved in talks, and I will do my utmost to ensure that as many people as possible have access to this place.
Mr. Winnick: I am genuinely grateful to you, Madam Speaker—as I am sure my hon. Friends are—for your remarks. However, if the position is that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—if British citizens who come to see their Members of Parliament are stopped by the police when they try to enter Parliament square-and if that information is communicated to you as quickly as possible, will you make arrangements to hear our point of view and to negotiate with the police accordingly?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) began his point of order by using the words, "There is a story going around." I do not work on rumours; I work on fact. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will leave it to me to deal with the matter as best I can.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give serious consideration to allowing Prime Ministerial statements on European Community matters to run for one hour for the remainder of the United Kingdom's presidency of the EEC? Given that part of that presidency was, in a sense, lost to Parliament because of the summer recess, that is a reasonable request, particularly in respect of those right hon. and hon. Members who take a deep interest in all things European. I therefore respectfully ask that you, Madam Speaker, accede to my polite request.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is always polite when making requests to me, and I hope that I am always polite in trying to dodge them. If I were to allow the Prime Minister to spend one hour on EC statements, I would next be asked to allow a different Minister one hour on another matter. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to leave the matter in my hands. I am not at the end of the line in which medals are given for the time allowed for statements. Yesterday, I allowed two hours on yesterday's statement, and I allowed just over three quarters of an hour on today's statement. I am in a no-win situation. The House will just have to leave it to me. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I noticed that he rose in his place throughout today's statement—I know that he is very keen. [HON. MEMBERS: "And me." Yes, I am sure that is true of other right hon. and hon. Members as well.

Points of Order

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ordered,
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Regulation of Wheel-Clamping
4.29 pm
Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the wheel-clamping of vehicles on private land; and for connected purposes.
Let me begin, Madam Speaker, by offering you my congratulations—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—on being made a freeman of the borough of Sandwell, together with my predecessor Peter Archer, now Baron Archer of Sandwell. I am sure that that is fitting testimony to the service that both of you have given your constituencies and our borough.
My Bill would regulate wheel clamping on private land. It is important in itself, because of the growing evidence of abuse by clampers; but it is also important in a wider sense. It is about time that we stopped treating the motorist as a second-class citizen. It is about time that we recognised the reality of the 20th century, and the role that the motor car has played in it.
Currently, in England and Wales, there is effectively no legal framework to regulate the clamping or removal of vehicles on private land. We talk expansively about "cowboy dampers", but the position is indeed somewhat akin to that in the old West: there is no law west of the Pecos that relates to clamping.
The motor car is probably the second most expensive asset that the motorist owns; in some cases, it may be the most expensive. Yet motorists can be deprived of its use: it can be forcibly removed without either due process or accountability. Furthermore, although I do not wish to tar all clampers with the same brush, there is definitely a disreputable element—people who have scented rich pickings, and are behaving in a very unprincipled way—and all the evidence that I have received suggests that the position is worsening.
They order things a little differently in Scotland; or, at least, they have done so since the summer. Faced with a decision on private clamping and a demand for payment, the Scottish courts observed, in a short, sharp and effective judgment, that such action was
"extortion and theft under Scottish law".
I have asked Scottish colleagues about the effects of that judgment. Has traffic ground to a halt in Scotland? Are Glasgow and Edinburgh gridlocked? Will the House be besieged by Scottish landowners seeking redress? None of that seems to have happened: the position seems to have remained fairly normal. It appears that the abuse has been rectified without the great problems that might have been expected.
As a result of the Scottish decision, I tabled an early-day motion which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. After one or two abortive attempts in the early hours of the morning, I introduced an Adjournment debate on 16 July, just before the summer recess. I was supported by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who, I understand, is chairing a Committee elsewhere. I hoped that we would make some progress with the Home Office over the summer; its representatives have been very courteous, and I am pleased to see that the Minister is present today. Unfortunately, however, we have not yet secured a definitive result. I hope that, as a result of our discussions, the Home Office now recognises the size and dimensions of the problem caused by private clamping.

337
I also hope that those in the Home Office understand that the problem will not go away. Every day, more private citizens are wheel clamped, and more and more feel aggrieved. This is a constituency that is increasing in size. Accordingly, I hope that the Bill's next stage will not be blocked by the Government, and that the Home Office will try to work with us positively to achieve a satisfactory solution.
On 16 July, I drew the attention of the House to many of the abuses that have taken place. I mentioned cars being blocked in while their owners were still inside, with the engine still running, after which the clampers would emerge and clamp them. I mentioned cars being parked on empty land to entice motorists into believing that it was an open parking area, and the motorists' vehicles then being clamped. I mentioned the clampers who wait until someone has gone around the corner, and then come out to clamp that person's car. I mentioned the clamping of cars in inner-city zones late at night: motorists—often they are women—come back and discover that they must find a telephone and wait for perhaps an hour or two to be released.
The action of those who wait before clamping vehicles highlights one of the problems. If the clampers' concern was to stop illicit parking, they would tell motorists immediatly that they were parking in an inappropriate place. Instead, they let motorists park, wait until they have gone round the corner and then come out and clamp them.
It is all down to motivation, and the main motive seems to be to extort money from the motorist. I suspect that if a clamping operative does not catch enough victims, he loses his job. It is very much like the problem that has been revealed in regard to Westminster council, which is involved in a row with its traffic wardens because they are not issuing their quota of parking tickets. It all sounds remarkably Stalinist. Some clamping firms advise their employees to get the clamp off as quickly as possible so that other motorists will not see any clamps and will therefore be enticed on to the property. Some clampers offer landowners a profit-sharing scheme if they will allow them to clamp on their land.
The money involved is not insignificant—far more than is involved if one parks on the street and is caught by the public authorities. The minimum amount seems to have moved up to about £50. When I talked today to Radio WM on its Ed Doolan programme, I gathered that in the Birmingham area it has moved up to £70 if one pays straight away. If, however, one has to go away and come back the next day with the money, one finds that the amount has gone up by another £50. The record is held by Hebden Bridge. If one is clamped there, it costs £240. I am waiting for somebody to improve on that figure.
With such rich pickings, it is no wonder that dubious characters have been attracted into the business. All that one needs are a few wheel clamps, a van of whatever quality and a mobile phone. I have been warned that the only danger in mentioning these facts is that other people might be attracted into the business.
As a result, many hon. Members, of all parties, have been approached by their constituents who had been personally inconvenienced and aggrieved. A number of those hon. Members have passed correspondence to me, as have a number of broadcasting programmes and the national press, all of which have been running campaigns. I have handed to the Home Office a considerable number
338
of letters that were received as a result of one of the broadcast programmes. Many of them make distressing reading.
The AA and the RAC, the two main motoring organisations, have also provided a long list of complaints from their members. Those two organisations tried to bring many of the complaints to court but, unfortunately, either the clampers settled at the doors of the court or they went out of business. Unfortunately, therefore, the AA and the RAC have been unable to obtain effective case law in the way that has been possible in Scotland.
We have to consider what clamping is trying to solve. Is clamping trying to solve the problem of obstruction? It strikes me that to immobilise the obstructing vehicle is the most bizarre way to deal with obstruction. Is it a misuse of parking space? I recognise that that can be a considerable problem and a major inconvenience where blocks of flats are involved, but is that the only way in which obstruction can be dealt with?
One of the problems with wheel clamping is that the clampers are judge, jury and court bailiff, all rolled into one. There is no redress. There is no effective due process. Sometimes, not even the landowners are able to provide redress. One example that has been drawn to my attention is that of a motorist who parked his car in a British Rail car park. He had a British Rail season ticket. He also had a season ticket for British Rail's car park. That person was clamped. British Rail accepts that he has a season ticket, but all it can do is to refer him to the clamper because British Rail has handed over its rights on that land. That is unsatisfactory. I doubt whether even the citizens charter will solve that problem.
The situation is a mess. It is unacceptable for things to muddle on as they are. It is not a sustainable position. Quite apart from whether clamping is desirable in itself—I do not believe that it is—far too many undesirable elements are being attracted into the industry. Furthermore, to leave vehicles immobilised late at night means that motorists, especially women, are vulnerable to attack. I do not want the Home Office to be forced into drastic action as a result of an incident.
We have, therefore, to look at the possible remedies. In such an easy-entry industry, self-regulation does not seem to be a practical proposition. We need to look at what happens in Scotland or at some form of licensing under the control of local authorities. We cannot leave the position as it is—a free-for-all.
A major abuse of power by private clampers is taking place that is causing considerable public concern, distress and cost to many members of the public. It has been going on for too long. It is time to close down the clamping cowboys. Accordingly, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to control the wheel clamping of vehicles parked on private land.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Battle, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Tom Cox and Mr. Alan Meale.

Regulation of Wheel-Clamping
  REGULATION OF WHEEL-CLAMPING
  Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to control the wheel-clamping of vehicles parked on private land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
Orders of the Day

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Madam Speaker: I should inform the House that I have not selected the motion to recommit certain clauses.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
    New Clause 1

      Development and conservation of flora and fauna
      '.—(1) When managing the inland bay (including when doing so to comply with a direction given under section 12(1)(b) above) the Development Corporation shall have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna.
      (2) The Development Corporation shall consult the Countryside Council for Wales to seek their view as to ways in which the inland bay may be managed so as to develop and conserve flora and fauna.'—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out from 'to' to end of line 24 and insert
      'provide no less access to a range of pleasure craft and other vessels than at present and to participation and other open-air recreational activities for those of modest means in sailing, other water sports and other open air recreational activities no less than at present.'.
      Government amendment No. 1.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'or expedient'.
      Government amendment No. 2.
      Amendment No. 87, in page 2, line 24, at end insert
      'or for the purposes of developing or conserving flora or fauna'.
      Government amendment No. 3.
      Amendment No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
      Amendment No. 93, in page 3, line 2, at end insert
      ',averting displacement of,'.
      Government amendment No. 4.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'in' and insert before'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 7, leave out 'develop and'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 7, after 'conserve', insert 'and develop'.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 3, line 7, after 'conserve', insert 'and avert displacement of'.
      Amendment No. 22, in page 3, line 8, at end insert
      'and shall publish a report on the outcome of such consultations and shall publish detailed estimates of the general environmental impact of such works and of specific reductions in the populations of such flora and fauna as are present in the natural environment of the inland bay.'.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 3, line 8, at end insert
      '(5) Before executing the works authorised by section 1 above the Development Corporation shall have published proposals for mitigating works with respect of any adverse environment impact arising from assessments under (4) above.'.
      Government amendment No. 5.
      Amendment No. 45, in clause 9, page 5, line 45, leave out 'developing and'.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 5, line 45, after 'conserving', insert 'the'.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 5, line 46, at end insert
      'and developing new flora and fauna in it'.
      Amendment No. 48, in page 6, line 2, after 'Wales', insert
      'and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 6, line 3, leave out 'develop and'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 6, line 3, after 'conserve', insert 'the'.
      Amendment No. 51, in page 6, line 3, leave out 'in' and nsert 'of.
      Amendment No. 52, in page 6, line 4, at end insert
      'and develop new flora and fauna in it'.
      Amendment No. 105, in page 6, line 4, at end insert
      'and on any area of land of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features which may lie adjacent to any of the works authorised by section 1 above.'.
      Amendment No. 106, in page 6, line 4, at end insert
      'and displaced from it.'.
      Amendment No. 108, in clause 14, page 8, line 22, leave out 'desirability' and insert 'encouragement'.
      Amendment No. 109, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'enabling the local community' and insert
      'those residing within five kilometres of the inland bay'.
      Amendment No. 110, in page 8, line 24, after 'in', insert' and around'.
      Amendment No. 61, in page 8, line 25, at end add
      'and to avoid any reduction of access for such craft vessels, sports and activities by those of modest means.'.
      Amendment No. 62, in page 8, line 25, at end add—
      '(4)The Development Corporation shall make reasonable compensation to owners of pleasure craft presently moored in the inland bay, whose vessels are incompatible with the design of the lock gates.'.
      Amendment No. 121, in schedule 2, page 17, line 30, at beginning insert
      'Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below,'.
      Amendment No. 123, in page 18, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5)No reclamation of land for the purpose of creating islands in the inland bay under paragraph (g) of sub-paragraph (1) above shall take place without the express agreement of the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.'.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: The Government have tabled new clause I and amendments Nos. 1 to 5 to fulfil a commitment given in Committee. Indeed, the amendments go further than that. As I said in Committee, the Government and the development corporation recognise the need to develop new wildlife habitats in the impounded bay and attach great importance to doing so. That is why I gave the undertaking to table an amendment which put into effect the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)to add the development or conservation of nature to the list of purposes for which the ancillary powers in clause 1(5) may be implemented.
      Amendment No. 3 has precisely that effect. The development corporation will be required to exercise its power to carry out ancillary work to develop or protect flora and fauna as well as to facilitate the use of the inland bay and outer harbour for boating, water sports and open air recreational activities. Amendment No. 3 relates to a clause different from the clause to which the amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West related, but taken with the consequential amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the effect is exactly that which he sought to achieve in Committee.

      341
      As I have said, the Government intend to go further on the question of flora and fauna. The development corporation is already obliged to have regard to the desirability of conserving flora and fauna when it carries out any of the works authorised by clause 1, whether they are main or ancillary works. The corporation is also required to consult the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the measures which should be taken to meet that obligation. It is an entirely appropriate provision which we do not seek to change. At the same time, we believe there to be a parallel need to ensure that any works carried out to that end are appropriate.
      Amendment No. 4, therefore, extends the consultation requirements specifically for that purpose. That will ensure that the development corporation has access to the best advice at an early stage so that nature conservation considerations are given the appropriate emphasis in the planning and execution of the works authorised by the Bill.
      The amendments are concerned with powers related to the works. The Government have taken the view that there should be some provision for nature conservation within the bay once the barrage is built. New clause 1, therefore, will require the corporation to have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna when managing the inland bay. It will also be obliged to consult the Countryside Council for Wales about the ways in which that could be achieved. If the corporation is obliged to carry out works in the inland bay to facilitate boating, water sports and open air recreational activities, it seems equally right that similar provisions should apply to the development or conservation of flora and fauna.
      Such provisions are consistent with the duties placed on the development corporation in respect of the operation of the barrage by clause 9(2)(c) and clause 9(3). I very much hope that hon. Members will welcome the new provisions as a positive step towards creating new and varied wildlife habitats within the bay.
      Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Bill has been an immensely controversial proposal, even among Cardiff Members. It is extraordinary that, despite the amount of debate on the Bill and despite the time spent on it, the Government have still failed to address any of the critical issues contained in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading almost 12 months ago.
      The Bill started as a private Bill. As some hon. Members may know, I have an especial interest in private Bill procedure given that, during the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, we managed to obtain a review of private Bill procedure. Although it has taken a long time, it is soon to be implemented.
      The Bill is now a hybrid Bill, so I maintain that proper consideration should be given to the Opposition's views. In Committee, the Government made only one concession on flora and fauna, and even that amendment was not tabled by Opposition Members.
      4.45 pm
      Let me stress from the start that at every stage our criticism of the Bill has not been to deny the need for economic regeneration. There can be no doubt about the need for urban regeneration in the docklands of Cardiff. There must be more jobs and an end to dereliction in south Cardiff.
      342
      There were three components to the Opposition's reasoned amendment, none of which was accepted in Committee. We called for public consultation on ground water and for adequate compensation for householders affected by rising ground water levels, and we drew attention—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It would be for the benefit of the House if we reminded ourselves that the new clause and amendments are fairly specific. This is neither a Second Reading nor a Third Reading debate. We have clear grounds of debate here and I should be grateful if all hon. Members would now restrict themselves to the specific new clause and amendments associated with it.
      Mrs. Clwyd: We refer in one of our amendments to the plan to monitor the quality of the inland water to be created by the construction of the barrage. On water quality arbitration, which is very relevant and vital in deciding whether the development will create a popular amenity or a lake of sludge, the Secretary of State for Wales has reserved for himself the final decision on matters between the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the National Rivers Authority.
      On all the criteria relating to ground water—safety, technical and economic—the development corporation has put forward two methods of solving the problem, but the public has had no chance to consider either method. The question that we must put to the Government tonight is: why should the Secretary of State have the last word when there should be public debate on those matters?
      In Committee, the Government did not accept any of our amendments. We have tabled our amendments today because our criticisms of the Bill have not been met. The Government have given practically nothing away, although they did a deal with their own quangos, agreeing to provide an alternative feeding ground for waders such as redshanks and dunlin which, during the winter, use Cardiff bay.
      We cannot be sure that the deal will stand up to legal scrutiny and that is the matter on which we want assurances tonight. When the President of the Board of Trade was, in his happier days, the Secretary of State for the Environment, he sent the issue of the intertidal mud flats of the Severn estuary to Brussels for registration as a special protection area under the 1975 EC wild birds directive. However, on 1 November 1991, the Welsh Office announced that Cardiff bay was to be excluded from the SPA proposal, although it was designated a site of special scientific interest in 1980. We should like assurances from the Government that the deal will stand up to legal scrutiny.
      It is acknowledged by the Cardiff Bay development corporation that the barrage would destroy the entire SSSI, probably only the second time that such an action has occurred. That is why the Opposition have called and continue to call for an independent assessment of the environmental impact of the barrage development.
      We should also like to stress the need for local democracy. The environmental officers of the city of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan will have to decide which water sports are permitted or refused, but every attempt is being made to marginalise the democratically elected councillors and yet again to concentrate decision

      343
      making on the quangos. In the end, however, the environmental officers of those councils will have to make the decisions.
      We are also concerned about the reduction of access for small sailing boats and in respect of sports and activities undertaken by those of modest means. All the artists' impressions of Cardiff bay give the idea that it will be possible to sail small dinghies there but, under the present proposals, many owners of small boats will probably be disqualified as the water quality of the lake is unlikely to be of a sufficiently high standard to allow water sports with high water contact. The classification of dinghy sailing is at present uncertain. I remind the Government that not everyone who enjoys sailing owns a yacht.
      Those are some of the reasons why we have tabled the amendments, and it is up to the Secretary of State and the Government to attempt to persuade us of the virtue of their case.
      The Bill may well set a precedent, as it is estimated that 48 of 130 estuaries in the United Kingdom are subject to some sort of development proposals, including proposals for marinas. There are several barrage proposals among them—some for amenity purposes, others for power generation—and the outcome of the Cardiff bay barrage proposal could influence the consideration of future barrage schemes. That is why we consider this matter to be crucial.
      Finally, I fail to understand why important documents such as the updated economic appraisal of the Cardiff bay barrage proposals arrived on our desks so late—in some cases, yesterday; in many cases, only today. Similarly, the large bundle of papers from the Welsh Office dated 24 June 1992 came to some of my hon. Friends in the post last night, to some of them in the post today, and to me, not at all. What explanation do the Government have for that? I consider it a slight on the House that the Welsh Office should have treated us in such a cavalier fashion, depriving hon. Members of an opportunity to give the Bill the close examination that such a hotly contested issue deserves.
      Mr. Ron Davies: First, let me agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the late arrival of the documents. I am sure that the Minister will understand that, in the interests of informed debate, it is important that all hon. Members should have early and prior sight of such documents. The late arrival of the documents is typical of the way in which the Welsh Office—although not the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which, on this count, is excused blame—has handled the matter. The Welsh Office has never taken adequate steps to ensure that we can have a properly informed debate—nor has it allowed us adequate time, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, to discuss these issues. It is quite in keeping with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley described as the cavalier approach adopted by the Welsh Office that we should have been deprived of access—
      Mr. Alun Michael: We have had plenty of time.
      Mr. Davies: We shall certainly have plenty of time to discuss the matter today, and I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene at this point.
      Mr. Michael: My only comment is that we have not done too badly over the months as regards time for debate.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we shall have plenty of time to debate these matters today. My point is that, if we had had prior sight of the documents, we should have been able to have a more informed debate—although as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, we are on Report and our comments must be very specific.
      I refer in particular to new clause 1. It is as well to remind ourselves that the Minister who introduced the new clause, professing concern about conserving flora and fauna and apparently recognising the importance of the bay, is the self-same Minister who, in 1986, used the anonymity of the Back Benches at 2.30 pm to kill the Bill that preceded this one—the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against that Bill as have been advanced against this one. In considering the political machinations of the Welsh Office, it is instructive to recall that, back in 1986 and from the anonymity of the Back Benches, the Minister saw fit to defend the interests of conservation, whereas now that he has responsibility for the matter and could put his concerns into practice, he has become party to a Bill, which—I believe for the first time ever, although my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will correct me if I am wrong—will completely destroy a site of special scientific interest.
      The Minister is offering us new clause I in an attempt to offset some of the worst effects of the development. It states:
      "When managing the inland bay … the Development Corporation shall have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna."
      It says nothing about placing a responsibility on the development corporation and nowhere states clearly what its duties will be. Instead, a vague form of words has been:
      "developing and conserving flora and fauna."
      The Minister, in his brief introduction, referred several times to wildlife habitats. But "conserving flora and fauna" is a far cry from maintaining, developing or providing wildlife habitats: the two are completely different. "Flora" could refer to the flowers around the lakeside—the roses planted round the bay. "Fauna" could refer to the ducks—
      Mr. Paul Flynn: Rats.
      Mr. Davies: We shall come to rats when we deal with water pollution.
      "Fauna" could refer to seagulls or to swans or to the tame ducks feeding on bread thrown by occasional visitors. Wildlife habitats are something quite different, and the Minister has failed to understand the importance of the site of special scientific interest to national and international wildlife habitats. He certainly cannot appease us by saying that he will place on the development corporation a responsibiity to
      "develop and conserve flora and fauna."
      The new clause continues:
      "The Development Corporation shall consult the Countryside Council for Wales".
      It is a bit late for the development corporation to consult the Countryside Council for Wales. When it consulted the Nature Conservancy Council, the NCC told it not to proceed with the development. When, in an attempt to

      345
      exert political pressure and do away with the independent scientific advice coming from the NCC, the Welsh Office and the development corporation consulted the Countryside Council for Wales, they were told in no uncertain terms—even by the Government's own appointee as chairman—not to proceed. Yet the new clause states that the development corporation will have the responsibility to consult the Countryside Council for Wales. What comfort can we derive from a new clause placing responsibility on the development corporation to consult when we know that the Welsh Office and the development corporation will not consider the views of the Countryside Council for Wales for one moment? The new clause refers to the corporation's responsibility to seek that body's views—hardly an onerous responsibility—
      "as to ways in which the inland bay may be managed so as to develop and conserve flora and fauna."
      It is absolutely meaningless.
      I would have had more regard for the Minister if he had come to the Dispatch Box tonight and said, "I am terribly sorry but the site of special scientific interest will be sacrificed because we want to proceed with this development," rather than proposed this mealy-mouthed new clause which attempts to reassure us that he concerns himself with the need to conserve flora and fauna. He is a different individual from the one who was prepared in 1986 to say that the destruction of this site of special scientific interest should not be accepted.
      5 pm
      Those were my introductory remarks. I want to come to the substance of my comments on new clause 1. I have already described how new clause I and the amendments unsatisfactorily address the need to take into account the wildlife responsibilities of the Welsh Office. In 1980 the site which will be destroyed by the Bill and for which no protection is offered by new clause 1 was designated a site of special scientific interest. It was so designated because it provided a particular habitat, not for the swans and ducks that will, one hopes, be attracted by the new development, or the rats or chaffinches which will be around the site, or even the greenfly on the roses, but for a range of wildfowl and wild birds which depend for their very existence on the unique habitat of the Cardiff hay area. That is why in 1980 it was designated a site of special scientific interest.
      South Glamorgan county council recognised the designation and incorporated it in its structure plan for those purposes. The Welsh Office was certainly happy with that designation.
      Mr. Michael: I want to make one thing clear. Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the designation is accepted by South Glamorgan county council and others, the original designation was highly questionable and followed processes which would not be followed now? Indeed, it is highly questionable whether an SSSI designation would have succeeded if it had been subjected to the more careful scrutiny which must be applied now.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes two points. The first is that the procedure was questionable. As I understand it, there were no objections in 1980. No one said that the procedure was questionable. Certainly, all that has happened subsequently, such as the qualification of the site under the Ramsar convention and the
      346
      recognition that it qualified for protection under the EC birds directive, suggests that the 1980 designation was appropriate.
      Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: Let me answer the points. Then I shall willingly give way to my hon. Friend. His second point was that it was doubtful whether the site would be designated today. I am perfectly prepared to accept that. We know how little concern the Government have for nature conservation. We know that they have presided over the wholesale destruction of sites which have been designated. We have seen them wriggle dishonestly and illegally out of their international obligations under the EC directive. So I fully accept my hon. Friend's second point.
      Mr. Michael rose—
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is eager to undermine the SSSI status of the bay. I am happy to give way to him to allow him to make his point. It is relevant to new clause 1, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Michael: I do not intend to argue with the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the Government's position on SSSIs. My point is simply that it is doubtful whether the bay would have been designated an SSSI under objective criteria. There were no objections to the original designation because no one was told that it was to happen. The designation was discovered after the event by many of those who were integrally involved in the environment and future of Cardiff. As one who was involved at that time, I assure my hon. Friend that the original designation had the shortcomings that I mentioned.
      Mr. Davies: I am not sure whether I understand my hon. Friend's argument. It is a matter of fact that South Glamorgan county council recognised the site and incorporated it in its structure plan. It is a matter of fact that there were no objections. So I do not know how my hon. Friend can speculate that the site would not qualify for designation now.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I wish to address the other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made. I shall then happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that if objective criteria were applied the site would not be designated. He has no basis for saying that. The objective criteria apply. If they were followed, the site would have to be designated a site of special scientific interest. The site meets the requirements under the Ramsar convention and the requirements to be a candidate area for protection under the EC birds directive. The only circumstances which could lead to the site not being accepted would be if the Government applied their own interpretation. They did that when they considered developing the entire Severn estuary as a special protection area. They took it upon themselves to apply in a strange way the principle of subsidiarity. They said that they would take it upon themselves to exercise discretion and exclude Cardiff bay from the designation of the Severn estuary as an SPA.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We must make it clear that the designation was valid. All that has happened subsequently supports that assertion.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Davies: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).
      Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original designation was made because the intertidal zone of Cardiff bay had nationally important populations of calidris waders and shelducks? Those numbers have since been confirmed by independent assessments and by other conservation bodies. The Government have never quibbled with those figures. So it is not necessarily true that the designation was wrong in the first place. The same criteria as those used then are currently used for new designations of SSSIs in line with both red data book guidelines and the Government's guidelines. It is not that there was anything wrong with the original designation.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is an elected member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. He is a well-known and respected ornithologist in his own right. We must accept his objective comment on the matter.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I know that my hon. Friend is desperately anxious to develop the debate and I have assured him that I shall give way to him. However, I wish to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. He brings expertise as both a politician and an objective observer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth maintains that he cannot accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, he must accept the advice of the Government's scientific advisers. Even if he will not accept our word for it, and even if he thinks that the RSPB is tainted as an organisation, he must accept the view of the Countryside Council for Wales. It was its unequivocal view that the site should be protected and that the barrage development should not proceed. That is the official view of the Government's wildlife advisers.
      Dr. John Marek: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I am more than happy to give way but I must tell my hon. Friend that he is in a queue. We have a stacking arrangement and he has booked his place in the queue. I shall come to him in due course.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth does not accept our view or that of the RSPB, he must accept the view of the Government's scientific advisers. That is the objective, authoritative view on the matter.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: One of the ironies about the designation is that there is an unusual density of wading birds in the bay because the mudflats are unusually nutrient-rich. Therefore, the small invertebrates which populate the mud feed the wading birds.
      348
      However, it is nutrient-rich because the River Ely and, to a lesser extent these days, the Taff are extremely well-nourished by sewerage. Were an ecologically friendly Government—if we had such a thing—to propose to clean up those two rivers, which they will have to do as a result of building the barrage, the nutrient level of the water, the amount of nutrient absorbed into the mud and thus the number of invertebrates will decline, as will the density of wading birds. If the designation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech and may wish to catch my eye later, but that was a very long intervention and it was quite outside normal procedure.
      Mr. Davies: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had quite finished.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). If he does not wish to continue, a number of other hon. Members wish to speak.
      Mr. Davies: I have barely started, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I most certainly want to continue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central was in an unusual position—he was semi-crouching. I intended no discourtesy to you, as I know that you have the respect of the whole House and that you make judgments with great authority and we shall respect them. I was tempted by my hon. Friend's semi-crouching position. He looked rather like a redshank searching for an early supper in the basin.
      The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central is interesting. He suggested that if the water quality in the Taff and Ely rivers were improved, the value of the bay as a habitat would diminish. That has particular relevance to the amendment. I think that my hon. Friend was suggesting that I would oppose the cleaning up of those rivers because it would diminish the value of the bay for wildlife. That is entirely speculative, and we are dealing not with that but with new clause 1. If I were to stray from new clause 1, I know that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have no intention of being led down the tempting and fascinating path suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central.
      Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I must tell the Minister that I do not think that he has any discretion. We know that the site qualifies under the Ramsar convention, which is an international treaty to which we are signatories. We also have a responsibility under the EC directive, as article 2 on wild birds states that when there is "irreconcilable conflict", priority must be given to "ecological needs". I should have thought that that was a crystal clear explanation of our responsibilities. If a proposed development would destroy an SSSI, it clearly conflicts irreconcilably with the wish to retain it. One cannot have half a barrage, or build a barrage and retain the environment that would thus be destroyed.
      The Government's responsibility is to give priority to ecological needs. The directive does not give any discretion to the Government but tells them that they must give priority to such needs. We know that the Government's scientific advisers have also said that that is what they should do. That is important. In the Minister's brief introduction to new clause 1, he gave no sign that he

      349
      understood the responsibility placed on him. I shall now happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
      Dr. Marek: I am sorry that I have to interrupt my hon. Friend's train of thought, but he is relying a little too much on the Government taking cognisance of the views of the Countryside Commission or acting legally and obeying the Ramsar treaty. The Government have no mandate in Wales—they are a minority Government. They ride roughshod over everything that people in Wales want if, for political reasons, they want something else. If some form of compulsion exists elsewhere whereby we could bring the Government to account, I suspect that the best way to proceed would be by using it. Perhaps we should go to Europe, to one of the European courts, and find out whether anything could be done there. As my hon. Friend knows more about such matters than I, perhaps he could give the House his advice as to the best procedure.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Caerphilly is tempted down that route, could we get back to new clause 1?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is a tricky customer. I saw the trap that he was laying and I am grateful that you have made sure that I stick to new clause 1, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, his argument can be used in the context of new clause 1, because the Government have a responsibility. They think that they are discharging it by talking about developing and conserving flora and fauna. They think that by so doing they will avoid their international responsibilities. I understand that the RSPB are to consider taking the case to the European Court.
      5.15 pm
      In framing new clause 1, the Government took into account the findings of the European Court in the Leybucht judgment, which they grievously misinterpreted when they decided to exclude Cardiff bay from the proposed designation of the Severn estuary as an area deserving and requiring protection under the birds directive. Even though that is a path that I cannot follow—much as I would like to do so—my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham may rest assured that the responsibility for exploring the need to safeguard the environment will be taken, even if it means having recourse to the European Court.
      We must ask ourselves why the Minister could scupper the predecessor of the Bill, from the anonymity of the Back Benches, by shouting out, "Object", and then come along with this wholly unsatisfactory new clause in an attempt to discharge his responsibilities.
      I view the changing attitudes of Ministers with fascination. We know that the Bill originated from a flight of whimsy on the part of Nicholas Edwards—now Lord Crickhowell—who was in Baltimore, saw the bay and thought, "That's a good idea. Let's have one in Cardiff." Every one of his successors in the Welsh Office has been seduced. It is almost as if there were some sort of disease there which rots their brains, or prevents them from exercising any objective consideration of the issues. However, if I go down that track I know that you will say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not referring to new clause 1 and the amendments grouped with it.
      350
      I must pursue the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central who mentioned the importance of mudflats. How on earth can the development corporation have regard to the desirability
      "of developing and conserving flora and fauna"—
      the very words of new clause 1—if we interpret those to mean wildlife? How on earth can it have that responsibility when the construction of a barrage will create a virtual desert for wildlife in the bay? That is the question that I want the Minister to answer. If he argues that flora and fauna are not the same as wildlife, I understand why the new clause fits the purpose, but if he believes that they are the same, can he explain how the development corporation can develop and conserve wildlife? It cannot do so, because a barrage will destroy the very wildlife that is of value.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central briefly mentioned the value of mudflats.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I shall be brief this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall listen with great interest to any later arguments about how eutrophic the barrage will make the lake. Eutrophic lakes are quite the opposite of deserts—they are filled with wildlife.
      Mr. Davies: They are filled with life, but I am sure that you would rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the debate about water quality properly comes under the third group of amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need any guidance from the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davies: I was not seeking to guide you; I was merely speculating about your ruling.
      I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has said, but we are entitled to ask about the quality of life in such eutrophic conditions, which would be far different from existing conditions in the bay. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the mudflats, which are rich in nitrates and provide a home for rich and varied invertebrate life, as a feeding ground for migratory birds.
      Apart from the fact that the mudflats are enriched by the downflow from the Taff and Ely, they are also intertidal. The interface between the sea and the land makes the mudflats of particular value. They are regularly flooded, so they are washed.
      The mudflats are also ice-free, which is particularly important to the birds from Iceland, Greenland or Eurasia which use them in the winter. They come to the Atlantic seaboard to seek the ice-free coasts for shelter and for winter feeding. If we destroy those mudflats, we will deprive the over-wintering birds of the opportunity to enjoy that special habitat.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has speculated that if the barrage went ahead and the bay was lost, it would not really matter. That view is not shared by the Government's advisers or by any wildlife organisation. In my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout south Wales, an endless number of organisations are opposed to the development on the ground that the bay is an integral part of the Severn estuary. That is an inescapable fact. If the bay is destroyed, the entire Severn estuary would be damaged. The Government have had that argument put to them by the Countryside Council for Wales, but they have failed to discharge their international responsibilities to

      351
      designate the estuary as a special protection area—an SPA. It is important to consider the damage that will be inflicted on the estuary if the bay is lost.
      The Government talk about the glories of biodiversity. They lecture the third world on its responsibilities, they properly try to pressurise the Norwegians to accept their own and they lecture their European partners on their responsibilities and the need to conserve song birds in Italy and France. I applaud those laudable efforts. However, a commitment to conservation is not a hat that can be put on and taken off to suit one's convenience. If one is committed to the cause of conservation, one must accept that commitment even when it is inconvenient. The cause of conservation in the case of Cardiff bay is not convenient to the Government—that is the essence of the criticism of the Government's case. They have disregarded their responsibilities to conservation. It is worth stressing that when we consider the Cardiff bay development, which is highly speculative to say the least.
      Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend may have received a copy of a letter sent to me from the Bristol section of Friends of the Earth about biodiversity and the Severn estuary. It stated that unique forms of flora and fauna in the estuary were liable to be destroyed by developments in the bay. I have written twice to the author of the letter for a list of those unique flora and fauna, but I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps my hon. Friend can list them.
      Mr. Davies: It would be foolish of me to be tempted to comment on correspondence that I have not seen.
      Mr. Flynn: It is about biodiversity.
      Mr. Davies: I am talking about biodiversity too.
      Some time ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made a similar intervention to say that he had written to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to ask about its views on the barrage. He tempted me to defend the RSPB, but that is not my job or duty. On that occasion, we were discussing the number of existing SSSIs, the number that had been destroyed and the displacement of estuarine birds.
      I accept that estuarine birds are not unique and I should be interested to find out which life forms in the estuary Friends of the Earth judge to be unique. I have not argued that the ecosystem in the estuary is unique, but it is rare and valuable and it will be damaged by the development. In a letter dated 18 December 1989, of which I have a copy, the RSPB put that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. It stated:
      "The fate of estuarine birds displaced is complex and not fully researched. Experts advising both Promoters and Petitioners against the Bill agree that a large proportion of those displaced by a barrage would not be able to 'fit in' elsewhere, or would displace other birds in turn. The availability of suitable habitat is finite; areas of international importance, such as the Severn estuary, of which the Taff/Ely is a part, are to be treasured accordingly. Loss of an important part would cause an overall net loss in the world population of species affected. The Promoters accept that some loss will have to be compensated for".
      I would not argue that the estuary is home to unique life forms, but the bay is an integral part of it. It is a valuable over-wintering area for highly protected bird species for which we have international responsibility. I do not know whether my case is supported by Friends of the Earth in
      352
      Bristol. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is prepared to let me see the correspondence, I shall write to Friends of the Earth. I shall certainly ask that group for a list of the unique life forms that it believes exist in the estuary. I shall even send a copy of my speech, which I am sure will be read.
      The RSPB is the primary voluntary organisation that has campaigned against the barrage. The House will be aware that it is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe. It is highly respected and has about 1 million members, who base all their campaigning work on detailed, scientific, objective analysis.
      The work conducted by the RSPB is a lesson to us all. We must acknowledge its views and it is important to put them on record. They are particularly relevant because we can then test how the development corporation could comply with the requirements of new clause 1. It has stated:
      "The RSPB and other wildlife conservation bodies including the Glamorgan Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation are opposed to the barrage proposal since it will permanently flood the intertidal lands that provide important feeding grounds for 5,000–8,000 wild birds which regularly use Cardiff Bay in winter. Cardiff bay is of high wildlife importance and has been notified by the Nature Conservancy Council"—
      of course, that was before it was disbanded by the Government when they tried to impose political control over science—
      "as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In biological terms, the bay is an integral part of the wider Severn estuary, which is of international importance for shelduck, redshank, knot and dunlin and meets the criteria for protection under the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds and the Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands."
      That case is put against the barrage.
      I shall look briefly at the arguments again. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West has had some dispute with the RSPB because he argues, "I am not sure that it really matters, because the birds will go elsewhere." He has used the argument concerning Collister Pill, the area in his constituency or in that of his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). The argument in respect of Collister Pill is different because it was a different habitat and was not designated an SSSI.
      5.30 pm
      The argument that it does not matter because the birds will go elsewhere is flawed, because all the science involved tells us that there is a finite and restricted habitat, that the birds cannot go elsewhere and that if they could go elsewhere, they would displace the species in that other area, resulting in a net loss.
      As well as being scientifically incorrect, such an argument is politically irresponsible. It is a casual and dismissive attitude towards our responsibilities for conservation to claim that it does not matter because the birds will go elsewhere. It would be like telling the Japanese or Norwegians, "It does not matter if we go whaling," or telling the Brazilian or Equador Governments, "It does not matter if we destroy the tropical rain forests." Is it not equal to telling French hunters, "It does not matter if you shoot skylarks in their migratory passage"? It represents taking a casual attitude.
      I find it amazing in 1992, not only having had the idea of biodiversity accepted by the Government but with the

      353
      increasingly accepted attitude about global responsibilities for our shared natural heritage, that there should be such a casual dismissal of our responsibilities for what I believe would be at best a dubious and transient benefit, so far unproved, to the economy of Cardiff.
      Mr. Flynn: It is misleading for my hon. Friend to compare the estuary with the rain forest, where there are literally tens of thousands of unique species—in the Severn estuary there are none. As for the finite site available where the birds at Collister Pill migrated, that was a totally artificial, man-made site that did not exist previously. It was in the ash ponds of the Uskmouth power station.
      A decision must be made about birds that are rare and under threat. Here we are dealing with birds that are under no threat whatever. They exist in their millions. A balanced and common-sense decision must be made, reconciling what is required to protect and preserve those birds and the great advantages available to the population of Cardiff as a result of the barrage. My hon. Friend is aware that provision, which has been much praised, is made in a later clause in connection with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East.
      Mr. Davies: The latter point made by my hon. Friend is doubtful, but we can look into it when we debate the clause to which he referred. I concede that the circumstances at Collister Pill were different. My hon. Friend claims that making a parallel with the rain forest is not valid because the birds in question are not unique. In terms of the environment of north-west Europe, they are. They might not be unique to Cardiff bay or to the Severn estuary, but they are unique to the ecology of north-west Europe. Therefore, a comparison should be made not between Cardiff bay and the entire equatorial rain forest but between the ecosystem of north-west Europe and the ecosystem of the equatorial forest.
      It is true to say that there are millions of unique species in the equatorial forest. By the same token, there are millions of unique species if the area of definition is the whole of the ecosystem of north-west Europe, and that should be the comparison. My hon. Friend is wrong, therefore, to say that the species in question are not under threat. They are. If he recognises that within the context of north-west Europe they are a declining species and are under threat, he must consider at what point we must call a halt.
      My hon. Friend is a sincere and committed defender of the rain forest and agrees that no further destruction should take place there. I do not see how he can reconcile that with saying, "We shall not protect Cardiff bay because man needs it." Is he not aware of the rightness of the comparison? We must stop at some point. We must not let it go on, with further estuaries being destroyed one at a time. We must say, "Now is the time to stop because we have international responsibilities."
      I have drawn my line and said that it should stop here. My hon. Friend may say that the line should be drawn somewhere else. I am entitled to ask where he would draw his line. Would it be somewhere after Cardiff bay, after Taff estuary, or after the Mersey, Morecambe bay or the Humber? At what point would he say stop? The point has arrived for me. We must stop here and care for our estuaries. I challenge my hon. Friend to say whether his line is after Cardiff bay, and then no further. He has a strong interest because a proposal for the Usk barrage is,
      354
      or would have been under other circumstances, coming forward. Would my hon. Friend have drawn the line there? I hope he will answer that question.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may invite his hon. Friend to answer, but he is not in order in doing so.
      Mr. Flynn: In view of my hon. Friend's invitation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has been developing a speech to which we have listened with interest. Rather than challenging other hon. Members on certain issues, he should concentrate his remarks on the subject of new clause 1.
      Mr. Davies: I was not challenging my hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I got the impression that he wished to intervene and I was politely offering to allow him to do so. I accept your ruling and return to the subject I was developing, which is the argument that the development does not matter because the birds will go elsewhere. I hope that, in terms of our international responsibilities, that issue has been adequately dealt with.
      The next argument to be adduced is that 10 per cent. of the land area of Britain is covered by SSSIs. Cardiff bay estuary is an important part of that and new clause 1 would have recognised that, were it a meaningful provision. One view is that, because 10 per cent. of the land area is covered by SSSIs, it does not matter if we lose a bit here and there. My answer is again to ask where the line is to be drawn. If we are prepared to see one SSSI destroyed, shall we be prepared to see another destroyed?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth feels strongly about the issue. I have questioned various people—including him when he was promoting the earlier legislation—the Welsh Office, the Government's advisers and the Department of the Environment because we can test the validity of new clause 1 against the evidence that is adduced in that respect. How many SSSIs are we prepared to see destroyed? Are we prepared to see partial destruction of them all or the complete destruction of some, or is there to be some arbitrary test which results in it being said, "We shall destroy this one but protect that one"? If we are to proceed on that basis, the Government must announce the parameters of that decision-making process.
      What criteria will apply? Do they have in mind a super triple SI—a quadruple SI—that will be protected? At what point will they stop destroying triple SIs?
      5.45 pm
      Wales has 843 triple SIs, of which Cardiff bay is one. In the last year for which figures are available, from April 1991 to March 1992, 45 of them were destroyed. That is disgraceful because those sites were selected on objective scientific criteria and approved as worthy of conservation. They have been destroyed and the Government have done nothing to protect them. The Government are now sending out a clear message that, by Act of Parliament, triple SIs can be destroyed in their entirety. What message is that to individuals who want to destroy triple SIs? How can the Government have any credibility in trying to enforce the protection of triple SIs when they have piloted through the House of Commons legislation that destroys a triple SI? I am sure that I shall receive no answer to that question.

      355
      The third case that is put is that, although there will be damage—that argument was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West—we should think of the people of Cardiff. All my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate have made it clear that we want Cardiff to be developed and are concerned about its prosperity and that of our constituents. We are not opposed to development of Cardiff that will benefit the people of Cardiff. We argue that the barrage is unnecessary for that development. In any case, the development is highly speculative and we have been asked to accept the destruction of a triple SI. Although new clause 1 attempts to offer a palliative, the effect will be the destruction of a triple SI for a temporary benefit.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the earlier question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), but it is a kind of answer with an element of lateral thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West asked what was unique about the flora and fauna of Cardiff bay. He did not get an answer because my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly had not seen the correspondence from Bristol Friends of the Earth. It is unique to have a triple SI in the middle of a large city of some 300,000 people, or so I believe.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that it is. My hon. Friend is a master of the art of lateral thinking and I must be careful to ensure that he does not distract me from our debate on new clause 1. He knows that I would welcome any alternative proposals for the development of Cardiff, such as a mini barrage that would have the double benefit of providing a waterscape and, at the same time, conserve for future generations the marvellous reserve that is unique within the bay. If we had a development corporation and a Government who were more imaginative and were not stuck in an early 1980s time warp, they would be prepared to accept that. But they will not and we must accept that.
      The argument is that, although there will be damage, that does not matter because it will be outweighed by benefits. It is summed up by a letter that I received from the Minister's predecessor in the Welsh Office and the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) when he was a Welsh Office Minister. In reply to my letter putting that point to him, he wrote to me on 16 October 1989, saying
      "In relation to the Cardiff Bay Barrage, the environmental impact associated with the Barrage has been considered at length. In 1986 the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology undertook a study of the effect of the Barrage on over-wintering shorebirds. Further environmental studies, including the feasibility of providing alternative feeding grounds, have been commissioned by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and South Glamorgan County Council. The results of all these studies have been brought together in an independent and detailed Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by Liverpool University's Environmental Advisory Unit in line with the recommendations of the Pearce report … The environmental costs have therefore been measured in detail, and weighed against the paramount importance of realising the economic, recreational and other benefits that can be expected to arise from the Barrage. The Government has concluded that in this case the economic benefits heavily outweigh the identified environmental and other costs."
      So we have an admission and an acceptance that there will be environmental damage, but all the other benefits are highly speculative. Later this evening we shall debate water quality. The Select Committee that examined the
      356
      matter when it was a private Bill concluded that the economic benefit was dubious, to say the least. We now know that, with the collapse of the property market, there is little prospect of it being of economic benefit to the people of Cardiff, yet we are being asked to accept environmental destruction for dubious and transient economic benefit. I cannot accept that.
      Finally, it is argued that alternative environments will be provided. Were that not funny, it would make me cry. In previous debates we were told that alternative feeding grounds would be provided. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, who was present for the previous debates, will remember the fact that we were told that a lagoon would provide a panacea. We would then not need new clause 1 because the lagoon would provide the answer to all our problems.
      Dr. Kim Howells: Is my hon. Friend referring to the lagoon that was supposed to have a magic barge on it, which would clear out everything from algae to wooden doors that came down the River Taff?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend refers to the lagoon behind the barrage, which will destroy the natural environment. I am talking about the lagoon that will be provided some miles to the east of the lagoon at Wentloog. That lagoon was supposed to provide the solution to the environmental damage. When this was a private Bill, we were told with great authority by everyone concerned—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the Minister and the development corporation—that that was the answer and that we need not worry about environmental damage because the lagoon would solve the problems.
      That lagoon was considered by the Select Committee examining the Bill and its findings have given rise to these amendments. The Chairman of the Select Committee made the following stunning argument:
      "Finally, I come to the question of the proposed lagoon at Wentloog. I do not think it will come as any great surprise to those who have been following the progress of this Committee's inquiries to know that we take a very unfavourable view of that proposal".
      That was the earlier version of the all-singing, all-dancing answer to all the problems. He continued:
      "But briefly, it is suggested that the lagoon should be built at a cost which in reality is likely to exceed £7 million capital cost and cost approximately £4–500,000 per annum in running costs, that these funds should be provided from public money and provided, therefore, by the taxpayer. The result of doing so would be to build a small artificial tidal mudflat at Wentloog".
      Dr. Kim Howells: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I know that my hon. Friend is excited, but perhaps he could restrain himself. I am coming to the end of the Chairman's remarks—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address new clause 1 in which there is no mention of a lagoon. We are discussing the barrage, and I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The new clause is a Government attempt to offset the environmental damage caused by the barrage. I doubt the wisdom and the efficacy of that proposal and I am attempting to compare the Government's previous attitude to show that their case is built on shaky

      357
      foundations. Until early this year, their case was based on the lagoon and not new clause 1. The Select Committee Chairman said:
      "The result of doing so would be to build a small artificial tidal mudflat at Wentloog. The purpose of this exercise, we have been told, is to provide an alternative home for some of the birds which have been displaced from the mudflats of Cardiff Bay following the building of the barrage."
      It is said that new clause 1 is concerned about flora and fauna. The Chairman continues:
      "We heard evidence that the winter count of dunlin is 2,891 in the Bay and of redshank 486."
      If new clause 1 is accepted, those two species will have to be considered by the development corporation. The Chairman went on:
      "These are the two main species of birds which are considered to be under threat from the construction of the barrage. We were further told that the most optimistic forecast was that approximately one quarter of these birds might use the habitat at Wentloog. The proposal, therefore, is that some £10,000 per bird in capital terms, put crudely, and £600 per annum in running cost terms should be spent on these birds."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and I have a great love for birds, but even we would share the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West if we were asked to fork out £10,000 per bird in capital costs and £600 per annum in running costs. It does not cost as much to organise a pheasant shoot, and that gives people the perverted pleasure of killing the birds at the end of the year. The Chairman continued:
      "This would appear to be sufficiently ludicrous by itself, but worse information was to come. Firstly, we were told that the lagoon as proposed was far too small to be of any practical use. Secondly, we were told that there was absolutely no guarantee that any of the threatened birds would use it at all, although the likelihood was that some would. As I say, the most optimistic count was that a quarter of the population of birds currently in Cardiff would use it. Thirdly, we were told that there were potential problems from gulls, leaching from the nearby dumps and health hazards from a combination of dumps and gulls might render the lagoon wholly useless."
      That was the Government's solution less than 12 months ago, but now we are being asked to accept new clause 1 as the panacea for environmental damage. That is why I am a little suspicious about the wisdom of the Welsh Office in these matters.
      There are widespread objections to what is being done and to the suggestion that somehow the environmental damage is acceptable if new clause 1 is passed. A leader in The Guardian referred to the EC wild birds directive which, I believe, gives rise to new clause 1. If the Minister wishes to tell me that I am wrong, I shall give way to him. The leader is a trenchant criticism of the Government and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph because you use a broad brush and form your own opinion. On 13 October, The Guardian said:
      "Not many people are going to defend the crow. Most tears over Britain's refusal to conform with a 1979 EC directive providing protection to crows may be tears of anger, not sorrow. Here surely is a supreme example of Brussels at its most absurd: defending a pest which feeds off the songbirds that provide such delight! Well, not quite. The matter is more complicated than Europhobes would have you believe. There are two separate issues wending their way to the European Court: the first protecting species, the second protecting habitat."
      Those issues are relevant to all the amendments. The leader goes on:
      "The first, and the more dubious, is the blanket protection of the 1979 directive which was breached by the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. Under this Act, British landlords are
      358
      free to grant permission to sportsmen to shoot crows—and magpies, rooks, jays, woodpigeons, sparrows and starling—all the year round. The absurdity of a blanket ban should not be allowed to obscure the importance of a second issue: Britain's refusal to provide enough special protection areas for birds. This is not just a breach of EC law, but of the International Convention on Wetlands ratified by the UK Government in 1976."
      That charge is made time and again against the Government and they have not attempted to answer it.
      Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is desperately anxious to intervene.
      Mr. Griffiths: I want to set the record straight because the Government are not doing so. The problem about the protection of birds such as crows arose from the faulty application of British law in putting the EC directive into operation. In July, before the House rose for the summer recess, the Government undertook in Committee to put that matter right. I do not want the House to think that that defect still exists. That will enable us to rest easily—if we get to sleep tonight.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that we have every chance of getting a good night's sleep. All that the Government have to do is withdraw the Bill.
      My hon. Friend's question is slightly outside the terms of reference of the new clause. The decision that he debated in Committee is subject to challenge because in giving a blanket licence the Government contravene the provisions of the birds directive. My hon. Friend nods in agreement. The relevance of the new clause is not to shooting corbins but to protecting habitat. The Guardian leader continued:
      "For those people who think environmental issues should be left to national governments, the protection of bird life provides some salutary lessons. Under the E.C. Wild Birds directive, the UK was required to set aside special protection areas by 1981."
      That is precisely what we are talking about. The leader goes on:
      "'An irreducible minimum' list of 222 sites was identified by the Nature Conservancy Council. Eleven years on only 62 sites have been designated. So much for last week's claim by Michael Howard that Britain was always at a disadvantage `because we observe community laws while others flout them'. This is not just a question of protecting British birdlife. Many of the wetland sites are important resting, roosting and feeding places for migrating birds. The lesson could not be clearer: environmental needs do not stop at national boundaries. Just as industrial waste poured into a river poisons all fish and land further downstream, so one nation's refusal to provide sufficient special protection areas for birds can affect birdlife hundreds of miles away. Far from supporting calls for more subsidiarity, the environment reinforces the need for extra territorial policing. But for Brussels, the Dirty Old Man of Europe would have refused to clean up its drinking water or reduce its sewage disposals in the sea. It was Mrs. Thatcher who declared: 'No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we can have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease'."
      What the Government are now offering us is a substandard provision, in new clause 1, to meet these international obligations. Frankly, that is not good enough and nor are the other amendments.
      6 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: I am in a quandary, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make some progress as the meat of what I have to say is yet to come, but my hon. Friend wishes to intervene. I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that he is anxious to push ahead so that we can get home at a reasonable time.
      Given the stress that my hon. Friend has laid on the habitat directive and the special protection areas, which are vital and a critical part of new clause 1, it should be said that the EEC directive was not imposed on us by Brussels. It was something that the British Government undertook to do. They have failed to do it and that has led to the crisis over the Bill.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a telling point on which there is no need to elaborate.
      Many other people take this critical view of new clause 1. I am sure that you will be fascinated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by a recent study produced by the RSPB called "Important Bird Areas in the United Kingdom including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man". I shall quote just two sentences from the introduction:
      "In this country, with its very rich wild bird heritage, the threats to coastal, wetland and migratory bird habitats are particularly severe. Drainage, pollution, disturbance and fishing pressure have already caused serious problems and I hope that the timely publication of this important book will help to ensure that the most valuable bird areas in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are given the effective and permanent protection that they urgently need."
      That clear message comes in the foreword by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, signed "Philip". If the Minister is not prepared to accept the views of other bodies, perhaps he will give at least some passing consideration to that view.
      The final authority that I shall quote on this matter is the Select Committee on the Environment, which looked at the problem of our coastline and our important estuaries and the threat of damage from developments. These are the conclusions of the Select Committee:
      "Coastal zone protection and planning cannot be reviewed in isolation; they are inextricably linked to the administration and management of the many activities and uses of the coastal zone."
      This is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and I were discussing earlier. We as a Parliament, as a society, as part of the Government of the day must make a judgment about how we use this precious environmental resource.
      We cannot go on making piecemeal judgments. We cannot go on saying that this or that development can go ahead, and at some time or other in the future call a halt. We know that we shall have to take a coherent view to protect our environment and discharge our international responsibilities. It is time that we accepted the view of the Environment Select Committee and decided that now is the time for this coherent view.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is pressing me to give way on this matter, but you will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am coming to my conclusion.
      Mr. Rogers: Before my hon. Friend does so, I hope that he will deal with the issues that arise from the movement of fish through the barrage and up the rivers. The National Rivers Authority, which can hardly be described as a body dominated by Labour supporters, as Lord Crickhowell, its chairman, was the Secretary of State for Wales who initially supported and developed the Bill when it was a private Bill, is called "The guardian of the water environment". In a pamphlet, it says:
      "The NRA takes the view that the barrage and the impoundment are likely to obstruct or delay salmonid migration and some mortality resulting from algal blooms or increasing predation may also occur."
      The promoters said that they would implement a scheme that would partly simulate the fish traps and barriers that would be involved in the barrage. Has this project been carried out? Have these tests been done? If so, what are the results?
      Mr. Davies: I would happily discuss that, but I think that the subject will arise in a later debate.
      Mr. Rogers: I was talking about fauna.
      Mr. Davies: I know that, but I am trying to follow strictly the terms of new clause 1. I have been referring to the Government's international responsibilities and demonstrating how the provisions of new clause I will fail to meet those obligations. I am a strong supporter of the case that we must ensure that migratory fish have a free and uninhibited passage. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wishes to pursue that matter in this debate, he will have to use his own ingenuity and make his own speech. If he wishes me to refer to the matter in a later debate, I shall do so happily.
      There is now a growing consensus among all who are concerned about the conservation of our wildlife habitat and our environment. There is a growing realisation that we have to take a coherent, long-term strategic view. We are dealing with a washed-up relic of an idea from the last decade that has outlived its usefulness. New clause 1 does not mitigate those damages. The Select Committee also said that, in evidence:
      "Government officials stressed repeatedly to us that existing arrangements for coast protection and sea defence were all working 'extremely well'. The vast majority of witnesses in their submissions to this inquiry, however, takes a rather different view."
      In other words, everyone who took the trouble to come along told the Select Committee that the policy was not working. The Committee said:
      "From the evidence presented to us, we firmly believe that coastal protection"—
      that is not covered by new clause 1, but the next two subjects are—
      "planning and management in the United Kingdom suffer from centuries of unco-ordinated decisions and actions at both the national and local levels. We found that there are inadequacies in legislation, anomalies in the planning system, a lack of central guidance, and overlapping and conflicting policies and responsibilities (and in some cases a lack of action) among a host of bodies, with poor co-ordination between them."
      That is the view of the Select Committee.
      If there is anything that demonstrates more clearly the absence of any strategy on the part of the Government, it is the Bill. The enactment of the Bill would destroy a priceless part of our national heritage for an economic benefit that can be described only as tenuous. The cost to public funds would be enormous. There would be

      361
      considerable and continuing uncertainty. All that the Government can offer us in terms of the environment is the commitment that the development corporation must have regard to flora and fauna. The corporation will have to consult the Government's scientific advisers. But we know that those advisers have given the most important piece of evidence that they could ever have produced. They have presented the most important advice that they could ever have brought forward.
      The Nature Conservancy Council said, "No, don't do it." The Government then intervened politically and tried to sabotage the NCC's scientific independence and make it subject to political control. They created a quango, the Countryside Commission for Wales. Even then, the scientific evidence was so overwhelming that even the commission could conclude only that the proposals were fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn. The new clause does nothing to offset my concerns and those of my hon. Friends about the environmental dangers.
      Mr. Alun Michael: I shall be brief, but I feel that I should comment on the new clause and the amendments because the entire area of the development corporation, the inland lake and the communities that live around it lie within my constituency.
      We all respect the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in these matters and the strength of the views that he holds, which is perhaps reflected in no small way by the length of his contribution this evening. Sadly, I fear that he has the Bill out of proportion. That is my view, but I appreciate that he has his own. There is an assumption of environmental damage underlying his contribution, but there is an assumption underlying the views of many others, especially those of Members who are local in terms of the Bill, of environmental improvement. Those of us who have taken a strong interest over the years in environmental issues and have fought for them, and who believe that there is a need for a coherent strategic view, are to be found among the Bill's supporters as well as among its opponents.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly referred rightly to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as the main organisation campaigning against the barrage. Personally, I am sad that it has taken that stance. I have great respect for the society and I believe that it was misled into entering the campaign. Initially it opposed the barrage because this was the first proposal to come forward which would affect an estuary in this way, and not because it had a good case. It felt obliged to become involved, I believe, because it saw a knock-on effect. It was mistaken both in terms of tactics and principle.
      Much has been made of the importance of the bay to wildlife. In my view, its importance has been overstated. For example, the bay was not shown on the RSPB's centenary map as an area of major importance. It seems that it is far from being of the importance suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly.
      I hope that the debate will continue in a way that is much more in sympathy with the positive contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who sought to improve the Bill and not to attack it. As I have said, the whole of the development corporation area is in my constituency. I welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, and her colleagues in presenting amendments to improve the Bill.
      362
      They have sought to set out ways of triggering improvements in what the measure will do. The entire purpose of the Bill is to create a better environment, jobs and homes for my constituents.
      6.15 pm
      I am sure that my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench—I have great confidence in my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for example—will bear in mind that Cardiff bay is a city centre area. My constituents have experienced the dirt and noise of heavy industry over generations, followed by the dereliction and unemployment that they are now suffering. It is those conditions that the Bill sets out to alleviate.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I hope that he will acknowledge that a small part of Cardiff bay falls within my constituency.
      Mr. Michael: Indeed, and I welcome the constructive way in which my hon. Friend has approached and regarded the development. There will be a knock-on effect on other areas, but there will be benefits for the wider area of Cardiff and south Wales to be gained by the building of the barrage.
      I support the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley spoke to amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. The amendments have been designed to improve the Bill so that the environment and the future can be improved for my constituents and many others in the region while proper consideration is given to flora and fauna. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.
      Mr. Morley: I am pleased to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I have great respect for the sincerity of his concern for the environment. We have discussed these issues many times and I know that he will agree that there is an honest debate about the way forward while meeting environmental objectives. I am sure that he will accept that there are national implications stemming from the Cardiff bay project, and it is those implications which have caused me to contribute to the debate.
      The way in which sites of special scientific interest are being destroyed in terms of the Bill has an implication for the rest of the country. The Bill sets precedents which are of concern to conservation organisations throughout the country. It will have consequences also for the United Kingdom's reputation within the European Community. In that context, I feel that the new clause is a cynical bit of window dressing when it comes to concern for the environment. It is rather like running a motorway through a nature reserve and then offering to put up a bird table at a service station and a nest box on a garage support post. It seems that there is an attempt to claw back an important site after its destruction and to gain some sort of credibility. It is not good enough.
      I do not want to rehearse all the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who went into the issue in great detail. I merely say that I concur with his arguments. I shall make only a couple of brief points to reinforce the argument about the inadequacy of the new clause. It is not true—this has been inferred, but perhaps not deliberately—that Cardiff bay is not important in wildlife terms. I have a recent report by the World Wide Fund for Nature which states that the

      363
      Government's study—it was carried out by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, which is a well respected organisation—confirms that Cardiff bay is important in its own right as a feeding area for birds which are usually distributed throughout the southern estuary and that it holds populations of curlew and redshank exceeding 1 per cent. of the north-west European total. Such figures are recognised as being of national and international importance. They mean that the area qualifies for special protection under the Ramsar agreement and as a special protection area. When these issues arise, there must be trust in the Government and credibility for their position.
      I am concerned that the Government are on the verge of being taken to the European Court because of their failure to designate special protection areas on estuaries in line with European directives. We are discussing an area which meets recognised national and international wildlife standards; yet it is to be destroyed. The question is whether that destruction will bring any tangible gains to the people of Cardiff. That is the point which gives rise to honest debate between those who oppose the barrage and those who support it. There will be opportunities later to debate that issue.
      It is not good enough that new clause 1 should take into account the importance of wildlife only after the barrage has been built. A cosmetic lagoon, with highly polluted water, will have no importance for wildlife. An important feeding ground will be lost. Cardiff bay is special and important because it is an intertidal zone supporting populations of waders and providing an important wintering ground for wildfowl. If that area is flooded to make a lagoon, the depth of water will prevent it from being a feeding ground. Nor will an alternative range of species be attracted.
      The main advantage of such a barrage would probably be to wildfowl, but even they will have nothing to feed on. Some wintering wildfowl might shelter there temporarily, or the odd swan or mallard might be attracted which would respond to people throwing bread, but they would be insignificant and of little value to nature. With the best will in the world, not a great deal can be done with a deep-water, polluted lagoon to make it attractive to wildlife. Therefore, nothing is altered by suggesting that special attention will be given to Cardiff bay following its destruction behind a lagoon.
      Hon. Members have pointed out that the present habitat is polluted, dirty, smelly and not altogether pleasant. I would not dispute some of that, although I believe that the intertidal zone is far more attractive than any artificial cosmetic lagoon would be. However, the cost savings that would result from not progressing with a barrage could be directed towards cleaning up the bay, making it more attractive and accessible.
      It has been pointed out that the bay is an area of special scientific interest, surrounded by 300,000 people. This is a wonderful opportunity for making that natural feature an important and attractive part of any future development. I have no criticisms or qualms about the progress of the development corporation in attracting new industry, cleaning up the area, creating new jobs and building new
      364
      homes. However, I would question whether the destruction of this important intertidal zone area is necessary to that investment and development.
      I would argue that directing some of those funds towards cleaning up the area and making it more accessible and towards an interpretation centre, towards the kind of schemes that groups such as the RSPB have put forward in compromise proposals, would enhance and protect the area which is of national and international importance.
      We have heard the arguments about the wetlands site and whether that will go ahead. I thought that it was an intriguing idea.
      Mr. Ron Davies: It is worth putting on the record that the Select Committee deleted the wetlands provisions from the Bill and now it is suggested that an alternative site will be examined.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was originally regarded as a kingpin in the original proposal and as compensation for the destruction of the estuary. I shall not go over the point made by my hon. Friend. He clearly undermined that argument and showed that the alternative proposals would not have compensated for the destruction of Cardiff bay. They would have been extremely expensive and involved a technology and technique that is virtually untried. As I say, I am interested in such experiments, but this one would be expensive with no guarantee of success and would be no real compensation for the destruction of the bay.
      It comes down to whether the destruction of a recognised site of special scientific interest is acceptable and whether the Bill will damage the Government's already severely dented credibility in Europe. The Government are prepared to destroy the site but they would then have to sit in the Council of Ministers and argue within the European Court against the destruction of similar sites by other countries. This country is not alone. Wetlands in Greece and the Cota Donna in Spain are under threat. How can we criticise other member states in the EC when they can turn round and say, "What right have you to criticise us when you are destroying your own designated sites of special scientific interest? You, too, are ignoring EC rules. You are not designating areas which require special protection. You are ignoring the Ramsar convention."? We would have no credibility if we did that and there is no justification for the Bill.
      It is a question of balance. It is argued that the barrage is needed in the overall scheme of things and I accept that there is an argument there which has to be met. But the Government should consider carefully the huge expense of the barrage and the implications of destroying one of their own designated sites of special scientific interest. They should listen carefully to their advisers, both statutory and non-statutory bodies, who are unanimous in their opposition to the scheme. Then they should think carefully about whether they are missing an opportunity to utilise a natural feature in a way which will benefit not only wildlife but also the people of Cardiff, both now and in future generations.
      I accept that some people do not consider the present intertidal zone to be attractive, but I do and it may well be that in future many more people will share my view. Therefore, why should we destroy it? Let us pursue what is good and beneficial in the Bill and make the intertidal

      365
      zone an important conservation feature which will not only ensure that the Government honour their international obligations but also enhance an area in Wales for the good of all concerned.
      Mr. Morgan: As one of the Members most affected by the Bill, I want to make some additional points. My constituency has a long link with the proposed inland bay, with some 2.5 miles of the River Ely in my constituency fronting the top end of the inland bay to its western extremity and, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), the other finger pointing northwards out of the main part of the lake towards Blackweir, dividing his constituency from mine in the centre of Cardiff. Therefore, this part of the Bill and the management of the inland bay are of enormous concern to my constituents.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I thought that I had missed the opportunity earlier when I slipped out briefly to have a cup of tea. When my name went up on the annunciator I thought that I had missed my own speech. However, it was a mistake and it should have been my hon. Friend the Member fo Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I was able to boast to others in the Tea Room that I was performing the remarkable feat of having a cup of tea there and making a speech in the Chamber at the same time. Eventually, I realised that I would not miss my speech and that I would have the opportunity of putting it on the record in Hansard and having a cup of tea at the same time, for which I am grateful as I have something of a frog in my throat tonight.
      There are 34 new clauses or amendments in the group under consideration. That is reminiscent of a Third Reading, except that several aspects have not been touched upon—including how the bay is to be managed other than in respect of flora and fauna, which have received all the attention so far.
      I refer specifically to pleasure craft and water sports, and to the obligations that the Bill places on the developers as to the lake's future use. If it does not provide an amenity for the local population, it is not worth having.
      6.30 pm
      The Government argue that the lake will provide facilities for pleasure craft, water sports, and other open air activities. Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are aimed at strengthening the guarantee given to the population of Cardiff and the eastern end of the Vale of Glamorgan that they will be able to enjoy the use of dinghies, yachts, and other craft to no lesser extent than they do now.
      If the bay is locked off from the Bristol channel to create more of a marina environment, rather than one that can be used for weekend fun canoeing and rowing—as it is now, on a substantial scale, by members of local clubs—there will be a loss of amenity. We want the Government to tie down the development corporation to ensure that people of modest means continue to enjoy the same access to water sport facilities that they do now—and allegedly they are to be the beneficiaries of the cost of the barrage and of establishing the development corporation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will agree that sailing is not primarily a rich person's pastime in our constituencies. Many members of local clubs are of modest means. Some
      366
      club officers have made forceful representations to me about the importance of maintaining the present level of charges.
      Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend rightly said that I share his concern for protecting the interests of boat users. I agree with him entirely that the memberships of local sailing clubs represent a good cross-section, and that they are not just rich men's associations. I understand that those clubs have pursued positive discussions and have reached an agreement that will offer protection in respect of fees and access. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is the case, and that the final agreement with the two clubs in question will be signed, sealed and delivered in the near future.
      Mr. Morgan: We are not always advised to offer Ministers an opportunity to intervene, but perhaps the Minister will confirm later my hon. Friend's observations.
      Although the clubs, as corporate bodies, have conducted lengthy negotiations with the developers over the past four or five years in respect of alternative facilities, there remains concern about access and the cost of using water craft when the barrage has been built.
      Sailing small boats will be difficult. Unless a person wins the football pools, a dinghy is very often the first water craft that he owns. I understand that the sailing of small dinghies will not be permitted, on the ground that there will be an excessive risk of such craft capsizing. Dinghy sailing is defined by Cardiff city council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council environmental health officers as a water contact sport.
      The size of the lock and the strength of the whirlpool effect that it will create also present a problem. Small dinghies may therefore be liable to capsize within the lock, but I will return to that aspect when speaking to clauses 31 and 55. Sailing small dinghies alongside larger craft will also be dangerous because of the water pressures that will be created within the lock.
      Avoiding the yuppification of Cardiff bay concerns right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. One does not want to alienate the local population by suggesting that they will be forced or priced out by Cardiff bay being transformed into a marina-like environment, suitable only for use by those having the income levels which existed in south-east England when it was a byword for regional prosperity. That is no longer the case, but it was true when the barrage was first conceived.
      The suspicion that marina time will shortly arrive must be dispelled if the loyalty and interest of the local population is to be maintained. That is particularly true when one considers the extent to which the development corporation has used jolly pictures of boats, motor boats and yachts bobbing up and down on Cardiff bay in its advertising and publicity campaigns. It would indeed turn out to have been a cruel deception were some of the people who had been depicted—in photographs or artists' impressions—in publicity for Cardiff bay to find that they could not afford its amenities in the event of the barrage being built.
      We would fail in our duty if we did not attempt to strengthen the existing provision by our amendments. I feel that that should be placed on record, because when 34 amendments and new clauses are grouped together it is easy to read some to the exclusion of others.

      367
      The question of charges, and how they will affect people of modest means, is dealt with in this group, and I consider it very important. I do not think that enough attention has been given to the issue of pleasure craft; although some of the Government amendments deal with it, they do not reinforce people's rights in the way that Opposition Members consider necessary because of their natural interest in what is, in the broadest sense, their constituency. I am talking about the kind of people who tend to vote Labour: it is not necessary to have a PhD in sociology to work that out.
      Let me turn to some of the details of a subject that has, admittedly, been given a fair old going over already. Do the Government know whether their proposals are proof against challenge in terms of the Leybucht bay judgment, and has that anything to do with the way in which they have framed new clause I and other proposals for change? New clause 1 is clearly part of a deal made by the Government with the Countryside Council for Wales to demonstrate that they were not environmental philistines—that they were "green", and that they had not ignored the importance of
      "developing and conserving flora and fauna"
      in the management of the inland bay. There may be some weasel words in that—or rat words perhaps: I am not sure which fauna the Government mean.
      The handshake agreement reached with the Countryside Council for Wales has aroused considerable suspicion about the way in which the deal was done simply because the council is not a body of long standing. Any deal done with it will require us to exercise our duty of scrutiny, given that one of its two predecessor bodies—the Nature Conservancy Council of Great Britain—took a different view of the barrage proposal. We must ask what pressures were brought to bear on the Countryside Council for Wales, and why it agreed to what amounts to a very mild understanding with the Secretary of State for Wales to the effect that the council has a right to be consulted, as provided in new clause 1(2), and that the development corporation is obliged to
      "have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna."
      We have heard of two possibilities. One is that the Countryside Council for Wales is no longer legally able to oppose a Bill in the name of the Secretary of State, because of its structure as a quango responsible to him—even if, professionally and scientifically, it takes the same view as that previously taken by the Nature Conservancy Council, namely that the barrage should be opposed. Welsh Office lawyers may have pressurised the council, advising it that it simply has not the right to express outright public opposition by petitioning Parliament.
      There is another, slightly less cynical view. The Countryside Council for Wales is a new body whose chairman was directly appointed by the Secretary of State: he is pretty pleased about his appointment, because it is nice to be in a quango. Such a person will tend to visit the Welsh Office fairly frequently to arrange his budget, and his inclination will be not to oppose schemes to which the Secretary of State may have given high priority, even if they have considerable egg-on-face potential in the event of anything going wrong. It is suggested that considerable pressure may have been imposed on the incoming
      368
      chairman not to petition against the barrage proposal, as the Nature Conservancy Council petitioned against the private Bill.
      6.45 pm
      We do not know the truth—it is impossible to repeat laboratory experiments in real life—but the new clause does look like some sort of admission that, in return for not petitioning against the Bill, the Countryside Council for Wales insisted on a right to be consulted. It is rather sad that a cosy club of quango chairmen should exist in Wales—and almost all of them are men, given the structure of society under the present Government. Let us suppose that the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation rings up the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, and says, "You will not be opposing the Cardiff bay barrage proposal, will you? You will not do the same as your blasted nuisance of a predecessor, the Nature Conservancy Council." A good deal of persuasion will be possible, because such people will keep bumping into each other at dinners, Welsh Office budget-setting sessions and similar functions and get-togethers.
      It is rather unfortunate that the rejigging of the arrangements for scientific advice on nature conservation matters has dissipated the spirit of scientific independence for which the NCC was famous. The body has been broken up into English, Scottish and Welsh sections, and the merger between the Scottish and Welsh parts and the Countryside Commission has enabled the Secretary of State to appoint people who will naturally feel a debt of gratitude and loyalty to him. We are distinctly worried about that. We cannot rely on the NCC; we may or may not be able to rely on forces further afield.
      Let me use non-subsidiarity language for a moment. It certainly looks as though there is a prima facie case for suggesting that the barrage proposal at least contradicts the spirit of the Leybucht bay judgment in the European Court of Justice. The Government never give a direct answer about that, but we know that they were terribly worked up about that judgment. They sent a flock of lawyers winging their way to Luxembourg—rather like a flock of overwintering wading birds—to listen to the three different stages of the judgment, and they do not take such action for nothing. They took it then because they were keen to find out exactly what the judgment would be.
      The judgment stated a principle: if there is a conflict between economic development and nature conservation, the Government must give priority to nature conservation. Clearly, that principle is extremely damaging to the barrage proposal. We do not believe that new clause 1 meets the objections which might be made if the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found it necessary some time next year—subject to the way in which the remaining parliamentary proceedings go—to challenge the validity of the proposal in the light of the area's previous designation as a site of special scientific interest. That designation has now been abrogated by the Government.
      We do not think that new clause 1 goes far enough by merely offering a weak duty of consultation, and of developing and conserving flora and fauna. It attempts to meet the obligation to mitigate loss, but does it mitigate loss in a way that comes within a million miles of meeting the clear provisions of the Leybucht bay judgment? The judgment states that if a choice has to be made between the economic objectives that the Government or a local authority may have and their nature conservation

      369
      obligations, the nature conservation objectives, not the economic development objectives, must be given priority. The Government will therefore be faced with great difficulties next year, and their new clause 1 and their other amendments will not save them.
      Our amendment No. 93 and a few of the other amendments point the way towards much stronger provisions. They would provide for an improved and independent version of the environmental impact assessment. We have attempted to do that, though perhaps not very effectively, in amendments Nos. 22 and 23 which have not so far played a major role in our deliberations. Environmental impact assessments are, we believe, very important. However, the existing ones are sloppy and do not abide by the spirit of the environmental impact assessment directive. It is all too easy for the promoters to control the content of environmental impact assessments. This proposal has not benefited from an independent environmental impact assessment.
      I intend to refer to what was wrong with the previous environmental impact assessment. Liverpool university carried out its environmental impact assessment without consulting the statutory bodies at any point. It did not consult the National Rivers Authority. It did not consult Cardiff city council's environmental health department, or that of the Vale of Glamorgan borough council. It merely read other consultants' reports which had been produced for the Cardiff bay development corporation. The omissions from that assessment were bizarre. It had no truck with the two statutory bodies which would have responsibility for the environment if the proposal were to go through. The two statutory bodies were not asked what they thought of the proposal.
      The National Rivers Authority's assessment, which was available to us in Committee, is a damning document in that it states clearly what the NRA thinks of the proposal. Had the environmental impact assessment team from Liverpool university been allowed to do its job properly by the Cardiff bay development corporation, it would have produced a very interesting report. However, the team was not allowed to speak to the NRA. Another assessment ought to be made. We should then have greater respect for the report and the development corporation and feel that the corporation had allowed the consultants to speak freely to those with expert opinions on whether or not the barrage should be constructed. Instead of that, we feel that there was a cosy club arrangement. The Government and the development corporation tend to rely on that arrangement, for fear of the truth coming out if people were allowed to get at it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made some excellent points. We are dealing in this group of amendments with the flora and fauna arguments and with how management could be tightened up. We are also dealing with whether the Cardiff bay development corporation can meet the objectives that all of us have the right to expect in 1992. After the Rio summit, we feel that the human race should try to live in harmony with the biosphere. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether it can be claimed that the barrage would result in the human race living in harmony with the biosphere.
      The Government love going to summit meetings. They love to lecture the lesser breeds without the law who are doing terrible damage to the environment. However, they cannot do that with much conviction if they do not abide by a coherent set of principles in their own back yard. The
      370
      Government's attitude to the barrage provides a test case. It shows whether they are really interested in achieving a balance between the economic development objectives that we all share and the environmental objectives that we also share. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
      This proposal affects the environment, a point to which I referred in an intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly. Cardiff bay is a unique environment. The rise and fall of the tide provide what are known as the kidneys of the eco-system. Cardiff bay has the third highest or, as some people say, the second highest tidal rise and fall in the world. It reaches a site of special scientific interest. It penetrates almost into the centre of a city with a population of 300,000. Areas in the Canadian arctic, with huge areas of mudflats and salt marshes, as in Cardiff, also experience this huge tidal range, but they do not have a big city environment as well.
      New clause 1 provides that the development corporation should consult the Countryside Council for Wales and seek its views on ways in which the bay can be managed to develop and conserve its flora and fauna. The present flora and fauna constitute a unique eco-system, so how can the development corporation carry out that obligation after the barrage has been built without immediately breaching the terms of new clause 1? New clause 1 is almost a nonsense. The development corporation would destroy a unique eco-system, put some pretty ducks on the lake afterwards and then claim that it has conservation very much in mind.
      The development corporation intends to buy off environmental opposition to the barrage proposal by imposing the obligations that are to be found in new clause 1, but that will fool nobody. It will fool neither the Opposition, nor the people outside, nor the environmental lobby. They will not be fooled by the weak-kneed imprint of the Countryside Council for Wales in subsection (2) of new clause 1. New clause 1 does nothing, apart from providing a sop to the Countryside Council for Wales so that it can feel that its conscience has been salved as a result of withdrawing its opposition to the barrage proposal, even though its predecessor body, the Nature Conservancy Council, opposed it. The NCC enjoyed much greater scientific independence. Its chief executive was not chosen by the Secretary of State for Wales. Its funding came from another source. It had a long tradition of complete independence from the Government. That is why the NCC was shot down in flames.
      What does new clause 1 mean? The point about the development and conservation of the flora and fauna poses serious problems. If the Cardiff bay barrage were to lock off the estuary from the open sea and produce a freshwater lake, which would be highly eutrophic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central said earlier, there would be an exceptionally rich although not necessarily desirable set of flora and fauna.
      One can put flora and fauna into three separate categories. One can say, "Would not it be awful if there were no flora and fauna in Cardiff bay post-barrage?" My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly referred to a desert, although I do not think that he meant literally a desert, with no flora or fauna. One can speak of "undesirable" flora and fauna. The area might become a breeding ground for huge quantities of midges. The estimate is that 11 billion midges will breed in the rich muds of the estuary which will cause something of a plague

      371
      in the summer months, as happens in amenity lakes in Scandinavia and in America. It is difficult to control midge populations in shallow, muddy amenity lakes.
      The preservation of such flora and fauna would comply with the new clause. Is that what we want? Almost certainly not. Many of the property developers, especially residential property developers, who may be thinking of building around Cardiff bay will want many guarantees that there will not be too many of such flora and fauna. However, the preservation of such flora and fauna would comply with the new clause, which is why we have doubts about whether it makes any sense.
      7 pm
      Other hon. Members have referred to the question of algal blooms. They are a life form of a very low order. They are flora, but they are hardly desirable. As part of the area is in my constituency, I pay a lot of attention to the flora and fauna of the present flow of the rivers, which will be converted to an inland bay or lake if the barrage is ever built. One notices how critical the balance is between the desirable and the undesirable flora and fauna at the moment.
      Let us consider the algae that form already. There are substantial flows of sewage, both treated and untreated. There is already a nutrient-rich flow, especially in the summer months and especially during summers of low flow, of which 1991 was a good example.
      Dr. Kim Howells: I agree with my hon. Friend that the flow is nutrient-rich in the summer. Does he also acknowledge that it is nutrient-rich in the winter, especially during periods of high rainfall when the Welsh water authority still has a derogated right to put raw sewage into the Taff and the Ely? Those rivers will be impounded by the barrage.
      Mr. Morgan: That is a problem that still has not been dealt with by Welsh Water or by the Cardiff bay development corporation. There is the phenomenon of storm sewer overflows in the valleys which is an almost ineradicable problem of water quality management. However, that was not the primary issue which I was addressing. I was talking about the treated sewage in the summer which tends to create the algal life forms which are material to the new clause. We are talking about flora and fauna in the bay. No doubt the winter sewage flows emerging through the storm sewer overflows tend to impregnate the mud during the winter.
      As there is sunlight and warmth on the mud during the summer, the algae come to life and there can be huge quantities. Standing on Canton bridge in the summer of 1991, I noticed huge algal blooms of the strip variety known as cladophora which are then grazed by mullet which come in from the harbour. They are like cows eating grass. There are huge quantities of mullet in my constituency opposite the national rugby ground which I am sure that you have visited, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite your affection for the thirteen-a-side handling code. Whether you were allowed in if people knew that is another matter. However, I believe that you have been to the national rugby stadium. Right behind there is the phenomenon in dry summers of large quantities of green algal weed being eaten by the mullet—the cows of the river—which come in from the harbour.
      If there is a barrage, the mullet cannot come in. Who will graze the cladophora if the mullet cannot come in
      372
      from the harbour? They will be outside the barrage and the cladophora will be on the inside. That is a serious problem. There was not a problem in 1992 because it was not a dry summer, as you are probably aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the high rainfall after early July, by and large it has been a problem that is easy to control. Once every five or six years when there is a dry summer it is an almost insoluble problem.
      Under the new clause, algal infestation of the barrage would be considered a means by which the development corporation would have complied with the Bill. We have a nutrient-rich green pea soup environment in the river which is full of life. It is not the sort that we want because the river is full of rats over which there is no biological control. The air above the lake will be full of 11 billion midges so everyone around the lake will be scratching. Yet the corporation will say, "That is what it says in new clause 1."
      We need a system for defining what are desirable flora and fauna and what are not. The only way in which we can categorise flora and fauna as desirable or otherwise is to define whether they are natural or not. We might pick and choose, and say, "Ducks are nice. We can install a coarse fishery and that will be nice. We can charge people to catch coarse fish. The coarse fish will eat the midges. The coarse fish will be put back after having been caught." The corporation has such plans in mind.
      It is difficult to compare such a development with the natural environment today. The problem comes back to the fact that the new clause is a complete wash-out, either because the Countryside Council for Wales did not have the guts to oppose the Bill or was legally instructed by the Secretary of State for Wales not to do so. Instead, it will get the absolutely milksop compensation of the right of consultation, and the duty to develop and to conserve flora and fauna.
      The new clause does not satisfy us that the Secretary of State could honestly go to a future Rio summit. If Welsh nationalist Members ever have their way, the Prime Minister of Wales will have his own nameplate and glass of water at the United Nations. If he was signing a Rio summit agreement on biodiversity, but was the same person who had introduced the Bill, nobody from the third world would listen to his lectures with any respect. Nobody would say, "To be fair, that is how they do it in Wales." That is not how people do it in Wales.
      Despite the rather pathetic attempts to show green credentials in the new clause, we feel that the Secretary of State is abandoning his environmental obligations and is not in a fit position, as a member of the United Kingdom Government, to deliver lectures to anyone about how the human race should live in harmony with the biosphere.
      Mr. Peter Hain: A number of bird lovers in Neath who are members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have asked me to raise a number of issues. I hope that the House will give me leave to do so.
      It is obvious that there is great concern about the future of wildlife, especially bird life, as a result of the development. The Government have not yet addressed a number of the key points that have been raised by the RSPB which I want to draw to the House's attention.
      We need to note that the bay can hold up to 5,000 wading birds in the winter months. The birds come to Wales in the winter from summer breeding grounds in a range of northern European countries. Wales has a special

      373
      responsibility to take care of those birds which are part of the European heritage of wildlife. Cardiff bay is a critical area in that it is a component of the Greater Severn estuary ecosystem.
      The bay provides sheltered, high-level mudflats supporting an abundance of invertebrate organisms on which the birds feed. It is an important part of the chain of sheltered sites around the Severn estuary. The Government do not seem to recognise that or to be dealing adequately with it. The Severn estuary, of which Cardiff bay is part, qualifies as a wetland of international wildlife importance under criteria established in the Ramsar convention to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
      The Severn estuary qualifies as a special protection area under article 4 of EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. That resulted in a citation being deposited in 1990 with the Welsh Office and with the Department of the Environment by the Nature Conservancy Council.
      The Secretary of State has declared that it is not the Government's intention to include Cardiff bay in a future special protection area. I find that very worrying. The Government do not seem to me to have answered any of the major criticisms made by the RSPB, among others. There is a strong case for saying that, in pursuing their plans for the development of Cardiff bay, the Government are reneging on their responsibility to conserve the wildlife heritage of Europe. There are three key factors pertinent to this matter. First, the alternative solutions suggested by the RSPB and others have not been given much credence by the Government. Secondly, the Government have not paid serious attention to the need to satisfy the requirements of European Community law to declare special protection areas, including the Severn estuary and thus Cardiff bay. Thirdly, there is a strong case for suggesting that, in attempting to exclude Cardiff bay from the ecological unit of which it is a key part—the Severn estuary—Ministers have made a conscious attempt to circumvent both the spirit and the letter of European law.
      Bird lovers in my constituency and throughout the country, represented nationally by the RSPB, have argued their case on these serious issues with great force but have not received serious or convincing answers from the Government. Whilst that remains the case, we must fear the consequences of the barrage proposals for the future of wildlife, and of bird life in particular.
      I ask the Minister to address himself to those issues. If he is not willing to accept at least some of the constructive amendments tabled by the Opposition, he will have to answer the charges made by bird lovers and others who say that the barrage development will destroy the natural habitat of a very important section of European wildlife and bird life—a habitat of which Cardiff bay is an important part. The Government have not taken that on board, nor have they seriously addressed the concerns expressed by those most actively involved.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: One can only be amazed at the confidence trick that the Government appear to think that they can pull with hon. Members by introducing new clause 1. The remedial or ameliorative measures—I do not know precisely into which category they fall—in the new clause are clearly an afterthought on the Government's part. They have been introduced to try to placate those
      374
      who are concerned about our natural environment—in particular the Taff-Ely estuary and the tidal mudflats that stretch out beyond the city of Cardiff.
      The barrage will destroy for ever mudflats which the Government have declared to be important—even if they are setting aside their earlier judgments in proposing to build the barrage. The Government seek to convince us that the development corporation should be required merely to
      "have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna."
      It could be argued that that is merely the legal language in which Governments must express themselves. If we take the words literally, however, it would appear that the development corporation can choose—it may regard the development and conservation of flora and fauna as desirable; it may not.
      In any case, it is suggested that the development corporation should conserve flora and fauna. The truth is that, once the barrage has been built, the flora and fauna of the Cardiff mudflats will be destroyed. There will be no opportunity to conserve them because they will have disappeared under goodness knows how many metres of water.
      It is suggested that the Countryside Council for Wales should be consulted about ways in which the flora and fauna might be developed. The Government's audacity takes my breath away. They are trying to present themselves as being concerned about the environment of an inland bay created by a barrage that will already have destroyed an important intertidal mudflat enjoying a degree of protection. In a series of questions that I tabled last Session, I tried to get the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to agree that any area designated as a site of special scientific interest ought to be totally protected—that nothing should allow its destruction. Unfortunately, the Government took the view that, even if they had designated a site as being of special scientific interest, they could destroy such a site if it suited them.
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to ask what constitutes desirability in terms of the development and conservation of flora and fauna? Given that the mudflats are to disappear, which species of flora and fauna will the development corporation consider it desirable to develop and conserve? Does my hon. Friend agree that, before we can accept the new clause, we need to know how the development corporation will establish which flora and fauna it is desirable to develop to replace the existing forms?
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and telling point. I suppose that the Government may say that the purpose of new clause 1(2) is to deal with that very point: it will be up to the Countryside Council for Wales to advise the development corporation on the best way to manage, develop and conserve flora and fauna. It would be most informative and helpful if the Minister gave us the information that my hon. Friend seeks. The issue has been dealt with in the context of the rather ugly, uninteresting mudflats bordering the edge of Cardiff. We are told that it would be much prettier if they were submerged and we had an expanse of water behind the barrage. The people of Cardiff would no longer have to look at the mudflats, which look rather ugly and dirty when the tide is out.

      375
      The truth is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To the dunlin and many other migratory and wading birds the mudflats are heaven. The birds certainly do not want the mudflats to be removed. If they had a voice, they would be here this evening putting the case. Unfortunately, they are not able to do so. We can make a small contribution on their behalf. We must try to broaden our horizons. The story developed by the Government is that these ugly mudflats can be transformed and made to look much nicer and that they can play a part in the further development of Cardiff. After all, it is a relatively small area.
      At one time the Government thought that the mudflats were worth designating as a site of special scientific interest, but they certainly will not give them the special protected status which they should have. The Government will destroy them. Of course, that argument is being used for half the estuaries in the United Kingdom.
      Reference was made earlier to the impending efforts to build an Usk barrage. Again part of the argument is that the dirty mudflats are exposed at low tide and it would be much nicer if there was a barrage and the mudflats were permanently under water. More than half of the estuaries around the coast of the United Kingdom are threatened with such developments. Only when we see the whole picture do we realise that the Cardiff piece of the jigsaw is absolutely vital. It is vital to retain the mudflats so that the migratory and wading birds can have the benefit of those feeding grounds.
      The United Kingdom has a long coastline. Our coastline and its mudflats are important to the ecosystem of north-west Europe and the world. New clause 1 seems to mislead us into believing that it will do something effective about preserving and conserving the flora and fauna which will be destroyed by the barrage. That will not happen. This important intertidal zone should be properly conserved. No one should be misled by new clause 1. A visitor from Mars or, say, Uruguay who happened to come through London this evening and read new clause 1 might consider that it was an effective way of protecting the mudflats, but the new clause is cosmetic because the mudflats will be destroyed.
      The mudflats in Cardiff bay are of immense international importance to wildlife. The intertidal zone between the land and the sea at low tide is important as a feeding ground for many migratory birds. It forms part of a biological chain which spans half of the globe. We must consider the global context of what the Government seek to do in new clause 1. The new clause does absolutely nothing to protect the flora and fauna of intertidal zones in the global context. We must ask ourselves why the Government even tried to provide such a smokescreen. Did they believe that Opposition Members would not notice what was going on?
      Mr. Gareth Wardell: My hon. Friend has made himself an acknowledged expert on beach pollution and the quality of bathing beaches throughout Wales. Could he confirm that one of our difficulties is that wildlife feed on the raw sewage discharged along the Welsh coast, which often finds its way into the mudflats? If we remove that biosphere and ecology of the mudflats it will cause a major problem. For example, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that Liverpool bay is a classic example of a reserve of international importance—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a long intervention.
      Mr. Wardell: I am coming to my question. Is it not the case that in areas such as Liverpool bay, which are similar in international importance to Cardiff bay, to clean up the coast for the human population can have a devastating effect by changing the habitat of the flora and fauna?
      Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes an important point which forms part of the case for keeping the intertidal mudflats intact. He rightly pointed out that over the years we have been lax in implementing European Community directives to which we have agreed. The 1976 directive to which my hon. Friend referred should have been complied with by 1986. It seems that the directive will not be fully complied with even by 1996. When the directive is fully complied with, less raw sewage will go on to the tidal mudflats.
      As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if one does not put manure on one's garden one does not grow good crops. It is the same with the intertidal mudflats. If raw sewage is not put on them the teeming wildlife which the migratory birds find so attractive will no longer exist. The harvest of food on which the migratory birds rely will be reduced. The yield of the mudflats will fall because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) rightly says, there will not he so much sewage about to encourage growth.
      The Government should be much more concerned about preserving the existing mudflats so that the loss of the lower forms of animal life on which the birds feed is minimal. Those forms of life will not exist in such profusion when we comply fully with the EC directive. There are a number of schemes around the Cardiff area. Some have been completed and others will be completed in the fairly near future. That issue is relevant to considering the conservation of flora and fauna, which is what new clause I seeks to do.
      The intertidal mudflats are a vital lifeline between the Arctic breeding grounds of millions of birds and their distant winter quarters to the south. The Severn estuary—to which Cardiff bay is of vital import—is where so many of those birds find a staging post. It would not be putting it too strongly to describe it as a lifeline for them as they migrate.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Morgan: The real controversy, to which none of us knows the answer as we cannot carry out the experiment, is about what would happen if one were to remove all sewage from the flow of the Taff and Ely rivers. Would the bay still be important, or does its importance derive from its enclosed nature because it is a shelter? Most experts think that 90 per cent. of the benefit to migrating wading birds, which overwinter there or use it as a stopping-off place on the way to Africa, derives because it is a shelter rather from the sewage—star fuel for the remainder of the journey. I am not a scientific expert and I intend to leave the matter there, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for an interesting suggestion for a research topic which the Government might like to fund before they carry on with the barrage. It is certainly well worth thinking about.
      If Cardiff bay were the only area under threat, we might be able to shrug our shoulders and say, "Okay, this time

      377
      we'll accept it." The truth is that more than half of the United Kingdom's estuaries are faced with a similar threat. The Government should not have produced a cosmetic new clause in which they seem to want to give an aura of respect to the barrage that will so damage the environment of the Cardiff mudflats. They give the impression that the development corporation will have hearts of green when managing the inland bay, and that by some miracle the flora and fauna will be conserved and developed. We are almost left with the impression that the result will be much better for the flora and fauna. The truth is that the natural state of things is best for the birds.
      I cannot accept that the new clause is a serious effort to meet the concerns of conservationists, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and of the many people in the Cardiff area who arc worried. Even at this late stage I should like to think that the Government could remodel the Bill so that there would not be a permanent barrage which would destroy the mudflats. I hope that, even at the 11th hour, they will give us a reprieve rather than the stay of execution that these measures seem to imply.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: This has been a long debate. Hon. Members present, and some who could not still be here, might appreciate that there is a sense of déjà vu.
      The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) mentioned several important matters that we have had to consider: the involvement of local councils, environmental health, dinghy sailing, ground water, adequate compensation and alternative feeding grounds. She also asked me for reassurance about legal scrutiny. I can give her the fullest assurance that we are confident that the Bill, as it stands and without further amendment, complies with the EC wild birds directive, in the light of the Leybucht judgment. I noted her complaints about the issuing of documents of economic appraisal. Only the economic appraisal was new, and it was issued last week because it was only completed then. I asked for the documents to be sent to her home—and to the other hon. Members involved—to try to ensure that it got to them with the least possible delay. The other documents had been available before and were only reissued to remind hon. Members of what was available and to aid this evening's debate. I am especially concerned to hear that the documents never reached the hon. Lady. I offer her my most sincere apologies for that omission, and I shall try to investigate what went wrong.
      The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) spoke at great length. I was touched by his reference to my powers in 1986. He should read what I said then, and perhaps he would better understand my contributions, then and since, to this important debate.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I was referring to the occasion when, from the anonymity of the Back Benches, the hon. Gentleman objected to the Bill at 2.30 pm on a Wednesday afternoon. There was no debate. He stopped the Bill and prevented it from having an unopposed Second Reading.
      Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right. Clearly I was not very anonymous, since he and everyone else knows that I shouted "Object". But that did not stop the Bill. It was debated further and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to read what I said in that debate.
      After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly for one hour and 19 minutes, I felt that his case was to maintain the present flora and fauna and the
      378
      existing environment. There was a lack of any wish to consider the alternative, the new environment or the future flora and fauna that would be brought about by a barrage and the creation of an inland bay. Of course it will be different. Such a creation would mean that much of the present flora and fauna could not continue, but that there would be new flora and fauna afterwards. There would be a new environment. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) produced a most appropriate response to his hon. Friend's comments. He said that there has been substantial debate on the subject already, not least on the quality of environment that we want in south Cardiff. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, we are about an environmental improvement for the many. The absence of any consideration of that improvement has been most marked, apart from in his contribution.
      I listened closely, as I have done before, to the passion and concern of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), a noted expert on matters ornithological. He echoed the concerns of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, as did the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) told us that he had achieved quite a remarkable feat. He had been in the Tea Room when the annunciator showed that he was speaking in the Chamber and he had been able to boast about it. We would have equally understood if he had told us that he had dreamt that he was speaking about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill only to wake up to find that he was doing so. Perhaps his desire to be absent from the Chamber was because of his sense of déjà vu and his feeling—subconscious or otherwise—that it is about time that we started to make progress with this measure.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred to the amendments relating to the important matter of pleasure craft. I remind him that extensive discussions have taken place between the development corporation and the Royal Yachting Association on the access facilities to be provided. It has been agreed, to the satisfaction of that association, that three locks, 40 m long and 10.5 m wide, will be constructed. I am not aware of any pleasure craft currently in the bay that would not fit in such a lock. I therefore feel that amendment No. 62 is unnecessary.
      Clause 9(2) requires the development corporation to have regard to
      "the requirements of vessels in, or passing to or from, the inland bay"
      when operating the barrage. Clause 13(1) requires the development corporation to
      "manage the inland bay and the outer harbour so as to facilitate their use by pleasure craft and … water sports".
      The construction of the barrage is bound to change the accessibility of the bay to boats because their access will be gained through the locks rather than being unrestricted. However, those boats will be able to get in and out at times when the tide would now prevent them from doing so.
      I understand that slipway provision is being contemplated for dinghy sailors who would prefer not to use the locks. I anticipate that those sailors would prefer to use that facility instead, although the locks are intended to have features to reduce turbulence—there will be less turbulence in the new locks than there is in the lock to the Portway marina.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about agreements reached with the sailing clubs. I

      379
      understand that agreement has been reached on rebates, lock charges and the cost of moorings, but the issue of their premises is the subject of continued discussion.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred to amendments Nos. 22 and 23 which ask the House to place a requirement on the development corporation to publish a report of its consultations with the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB about the measures to be taken to
      "develop and conserve flora and fauna".
      The difficulty with the amendments is that they appear to regard consultation as a one-off affair, but consultations on measures to develop and conserve flora and fauna will be on-going. I believe that a formal report, as envisaged in the amendments, is not appropriate.
      It has also been suggested that detailed estimates of the general environmental impact should be published. I remind the House that the impact of the barrage scheme is already more than adequately covered by the environmental statement deposited with the Bill. That statement and the assessment of the environmental effects, which the House is now carrying out, render the amendments unnecessary.
      Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unsatisfactory that the environmental impact assessment did not include any reference to the views of or discussions with the two main statutory bodies that will determine the water sports to be undertaken in the bay and the quality of the water in that inland bay, namely, the National Rivers Authority and the environmental health officers of the two riparian local authorities? Does he not regard that as an appalling state of affairs when one is trying to provide a proper, independent, environmental impact assessment?
      Mr. Jones: No. We have an appropriate environmental statement. None of the issues has been ignored in the full consideration that the House has given and is giving to this matter.
      Hon. Members will recall that provisions relating to alternative feeding grounds were removed from the Bill by the Standing Committee. The Government remain committed to seeking some form of alternative mitigation. The feasibility study into the suitability of the site on the Gwent levels as a bird reserve, which I announced in Committee, is expected to be ready by the end of the year. That is an appropriate response to the hon. Member for Neath, who suggested that we had not taken the RSPB's concerns seriously.
      The RSPB suggested that an alternative habitat could be erected on the Gwent levels. The Welsh Office, the development corporation, the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB are all co-operating on a study of that, funded by the development corporation. I hope that that will lead to the creation of an extremely valuable nature reserve. The RSPB has argued that that would provide much better value than the Wentloog lagoon. We will publish the results of the study as soon as they are available. We shall do so well in advance of carrying out the works authorised by the Bill and while the Bill is still before Parliament.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West and other hon. Members are wrong to suggest that new clause 1 is a response to Europe—certainly not. It is a response to the
      380
      hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Amendment No. 3 covers exactly the amendment that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West sought to introduce in Committee. Our other amendments, together with new clause 1, go further than he wanted in improving the management of the inland bay once the barrage is completed. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not welcomed the fact that we have not only accepted what he wanted but gone further.
      I do not accept the other amendments in the group and I hope that they will not be pursued.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 156.

      Division No. 74]

      [7.45 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Amess, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Ancram, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Faber, David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Ashby, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Flynn, Paul

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forman, Nigel

      Bates, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodsprlng)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Freeman, Roger

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      French, Douglas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fry, Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gallie, Phil

      Boswell, Tim

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bowis, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brazier, Julian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butcher, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butler, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hendry, Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Horam, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clappison, James

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jack, Michael

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Key. Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Day, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dover, Den

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Duncan, Alan

      Knox, David

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lait. Mrs Jacqui

      Eggar, Tim

      Legg, Barry

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      381

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sproat, Iain

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stephen, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Stern, Michael

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marlow, Tony

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Thomason, Roy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tracey, Richard

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tyler, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Page, Richard

      Wallace, James

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waller, Gary

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Ward, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Watts, John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Redwood, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Richards, Rod

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Tellers for the Ayes

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Robert Hughes and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      Speed, Sir Keith

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Cryer, Bob

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cummings, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Dafis, Cynog

      Barron, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

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

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Denham, John

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Dixon, Don

      Blunkett, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Keith

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Caborn, Richard

      Eastham, Ken

      Callaghan, Jim

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Fatchett, Derek

      Clapham, Michael

      Foster, Derek (B 'p Auckland)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Foulkes, George

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clelland, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gapes, Mike

      Coffey, Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      Connarty, Michael

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Graham, Thomas

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      382

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hain, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Hall, Mike

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Hanson, David

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Heppell, John

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Olner, William

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Patchett, Terry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hutton, John

      Pope, Greg

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, Adam

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rowlands, Ted

      Keen, Alan

      Simpson, Alan

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Leighton, Ron

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lewis, Terry

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McCartney, Ian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      McFall, John

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Turner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      McMaster, Gordon

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mahon, Alice

      Watson, Mike

      Mandelson, Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marek, Dr John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wilson, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wise, Audrey

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Worthington, Tony

      Martlew, Eric

      Wray, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Michael, Alun

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Milburn, Alan

      Mr. Ray Powell and

      Miller, Andrew

      Mr. John Spellar.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      CONSTRUCTION OF BARRAGE ETC. AND OTHER WORKS
      Mrs. Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (8) below'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 80, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
      '( ) No such works shall be constructed until the Development Corporation shall have published proposals showing the maximum cost of constructing the barrage and associated and consequential works and an assessment of any adverse impact on the costs of industry and employment business in adjoining areas.'.
      No. 88, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
      '(8) Expenditure by the Development Corporation on the works referred to in this section and specified in Schedule Ito this Act shall not exceed a total sum arrived at by adding to the sum of £85 million a further sum reflecting inflation in the

      383
      cost of civil engineering works since November 1989, calculated on the basis of official figures published by the Department of the Environment.'.
      No. 91, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
      `(12) The Development Corporation shall not commence the works until after completion and publication of a cost-benefit analysis of the works as a whole, and of each work itemised in Schedule 1 separately based on the most recent cost data and market forces available.'.
      Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that the Government will be more reasonable with this set of amendments than they were with the previous 27 amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled. It is important that amendments that the Opposition consider to be vital to the success of the Cardiff bay barrage are considered carefully by the Government.
      At every stage, our criticism of the Bill has not been about the need for economic regeneration, for we accept the necessity for the economic regeneration of the Cardiff bay area. There can be no doubt about the need for urban regeneration in the Cardiff docklands. It should be remembered—people sometimes forget—that unemployment in parts of the inner-city areas of Cardiff and on council estates such as Ely and Llanrumney is as high as in the valley communities.
      Today's debate is linked to the key political issues of the moment—the state of our economy and particularly the future of our coal industry. The Cardiff docks were at the centre of the coal economy of south Wales. Coal from the valleys made Cardiff the world's leading coal exporting area. There would not be a Cardiff without the valleys.
      8 pm
      Now the Government threaten to kill our coal industry and our coal communities. They threaten to plunge thousands more families in Wales into unemployment and poverty. They threaten to gamble our children's future on the spot markets of Rotterdam and in the gas fields of the former Soviet Union. Where was the Secretary of State when that economic absurdity was dreamt up? The self-styled voice of Wales in the Cabinet had to admit yesterday that he was not even consulted. So much for a Tory from the Wirral speaking up for Wales in Whitehall and Westminster. What more graphic an illustration of the absurdity of the Government's policy is there than the picture in The Guardian today of a ship unloading 500 tonnes of foreign coal, imported from Vietnam, at Swansea docks?
      We support the regeneration of Cardiff docklands but, despite all the time spent debating the Bill and its predecessors, the Secretary of State for Wales has still not answered many fundamental points. Where does the barrage fit into his overall strategy for Wales? The Government are in real danger of putting all their eggs in one basket. The case for economic regeneration in south Cardiff is clear, but what do the Government propose to do to help the south Wales valleys, blighted by some of the highest rates of long-term unemployment and deprivation in Britain? What about rural Wales, suffering from low pay, under-employment and unemployment? What about north Wales? Bearing in mind the iron grip which the Government have put on local authorities in Wales—county councils and district councils—regarding revenue and capital spending, I suspect that no public authority
      384
      would have got away with the enormous and still escalating costs in capital which the Cardiff Bay development corporation seems to be getting away with.
      The Government's plan to scrap the Barnet plan for public expenditure makes this even more critical. Make no mistake about the fact that public spending cuts may be hard in England but they will be even more brutal and savage in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales must shoulder the blame because he has not fought his corner in the Cabinet to save the Barnet formula. The Welsh Office's budget will be slashed. The Secretary of State for Wales refused to deal with that issue at Welsh questions yesterday, but it still leaves a big question mark: what does it mean for the planned spending on the barrage, now estimated at £167.4 million based on construction starting in 1993? How does the Secretary of State for Wales hope to balance spending on that one project, important as it will be for south Cardiff, against all the other pressing needs in Wales? For example, what will happen to expenditure on roads, hospitals and schools if the barrage proceeds?
      It is amazing that the Wallace Evans technical report on the proposed wells and pumping facilities to deal with the ground water problem, which has been published and arrived in my office this afternoon, has not progressed beyond the desk study stage. The Government will not have details of its findings for another six months but they have still brought the Bill back to the House today. That is an insult to the House of Commons. It is yet another example of those involved with the project trying to steamroller the process of consultation and public discussion in the House and outside.
      I should have thought that the Government would learn a lesson from the outrage that has been expressed about the way in which they have dealt with the future of the coal industry in the past few days. However, as has happened in the past, they seem to have learnt nothing. Although the Minister has apologised for not making the documents available earlier, and I accept his apologies, apologies are not sufficient when we are expected to deal with two major reports and they arrive on our desks today—they have not arrived on some people's desks at all.
      That is why we are particularly concerned about cost and why we expect the Government to give us many explanations this evening as to what they intend to do about developing the cost of the development of Cardiff bay with public expenditure and the demands that undoubtedly exist for the rest of Wales.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In view of the hon. Lady's belief in the regeneration of docklands, does she not accept that this scheme will contribute towards jobs in Cardiff, estimated at some 23,000 jobs and involving 4,400 houses? How can she say that she believes in the economic regeneration of Cardiff while at the same time opposing the Bill that will bring it about?
      Mrs. Clwyd: I am pleased to respond to the Minister's question, particularly as he places such heavy emphasis on jobs in Cardiff. Ministers have told us that there will be jobs for the valleys in addition to jobs for Cardiff. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman did not emphasise that, or does he see those as jobs for Cardiff alone? I have made it clear that jobs for Cardiff are important, but so are jobs for other parts of Wales that are suffering from high long-term

      385
      unemployment. Does the Minister remember that the main aim of the valleys initiative was to create between 25,000 and 30,000 jobs for the valleys? Unemployment in the valleys is as high as it was in 1988 when the valleys initiative started. Will it be different in Cardiff?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: Will not the hon. Lady accept that many of the people who work in Cardiff come from the valleys, as has been shown in successive surveys?
      Mrs. Clwyd: I am glad that the Minister now stresses that there will be jobs for people from the valleys as well. But should we have more faith in that promise than in previous promises made by Ministers, given that the main economic aim of the valleys initiative has failed? I hope that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will be more successful in providing those jobs.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I tried to catch my hon. Friend's attention before the Minister stood up. I should like to make her aware that, when authorities in Cardiff and south Glamorgan carried out a survey to ensure that we kept our area status—which the Government are reviewing at present—we found that between half and two thirds of the new jobs coming to Cardiff were taken up by people who lived outside Cardiff. When I recently visited Panasonic, which is the largest television producer in Europe on the outskirts of my constituency, I found that more than 50 per cent. of the people who worked there came from the valleys of south Wales.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I have just taken the Chair and I am having the greatest difficulty in relating the exchanges to the amendment.
      Mrs. Clwyd: Perhaps I may respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). We are not opposed to the creation of jobs in Cardiff. On the contrary, we would like many more jobs to be created in Wales. However, we are worried about the implications for the rest of Wales of the current public expenditure round. It is reasonable to ask the Minister for assurances that any spending on Cardiff bay will not affect the demands by the rest of Wales which, I am sure he agrees, are equally important.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has rightly presented the dilemma and the issues at stake. Legitimate arguments must be aired about public expenditure priorities and the spending implications of the Bill. During his winding-up speech when we last debated the Bill the Minister used the phrase "déjà vu" several times. I make no apology for returning to the issues that I have constantly sought to develop during debates on the Bill. An elderly parishioner in one of our Baptist chapels said to the minister at the door after listening to the sermon, "Every time I hear it, I enjoy it more and more." I hope that the Minister will once again enjoy my attempt to discover how much the scheme will cost.
      Our amendments seek to limit costs. We have every reason to seek to do that because we have watched the costs alter. One of the running issues in our debates has been the problem of discovering what the scheme will cost. There are two sets of costs—the barrage costs and the costs related to it. When the Bill left Committee the barrage-related costs were set out in a letter. Much of the information has been by correspondence, especially that
      386
      between me and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. In a letter of 30 June this year it was stated that the total barrage-related costs had risen from £547 million to £662 million and that the public expenditure component had risen from £335 million to £405 million.
      Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend has followed the matter with special care. He speaks about barrage-related costs. What does "related" mean in terms of costs directly associated with the barrage rather than those which are indirectly associated?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: Table 2 in appendix Al in the January 1990 assessment shows that the figure of £547 million had risen to £662 million. It consists of the barrage at £125 million; the cost of a variety of improved accesses, the chief of which is the primary distributor route link at a cost of £95 million; other road schemes costing £33.94 million; car parking at £12.96 million; a light rapid transit system costing £10 million; and other environmental improvements totalling £25 million. Those are what we call the barrage-related costs. On 30 June the £547 million rose to £662 million using the GDP deflated market prices at 10 March 1992. The public expenditure element of that increased amount was £405 million. Those were the costs in June this year.
      Mr. Michael: It is always easier to follow figures on one's own piece of paper than to follow those quoted by a colleague. Has my hon. Friend included in the barrage-related costs the cost of the primary distributor route? May I say to him, not for the first time, that the PDR was to be constructed before the barrage and is not directly barrage-related. It is directed at the transport of the city and is for the benefit of constituents who have lorries using their roads. It is contained in the figures for technical, legal reasons, and I hope that my hon. Friend will make that distinction.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am happy to do that. We must compare like with like. Those were called related costs by Ministers and were so described in correspondence. I accept that the PDR link has other functions, but in every ministerial letter and reply and in every table and document issued to us the PDR link and other items have been described as barrage-related costs.
      Mr. Michael: I appreciate that in seeking to make his point my hon. Friend has to compare like with like. I am sure he will accept that a facility that has been long needed to open up the docks and remove traffic from domestic roads which have suffered devastation over the years is not related to the barrage. I argued with Ministers that it should not be included as a barrage-related cost. To argue that it is is to exaggerate the sum of money involved in the barrage. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has obviously failed to persuade Ministers that it should be excluded because it has been perpetuated by being included in the latest document.
      Mr. Michael: As I have said several times, for the purposes of the legislation technically it has to be included in the figures. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that a road which was to be built anyway and which was desperately

      387
      needed in that part of Cardiff is not truly barrage-related although it may technically be brought into barrage-related figures.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I do not wish to become involved in what is developing into an intimate and interesting discussion.
      Mr. David Hanson: Force yourself.
      Mr. Davies: It will not be the first time that I have had to force myself. If my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) completely accepts at face value the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the cost of the distributor road should be excluded from the barrage calculations, presumably it must be included somewhere else. Given the considerable distortion of expenditure on transportation in South Glamorgan, does not my hon. Friend agree that Mid Glamorgan, the county that he and I represent, would be even worse done by in terms of the proportion of expenditure on transport? That is the downside of the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes, it is, because whether we include it in barrage-related costs or not, it is just about one of the most expensive roads built since the Conway tunnel. In fact, the costs per mile are about the same. That expense comes out of the roads pool expenditure into which we all have to dip, whether we are in Brecon and Radnor, in Caerphilly, in my constituency or in Gwynedd. The cost is not modest—it is about £15 million per mile.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friends who represent Mid Glamorgan concede that it is more expensive to build roads through the middle or on the edge of large conurbations? There does not happen to be a large conurbation in Mid Glamorgan. The costs of building the M25 or roads in London is far higher than the cost of building roads through the countryside. The logic of my hon. Friend's argument is that the latter should not be built.
      Mr. Rowlands: No, I am simply pointing out that the cost of building a road at £15 million per mile comes out of the same roads pool and roads expenditure programme of the same Government Department from which the rest of us are seeking approval for road schemes. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, the issue is one of priorities, and these must be discussed openly and fairly.
      Let me return to my case. I had not started to develop my argument. I wanted only to ensure that we were comparing like with like in costs. On 30 June 1992 when we came out of Committee, the barrage-related costs stood at £662 million, of which £405 million were public expenditure. We were then issued with a blue book that told us that barrage-related cost have become £497 million. I hope that the Minister will clarify this point and let us know where we stand. Are we talking about the same figure? What has changed? I have read that that is a 21 per cent. reduction. I am not good at arithmetic—I was literate but not numerate, like my daughter who got an A in English but failed her maths GCSE.
      388
      I hope that, as I speak, the Minister will be able to get some advice from nearby quarters and tell us whether the £497 million is the equivalent of the £662 million. The document explains that there is a 21 per cent. reduction in barrage-related costs. The chief cost is the PDR Bute Town link, which was to cost over £90 million but now is to cost £53 million. Is that because it has become cheaper to build? I should like a more detailed explanation than is contained in the allusions in the blue book.
      If the £497 million is related to the same costs as the £662 million, what proportion of it is public expenditure? On 30 June we were told that of the £662 million of barrage-related costs, £405 million was the public sector component. How has that dramatic difference of £162 million been arrived at? We have worked on these figures from the start, so we might as well see them through to the end.
      A second cost, and one that has changed for good reasons, year by year and month by month, is the construction cost for the barrage. That figure started off at around the £45 million mark. When this Bill came before us, the financial memorandum mentioned a figure of £82 million plus land acquisition costs of £2.5 million. It rose over the next 18 months to £125 million and now stands at £152 million using the mid-1992 prices. We are told, fortunately, that the real capital cost of the barrage has increased by only £9 million at mid-1992 prices or about 6 per cent. since the January 1990 appraisal, of which £4.63 million represents the increased cost of remedial work for ground water protection.
      Given the variety of figures that we have had and the changing costs that we have tried to follow, there must be a strong case for a form of expenditure that limits the continuing increase in expenditure that we have witnessed over the past 18 months or two years of debating the Bill and the scheme. The late Mr. Ian Grist—late in parliamentary terms—called me a one-man Public Accounts Committee on this Bill. I think that he meant it as an insult, but I took it as a compliment. Therefore, I shall return to the argument and ask the Minister, before we start discussing the comparative merits and priorities involved, whether we can have a definitive set of figures before we finish the debate.
      I shall now deal with the case being made for this expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley is absolutely right. Whether we like it or not—I wish that there was room to accommodate every view—we all know that, as Aneurin Bevan said, politics is the language of priorities. We know that crucial decisions on public expenditure priorities will be made in the coming weeks. Therefore, a valley Member like me is right to ask whether we can justify the public expenditure costs involved both in the barrage itself and in the barrage-related projects, which are very large and must be balanced against the needs of the Principality and of communities such as those that I represent.
      The case made for such high levels of expenditure is repeated in the review of the January 1990 appraisal. As soon as I got my hands on it I read it avidly to see what case it made. It is what will come to be known in the language of politics as a Heseltine review. It is a review that comes to the conclusion that it intended to come to from the beginning—that a marvellous and fantastic benefit would accrue from building the barrage and

      389
      impounding water. We must analyse the report in a reasonably critical fashion because it contains the latest, hot-off-the-press levels of expenditure being advocated.
      Mr. Morgan: I merely wanted to draw to my hon. Friend's attention, in case he had not noticed it, the fact that there are two models of review. He has referred to one as the Heseltine review—that which comes to the conclusion that it intended to come to at the beginning. The other kind is the Wakeham scheme, which was revealed to the other place today. This one puts forward the idea that all 31 pits should remain open and that the review on that should be carried out independently. Is that the kind of review that my hon. Friend has in mind for this project as well?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: There should certainly be an independent review of expenditure of this sort. To borrow a phrase from the Minister, the document before us produces a sense of déjà vu when it comes to assessments. The argument is that the proposed additional expenditure will create about 23,000 permanent jobs in addition to the many jobs that will genuinely be created by the marvellous organic development of the dockland area. I have been to the area, as have many of my colleagues, to see it for myself. What is happening now without the barrage is impressive.
      Mr. Michael rose—
      Mr. Rowlands: I shall make my case and then give way to my hon. Friend.
      The Western Mail headline told us that 23,000 new jobs will come to the area. When we read the KPMG document, however, we are told that that figure is not a forecast. It is based on the assumption that if so many tens of thousands of square feet of office space are built and all that accommodation is filled there will be that number of jobs. What will happen if the offices lie empty for 12 months, 18 months or two years?
      I shall show my age now. If a number of Centre Points are constructed—
      Mr. Morgan: Or Canary wharves.
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes. If they are dotted around the area and they lie empty, presumably it will be claimed that 23,000 jobs have been created. The KPMG document states that if so many thousand square feet of office accommodation is built and we assume that there is one typist in X square feet, there will be an additional 23,000 jobs. That is merely an assumption based on new build and occupation.
      There is a mighty lesson to be learnt from the past 18 months. It has been demonstrated by the Canary wharf development and elsewhere that assumptions or forecasts of the sort that I have outlined must not be made.
      Mr. Michael: I hope that we can treat south Cardiff rather differently from places like Canary wharf. One of my reasons for saying that is that there is co-operation between elected representatives and central Government.
      My hon. Friend has been careful enough to visit my constituency to see what is happening. I am grateful for the revelation of his interest in what is happening in south Cardiff. Presumably he noticed the close relationship between the places where jobs have been developed and
      390
      located as a result of work that has not been confined to organisations such as the development corporation. Account must be taken also of what has been done by South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council, the economic development committee of which was chaired so recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). I am sure that my hon. Friend noticed the relationship between water in the docks and full accommodation. I appreciate the need for him to question closely the assumption of Ministers and those that are related to the figures which stem from the Bill, but there are realities to be seen and considered in the constituency. We can learn from them as well as from theories or developments in London.
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes, of course we can learn from them. What is going on in the docks without the barrage is extremely impressive.
      Mr. Michael: With the water.
      Mr. Rowlands: Much of what I saw had nothing to do with water. There has been development on land that has been cleared.
      We are expected to assume and believe—this was taken up by the Western Mail—that 23,000 permanent jobs will be created. When we read the document we find that that estimate is not based on an assessment of demand. It is merely an assumption that is based on what would happen if every new office block were occupied. I have a right to query whether that is a reasonable assessment or judgment. A recent Public Accounts Committee report on the Welsh Development Association's job assessments showed that it is possible to get things hopelessly wrong. I am not convinced that the intellectual rigour that went into producing the document before us would stand up to investigation of the sort conducted by the PAC.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will favour me with his face rather than his back.
      Mr. Rowlands: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who sits behind me, and I was determined to respond. I should say that he intervened in an extremely civilised fashion. I shall, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, take note of what you have said. I shall not be sexist and say what a pleasure it would be to press a comparison.
      I question seriously the justification that is being used for such large sums of public expenditure, which is that many permanent jobs will be created by the scheme. I have every right to query it. There is no detailed assessment of demand. Indeed, the very reverse is the case. It is interesting to read the 1990 appraisal. Even the county and the district did not believe that the proposed extra office space was justified. On page 4 of the 1990 assessment there is the following passage:
      "The demand for office space … in Cardiff bay will probably average"—
      this is what the supposed job creation figure is based upon—
      "about 23,000 square feet per annum, which is around 70 per cent. of Cardiff's total."
      A beautiful understatement follows:
      "This is a considerable increase on the city's own target. This is most unlikely, however, to occur."
      It is then argued in a woolly fashion that the extra expenditure can be justified.

      391
      It is claimed that one of the great benefits to emerge from the proposed expenditure will be about 23,000 new jobs, which will become available in office space in particular. Again, I have a feeling of déjà vu. I had the privilege of serving Cardiff in the 1960s, when a similar grandiose scheme came forward. It was claimed that if the development took place a huge number of jobs would be created. The scheme was rightly and democratically rejected at local level. We now have a successful organically developed city centre. Cardiff is one of the finest retail centres in the Principality as well as in the country. It is a privilege and pleasure to walk through Cardiff. The development of the city centre was the result of skilful planning by the city council and South Glamorgan county council. The authorities rejected the grandiose development that was proposed, which is related and somewhat built into the proposed developments in and around the proposed barrage scheme.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I wish to follow carefully my hon. Friend's argument, and I have before me page 22 of the economic appraisal. He has talked about 23,000 additional jobs. That assumption must be set against the 13,000 jobs that will be created without the barrage. I share with my hon. Friend a degree of suspicion about the assumptions, but it seems that the barrage would be responsible for only 10,000 additional jobs and not the 23,000 suggested in the economic appraisal.
      Mr. Rowlands: Yes. In fact, these are theoretical assessments. They are not based on a rigorous analysis of demand. It is assumed that if construction takes place the office space will be filled.
      We have every reason to doubt that development of the sort that is proposed will be achieved in anything like the timescale that is being talked about. There is much genuine questioning taking place. The only hope of achieving such development lies in the Government relocating Government Departments. Has the Minister any announcements of such dispersal? It is rumoured that the Lord Chancellor's Department will be shifted and I should like to know whether the move will take place. If there is dispersal, will Government Departments move only to Cardiff? We are talking of the need to diversify the economies of neighbouring communities such as my own. As a part of a diversification programme it should surely be considered as part of a Government Department dispersal programme.
      I read in one of the Sunday newspapers this weekend that, as a result of the collapse in the property market, London rents have fallen dramatically and Government Departments and others who had talked about dispersal now plan to stay in London at much cheaper rents. The property balloon has finally burst, but one would not think so from this document.
      Chestertons has come to the conclusion that the changes in property prices and property development have in no way affected the long-term forecasts for the scheme and that has been used to justify the additional expenditure involved which our amendments seek to limit. I doubt whether any independent economist would argue that there has not been a sea change in attitude towards property and land and rental values as a result of the drama of the past 18 months or two years. Yet Chestertons
      392
      blithely continues to assert, with no firm foundation, that all its valuations in the original document, published before the property crisis, are still valid.
      Modest adjustments have been made. Chestertons now expects an annual increase in rentals and land values of 6.5 per cent. No one seems to have told Chestertons that we are supposed to be heading for zero inflation. Property inflation in the Cardiff docklands area is supposed to rise by at least 6.4 per cent. each year for the next 15 or 20 years. We have every right to doubt that.
      The people who make such assessments are estate agents and surveyors. About 12 months ago, my mother wanted to sell her house. It was something of an emergency and the local estate agent quoted me a price. I said I wanted to sell the property, not stand there. There was a look of horror on the estate agent's face when I suggested that his figure was not right. Twelve months later, not one interested party had looked at the house, so the price had to be dropped by a phenomenal amount. Chestertons has the same mentality. It cannot believe that the property world is changing around it. The same outfit gives the advice in this document that property values will rise by 6.5 per cent. a year, year after year.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend mentioned that rising property values as a result of inflation are no longer tenable. My hon. Friend may have noticed that south Cardiff has changed dramatically and is still changing. It is in a state of flux. Anyone renting property next door to a scrapyard would expect to pay less for it than if it were next to a major development. Therefore, property prices will go up regardless of inflation because land values have gone up.
      Mr. Rowlands: The proposition is that such values will rise for the next 20 years at the rate of 6.5 per cent. per annum. Such assumptions are less valid than they used to be. They are made by people who do not realise that a sea change is taking place in attitudes.
      The best test would be for the Minister to tell us the rental agreement with the Welsh Common Health Services Authority but he has refused to do so. What assumptions were made about rentals in the docklands area and what did the Government negotiate?
      I was talking to a firm which intended relocating in the Cardiff area. I was appalled that it should because I thought that, given the nature of its business, it should be in my community. It told me that it had been offered something in the Cardiff area at £4 or £5 less per sq ft than it had originally been quoted.
      Rents are going down. The property balloon has burst but one would not think so from this document. It carries on blithely making the same assumptions. Therefore, we have a right to question the boom that the barrage is expected to result in.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Rowlands: In a minute. I do not wish to be discourteous to Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether to incur the wrath of my hon. Friend or you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Michael: I assure my hon. Friend that he does not have to look at me to listen to my words. We can both look in the direction of Madam Deputy Speaker.

      393
      I suggest that my hon. Friend takes to heart the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) that we need to look not simply at inflation-related figures but at the change of environment that is taking place. Obviously there will be fluctuations. At present, property is going at lower prices than it was 12 months or two years ago. That is manifest. But there are changes in the whole area which is benefiting from the experience of the two local authorities which, over the years, have shown how to bring economic benefit to the area, despite the fact that there has been a bleeding of jobs from the area. Again, as has been said, we desperately need the continuation of assisted area status. It is not just on the report but on the experience of the two local authorities that we must base a proper assessment of the benefits to the area in terms of employment and the value of the barrage.
      Mr. Rowlands: It is proposed to build 23,000 sq ft of new office space every year for the next X years. I am simply questioning whether Cardiff will remain immune to what has happened not only this year and next year but for the next 15 or 20 years. There has not been just a little blip in the market. Most independent experts that I can find believe that there has been a sea change in attitudes. As these guides have been hopelessly wrong in the past two or three years, we have a right to put a question mark over the whole scenario that has been described to us to justify the levels of expenditure.
      That is not a particularly grandiose point although it seems to have made my hon. Friends jump up and down. It seems a rather modest point to make that, given the changes, we have every reason to doubt the rosy scenario for jobs that has been portrayed in the latest document. The jobs scenario on page 26 shows that the one area in which jobs would be lost if a barrage were built is the industrial and manufacturing sector. That is why I query the scheme. It is fascinating that without a barrage the number of manufacturing and industrial jobs would be much higher than with a barrage. In other words, the barrage would produce yuppy service jobs at the expense of industrial manufacturing.
      I question whether, in Cardiff or in communities such as mine, the age of growth in service employment is coming to an end. Technological change in the Hoover factory in my constituency has led to a drop in jobs from 5,400 to 1,100 and that will eventually penetrate the whole service sector. All the assumptions for job creation based on office accommodation will be knocked askew as a result of technology. The new diversified service economy is the déjà vu economy of the 1980s, and I hope that it will not be the economy of the 1990s. It is astonishing that there should be no increase in the one area where I should have thought that we needed new jobs, whether in Cardiff or in our communities—the industrial manufacturing side.
      Table 11 of the KPMG report shows that 550 industrial jobs will be created by the barrage, but 1,782 without it. The thinking is that manufacturing and industrial employment is somehow dirty—that dirty jobs are not wanted in the vicinity of a yuppie marina and that they must be moved elsewhere to make way for the potted plants and atriums. That is a fascinating insight into the 1990s.
      Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend not accept that some of those living near to the East Moors steel works who regretted the loss of jobs when it closed have noted an improvement in the cleanliness of their environment?
      Mr. Rowlands: I dare say that the people of Merthyr noticed an improvement in their environment when the pit there was closed. The same is true of deep navigation. However, that is not a case for closure and for turning one's back on industrial manufacturing jobs. They will be needed in the 1990s, but we are being asked to support a Bill which will produce fewer jobs in the barrage area.
      Mr. Rogers: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is being fair to those of our hon. Friends who represent Cardiff constituencies, who obviously want to attract jobs to their areas. Is my hon Friend saying that if a barrage is built with mooring places for yachts, more jobs will be created? My understanding is that the barrage will not add one square inch of land to the amount available for industrial, commercial, or housing development. If it did, I would support it. I cannot follow my hon. Friend's logic.
      Mr. Rowlands: The assumption is that 10,000 new jobs will be created if water is impounded to make it possible to look out across a nice lagoon. I spent the last quarter of an hour doubting that assumption, and if my hon. Friend has not understood that point by now, I will repeat it.
      Mr. Rogers: I still cannot understand the logic. My Conservative opponent in the elections to the European Parliament, Dr. Ann Robinson, who is now a policy adviser to the Institute of Directors, said that one way forward in south Wales would be to flood the coal-mining valleys. Is it suggested that areas of impounded water must be created to create industrial development? If so, I must tell my hon. Friend that he is not going to flood the Rhondda. We do not have the boats to cope with that.
      Mr. Rowlands: In March 1959 a report was published that suggested closing down Merthyr completely and moving that community of 60,000 people to the River Usk. If that had happened, we would all be middle-class yuppies now. I am glad to say that the people of Merthyr rejected that proposal, and they no more desire their community to be flooded than the Rhondda. If my hon. Friend is asking whether manufacturing jobs are created by flooding lagoons, the answer is no. Even the KPMG report reaches that conclusion.
      Public expenditure is about priorities. We are fishing in the same pool and making claims on the same finite amounts of money. To borrow a phrase from the President of the Board of Trade, we know that we are confronting a pretty bloody review of public expenditure. Crucial decisions must be taken about the ways in which public money is to be spent.
      The census returns of the communities that I represent reveal that 25 per cent. of the men of workable age there are economically inactive. I am supposed to accept that the trickle-up or trickle-down effect of the building of the barrage will be to create employment for those men. Male unemployment in my constituency exceeds 20 per cent., and our last pit is to be closed within the next 90 days. Every penny of public expenditure is needed to create jobs

      395
      in a community such as mine, where there is rising unemployment of a kind and character that I never expected to see during my political lifetime.
      I wish that it were not necessary to make a choice, and that enough money were available to build a barrage as well. Some of my hon. Friends have other good reasons for opposing its construction, but I do so because in the language of public expenditure priorities there should be a positive discrimination in favour of constituencies such as mine which, by any indices or census returns, are shown to be infinitely worse off even than Cardiff, relatively speaking.
      The building of a barrage comes lower on my list of priorities than the creation of a new manufacturing base that will provide jobs for the 25 per cent. of the potential work force in my constituency. While Dowys Toft and Merthyr Tydfil produced the coal and the wealth that created Cardiff in the first place, we do not want a return to the trickle-up or ripple effect. I do not want to spend the rest of my political career allowing my valley to become a dormitory town for a Cardiff dockland development. In supporting the amendments, I seek to control and to limit the public funds to be devoted to constructing a barrage, knowing the tremendous needs which exist in the communities that I represent.
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend argued the case for his own community and for the money being spent in other ways. I spoke earlier of the environmental issues, and there is a link between them and the financial amendments before us. If we are to pay the price for the environmental destruction of Cardiff bay, will the financial input be worth the damage that will be done?
      One must question a number of the assumptions made in the figures that have been provided. The latest outturn cost of the barrage scheme is £167.4 million. This autumn, we face a very difficult public spending round. Given the huge amount of money involved, surely it is reasonable to ask whether it will secure a good return in the form of benefits to the Cardiff area and the national economy, or whether the money could better be put into capital projects in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has suggested that it should be invested in the Welsh valleys. It might be possible to obtain a better return—more job creation, for instance.
      I am worried by the assumption that inflation will remain at a constant 2.5 per cent. after 1995–96. I do not know who produced the figures, but they may be based on the Treasury model, and we all know the record of the Government and the Treasury in predicting inflation and outturns. Any major scheme of this kind is bound to overrun. The Channel tunnel project, for instance, has overrun its budget many times—although, of course, no public money is involved. The Humber bridge scheme, which was publicly funded, did the same, and has caused considerable problems ever since.
      What chiefly worries me about the barrage scheme is the calculation of the leverage—the argument that the leverage in terms of jobs and investment is 3.6 times higher than the leverage that would exist without the barrage.
      9 pm
      Mr. Michael: Is my hon. Friend saying that he would have argued against the building of the Humber bridge?
      Mr. Morley: Absolutely not. I think that the bridge was worth building, and that it has brought advantage to the community. The problem is that, because of its massive overrun, its debts cannot be serviced by income, and that is a major difficulty for the local people. I merely used the bridge as an example of major public works programmes that dramatically overrun their budgets and cause problems. The Cardiff bay barrage scheme has the advantage of receiving not a loan but a grant. I wish that the Humber bridge could be treated as generously.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Evidence provided by the consultants to the Cardiff Bay development corporation reinforces his view. As soon as the water is impounded, water levels will rise. Initially, it was said that there would be no ground water impact in Cardiff, but Hydrotechnica now proposes to set up a pilot scheme to dewater the ground water, before building some 64 bore holes that will need to pump water continually to carry out that task. I do not know where it will go; water tends to come back in. [HON. MEMBERS: "The river."] From the river it will go back into the wells. It will be a wonderfully circular process. I think that I have practised as an engineering geologist for a good deal longer than my hon. Friends have practised as politicians, and I can tell them that the scheme is likely to cost a huge amount.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the flow, but this is supposed to be an intervention rather than a speech.
      Mr. Rogers: That is true, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely referring to the imponderables of calculating the total engineering cost.
      Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with some authority and whose comments should be noted.
      I would like the Minister to give us some positive examples of the way in which the leverage has been calculated and the way in which it will work. Some of the assumptions are very optimistic. According to the report, there will be a 78 per cent. increase in the number of jobs if the barrage is built, and there will be a total leverage of 7.5 on the investment—as against 3.9 without the barrage. The report says that the informal leverage target for the Welsh Office is 4. Without the barrage, the scheme certainly meets the target. The report makes massive assumptions about extra leverage and extra jobs. That point has been made all too clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).
      I should like the Minister to give examples of companies, investors and retailers who have said, "Without the barrage and the lake, we will not invest in Cardiff." I do not recall any great emphasis being placed on the fact that Canary wharf was surrounded by water and docklands. The main criteria for schemes such as Canary wharf were its cost and convenience and whether it could attract investors. The fact that Canary wharf is not attracting investors demonstrates that the environmental impact of the development does not matter as much as the economic strength of the country, the convenience of the development, rents and other factors. I suspect that the

      397
      key to investment in Cardiff or anywhere else will be not the barrage scheme or any other scheme but the prevailing economic circumstances. They will encourage private investors to move to Cardiff and elsewhere and invest in development schemes.
      I query whether the case put in the report has been proved. I strongly query the concept of leverage and the very optimistic figures that have been produced. I should like the Minister to tell us just how that leverage has been calculated and to give us examples of companies that have made it clear that the barrage is vital to the scheme, if they are to invest in Cardiff. I know that a number of investors have made it clear that the barrage is vital to the scheme, if they are to invest in Cardiff. I know that a number of investors have made it clear that the barrage is not important to them. Tarmac Homes is a case in point. That major private sector developer said publicly that it would be willing to invest in the Cardiff bay area without the barrage—that the barrage was not important to it.
      I ask again whether this is good use of public money, whether the figures are reliable and how the leverage has been calculated. A natural phenomenon such as an intertidal zone—a site of special scientific interest with a community of 300,000 people—has its own benefits. Those benefits are just as great as the ones that would be provided by means of an impounded bay of polluted water; they may even be stronger. If I had to live and work in the Cardiff area, I know which one I should prefer. I should prefer a living estuary rather than a dead and polluted bay.
      Mr. Hain: When I became a Member on 16 April 1991, I was escorted by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The significance of those two supporters is that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was my boss in the by-election campaign—a very successful one, for which he was largely responsible. His primary duty was to keep me in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd's primary responsibility was to be my minder—to keep me swimming vertically through the rain which drenched that by-election. The same day as they escorted me into the Chamber they fell out in the debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, then a private Bill. The House sat all night debating it. My hon. Friends kindly advised me immediately prior to the debate to go home and spend the evening with my wife. They believed that my political virginity ought not to be lost during the debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I gratefully took their advice. Therefore, I intervene now with some trepidation.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for the diligence with which he has defended his case and for the way in which he has sought to attract an important development to his constituency. It is understandable that he should have done so and I would not deny his right to do so, or the persistence and energy with which he has pursued his case. There are many issues, however, that I as a valley Member of Parliament in south Wales and as someone who is concerned with the general impact of policy throughout Wales—in particular on the south Wales valleys—need to raise on this Bill.
      There are important environmental questions, some of which we shall debate later, some of which we debated earlier. I refer to the effect of the barrage on the flora and fauna. The real issue, which I want to address and which is addressed in our amendments, is the cost. In terms of the
      398
      economy of Wales, and even more in terms of the economy of south Wales, huge costs will be absorbed by the development—perhaps as much as £500 million in direct costs. The figure is movable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has demonstrated eloquently. Nevertheless, the figure is of that order and, on one estimate, it may increase to as much as £1 billion over the years.
      The issue that we are entitled to put to the House and on which we are entitled to have an answer is the question of priorities. I can think of communities at the top of the valleys in my constituency which are becoming increasingly deprived as jobs are stripped out of them almost weekly—no, certainly weekly. I think of communities such as Cwmllinfell, Gwauncaegurwen, Banwen and many others.
      Those communities ask me, "Where are we being looked after? Where are our interests being protected in the overall strategy being developed by the Welsh Office or by the Government this parliamentary Session?" Those communities look at the substantial costs being borne by the public sector—a point to which I shall return. They ask what the Government's priorities are and whether they are to have more investment so that, as one resident rather cynically said to me at my surgery on a Saturday morning in the little village of Tairgwaith, which feels itself to be forgotten and isolated, the people in those communities can sail their yachts and moor them in the new marina which will be set up around the Cardiff bay barrage. Anyone who knows those communities knows that that is a fanciful notion, to say the least.
      Those residents raise the question of priorities and ask whether the priority is for development in the Cardiff bay area or for those huge sums, or their equivalent, to be directed towards valley communities which have suffered more than any others from the impact of Government policies, especially over the past 10 years.
      When we consider the valleys and the costs that will be incurred under the Bill, if it is enacted, we should bear in mind that regional preferential assistance to Wales has been cut by almost 60 per cent. at constant prices between 1979 and 1991. The valleys initiative programme, which was launched in 1988, has brought little new funding to the valleys; it has been a question more of recycling existing programmes.
      I will quote from the important study commissioned by the Neath conference which was recently held on the future of the valleys. The study was carried out by the Cardiff univerity lecturers Kevin Morgan and his assistant Adam Price, and is entitled, "A New Agenda for the Valleys". It is pertinent to our debate that they discuss the resources being channelled into the valleys compared with the resources being channelled into the area around the M4 corridor and into the relatively large conurbation of Cardiff, which we are discussing this evening, and Swansea.
      The study says:
      "While the aims and values of the Valleys Programme were laudable enough, the initiative was essentially a marketing exercise in the sense that it packaged together a host of policies and projects that were for the most part already in existence. Indeed, little or no extra funding was contained in the programme, even when the initiative was extended for a further two years".
      Those of us who represent valley communities would heartily endorse that statement.

      399
      The study points out that, as things stand, the valleys programme expires next March. The Government have not said that they will introduce a new programme which has anything like the scale of the resources that are being channelled into the Cardiff bay barrage development. There is talk of a new policy being unveiled and we shall have to wait and see what it is.
      9.15 pm
      The valleys initiative—which, as I said, expires in March next year—was intended to bring 25,000 to 30,000 new jobs to the valleys. In practice, its impact on employment levels in the valleys has been virtually nil. In 1988, when the programme was launched, the male unemployment rate for the valley areas was 18.9 per cent. In 1992, it is 18.7 per cent. Incidentally, those figures are much greater than those for Wales as a whole-—in 1988, 13.5 per cent. and now 13.1 per cent.—and for the United Kingdom as a whole—in 1988, 10.8 per cent. and now 13 per cent. We are talking about a major failure of Government policy.
      While we sail blithely on, channelling sums which, in Welsh economic terms, are huge, into the Cardiff bay development, we are ignoring the plight of the valleys. The central valley areas—Aberdare, Rhymney, Merthyr, Pontypridd and the Rhondda—have male unemployment rates of 19 to 22 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, the figures are increasing all the time and, with the closure of the pits, they will rise even more steeply. We are talking about an important principle. My major reservation about the Bill—a reservation that the amendment seeks to address—arises from the huge sums that are being channelled into the Cardiff bay development at the expense of other more deserving and urgent priorities elsewhere in south Wales, in particular, in the much-deprived valley communities.
      There is another linked issue. Supporters of the Bill—particularly those who represent the constituencies affected, whose view I can well understand—argue that the development will involve a huge injection of capital and of public sector investment which ought to be welcomed. But there is an opportunity cost in all this—an economic factor which it is important to take into account. If one channels investment, whether public or private sector investment—and we are told that, over the years, the bulk of the investment will come from the private sector—into a given area, it will be at the expense of investment elsewhere.
      We are advancing that central argument in the context of another argument which I find very worrying indeed: the conventional wisdom surrounding policy making in Wales at present is that we must always talk of a greater Cardiff or a greater Swansea. Although it is understandable that people in Cardiff should seek to defend their interests and attract new investment and capital if they can, I challenge the whole notion of south Wales depending on a greater Cardiff or a greater Swansea. The valleys are forgotten backwaters in all this—at best, dormitories or commuter belts for the greater Cardiff and Swansea areas—and all investment is channelled to the M4 corridor. We have deprived working-class communities hidden at the top of the valleys, with very poor infrastructure and pathetic transport facilities.
      Let us address the question of unemployment in the valley communities. My hon. Friends have said that many
      400
      people who work in Cardiff come from outside it. The logic is that if one channels more jobs and investment into the Cardiff area, there will be more opportunities for workers to commute to it. But many unemployed people cannot afford to commute. Many of the people living in remote villages such as Seven Sisters and Banwen cannot afford to commute because the bus fares are prohibitive—where buses run at all—and they certainly cannot afford to purchase cars. They are locked into a vicious circle of unemployment and trapped in communities from which it is impossible to escape. To my mind, the logical solution to that is not to introduce massive new job and investment opportunities around the M4, greater Cardiff or greater Swansea areas but to invest in valley communities and provide the manufacturing opportunities for those communities that they have traditionally enjoyed.
      In support of my argument, I quote again the important study by Morgan and Price. It says:
      "With the long and painful decline of the coal industry the Valley communities have been forced to seek an alternative economic vocation, principally in manufacturing and service industries. This economic transition, which is still far from complete, has triggered enormous changes within these communities. In labour market terms perhaps the two most dramatic changes in the post-war era are the decline of a male-dominated workforce on the one hand and, on the other hand, the growing 'dormitory' status of the Valleys, reflecting the fact that new job opportunities tend to be biased towards the south, in Cardiff and along the so-called M4 corridor."
      That issue is not being addressed by the Welsh Office, and is certainly being ignored in the context of the enormous investment that is contemplated for the Cardiff bay barrage development. The whole issue is thrown into sharp relief by the threat and the reality of pit closures piling one on top of the other. Taff Merthyr in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and Betws in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) have gone. What future is there for those valley communities? None, as far as the Welsh Office is concerned.
      Against the background of the position in the valleys, I now turn my attention specifically to the costs of the Cardiff bay development, about which there is some dubiety. In a debate in the House, the then Under-Secretary of State for Wales, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, said:
      "we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the corporation"—
      that is, the Cardiff bay development corporation—
      "to carry through its task".—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 308.]
      That is an interesting statement. I wish that sufficient funding was being made available to valley communities to carry out the necessary regeneration and provide the investment that those areas so desperately need. It is almost as if the Government were willing to write a blank cheque for investment in the prime development by which they have set so much store in Cardiff bay.
      The figures have changed and there is a certain mystification around them.
      Mr. Rogers: The Government's support for the scheme seems rather surprising. I do not wish to argue the merits of the scheme vis-a-vis the needs of the valley communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why the Government are investing so much money in the Cardiff bay development may be their close, almost incestuous relationship with Associated British Ports, which owns substantial areas of land which will be developed under the

      401
      scheme? The company will make enormous profits. Leaving aside the merits of the scheme in housing and social benefits for Cardiff, which I am sure will come, one of the greatest profiteers will be Associated British Ports. It is fairly significant that Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State for Wales, is a director—not the chairman, as I once mistakenly said—of that company.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman again of my previous strictures, which seem to have been forgotten.
      Mr. Hain: I found my hon. Friend's intervention most helpful. I would add only that I think that the ports authority to which my hon. Friend referred has been a large donator to Conservative party funds over the years. Perhaps the two factors of its role in the development and the encouragement that the Welsh Office is giving are not unlinked.
      I wish to delve more deeply into the costs of the project; they appear rather uncertain. We are told that the latest direct cost of the barrage, at 1991–92 prices, is £152.76 million. As the background documentation provided by the Welsh Office shows, that makes a number of assumptions. For example, it assumes that inflation is based on the gross domestic product deflator at market prices dated March 1992—right the way through to 1995–96. We all know that since March 1992 a great deal has happened to the British economy. Even more has happened in the past month which renders all sorts of forecasts, assessments and calculations dubious to say the least, and it makes those who have been making the forecasts look extremely silly, not least the Chancellor. I am doubtful that that will turn out to be the final cost if the project proceeds. It also assumes inflation at a constant 2.5 per cent. after 1995–96. How can anyone project what inflation will be after 1995–96, especially with the pound bobbing up and down as it is? For the life of me, I cannot understand.
      I question whether even the basic ball-park figures given by the Welsh Office stand up. Nevertheless, the figure of £152.76 million is extremely large, although it appears that the total public sector contribution will be nearly double that amount, at about £300 million. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that for me at an appropriate moment. We are talking about a great deal of money for something that offers the Welsh economy—as opposed to Cardiff—very little return.
      Let us consider the details of the figures given by the KPMG Management Consulting report, which analyses the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has considered that report in some detail. It contains a series of questions that we need to ask. Page 12 of the report gives a figure of £34 million for public utilities with the barrage, and £25.5 million without it. Nowhere in the background documentation made available for the debate does it explain what those public utilities are, although it may be tucked away in files from some years ago. Do they include privatised utilities which are simply described under the generic heading of public utilities, in which case there is presumably no ultimate cost to the Exchequer? Do they include what few genuinely publicly owned utilities we have left, such as the Post Office or British Rail, in which case there would be an impact on the public sector borrowing requirement if nothing else?
      402
      There is a great deal to be asked about the detail of the report, which seems flimsy and skimpy to me. If the Minister responds to the debate, as I am sure that he will, will he answer those questions with greater precision than has been provided in the background documentation? We are entitled to question and challenge not merely the total cost involved but how it is made up. We are even more entitled to do so when we consider some of the assumptions in the KPMG report, which has been put before us as a bible on the background information to the discussion.
      On page 16, in paragraph 4.15, the report states that in making the assumptions about the return on the investment that the Government are contemplating and that the private sector will be invited to contemplate,
      "Whilst the key projected rental (and land value) growth rates have been adjusted downwards"—
      over the previous assessment—
      "the scale of this adjustment reflects the fact that Chesterton"—
      the consultants—
      "do not consider that the current recession in the property market has substantially undermined the growth rates incorporated within the January 1990 economic appraisal."
      What an extraordinary statement to make. The property market has almost collapsed and property values are spiralling downwards, but KPMG suggests that the Cardiff bay development will somehow pass by that phenomenon. On page 17 of the KPMG report, in paragraph 4.17, the consultants, Chesterton, are cited as saying:
      "The current recession and any decline in property values represents a shortterm downturn in the market and will have only a limited impact on longterm growth rates."
      I find that assertion absolutely staggering. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, that is an ostrich-like approach. The consultants are burying their heads in the sand or the wastelands of the British economy.
      Judged by current economic trends in the United Kingdom economy, and certainly in the Welsh economy, the property market has collapsed and there is no prospect of it reviving and returning to the growth levels and the return on investment levels that were predicated in the report. The report is fatally flawed and, therefore, the economic case behind the Cardiff bay development is also fatally flawed.
      9.30 pm
      In the past few years we have witnessed the end of the grand property development era. Then, one could have a plan based on visionary, large-scale developments that centred on return on property rather than real economic indicators and forces. In this context one need look no further than the example of Canary wharf, which is relevant to the Cardiff bay development in terms of property values—I am not seeking to make wider comparisons about specific characteristics or objectives. Canary wharf carried a total investment of £3 billion. The original prospectuses for Canary wharf that drew in such investors as Olympia and York—at huge cost and its ultimate bankruptcy—contained all sorts of optimistic predictions of the kind now made in the KPMG report and by the Welsh Office on behalf of the Cardiff bay development project.
      The banks, predominantly British but some foreign, are now owed £1.2 billion by the Canary wharf developers and they have no prospect of getting it back. How many loan

      403
      financiers, capital venture sources and banks will be required to put in the significant sums of money, although not of the scale required by Canary wharf, needed to realise the dreams that the architects of the Cardiff bay development have advanced?
      It is also significant that 4.5 million sq ft of space is empty on Canary wharf and just 11 per cent. of the site has been filled. That has relevance for the Cardiff bay development when one considers the plans for its wider site. What is the likelihood of the Cardiff bay development filling all the office space that it is providing? That question has even greater importance when one considers the United Kingdom economy. In Cardiff, as much as 30 per cent. of office space is empty now.
      The London docklands project is similar in many respects to the Cardiff bay development. An independent corporation was set up which is not directly accountable to local authorities or to the local people. It was pushed through by the Government and displayed much of the same thinking as that for the Cardiff bay development because all the eggs were put in the property basket rather than being devoted to industrial and manufacturing development. The local economy in London's docklands has all but collapsed, with house prices having plummeted. Although the local people need housing, many of the houses provided as part of the docklands development—built at prices far greater than local folk could afford—are standing empty because they cannot be sold. About 40 per cent. of office space in London's docklands is also empty. All in all, we have much to question about the economic and industrial assumptions behind the Cardiff bay development project.
      It is also interesting to note that average unemployment in London's docklands now stands at 21.6 per cent., the level of unemployment to be found in the valley communities of south Wales. Yet London's docklands was intended to be a leading pace setter for the new Britain and was going to show the way for developments elsewhere in the country. Newham has an unemployment rate of 21.9 per cent.; Tower Hamlets, 24.4 per cent.; Southwark, 20.3 per cent. That is the position after all that money has been ploughed in through the London Docklands development corporation. When we consider the prospects facing Cardiff bay and the economic investment involved and then weigh up the pros and cons, we see the fundamentally flawed thinking behind it.
      I draw attention to an aspect of the KPMG report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred. Table 11, on page 26, gives a calculation of direct employment effects. Not only does it show that with the barrage there will be 1,232 fewer industrial or manufacturing jobs, but it suggests that there will be 1,619 more retail jobs and 2,184 more leisure jobs than if the development proceeded without the barrage.
      Such prospects are greatly welcomed by local people, but I question the whole economic thinking behind the figures. I refer to the assumption that dominated the Thatcherite years, that is being continued in the Major years and is apparently being followed in the Hunt years in Wales. There is a belief that we can have retail, leisure and service industries without a manufacturing base. That thinking is flawed. It has led us into a situation in which we have a chronic balance of payments crisis throughout the United Kingdom economy and a chronic balance of trade crisis in the Welsh economy.
      404
      I do not believe, if the development goes ahead, that we shall achieve the creation of that level of jobs. The figures do not add up. Laid out for us in this initiative by the Government, along with all their other policies, is an attempt to turn south Wales into a low-skill, low-wage, low-quality assembly line service economy, diversified here and there but without any serious attention being given to the desperate need for investment in manufacturing industry which is capable of reviving our economy and providing the essential base and foundation from which all other developments could then derive.
      If the Cardiff bay development had been put forward against the background and within the context of a serious industrial strategy for Wales which was geared at reviving the manufacturing base of the valley communities—recognising that they are industrial villages with traditions and skills to offer which, if harnessed by Government support, could build a prosperous new future—I might be taking a more sanguine attitude towards the Bill. I still might have questions to ask about the essential fallacies of the property basis of the economics behind it, but I might be prepared to put such questions on one side because the Government were recognising the needs of the valleys, the need for manufacturing investment and the need to build a real economy as opposed to the flotsam and jetsam economy that is offered to us now.
      To find the essential flaws in the economic strategy underpinning the Bill, one need look no further than south-east England. Its economy was said to epitomise the success of Thatcherism, consisting entirely of services and retail and leisure developments—many marinas and peripheral, nice-looking developments but no serious economic development. In the past few years, south-east England has suffered even greater unemployment increases than the valley communities have experienced until now. That has happened because it is an economy built on shifting sand, with no real basis. I fear that the Cardiff bay development project will end up going down the same route.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for his thoughtful contribution in which he tried to set the Bill in the context of the whole Welsh economy. He largely moved away from the beggar-thy-neighbour approach which, unfortunately, I had been hearing. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on holding the Neath declaration in his constituency. I have already apologised for being unable to attend.
      I make one criticism of my hon. Friend's approach in Neath and in his speech. I do not believe that it is possible to divorce the economies of Cardiff and Swansea from that of the valley hinterland from which they originally sprung and in which the work force is totally immersed. There must be a south Wales strategy for the economy and, unfortunately, the Government do not have one. It must involve Cardiff and Swansea as well as the valleys. As long as we allow the Government to set communities against one another in the sort of debate that we have been having until now, we are doing our home communities and our party no good. A few comments have been made about deprivation in the valleys compared with that in Cardiff, which, it has been implied, is a wealthy yuppy area—[Interruption.] That has been implied in a number of speeches.
      The latest statistics published by the Library on 16 October this year show that, for the past two years, the

      405
      highest unemployment rate in Wales has been in Cardiff—in Cardiff, West—the second highest has been in my constituency of Cardiff, Central and the fifth highest has been in Cardiff, South and Penarth.
      Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend will understand that those figures are based on the Government's present calculation of unemployment. That description of unemployment may show a high rate of unemployment in the Cardiff constituencies, but many unemployed people in the valley communities are excluded from the count by virtue of their previous occupations and because the figures have been massaged. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point to heart and recognise that it can be misleading to use comparisons based on those figures.
      Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. I was aware of it. My home village of Maerdy is a mining community with 33 per cent. male unemployment, two years after the pit closed. I know very well how depressed the mining communities are and I do not try to show disparities or make comparisons between them. I am trying to develop the argument that the south-west and central parts of Cardiff are in themselves depressed regions. In the Adamsdown ward, in my constituency, male unemployment is more than 30 per cent. In Butetown, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), it is 56 per cent. I do not think that any area in south Wales approaches that level of unemployment. We must not pretend or be fooled into thinking that the valleys are the only depressed areas in south Wales. Hon. Members have spoken about development along the M4 corridor, but the geography of south Wales is such that that corridor lies between Cardiff and the valleys. It is not to the south of Cardiff where it is planned to build the barrage.
      9.45 pm
      It is projected that the barrage will create 10,000 jobs, not 23,000. I like to think that that number of jobs would be created, but I am sceptical, just as I am sceptical about the number of jobs to be created by any project. However, my scepticism has not in the past prevented me from supporting development in other areas even though I did not think that jobs would be created. If 10,000 jobs were created at the inflated costs mentioned by some of my hon. Friends, it would work out at £200 or £300 a job, which is enormously cheap. Even if 10,000 jobs are not created and costs are much higher, the jobs would still be value for money compared with the £800 million spent on the valleys initiative which has not delivered jobs. Even if the project did not deliver the number of jobs that we would like to see, it would not stop me from supporting any project in the valleys.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and examining the report's assumptions about direct job creation. I cannot discover whether the jobs are already in the Cardiff bay area. Are they additional to the number of jobs in, for example, south Glamorgan, or will the jobs created in the barrage area be transferred from other parts of south Glamorgan or even south Wales?
      Mr. Jones: In so far as I understand the question, when a company locates in an area and creates jobs it tends to
      406
      attract people who are already in work. But there is a knock-on effect because people who move from one job to take up another leave vacancies.
      Mr.Rowlands: Will my hon Friend give way?
      Mr. Jones: I shall give way later.
      It has been said that the barrage will create jobs based only on property development. Before I was elected as the Member of Parliament representing Cardiff, Central, I was chairman of economic development in Cardiff. In that post, I met many business men and women who were either based in Cardiff or were looking to be based there. For them, as for me, the main argument in favour of the barrage in our negotiations with various companies that we were trying to attract into the city was that, it would give Cardiff the edge that would enable it to attract to the capital of Wales companies that would not otherwise come because other areas would be equally attractive. By that, I do not mean the valley areas to the north. Without the edge given by the barrage, those companies would not locate in Neath, much as I would like them to, or in Merthyr. They would go to Bath, Bristol or Swindon.
      Mr. Rogers: It would be incredibly stupid to argue about the valleys versus Cardiff, and I may have something to say about that later. The Cardiff Bay development corporation, the city of Cardiff and the county of South Glamorgan have done an admirable job in redeveloping the derelict area of the Cardiff docklands. My only objection to this project is that we would spend almost £500 million of public money on an exercise that will not accelerate that process, or make available a single square inch more of land. I will leave it at that because my interventions have been rather long.
      Mr. Jones: If you had been present earlier, Madam Speaker, you would have heard my hon. Friend make that point twice. I am not arguing for Cardiff against the valleys—quite the reverse. I am trying to counter the argument, put by several speakers already, for the valleys against Cardiff. The two economies are interlinked and cannot be divorced from each other. What would benefit one would benefit the other.
      Mr. Rowlands: I was modestly surprised that my hon. Friend gullibly quoted £800 million as the amount that came into the valleys as a result of the valleys initiative. I beg him not to use that figure because it has no basis in reality, truth or fact. It is Walker's figure.
      Mr. Jones: The £800 million was not new money coming into the area but money that was spent in the valleys.
      Mr. Rowlands: Do not say that. It is not true.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right. It is not true. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) was born in the valleys. If he analysed that figure and counted the expenditure in the valleys as a result of that initiative, he would see that this talk of £800 million is absolute nonsense. The figure is peddled by Lord Walker to build up his reputation so that he gets jobs such as that which he got yesterday.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Madam Speaker: Did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) make an intervention? If so, I shall call the Minister.
      Mr. Morganrose—
      Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Rhondda seeking the floor?
      Mr. Rogers: I am, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I did not realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had finished.
      I start with an apology. During our debate on these matters on 25 November 1991, I made some remarks about Associated British Ports. I am sure that hon. Members will know that I am not a great fan of ABP. However, I made some statements which were incorrect. Sir Keith Stuart, the chairman of ABP, wrote to me and I telephoned to him and apologised. It is appropriate, even a year later, to apologise to him in the Chamber and so put it on the record. I said that Lord Crickhowell was the chairman of ABP when, of course, he was not. Sir Keith Stuart is the chairman. The former Secretary of State for Wales, who is now Lord Crickhowell, was a non-executive director. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) committed the same sin.
      Sir Keith has told me that Associated British Ports has never made any contribution to the Conservative party. Many of us thought at one time that the parties which took place in connection with the development of ports on the east coast and to which Conservative Members were invited were funded by ABP. They probably were, but the company has made no direct contribution to the Conservative party.
      Mr. Hain: I take the opportunity to withdraw my earlier remark. I made it because I read the remarks of my hon. Friend in Hansard. As I take everything he says to be the veritable truth and cast in stone, I repeated what he said earlier this evening.
      Mr. Rogers: That is why I wanted to put my apology on the record in fairness to Sir Keith Stuart and Associated British Ports. ABP is obviously a company that looks after its own interests. That, of course, is what it is about. That is why it is in business. At least it has the sense not to make contributions to the Conservative party, which is very much to its credit.
      I said also—perhaps it was a loose phrase—that the company had its hand in many tills. Sir Keith Stuart felt that that was an allegation that ABP was involved in dishonest dealings. I did not believe that it was involved in any such dealings. I simply wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it was involved in many schemes where it was making a lot of money, one of which was the Cardiff bay scheme.
      The scheme was initiated during the reign of Lord Crickhowell, who is a non-executive director of ABP. Oddly enough, he was the new chairman—he is now the old chairman—of the National Rivers Authority, and the job of the NRA chairman is to keep rivers clean. Over the years, during which the Cardiff bay scheme has been developing, many of us have felt that there has been a conflict of interest. So has Lord Crickhowell—he said that his position, on his instruction, was that anyone at the NRA giving advice on Cardiff bay must not refer to him. On the other hand, the dead weight of his authority and his position is there.
      One body which will make an enormous killing out of the development will be Associated British Ports. I have always thought that to build the barrage before the houses would drive up house prices. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I have always wondered how he would explain that to his constituents. Recently, as a result of the Government's policies, house prices have been driven down, so that argument is no longer valid. I think that the original proposal was for 6,000 houses, about 1,500 of which were social houses—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to he resumed tomorrow.

Pitchford Hall
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]
10 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall be succinct, Madam Speaker, because I hope that the chairman of the all-party heritage group, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), will have an opportunity to catch your eye.
On Friday 25 September, just before the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) rose to make a personal statement, Hansard records that I rose to intervene on Pitchford hall. Had I persisted further, Madam Speaker, you would undoubtedly have ejected me from the House. It was, in fact, a last desperate attempt to focus attention, before it was too late, on the dispersal and auction of the contents of Pitchford hall. That leads me to my first point—that in such situations there must be some kind of holding solution, a breathing space.
The market place is not always the wrong solution. I am not saying that. I am saying that one cannot act sensibly under the shadow of Sotheby's or Christie's hammer. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, suggests that there should be an early warning system, possibly reporting to the House through the new Select Committee on National Heritage. The sale of Pitchford hall could not have happened at a worse moment in 600 years as the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, then the decision-making Secretary of State, was elsewhere.
Secondly, I quote, to put it as succinctly as possible, from Angus Stirling of the National Trust. He said:
"The historic entity has been broken up. Most if not all of the contents will disappear from the house and even though there were relatively few pieces that were very fine and valuable, it was the totality of the collection brought together over 300 or 400 years that made this thing so unique. It is a very rare thing to find in a house of that stature and age."
That is the considered view of the National Trust.
From personal experience of 48 years of cordial and harmonious relations with the Scottish National Trust I know that visitors who come to such a place like to see a lived-in, organic, growing entity of a house rather than a shell. In my view, Oliver and Caroline Colthurst could not have tried harder to prevent separation of house and contents.
My third point is to ask why the advice of English Heritage was ignored. It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State for National Heritage in the Chamber and I appreciate his courtesy. We were fellow members of the all-party heritage group and I know that he cares deeply for these issues.
The chairman and senior officials of English Heritage have confirmed to me that Pitchford phase 5 could have been financed out of own resources and that no extra money was required. How much has already been spent from public funds? What is the situation in respect of the Getty money? Did the Department know of the possibility that there would be additional money from Getty funds? Does the Minister accept that version of events, and, if so, on whose advice did his predecessor act? Is it true that Pitchford was turned down because it was too far from a motorway?
410
The Committee, of which I was a member, which considered the National Heritage Bill understood that extra money would be available in special cases. Georgina Naylor of the National Heritage Memorial Fund knows that I want to ask whether it is still policy to provide extra money as the Committee was promised—which pledge, to be fair, the Government have honoured in respect of Kedleston, Nostell priory, and Belton.
The Historic Houses Association is concerned about more fiscally attractive maintenance funds, which could be more effective in respect of day to day work and would avoid catastrophes such as Pitchford because the money would be tied up and invulnerable to a Lloyd's-type situation.
The protection of the heritage is not a rich man's hobby but a cultural reaction. When I was with the all-party heritage group in the Netherlands last week, we were struck by remarks by Doctor Vliegenhart of Het Loo and Doctor Van Staaten of the Kröller-Muller museum, that one of the glories of coming to Britain is visiting lived-in houses which have been entities for a long time.
I have spoken for only six minutes because others have the right to put their point of view.
10.6 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his courtesy in informing me that he had secured this Adjournment debate and for suggesting that I might contribute to it. I am glad to do so. I am grateful also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage for being present on the Front Bench. It is unusual for a Secretary of State to attend an Adjournment debate, and for my right hon. Friend to do so is indicative of his commitment and interest.
I wish to emulate the constructive nature of the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who in no sense is critical of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister. However, anyone who visited Pitchford and met the Colthursts must be saddened that that entity has been lost. It was the quintessential English house—not a great stately home, but a manor house with contents accumulated by generations of families and set in lovely parkland. It was architecturally distinguished and the largest black and white house of its type in the country.
It is a great pity, to put it mildly, that that entity was not kept together and a particular shame because there are not many houses like Pitchford in the country. In fact, it is a property that one could properly describe as unique. The owners had fallen on difficult times through no fault of their own, but were anxious that the house should be kept together with its contents and its parkland. It is sad that that could not be done, as the sums involved were small.
The contents, alas, have been dispersed and the house sold. That must be a good thing because for a house of that kind to be left standing empty and uncared for throughout the winter would create considerable problems. We must hope that the purchaser will choose to furnish it in a seemly manner, look after the parkland, and care for that bit of England. It also has a glorious church nearby, with one of the finest wood effigies in the country. I would love my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has never

411
been there, to spend a night or two with me as I live only 20 miles away and I would very much like to show him that place.
We can learn lessons from Pitchford. Recrimination will achieve nothing. I well remember, in 1976, in the House, asking the then Secretary of State for the Environment—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—if he would receive a deputation to discuss a last-minute rescue attempt for Mentmore. He did receive it, with great courtesy, but although Lord Goodman and I and a number of others pleaded with him, he was unable to help. Mentmore went under the hammer, and its contents were dispersed.
Mentmore, however, focused attention on a problem. It was because of Mentmore that the National Land Fund was reconstituted as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, following an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We worked together on that. Out of a disaster came something very good, which has benefited the heritage ever since.
I hope that we have learnt some lessons from the Pitchford disaster. Pitchford could have been saved. The various schemes that were suggested were not perfect, but they contained the seeds of something that could have worked: I am convinced of that. We need a fail-safe mechanism, and I hope that at an early stage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will call together those of us who have an interest in these matters—they will obviously include the chairman of the memorial fund and the chairman of English Heritage; perhaps they will also include the chairman of the all-party heritage committee and one or two leading Opposition Members—so that they can sit down and discuss how the solution to a future Pitchford can best be found. For future Pitchfords there will be: Pitchford itself has gone, but there are other lovely houses with fine contents, set in parklands, which are at risk. Already this year, Pitchford and Groombridge have gone.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow for initiating the debate, and for giving me the opportunity to participate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will come up with a positive reply.
10.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising the subject of Pitchford hall. The hon. Gentleman has always had a particular interest in preserving the national heritage on both sides of the border, and I know and admire his family's record and their long relationship with the National Trust for Scotland. I look forward to his continuing contribution to the work of my Department. I also welcome the opportunity to explain to the House in more depth the decision made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the previous Secretary of State, that English Heritage should not take over Pitchford hall.
I am grateful for the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), right up to the last minute. We spoke on the telephone, on the motorway, and at my home at the weekend. I recognise the contribution that he has made to the debate.
412
Let me begin by making it clear that Pitchford has not gone; it is not lost. Its case has gained a great deal of public attention, especially in the west midlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) has been in the House tonight, and has talked to me at length. He has explained that he is now detained elsewhere. He has made clear to me the feelings of his constituents, and he was quick to come to the Department to explain how strongly he felt on the issue.
Let me begin by answering the questions that the hon. Member for Linlithgow put to me before I refer to the background to the argument. The hon. Gentleman says that there should be a holding solution—an early warning system. It is important to remember that, although the sale of Pitchford hall took place in September, my noble Friend Lady Blatch first started to monitor the position last February. That was done by the heritage department within the Department of the Environment. Articles first appeared in the press then. It was from that moment on that heritage officials began to monitor the position.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to Mr. Getty. Let me make it clear that there was never any approach to us to contact him and that he did not contact us about the issue. I understand that that was an entirely private matter between Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst and Mr. Getty which in the end, I believe, came to nothing. We were never involved in that issue, though following a telephone call from the hon. Member for Linlithgow I asked whether we had received any information about it. We had not.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked about the amount of public money that had been spent on Pitchford hall. English Heritage contributed about £230,000 over a period of about eight years for the fabric of the house. There was never any substance in the rumour that the reason that the Department of National Heritage was not interested was that Pitchford hall was too far from the motorway to be a tourist attraction. I do not know where that fairy tale came from, but it is most certainly not true.
As to the conditions for a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the important point to remember is that at no stage did the fund seek any extra grant from the Government. We were not asked by the fund to consider that proposal.
As for the Historic Houses Association, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and I have met representatives of the association on a number of occasions and discussed with them many of the problems that affect owners of historic houses. There are about 700 houses of Pitchford hall's quality in this country and about 1,400 members of the Historic Houses Association. Therefore, we were anxious to ensure that any action that was taken by the Government and English Heritage should not put in jeopardy the ability to look after that large number of houses that rely upon shared resources, which are pretty meagre at the best of times.
However, I take on board the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the significance of maintenance funds. The Department of National Heritage is addressing that issue. We have had positive discussions with the Historic Houses Association along those lines. Therefore, we are absolutely clear about what the association regards as potentially a new way forward that would help both the association and its members.
I can understand why Pitchford has appealed to so many people. Hon Members will have seen the photographs of that fine black and white timber-framed

413
house nestling in a wooded valley, with a stream flowing past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, it is quintessential Olde England—a reminder of less turbulent times. Pitchford hall is not, however, some idyllic fantasy. It is a house of real quality, comparable with Little Moreton hall and Speke hall, which are already cared for by the National Trust. It is that quality which has been recognised by according to it the highest statutory protection—a grade I listing. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: Pitchford hall itself is not at risk. The house appears, happily, to have found a new owner. The grade I listing applies to the new owner just as much as it did to the previous owners, Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst.
Mr. Dalyell: The Minister referred to Little Moreton hall, which is absolutely beautiful—my wife and I made a lovely visit there—but it is denuded of most of its original furniture. It is the contents, often bric-a-brac, which are so vital to a place like Pitchford.
Mr. Key: As they say, I am coming to that, but it happens to be true. I accept the importance of the accumulation, the accretion of family belongings, even if they are not of the first quality. The term bric-a-brac may indeed apply. As the hon. Gentleman says, one of the important qualities of the English country house is that it is lived in. That is why people appreciate the English country house so much.
If any alterations to Pitchford were ever proposed, either internal or external, which would affect Pitchford's character as a grade I building, the consent of the local planning authority would need to be sought. It would have to consult English Heritage and the Department of the Environment. My Department would be consulted if there were any disagreement between those bodies. Similarly, planning permission would need to be sought for any development or change of use, though our understanding is that the new owners wish to live in Pitchford as a family home.
Pitchford seems to be particularly suited to family ownership. It has been a private family home for over 500 years. Country houses were built to be lived in and are generally better cared for and retain more of their special atmosphere and quality if they continue to be lived in rather than treated as museum pieces. The preservation of Pitchford's unique character remains entirely compatible with residential use. This is in part a tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Colthurst, who did so much to secure the condition of the hall with the assistance of the grants from English Heritage. They have also in recent years opened Pitchford to the public during August to share their pleasure in the property. I have had many letters from members of the public who have enjoyed Mrs. Colthurst's tours of the house so much that they have written to me praising her hospitality. It is indeed sad that the Colthursts' losses in the insurance market have prevented them from completing their work at Pitchford and from remaining in the house.
Country houses are one of the great cultural achievements of our nation and we owe a debt of gratitude to all those who put their own resources into maintaining them, especially those who allow us to share them inside as well as out. It is neither possible nor desirable for Government to take over all such properties. One cannot simply buy for the nation the atmosphere of a house such
414
as Pitchford—something would be lost, whatever. Taking over country houses should always be a last resort. I believe that properties that have remained in private ownership should, as far as possible, remain a living part of our heritage. But if the private sector fails in its responsibilities in caring for our common inheritance, we shall not hesitate to take action.
Only the other week I visited the Crescent in Buxton, one of the country's foremost Georgian buildings, also listed grade I, and now in a sorry state of disrepair. I have made it clear to the owners that if they fail to implement a satisfactory repair programme, the Secretary of State will, for the first time, use powers available to him for over 20 years to serve a repairs notice on them and, although I hope that that would not be necessary, ultimately to take compulsory purchase action.
Pitchford hall is not like Buxton. The Colthursts, with English Heritage's help, made great efforts to maintain the fabric of the house and it is thankfully not at risk in that way. So the case for intervention would have to be very strong.
The case was made first by the National Trust. It took the view earlier this year that, although the hall itself was not at risk, it would be desirable if the contents of the property, were to remain in situ. If the house were sold privately, the contents would be dispersed at auction and the family association lost.
The value of keeping a house and its contents together is always a more difficult issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South has referred to the case of Mentmore and to the outcry which followed that decision. After Mentmore, hon. Members of all parties—not least the hon. Member for Linlithgow—determined that new arrangements should be established and they were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South outlined.
It was, therefore, to the National Heritage Memorial Fund that the National Trust quite properly looked for publicly funded support when considering taking Pitchford as the trust itself did not have the resources. The National Trust has a responsibility to its members and, indeed, to the nation to ensure that it does not acquire property which it could not afford properly to maintain and run. It therefore requires the establishment of an endowment fund, to which it might contribute from its own resources, which will produce a stream of income sufficient to fund any foreseeable expenditure. In the case of Pitchford, it would also need to fund works which could accommodate greatly increased numbers of visitors passing through its fragile structure, as public access would be greatly increased.
The National Trust bill would have been significantly more than £13 million, well beyond even the National Heritage Memorial Fund's increased resources without pre-empting virtually all other heritage expenditure.
However, the chairman of English Heritage, given the public interest in Pitchford, suggested to Ministers that if they gave the highest priority to keeping Pitchford and its contents together he might be able to secure that end by harnessing NHMF money with English Heritage money and private sector resources. That was a very different proposal from the one that the National Trust had put to the NHMF. It would be cheaper not only in the short term but, with luck—I repeat, with luck—in the long term, given that the level of public access would have remained at about one month a year.

415
This, then, was the decision for Ministers. Pitchford hall itself was not at risk. Its contents, while not comparable with Mentmore's, had clearly had a strong appeal for visitors in their appropriateness to the house and in representing a single family's changing taste over the centuries, especially the 19th and 20th.
Against that was the pressure on English Heritage's own resources and the concern about the implications, even if everything went smoothly, for the priorities already established. Taking on Pitchford would have had a significant impact on major parts of the body's programme. Even if the house could have been successfully leased, English Heritage would have accepted responsibility for the full cost of the essential repairs to the historic fabric and other costs, which would have been a continuing drain on its resources.
Pitchford would have reduced English Heritage's ability to save important buildings actually at risk of destruction and to bring to a proper standard of repair properties already in its care. There is a backlog about which the National Audit Office has already commented. Pitchford would also have reduced the body's ability to help other private owners, as it had the Colthursts, to maintain important houses.
Mr. Dalyell: What puzzles those such as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—who authorised me to say that, had he still been the chairman of English Heritage, he would have regarded Pitchford as a resigning matter—is where on earth the figure of £13 million comes from. The costs of running a house such as Pitchford should not be anything like £13 million. Where does the figure come from? How is it made up?
Mr. Key: That figure represents the cost of putting together the endowment fund. The National Heritage Memorial Fund would have been able to find something in excess of £3 million, but we estimate that it would have probably turned to the Government for in excess of £10 million to make up the balance. Those are not just my figures—they are the sums which would have been needed to form a fund sufficient to cover the running costs of the house and the repairs that would have been necessary.
Other houses on which work is done, and which would have been deprived of resources, may not have the same high and photogenic profile as Pitchford hall, but that work forms the core of the effort to preserve the best of the built heritage in England. We have increased the grant in aid to English Heritage by 35 per cent. in real terms between its establishment in 1983 and 1991–92 so that it can achieve its objectives in these areas. Even so, to divert resources from its priority tasks to Pitchford would have jeopardised its ability to carry out its statutory duties for years ahead.
416
In its recent report, the National Audit Office focused on this very issue, spelling out the consequences for English Heritage's work of taking over Brodsworth hall in south Yorkshire, for which it had not planned.
In weighing up these issues, my right hon. and learned Friend and I had before us the views of our statutory advisers, English Heritage and others, including the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which did not apply for any extra Government grant and, of course, the views of informed and interested members of the public. In the circumstances, we had to conclude that retaining Pitchford's contents in situ could not take precedence over all else.
It is, of course, very sad for the Colthursts that they have been unable to continue to live in the house, but I trust that Pitchford hall will continue to flourish in private hands for centuries to come.
Lessons have been learnt on all sides. I welcome the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South that we should get together—indeed, I have an open door. I look forward to visiting Pitchford so that I can see for myself the glories of that particularly English country house.
Mr. Dalyell: I beg the Minister to be a bit careful about the Mentmore example. It so happens that the Roseberys are my friends and constituents, and there was a strong argument for bringing much of the beautiful furniture from Mentmore to Dalmeny, which is open to the public. I strongly agree with what the Minister said about the fragile structure of some houses, and that we should not have too many feet tramping through places such as Pitchford—otherwise one gets into the sort of difficulties that Craigievar has had, and people damage what they have come to see.
Finally, I beg the Government to reflect on the £13 million and consider whether they are not in danger of going for complete, end-of-century solutions, rather than for interim solutions. In dealing with fragile houses such as Pitchford, interim solutions may be the best policy.
Mr. Key: It is my clear intention and determination to ensure that our common heritage is looked after in a proper manner. It is clear to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me that we have a responsibility to ensure not only that the heritage is looked after properly but that it is passed on to future generations in an appropriate state. We also bear in mind the fact that we have a responsibility to create the heritage of the future. That is part of the purpose of the new Department of National Heritage.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways (Toilets)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he intends to introduce to increase the number of toilets on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We announced on 6 August a substantial deregulation in the provision of motorway service areas—MSAs. This followed on from the commitment we gave in the citizens charter for more MSAs more quickly. In future MSAs may be more frequent—every 15 miles instead of around 30 miles; and the private sector, not the Department of Transport, will take the initiative in finding and acquiring sites and obtaining planning permission for the development of MSAs. We believe that the surest solution is to free the market to provide.

  British Rail Provincial Business
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the publication of British Rail's final response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the provincial business sector.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have placed a copy of British Rail's response in the Library of the House. BR accepted all 41 recommendations that were addressed to it. Many have already been fully implemented, and BR has set out the action that it is taking, or intends to take, to implement the remainder. One recommendation, concerning the role of local authorities in supporting rail services, and the scope for creation of new passenger transport authorities, is a matter for the Government. Under the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, passenger transport authorities will continue their responsibilities for local services in their areas, and other local authorities will continue to have powers to contribute to enhanced rail services.

  Our White Paper on the privatisation of BR sets out in detail our proposals for the future structure and financing of rail services; these proposals will lead to a fundamental reform of the railway, under which the private sector will progressively take over the operation of passenger services. We believe that the involvement of the private sector will bring a greater focus on the passenger and, therefore, lead to a more attractive and efficient network of passenger services. It would not be sensible to contemplate major changes in the role of local authorities until experience has been gained of the operation of the new franchising regime.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends publishing the paper on upgrading the railway network to continental freight loading gauge,238
  referred to in the Government's response to the Transport Select Committee's report on preparations for the opening of the channel tunnel, second report, Session 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  A paper setting out the practical and other problems associated with upgrading to a large continental loading gauge was published yesterday. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

  Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken within Government to consider issues relating to health and safety and training within British ports following the winding-up of the British Ports Federation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Steps are being taken within the industry to enable the health and safety and training activities currently being undertaken by the British Ports Federation to continue after the winding up of the federation later this year. These are currently still under discussion, but it is hoped that a positive outcome can be announced shortly.

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children(a) under the age of five years and (b) between the age of five years and 16 years were involved in road traffic accidents within each United Kingdom region in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The table shows the number of reported road accident casualties aged under 16 by age group in each United Kingdom region in each year from 1985 to 1991.

  Child1 casualties—by region and age group: United Kingdom 1985–1991

  Region

  Year

  0–4

  5–15

  Total

  England

  North

  1985

  413

  2,295

  2,708

  1986

  447

  2,208

  2,655

  1987

  437

  2,090

  2,527

  1988

  416

  2,100

  2,516

  1989

  474

  2,206

  2,680

  1990

  511

  2,214

  2,725

  1991

  465

  2,126

  2,591

  North West

  1985

  1,039

  5,677

  6,716

  1986

  1,058

  5,358

  6,416

  1987

  1,024

  5,394

  6,418

  1988

  1,181

  5,423

  6,604

  1989

  1,253

  5,586

  6,839

  1990

  1,292

  5,810

  7,102

  1991

  1,225

  5,329

  6,554

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1985

  696

  3,723

  4,419

  1986

  649

  3,591

  4,240

  1987

  622

  3,534

  4,156

  1988

  702

  3,496

  4,198

  1989

  785

  3,771

  4,556

  1990

  759

  3,858

  4,617

  1991

  677

  3,553

  4,230

  East Midlands

  1985

  443

  2,918

  3,361

  1986

  444

  2,728

  3,172

  1987

  444

  2,582

  3,026

  1988

  515

  2,729

  3,244

  1989

  539

  2,871

  3,410

  1990

  503

  2,931

  3,434

  1991

  485

  2,720

  3,205

  239

  Region

  Year

  0–4

  5–15

  Total

  West Midlands

  1985

  620

  3,925

  4,545

  1986

  572

  3,706

  4,278

  1987

  568

  3,491

  4,059

  1988

  599

  3,578

  4,177

  1989

  637

  3,682

  4,319

  1990

  682

  4,019

  4,701

  1991

  650

  3,653

  4,303

  East Anglia

  1985

  242

  1,314

  1,556

  1986

  187

  1,315

  1,502

  1987

  195

  1,338

  1,533

  1988

  273

  1,380

  1,653

  1989

  236

  1,418

  1,654

  1990

  264

  1,416

  1,680

  1991

  250

  1,307

  1,557

  South East

  1985

  1,973

  12,959

  14,932

  1986

  2,016

  12,416

  14,432

  1987

  2,065

  11,763

  13,828

  1988

  2,111

  11,825

  13,936

  1989

  2,239

  12,249

  14,488

  1990

  2,192

  12,130

  14,322

  1991

  1,984

  10,814

  12,798

  South West

  1985

  409

  2,864

  3,273

  1986

  379

  2,646

  3,025

  1987

  386

  2,420

  2,806

  1988

  396

  2,562

  2,958

  1989

  420

  2,553

  2,973

  1990

  423

  2,567

  2,990

  1991

  668

  2,186

  2,854

  England total2

  1985

  5,835

  35,675

  41,510

  1986

  5,752

  33,968

  39,720

  1987

  5,741

  32,612

  38,353

  1988

  6,194

  33,119

  39,313

  1989

  6,583

  34,336

  40,919

  1990

  6,626

  34,945

  41,571

  1991

  6,404

  31,688

  38,092

  Wales

  1985

  363

  1,849

  2,212

  1986

  365

  1,816

  2,181

  1987

  356

  1,799

  2,155

  1988

  404

  1,883

  2,287

  1989

  436

  2,071

  2,507

  1990

  415

  2,045

  2,460

  1991

  411

  1,932

  2,343

  Scotland

  1985

  772

  4,284

  5,056

  1986

  759

  3,883

  4,642

  1987

  699

  3,745

  4,444

  1988

  733

  3,579

  4,312

  1989

  731

  3,750

  4,481

  1990

  795

  3,814

  4,609

  1991

  735

  3,421

  4,156

  Northern Ireland

  31985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  273

  1,220

  1,493

  1987

  292

  1,246

  1,538

  1988

  305

  1,321

  1,626

  1989

  371

  1,333

  1,704

  1990

  355

  1,424

  1,779

  1991

  315

  1,220

  1,535

  United Kingdom2

  31985

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  7,149

  40,887

  48,036

  1987

  7,088

  39,402

  46,490

  1988

  7,636

  39,902

  47,538

  1989

  8,121

  41,490

  49,611

  1990

  8,191

  42,228

  50,419

  1991

  7,865

  38,261

  46,126

  1 Aged under 16. Does not include age not reported.

  2 Includes region not reported.

  3 1985 data for Northern Ireland not available.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of his Department's research into the incidence and causes of tyre failures among heavy goods vehicles on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A survey of tyre tread debris left by 157 tyres on the M4 motorway was carried out between June and October 1991. The debris consisted of 72–46 per cent.—new—first used—tyres and 84–54 per cent. retreads. Only one piece of debris was of unknown type.

  Tyre failure by heavy goods vehicles on motorways is almost invariably the result of tyres overheating. This can be a consequence of overloading, under-inflation—or both—running under-inflated following a penetration or running for long periods at higher speeds than those for which the tyres were designed at their maximum load.

  I have arranged for a copy of the Transport Research Laboratory's working paper—Ref.: WP/VS/222—to be placed in the Library.

  Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he estimates the value of regeneration benefits of transport infrastructure improvements.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Regeneration benefits, unlike the other benefits of a transport scheme, are predominantly benefits to the locality often achieved at the cost of less activity elsewhere. They are, therefore, counted "below the line" in a scheme appraisal, not as part of the gains to the national economy. This is standard Government practice in the appraisal of industrial and regional assistance.

  Attempts at valuation generally focus on forecast increases in the value of commercial and industrial land in the immediate area. In any valuation, care must be taken to avoid double counting of benefits included in the transport appraisal and to allow for the fact that some activity may well be diverted from elsewhere in the local area.

  Public Transport
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is currently undertaken or sponsored by his Department into improved transport for women and children.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has a long-standing programme of research into the transport needs of people with mobility problems, including women, children, elderly people and those with disabilities.

  Current projects include work on the design and operation of fully accessible low floor buses, the development of design standards for bus and coach stations—jointly funded with the passenger transport executives—and the use of unstaffed railway stations by people with mobility problems—jointly funded with British Rail. My Department is also conducting research into the incidence of assaults on bus passengers.

  Schemes (EC Funding)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of transport schemes which have attracted EC funding since 1979.
  241
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  These schemes include projects by the Department of Transport, nationalised industries, local authorities and the private sector, and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cycling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a study of the Dutch Government's bicycles first master plan and publish an assessment of what lessons apply to strategic transport planning in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have seen the Dutch bicycle master plan, which forms part of a range of traffic and transport policies.

  The bicycle master plan contains a considerable number of proposals aimed at increasing cycle usage. These are not all new. Indeed, some reflect current United Kingdom policy and practice, such as measures to increase safety, and to improve the range and quality of facilities for cyclists.

  I have no plans to publish an assessment of the bicycle master plan, but its contents will clearly influence our ideas on how cycling should develop in the United Kingdom.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list details of all his Department's expenditure in 1992–93 designed to improve safety for cyclists.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Although no separate figures are available, much of my Department's expenditure on road safety will improve safety for cyclists, for example that on publicity aimed at preventing drinking and driving, and on new technology to help catch and prosecute bad drivers. Every trunk road bypass that the Department funds and every local road bypass that they support through transport supplementary grant improves road safety for all vulnerable road users, including cyclists.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instigate a public information campaign on the dangers of and penalties for riding a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing and through red traffic lights.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The Highway Code includes good advice for cyclists on road behaviour and the need to obey the law. This advice will be expanded in the revised edition of the code and I shall draw particular attention to this when it is published early next year.

  Street Works
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require highway authorities to inform residents or traders of impending street works.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The flow of information will be improved by the relevant provisions of the New Roads. and Street Works Act 1991, which will come into force on 1 January 1993. They will require street authorities—normally the local highway authorities—to co-ordinate undertakers' street works and works for their own road purposes, and will impose a duty of co-operation on the undertakers. We shall shortly be publishing a code of practice giving practical guidance on the carrying out of these duties. The code will draw the attention of the promoting undertaker of works to the importance of 242
  giving advance information and warning to affected frontagers not only about disruption to their services but if their access is to be affected for any length of time.

  A12
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures on volume and weight of traffic using the A12 at Wrentham he is using since the 1984 figures; how the figures have changed up to August 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Current traffic information is compiled from roadside interviews, traffic counts and journey time surveys carried out in October 1990. A permanent automatic count of traffic is also taken on the A12 south of Wrentham.

  Traffic figures available in 1984 on the A12 south of Wrentham were in excess of 6,000 vehicles per day. A comparable figure for August 1992 is in excess of 10,000 vehicles per day. These are the highest daily flows of the year. The present A12 is capable of carrying these levels of traffic.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the likely time scale for a public consultation exercise on the proposed bypass of Wrentham on the A12.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The present programmed date for public consultation about the options for improving the A12 from south of Wrentham to Kessingland, including a bypass of Wrentham, is early next year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to reduce the incidence of housing associations leaving homes unjustifiably empty for long periods.

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been a steady decrease over the past five years in the incidence of empty property owned by housing associations. The supervision of the management of associations is the statutory responsibility of the Housing Corporation and I will ask the corporation to write to the hon. Member with further information.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to ensure secure tenancies for all housing association tenants.

  Mr. Baldry
  The majority of the tenants of housing associations are secure tenants. For those taking up a tenancy since 1989, the status is normally that of assured tenants. These assured tenants of housing associations have rights conferred by statute and additional contractual rights by virtue of the Housing Corporation's "Tenants' Guarantee", which give them security of tenure broadly similar to that enjoyed by secure tenants. There are no plans to change this framework.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the ways in which tenants are represented on housing association boards of management.
  243
  Mr. Baldry
  The supervision of the management of registered housing associations is the statutory responsibility of the Housing Corporation, which has an active strategy for increasing the participation of tenants in the management of their associations. I will ask the Housing Corporation to write to the hon. Member with further information.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  House Purchase
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to take to assist borrowers with negative equity who wish to move house.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government propose to remove two potential legal and tax obstacles to borrowers with negative equity who wish to move.

  First, the Building Societies Commission, with the consent of the Treasury, is to raise the limit which building societies can lend unsecured from £10,000 to £25,000 per person. This will enable societies, in appropriate cases, to advance top-up necessary loans to borrowers with substantial negative equity. The necessary secondary legislation will be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity.

  Secondly, changes are proposed to allow the security of one property to be exchanged for another against the original mortgage loan, without the loss of mortgage interest relief. The Inland Revenue hopes to give effect to the proposed changes within the next few weeks.

  Preliminary Draft Budget1

  Draft Budget

  mecu

  £ million2

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  1. Agricultural Guarantee

  34,062

  26,820

  34,042

  26,805

  2. Structural Operations

  22,046

  17,359

  20,119

  15,842

  3. Internal policies, including R & D

  4,440

  3,496

  3,375

  2,657

  4. External Policies, including aid

  4,150

  3,267

  3,818

  3,006

  5. Administration

  3,577

  2,816

  3,349

  2,637

  6. Monetary Reserve

  1,000

  787

  1,000

  787

  Total: Commitment appropriations

  69,274

  54,456

  65,704

  51,735

  of which:

  compulsory

  36,505

  28,744

  36,459

  28,708

  non-compulsory

  32,769

  25,802

  29,245

  23,028

  Total: Payment appropriations

  66,309

  52,212

  62,926

  49,548

  of which:

  compulsory

  36,458

  28,707

  36,406

  28,666

  non-compulsory

  29,851

  23,505

  26,520

  20,882

  1 including letter of amendment No. 1 to the PDB for 1993.

  2 Throughout this reply the rate of £1 = 1.2700 ecu has been used for conversions relating to 1993 expenditure (the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month (30 September)). The rate of £1= 1.396 ecu has been used for 1992 expenditure (the rate set for United Kingdom contributions from VAT and the Fourth Resource in 1992).

  The Budget Council also adopted the supplementary and amending budget No. 3 for 1992. An explanatory memorandum was submitted to the House on 14 September. This supplementary budget gives budgetary effect to the decision to revise the financial perspective on which an explanatory memorandum was submitted on 9 July. It covers increased payment appropriations for the structural funds in the new German Länder and four programmes under the third research framework

  EC Budget Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of European Ministers at the Budget Council in July.

  Sir John Cope
  The Budget Council met in Brussels on 23 July. As President of the Budget Council I chaired the meeting, and the Economic Secretary represented the United Kingdom. The Council established a first reading draft budget for 1993 totalling 65.7 billion ecu—£51.7 billion—in commitment appropriations and 62.9 billion ecu—£49.5 billion—in payment appropriations. The latter represents 1.07 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with the own resources ceiling of 1.2 per cent.

  The draft budget established by the Council constrained the increase in non-compulsory expenditure to 3.79 per cent. for commitments and to 7.2 per cent.—the "maximum rate"—for payments. This involved reductions of 3,570 million ecu—£2,811 million—in commitments and 3,383 million ecu—£2,664 million—in payments of the proposals put forward by the Commission in its preliminary draft budget. The provision for agriculture takes full account of CAP reform; and is 2.6 billion ecu—£2.05 billion—below the agriculture guideline. Financial provision was not made for the cohesion fund agreed at Maastricht, which the Lisbon European Council agreed should be set up early in 1993, pending a decision on the amount which is expected to be taken at the European Council in Edinburgh.

  An explanatory memorandum on the Council's draft budget was submitted to the House on 9 October.

  The summary table compares the outcome of the Budget Council to the proposals in the Commission's preliminary draft budget by reference to the main areas of spending:

  programme. The supplementary budget also makes provision to return to a member state a significant proportion of the expected surplus in the agriculture budget. In the proposed supplementary budget the agricultural budget is reduced by 2,875 million ecu—£2,059 million—with 2,175 million ecu—£1,558 million—of that money being returned to member states through a reduction in contributions; the remainder is utilised for other Community policies.
  245
  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget for 1993 at its plenary in late October—the 26th to 30th. The Parliament's amendments and modifications will be considered at the second Budget Council on 17 November. The European Parliament's second reading is set for mid-December.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC countries currently fulfil the requirements for convergence set out in the Maastricht treaty protocols; in what ways the others fail; and how far the United Kingdom is away from each of the criteria.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 109j of the Maastricht treaty gives to the Council the responsibility for determining whether a member state has met the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency. The Council is required to make this judgment, taking into account reports from the Commission and the European Monetary Institute on the

  Latest inflation1

  Budget balance2

  General government debt3

  Long term bond yield4

  ERM narrow band5

  Belgium

  2.1

  -6.2

  129.7

  8.9

  Yes

  Denmark

  2.1

  -2.0

  71.7

  9.0

  Yes

  France

  2.7

  -1.7

  48.4

  9.1

  Yes

  Germany6

  3.5

  -3.1

  44.9

  8.3

  Yes

  Greece

  15.3

  -16.5

  103.3

  n/a

  No

  Ireland

  2.8

  -2.3

  99.8

  8.9

  Yes

  Italy

  5.2

  -10.2

  101.7

  11.9

  No

  Luxembourg

  3.1

  2.5

  6.3

  7.9

  Yes

  Netherlands

  3.5

  -3.9

  79.7

  8.4

  Yes

  Portugal

  9.2

  -6.4

  68.6

  11.5

  No

  Spain

  5.7

  -4.4

  45.6

  11.7

  No

  United Kingdom

  3.6

  -2.0

  39.9

  9.0

  No

  1 August 1992; percentage change of consumer prices over previous 12 months.

  2 1991 General government financial balance (as a percentage of GDP).

  3 1991 Gross debt of general government (as a percentage of GDP).

  4 June 1992; yield on fixed interest government securities.

  5 Membership of the narrow band of the ERM for at least two years, without devaluing on own initiative.

  6 Inflation and government debt figures are for western Germany.

  Source: OECD and Eurostat.

DEFENCE

  Queen Victoria School
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Queen Victoria school will be established as an executive agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Queen Victoria school began to operate as an executive agency with effect from 1 April 1992. The framework document has been printed and copies will be placed in the Library of both Houses. The targets which have been set for the school in its first year of operation as an agency are as follows:

  Academic and Curriculum

  1. Annually, to achieve:

  (a) for S4 pupils, at least three standard grade passes at grade 1 to 3 for 90 per cent. of pupils; and

  (b) at least five standard grade passes at grade 1 to 3 for 60 per cent. of pupils;

  (c) for S5/6 pupils, at least three higher grade passes at grade A to C for 60 per cent. of pupils or Scottish Vocational Education Council (Scotvec) equivalent.

  2. By 31 August 1992, to develop a "5 to 14 Development Programme" in line with the Scottish Office Education Department—SOED—recommendations including a system for parental response on quality and choice.

  246
  extent to which a member state complies with criteria concerning the rate of inflation; the Government's fiscal position; observance of the normal fluctuation margins within the ERM; and long-term interest rate levels. In addition, the reports must take account of the number of other factors, including the developments of the ecu, the integration of markets, balance of payments on current account, and the development of unit labour costs and other price indices.

  The protocol on the convergence criteria, attached to the treaty, sets out figures for the convergence criteria regarding inflation and long-term interest rates. In addition, the protocol on the excessive deficit procedure, sets out reference values for fiscal criteria, which, if breached, would prompt a Commission report to the Council on the fiscal position of a member state—such a report being the basis on which the Council would judge whether an excessive deficit existed. The position of each member state, in respect of the figures and reference values set out in the protocols, is given in the table.

  Pastoral
  3. To respond to recommendations of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools on pastoral provision and organisation with six months of receipt of that report.

  Extra Curricular Provision
  4. To maintain and enrich at least 50 extra curricular activities, both physical and cultural, involving pupils aged 10 to 15 in at least three per week and those aged 16 to 18 in at least two

  Management
  5. By March 1993, to assess and report on pay and grading structures in the school and associated allowances and rents.
  6. To implement teacher appraisal and development procedures in line with SOED guidelines and timetable, including a pastoral element.
  7. By April 1993, to develop management and financial information systems, including baseline pupil per capita costs, that satisfy all management and accounting requirements.
  8. By April 1993, to identify areas for efficiency savings in order to:—

  (a) reduce pupil per capita costs by 2 per cent. in financial year 1993–94 while at least maintaining present standards.

  (b) set targets for future years.

  247
  9. By June 1993, to examine the feasibility of admitting girls and fee-paying pupils, and the extent of provision required for them.

  10. By June 1993, to develop and implement a strategy for income generation using the school's facilities.

  Statistical Services
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future management of statistical and related services within his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A review of Defence Statistics has been completed, and I am pleased to announce its establishment as a defence support agency from I July 1992, with the title the Defence Analytical Service Agency—DASA.

  The DASA provides a variety of professional statistical and other analytical services which are essential to the conduct of the Ministry of Defence's business operations. As well as producing many of my Department's statistics, including those to Parliament, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Top Salaries Review Body, it offers advice and assistance to a wide range of customers in my Department on areas such as manpower planning, financial management, logistic projects and personnel surveys.

  The DASA is part of the Government statistical service. The chief executive is the head of profession for staff in the statistical grades in the Ministry of Defence, and chief statistical adviser to my Department. The first chief executive is Mr. Paul Altobell. The key targets that have been set for the agency in its first year of operation are as follows. I have arranged for copies of the framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Level and quality of service
  1. About three-quarters of the agency's business is suitable by service level agreements—SLAs—with customers, which set out targets and standards for the level of service, timeliness and quality of work. For this part of the business key targets are:—

  a. To introduce, in 1992–93, SLAs for 45 per cent. of this work and to increase this coverage to 75 per cent. and 100 per cent. in the following two years.

  b. In 1992–93, to meet 95 per cent. of the targets set in the established SLAs.

  2. For the remaining parts of the business—that for which SLAs are not appropriate—the key target is:—
  To establish, by April 1993, project control mechanisms which will include objectives, programmes and targets.3. To extend to all branches of the agency by October
  1992 the measurement of perceived customer satisfaction, through the use of customer assessment questionnaires, and to establish customer satisfaction targets for future years.

  Efficiency and use of resources
  4. To implement the PROSPECT reductions in manpower of 10 per cent. in 1992–93 and 10 per cent. in 1993–94 with minimum reduction in output.
  5. To increase efficiency in the production of regular statistical reports by 5 per cent. in 1992–93 and a further 10 per cent. over the next two years.

  Management systems
  6. To develop by April 1993 a task costing system to measure the resources used to produce the various outputs of the agency.
  7. To complete by April 1993 a feasibility study to determine the potential for market testing and to establish a timetable for future work.

  Duke of York's Royal Military School
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Duke of York's royal military school will be established as an executive agency.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Duke of York's royal military school began to operate as an executive agency with effect from 1 April 1992. The framework document has been printed and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The targets which have been set for the school in its first year of operation are as follows:

  Academic and Curriculum

  1. (a) Annually, at 16 plus, to achieve at least six General Certificates of Secondary Education passes at grades A to C for 70 per cent. of pupils;

  (b) Annually, at 18 plus, to achieve at least three A-level passes for 90 per cent. of pupils with 40 per cent. of all passes at grades A or B; for Business and Technology Education Council—BTEC—national diploma courses, 100 per cent. award rate.

  2. By April 1993, to complete a curriculum review.

  Pastoral
  3. By September 1994, to define and introduce a set of common guidelines of boarding provisions, as recommended by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.
  4. To ensure continuing compliance with the provisions of the Children Act 1989, and to respond to the local authority social services department inspection within six months of receipt of that report.

  Management and Development
  5. By April 1993, to develop management and financial information systems, including baseline pupil per capita costs, that satisfy all management and accounting requirements;
  6. By 1 April 1993, to achieve savings equivalent to 1.5 per cent. of the gross budgetary allocation and to establish future targets in specified areas of expenditure and revenue;
  7. By September 1993, to complete policy reviews and implementation plans for co-education and other extensions to the pupil catchment area;
  8. By April 1993, to review the school pay/grading structures for teaching and non-teaching staff, and to make proposals;
  9. By April 1993, to produce an agreed teacher appraisal scheme for implementation in financial year 1993–94.

  Isle of Rona
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current programme being carried out by his Department's establishment at the Isle of Rona, Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency to reply direct to the hon. Member.In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to the following question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the current programme being carried out by his Department's establishment at the Isle of Rona, Scotland, and if he will make a statement.
  The Defence Research Agency uses the facilities on Rona to measure the noise generated by ships and submarines as they move through the water. This is a continuous programme since vessels are measured as they are brought into service and checked periodically throughout their lives.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the establishment of each of the defence research establishments in 1990 and 1991; and what is the current establishment of each and that projected for 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  In his written reply on 19 October the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying directly to the question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the establishment of each of the Defence Research Establishments in 1990 and 1991 and what is the current establishment of each and that projected for 1993 and 1994.

  On 1 April 1990 the total number of staff employed in the four establishments which later formed the Defence Research Agency was 11,912. The Defence Research Agency was set up on 1 April 1991 and on that day its staff numbered 12,027.
  Since 1 April 1991 a number of DRA staff have transferred to the new Test and Evaluation organisation and some of the MOD's Quality Assurance staff have joined the DRA. I also released a number of staff through a Voluntary Redundancy Scheme earlier this year. At present the DRA establishment is 11,267.
  As you know I have recently announced a rationalisation strategy for the DRA which, if given Ministerial approval, could result in a further reduction in DRA staff numbers of some 2,000 by 1994–95.

  Contracts
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the extent and nature of all contracts between the Ministry of Defence and SERCO.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has let some 183 contracts with SERCO since 1982 with a total value of more than £350 million. SERCO provides my Department with a wide range of technical services, including running communications facilities, technical training and the operation of the ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales.

  Electro-magnetic Gun
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for of Defence what is the nature of the work being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence establishment at Dundrennan involving research into an electro-magnetic gun; for whom the work is being carried out; and under what contractual arrangements.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  In his written answer today the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that I would be replying directly to the following question:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the work being undertaken by the Ministry of Defence establishment at Dundrennan involving research into an electromagnetic gun; for whom the work is being carried out; and under what contractual arrangements.

  The Defence Research Agency is in the process of establishing a research electromagnetic gun range at the MOD trials site at Kirkcudbright, Kirkcudbrightshire. This
  250
  facility is being constructed as part of a research programme to assess the feasibility of using electromagnetic propulsion to enhance the armour penetrating performance of tank gunnery.
  The research programme is being carried out for the Master General of the Ordnance to enable him to assess more precisely the potential military value of any future tank gunnery system based upon electromagnetic propulsion.
  The installation work at Kirkcudbright which is jointly funded with the US Government is being carried out by Marconi Radar & Control Systems on a fixed priced contract. Work started in 1989 and is expected to be complete by mid 1993.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the nature, purpose, duration and extent of all military exercises undertaken in south-west Scotland during 1992 up to the current date; and what percentage this represents of all those carried out in the United Kingdom for the same period.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Defence Ministers of the nations collaborating in the European fighter aircraft programme on 4 August.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend met his Spanish, Italian and German counterparts in Madrid on 4 August. Studies were set in hand to consider ways of reducing costs in the EFA programme and to review the operational requirement in the light of the recent changes in the international security situation. Both studies are due to be completed by the end of October, and the Ministers plan to meet again in December to discuss the results.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost to all four participating countries in pounds sterling of the development programe of the European fighter aircraft programme; how much of that figure has already been spent; and if he will give a breakdown by participating country.

  Mr. Aitken
  The total cost to the four partner nations of developing EFA is estimated at about £8.5 billion, of which the United Kingdom share is about £2.7 billion. Virtually all of this is now contractually committed. Bills paid to date by the United Kingdom amount to a little over £1 billion.

  We do not maintain records of the progress of expenditure by our partners. Work was allocated at the start of development in the ratio: United Kingdom 33 per cent., Germany 33 per cent., Italy 21 per cent., Spain 13 per cent. Each nation meets the cost of common work performed by its industry and the whole cost of any national-specific requirements.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to meet his counterparts from Germany, Italy and Spain to discuss the future of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  My right. hon. and learned Friend plans to meet his German, Italian and Spanish counterparts in December to discuss the results of the studies they
  251
  commissioned on 4 August. It is possible that they may have some preliminary discussions when they meet on other bilateral or multilateral occasions.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the engineering facilities in the United Kingdom, giving the name of the company and the geographical location where over 50 people are working on the development of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Aitken
  The three main British companies involved in the development of EFA are British Aerospace—principally, the Warton facility—Rolls—Royce—Bristol—and GEC—principally, the Rochester, Edinburgh and Stanmore facilities. There are approaching 300 companies in the United Kingdom acting as sub-contractors or suppliers. It would not be possible without disproportionate cost to identify the facilities of those companies with over 50 people engaged on work connected with EFA.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British jobs are currently dependent on the European fighter aircraft development programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Approximately 9,400 people in the United Kingdom are directly employed on work connected with the development of EFA. When EFA enters the production phase, we estimate that this number will rise to around 28,000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Training Board
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if authority for staff grading changes within the Agricultural Training Board has removed the need for his Department's approval.

  Mr. Curry
  When approving staff grading changes the chief executive of the Agricultural Training Board is required to abide by the normal rules on maintenance on national civil service grading standards and the need for economy. Where the creation of a new post is involved the procedures described in the reply given to my hon. Friend on 19 October,Official Report, column 95, also have to be followed.

  EC Fisheries Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 19 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I chaired this meeting of the Council. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council agreed, subject to the opinion of the European Parliament, to a regulation revising the regime for the common organisation of the market in fishery products. A satisfactory balance was achieved between constraining Community expenditure on market suport and the need to protect fishermen from excessive price fluctuations.

  The Council further agreed a regulation to prohibit EC vessels anywhere from undertaking fisheries involving encirclements with purse seine nets on marine mammals when aiming to catch tuna and other species of fish.
  252
  The Council also discussed the Commission's proposals for future multi-annual guidance programmes, agreeing the need to set realistic targets for the reduction in member states' fishing and to allow member states flexibility in how they achieve them.

  The Council had its first discussion on the important draft regulations intended to replace the basic common fisheries policy regulation and control regulation. These regulations have been proposed by the Commission following Council discussion of the mid-term review of the CFP. The Council also agreed that a further proposal for a Community licensing system for waters in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Convention Organisation area should be considered in taking account of discussion on the two major proposals.

  The United Kingdom pressed for Community action on the rules for the minimum landings size for lobsters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Representation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in which there is no British embassy or high commission.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no British embassy, high commission or other resident representation staffed from the United Kingdom in the following countries, although members of the diplomatic service are accredited to and visit the majority of them:
  Afghanistan, Andorra, Armenia, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, North Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Liberia, Lichtenstein, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Island, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Nauru, Niger, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Surinam, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan and Western Samoa.
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take the necessary action to close the embassy in London of the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. There are good reasons for maintaining contact with the authorities in Belgrade.

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Vietnamese migrants.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A further 118 Vietnamese illegal immigrants were repatriated from Hong Kong under the orderly repatriation programme on two flights, 60 on 4 August and 58 on 10 October. All had undergone the UN High Commissioner for Refugees approved screening and appeal procedures and found not to be refugees.

  The UNHCR's voluntary repatriation programme is proving most successful. More than 28,000 have already been repatriated under this system from the region without a single substantiated report of persecution. We hope that all non-refugees now in Hong Kong will decide to follow

  253
  them. The clearing of the Hong Kong camps will enable genuine refugees to be properly looked after and resettled as appropriate.

  Deaths Abroad
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the criteria for refusing the burial or cremation of United Kingdom nationals whose bodies are returned following death abroad; and if he will give the number of such refusals in each year from 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Whether or not a body repatriated from abroad is accepted for burial or cremation is ultimately a matter for the burial or cremation authority, which will need to be satisfied that the prescribed documentation has been supplied. Such refusals do not have to be reported, so their numbers are unknown.

  Spain
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are available to relatives of United Kingdom nationals who die in Spain to secure an examination by British doctors.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the case of United Kingdom nationals whose bodies are returned to this country following death in Spain, it is at the discretion of the relatives whether to arrange an examination by British doctors. When a body is repatriated to England and Wales, the coroner has a duty to investigate cases where the death was violent, unnatural, or sudden and unknown cause. To assist him in his inquiries the coroner has powers to arrange a post-mortem examination. These duties and powers do not apply in other parts of the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Costs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost of crime to the community in the last year for which figures are available.

  Refusals1 of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, and removals1 or voluntary departures1 of asylum applicants, excluding dependents, 1990 to 1992

  Refusals

  Removals2 and voluntary departures2

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  Refused under paragraph 101 of Immigration Rules3

  Port asylum applicants: removals

  Port asylum applicants: voluntary departures4

  In country asylum applicants removed under enforcement powers, or departing voluntarily following enforcement action5

  1990

  710

  710

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  1991

  3,240

  2,185

  270

  785

  6

  6

  6

  1992

  11,865

  1,975

  415

  9,475

  395

  145

  305

  January-September

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Removals and voluntary departures do not necessarily relate to decisions in the same time period.

  3 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity.

  4 Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application but excludes any subsequent departure.

  5 May understate. Figures exclude voluntary departures other than in enforcement cases.

  6 Not available.

  254
  Mr. Jack
  There is no reliable annual assessment of the total cost of crime to England and Wales. Estimated expenditure in 1990–91 by criminal justice agencies in England and Wales including the police, the Forensic Science Service agency, the Crown prosecution service, criminal legal aid, the Crown court, magistrates' courts, and the prison and probation service was £7.5 billion.

  Parents' Accountability
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on proposals to make parents more accountable for the behaviour of their children.

  Mr. Jack
  Powers for courts to involve parents when their children offend were strengthened by changes introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 on 1 October. We shall monitor the new arrangements carefully.

  Illegal Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which department of the Metropolitan police now undertakes the work done between 1974 and 1989 by the national illegal immigration intelligence unit of the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is no unit within the Metropolitan police which gathers information on illegal immigration. That function rests with the Home Office immigration department.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of asylum refusals(a) leave the United Kingdom voluntarily, (b) are deported and (c) remain.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Readily available information is given in the table. Fuller information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  255
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum claims have been rejected under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules each month since the introduction of that paragraph, expressed as a number of rejections and as a percentage of total claims received in that month.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A provision that an application for variation of leave may be refused on the ground of failure to provide within a reasonable period of time evidence to establish the claim under the Immigration Rules has been in force since 1 March 1980—currently paragraph 101 of HC 251. Figures for asylum applications refused under this provision were not separately identifiable prior to December 1991. Information from that date is given in the table.
  256

  Refusals1 2 under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules of applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, and such refusals as a percentage of applications2 received, excluding dependants, December 1991 to September 1992

  Refusals under Para 101 of Immigration Rules

  Refusals under Para 101 of Immigration Rules as percentage of asylum applications received in the same month Per cent.

  December 1991

  785

  36

  January 1992

  1,210

  56

  February 1992

  1,120

  79

  March 1992

  1,615

  101

  April 1992

  935

  65

  May 1992

  735

  54

  June 1992

  1,025

  63

  July 1992

  1,010

  46

  August 1992

  840

  47

  September 1992

  985

  38

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, percentages rounded to the nearest whole per cent.

  2 Refusals do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same month.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many amendments were proposed to the 1991–92 Asylum Bill(a) by the Government and (b) by the Opposition: and what percentage was agreed to by the Committee.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Including new clauses, a total of 154 amendments to the Asylum Bill were tabled between its introduction and Third Reading. One hundred and fifteen were selected. Of these, six were Government amendments. No amendments were made during the Committee stage.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest monthly figure for the number of asylum applicants; and what was the comparable number for the same month in 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants September 1991 to September 1992

  Applications

  1991

  September

  3,525

  October

  4,375

  November

  3,790

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions,1 2 3 by nationality, 1 April 1991–30 September 1992.

  Nationality

  Applications

  Decisions

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  Refused under para 101 of Immigration Rules4

  Total Decisions

  EUROPE AND AMERICAS

  Bulgaria

  390

  *

  5

  45

  30

  —

  15

  55

  Colombia

  265

  15

  25

  30

  20

  5

  5

  65

  Romania

  620

  5

  15

  110

  80

  5

  25

  135

  Turkey

  2,685

  305

  730

  520

  135

  75

  310

  1,555

  USSR

  375

  15

  30

  25

  10

  5

  5

  65

  Others

  3,315

  15

  15

  180

  45

  75

  65

  205

  Total

  7,650

  350

  820

  910

  320

  165

  425

  2,080

  AFRICA

  Angola

  4,550

  10

  10

  2,605

  365

  25

  2,215

  2,625

  Congo

  315

  *

  —

  180

  30

  5

  150

  185

  Ethiopia

  1,640

  55

  1,375

  155

  15

  25

  115

  1,585

  Ghana

  2,930

  10

  30

  965

  245

  30

  685

  1,005

  Nigeria

  655

  *

  *

  160

  55

  10

  95

  165

  Somalia

  2,445

  45

  1,910

  295

  15

  60

  220

  2,250

  Sudan

  1,455

  75

  40

  120

  5

  5

  110

  240

  Togo/Ivory Coast

  1,930

  —

  —

  965

  25

  5

  935

  965

  Uganda

  815

  15

  245

  280

  140

  10

  130

  545

  Zaire

  6,260

  10

  10

  3,470

  665

  120

  2,690

  3,495

  Others

  3,805

  10

  70

  1,880

  125

  25

  1,725

  1,960

  Total

  26,805

  310

  3,695

  11,080

  1,685

  320

  9,075

  15,085

  MIDDLE EAST

  Iran

  645

  95

  150

  45

  20

  5

  20

  290

  Iraq

  1,160

  125

  265

  40

  10

  10

  20

  430

  Lebanon

  520

  15

  170

  55

  30

  15

  10

  245

  Others

  650

  25

  70

  90

  40

  20

  30

  185

  Total

  2,970

  260

  650

  230

  100

  50

  80

  1,145

  ASIA

  China

  665

  25

  55

  30

  15

  —

  20

  115

  India

  2,600

  *

  515

  1,160

  780

  75

  300

  1,675

  Pakistan

  3,565

  5

  400

  980

  505

  10

  265

  1,390

  258

  Applications

  December

  2,210

  1992

  January

  2,165

  February

  1,420

  March

  1,595

  April

  1,440

  May

  1,370

  June

  1,615

  July

  2,180

  August

  1,790

  September

  2,590

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish detailed information on asylum applicants to the United Kingdom in the past 18 months, which indicate the number of applications, their countries of origin, the number granted refugee status, exceptional leave to remain, refusals, and the nationalities of those refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.
  259

  Nationality

  Applications

  Decisions

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  Refused under para 101 of Immigration Rules4

  Total Decisions

  Sri Lanka

  3,805

  45

  2,940

  90

  15

  30

  45

  3,075

  Others

  1,160

  20

  280

  230

  175

  5

  50

  530

  Total

  11,795

  100

  4,205

  2,495

  1,695

  120

  670

  6,795

  Other and Nationality not recorded

  —

  5

  5

  20

  15

  *

  —

  30

  Grand Total

  49,225

  1,030

  9,375

  14,730

  3,815

  660

  10,260

  25,135

  1 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Decision figures are likely to understate because of delays in recording.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to two invitations to interview to establish identity. These refusals are separately identifiable from 1 December 1991. Earlier refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination".

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been returned to safe third countries under the provisions of the Dublin convention; and if he will publish a table of the nationalities of those removed from the United Kingdom, their countries of origin and the countries to which they were removed.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Dublin convention will not come into force until it has been ratified by all EC member states.

  Information on the total number of asylum applicants at ports removed on safe third country grounds in the period March to August 1992 is given in the table. The countries to which they were removed were other EC countries, Sweden, Austria, USA, Switzerland, Turkey, Guinea, Australia and Kenya. All decisions on third country removals are taken in the light of the circumstances of the individual case.

  Asylum applicants at ports removed on safe third country grounds, 1 March 1992 to 31 August 1992, by nationality

  Number

  Albania

  1

  Algeria

  1

  Angola

  3

  China

  1

  Colombia

  3

  Czechoslovakia

  3

  Ethiopia

  4

  Ghana

  12

  India

  5

  Iran

  1

  Iraq

  2

  Ivory Coast

  3

  Lebanon

  4

  Liberia

  2

  Nigeria

  3

  Pakistan

  3

  Romania

  6

  Sierra Leone

  2

  Somalia

  13

  South Africa

  1

  Sri Lanka

  5

  Sudan

  1

  Togo

  1

  Turkey

  27

  Uganda

  2

  260

  Number

  USSR (former)

  2

  Yugoslavia (former)

  29

  Zaire

  30

  Other and nationality uncertain

  5

  Total

  175

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum are outstanding; and if he will publish the same figure for each month for the past 36 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The readily available information is given in the table. The figures are maxima which overstate because of earlier under-recording of decisions.

  Number of asylum applications, excluding dependants, outstanding1

  Date

  Total

  As at:

  31 December 1988

  8,650

  31 December 1989

  12,240

  31 December 1990

  29,870

  31 March 1991

  40,120

  30 June 1991

  51,410

  30 September 1991

  61,260

  31 December 1991

  69,330

  31 January 1992

  69,420

  29 February 1992

  68,920

  31 March 1992

  67,950

  30 April 1992

  67,690

  31 May 1992

  69,480

  30 June 1992

  66,950

  31 July 1992

  65,910

  31 August 1992

  64,670

  30 September 1992

  64,330

  1 Estimated figures, rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide the latest statistics to update his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 6 July,Official Report columns 41–42 on asylum application;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the trends in grants of asylum, exceptional leave to remain and applications for asylum.
  261
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.

  Applications for asylum increased substantially between 1988 and 1991. The monthly rate halved in late

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, and decisions1 1988 to 1992

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications received

  Decisions1

  Year

  Total applications

  Applied at port2

  Applied in country3

  Total decisions

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after determination

  Refused on safe third country-grounds

  Refused under para. 101 of Immigration Rules4

  Applications outstanding at end of quarter5

  1988

  3,998

  858

  3,140

  2,702

  628

  1,578

  496

  496

  N/a

  N/a

  8,650

  19896

  11,640

  6,200

  5,440

  6,955

  2,210

  3,860

  890

  890

  N/a

  N/a

  12,240

  19906 7

  22,000

  9,005

  13,000

  4,015

  900

  2,400

  710

  710

  N/a

  N/a

  29,870

  19916 7

  44,840

  9,030

  35,815

  5,965

  505

  2,230

  3,240

  2,185

  270

  785

  69,330

  19916 7

  Quarter 1

  11,790

  3,490

  8,300

  1,435

  155

  910

  375

  350

  20

  N/a

  40,120

  Quarter 2

  12,075

  2,040

  10,035

  720

  110

  235

  380

  330

  50

  N/a

  51,410

  Quarter 3

  10,600

  1,970

  8,630

  845

  105

  265

  480

  415

  60

  N/a

  61,260

  Quarter 4

  10,375

  1,525

  8,850

  2,960

  140

  810

  2,010

  1,095

  135

  785

  69,330

  1992

  Quarter 1

  5,185

  1,335

  3,845

  6,330

  165

  1,500

  4,665

  565

  150

  3,945

  67,950

  Quarter 2

  4,425

  1,160

  3,265

  5,225

  135

  1,755

  3,335

  495

  150

  2,695

  66,950

  Quarter 3

  6,560

  2,255

  4,305

  8,975

  300

  4,810

  3,865

  915

  115

  2,835

  64,330

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2 Figures include certain in-country applications made in illegal entrant cases.

  3 In country figures include a small number of applications recorded as having been made overseas and referred to the Home Office for a decision. These cases may be under recorded.

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  5 Figures are maxima which overstate because of earlier under recording of decisions. Figures are approximate and rounded to the nearest 10.

  6 In addition, certain applications by nationals of Afghanistan and Liberia to the British High Commissioners in New Delhi and Lagos, respectively, were processed locally.

  7 Figures rounded to the nearest 5. 1990 application figures and 1991 decision figures may understate because of delays in recording. N/a—Not available.

  Mr. Allen:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how long the average asylum application takes to determine;

  (2) what is the latest figure for the average length of time taken to determine applications for asylum (a) as a whole, (b) for new applicants and (c) for applicants from the existing backlog.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is of the estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases which have been decided. For decisions in the period January to September 1992 as a whole, excluding those under paragraph 101 of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence in support of the asylum claim, this average decision time was twenty and a half months. This figure reflects the recent increase in staffing which has enabled work to commence on the resolution of older and more complex cases.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected total number of asylum seekers expected for the whole of 1992 on the basis of current trends.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not possible to provide a precise forecast in view of the uncertainties involved. In the first six months of 1992, asylum applications totalled 9,600. In the period January to September as a whole, 16,200 applications have been received.
  262
  1991 following measures to deter multiple and other fraudulent applications. The number of applications increased somewhat in the third quarter of 1992.

  The recent increase in the number of decisions mainly reflects additional staff resources in the asylum division.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to secure the £33.55 million out of the £35 million ordered by the courts to be confiscated from those convicted of drug trafficking offences which has still not been paid.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Responsibility for the enforcement of confiscation orders made after convictions in the Crown court for drug trafficking offences rests with magistrates courts. I am pleased to say that it is now known that, of the £35 million ordered to be confiscated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986—DTOA—up to May 1992, £15 million had either been realised or was subject to receivership. The realisation of confiscation orders is often necessarily a lengthy and complex process, involving for example the realisation of tangible property. Moreover, orders cannot be enforced when they are subject of appeal. We will shortly be bringing forward legislative proposals intended to improve the confiscation procedures of the DTOA, and additional guidance to the courts is also planned.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out in tabular form the annual salary scales for the Royal Parks constabulary
  263
  ranks of constable to chief officer with effect from 1 September; if he will show for each rank and scale point any other allowances payable; and what is the current actual establishment of the constabulary and its total annual cost.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The revised salary scales for members of the Royal Parks Constabulary, effective from 1 September 1992 are as follows. These rates are conditional upon the passing of the statutory instrument amending Home Office pay rates, to which RPC pay rates are related, being laid and approved.

  RPC (England) Actual rates of pay

  £

  Constable

  10,412

  11,135

  13,110

  13,418

  13,860

  14,340

  14,793

  15,252

  15,701

  16,623

  17,377

  Sergeant

  16,623

  17,376

  17,989

  18,583

  19,068

  Inspector

  19,068

  19,664

  20,432

  21,039

  21,648

  Chief Inspector

  21,648

  22,255

  22,859

  23,470

  24,082

  Superintendent

  29,571

  30,325

  31,074

  32,108

  Chief Superintendent

  32,877

  33,348

  34,094

  34,909

  Allowances

  Crown Sergeant Allowance—£253 p.a. Currently paid to one officer only, a Sergeant.

  Dog Handler Allowances—£858 p.a. (1 September 1991 rate). Currently paid to 13 Constables.

  London Weighting Allowance—£1,344 p.a. (1 July 1991 rate). Paid to all ranks.

  Housing Allowance (paid to those eligible)

  Rank

  Half Rate

  Standard Rate

  £

  £

  Chief Officer

  2,805.19

  5,610.38

  All other ranks

  2,418.26

  4,836.51

  The Housing Allowance= the 1 April 1991 rate. The next uprating is not due until 1993.
  264
  Boot and Shoe Allowance. Paid to all ranks.

  The Preasent 1 April 1991 rate is:

  £65.30 on appointment.

  £32.29 on 1 April annually thereafter

  Current Actual Establishment of Constabulary

  As at 1 October 1992 the actual establishment of the RPC is:

  1 Chief Officer

  1 Deputy Chief Officer

  7 Inspectors

  19 Sergeants (including 1 Crown Sergeant)

  137 Constables

  165 Total

  Total Annual Cost

  £4,375,237

  Television License Fees
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review his decision not to allow concessionary television licence fees in warden assisted homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is a matter for which the Department of National Heritage now has responsibility. We have no plans to review the regulations governing the concessionary licence scheme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be eligible for cold weather payments this winter; what weather conditions will trigger payment; what payment will be made; how payment will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The principles of operation of the cold weather payments scheme remain unchanged from last year. The Cold Weather Payment (No. 2) Regulations, which come into force on 1 November, make minor improvements to the links between weather stations and local areas.

EDUCATION

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what figures he has for the overall vacancy rate for teachers in the two most recent available years.

  Mr. Forth
  Maintained schools in England had an unfilled vacancy rate of 1.5 per cent. in January 1991, and 0.5 per cent. in January 1992. Numbers of vacancies were 5,222 in 1991 and 1,898 in 1992, a reduction of 63 per cent.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures he intends to introduce to assist local authorities to provide an adequate number of nursery places to meet the demands of all those parents who wish such a place for their children.

  Mr. Forth
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), earlier today, it is for local
  265
  authorities to determine the scale and form of provision for the under-fives. But the House would wish to be reminded that 175,000 more under-fives attended maintained schools in England in 1991 than in 1979; and that 90 per cent. of three- and four-year-olds now enjoy education or group child care or both.

  School Inspections
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress he has to report regarding implementing the new arrangements for school inspection.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with parent organisations regarding progress in implementing the new arrangements for school inspection.

  Mr. Patten
  OFSTED—the Office for Standards in Education—opened on 1 September 1992. Her Majesty's chief inspector, Professor Stewart Sutherland, and his staff are now preparing for the first round of second school inspections to start in September 1993.

  I shall soon be consulting with interested bodies, including organisations which represent parents, on a draft circular and regulations which will give effect to the four-year inspection cycle and secure wide distribution of inspection reports.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the response to his Department's national advertising campaign to attract registered school inspectors.

  Mr. Forth
  As a result of the campaign some 41,000 people asked for the leaflet "Are you interested in becoming a school inspector?" and so far some 25,000 have gone on to request further information and application forms. I understand that OFSTED, the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England, has received almost 5,000 applications from prospective registered inspectors and more than 6,000 from prospective inspection team members.

  First Degree Awards
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of first degrees awarded in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1980.

  Mr. Forman
  In 1990, 137,000 first degrees were awarded in universities, polytechnics and colleges in Great Britain, compared with 102,000 in 1980.

  This 34 per cent. increase illustrates the rapid expansion of higher education over the last decade. It highlights the remarkable achievements of our higher education institutions and the success of this Government's education policies.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional information will be made available to parents from the autumn term this year as a result of the measures contained in the parents charter.

  Mr. Forth
  For the first time, comparative tables of public examination results will be published this 266
  November for each local education authority area. They will cover all maintained schools and those independent schools which are participating this year on a voluntary basis, alongside local and national average figures.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Cheshire schools have applied for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Forth
  Five schools in Cheshire have applied for grant-maintained status to date. Of these, two have been approved, and one is under consideration.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many ballots were pending for grant-maintained status in September 1989; and how many ballots are currently pending.

  Mr. Forth
  On September 29 1989, there were 18 schools operating, nine approved but not yet operating, and 21 in the process of applying for GM status. Seven ballots were pending.

  On October 19 1992, 278 GM schools were operational, 30 were approved or "minded to approve" but not yet operating and 179 were in the process of applying for GM status. Sixty-seven ballots were pending.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the level of teacher redundancies which have taken effect since June and the number expected in December.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  School Funding, Essex and Kent
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will meet representatives of teachers from Essex and Kent in order to discuss the funding of their schools.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The funding of schools in particular areas is primarily a matter for the local education authority.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the future role of local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  Most of the 850 responses to the White Paper have commented in one way or another on the future role of local education authorities. We are considering those along with all other responses to the White Paper.

  School Repairs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the cost of school repairs.

  Mr. Forth
  We are allocating over £700 million to support capital spending on school buildings in 1992–93, up nearly 15 per cent. on last year. Provision to support the
  267
  recurrent costs of school repairs is also available within total standard spending, which in 1992–93 totals £18.7 billion.

  It is for local authorities and schools to decide what priority and what funds to allocate to school repairs from the resources available to them.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grammar schools there are in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  In September 1992 there were at least 110 grammar schools maintained by 24 of the 109 local education authorities in England, with a further 46 grammar schools in the grant-maintained sector.

  Further Education Colleges
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how the preparations for the transfer of further education colleges to the Further Education Funding Council are progressing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Preparations are proceeding according to plan. In particular, further education corporations were established on 30 September for the purpose of conducting further education and sixth-form colleges from 1 April 1993 when they transfer out of local authority control to the new further education sector.

  Student Incomes
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about student incomes.

  Mr. Forman
  I announced recently that a new survey of student income and expenditure will be conducted in the academic year 1992–93. This will enable the facts about student income to be established.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of primary school children are in classes of more than 30 children.

  Mr. Forth
  In January 1992 about 25 per cent. of pupils in maintained primary schools in England, were in classes of more than 30 pupils taught by one teacher.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of student unions and the National Union of Students.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend has said that the Government will bring forward proposals to establish the voluntary principle as the basis for student union membership. I shall be having further discussions with representatives of the educational institutions and other interested parties about how this will be achieved.

  Science Teaching
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action he is taking to promote the teaching of science in schools.
  268
  Mr. Forth
  The introduction of the national curriculum for science means that, for the first time, all schools must offer a broad and balanced science curriculum for all pupils from age five to 16.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what resources he estimates to be going into adult education in real and money terms(a) now and (b) five, 10 and 15 years ago; how many people were on adult education courses at the same periods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The table shows recurrent expenditure on adult education centres by authorities in England up to 1990–91, the latest year for which information is available, together with numbers of enrolments at these centres. The figures include students below the age of 19.

  Adult education centres

  1975–76

  1980–81

  1985–86

  1990–91

  Cash expenditure (£ million)

  32

  61

  102

  1401

  Real terms expenditure (£ million at 1990–91 prices)

  117

  112

  137

  1401

  Enrolments (000s)

  1,847

  1,543

  1,418

  1,352

  1 provisional figure.

  Expenditure by local education authorities on adults in further education colleges is not separately identifiable and enrolment data for 1975–76 were not collected on a basis consistent with later data, but there has been a clear and very welcome increase during the last decade in total further education enrolments of people aged 19 and over, taking together adult centres and other colleges providing further education. Between 1980–81 and 1990–91 these enrolments increased by 27 per cent. overall. Outside adult centres, the increase was 62 per cent.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 October.

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

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to increase the United Kingdom overseas aid budget.

  The Prime Minister
  The outcome of this year's public expenditure survey will be announced, as is usual, during the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Turkey
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will press the Turkish Government to exert influence on the representatives of the Turkish community in northern Cyprus, to negotiate positively in the forthcoming round of talks to be held under the auspices of the United Nations, and not to obstruct the search for a just, viable and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We share entirely the concern that all involved in the Cyprus problem should work for a fair settlement on the lines of the "set of ideas" published by the United Nations Secretary-General and endorsed in United Nations Security Council resolution 774.

  European Parliament (Elections)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to harmonise the British electoral system for European parliamentary elections with those of the other EC member states; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have no proposals at present to change the way in which members of the European Parliament are elected in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Any proposals which the European Parliament puts forward for a uniform electoral procedure will be considered on their merits.

  European Community Legislation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he proposes to make to the process and time scale tinder which Commission proposals for legislation will be presented to the House consequent on the declaration on the role of national parliaments in the European union.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will continue to ensure that legislative proposals by the Commission are deposited in the House as soon as possible, in accordance with the existing scrutiny procedures.

  GATT
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide details of how the figure of $90 billion, referred to in his statement on the economic summit as the amount of additional income to be gained by developing and former communist countries through completion of the GATT talks was calculated; which countries are likely to benefit from this additional income; and which sectors of the developing countries are likely to benefit from the completion of the GATT talks.

  The Prime Minister
  The figure comes from a report for the OECD development centre by Ian Goldin and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe entitled "Trade Liberalisation: What's at Stake?" It is available in the House of Commons Library, and should provide the further information requested.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has met the Greek Cypriot leader during the past 12 months; whether he has met the Turkish Cypriot leader in the same period; and what is his policy on meeting foreign political leaders who are not in government.
  270
  The Prime Minister
  I have met President Vassiliou twice in the last 12 months. I have not met Mr. Denktash who claims to be the head of state which the United Kingdom does not recognise, though United Kingdom representatives have regular contact with him.

  I and other members of the Government decide whether to meet foreign political leaders on the basis of a judgment in each case.

  Common Currency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he expects the United Kingdom to have a common currency with EC nations.

  The Prime Minister
  Under the protocol to the Maastricht treaty which we negotiated it will be for the Government and Parliament to decide whether the United Kingdom will join a single currency at all.

  Neo-Nazi Activities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what decisions have been taken during his presidency of the EC regarding the neo-Nazi activities against migrants in the former East Germany.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government deplore and condemn racist attacks wherever they occur. So do the German Government. President von Weizsacker, Chancellor Kohl and other political leaders in Germany have condemned the neo-Nazi attacks and have pledged unrelenting efforts to identify and prosecute those responsible.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place between the Governments of the United Kingdom and India to decide appropriate assistance from the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the United Nations to assist Kashmir overcome the flooding disaster.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The Government of India have not sought any emergency assistance from the United Kingdom for the flooding in Kashmir.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what forecasts have been received by Her Majesty's Government of the numbers of refugees likely to die in Bosnia and other former Yugoslavian states in the coming winter; what estimates have been received of the numbers of people who will be displaced from their homes or detention camps this winter; and what arrangements have been made by Her Majesty's Government, in conjuction with the EC and the United Nations, for the international community to receive refugees over this winter.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: According to the UN High Commission for Refugees hundreds of thousands are at risk. A total of 1.6 million are already displaced; up to 12,000 are in detention centres. The UNHCR believes that the best policy is for displaced people to stay as close to their homes as possible. We agree and have so far contributed over £55 million to humanitarian relief operations.
  271
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government for armed action to be taken against those attacking UN-sponsored humanitarian relief in Bosnia and other former Yugoslavian states and for armed retaliation against air attacks on Bosnia made by Serbian aircraft or Serbian-sponsored aircraft in Bosnia.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Of the several thousand letters received from members of the public concerning the former Yugoslavia, a significant number have advocated military action. The purpose of the 2,400 troops we are providing is the protection of humanitarian convoys in central Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs have undertaken to remove their combat aircraft to Serbia. The UN is working urgently to ensure that this happens.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government for arms from those in Bosnia fighting aggression from Serbia or sponsored by Serbia; on what dates such requests were made; what types of arms were requested; what was the response of Her Majesty's Government; and whether any requests for arms are being considered by Her Majesty's Government.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: United Nations Security Council resolution 713 of 25 September 1991 established an arms embargo on all the territory of former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia-Hercegovina. There is no question of any consideration being given to requests for arms.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what financial assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government, to date, to relieve suffering caused by flooding in Pakistan; what other assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government, to date, to Pakistan, to provide clean water, medical supplies, food, temporary shelter and clothing; and on what date the Government of Pakistan requested formally Her Majesty's Government to assist in relieving hardship caused by flooding.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Although the Government of Pakistan have made no formal request to the international donor community for relief assistance following the recent flooding, the Government have provided £475,088 for relief aid because of the magnitude of the disaster.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken through the EC, the Commonwealth and the United Nations to co-ordinate international assistance to relieve hardship caused by flooding in Pakistan.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The United Nations, in co-Operation with the Government of Pakistan, has set up a committee of donors to co-ordinate relief efforts. The United Kingdom and its European Community partners, together with the European Commission, have participated in this committee through representatives in Islamabad.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of 272
  Pakistan about help and assistance from the United Kingdom to provide short, medium and long-term aid to Pakistan to rebuild the country following the flooding disaster; and if he will give dates of when such meetings took place and the designation of officials participating.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Disastrous floods struck northern Pakistan on the night of 10 to 11 September. Senior officials of the British high aid commission in Islamabad, led by the economic and counsellor had discussed relief aid requirements with federal Government officials on 12 September. A first contribution for emergency relief was made the same day. There have since been weekly meetings between the British high commission and federal Government officials through the forum of the UN Disaster Relief Organisation Programme UN Development—chaired special coordinating committee for flood relief—on 14 and 24 September and 6 October.

  On several occasions following the emergency, the British high commissioner has discussed relief requirements with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, notably during a call on the Prime Minister on 21 September, and other senior ministers.

  On 17 September the economic aid counsellor in the British high commission—BHC—had discussions with the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab to determine further relief needs. As a result, we responded with a supply of tents and blankets which arrived in Lahore on 22 September, on a flight met by the same BHC official and the provincial Minister of Revenue.

  On 23 September the economic aid counsellor held discussions with senior officials in the Government of Punjab.

  On 27 September the first secretary (aid) visited Lahore for further discussions with senior provincial Government officials on relief distribution and further needs. On 6 October the same official visited Jhelum to monitor the delivery and further distribution of relief goods supplied under British aid, where he met district officials.

  In addition, the British deputy high commissioner in Karachi and his staff have held regular contacts with Government of Sindh about emergency needs in the province.

  The authorities in Pakistan have stressed the need for self reliance in terms of longer-term rehabilitation, and have therefore made no official request for aid for this purpose. However, we will continue to keep in touch with the Government of Pakistan about longer-term requirements in the context of our bilateral aid programme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fishing boats are tied up at present at Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass harbours; and if he will make a statement on the size of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet which is still actively involved in the fishing industry.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is understood that there are, in total, 20 fishing vessels of over 10 m in length which are at present tied up at Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass harbours. As with other member states, the future size of the United Kingdom fishing fleet, which includes that of Northern
  273
  Ireland, is the subject of continuing examination and consultation with the Commission in multi-annual guidance programme targets.

  Students' Unions
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of public funds is allocated per annum to the students' unions in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the 1991–92 academic year payments—largely from public funds—by universities and colleges of education in Northern Ireland to their respective students unions amounted to £1,427,900. Information in relation to students unions in further education colleges is not readily available.

SCOTLAND

  Consultants
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions when his Department has employed Quayle Munro as consultants in the last three years, with details of the projects concerned.

  Mr. Lang
  Details of the projects undertaken by Quayle Munro on behalf of The Scottish Office in the last three years are as follows:—

  Details of Project

  Contract Period

  Advisers to Secretary of State on privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

  1988–1991

  Advising on proposals for the direct labour organisation of Scottish Homes.

  1990

  Advising on the sale of Scottish public transport companies by local authorities.

  1991 (ongoing)

  Advising on the funding arrangements for the Skye Crossing, including the tender competition and tender clarifications with the Concessionaire.

  1990–1992

  Advising on the options for the future organisation of water and sewerage services in Scotland.

  1992

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officers of(a) the Scottish police and (b) other police forces are currently engaged on the investigation of the bombing of Pan Am 103; and which countries have been visited by British police officers in connection with the Lockerbie disaster.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Seven officers of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary are currently directly engaged in the Lockerbie investigation. No other police force in the United Kingdom is presently involved. Inquiries have been conducted in 70 countries. It would not be helpful to identify each of the countries visited.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with British Aerospace about the joint venture for regional aircraft with Taiwan.
  274
  Mr. Sainsbury
  The joint venture is a commercial matter between British Aerospace and the Taiwanese Aerospace Corporation. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has, however, been kept informed of progress. He met John Cahill, chairman of British Aerospace and Earle Ho, chairman of the Taiwanese Aerospace Corporation, on 29 July, during the latter's visit to the United Kingdom.

  Toys (Safety)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the grounds on which the EC has banned birthday cards which have an age badge attached for children under three years old; and what action his Department is taking.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is not aware of any action by the EC or any member state to ban such items.

  Recycling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reasons for the recent fall in the United Kingdom's recycling rate for paper.

  Mr. Eggar
  The recycling rate for paper can he measured in two ways: the proportion of waste paper used in the production of paper and board in the United Kingdom or the amount of waste paper recovered as a proportion of paper consumed in the United Kingdom.

  The most recent figures available to my Department show that the proportion of waste paper used in production in the first half of 1992 was, at 59.7 per cent., identical to the rate one year earlier. This was in a period in which United Kingdom production of paper and hoard increased by 2.8 per cent. Recovery tonnages also increased over the period from 1,585,000 tonnes in the first half of 1991 to 1,616,000 tonnes in the first half of 1992. However, since United Kingdom consumption in the period increased at a faster rate than United Kingdom production, the recovery rate fell from 33.7 per cent. to 32.5 per cent.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has met representatives of the paper and board industry to discuss the pattern of trade and, in particular, the impact of changing environmental legislation in other member states of the European Community.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity to the purposes, and proposals made in the communication of the European Commission (7390/92) concerning policies for postal services, indicating which proposal for improvements could not be achieved by national postal authorities or by co-operation within the international postal union.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The range, quality, reliability and pricing of postal services varies considerably throughout the European Community. The EC Commission has taken the view that postal services form an essential part of the social and business infrastructure of the EC, and that individuals and organisations are entitled to certain minimum standards. The Commission's proposals in its Green Paper on postal

  275
  services are to achieve their objective essentially through a combination of harmonisation and market opening measures, and the elimination of harmful cross-subsidies. The principle of subsidiarity will be reflected in that member states will remain free to provide postal services to a higher standard than the minima decreed by the Commission, to adopt more liberal regimes, to organise their regulatory structures and generally to tailor their services to meet the specific needs of local circumstances.

  Microelectronics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will publish tables showing the total of payments under the investment support for fibre optics and opto-electronics programme by 31 March 1992, the total payments to projects in each region and any payments during 1991–92 in total and for each region;

  (2) if he will publish tables showing the total of payments under the microelectronics industry support programme II by 31 March 1992, the total payments to projects in each region and any payments during 1991–1992 in total and for each region;

  (3) if he will publish tables showing the total of payments under the microelectronics industry support programme I by 31 March 1992, the total payments to the projects in each region and any payments during 1991–92 in total and for each region.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Details of financial assistance under these three programmes are contained in the "Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Report". Copies of the most recent report for the year ended 31 March 1992 are available in the Library.

  Electricity Generating Plants
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the installed capacities of electricity generating plants in the United Kingdom of the generating and regional companies using gas for steam and gas turbines respectively; and what capacity of the former was initially installed for burning coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: There are at present two combined cycle gas-fired stations in operation in England and Wales:

  Organisation

  Location

  Estimated capacity (MW)

  Lakeland Power

  Roosecote, Cumbria

  235

  PowerGen plc

  Killingholme, South Humberside

  450 (1st unit)

  One—Roosecote—is on the site of an earlier coal-fired station.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instruction, advice or guidance he has given to the main electricity generating undertakings, and regional electricity companies respectively, concerning the short or long-term sources of their fuel supplies, since the privatisation of the electricity production and supply industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: I am not in a position to give instructions to private sector
  276
  companies. I have made clear to all concerned the importance I attach to seeing contracts put in place as soon as possible which will provide stability to the coal industry over the next few years and bring benefits to electricity customers.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the number and total installed capacity of power stations converted or built to use gas as a fuel since the abolition of the Central Electricity Generating Board, stating in broad terms the number and capacity installed by each of the new national and regional electricity undertakings, and others respectively, and the range of gas price per gigajoule paid.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Gas-fired power stations—above 50MW—in England and Wales, commissioned since 31 March 1990 were:

  Organisation

  Location

  Estimated capacity (MW)

  Lakeland Power

  Roosecote, Cumbria

  235

  PowerGen plc

  Killingholme, South Humberside

  450 (1st unit)

  Gas prices are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total capacity of those coal-fired power stations due to be closed by the main generating undertakings, consequent to their planned reductions in coal burn for 1993, giving the capital cost per megawatt, and fuel cost per gigajoule respectively, for the most efficient coal and gas-fired power stations now available for construction at current gas and United Kingdom produced coal prices respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: These are commercial matters for the generating companies.

  Agencies and Trading Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the outturn income and receipts for 1990–91 and 1991–92, projected outturns for 1992–93, and plans for subsequent years for the agencies and trading funds responsible to his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Details that the hon. Gentleman has asked to be published can be found in table 16 on page 20 of the publication entitled "Trade and Industry—The Government's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95", Cm 1904, dated February 1992. A copy of this publication, which is updated annually, is in the House's Library.

  SPUR Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the total of applications, offers and payments made under the SPUR scheme as at 1 October 1992, the same information for each region and each region's share of the total.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Applications, offers and payments made under the Support for Products under Research—SPUR—scheme as at 1 October 1992 were as follows:

  277

  Applications

  Offers

  Payments

  Region

  Number

  Per cent. of total

  Number

  Value £ million

  Per cent. of total by value

  Value £ million

  Per cent. of total

  East

  25

  6.5

  12

  1.40

  7.8

  0.08

  6.0

  East Midlands

  19

  4.9

  14

  1.15

  6.4

  0.13

  9.8

  North East

  10

  2.6

  7

  0.60

  3.3

  0.04

  3.0

  North West

  90

  23.4

  46

  3.32

  18.5

  0.17

  12.8

  South East

  60

  15.6

  31

  3.38

  18.8

  0.21

  15.8

  South West

  41

  10.6

  14

  1.26

  7.0

  0.11

  8.3

  West Midlands

  32

  8.3

  24

  1.40

  7.8

  0.10

  7.5

  Yorks/Humberside

  52

  13.5

  27

  1.74

  9.7

  0.20

  15.0

  Wales

  25

  6.5

  14

  1.15

  6.4

  0.04

  3.0

  Scotland

  31

  8.1

  23

  2.54

  14.2

  0.25

  18.8

  Total

  385

  —

  212

  17.94

  —

  1.33

  —

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the president of the Boa rd of Trade if he will publish tables showing the total of payments under the enterprise initiative programme by 31 March 1992, the total payments to projects in each region, and payments during 1991–92 in total and for each region, together with the projected outturn total spend for 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Total payments on enterprise initiative consultancy projects from the launch of the scheme in 1988 up to the end of March 1992 amounted to £142.3 million. In the 1991–92 financial year payments reached a total of £52.1 million, and the current forecast for 1992–93 is £57.1 million. Regional breakdowns of project payments for the period to 31 March 1992, and for 1991–92, are as follows. An accurate regional breakdown for 1992–93 will not be available until the end of the current financial year.

  Table 1

  Project payments 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1992

  DTI region

  £ million

  North East

  7.8

  North West

  22.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16.3

  West Midlands

  17.8

  East Midlands

  9.4

  South West

  10.1

  East

  8.1

  South East

  28.6

  Scotland

  12.7

  Wales

  8.7

  TOTAL

  142.3

  Table 2

  Project payments 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  DTI region

  £ million

  North East

  3.1

  North West

  6.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6.0

  West Midlands

  6.9

  East Midlands

  3.7

  South West

  3.8

  East

  3.2

  South East

  11.2

  Scotland

  4.2

  Wales

  3.1

  TOTAL

  52.1

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will summarise the use made by any Government of a member state of the European Community of any provision they make for national support for the coal mining industry, stating the approximate price and percentage assistance per tonne, and per gigajoule respectively.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The amount of subsidy for current caol production in 1990 for relevant European Community member states was as follows:

  £ per tonne

  Belgium

  55

  France

  10

  Germany

  39

  Spain

  19

  Source: European Commission.

  The United Kingdom does not provide subsidies for current production. Agreed Community policy is to restructure the coal industries towards economic viability and to eliminate such subsidies.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the articles in any treaty of the European Communities and any regulation or directive applied in this respect which permit any national supports for the deep coal mining industry, or public support for any form of electricity generation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Article 4 of the treaty of Paris, which established the European Coal and Steel Community treaty, declared that aid to member states' coal industries was incompatible with the common market in coal. Nevertheless, a series of decisions of the Council have recognised that in order to adapt the level of production it was necessary to allow such aid, and laid down the conditions which should be satisfied, which included the authorisation of the Commission. The current decision—2064/86/ECSC—stipulates that for aid to be authorised by the Commission, it must help to achieve one or more of the following objectives:

  Improvement of competitivity of the coal industry, which contributes to assure a better security of supply.

  Creating new capacities provided that they are economically viable.

  Solving the social and regional problems related to developments in the coal industry.

EMPLOYMENT

  Young People at Work
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she intends to preside in her capacity as president in office of the Social Affairs Council over a discussion on the proposed Council directive on the protection of young people at work;

  (2) if she will make a statement about Government policy towards the proposed EC Council directive on the protection of young people at work;

  (3) what is her view on the European Commission's proposals in the draft directive on the protection of young people at work as it concerns (a) night work, (b) rest time, (c) rest period and (d) paid leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Discussion of this directive is still at a very early stage. The European Parliament has not yet delivered its opinion and the Commission's proposals may be revised before they are considered by the Council. The agenda for the Social Affairs Council in December has not yet been finalised.

  The Government question on the ground of subsidiarity the need for EC legislation on young people's employment. In the United Kingdom the health and safety and educational interests of children below the minimum school leaving age are protected by existing legislation. Young employees above the minimum school leaving age are in general covered by the same legislation as adults in the same occupations. Specific health and safety protection for young employees in the United Kingdom is based on factors distinguishing them from adults. The Government also question whether the Commission's current proposal on night work, rest time, rest periods and paid leave are justified on these grounds.

  Social Fund Grants
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the procedure by which colleges of further and higher education should in future apply for European social fund grants once these cease to come through local education authorities; and if she will make it her policy that existing ESF funded courses will continue to be so funded.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local authorities have offered to continue to handle applications for European social fund grants for courses at colleges of further education for the whole of 1993. Arrangements for applications thereafter will depend upon the results of the forthcoming Community-level review of the EC structural funds, which are due to take effect from January 1994 onwards. The Government will consult closely with all concerned as to arrangements to apply then.

  Labour Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of young people seeking a youth training place in Birmingham for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the current number of job 280
  vacancies in the travel-to-work areas which include the coal mines which British Coal has announced will close; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Max Madden dated 20 October
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about the number of current job vacancies within the travel to work areas for the coal mines which British Coal has announced will close. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I attach a table showing the number of vacancies unfilled at Jobcentres on 2nd October 1992, the last statistical count date, for each of the relevant travel to work areas. All of the travel to work areas are included as requested although following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on 19 October only 8 of these areas have a colliery now designated for closure after the statutory consultation period has been completed.
  It is not possible to provide information on the total number of job vacancies available in the labour market but it is estimated that about one third of all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.
  I hope this is helpful.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Colliery

  Travel to Work Area

  Number of unfilled vacancies at local Jobcentres on 2 October 1992

  Easington Vane Tempest

  Durham

  313

  Wearmouth

  Sunderland

  603

  Westoe

  South Tyneside

  146

  Parkside

  Wigan and St. Helens

  742

  Prince of Wales Sharlston Frickley

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  705

  Rossington Bentley Hatfield/Thorne Markham Main Houghton Main Grimethorpe

  Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Mexborough

  879

  Maltby Kiveton

  Rotherham and Mexborough Sheffield

  1,190

  Silverhill Bevercotes Bilsthorpe Clipstone Rufford

  Worksop, Alfreton and Ashfield, Retford, Mansfield

  551

  Cotgrave Calverton

  Nottingham

  465

  Bolsover Markham Shirebrook

  Chesterfield

  352

  Trentham Silverdale

  Stoke

  571

  281

  Colliery

  Travel to Work Area

  Number of unfilled vacancies at local Jobcentres on 2 October 1992

  Betws Drift

  Llanelli

  351

  Point of Ayr

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  574

  Taff Merthyr

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  452

WALES

  Road Safety
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local road safety schemes supported by his Department in Wales; and how much money has been allocated to each scheme in the current year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The table lists the Department's road safety engineering schemes programmed for the current year.

  £

  Clwyd

  A494—Tafarn y Gelyn Visibility improvement

  25,000

  A494/A55—Ewloe interchange Cycleway and safety fence

  25,000

  A55—Brookside junction, Northop Hall Closure of central reservation gaps

  13,500

  A55—Llanddulas, Glan Conway Closure of emergency crossing points

  70,000

  A55—Pont Dafydd Closure of central reservation gaps

  25,000

  A55—Traveller's Inn Closure of central reservation gaps

  6,000

  Dyfed

  A44—Llanbadarn Fawr Splitter island

  15,000

  A40—Arnolds Hill Traffic calming

  90,000

  A40—Letterston Cross Improvement to crossroads

  ;20,000

  A4076—St. Peter's Road, Johnston Demolition and footway widening

  5,000

  A487—Hill Terrace, Fishguard Safety fence

  70,000

  A40—Bethany Row, Haverfordwest Traffic calming

  40,000

  A40—Abbey Mead Traffic calming

  3,500

  A44—Lovesgrove junction, Aberystwyth Junction improvement

  283,000

  Gwynedd

  A5—Dalar crossroads, Anglesey Bus bay

  30,000

  A5—Pont y Pair hotel, Betws y Coed Footway

  5,000

  A5—Padog bends Signing

  7,000

  A470—Church street, Glan Conway Junction improvement

  10,000

  A470—Tollgate cottage, Pen Loyn, Tan Lan Widening

  20,000

  A470—Dolgellau bypass Signing

  10,000

  A487—Little Market, Porthmadog Pelican crossing

  35,000

  282

  £

  Powys

  A470/A44—Llangurig roundabout Signing

  1,000

  A470—Minhafron, Llandinam Footway widening

  5,000

  A489—Newtown Footway widening

  3,000

  A487—Glaspwll, Machynlleth Signing

  1,000

  A487—Cwmbach Signing

  9,000

  A470—Llanwrthal junction, Near Doldowlod Junction improvement

  13,500

  A479—Tretower Kerbs and footway

  5,000

  A470/A40—Brecon roundabout Reconstruction of central island and signing

  5,000

  A40—Pont y Bryn Hurt Road realignment

  605,000

  A470—Tan House Bridge, Rhayader Widening and visibility improvement

  255,000

  A470—Carno road, Caersws Footway, widening and visibility improvement

  209,000

  West Glamorgan

  M4—Kenfig Wind indicator

  30,000

  A48—Briton ferry Safety fence

  5,000

  Dentists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce measures to alleviate the shortage of manpower in dentistry in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Department has recently reminded family health services authorities in Wales that they can apply for permission to employ salaried dentists in areas where there is a serious shortage of general dental practitioners. One FHSA has already been given permission to employ salaried dentists and one other application is under consideration.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the total number of sites of special scientific interest in Wales and the number of these that have been(a) partially and (b) wholly damaged.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are 845 sites of special scientific interest in Wales. Since 1985, when formal monitoring began, 137 SSSIs have at some time been damaged and one SSSI has been lost.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes in response to recent developments affecting the coal industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I recognise that the closures of Betws and Taff Merthyr will have a severe impact on the local economies affected and I am determined that the maximum possible help will be made available to the individuals and communities involved.

  The Government have already announced a comprehensive range of services for those affected by the closures, covering in particular their counselling and

  283
  retraining needs and the assistance they will need to find secure new employment. The training and enterprise councils have a key role to play here.

  I have already met the chairmen of the West Wales and Mid Glamorgan TECs and asked them to let me have within two weeks action plans covering all unemployed people in the closure areas and any redundant miners who live outside them. I expect the action plans to address not only the labour market issues but also, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, proposals for business development and the creation of new jobs.

  Although the Government have announced a moratorium on the proposed closure of Point of Ayr, I have met the chairman of the North East Wales TEC and asked his TEC to prepare a contingency plan for that area.

  To assist implementation of these plans, I have arranged for up to £4.8 million for employment and training measures to be made available over the next 18 months.

  I am also concerned to tackle the regeneration of the areas affected and secure their economic, social and environmental development. In particular:
  I am making a special allocation of £2.5 million in 1992–93 under the urban programme and I am inviting the local authorities to let me have urgent proposals on how these funds can most effectively be used;

  European funding has an important contribution to make. I hope shortly to announce agreement to 80 projects including European Regional development fund grants of over £15 million in the areas affected. In addition, a further £2.8 million is available under the ERDF and, in the light of recent decisions, I shall be exploring with local authorities and other partners how these funds can best be deployed.

  In Wales we have the Welsh Development Agency which, with its record budget of £167 million, is already heavily engaged in these areas.

  I have discussed with the chairman of the agency its plans taking account of current developments. Overall decisions on the future budget of the WDA have still to be taken as part of the public expenditure round, but I can announce now that the WDA will be spending £33 million over the next 18 months on a range of measures which will assist economic development in the areas concerned. This will include about £16 million on land reclamation and urban property development, and nearly £5 million on business support services and £10 million on urban renewal joint venture schemes.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Questions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the numbers of written answers given to each of the top 30 hon. Members in rank order of number of questions tabled(a) during the 1991–92 session and (b) in the 1992–93 session up to 16 July.

  Mr. Newton
  The Members receiving the most answers to written questions in session 1991–92, as recorded on the House of Commons Library's POLIS database, were as follows:
  284

  Number

  1. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)

  441

  2. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)

  272

  3. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)

  268

  4. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley)

  241

  5. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Austin Mitchell)

  239

  6. = The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)

  233

  6. = The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)

  233

  8. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. D. Clark)

  211

  9. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)

  194

  10. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. S. Hughes)

  192

  11. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)

  190

  12. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)

  183

  13. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)

  180

  14. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz)

  168

  15. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)

  159

  16. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)

  158

  17. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)

  151

  18. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)

  149

  19. The former hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn)

  137

  20. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. R. Davies)

  135

  21. The former hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)

  134

  22. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)

  130

  23. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)

  126

  24. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. B. Jones)

  122

  25. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)

  120

  26. = The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. T. Banks)

  114

  26. = The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)

  114

  28. = The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)

  110

  28.=The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)

  110

  30. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)

  108

  The Members receiving the most answers to written questions in Session 1992–93, up to and including 16 July 1992, as recorded on the House of Commons Library's POLIS database, were as follows:

  Number

  1 The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. L. Smith)

  271

  2. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)

  228

  3. The hon Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr.Dafis)

  217

  4. The hon Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. S. Hughes)

  177

  5. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)

  171

  285

  Number

  6 The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. B. Jones)

  168

  7. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond)

  167

  8. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)

  160

  9 The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster)

  156

  10=. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. B. Field)

  149

  10=. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Austin Mitchell)

  149

  12=. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)

  146

  12=. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)

  146

  14. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)

  139

  15. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. W. Griffiths)

  134

  16. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)

  125

  17. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)

  122

  18. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. D. Clark)

  111

  19. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)

  109

  20. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne,Central (Mr. Cousins)

  108

  21. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)

  102

  22. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. T. Banks)

  100

  23. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat)

  99

  24. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn)

  98

  25 The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)

  91

  26. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. D. Shaw)

  81

  27. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)

  79

  28. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)

  78

  29=. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. R. Davies)

  75

  29=. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms.Walley)

  75

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many debates took place(a) on the Floor of the House and (b) in a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in each Session since 1983–84 in pursuance of motions to annul a statutory instrument.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is as follows:

  A Debates on the floor of the House

  Year

  Number

  1983–84

  123

  1984–85

  12

  1985–86

  10

  1986–87

  26

  1987–88

  18

  1988–89

  317

  1989–90

  414

  1990–91

  58

  1991–92

  62

  1992–93

  0

  [to Summer Adjournment '92]

  1 (5 with motions to approve statutory instruments)

  2 (1 with motion to approve statutory instrument)

  3 (2 with motions to approve statutory instruments)

  4 (4 with motions to approve statutory instruments)

  5 (1 with motions to approve statutory instruments)

  6 (1 with motions lo approve statutory instruments)

  Note:—On occasion, motions to annul a statutory instrument were debated along with motions to approve other statutory instruments on related topics. Questions are not always put on motions included in debate.
  286

  B Debates in Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments

  Number

  1983–84

  20

  1984–85

  26

  1985–86

  9

  1986–87

  12

  1987–88

  12

  1988–89

  12

  1989–90

  11

  1990–91

  9

  1991–92

  8

  1992–93

  11

  1 To Summer Adjournment 1992.

  Note: One debate, either on the Floor or in Standing Committee,
  may deal with more than one motion to annul an Instrument. (See Supplementary Information.)

  Supplementary Information

  A Number of Statutory Instruments subject to Negative Resolution debated on the Floor of the House

  Number

  1983–84

  41

  1984–85

  20

  1985–86

  17

  1986–87

  15

  1987–88

  28

  1988–89

  54

  1989–90

  24

  1990–91

  13

  1991–92

  4

  1992–93

  10

  1 To Summer Adjournment 1992.

  B Number of Statutory Instruments subject to Negative Resolution debated in Standing Committee

  Number

  1983–84

  21

  1984–85

  29

  1985–86

  9

  1986–87

  19

  1987–88

  27

  1988–89

  18

  1989–90

  16

  1990–91

  18

  1991–92

  8

  1992–93

  11

  1 To Summer Adjournment 1992.

  Agencies (Letters to Members)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how the Government intend to respond to the decision of the Administration Committee that letters sent to hon. Members by agency chief executives in response to parliamentary questions should be printed among the written answers in the daily Official Report.

  Mr. Newton
  The Government welcome the Administration Committee's decision, which was set out by the Committee's Chairman in a previous written answer,Official Report 16 July 1992, column 941. The decision meets the Government's aim that replies from agency chief executives should be more readily accessible. while recognising the direct operational responsibilities of chief executives.
  287
  Officials from the Office of Public Service and Science have been discussing the practical implications with the Official Report and with Departments and agencies. Guidance has been issued to allow the new arrangements to come into effect as from the beginning of the new term. The Government will keep the working of the new arrangements under review.
  288
  The arrangements apply to questions tabled on operational matters for which responsibility has been delegated by Ministers to agency chief executives. It remains open to hon. Members to write to chief executives direct on such matters and I would encourage them to do so wherever they judge it appropriate.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Lord Stewartby
The Right Honourable Sir Bernard Harold Ian Halley Stewart, Knight, RD, having been created Baron Stewartby, of Portmoak in the District of Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hothfield and the Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.

Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare
Jeffrey Howard Archer, Esquire, having been created Baron Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, of Mark in the County of Somerset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Denham and the Lord Renton.
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Tennyson Lord Tennyson— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
Lord Grenfell Lord Grenfell— Took the Oath.

Long-term Unemployment: Figures
3 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the total numbers of long-term unemployed in May 1979 and in the most recent month for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in the United Kingdom in July 1992 there were 905,255 persons claiming unemployment-related benefits who had been unemployed for over a year, a fall of 145,232 since July 1983, the earliest date for which the nearest equivalent figures are available.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of all the indicators demonstrating the bankruptcy of the Government's economic policies, none has greater significance than that of long-term unemployment? The figures given today are a disgrace in a modern society. Despite the information that he has just given, will the Minister confirm that 70,000 people have been added to the ranks of the long-term unemployed in the past four months? Is that not a record high for such a period? In the face of such a tragedy, is the Government's policy to remain zero inflation and zero jobs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong, because the range of measures which the
636
employment service and the TECs have provided for the six-month plus unemployed is having a good effect. If we look back to 1983—the last time that unemployment was at the current level—the long-term unemployed (one-year plus) made up over 42 per cent. of that total, and that proportion is now down to one-third.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can we he assured that the training package for redundant miners announced yesterday amounting to £75 million—many of those miners being candidates to join the long-term unemployed—will he financed wholly by new money, and that no part of that training package will be financed by the Department of Employment's existing budget?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my understanding is that the new package of help for the TECs and the employment service is worth some £75 million over this year and next. That will guarantee the full assessment of help needed for unemployed people in those closure areas. Priority access to employment training, support in setting up their own businesses, job clubs and job interview guarantees will be available to people in those areas. TECs will be drawing up their action plans over the next month.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in these slump conditions—the worst since the 1930s—what is most disturbing is the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry? We are losing 3,500 every week. We are now down to a figure of 4.4 million people employed in manufacturing industry. As a consequence, we are now importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting. Are not the Government worried about that? What are they going to do to reverse that trend?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures are conflicting, because the figures that I have do not suggest what the noble Lord has said. As I have said a number of times from this Box, falling manufacturing employment as a share of total employment is a common trend in all industrial countries. The UK share of world trade in manufactures is estimated to have risen in the three years to 1991 after decades of decline. The share of manufacturing in GDP has remained at about 24 per cent. of GDP for the past 10 years.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that from all parts of the House we shall chivy the Government into encouraging in every possible way the retraining, redeploying and giving of jobs to people? It is not right to compare conditions in 1933 with those today. For obvious reasons manufacturing output per head is very much higher than it was. Is my noble friend aware that in 1933 22 per cent. of this country's insured workforce was out of work, whereas now it is only 10 per cent., and that 6 per cent. of the total population was out of work in 1933, whereas it is now only 3 per cent.? That does not take account of the huge increase in female employment over that of 60 years ago.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would not question my noble friend's figures. He could have gone on to say that the total United Kingdom workforce in employment now stands at nearly 25.5 million; and that at 70 per cent. the United Kingdom continues to have a much higher proportion of people in work than any EC country apart from Denmark?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister please answer my noble friend's simple question? Is the £75 million that is to be spread over two years new money? Is it extra to budget?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, so far as I am aware, yes.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, what proposals do the Government have for dealing with the increase in youth unemployment, particularly in view of the failure to provide a youth training place for all young people in the appropriate age group?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I question the assumption made by the noble Baroness. The YT guarantee still stands. That means that young people who leave school—of course, they are being encouraged to stay at school—have the guarantee of a YT place until they are 18.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some forecasts indicate that long-term unemployment is likely to increase for at least two years, and that much of that unemployment will be among people who are already skilled? Although we welcome training programmes, I should like to ask what good will they do to people who are already skilled and who still cannot find employment?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. While training has a key role to play in providing the skills essential for business success and enhancing the prospects of people at work, I agree that it is not always the most appropriate way of meeting the needs of unemployed people. That is why we have such a range of other measures from the employment service and the TECs to help people find jobs.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many people in this country strongly support the Government's training programmes, and that it is the continual change in information technology and technology which needs constant training and "uptraining"? The fact that people have already been trained is irrelevant to the needs of industry tomorrow and the day after.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely endorse my noble friend's words.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am grateful—I mean this—that he has not used the words, "There are now signs that the economy is recovering"? Is there any truth in the statements reported recently in some newspapers that cuts are to be made in some of the measures which apply to the long-term unemployed?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I do not believe that is right. It is important that the work of our department concentrates on those people who have not been able to find work after six months. It is true that two-thirds of those who become unemployed find employment within six months. Therefore our work concentrates on those who have not found employment within that time.

Former Yugoslavia: Status
3.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, with other governments, to suspend the representation by Serbia and Montenegro of the former state of Yugoslavia in all international organisations until the future of the whole territory has been determined.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we fully supported the UN General Assembly Resolution A/47/1 of 18th September which concluded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the UN and that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should therefore apply for membership in the UN and shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly. This is serving as a model for action in UN specialised agencies and other international organisations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Does she agree that while an empty seat for Yugoslavia should be kept in these organisations the regime in Belgrade should nonetheless not be excluded from relevant discussions both as a party to a brutal civil war and also to help bring those responsible for atrocities on all sides to book?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. Once the countries have applied for membership of the UN General Assembly that will be the time the assembly considers the matter again. It will not occur before the end of the main part of the current session in mid-December, and it will depend on the situation at the time. In the meantime I can assure my noble friend that Belgrade is already included in discussions in Geneva. As a follow-up to the London Conference those discussions arc relevant, particularly in respect of humanitarian assistance. Resolution 780 provides for dealing with war crimes through the creation of an impartial commission of experts who are to assist the UN Secretary General in the collation and analysis of evidence of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. They will report to the UN Secretary General.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness kindly go a step further and tell the House what is the role of British troops in the former state of

639
Yugoslavia? What are their rules of engagement, especially as aid convoys are being attacked on all sides? What is the command structure?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that matter is a little outside the scope of my noble friend's Question, but I can tell the noble Lord that the role of British troops, as with other troops of the United Nations, is to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies. We do not announce the detailed rules of engagement in any circumstances for obvious and understandable reasons. I can assure the noble Lord that our troops will defend themselves and, in this difficult situation, will try to ensure that the many thousands of people at risk of starvation and death this winter will not die. That is the task of our troops.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I return to the original Question. Will the noble Baroness kindly inform the House what is the status of our own mission in Belgrade at the present time? Is it accredited to the former republic of Yugoslavia or to the new republic?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as we have not recognised the new state it is accredited to Serbia. However, at the present time we await recognition in the United Nations after application to the General Assembly before our mission can be accredited to the new state.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the policy of ethnic cleansing is one of the most horrific and offensive policies seen anywhere since the atrocities of the Second World War? I do not imagine that my noble friend will necessarily share my view that the powers of the European Community have been rather slow to get a grip on the situation, although in some respects they may have now done so. Will my noble friend indicate the thinking of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the provinces of Kosovo and Skopje or Macedonia—call it what one will—and to what extent there is forward thinking in relation to the hostilities and perhaps the ethnic cleansing that may break out in those provinces?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. Of course we condemn absolutely all ethnic cleansing. We continue to condemn Serbian abuse of human rights in Kosovo. A special group on Kosovo has been set up within the ethnic and national communities and a minority working group of the international conference in Geneva. The aim is to press the Serbian authorities to grant the Kosovars genuine autonomy with full human rights and to persuade the Kosovars to accept something short of full independence. I would add that the brokered talks in Pristina on 14th October attended by the Serbs and the Kosovars were a step forward. We are encouraging them to concentrate on practical issues such as resolving the education crisis. There will be further talks in Belgrade this Thursday.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been generous in the breadth of questions she has answered. Will she tell the House what she thinks of the effect of sanctions and whether
640
the latest move in Yugoslavia is a backward step that will restrain the forces there that genuinely want peace?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that sanctions are now having a marked effect, certainly on the Serbian economy. The noble Lord will know that we believe it right to maintain pressure and tighten the implementation of sanctions. It is for that reason that the EC CSCE sanctions assistance missions are in place with the aim of assisting the local authorities to enforce the UN sanctions more efficiently. They have now been extended to Romania, Hungary and to the Danube.

Winchester Bypass
3.17 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the main contract for the construction of the M.3 Winchester bypass has been awarded, and when work will begin.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the main contract for the construction of the final section of the M.3 near Winchester was awarded to Tarmac Construction in September. The formal start of works under the contract was yesterday, 19th October. The work is expected to take about two years to complete.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that excellent piece of news. Was my noble friend as pleased as I was to note that during the Recess the European Commission admitted it was wrong in this matter and that the British Government were right? Therefore, work on this important piece of new road can now go ahead. Does my noble friend agree that while the Commission may have a role to play in environmental matters that cross national frontiers, such as pollution of the sea or pollution of the air, it should have no role to play in what is purely a domestic matter such as the construction of this particular piece of road?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the mood of the House on this sensitive issue. I am sure the House agrees with my noble friend; that is, we were delighted to note the result of further work undertaken by the Commission when it realised that it was wrong and that the British Government were right in the case brought by the Commission against the British Government. It is right that the Commission should seek to enforce on a uniform basis the rights it has, which are to ensure that the requirements of the EC directive on environmental assessment have been properly applied. This section of the route has now been considered for over 20 years and there have been four public inquiries. There can be no question but that the environmental assessment had been carried out long before the Commission considered this matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that at this time of difficulty in

641
the construction industry the public sector can often receive good bargains as regards tenders for construction projects, such as this bypass? Is that the case as regards the Winchester bypass? What was the tender price and what was the initial estimate? If, as I suspect, the tender price is lower than the estimate, will my noble friend pass that information on to the Treasury?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the information has already been passed to the Treasury. We estimated the cost to be some £36 million for the scheme. In fact the contract price is £25.8 million. The total cost of the scheme as a result of all the environmental and other works that need to be carried out will be about £40 million.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether protesters are still on the site of the works?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm, alas, that there are still protesters on the site but appropriate measures have been taken to remove them. I am sure that the whole House will condemn the action of the protesters and the environmental damage which they are causing to an important part of the countryside. We wish to move a rare piece of turf out of the line of the road to an adjacent area and the activities of the protesters are severely detrimental to that piece of ground.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current weather conditions will ensure that the protesters are even wetter than they were before?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, some are forecasting a very hard winter.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate the cost to the country of the delay and the legal costs resulting from the commissioners' incorrect judgment? Does the Commission have a fund out of which the taxpayers of this country could be repaid for that additional delay and would that be a worthy use of the commissioners' pension fund?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the second part of my noble friend's question to the attention of the appropriate Minister and perhaps even the Commission itself. On this occasion, because of the thorough work which we had undertaken and the public inquiries and environmental impact assessments which we had undertaken, very little cost was involved because we had all the information which the Commission requested from us. Once the commissioners saw that information and had time to read it they realised that we were right and they were wrong.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we have finally reached a stage in this matter whereby the principle of subsidiarity has been achieved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is quite right that we should ourselves decide where our roads should go and have the right to take decisions on various other matters relating to the transport industry. Of course subsidiarity is one area in which we are making a great deal of effort in the European Community at the moment.

Speculation Against Sterling: Bank Profits
3.22 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to use their powers under the Banking Acts to establish the level of profits made by the clearing banks between 11th and 25th September 1992.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no.
Lord Morris: Why not, my Lords?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not in the public interest.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene because we have at least 10 minutes to pursue the matter and I should like to ask at least one question. I am surprised that the noble Earl said that it is not in the public interest. I am advised that the Banking Acts do not give the Government any powers whatsoever to intervene in the matter or to ask for such information unless it is believed that speculators acted corruptly. Can the noble Earl confirm that that is the case?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Bank of England may obtain information from authorised institutions under the Banking Act 1987 where that is necessary for the performance of its functions under that Act. If there is a public interest in doing so the Government may obtain confidential supervisory information from the bank. That is why I said that it is not in the public interest.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it not important to get this right? As I understand it, the Banking Act enables the Government to intervene if it is a matter of protecting depositors. Unless there is any implication that the speculation in this matter in some way damaged depositors—and I should have thought that the reverse was true—the Government have no locus standi in the matter anyway. In other words, whatever one may feel is wrong in this state of affairs—and a great deal is wrong—the Government can play no role in discovering the information. Is that not correct?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I have already mentioned one way in which the Government can act. The noble Lord will also be aware that under Section 4(1) of the Act the Treasury also has a general power of direction.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if there is a general power of direction would it not be the case

643
that, if there is serious speculation against the currency by banks authorised under the Banking Act, the Government have a public interest in ascertaining what gross revenues—rather than profits, which are difficult to ascertain—those authorised banks cashed in in speculating against the pound sterling in the days mentioned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should have thought in view of the noble Lord's background that he would have been one of those who wished to see the financial centre of the world—London—working as it should in a proper market. Of course the Inland Revenue will be very interested to see the final results of the banks.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can we not give some comfort to those who find it puzzling that, while Her Majesty's Government, presumably in the national interest, were busily emptying the coffers of the nation's reserves of foreign currency in support of sterling, the money changers at the same time were doing the reverse and taking no consideration of the national interest, being interested only in short-term profit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government were right to take the action which they did. However, in a free market, and a market the size of London—which is the largest foreign exchange market—in order to achieve what my noble friend wants one would have to go significantly further than the clearing banks as mentioned in the Question on the Order Paper. It might interest the House to know that there are more than 500 foreign banks from 72 countries based in London.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that those who urged caution about joining the ERM have been vindicated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is a most interesting question but perhaps not one for today.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree, in view of the exchanges that have taken place across the Chamber, that those provisions in the Treaty of Maastricht which provide for so-called independent bankers to have control over our national affairs are, to say the least of it, slightly dubious?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be comforted to know that soon, I believe, he will have the opportunity to discuss that point in detail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I yield to nobody in desiring London to be the financial centre at least of Europe if not the world. However, will the noble Earl explain how the Inland Revenue, which he mentioned will be interested in the profits that have been made, will identify the profits? If it can identify the profits, will the noble Earl say so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was referring to the profits of the banks for the year.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Earl say how Her Majesty's Government define the public
644
interest? It is apparent from conversations I have had over the past few weeks that the public are very interested in how much the banks have made.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of how much the banks have made is a commercial matter for the banks. It is a matter which the Inland Revenue will want to look at at the end of the financial year.

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

Business of the House: Debates, 21st October
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh set down for 21st October shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of the Lord Chalfont set down for the same day to 3 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Boundary Commissions Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AMPTHILL) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Local government boundaries to be taken into account in reports]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that there is important business to follow the consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill, but Members of the Committee will appreciate that although we have no vote in parliamentary elections we are keenly interested in the franchise by which Members of the other House are elected because we are affected by the result. In moving Amendment No.1, which is a paving amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No.2.
On Second Reading I expressed concern at the proposals in the Bill relating to Wales. I refer to Clause 3(3) (b) on page 3 of the Bill. Although three

645
months have elapsed since Second Reading it may be advisable if I read out that particular provision. The amendment proposes leaving out lines 6 to 11:
"(b) a boundary which has not yet come into operation on a particular date and which, apart from this subsection, would not be regarded as prospective on that date shall be so regarded if it is specified in a Bill which, on or before that date, has been read a second time by the House of Commons".
The Bill proposes that a commission may make recommendations based upon local government boundaries which are prospective only at the time of publication of the commission's report. The new subsection (8) to be added to Section 3 of the 1986 Act states that a boundary change shall be regarded as prospective if the change is specified in an Act—not a Bill—although it has not yet come into operation. That is a reasonable proposal because in those circumstances Parliament would have approved the actual boundary change. But the proposal in the Bill regarding Wales is totally different. There is an assumption that a Bill on local government boundaries which has had a Second Reading only in the Commons is certain to become law. It assumes that the Bill may not be altered in subsequent changes in the Commons and completely ignores what may transpire when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House and proceeds through its various stages.
Very strong words were used about this proposal by Members in the other place. It was suggested that the proposal was presumptuous in terms of the procedure of the House, that it was insulting to both Houses to assume they would not make the slightest change to any boundaries during those stages, and that it was an arrogant procedure. In reply to criticisms which I made during the Second Reading debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out that there was a difference between the provisional recommendations of a commission and its final report. I recognised that. The noble Earl said:
"There is no question of the final report being based upon boundaries not already framed in legislation. The Second Reading will not be conclusive".—[Official Report,16/7/92; col.339.]
That reaffirmed what the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, had said during the Committee stage in the other place:
"Only the boundaries that are legislated for in the Bill when it has become an Act can be used as a basis for its final recommendations to the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons,22/6/92; col.96.]
Mr. Peter Lloyd had also said:
"Of course, there is an element of risk. If the Bill does not go through the House or become an Act by 1st June 1994, the boundary commission for Wales would have to revise its proposals to accommodate them to the boundaries then in force rather than to those that are intended".—[col.82.]
There is no reason whatever why the Boundary Commission for Wales should not proceed on the basis of the electorate as it is at the moment. If there should be a local government Act which makes changes there could be an interim review. That seems to be a sensible procedure, whereas it is an arrogant assumption that there can be no possible change made in the other place or in your Lordships' House when it considers the local government reform Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is my noble friend on the Front Bench able to tell me whether there is any precedent for the provision whereby a Bill, having been given its Second Reading in another place, shall be treated as prospective? It seems to me unusual that the mere passing of a Bill at Second Reading should automatically give that status to a provision. It may well be that there are precedents for it, and I should be very grateful if my noble friend could tell me what they were.
Baroness Hamwee: This amendment provides an opportunity for that question to be answered and perhaps the Minister has a reply at the front of his mind, which indeed he may. I should not like to assume that he does not have such information at his fingertips. I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. As he rightly said, the procedures of this House and of another place are jealously guarded, not for the benefit of those who take part in them but as a matter of democracy. There should be no assumption as to the outcome of prospective legislation. I too find the clause a difficult one, assuming that the outcome will be as it was thought to be at the relatively early stage of Second Reading in the other place.
A balance has to be struck between the convenience of those who take part in elections both as members of political parties and of the electorate, and the right size of the right boundaries of a constituency. But one aspect which must prejudice democracy—perhaps in a little way but enough to be important—is uncertainty. It is helpful to the democratic process for boundaries to be known in time for the democratic process to work within the prospective boundaries. It seems to me that if this clause remains part of the Bill it may to some extent jeopardise that certainty, and the working of the community and the political process within a constituency as it is likely to be, given that the outcome may be quite short up against an election.
Earl Ferrers: This question has been discussed before, not only in this House but in another place. I realise that it has caused a certain amount of concern and possibly confusion. However, I shall endeavour to put the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, at ease with his worries.
First, this particular provision in the Bill is intended to be helpful. Except in the case of Wales, the Bill provides that the next final reports of the commissions shall be based on the boundaries which are specified in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 and which will be in operation on 1st June 1994. The provisional recommendations which precede the final reports can be based on those boundaries which, although they have been included in legislation passed by Parliament, will not be in operation when the provisional recommendations are published.
The situation is complicated by the fact that plans for the reorganisation of local government in Wales are well advanced, and there is an imminent possibility of a Welsh local government reform Bill. If that were to come about such a Bill might well include a redrawing of some county boundaries in Wales. Were the same time constraints to be used for Wales as are

647
used for the rest of the United Kingdom there would be hardly any chance of the new county boundaries forming the base for the next general review in Wales. There would he a very real likelihood that the proposals for Wales would be out of date the moment they were published. That would be a pity. In order to minimise the possibility of having to repeat the review of Wales almost as soon as it is finished the Bill includes a special provision for Wales that will allow county boundaries which are not yet in operation to be included in the final report. So in order to form the basis of the final recommendations for Wales, any new county boundaries will have to have been passed by Parliament by 1st June 1994, although they need not be in operation by that date. The provisional recommendations, which can precede final recommendations by quite some time, must be based on existing county boundaries or any new county boundaries which may be contained in a Bill which has had its Second Reading in another place when the provisional recommendations are published.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks why we cannot act on the present county boundaries. Obviously it would be absurd to insist that the provisional recommendations for Wales should be based on legislation which is about to be changed. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who, as always, has the knack of asking awkward questions, asked whether there was such a precedent. If there is such a precedent I am not aware of it, but I have no doubt that were there such a precedent it would be a very good one.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said at Second Reading and again today that it would be dangerous to assume that a Bill would remain unaltered between its Second Reading in another place and its final approval by Parliament. He is absolutely right. There is no suggestion that there would not be any alteration. The noble Lord said that it was arrogant to assume that there would be no such alteration. We do not make that assumption. He said, in what I thought fairly strong language, that it was insulting to Parliament to assume that there would be no change to the Bill before the legislation was put to it. Such an assumption would be dangerous and quite wrong. The Government make no such assumption.
If the provisional recommendations are published on the basis of a Bill which has had its Second Reading in another place and if the Bill is subsequently altered, then new provisional recommendations will have to be published in line with the way in which the Bill has been altered. I assure the noble Lord that there can be no question of final recommendations—final recommendations are the important ones—being submitted to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary based on anything other than county boundaries which have been approved by Parliament as a whole.
That is very important. There must be no affront to Parliament nor any question of unconstitutional procedure. I do not believe that there is. As I suggested in the first place, we are trying to be helpful and allow the boundary commissions to address their minds to what appears to be the likely outcome as opposed to a series of boundaries which almost certainly will be
648
changed. In that spirit I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to understand that this legislation is designed to be helpful both to the electorate and the boundary commissions and to enable new results to emerge which will benefit the electorate.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the noble Earl for further elaborating on this matter beyond his remarks at Second Reading. He has been quite helpful. I would however like to make one point. The noble Earl said that this would be helpful. To whom will it be helpful? We must be careful that a pistol is not held at the head of Parliament to demand that if it does not agree with the local government commission the business may have to be delayed and come up again. That is the problem.
We want the boundary commissions to look at the situation properly and fairly. That can only be done by withdrawing this provision of the Bill and seeing what happens. If there has to be a change, it can be dealt with by an interim review. There is provision in the boundary commission arrangements for the commission to undertake an interim review. If that were the position, I am sure that Parliament would readily agree to speedy action being taken.
I am tempted to divide the Committee. This is a matter of constitutional importance. However, I shall read carefully what the noble Earl said to see whether or not we need return to it. It is a vital question of the procedure of the boundary commission and of the constitutional procedure of Parliament. It is not merely a question of an affront to this House. It is a matter I shall have to examine carefully. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.2 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No.3:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert:
("() Where a Boundary Commission has to decide between ameliorating disparity in the sizes of electorates in constituencies and taking into account local government boundaries, due weight should be given to the former consideration.").
The noble Lord said: I note that Amendment No.4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, which immediately follows, deals very largely with the same point. If he and the Committee agree, in view of the important debate which will follow, I suggest that it might be convenient for both amendments to be considered together. I understand that my noble friend agrees.
I do not regard my amendment as more than a probing amendment. I do not expect my wording to become enshrined in statute. But it will have served its purpose if it indicates the point which I shall now elaborate.
In the Second Reading debate on 16th July my noble friend Lord Ferrers stated that one of the main purposes of the Bill was to even out disparities in numbers between constituencies. He gave examples from within England of a constituency with 101,000

649
electors (the Isle of Wight) and another constituency with only 42,000 electors. He spoke of differences in size of constituency electorates which,
"jolt the principle of parliamentary democracy".—(Official Report,16/7/92; col.321.]
He said that the purpose of the Bill was to produce boundaries which would not be very out of date when a general election is held. As he knows, I agree with all the main purposes of the Bill.
I pointed out at Second Reading that, resulting from the Act of Union in 1707, there have to be at least 71 constituencies in Scotland. That means that the average electorate in Scotland must be less than the average in England. In other words, the electoral quota is less in Scotland. We do not seek to change that. If ever that were to happen, it would have to be accompanied by general constitutional changes of another kind.
Within that limitation, much could be done to reduce disparities. The boundary commissions have several criteria to apply which are prescribed by legislation. They perform their tasks admirably to achieve proposals in accordance with Parliament's guidance. But have we in Parliament conveyed to the commissions the degree of weight to be attached to each of those criteria? In particular how important are local government boundaries? That is one of the criteria which ought to be taken into account. Parts of the United Kingdom are mountainous, sparsely populated and much indented by arms of the sea, channels and sea lochs. One would expect that they would have smaller electorates, and that boundaries would limit the geographical size of areas so as to make them more manageable. But that is not the case at present.
Let me give some examples from northern Scotland. One enormous area—the constituency of Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—has an electorate of 70,000. Another large constituency in northern Scotland—Gordon—has an electorate of 80,000. Argyll in the west, which is a very large and difficult constituency to move about in because of the sea lochs, has an electorate of nearly 50,000. Banff and Buchan has an electorate of 64,000. In contrast eight constituencies in Glasgow, which are very small in area by comparison, have electorates of less than 50,000. One has 36,000 and another 41,000.
It seems that the main reason for such disparities is the apparent requirement to follow local government boundaries. I ask whether that is what Parliament intended. In Scotland the commission is required "to have regard to" local government boundaries. That criterion appears to have been given priority over, or a higher priority than, levelling out the sizes of electorates. An electorate of 80,000 in a large area of northern Scotland contrasts with an electorate of 36,000 in a small, compact area of Glasgow. One would have expected them to be the other way round if there were to be any differential at all because of the difficulties associated with areas of enormous size in northern Scotland. If that is not a jolt to the principle of parliamentary democracy, to use my noble friend's words, I shall be surprised.
Should so much importance be ascribed to the criterion of local government boundaries? A vote in Provan in Glasgow is worth more than two votes in Banff and Buchan in northern Scotland although its area is about 100 times less in size. Rule 4, Schedule 2, in the 1986 Act states that,
"regard shall be had to the boundaries of local authority areas".
In winding up our debate on 16th July, the Minister of State pointed out that rule 5 states that a commission,
"may depart from the strict application of rule 4 if it appears … desirable to avoid excessive disparity".
It is the conflict between those two criteria with which I deal in the amendment. At present the wording makes the task difficult for the commissions. To me "having regard" means taking into account but not being obliged to comply. However, rule 5 refers to the "strict application". It therefore appears that local government boundaries are to be given more importance than other criteria. Is that what Parliament intended?
The commissions have discretion in considering all criteria, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers reminded us. The question is how much weight they believe they have to give to any one of the criteria. In Scotland the boundaries of district councils have not been regarded as sacrosanct. However, the boundaries of regional councils appear to have prevailed. There are no counties in Scotland. The nearest equivalent is a regional council. That seems to be the main cause of the huge and unexpected disparities.
Last week the Secretary of State for Scotland published a consultation document, Reorganisation of Local Government in Scotland, proposing a single tier instead of district and regional councils. That makes it all the more important if possible to indicate to the commissions how much weight should be given to local government boundaries although new authorities in Scotland are not expected to be in place for at least four to five years. What is the significance of coinciding with local government boundaries? There is convenience: we can all see that it is convenient for the authorities and others. But I have yet to hear of any serious reason why electoral boundaries should coincide with local government boundaries. Where they do not do so in Scotland—I refer to some of the district council boundaries—I have not heard of any problems arising.
I felt constrained to raise the subject because as a Secretary of State for four years I had responsibilities in that field. I believe that the boundary commissions will welcome further guidance from Parliament. If they require more guidance because the present schedule to the Act is not helpful enough—perhaps I should accept some of the blame for its present state having had responsibilities for the previous legislation—should we not try to give guidance to them?
The immediate matter for our consideration is whether we in Parliament intended such wide disparities to arise not through immense geographical differences or sparse population in some areas but simply to coincide with local government boundaries. The opposite to that which one would have expected has been the result.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish proposes an amendment to the relevant schedule to the 1986 Act. He is making a valiant effort to give the commissions some guidance in the Bill. I believe that most people in Parliament will consider that necessary. I shall listen with care and great interest to what he says. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at this stage to Amendment No.4 which stands in my name. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy seeks to attack the same problem. Although my noble friend openly admitted that his was a probing amendment, I have attempted to phrase my amendment in such a way that it could be added comfortably to the Bill and to the 1986 Act.
At Second Reading I spoke about the need in a first-past-the-post system to have parliamentary constituences as nearly equal as possible. Unfortunately I am not able to propose the far-reaching amendments that I should like since the Long Title of the Bill restrains me from that ambition. The Long Title informs me that I can only deal with,
"membership of the Boundary Commissions, the timing of their reports and the local government boundaries of which account is to be taken in their reports".
Local government boundaries are the main factors which cause the considerable distortions in constituency size in Scotland. Even in 1983, the first election fought under the last boundary commission's rules, two out of the three largest electoral seats in Scotland were rural. That seems an odd way to seek to be fair to rural areas. The smallest seats in Scotland were largely in urban areas in the central belt. That initial imbalance, although not huge in 1983, grew until at the last election, of the 10 largest constituencies in Scotland six were rural. Of the 10 smallest, half were urban. If one excludes the three special cases of Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and Sutherland and the Western Isles which fall under rule 6 of the 1986 Act, of the smallest 10, eight were urban; and six were in Glasgow, which must be the most over-represented part not only of Scotland but of the whole United Kingdom.
Aside from some poor arithmetic and poorer population projections by the boundary commission in the early I980s, the principal reason for the imbalance was the commission's absolute determination not to cross the boundaries of regional councils. That led the commission to create, for example, the constituency of Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. It not only has the largest geographical constituency in the country; it now has the second largest population. It also led to the constituencies in the adjacent region of Grampian being rather large by Scottish standards.
There was a simple solution to the problem, as there will be for the next boundary commission. It was to give both Highland and Grampian an extra half seat. That would have involved crossing a regional boundary. The commission was implacably opposed to crossing regional boundaries despite the fact that it was not opposed to giving extra seats to Scotland. For some reason which no one has been able to explain to me, it gave an extra seat to the city of Glasgow. The
652
reason for that and similar mistakes by the commission in other parts of Scotland was that it read rule 4 as being more important than rule 5.
In his reply to me in the Second Reading debate the Minister stated:
"I hope that that gives both my noble friends the indication that rule 5"—
it is the electoral quotas rule—
"permits the boundary commission not to stick rigidly to local or regional boundaries where it thinks fit".—[Official Report,16/7/92; col.338.]
I welcome that assurance. However, I also know from my experience that people follow the words in Acts of Parliament and not the interpretation by Ministers at the Dispatch Box. My amendment is designed to make sure that the words are taken by the boundary commission to mean what I believe Parliament intended them to mean.
It is doubly important that the Government accept my amendment because, as my noble friend said, there is considerable uncertainty as to what the boundaries in Scotland will be by the next general election. We know that regions will not exist. Therefore, it seems important that we should signal in the words of the Act that local government boundaries should not be given precedence over the need to have reasonably equal electorates.
My amendment takes account of the rigid view which the boundary commission took on the last occasion and ensures that the present boundary commission will be forced to change that view. It weakens the words of the original Act which state:
"regard shall be had to the boundaries of local authority areas"
to "consideration shall be given". Also, it states quite clearly that when that consideration is given, it should have regard to rule 5, which is the rule about quotas. Thus, my amendment states clearly that the need for the electorate to be as near the quota as is practical is more important than local authority boundaries. I hope that the Minister and Members of the Committee will accept the validity of the arguments which have been put by my noble friend Lord Campbell and myself and find some way to signal to the boundary commission that the need to achieve reasonably equal electoral quotas is paramount in the making up of single Member constituencies in a first-past-the-post system.
4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I find some difficulty in supporting either of the amendments put forward. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raises a question of semantics: the difference between "consideration shall be given" and "have regard to". Perhaps somebody will tell me exactly what is the difference.
However, it is more important to consider what the Minister of State, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said in the other place. He said:
"The commissions must have regard to the balance of population, social and geographical considerations and the significance of county and, particularly, London borough boundaries".—[Official Report, Commons,15/6/92; col.741.]
That is an extremely wide statement. The point I make in dealing with both the amendments, but particularly

653
that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is that the commissions have a great deal of flexibility. Schedule 2 (7) of the 1986 Act states:
"they shall take account, so far as they reasonably can … of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".
I believe that everyone will agree that it is desirable that electorates should be as equal as they possibly can. That is the whole purpose of the boundary commissions' proposals. Heaven knows, we struggled long enough to get constituencies of a fair size. Therefore, I support the proposal that, as far as possible, we should have constituencies with equal electorates.
However, one important point arises. Do we wish to break local community ties? It is clear from the schedule to the 1986 Act, which I read, that so far as they reasonably can the commissions should take into account any local ties which may be broken by such alterations. The community interest is extremely important. There is flexibility in the present procedure and it would be dangerous to move away from that flexibility so that the commissions must follow certain lines, because when certain proposals are considered local ties are as important as the areas of local authorities.
I do not complain about the fact that my amendment was taken out of order but there was a matter which I wished to raise when speaking to it and I shall do so now. There is a difference between electorates and the total eligible population. At present the commissions are not allowed to take that into consideration.
I should like to hear what the noble Earl says about the points I have raised. I believe that the question of local community ties is extremely important. That flexibility should not be taken away from the boundary commissions.
Lord Monson: Although I saw it for the first time only 20 minutes ago, I warmly support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I am sure that Amendment No.4 is equally meritorious although I have not had an opportunity to look at the 1986 Act.
The whole point of having a boundary commission is to ensure fairness and to ensure that the vote of every elector in this country counts for just as much as the vote of any other elector. Compared to that requirement the considerations of local government boundaries, whether based on sentimentality or convenience, must count for relatively little.
Baroness Hamwee: I too have some difficulty with both of these amendments. On Second Reading I mentioned the words "proportional representation". Today I shall do no more than that but we have had a splendid example of the problems of our electoral system. This Bill does not set out to cure that but I too have difficulties in balancing the question of local ties against numbers. I hope that when the Minister replies he can assist the Committee not just as regards the interpretation of the words "give consideration to" and "have regard to" but also where the words "due weight" come in that spectrum.
654
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for making a splendid case for three additional Members of my party and the examples that he chose as constituencies. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that her difficulty in understanding this modest little Bill will be nothing compared with the difficulty which all Members of the Committee would have in understanding any Bill which produced a form of proportional representation.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not say that I have difficulty in understanding the Bill. I indicated that the arguments are difficult to balance.
Earl Ferrers: In that case, the noble Baroness underlines the point even more when she says that she finds the arguments difficult. I find the arguments on proportional representation infinitely more difficult to understand than the arguments raised by this Bill. However, I shall leave that to one side as I know the noble Baroness raised the matter only as a red herring.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for speaking to his amendment at the same time as discussing Amendment No.3. The amendments address similar matters. They both seek to alter the rules for the redistribution of seats as set out in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
The amendments intend to emphasise that the goal of equalising electorates should take precedence over that of not crossing local government boundaries. The difference between the two amendments is that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy refers to the whole of the United Kingdom whereas that in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish refers only to Scotland.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Campbell said that his is a probing amendment because, as presently drafted, his amendment would have no effect. That is because in order to have effect a paragraph would need to be added to the rules for the redistribution of seats in Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act. My noble friend Lord Mackay foresaw that and tabled his amendment to do exactly that. The difficulty with that amendment, were it to be accepted, is that the Scottish rules would then be different from the remainder of the rules for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I should like to make it clear and reassure my noble friends—and I understand their anxieties on this matter—that rule 5 of Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act clearly states that any local government boundaries can be crossed in order to avoid excessive disparities between electorates. That is particularly true in Scotland where, as my noble friend Lord Campell of Croy said, the commissions are required only to have regard to the boundaries of local authorities. Therefore, they are not bound to be bound by the boundaries. They can cross them.
The commissions therefore are already entitled to recommend the crossing of local government

655
boundaries in the interests of electoral equality. My noble friends Lord Mackay and Lord Campbell both said that they had difficulty in deciding which provisions of the Act should be given the greater weight. That is precisely the reason they are so drafted—to enable the boundary commissions to have such flexibility as they require in order to make their own judgments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the boundary commissions have a considerable amount of flexibility. Parliament will need to think carefully before putting them into too much of a straitjacket.
There is another difficulty; that is, that the English and Scottish commissions are already part way through their reviews and the English commission has published proposals using the rules as they stand at present. A change in the rules at this stage would mean either that they would be unable to achieve consistency, which would be unfair, or they would have to begin their review again. That would make it virtually impossible to meet the 31st December 1994 deadline imposed by the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Campbell referred to the Glasgow constituencies. Their current size has nothing to do with local authority boundaries; it has everything to do with the electorate having shrunk since 1978 when the previous review began. I know that both my noble friends are anxious about the matter. I believe it was my noble friend Lord Mackay who asked how we could make a signal to the boundary commissions. I am sure that the boundary commissions will read and take note of what my noble friends said. But if there were to be a change, the right time for it would be before the beginning of the next general reviews, which will not be until the turn of the century.
The sole purpose of the Bill is to speed up the reviews and not to alter the rules by which they operate. Were they to be altered, it would be desirable for there to be wide consultation between all parties and the rules should be considered in their totality as opposed to just one facet of them. My noble friends have a point in the substance of their amendments. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place, both he and the Home Secretary believe that several suggestions have been made, some during our debates, which must be considered jointly and collectively before the next round of changes.
I hope, therefore, that on reflection my noble friends will consider that the best course is as I suggested—for those ideas and others to be considered in the wider context before the next review rather than to incorporate them in the Bill at this juncture.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I am completely in favour of flexibility between the criteria, and I understand the problems of London. It is not local government boundaries that are responsible for small constituencies; it is however local government boundaries that cause the enormous size of rural and
656
Highland constituencies which one would normally have thought should be smaller because of the difficulty of their management.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of local community ties. That is one of the criteria but is easily looked after in the huge constituencies about which I spoke. A vast number of local communities are included and any local community considerations would only involve around 200 people on the edges of the constituency. They arc much more important in the smaller constituencies. I accept that that is one of the criteria, though it is not one that causes much difficulty for the commissions in northern Scotland.
The situation still exists where a constituency in the north of Scotland contains 80,000 electors. It includes the foothills of the Cairngorms and all kinds of other geographical problems. Yet a constituency in a small urban area of Glasgow contains only 36,000 electors. That means more than two votes there are the equivalent of one vote in northern Scotland.
I realise the difficulties of making changes. All one can do is to try and indicate guidance to the commissions when they are operating in some of the large rural areas. I hope that the commissions will consider all the criteria and that they will be guided in the emphasis that they give to the question of local government boundaries and to what was said in the debate. I wish the commissions well in their difficult job, which they perform extremely well. As my noble friend suggested, I hope that they will read the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No.4 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

The European Council in Birmingham
4.16 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Birmingham European Council held on 16th October. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council in Birmingham on Friday 16th October. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom.
"I should like to thank the city of Birmingham, its leaders and its people for the effectiveness and speed of their organisation.
"Following the events in the financial markets a month ago, a number of EC member states asked for this meeting to help restore confidence throughout the Community and to address the issues raised by the market turbulence. Among those concerns—clearly evident in the referendums in Denmark and France—was the unease that too

657
many decisions were being taken centrally in Brussels. The summit conclusions on these and other issues are in the Library of the House.
"Let me deal first with economic and monetary co-operation. At Friday's meeting we reaffirmed our commitment to pursue open market policies, to control budget deficits and to reduce inflation. It was unanimously agreed that these are the basis for recovery and for the creation of new and lasting jobs here and in the Community as a whole.
"The European Council also reaffirmed the necessity of the work set in hand by Finance Ministers after the recent turbulence in the currency markets. It was agreed that the work will involve Finance Ministers, the Monetary Committee, Central Bank governors and the Commission. It will cover recent economic and financial developments in Europe; the implications of changes in the economic environment in recent years. In particular, it will look at the impact of the increasing size and sophistication of financial markets and greater capital liberalisation.
"One critical discussion concerned the negotiations for a GATT Uruguay Round settlement. Over the past two weeks significant progress had been made between the Commission and the United States in all sectors of the negotiation. I asked Commissioner Andriessen to report to the European Council. At the end of our discussion the Commission was given the authority to continue to negotiate with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion in the next 10 weeks. Subsequently, further useful progress was made in talks in Canada over the weekend. A GATT settlement would make a vital contribution to recovery and would be very much in Britain's interest. According to OECD it would lead to an extra 200 billion dollars in annual world output.
"In the Birmingham Declaration we also took significant steps towards bringing the Community closer to ordinary people. The declaration agreed at Birmingham has a number of distinct elements. It recognises the importance of national identity. It acknowledges that the Community can act only where member states have given it the power to do so in the treaties. It lays down that action at Community level should happen only when necessary. It calls for new guidelines so that when Community action is taken it takes the lightest possible form. It introduces better consultation by the Commission before proposals are brought forward; and it calls for a greater role for national parliaments in the work of the Community.
"This declaration provides for the first time a proper framework for the practical definition and implementation of subsidiarity. We agreed that at the Edinburgh European Council in two months' time we must make a reality of this principle. All members of the European Council agreed to take decisions at Edinburgh to make subsidiarity an integral part of EC decision-making. This change
658
of attitude by the Council and the Commission is as important as the procedures and criteria to be introduced.
"Prime Minister Schluter of Denmark reported to the European Council on the present state of discussions on the Maastricht Treaty within Denmark. The Danish Government have published a White Paper and will produce specific ideas shortly. It remains their aim to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, and we plan to set in place at Edinburgh the framework which will allow them to do so.
"The Birmingham Council also gave us an opportunity to review our action to relieve suffering in Somalia and Yugoslavia. The Community has given a lead in both countries.
"In Somalia we called for an immediate ceasefire to allow for the rapid deployment of UN troops and for the distribution of aid and agreed to try to expedite these deployments.
"In Yugoslavia, at British initiative, a Community humanitarian task force will be set up. It will support the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in delivering humanitarian aid. The Community will speed up aid already pledged, which includes 120,000 tonnes of food. We have invited the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to hold a meeting of experts as soon as possible to make sure this aid gets through straightaway. There will be a follow-up meeting in a few weeks' time to ensure that effective action is being taken. Member states also pledged further staff and resources to strengthen the UNHCR effort. I can today announce a further £15 million of bilateral aid to provide 22 more trucks,10 Land Rovers, shelter, medical supplies and personnel. Deliveries will start shortly.
"A confident and successful Community is a vital interest of this country. Sixty per cent. of our visible trade is with the Community. Much of our external investment comes from the Community. Eight of our top 10 trading partners are in the Community. With less than three months to go to the completion of the single market, which could raise Community output by over 4 per cent., it was vital to re-establish confidence in the interests of stability, recovery, growth and jobs in our countries. The Birmingham European Council did that."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. A number of constructive achievements have been mentioned in the report, but the people of this country and Parliament were looking to the Berlin Summit meeting as an opportunity and a first step towards resolving the economic difficulties in which the Community and this country find themselves.
The Prime Minister, who was President, had a special responsibility to try to make some progress,

659
but the whole exercise was put at risk by the Government's coalmine closure policy and the totally inept way with which it was dealt. The sad fact is that the 11 leaders of the Community came to a country rent by one of the most serious divisions of the century and with its confidence undermined by incompetent leadership. Far from giving us hope for economic recovery, or indeed planting a signpost towards it, they have left us with less hope than before. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will tell the House of one clear economic initiative which started in Birmingham.
Are we certain that the Maastricht Treaty will be ratified in the near future? The answer is no. Are we certain what our policy will be if Denmark continues to stand by her referendum decision? Once again, the answer is no. The 12 must ratify. Did Birmingham give us a definition of subsidiarity? Once again the answer is no. It gave us a "framework"—as is mentioned in the Statement—whatever that may mean. Can the noble Lord clarify the Government's intentions on re-entry into the ERM? Was this discussed in any detail in Birmingham? Furthermore, can he say when the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will proceed to Committee in another place? Would he not agree that we are nearer a two-speed Europe than we were before the Birmingham Summit?
Finally, in his Statement the Prime Minister referred to the importance of the GATT round. Of course we agree with that. But are the Government confident that the French Government will agree on the agricultural proposals within the 10 weeks set out in the report?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. We can endorse some of the points in it, notably the great importance of a GATT settlement, the prospects of which seem to have become slightly better in the last 24 hours, although I think not as a result of anything done at Birmingham.
It is clear that this European Council accomplished nothing of any significance. But could the noble Lord tell us what it was intended to accomplish? After all, this was not a routine meeting. Her Majesty's Government have been campaigning for some time to go down from three to two European Councils a year and they succeeded in achieving that. Then we had the special non-routine one which put it up to three. Presumably there was some very considerable purpose which was thought to be there. But it is difficult to see what it was.
I regret that the city which I had the honour of representing in Parliament for 27 years should not have its name associated with a more constructive and memorable European Council than this appears to have been. What was its purpose? It can hardly have been designed to improve on Maastricht. We well remember the Prime Minister's statement that Maastricht was game, set and match for this country. I doubt also whether he invited his fellow Prime Ministers to discuss his other most memorable obiter dictum of the last months—that he hoped to see
660
sterling replacing the deutschmark as the central and most trusted currency within the European Community.
It would be helpful to know what was intended, even if it was not achieved. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will tell us that. Otherwise we are left with the impression that the Birmingham European Council fits only too well the pattern of recent government initiatives: ill thought out, weakly executed and ending in a whimper.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said something which slightly put me off my stroke. He referred to Berlin, but I think he might have meant Edinburgh.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I meant Birmingham.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I was confused because I thought the noble Lord said Berlin, and I was in Berlin on Saturday with his right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place, at Willy Brandt's funeral.
I am grateful to both noble Lords for some part at least of what they had to say. If your Lordships will allow me to do so, perhaps I may leave questions on the coal industry until a bit later in the afternoon.
The purpose of the Birmingham Council was first to respond to the request of a number of heads of government who thought that it would provide a sensible opportunity to discuss matters in view of the particularly turbulent affairs that had taken place in the Community, and especially in the financial markets, in recent weeks. In my view, we need to look at the Birmingham Council meeting as a part of the British Presidency. It should be viewed in the light of our Presidency as a whole. It dealt with issues of deep concern to this House and made progress on bringing the Community closer to its citizens.
It was important that the heads of government should discuss the current position in GATT, which both noble Lords considered an extremely important matter, as I know do all Members of the House and the Government. It was important to take stock of the position. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, it is looking a little bit better now than it was a couple of weeks ago. I do not believe, however, that I am in a position to go further than what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement.
The meeting also discussed and took stock of the position with regard to humanitarian assistance to both Yugoslavia and Somalia.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the ERM. The Birmingham Council confirmed the view of the European Finance Ministers that they should carry forward their reflection and analysis along with governors, the Commission and the Monetary Committee so that they can take account of the wider economic and financial aspects that were referred to in the conclusions of the Birmingham meeting. I believe that that is the right and proper way forward.
With regard to the Maastricht Bill in another place, the position is that the Prime Minister has indicated

661
that he would like to get on with that legislation as soon as possible. Discussions are going on through the usual channels to find a suitable date.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend amplify a little what both the Prime Minister and he himself have said about the Birmingham discussions on GATT? There was a certain qualified optimism in the Prime Minister's Statement, but does that mean that the French are now at long last making it clear that they are prepared to accept the necessary cutbacks in European agricultural support in order that progress should be made? Was any indication at all given by the French of flexibility in that direction? In that context, my noble friend used some expression about "10 weeks". Perhaps he could amplify that. Is it expected that a decision on the GATT round will be achieved within the next 10 weeks? If so, that is of the greatest importance, but, if not, what is the relevance of 10 weeks?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not know that I can add a great deal to what was in the Statement in order to assist my noble friend and the House in this matter. However, the first thing that I can say is that the heads of government were unanimous in calling for an agreement this year, including the French President, who was present at the summit. Everybody wishes to achieve agreement. Since then, as I understand it, good progress has been made with the United States in the meetings that were held in Canada last weekend. This remains a high priority during the UK Presidency. My understanding of the significance of 10 weeks is that if we reach agreement by the end of the year, by that date the United States Congress's fast-track procedures will enable early ratification of the agreement. We are most anxious to achieve that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the Prime Minister on managing to pad out a Statement about what happened at Birmingham when the summit did so little. Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that the Prime Minister would earn rather more respect if he irrevocably and unequivocally stated that he intended to introduce the Bill to ratify the Maastricht Treaty regardless of how he defines the S-word, given that he signed the treaty as it stood with the word "subsidiarity" in it? While I am about it, perhaps I may add that he seemed to be saying that a further meeting would take place on the exchange rate mechanism which might lead to our rejoining it sooner rather than later. Do I interpret that correctly?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have known the noble Lord for many years and while I normally find his speeches entertaining, I believe that I have been present on occasions when they might have been subject to a little padding. Nevertheless, I do not believe that what he said is a fair reflection upon the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Birmingham meeting.
662
The position with regard to the ERM is, I think, quite clear. At their meeting in Brussels some time ago the European Finance Ministers agreed that they should carry forward their analysis and reflection upon the situation that we all know about. That work is being set in hand and the heads of government at Birmingham endorsed their decision. That process is taking place. Until that has been done, there will not be any decision on whether the United Kingdom is able to rejoin the ERM. We have made our position quite clear. We wish to rejoin, but only when the right conditions appertain.
On the Maastricht Bill, again I think that the noble Lord is being less than fair to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who has made no secret of the fact that he intends the Bill to come before Parliament, as he reaffirmed the other day. Discussions are taking place through the usual channels to find a suitable date for the first debate which has been promised.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us find these statements a little confusing? In one statement the Government seem to be hot but in another to be cold, especially with regard to subsidiarity. At the minute that is just a word and none of the nations has agreed what it really means. On the other hand, the Prime Minister has stated that we shall support Denmark's position until it makes it clear that it wishes to sign the treaty. Legally, Denmark is right because the treaty cannot take effect until everybody has signed it. At the moment by a referendum Denmark has said that it is not in agreement with the treaty and our Government have said that until Denmark is satisfied we will not ratify the treaty. However, we are now told that the Bill will be pushed through this year without that definition having been arrived at.
Should not the Government make up their mind in which direction they want to move? Either the view taken on Maastricht should be unanimous and the real meaning of subsidiarity should be defined or we must accept that the agreement is not unanimous and the treaty should be dropped. To push the legislation through either House using the Whips and in the absence of a referendum of some sort does not accord with the nation having its say on this very important constitutional development.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, when my noble friend says that he is confused about these issues I find that somewhat hard to believe. He knows the issues perfectly well, but I shall nevertheless seek to explain the position as best as I can. First, the concept of subsidiarity was included in the Maastricht Treaty and would therefore become part of Community law for the first time. A very important principle was thus established. What we are seeking to do during the British Presidency is to put some flesh onto that idea and demonstrate how subsidiarity will be put into practice in the hope—and I think in the confident expectation—that it should be possible to reach agreement at the Edinburgh Summit as to the way forward.

663
There are three elements to putting subsidiarity into practice. First, there are the questions of procedure in the Council to see that all subsidiarity aspects of all proposals are properly taken into account. Secondly, we have to determine the criteria for applying subsidiarity so that the Community will apply it to existing and proposed legislation. Thirdly, we intend to identify before the Edinburgh Summit examples to demonstrate the first results of that examination. That is the position on subsidiarity. I think that that is fairly clear and straightforward.
With regard to the Danes, my noble friend is of course right. Unless the Danes ratify the Maastricht Treaty the treaty will not come into force. It is in the end their decision what they do. However, what the Prime Minister said was that he did not think earlier it was right to proceed with the Bill through Parliament until it was clearer to him and to the Government how the Danes were proposing to set about dealing with the problem which they fully recognised they faced as a result of their referendum. But the Danish Government have indicated, by the publication of their White Paper on 9th October following inter-party consultations, that they hope to put proposals to the Community soon which are designed to pave the way for ratification. That is the basis of the Danish position. That is why it has altered from the original statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; and I believe that that too is pretty clear.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the version which he has now given differs substantially from the completely specific undertaking that was given to Members of another place by the Prime Minister on 24th September? The Prime Minister said:
"So we need a definition—a settled order—of what is for national action and what is for Community action. We need clear criteria by which Community proposals will be judged. When we are satisfied that such a system has been put in place, and when we are clear that the Danes have a basis on which they can put the treaty back to their electorate, we shall bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House of Commons".—[Official Report, Commons,24/9/92; col.8.]
The noble Lord has said that the second criterion may have been satisfied, but certainly not the first. The Prime Minister repeated the undertaking at a later stage in his speech on 24th September last. It was quite clear that there was no intention to bring back the Treaty of Maastricht for ratification to another place and therefore to this place until both of those conditions had been satisfied.
Quite clearly, on the basis of what the noble Lord has said this afternoon, the first position has not been satisfied. Indeed the President of the Commission himself, speaking at the European Parliament on the day before the Birmingham conference took place, said:
"Look, I have got 200,000 ecus here for anyone who can send me a one-page solution. We will open our arms to it".
According to The Times of 15th October:
"M. Delors has told an emergency session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg that the British Presidency's idea of subsidiarity was not his and openly appealed to the people of Europe to overcome the dilemma".
It is quite clear that the President of the European
664
Commission strongly disputes the definition of subsidiarity. Indeed, the Government so far have not been in a position to offer a satisfactory explanation to the British public.
In those circumstances, I put it to the noble Lord opposite that the intention to bring back for ratification the treaty to another place before the position about subsidiarity and its application has been completely satisfied in accordance with the solemn undertaking given to another place on 24th September is yet another example of where we can have no reliance on the good faith with which this entire operation has been conducted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, an analysis of the noble Lord's remarks confirms the position as I put it. The noble Lord stated the position in September and quoted some part of the Prime Minister's speech. I make no complaint about that. The position has moved on since that time. The fact is that the Prime Minister is satisfied as a result of the Birmingham Summit that we are making progress towards an agreement about subsidiarity.
The noble Lord quoted from the President of the Commission, M. Delors, speaking a day before the summit. I do not know whether the noble Lord quoted everything he said but both of those events took place before the summit on 16th October. At that meeting we were satisfied that we were making progress about subsidiarity. The Danes are making progress with regard to ratification. Those were two of the conditions on which my right honourable friend indicated he wished to make progress before he brought the Bill back to Parliament. So I think that the noble Lord, although he would hate me to have to say this, has confirmed the position as I put it to the House.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would also agree that bringing the Bill back for ratification is the only way that another place and this House can properly debate the matter and come to a conclusion. The course of action recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would deprive this House and another place of the opportunity of debating these matters properly. Perhaps the noble Lord might explain why he wishes to deprive us of that opportunity.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will find another opportunity to deploy those arguments. As is so often the case, my noble friend Lord Cockfield has hit the nail firmly on the head. He is absolutely right. The right and proper way to deal with the treaty which was agreed by the British Prime Minister at Maastricht is to pass it through both Houses of Parliament so that it can be properly debated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Prime Minister would gain a good deal more support and respect if he put the Maastricht Treaty to the British people in a referendum, particularly bearing in mind that the treaty was not

665
available during the general election and that therefore there can be no mandate? Secondly, does he agree that the most frightening thing that came out of the Maastricht Treaty was that the President of the Commission, M. Delors, was going to prepare a 20-page document on subsidiarity? Can we have an assurance that before that is discussed at the Edinburgh Summit this House and another place will have the opportunity to discuss it and to declare upon it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the question of a referendum. I do not think that we need deploy the arguments again. My position and the position of the Government is still the same as it was before and the noble Lord's position, I am sure, is still the same as he has expressed it in the House before. We do not believe that in these circumstances the right way to proceed to the ratification of the treaty is by means of a referendum.
With regard to the question of subsidiarity, on which there has been some progress, I do not believe it would be sensible to discuss in this House documents produced by the Commission which will be the subject of discussion and decision by the Council of Ministers at the summit in Edinburgh until the members of the European Council have reached some conclusions. At that time there is a perfectly proper case for the House to discuss the matter to see whether it approves of what has been done. That seems to be the normal way to proceed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a rather different question. Does he not think that there is some simple significance in the fact that we are discussing this matter while awaiting the commencement of a debate on the position of the coal industry? Is it not a general feeling in the country that one reason why the Government have run into domestic, economic difficulties—I shall not put it any stronger than that—is that Ministers' attention for the past few months has been concentrated not on our domestic problems but on seeking some way to get this foolish and unwarranted Treaty of Maastricht through Parliament? Ministers spend their time hopping from one capital to another or entertaining one foreign minister or another when they should be in contact with their own electorate and probably would have come to different conclusions on some matters. Finally, when it was suggested to the Prime Minister that he should pay more attention to coal, is it not true that he sent another dinner invitation to the Chancellor of Germany?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, on the narrow point as to why we are talking about this issue now, I have to tell my noble friend that there was a request for the Statement that was to be made in another place to be repeated in this Chamber. The reason we are not currently discussing coal is that we are dealing with the Statement the repetition of which was requested by this House. I do not feel that I should apologise for that fact.
666
Moreover, I do not accept for one minute the proposition that in some way the very great difficulties that the country and the economy, along with many other countries in the world, are experiencing as a result of this very difficult world recession have been neglected in any way because of the discussions over Maastricht. Indeed, 60 per cent. of the exports of this country are with our Community partners. The completion of the Single European Act, and of the GATT talks in which the European Community is negotiating as a bloc, is fundamental in seeking to make progress with regard to the recession. Therefore, contrary to what my noble friend says, I believe that absolutely the opposite is the case: the talks and discussions on Maastricht are most vital for the future of the British economy and for the rest of the world.

The Coal Industry
4.53 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos rose to move to resolve, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to hold a thorough independent inquiry into the future of the coal industry before proceeding with either their original proposals or those announced on 19th October and to publish the outcome.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friends and I welcome this opportunity to debate the crisis in the coal industry. I know that that view is shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House. I have been asked to make it clear that the debate does not take place in government time, but on a day when legislation would have priority. That is the wording in our Standing Orders but not in those of another place. However, it is a point that should be recorded.
We are passing through one of the most difficult and anxious periods of this century. I believe that it is the duty of us all, regardless of political affiliation, to assist in resolving the problem and in getting the country back on an even keel. The people of this country have, for several months, felt a sense of insecurity about the future. I regret to say that the Government's record in tackling our economic problems, the difficulties arising from the Maastricht Treaty and our relations with our partners in Europe, has been totally inadequate. I do not recall a period, certainly not in my political life, when a government have lost the people's confidence so swiftly and to such an extent.
It is quite extraordinary that, on the eve of the Birmingham Summit under British presidency, the Government should announce a pit-closure programme involving the sacking of over 30,000 miners. It is not enough for Mr. Heseltine to express "anguish" and "dismay" as he has done—I believe that those were his words. He was seriously lacking in imagination if he could not envisage the anguish of the mining community and, indeed, of people in all walks of life from Chesterfield to Cheltenham.
Further, it is inconceivable that an announcement of such critical importance could he made without a full discussion in Cabinet and, in our view at least,

667
extensive consultation with those concerned in the coal industry. As a former Secretary of State for Wales, I found difficulty in believing that Mr. David Hunt was not aware until the following morning of how many pits were being closed in Wales, although the industry which had been the backbone of the Principality's economy for so long was being virtually destroyed. Mr. Heseltine admitted that the Welsh Secretary was not aware that the Point of Ayr colliery (the only one left in North Wales with its important liquefaction plant) was to be shut down, although it now turns out 555,000 tonnes of coal per annum. But then, it does that with only 480 splendid miners who are told that they arc to lose their jobs. If I had been treated like that when I was Secretary of State for Wales, I would have resigned.
But let me repeat—and here the Prime Minister must take the responsibility—no one thought it necessary to ensure that the full Cabinet was assembled to be informed or to discuss such a devastating policy involving one of the country's most important industries. I had heard that it was a Cabinet of "chums". Where were the chums last week when close Cabinet understanding was absolutely essential in the interests of the nation? Therefore, it is against a background of indignation and disbelief and a sense of injustice that this debate is being held. I believe that that was reflected in the House yesterday when noble Lords on all sides expressed their deep feelings about the closures.
Before 1 turn to the Government's amended proposals, made yesterday in another place, I should like to make some general remarks about the coal industry which are very relevant to our discussion today. If the closures as originally announced proceed in the new year after the moratorium there will be very serious consequences for the British people. There will be a waste of more than £1 billion of public money in keeping people out of work. There will be higher prices as consumers and industry are forced to rely on electricity supplied from the "dash for gas", which is in any case uneconomic. Next, this country's rich coal resources will be lost and, finally, our balance of payments must inevitably suffer.
In the attempt that Mr. Heseltine and others are making to justify their closure policy they omit to tell us the good things about British coal. They must also be put on the record. British deep-mine coal is the cheapest in Western Europe. On average, our coal is half the cost of that from our main EC competitors; that is, Germany and Spain. We should note that no production subsidies are paid to British deep mines, whereas German mines receive an average subsidy of £38 per tonne. Again, our miners do not get the credit for increased productivity which has been 150 per cent. in the past 10 years.
Let me make it plain again that our deep mines are the most technologically advanced coal mines in the world. Britain is exporting new mining technologies worldwide. Those are among the mines that will be closed. The best mines in the world will he shut down, and the finest miners in the world will be thrown on the scrapheap without proper consultation, and without a Cabinet debate. It is one of the most callous
668
and cruel acts proposed by any government in this country for many decades. It is for that reason that we are making our protest, and making it with all the conviction that we can command.
Government spokesmen have been looking back to the 1950s and 1960s and the closures which took place then. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, mentioned that in her speech yesterday. I recall the time well, and, as Secretary of State for Wales, set up a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Melvyn Rosser to study the arguments for and against every proposed closure in Wales at that time. It was a public exercise, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said yesterday, and it was also a period of continuous full employment when alternative jobs were available.
Yesterday's Statement by Mr. Heseltine does not remove our fears. It could be no more than a postponement of the closures for two or three months. In our exchanges here we made it plain that an independent inquiry into the basic facts behind the Government's energy strategy is essential. The consultation now offered by the President of the Board of Trade is totally unsatisfactory.
We have already had consultations on this subject. We were told several months ago that the Government were holding full consultations during the summer. Were they inadequate, and, if so, why? If they were adequate what is the point of repeating them now? From experience, I would hazard a guess that the consultation that the Government are offering will in no way compensate for the full, independent inquiry into current and future energy strategy which their mishandling of the pit closure announcement would indicate has never been more urgently needed than it is today.
The case for such an inquiry is underlined by the general tone and content of yesterday's Statement. What was clear about that was not just the Government's cynical attempts to buy off their own Back Benchers in another place—Back Benchers who were justifiably concerned about what the closures would mean for the future of British industry, and, in some cases for their constituencies—but also the fact that the Government still find the arguments for pit closures compelling. Mr. Heseltine still thinks that he is right.
In view of that, how can the Government seriously expect that they should be allowed to go down the same route again? Their view of consultation is to dictate the terms of reference, determine who is consulted and decide what weight should be attached to the responses. In effect, they will be judge and jury in their own court. That is not acceptable. This Government do not have the credentials to act as an independent tribunal. After all, both the Prime Minister and Mr. Heseltine have made it very clear that their minds are made up.
In effect, the Government are shamelessly trying to use the consultation processes which they had previously discarded as a means of camouflaging the pit closures. This Government can say what they want about consultation, but the fact remains that the miners, their families and their communities have a very real fear that the Government are merely

669
undertaking the most questionable of public relations tricks and will, in due course, shut the pits down regardless of any consultation that may take place over the next few weeks and months.
To satisfy a deeply worried nation, the Government must launch an independent inquiry which will consider all relevant issues in a constructive and open-minded way. That should examine the basic issues covering the costs of electricity generation and, in particular, the relative costs of coal, gas and nuclear energy; the cost of imported coal; the total cost of the proposed pit closures; and the total cost of keeping the pits open.
In a parliamentary democracy no Cabinet Minister, or group of chosen Ministers, has the right to implement a policy of that significance, which throws thousands out of work, destroys whole communities and decimates one of our greatest industries, without respect for public opinion. That action is contrary to all we believe in, and the least the Government can do is to set up an independent inquiry. They will be judged not only tomorrow but by history on their reaction to that demand. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to hold a thorough independent inquiry into the future of the coal industry before proceeding with either their original proposals or those announced on 19th October and to publish the outcome.—(Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.)
5.6 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, your Lordships have cause to he grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for tabling his Motion today so that we can have this opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on the coal industry. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to put the Government's views on these important matters. I shall seek to explain to the House why I do not believe that an independent inquiry is the best way to proceed.
Some of your Lordships may be aware that I had, in a former ministerial role, some responsibilities for these matters. I oversaw the completion of the privatisation of the electricity industry. I also initiated preparatory work on the privatisation of British Coal. I should like therefore to record that I very much share the regret that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has expressed in another place that British Coal had to reach the decision to announce last week so many pit closures and job losses. I regret all pit closures and all job losses but it is particularly regrettable that many of those miners who stood by the nation in the 1984–85 strike should lose their jobs.
To debate the Motion, I believe that the House should have a clear understanding of the Government's energy objectives. It is the Government's energy policy to achieve, through promoting competition and developing competitive markets: secure energy supplies at the lowest possible prices; diversity of supply and in decision making; meeting the customer's needs with maximum efficiency; and maximising the economic exploitation
670
of the UK's energy resources, while at the same time meeting the growing requirements of environmental policy.
It is the nature of a market that diversified decision-making replaces central economic planning. A competitive market ensures the greatest possible downward pressures on price. It is the Government's conviction that it is the competitive market which provides the best prospects for providing the cheapest possible sustainable electricity prices for customers.
We did not, of course, create a fully competitive market in an instant out of the former Central Electricity Generating Board. Rather, we planned for competition to be increased progressively in an orderly fashion. We are therefore currently in a transitional period. Before April 1990 there was no real competition at all; by 1998 most of the restrictions, limitations and transitional arrangements will be at an end.
It is unreasonable to say that because we do not yet have full competition the market is not working. Indeed, the main transitional feature—the creation of the franchise market where regional electricity companies have a monopoly in the supply to domestic and smaller industrial and commercial users until 1998—was created specifically with the needs of the coal industry in mind.
The franchise part of the market enabled the electricity industry to sign contracts for coal for the first three years after privatisation. Its continuation until 1998 provides a stable basis for the negotiation of further long-term coal contracts ensuring that the coal industry is given the benefit of an eight-year transitional period to full competition.
The coal industry is in decline throughout Western Europe. The former industries in the Netherlands and Belgium have closed completely. The French industry is a fraction of its former size. The German industry, so often quoted as a model, is proving so enormously expensive to its government that closures and job losses are planned. German production fell by 20 per cent. in the 1980s and the rate of decline is expected to accelerate over the next decade. Heavy subsidy never means job security. Subsidy cannot restrain the trend towards diversification into other fuels which can be cheaper, more efficient and less environmentally damaging than coal.
I should say that I fully recognise and appreciate the considerable achievements British Coal has made in increasing productivity and reducing costs since the 1984 strike. I have gone on record on many occasions to praise those achievements. But the improvements have to be set in perspective. When I was Secretary of State for Energy I commissioned Boyds, the international mining consultants, to undertake an independent review of British Coal's mining operations. Boyds found—and British Coal's management accepted the analysis—that British Coal had not yet become truly competitive and there remained substantial opportunities to reduce costs and improve efficiency.
Against that background it is our policy that coal should compete on a level playing field in the energy market. It is of course important to ensure that the

671
playing field is indeed level and I shall come, in a moment, to the safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that is so, and the steps we are taking in the review to ensure that the safeguards are working.
It is not the case that the Government are unfairly favouring nuclear over coal. Let me make it clear what the fossil fuel levy is for. The levy contributes towards the liability to pay for past costs. Avoidable costs of nuclear generation are low. The unavoidable costs, including particularly decommissioning costs, would have to be met even if there were no further generation of nuclear electricity. It therefore makes sense to continue to run the stations provided they are safe and economic. The costs met by the levy have not been created by the privatisation of the electricity industry. Rather, they have always been there; privatisation has simply made it clear what the costs were.
I have no wish to defend the stance that governments of all shades have adopted over the years towards our nuclear policy. When I arrived in the department many decisions had been made by different governments that I found hard to understand. I would, however, like to claim credit for identifying for the first time the true costs of nuclear power. Having done that, I also identified a way, acceptable to the European Commission, of progressively phasing out the subsidies which had been paid for years and which had been hidden by the Central Electricity Generating Board through its bulk tariff arrangements. I realise a considerable number of your Lordships know a great deal about energy. They will appreciate that what I have said is absolutely right.
Let me turn to gas. All the companies who have looked at the options for new generating capacity since privatisation have turned to gas. It is the economic choice for new plant and, for the major generators, an important element of their commercial strategy for meeting the progressively reducing emission limits for sulphur dioxide set out in the Commission's directive.
I know noble Lords have expressed concern about the future availability of gas and about its price. But our North Sea reserves are substantial—equivalent to up to 50 years of current UK consumption. And in each of the past four years we have discovered more gas than we have extracted. We have a pipeline link to the vast Norwegian reserves and the Government are actively encouraging other pipeline links to the Continent to improve the security of our gas supply.
As for gas prices, our best estimates—published by the DTI earlier this month as Energy Paper 59—are that gas prices in the year 2000 will be between 5 per cent. lower and 20 per cent. higher in real terms compared with 1990. Our estimates for world coal prices over the same period are for a range of 7 per cent. lower and 15 per cent. higher. Now, obviously, there is a deal of uncertainty about such forecasts. But the basic message is that we do not see gas prices rising relative to coal to any significant extent until well into the next century; and of course, the higher the gas price the higher the level our economic gas reserves in the North Sea will be.
I have explained that the electricity market is in transition to greater competition. I always recognized
672
that in the absence of full competition customers' interests needed to be safeguarded in two ways; first, by the imposition of real obligations on the electricity companies and, secondly, by the creation of an independent regulator responsible for enforcing the obligations and monitoring the operation of the market to ensure that it works and that, if need be, the regulatory obligations on companies are changed and strengthened. It was in recognition of the fact that the regional electricity companies have a monopoly over the franchise that we placed an obligation on them—set out at Condition 5 of their licences—to purchase electricity
"at the best effective price reasonably obtainable having regard to the sources available".
Decisions by regional electricity companies to purchase electricity from gas-fired power stations are therefore commercial decisions by them, taken in the full knowledge that they will have to justify them against the regulatory economic purchasing obligation in their licences. They will have to defend those decisions to the regulator and take the consequences if they are wrong. Professor Littlechild, as Director General, is already well advanced with this review of the RECs' contractual decisions. I appreciate that Professor Littlechild carries a heavy responsibility but I am confident that he has the full powers and will exercise them to ensure that there is no abuse by the regional electricity companies of their position to the disadvantage of coal.
Some have suggested that the future of the pits British Coal planned to close could be assured if imports of coal were stopped. That is far from being the case. About half of UK imports—of 19.5 million tonnes in 1991—are of anthracite and coking coal which are in short supply in this country. Steam coal for power generation accounts for little more than a third of imports—about 7 million tonnes—and is expected to fall over the next few years. Imported coal is available at prices much lower than it can be produced here. Imported coal, including coal from opencast sites in Australia and the USA, is available at 80 pence to £1 per Gigajoule, compared with British Coal's average production cost of £1.75 per Gigajoule. Restricting coal imports would be damaging to consumers. It would be contrary to our GATT and other international trade obligations. I am confident that British Coal can compete with imported coal at our power stations inland. I believe that when new contracts are signed with the generators they will imply a share reduction in imports to power stations.
Of the 88 million tonnes of coal that British Coal currently produces, 65 million tonnes go to the electricity generators in England and Wales. It is likely that British Coal's share of that market will decline to at most 40 million tonnes as from next April. It was against that background that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade agreed last week that British Coal should announce that it would cease production at 31 pits, with the loss of up to 30,000 jobs.
The Government have recognised the concern at the speed of the run-down and about the very great difficulties it would cause to the communities

673
concerned. The Government therefore announced yesterday that, for the time being, British Coal would be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 pits, which have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. The Government have asked British Coal to introduce a moratorium on all other closures and redundancies until early in the New Year.
The Government have announced that during the moratorium on further pit closures they and British Coal will set out the full case for the planned closures; the Government will provide an opportunity for Parliament to debate the issues; and the Government will carry out a full and open review.
There would be little point in having a pause and moratorium on the proposed pit closures if it was merely a device for getting the Government off the hook for today or tomorrow. The purpose of the pause is to look again at the issues and to report to Parliament as to whether the case for the closures has been made, or whether ways and means can be found to increase the use of coal and as far as possible to lessen the impact. It would be wrong to he too optimistic about the outcome of that review but also wrong to be too pessimistic.
The Government accept what British Coal has told them about the unanswerable case for closing 10 pits, but they will not be closed until my right honourable friend has been satisfied that the full consultation process has been completed. If there are bids from third parties for any of the pits the Government have asked British Coal to consider them carefully. British Coal has a duty to consider applications and responsible organisations seeking licences to mine coal and the Government have been assured that it will continue to discharge that duty responsibly.
In his review my right honourable friend will want to cover the full range of issues. Among other things he will want, first, to look at each pit and ask himself the question whether the case for closure has been made.
Secondly, the Government will be looking for further discussions with the generators and with the 12 regional electricity companies. We shall need to be satisfied that the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed. We shall also be looking again to ensure that no company is abusing its market position.
Thirdly, the Government will want to look at the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and at the power stations, and ask the questions: are they adequate for our needs and are any plans to run them down sensibly phased?
Fourthly, we shall be looking again at the switch to gas. There is no question but that gas is cheaper. But as I made clear to the Energy Select Committee in another place in January—and I put it absolutely crudely so that there was no doubt about it—if the regional electricity companies have an interest in a gas-fired power station which is more expensive than the electricity they can buy from another source, in my judgment they are in breach of their licence conditions. I said that on 15th January, and also a great deal more. People need to look at that.
674
Fifthly, we shall wish to consider whether it is sensible to mothball some closing pits or to release them to private operators. I know that some private companies are looking at the potential.
Sixthly, my right honourable friend will want to look at the proposed level of imports and satisfy himself that it is appropriate.
I believe that as a result of this thorough and wide-ranging review we shall have a significantly smaller coal industry than we have at present, but it will still be a substantial industry. It will have the best prospects for stability of employment and production that have been seen for decades because it will have emerged from a very hard-headed analysis of the market.
The Government recognise the very serious social consequences of closures for the mining community. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade made that clear in the Statement he made yesterday. He set out a substantial package of assistance measures to provide training and counselling and assistance for those made redundant to find new jobs, as well as longer term measures to ensure the provision of modern industrial and commercial premises. The measures also included new enterprise zones and assistance to attract new investment and employment to the areas affected. There were measures, too, to help small firms in those areas. Additional money from the European Commission will also be focused on those areas.
Altogether the new package amounts to substantial new money for those areas. Wherever possible we shall work through local regeneration bodies where those exist, but we shall want to see the measures of assistance closely focused to bring real help quickly to those areas. The Government have therefore announced that my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester will have a role as national co-ordinator and adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Office. He, of course, brings considerable experience to bear on these problems, having played a major part in the regeneration of the economy of South Wales after the coal closures there.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he will be aware that in addition to the redundancies and the consequences of the closures certain other industries are affected. Sixty-five per cent. of British Rail freight transport is coal transport. Am Ito understand that the provisions which are now being made will also be spread to other industries? Will the effect on British Rail freight transport and the subsequent privatisation be taken into account?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the measures which are proposed in order to find new jobs, to establish new enterprise zones, to provide training and so on, are to assist people who lose their jobs. They are not intended only to assist miners but also to assist others in the areas who are affected. We shall obviously want to concentrate the maximum amount of help in those areas where there is the maximum difficulty. One anticipates that that will he in the area where there was

675
the largest number of miners. However, we recognise that there are wider consequences and that there are some consequences for British Rail.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to comment more fully on a couple of points which were raised by noble Lords yesterday, and in particular the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in relation to the use of the Government's 40 per cent. shareholding. It was suggested that we should use the Government's 40 per cent. shareholding to direct the generating companies to act in the national interest in buying coal rather than in the companies' interest. I have already indicated that my right honourable friend will want to talk to them to see whether they have properly taken all such factors into account. However, I ought to make it quite clear that the directors of a company are legally bound to act in the interests of the company and all its shareholders. The suggestion that the Government should require them to act otherwise is to require them to breach their common law fiduciary duties to shareholders.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that suggestion, I think that I am correct in saying that the word "direct" was used by him and not by me. From my small experience of what 1 read in the newspapers about what happens when someone acquires a reasonable shareholding, which may be only 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of a company, it is very easy to persuade the directors, without directing anybody, as to what they should do. I suggest that the same technique might be applied. That would not put anybody outside their legal obligations.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is on slightly tricky ground. The fact that some unnamed people acquire a percentage of a company and use it in ways which they think are beneficial in some cases and in others not, is not the point at issue. The point is that one cannot use a shareholding in a company either by requiring directors or seeking representation on the board other than on behalf of the whole body of shareholders, not one particular group of shareholders—whether it be 40 per cent. or 15 per cent., or, I have to say, for the nation as a whole—if it is to the detriment of some of the shareholders in the company. The Government might by legislation be able to do that, but certainly not by using their shareholding.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me, is he putting a legal proposition to the House that it is illegal for a shareholder to represent to directors that the directors should behave in the national interest?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I certainly was not putting forward that proposition, and I would be extremely surprised if any analysis of my words indicated that I put any such misguided suggestion to the House. I was making a point, which I thought was helpful, in response to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, yesterday. It is a very serious point which concerns many people in the nation. They believe that because the Government have a 40 per
676
cent. shareholding they can use it in whatever way possible to say that the company will act in a certain way that is to the benefit of the nation. But if it is to the detriment of the 60 per cent. of shareholders which the Government do not control then I have to say—and the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench knows that in this respect I am essentially right—to operate in such a way is not a proposition.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House what is the point of the Government having a shareholding at all in such an enterprise if they are not allowed to use it in the public interest?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the position is that when the companies were privatised the Government owned 100 per cent. of the shares. The Government had to determine—and if they had not determined it in a satisfactory way the Public Accounts Committee might have had something to say about it—the best way to realise that holding as part of the privatisation process. The advice we were given was that the right way to proceed was to sell 60 per cent. into the market and retain 40 per cent. for another year or two; the reason being that our advisers felt that the market had not fully appreciated the value of the shares and that to sell 60 per cent. and keep 40 per cent. in the taxpayers' interests was the best way to proceed. We gave certain undertakings to the companies at that time as to the way in which we would use the shares, but we certainly did not have to say that we would use the shares to try to persuade the directors to breach their common law fiduciary duties to their shareholders.
Next came the suggestion that we should increase the market for coal by blocking the import of electricity from France. I suggest that that is neither realistic nor desirable. We are striving to complete a single market in Europe, not to create new barriers to trade. I think that was one of the decisions which the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Benn, had some doings with when he was Secretary of State for Energy. I am sure he was right to do it at the time and it would be contrary to all our international obligations to try to stop it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that the review should be an independent inquiry. The final decision on whether to approve any closures is the responsibility of the Government. It is not a responsibility they can avoid. In those circumstances, it must be for the Government to conduct the review. My right honourable friend has made it clear that there will be wide-ranging consultation in the course of that review, and I have set out in more detail the issues that he will want to address. My right honourable friend has made it clear that Parliament will be given a full opportunity to debate the findings of his review. There will be the fullest opportunity for those concerned to make their views known. I can assure your Lordships that those views will be considered very carefully indeed before a final decision is reached. Therefore, I have to say to the House that I cannot support the noble Lord's Motion on the Order Paper today.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before participating in this important debate I feel I should declare that apart from the long period in which I served in the coal industry I am still actively involved in a fuel company which deals with various forms of energy.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in introducing this debate so movingly used words such as "anguish", "indignation" and "disbelief". Indeed, those were the feelings of the whole country when the Government's original announcement about closing more than half the existing pits in the country was made. The Government have since modified that, and it is the modified proposition that we are here to debate. We have just had a detailed response by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, using his considerable experience from his previous activity as Secretary of State for Energy.
Before expressing my opinion—which will be in full support of the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that there should be an independent inquiry—I should like to draw attention to what strikes me as being an important issue of timing. The Government have said that there will be a moratorium and during that period only 10 of the pits mentioned will be closed, on the basis of the normal closure procedures. To use the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the remainder would be deferred until "a full and open review" had been conducted. Parliament would then debate the issue and decisions would be taken. What worries me is that in the Statement yesterday the President of the Board of Trade said that during the moratorium there would be time for negotiations between British Coal and the two electricity generating companies to continue and, it was hoped, be concluded on the new coal contracts. If those contracts are concluded before the inquiry is completed and we have had our full discussions we will be wasting our time, because if the contracts are based on the 40 million tonnes of coal which is being so freely talked about now there will be very little left to discuss. The matter would have been decided. It is the fall from 65 million supplied this year to 40 million next year that has led to the whole controversy. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Baroness when she responds whether the Government have taken that into account. If we are to have an open debate at the end of the day—whenever the investigation has been completed and however it is conducted—the issue must not have been determined beforehand. I feel that this contract must not be concluded until we have completed our deliberations on the Government's findings. That is the first point I make.
I turn to the issue of whether the inquiry should be conducted by the Government on the lines that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has pointed out or whether it should be an independent inquiry which is the subject of the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. There is no doubt that it would be not only in the interests of the country but of the Government if this were an independent inquiry. The Government are caught in a very difficult issue. What would be a better way of resolving the issue than to say
678
that there should be an independent body to whom the Government, the coal industry, the electricity companies and any other responsible body could give evidence? All of that could be sifted out and conclusions and recommendations made. Those could be fully debated and action taken upon them. I feel that there is an overwhelming case for that.
I listened carefully to the view of the noble Lord the Leader of the House about what energy policy should be. I thought it an impeccable statement. The noble Lord covered all the issues. The problem lies in discovering who is meant to be responsible for carrying out such a policy. In my mind there is some doubt.
If one considers the role of government in recent years in the formulation of energy policy, we find that it has been more noticeable in some respects than in others. There is clearly a policy for nuclear. The raison d'être for that was explained to us. The policy for nuclear is to maintain it at its present level and there is a measure of subsidisation to cover certain unavoidable costs such as decommissioning. That is very clear. At present regrettably there appears to be a government policy for coal; namely to diminish coal. But there is no discernible policy in any other regard.
There is not a policy that is entirely coherent. Some body should look at the whole issue and ask whether there should not be a more coherent policy. The Government's policy seems to develop as issues arise. There does not seem to be any clear, coherent, long-term strategy for energy.
At the moment many people are playing a part in the evolution of energy policy. There are two regulators: for gas and electricity. They have enormous powers but they deploy them very differently. The gas regulator, Sir James McKinnon, is very proactive. He has taken a major role in trying to introduce competition into the privatised gas sector, despite the fact that the gas industry was privatised in a way which left the monopoly intact. On the other hand, the electricity regulator appears to be much more reactive. He has said that the inquiry which he is at present conducting into the impact of the contracts for the purchase of electricity by the regional electricity boards could take quite a long time, perhaps a year or so. That has appeared after the issue has culminated in a major row. So we are not absolutely clear about the role of the regulators.
But in the whole area of the formulation of energy policy the companies play a major part. There is the very large corporation represented by British Gas and there are the two major generators. What they do has an enormous impact upon the market and the formulation of policy. Is it the market place that is determining policy? No, not at all. As the noble Lord said, we are in an indeterminate position and in so far as concerns electricity we have nothing approaching a proper market situation. He said that that would not come about until the year 1998 and that during that period there would be a phasing-in of competition.
We who feel that the coal industry is not being properly treated say that the coal industry's position should be phased in during that period. I do not regard it as phasing-in to diminish the amount of coal

679
supplied to the power stations from 65 million tonnes in one year to 40 million tonnes in the next year and then to reduce that amount to 25 million tonnes within two years thereafter. That is not "phasing in".
We are bound to accept that there should be some diminution in the supply of coal to power stations. But let us take advantage of the period up to 1998 to phase it in a way which would not result in the repercussions at present envisaged. That would be the purpose of such an inquiry. We need also to ascertain beyond any further doubt the relative costs of producing electricity from different basic sources of energy. There is much argument about the comparison between gas fired and existing coal fired stations, nuclear installations and so on. That should be clearly exposed in an inquiry.
The question of coal imports has been raised. I had much experience of coal imports in my time. They were at times very economic but sometimes they were very expensive. I recall a time in the history of the National Coal Board when it was forced by the Government to import coal and pay the difference between the home price and the higher imported price. So these things change. We can certainly envisage that, compared with the present situation in which we are all in the depths of a recession virtually throughout the world, there could be a period ahead—most of us are, I hope, optimistic enough to presume so—when the economic situation will change.
There have also been changes in the value of currency. That has immediately pushed up the price of imported coal by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. On top of that comes the impact on the balance of payments. The whole issue of coal imports needs to be examined objectively and openly by the inquiry. In addition, there is the position of research into energy. Unfortunately, experience of the privatisation of the electricity industry has shown that the amount of research previously undertaken by the Electricity Council has been substantially reduced. The new generating companies reached a decision that there was a certain amount of research undertaken which they did not consider was in their commercial interest and so was eliminated.
What is to happen about coal research? What is to happen to the important aspect of clean coal technology on which much of the future of the coal industry could depend? The Grimethorpe project, in which much work was being carried out on that technology, has been closed down. So far as I can tell, very little work is now being conducted. Even less would be done after possible privatisation. That whole area needs to be looked at.
I believe that there are a variety of issues which could be put to such a body of inquiry, issues which need to be addressed. We need to examine them in order to have an informed debate at the end of the process of inquiry. It would be in the Government's interest to have that done by an independent body. For that reason I support the Motion on the Order Paper.
5.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, the Anglican liturgy can surprise us with the aptness of the scriptures that it shows. This morning I found myself reading the passage: a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill and a time to heal.
Let us consider the time to plant. I declare an interest in the debate. The diocese of Sheffield was founded for coal. Sheffield is a steel city. But the lands that we cover, stretching down to Goole, are coal lands. Technological improvements and market demand led 70 years or so ago to the rapid development of the Doncaster coalfield. It was that which made people feel a need for a diocese and therefore a bishop in Sheffield.
That coalfield was a remarkable development. After the age of Satanic mills, fine villages were built near to the old villages—the old, tiny country villages with their small limestoned churches which, up to then, had marked that land. Now we have new Maltby, New Edlington, new Bentley, New Rossington and Woodlands, villages built for coal. They are very fine places. But they are communities built for nothing other than coal. That is seen most dramatically in New Rossington. There is only one road into New Rossington. Drive straight along it and one is in the pit yard. To the left or right are streets of housing. There would be found St. Luke's Church, the Roman Catholic church, the cinema (now closed) and the shops. It was a community built for coal.
I referred to a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted. It would be folly to maintain that what was there once must be there always. Almost daily I walk my dog by the water wheels in the Rivelin Valley which once polished the knives of Sheffield industry. Now they are the haunt literally of coot and hern, and my dog and me. We can understand that coal runs out. We can see that in the diocese of Sheffield. The situation is quite different around Barnsley and the Dearne Valley. But how confusing is the situation for those who live in New Rossington, new Bentley and new Maltby. In the past few years not only have they been urged time and again to improve productivity and to produce more coal, and they have done so, but also British Coal, no doubt through the Government, has spent unbelievable amounts of money upgrading and improving the collieries.
The figures do not mean much to me. I am a little nervous about speaking in this debate among so many experts. I have been given a figure of £114 million for Maltby. The new machinery at Bentley—another of the pits to be closed—is hardly out of its wrappers; it is yet hardly dirty. Millions have been spent to make those pits super pits, with all the infinite resources of coal. We are told that economic necessity and market forces leave no alternative to their closure.
I could accept what has been said about retraining and massive investment if I believed either that it was the right response to the needs of the people of those communities and that there really was no market or need for their coal, or that there was the remotest chance of economic regeneration for New Rossington

681
and of new jobs being found for the people of Maltby, Bentley and the remainder. If economic investment could have solved unemployment in south Yorkshire I cannot believe that any Government would have been so hard hearted as to deny us it. Such economic investment cannot bring new life to those communities. The end of coal is the end of those communities.
Is it inevitable? I listen to the representatives of the Government telling me how necessary it is. I listen to many other voices saying that the Government have got their figures wrong, that we do not need the coal imports—I am sure that we do not—that gas is not the way forward, and that there is not much of it. But we have coal. The balance of payments has been mentioned only once today. We have coal which is comparatively easy to get at in up-to-date pits.
The issue arose when I was at Markham Main. Quite accidentally, I had a meeting at a school that evening. I drove home through Maltby. I saw a great notice outside the colliery saying "Coal—the fuel for the future." It had not long been painted.
Coal is the fuel of the future. If it is not, if what we are being told is the case—that these villages have to be destroyed; that these men have to go on the dole; and that there has to be a rather hopeless attempt at retraining and reinvesting—then we need more convincing arguments than we have been given to date.
My scriptures this morning referred to a time to kill and a time to heal. The statement of last Tuesday was indeed a time to kill. The effect on the people of south Yorkshire was quite unbelievable. Churches Together in South Yorkshire—an ecumenical body—arranged a petition in our churches on Sunday. I have received a phone call telling me that more than 65,000 people signed those petitions, almost one in 10 of the population in an area where few people attend church. We have the lowest church attendance in the British Isles. However, 65,000 people signed that petition urging the Government to reconsider, to inform us more clearly why the decision should be so. We do not wish to see that industry destroyed.
If the proposals of last Tuesday go through, two pits will remain in the diocese of Sheffield: Silverwood and Goldthorpe—Goldthorpe for not much longer. It is a pathetic, sorry future. I refer again to those words: a time to kill and a time to heal. I beg the Government to listen to what has been said and to allow an independent inquiry so that we can clarify the conflicting signals. We have had reference to more investment, more production, and then less; more expansion and then cuts; the price of gas; the need for imports; free trade; the Germans; and the nuclear issue. All those conflicting issues have left us puzzled as to why so much should be invested and then wasted, why so little regard should be given to the true costs of those closures in terms of human lives and in the lives of communities. Somehow or other an independent inquiry might obtain the facts, and might indicate how extraordinary it is that the electricity companies should take decisions which destroy Grimethorpe, Rossington and Bentley without
682
benefit, so far as we can see, either to customers or shareholders, which would make the pill fractionally more palatable.
I grieve to say this. In the statements over the past day or two the Government have made it clear that their minds are made up and will not be changed. I cannot believe that a government inquiry will convince the 65,000 people who signed the petition, never mind the villagers of Rossington and Bentley, that a real, fair and inevitable decision has been taken.
The newspapermen were buzzing around us on Sunday. They went to the leafy suburbs of Sheffield convinced that they would find outraged Tories tearing up the petition and refusing to sign it. Try as they would they could not find one. Without any hesitation, I understand, everyone who was in church in Sunday, and many who were not, made it their business to sign the petition. Those people deserve an independent inquiry so that they can believe that a true, careful decision has been taken. If the price has to be paid by the people of Rossington, Bentley, and Maltby, then at least they have the comfort—poor comfort though it may be—that it is a fair decision and not a forced one.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, whatever view anyone may take of this issue, I am sure that everyone in this House will applaud and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for the way in which he has approached his task today. It is indeed one of a series of remarkable speeches. I must refer to what I thought was a great speech by my leader, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn. Alas, we shall not hear many more speeches from him as our leader but he will be able to look back upon that speech and say that he truly represented the people of Wales.
Your Lordships may well ask—I ask myself—what title I have to speak in a debate of this kind in which so many experts such as the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Haslam, and others will speak with much greater authority than I can about this issue. I got into this situation of feeling that I had to speak this afternoon when I was asked simply because my reaction was that of millions of people: I could not believe my ears when the announcement was made. I felt such a deep sense of outrage about what was being done and proposed. Therefore, I shall have very little to add to your Lordships' deliberations this afternoon other than to express one or two thoughts about the way in which the matter was handled and what should be done.
I have had a connection with the miners for 40 or 50 years since my noble friend Lord Tonypandy took me to the Rhondda nearly 50 years ago to stay in his house with him, the son of a miner. That began my acquaintance with the mining community. Over later years that extended widely because of the constitution and make-up of the Labour Party and the Labour movement. Because of my positions within that, I was thrown into contact both with representatives of the miners—the NUM and other trade unions—and also with the men themselves. Like everybody without exception who comes into contact with those men, in

683
some ways I envied that tremendous loyalty which they had to each other; that tremendous sense of cohesion and cohesiveness and their tremendous loyalty and patriotism. They do not mention Britain 52 times in a speech or anything of that kind; but when the call comes, they go and fight for Britain. They did that in such numbers that they had to be stopped and brought back because we were going to be short of coal.
Therefore, for those reasons I wish to put on record my horror and detestation at the way in which this matter was dealt with. It has shown an almost inconceivable lack of consideration. Public opinion has now won a stay of execution; but from what I heard from Mr. Heseltine on Radio 4 this morning and from what I have heard this afternoon, I am not convinced that in the last resort Mr. Heseltine will be anything other than judge, jury and executioner. For that reason, I support those who have spoken before me who have called for an independent inquiry. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that he should tell the Cabinet that nothing less than that will satisfy millions of decent people in this country.
As to the way in which the matter was carried out, it is one of the most incompetent operations that it has been my lot ever to see. Indeed, in a long parliamentary history over a long period I cannot remember anything that rivals it since what happened as long as four weeks ago when there were four changes of Bank rate in a day. Those examples of incompetence make us doubt whether the Government are not so rattled at present that they are incapable of judging anything other than on the basis of short-term considerations.
The approach that I hear from many Members in the other place and from some Ministers is the most cynical that I have heard. Frankly, their only consideration is whether they will win the vote on Wednesday. "Have we done enough?" That is the phrase. "Should we perhaps include one more pit? Should we say that we shall consult with the Select Committee of the House of Commons?" Those are the kind of considerations which have been openly advanced by Members of the other place. They are asking whether they have done enough to save their skins. That is not good enough.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who I know to be a man of honour and who I know has sensibilities about these matters, that it is his duty to represent those of us—and whatever happens in the vote this evening I believe we are in the majority—who say that it is not good enough to allow Mr. Heseltine with his fixed convictions, with his certainty and dogmatism to conduct the inquiry and to tell us what are the conclusions.
Of course, in the end the Government must take responsibility for what is said. However, Parliament has a right to know what are the arguments that lead to that and not what is the presentation of the case which was made very ably this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. For every statement that he made, for every figure which he gave, there is a challenging figure, there is a different figure. The millions of people whom the Government have deeply
684
offended are entitled to know what is the considered opinion of those who have more objectivity than Ministers who have attached themselves to this course in such a way that they can only change their minds with great loss of face.
When we have seen those facts and the result of such an independent inquiry, then the Government are right to make up their mind. They should then come back to us and tell us what are their conclusions. Parliament can then decide whether or not to support the Government in the conclusions which they have reached. That is the right way to proceed.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that it is important to proceed correctly, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate, for the sake of the Government's good name—because they have to govern for some time yet—and their authority. It is important also to satisfy the miners who are cynical after what they heard yesterday, the public who are dubious about what they heard yesterday and the markets which are uncertain, although perhaps it would be fairer to say disinterested because they do not believe that this measure begins to tackle the fundamental weaknesses which exist in the British economy today.
As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated, such an independent inquiry should go wider than what is, I understand, proposed at present. It should ask what in my view is the basic question: does the interest of the markets and the lowest price coincide with the national interest? That is the overriding question which I believe the right reverend Prelate was asking in his speech this afternoon. I cannot believe that government Ministers, with their present convictions, will address that question.
Is the lowest price for the electricity distributors the best price for the nation to pay? The two are different. I believe that that consideration has been totally neglected in the narrow approach taken by the Government.
Having heard what the Minister said this afternoon and having listened to Mr. Heseltine, I can understand how that incredible decision was made. I did not understand it before, but I think I do now. It is because those Ministers, who were assembled by the Prime Minister, had their own particular interests. All noble Lords who have served in Cabinets will know that what I am about to say is true. Ministers have their own particular interests. Of course every departmental Minister who goes to such a meeting who has a special interest in these matters has his own axe to grind and his own case to put. Each Minister must get the best that he can from the situation. However, I remind your Lordships—and I need not remind all my former colleagues who have served in Cabinets of whatever party or complexion—that the purpose of a Cabinet is not that each Minister should have his way but that each Minister's narrow judgment of an issue should be subjected to the more worldly approach, or more disinterested approach, of their colleagues who have no particular interest in the subject at all. That is the way in which I understand

685
Cabinets should be conducted and that is the fault. It is because that did not happen that this absurd decision has been promulgated by the Cabinet.
The fact that that did not happen calls into question the judgment of the Prime Minister. I can only assume that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was right this afternoon when he said that perhaps the Prime Minister's attention had been distracted by other matters which led him astray. The Cabinet should not only have had before it a report but also considered arguments so that a decision could have been taken. I am bound to say that the ultimate irony of the situation was when I read in the newspapers that Mr. Heseltine reported his decision to the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee. Can anyone imagine anything more ludicrous than that as a substitute for Cabinet government?
I return to the major point. I believe that the Government are suffering—as indeed is much of this country; certainly the electricity industry is suffering from it and the coal industry is a victim of it—from what the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail, called "short-termism". I believe that is an appropriate phrase. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, "these things change". We have seen them change. We have seen the price of oil move up and down. We have seen the price of coal move up and down. We have seen how fashion plays a part—sometimes too much of a part—in governmental decisions.
It is only 10 years ago that the Government Front Bench in this House and in another place were coming to us and Ministers were saying—noble Lords will remember their names—"Of course manufacturing industry is being run down. But look how it is being taken up and replaced by the service industries, by the financial sector of our economy. Those are what matter. Of course manufacturing is going to run down, but it does not matter". I may express that in a colloquial way but that was the tenor of their remarks. What do they say now? What does industry say? What do employers say? They say that we must build up manufacturing as quickly as we can. That is imperative if we are to get the economy moving again.
That was a fashion. This is a fashion. The dash for gas is a fashion. I want to see that fashion exposed. Perhaps it has substance behind it. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, put forward a case. Perhaps that can be demonstrated. However, I do not believe that what has so far been said, together with the contrary statements, is sufficient.
I should like to see the inquiry consider whether it is right to have this duplication of national resources where I am told that we are to be left with an excess capacity of around 50 per cent. I recall many years ago it was thought that a surplus capacity of 17 per cent. in the energy industry was sufficient. What are the capital resources that will be devoted to that surplus of 50 per cent? I want to see a big capital investment programme. There is no point in wasting resources; let us put them to something useful. Let us look at the question of security of supply. I can envisage scenarios (which I shall not put forward for time's sake this afternoon) in which what the Government are
686
proposing could greatly endanger us. We must consider the conservation of national resources, and above all the social cost of devastating communities in the way we were reminded of this afternoon.
I trust that the Government can be required to think again. It was only public opinion that won the day and secured us this reprieve. Public opinion can do it again. I believe that the Government properly yielded to public opinion and can be required so to do again.
Finally, the short-term thinking, which in my view led the Government astray on this issue, is to be found also in the thinking concerning our national economy. We shall continue to fail as a nation until we have a defined policy—quite apart from overcoming inflation—which makes a successful economy through an enlarged manufacturing base; through a balance of payments that is sufficient; through a substantial reduction in interest rates; through setting a standard for sterling either in or out of the ERM. Tell us what is required in the way of taxation, whether higher or not. Remove the prevalent pessimism that has overtaken the nation not only because of the incompetence of the Government on these specific issues, but also because the nation does not see clearly where the Government are going, at least on this issue. Follow what I believe to be the majority opinion in this country and set up an inquiry which can look into what was done by the Government. Consider the national interests regarding the future. Make up your minds what you then want to bring to us and we shall look at it in the light of the best way to help our country.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords who heard the right reverend Prelate were moved by the speech that he made. However, I should like to put the issue of the closures into a rather different perspective. There is a danger of being carried away on the great emotional wave that broke over this country on the announcement of the closures and perhaps of disregard of the hard economic facts and the matters necessary for the Government to make the right decisions and to meet the social consequences that flow from the closures.
The closing of mines has been going on for generations at a vastly greater rate than anything that has happened in 1992. It is partly inherent in the mining industry to know that closures will occur when pits become exhausted or when the cost of extraction makes them uneconomic. It is something which miners have become accustomed to living with. They know more about it than anyone else. They work on the seams; they know what it is like and how quickly the coal is being exhausted.
The fault in this instance was the way in which the decision was handled. On reflection, my noble friend will probably agree that elements of that were regrettable. I can understand the desire to announce all the closures at one time; to try to indicate to everyone where they stand and not to achieve a result,

687
as has been suggested by press reports, where a number live with massive uncertainty in an atmosphere of a somewhat lingering death.
It is known in all coalmining areas that further contraction will take place as it has taken place for countless years past. There is no secret in that regard. The reports regarding the requirements of coal have been widely publicised. The numbers of pits that will be left open by the end of the 1990s or indeed today have been widely publicised by the press. Neither the miners nor their unions—the NUM and the UDM—were unaware of that. They have excellent people who are able to guide them and explain what is happening and what the forecasts are.
It would therefore be wrong to say that the closures were sudden shocks. However, I particularly welcome yesterday's Statement that made it clear there would be some form of moratorium and, above all, full consultation before the pits are closed. One of the unfortunate aspects of recent days has been that that consultation process was omitted. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, an extremely sophisticated consultation process works in the pits. It has always worked fairly and effectively. The pros and cons are discussed, including the amount of coal left, the cost of extraction and conflicting fuels. By the use of that consultation process—this is the inquiry to which we should direct our minds in the immediate future—it should be possible to justify or not the closure of the pits that were nominated.
There is a danger of becoming confused in regard to the longer term issue of energy policy. The Government have a duty to announce their energy policy—I am sure that they have one—and it should be widely debated in this House and in Parliament generally. That is a form of longer term inquiry which should replace any independent inquiry put forward in the Motion before us. There are many experts in this House who could give judgments on the energy policy produced by the Government. Let us have full and wide-ranging debate on that, on the merits of various fuels and on the economic aspects that will come from closure or reduction of one kind or another.
Perhaps I can suggest the headings that may be considered in a social policy document. They have a bearing on the events of the past few days and the closures that are so much in the news today.
The most important consideration has to be security of supply. We need to be sure that we retain the basic supply of United Kingdom coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy, all of which we are very fortunate to have in this country. We should ensure that those supplies are retained so that we have security of supply. At the same time we have to be mindful of our obligations under GATT. We cannot say that we will not have any supplies coming in from overseas, that we will use our own and no one else's. So a balance has to be struck.
Secondly, our energy policy must take into consideration the cost of energy. Energy supplies all our industry; it turns all the wheels in factories up and down the country. The domestic cost of electricity goes through into the RPI, into wage packets and again into industrial cost. The suggestion that we
688
should pay whatever is necessary to keep our mines open must inevitably put upon electricity a cost which would inflict a grave penalty upon our industry and, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, upon our manufacturing base. We must watch that too.
It is no good saying to the thousands of workers who would be displaced—and I am talking about some industries which I know quite well, such as the chemical refractories or cement industries—"I am sorry we are putting you all out of work. We cannot compete against imports, or overseas, because we have to pay so much more for our energy than they do in France or Germany." That is a factor we must bear in mind. We must not be carried away by emotion which in the short term may preserve a small number of jobs in the mining industry but lose many thousands of jobs beyond that.
There are also environmental considerations. Sulphur, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer are all consequences of certain fuels, coal in particular. We have to develop long term energy which is not dependent upon finite resources. There has been criticism of our subsidising nuclear power but without that there will come a time when our descendants will say "We have run out of oil, gas and coal and have nothing left", while other countries have developed their non-finite sources of supply. Therefore, it is right that we should continue to develop long term sources of energy.
Our energy policy must also take into account the social consequences. By that I mean not just the comparison between the miners who work bent double in some of our pits extracting coal and those at the enormous coal faces which I and many other noble Lords will have seen in many parts of the United States, and also in Australia, where there are hundreds of feet of sheer coal face being open cast. The contrast between that extraction of coal and that being obtained from mines underground is vast.
I find it unhappy to have to press miners to retain positions where they are working underground in conditions—fine as some of the equipment may be, as the right reverend Prelate said—which are considerably worse than those in places from which we can get many of our supplies.
We have to look at the impact that closures may have on close-knit communities. The mining communities are close knit. We do not just have to consider the miners who, after all, have very generous redundancy terms, pensions and the rest—and rightly so. They are not in a favoured position; but they are in a better position than most people who are made redundant. The more serious consequences are upon those in industries that supply the mines, upon those who run the corner shop, the barber's shop and other amenities, in those communities. We must bear those people in mind.
Some 20 years ago I had some responsibility for closures, then mainly in the steel industry. We put teams into the steel towns drawn from government departments and private sources, and gave generous financial support. Over time this transformed those steel towns, which were then entirely dependent upon steel, into prosperous mixed enterprise areas. I am

689
sure noble Lords will be aware of many of those examples, but it took time, effort and money. Our social policy and our energy policy must take that into account.
I believe that the miner, like the steel worker, is a marvellous worker who can adapt to change. So I very much support the Government's proposals, as they are now outlined, to attract new industries and training into these areas, opening up new opportunities for the people whose livelihood is being taken away from them in this way, by inevitable consequences which we have debated. Following the policy that has been announced I believe that we can in time provide for communities, once faced with declining and loss-making industry and the prospect of early closure, new and exciting opportunities. For the reasons I have given I oppose the Motion of the Opposition.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I propose to make one of the shortest speeches I have ever made in this House. I shall attack the Government from an angle that has not been sufficiently mentioned.
In these past days a tragedy has been made clear to most of us, namely that the Government have been obsessed by their policy of allowing short-term market forces to take control, forces which have overridden all other considerations, to the total disregard of our nation's long-term interests.
Privatisation of the quite efficient electricity industry has meant a rush for gas, many of whose installations are likely to take up to one quarter of our total gas demand. Moreover, no large coal-generating stations are likely to be constructed. Nor, apparently, are the potentially viable pulverised coal/gas turbine generators likely to be fully developed or constructed.
We should realise that natural gas is a limited resource the price of which will rise as it grows scarcer. Inevitably the cost of coal imported from elsewhere will also rise, even the subsidised German coal, whereas our own coal can give long-term energy security at a stable price.
A simple comparison should be made between the cost of closing pits, redundancy and unemployment on the one hand and of helping generating stations to buy British on the other. Are the Government still deluded by short-term commercial will-o'-the-wisps in this as in so many other areas? It is monstrous if such a philosophy still survives.
In a speech to your Lordships several years ago I pointed out that the electricity industry was functioning well and could easily, with a little encouragement, be made the most efficient in the world. Instead, we have been brought to the present pass. This privatised industry has inherently little true competition and so incentives are lacking. I support the TUC request for an independent overall review of energy policy, taking a much longer view than it appears the Government are able to do.
In the 1930s, at a time of comparable economic crisis, a coalition government was formed to steer the nation towards recovery. This Government have
690
made so many mistakes that they would be well advised to consider a similar move as a possible way forward in the national interest.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I suppose that, like me, most of your Lordships find this place unique. I find that the debates here are more interesting than in the other place, which frequently would not be a problem. This House has a lack of predictability and a degree of spontaneity which I find particularly attractive. However, it is well known that nothing can be perfect and one of the problems with this House is that so many of the debates produce a deep feeling of déjà vu—and that is even more pronounced today than usual.
I listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield with particular interest. I understand and respect his horror at the suffering caused to ordinary decent people by pit closures. Pit closures are always especially ghastly, partly because of the nature of the communities within which the miners live and partly because of the extent to which the miners are part of their communities. It is a characteristic unique to the mining industry.
Unfortunately, no government in the past 30 years have found a way of avoiding this problem. All have been conscious of the horror and of the political unpopularity of the suffering that electors have seen around them but none of them could find an answer. Our list of speakers today contains former energy Ministers and two former Coal Board chairmen, spanning many years between them and representing the views of every group within this Chamber. They include Members of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and encompass all the varieties of Liberal Democrats and democratic Liberals. They all have one thing in common—each and every one of them has had to face the problem of pit closures and the steady decline in the demand for coal.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke, as always, with force and conviction—I apologise for not having given him notice of my comments; I had not realised that he had left the Chamber—but he spoke as though we were faced with a new, if not unique, problem—one that has appeared before us only in the past few days. The only major difference in this case is the crass incompetence with which the issue has been handled. That is the only thing which distinguishes this from all the many other crises in this area in the past. This is not a new problem; it is a variation of a problem with which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, struggled nearly 30 years ago. It really is a case of plus ça change and all that.
Through no fault of its own the coal industry has been losing markets for many years. The 1950s saw the Clean Air Act and a major drop in the domestic consumption of coal. In the same period British Rail moved from coal-fired steam engines to diesel. Both of those policies were regarded as popular and as almost inevitable. The 1960s combined the development of nuclear power with the discovery of large reserves of natural gas and oil in the North Sea—resources which may still prove to have more to offer.

691
Therefore, it was not surprising when I became Minister for fuel and power in 1966 that the future role of coal was at the top of the agenda. It always is for Ministers for fuel and power and Secretaries of State for Energy, or Presidents as they are now called. The question was already not whether the industry should contract; only how fast it should contract. The result was the 1967 White Paper and the beginning of a pit closure programme which was bigger, faster and harsher in its effect than anything seen before or since. I say this with no sense of pride or exultation. The social devastation was horrendous—and that was a Labour Government, and I was a Labour Minister.
I do not make this as a debating point, but only those who have been part of it will ever understand the very special relationship between the mineworkers and the Labour Party. It is partly emotional and partly historical, but it also reflects real political power. The mineworkers were the largest group in the Parliamentary Labour Party and the union's votes at party conferences were often crucial. I repeat that I am not saying that to make a debating point, but to underline the fact that if that Labour Cabinet and those Cabinet colleagues—some of whom are now distinguished Members of this House and contributors to this debate—could have found an alternative policy they would have done so, and they would have done so regardless of any views that I might have had. The only reason why they could not find an alternative was that there was none. They were then, as the Government are now, trapped in the inescapable logic of the numbers.
In 1965 the Labour Government reviewed the future of the industry and wrote off £415 million of debt. They decided to continue with the tax on fuel oil, placed a virtual ban on coal imports and introduced positive discrimination against the use of oil at power stations and in public buildings. On the basis of that assistance to the industry they produced a forecast of coal consumption up to 1970. They forecast a range of between 170 million and 180 million tonnes, including exports. When I arrived at the Ministry in 1966—the forecast had been made in 1965—consumption was already below the forecast for 1970. In 1966 alone coal sales fell by 10 million tonnes. That has been the fate of every forecast of coal consumption for the past 30 years. In 1966 the board employed 456,000 men and sold 175 million tonnes of coal. In the four years to 1970 the numbers fell to 356,000 men producing 150 million tonnes. By 1980 we were down to 294,000 men producing 117 million tonnes, while for 1991–92 the figures are 58,000 men producing 86 million tonnes.
So how did we get away with it? Throughout the 1960s we avoided a major confrontation with the unions only because we managed to convince their leaders that the massive closure programme was a one-off. I remember a negotiation with Will Painter in a miners' club when we stood in a corner while he explained to me that one of the things that we had to do was to make provision for the older miners in particular because they were the people suffering ill health. We reached a number of behind-the-scenes agreements because they believed and we believed that once we could get to that magic figure we could offer
692
some degree of stability to that sad industry. We genuinely believed that with a benevolent mixture of good intentions and massive subsidies we could reverse the market trend.
My Lords, we completely misled ourselves and them. It did not work then and it will not work now. Indeed I believe now, with the benefit of hindsight, that by the 1960s public ownership, and the succession of reconstructions, each one leading to accelerated closure programmes, provided the miners with a false belief, completely without foundation, that they would have long-term job security if they went one more step. Every time they were betrayed, not by individuals, not by Ministers, but by the realities of the situation. Had the industry been in private hands I think it highly likely that the decline in the industry would have been achieved far more efficiently and, paradoxically, with far less misery. It would have been a steady and consistent decline instead of these appalling cuts every three or four years.
An inquiry is now probably inevitable. Indeed it may well be helpful to review some aspects of current fuel policy. I believe that the skill of the noble Lord:, Lord Walker, in attracting industry to the most extraordinary places is well proven. I believe that his appointment is one of the few bright spots in this miserable episode. But the fact has to be faced that coal will never again be the major, or a major, element in any sensible fuel policy. The time is long overdue for politicians and unions to stop pretending, to face up to the need to accept the inevitable and to concentrate all the available resources on minimising the pain of a process which on every shred of evidence is inevitable. Any other policy is of no benefit to the country at large and is disastrous for the miners and their families.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the Lord Privy Seal at the opening of the debate told us about the additional measures which are now to be taken following the outcry in the country the thought kept occurring to me—why was not all of this done before? Perhaps I may take consultation as an example. That ought to have been the absolute basic necessity before this announcement was made. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that such consultation is required in law. It is a statutory obligation. So one would think that that would have been one of the first things the Cabinet or the Secretary of State would have thought about. That was not done.
Perhaps I may refer to the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I hesitate to take issue with someone who has such wide and deep experience in these matters. He speaks as a former Cabinet Minister dealing with energy. I agree with him that the scale of the pit closures announced—in other words, the 31—is probably the worst example of political ineptitude that we have seen in our political life; and like the noble Lord I have been in politics for some time now. But I disagree with him when he says that that is the only difference. With great respect that is not the only difference. The noble Lord talked eloquently about the 1960s and to some extent the 1970s. One other

693
important fact is that other employment was then available. That is crucial in relation to the problem that we are discussing today. I hope that that will not be forgotten throughout this debate.
The justification for the closure of the 31 pits is, according to the President of the Board of Trade—he has repeated it many times—that "the economic case is unanswerable". There is, to say the least, considerable doubt about that view. It has already come out in the speeches that we have heard in the debate today. A wide range of economists from all parts of the political spectrum differ from the Government's opinion on this matter.
Non-economists, like me, cannot fail to notice that the Government in presenting their case never mention the £1.3 billion paid in assisting nuclear power. We see that the German coal industry receives the biggest subsidy ever received by coal in any country. No figures are produced to show the cost of throwing what most commentators say will be something like a total of 100,000 people out of work by the closure of these 31 pits. Almost nothing has been said about the dire effects on rail freight. One of my noble friends mentioned the point briefly in the debate. That in itself would warrant a wide ranging debate. There is more than doubt that gas-fired stations, despite what the Lord Privy Seal said, are cheaper than coal-fired stations, and the Government know it.
These and other arguments have been repeated many times since the Government's announcement about the closures was made and I shall not go further with them. What is basic to the whole problem is that it is not the cost of coal production which is destroying the market for coal but the way in which the electricity industry was privatised. It is months ago since the former commercial director of British Coal, Malcolm Edwards, warned the Government that if they disregarded the consequences of the form of electricity privatisation only a dozen pits would be left in the country. In case any noble Lord asks on what authority Malcolm Edwards speaks, all I can say is that some of us had a great deal to do with Mr. Edwards. We found that he talked sense on the coal industry.
The costings and benefits relating to pit closures is a complex matter and I readily concede that. It is therefore of the utmost importance that an independent and open inquiry be made into it. Nothing has been revealed of the calculations made by the Government in coming to such an important decision. I suspect they knew that glaring weaknesses would have been exposed. The unprecedented reaction of people in this country—people who, as has been said by a number of speakers, have no connection with the coal industry—to the pit closure proposals show that they are interested in, and are entitled to know, the basis on which such a conclusion was reached. As my honourable friends in another place said yesterday following Mr. Heseltine's Statement, people are interested in why pits need to be closed, and not when they are to be closed. If in the face of such reaction as the country has seen in recent
694
days the Government refuse to set up an independent inquiry they will demonstrate an arrogance which some of us thought even this Government were incapable of showing.
I have spoken about some economic aspects of the issue but I believe that there are two other matters to which the Government have paid too little attention. First, the social consequences of the closures. Yes, Ministers say how sorry they are about the effect on mining communities and families. We have had it today and I do not for one moment doubt their sincerity, but they do not really know what it means. I remind the House that the average age of miners now, because of redundancies, closures and everything associated with the industry, is less than 40. That means that they are only halfway through their working life.
Perhaps I may inject a personal note. I come from a mining family. In another place I was a Member for a mining constituency and for two years I was a training and education officer with the National Coal Board, so I hope that that gives me at least some experience of the devastating impact that pit closures have on a community and on individuals. When my noble friend Lord Callaghan was speaking earlier about the spirit of miners, an incident came very quickly to my mind. On one occasion during one of the many visits that I made to the pits I went into an 18-inch seam. Let us just imagine an 18-inch seam. We usually see pictures of miners on their knees getting coal; but in this case the miner had to lie down. So I laid down with him. I said, "My goodness, how on earth do you manage to live this kind of life?" He said, "It is not so bad, it gets you away from the wife for an hour or two". I thought, "Well, that is one way of putting it".
One of the 10 pits to be closed is Vane Tempest, which is in Seaham in County Durham. There were three pits in that small town. One was closed just before I ceased to be a Member and another closed last year. Now the remaining mine is soon to be closed. It is simply not possible for Ministers to realise what effect three pit closures in such a small community will have when there is so little alternative employment. That is one of the main issues. In that connection, I should like to make a point that has not yet been made in all the discussions I have heard on the matter. The Government, rightly, propose extra provision for the areas concerned. But it cannot be stressed too strongly that jobs arising from that help do not materialise for a long time; indeed, in some cases, they do not materialise at all. If that fact is forgotten then, frankly, the Government will not arrive at a solution.
Today during Question Time I asked a Question about long-term unemployment. If Ministers examine the figures they will find that many of the long-term unemployed live in the former mining areas. That fact speaks for itself. There is the strongest case for the gradual phasing of closures—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, made the point—where it is felt and agreed that there is no alternative. I must also add that in most cases the closure will be determined by geological factors and not for economic reasons.

695
The second matter to which the Government have paid too little attention is one that I have raised on many occasions in this House. I am glad to say that so far it has been mentioned by two speakers in the debate. I refer to the security of supply. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Callaghan and also the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, made the point. Geologists are agreed that, at the present rate of extraction, we have a 200-year supply of coal beneath our soil. Does that count for nothing to this Government? Some countries—and I have Japan especially in mind—would pay a very high price to have such an assured indigenous supply of coal. We import some 20 million tonnes of coal—a figure which continues to increase—much of it subsidised. When we reduce our own output, is it not virtually certain that we shall have to pay more for that imported coal, to say nothing of the additional cost brought about by our recent devaluation of the pound? If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with his vast experience, brought reality to bear when he talked about the variations in cost which arise in respect of imported coal.
I believe that coal will remain an important fuel for many years to come, to say nothing of its potential chemical value including coal liquefaction. I think I am right in saying that the only coal liquefaction plant that we have (which is in Point of Ayr) is to be closed; as, indeed, are some of the research establishments. The abolition—that is what it is—of research into coal is simply destroying the seed corn for the future of the coal industry.
In conclusion, I repeat a phrase which is often used but which I believe is not fully appreciated. It cannot be emphasised too strongly. Once a pit is closed there is no reopening. A pit left untouched for even a few weeks can be irrecoverable. Even during the worst times of the 1984– 85 strike—and some of us remember those times very vividly indeed—there was an agreement all the time that miners should go down the pit to ensure that it was left in working order for the time when activity resumed. It is unthinkable to many of us that those millions of tonnes of such a valuable asset should be left untouched forever. What a price to pay for the short-termism now being thrust upon us.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, I have been somewhat reassured by the Statements made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham today and by my noble friend Lady Denton yesterday. Further, I believe that if the initial pronouncement had followed that pattern, we would not have had the depth of outcry which has occurred. Nevertheless, beyond the announced closures of 10 nominated pits, there are still 21 pits living under a shadow and their ultimate fate needs clarifying as quickly as possible.
I shall find this speech even more difficult than usual to make from these Benches this evening because I am somewhat biased on the situation as noble Lords know, having recently been Chairman of British Coal for about five years. But, equally, I can appreciate better than most the tremendous efforts both managers and mineworkers have made since the strike to ensure the well-being and survival of British
696
coal. They have carried out a restructuring in speed and depth which has not been matched recently in any UK industry.
The number of pits has already fallen in this recent period from 170 to 50. That is a significant figure: it is 120 pits. There were two years in which we actually closed down 30 pits. As noble Lords know, on the whole, that was done in a fairly quiet way. The total manpower during that period fell from 221,000 to 55,000. All that was carried out on a voluntary basis, and I stress that fact. No one was forced to leave the industry. Workers were given the option of either redundancy terms or a movement to a job in another colliery. Of course, that becomes increasingly difficult. Nevertheless, no one was forced out of the industry. But having said that, one cannot take any pride in the depressing statistics. However, it had to happen if any part of the industry was to survive at all.
The massive restructuring was made possible by the Government allowing British Coal to use generous redundancy terms, and also by providing substantial finance for British Coal Enterprise to assist in the creation of nearly 80,000 jobs in affected mining communities. I should like to stress the role of British Coal Enterprise as it has not been mentioned today. The Government deserve praise for that as it allowed 80 per cent. of the current restructuring of the industry to be carried out as smoothly and humanely as possible. Further, productivity has been increased by 125 per cent.—although some noble Lords on the other side have quoted a rather higher figure. But, even more impressively, the productivity improvement over the past five years is more than double the total achieved in the previous 37 years. That is the measure of the rate at which the process went.
The attitude of the mineworkers, too, has immeasurably improved. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that I believe the average mineworker has suddenly become younger. I think that the average age is now nearer 36 rather than 40. They are indeed a new generation. They fully appreciate the business realities of life and have increasingly identified with the success and survival of their particular colliery. It is not surprising therefore that, overall, they feel the current announcements are a poor reward for the impressive progress that the industry has made during the past few years. The UDM miners have the added anxiety that the Government have apparently ceased to recognise their special role in the miners' strike.
How has the adverse market for coal arisen? There are a number of strands, many of which have been mentioned today, which have collectively impacted adversely on British Coal's future. First, there is no doubt in my mind that Rothschilds' (the Government's advisers) often quoted view—and rather early in the day—that only 12 to 15 pits would survive, has, like Mr. Scargill's earlier predictions, become a self-fulfilling prophecy on which other people base their thoughts.
Secondly, the "dash for gas" has been a prime factor. Following privatisation, the generators understandably felt the usual sense of freedom and release, and having served in both kinds of industry I understand that better than most. But they seemed to

697
go overboard and embraced natural gas with almost gay abandon. The situation has been compounded further by the potential independent generators which became increasingly concerned as British Gas raised its prices to contain the rapidly escalating forward demand. A number of those independents joined forces with the regional electricity distribution companies which themselves were anxious not to be dependent upon the main duopoly generators, and hence saw that as an excellent opportunity to participate in electricity generation.
The independents too welcomed those joint ventures as they assured them of a fairly cosy future market. Even the existing generators have condemned those collaborations between the electricity distributors and the new independent generators as "sweetheart" deals. Those have in turn brought about another surge in potential gas generating capacity, and we now have an embarrassing over-capacity. If that had produced a more competitive situation it might have been excusable, but as all the generators, present and future, and the distribution companies, have all been taking the same steps, and hence may have made the same mistakes, it is almost certain that the consumer will have to pay to reward that over-capacity.
What is even more extraordinary is that there is a clear consensus emerging that coal generation, even at present coal price levels, is cheaper than gas. That is contrary to the view expressed earlier by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. That margin will widen further when the new coal contracts are in operation next year. Over the long term it is my view that gas prices will continue to rise, whereas conversely coal prices will fall in real terms. It is even more surprising that the regulator is looking deeply at that issue only now after all that over-capacity has been created. The life of the gas and coal reserves of this country have been mentioned. The figures are not meaningful unless one puts a price to them. There is nothing like 200 years of coal resources at the present price at which coal is being moved, nor is there 50 years' supply of gas in the North Sea at the present price at which it is being moved.
The other factor which has reacted adversely on coal's future is nuclear energy. Despite the Government's often repeated commitment to market forces, we have 20 per cent. of the electricity market protected and ring-fenced for the nuclear industry. Consumers in the UK pay a levy of 11 per cent. on their electricity bills. That levy generated £1.3 billion for Nuclear Electric last year. That sum equates £17 for each tonne of coal mined, sufficient to make every pit in the land profitable. That levy is hardly a sound basis for ensuring that British consumers, and industry in particular, have competitive prices. Additionally, substantial energy flows to the UK, through the Channel link, from the highly subsidised French nuclear industry. That alone represents a coal equivalent of about 6 million tonnes per annum.
Let us contrast that with the situation in Germany, which has already been referred to today, where the Government are determined to conserve their coal
698
reserves at all cost. They have a coal levy of about 8 per cent. on their electricity bills, which goes directly to their privatised coal industry. That, together with the direct government grants that the German coal industry receives to compensate for its massive losses in supplying their steel industry, brings the total annual subsidy to their coal industry to between £3 billion and £4 billion.
The consequence of that is that for the past few years we have been closing pits in this country which have far lower costs than even the best German units. I am not however advocating that German solution. Indeed, in recent years we have made a number of pleas to the Commission that those German subsidies, and the equally massive support that the French nuclear industry receives, should be phased out. Although I believe that the Commission had much sympathy with that view, it argued that it was impossible to pursue it while the UK Government were subsidising their nuclear industry. Thus, despite 1992, a level playing field on energy in Europe seems a long way off.
I turn last to imported coal. The price British Coal has charged the generators has fallen in real terms by over 30 per cent. during the past five years. and will continue to do so. Hence the gap with the price of imported coal is gradually being eroded. International coal prices such as oil and gas are quoted in dollar terms, and, as we have seen recently—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned this point—the pound has fallen suddenly from a peak of 2 dollars to 1.62 dollars. As our interest rates and those of the United States continue to converge, one can readily visualise a rate of well below 1.50 dollars by next spring. That trend would of course have a profoundly beneficial impact on the relative pricing of domestically produced coal. Also, one cannot ignore the security of supply considerations surrounding imported coal, if one is to rely upon such unpredictable sources as Colombia and South Africa. South Africa, for example, contributes 55 million tonnes at present.
Those then are the factors which have led to the shrinking markets for our coal industry. The Government clearly believe that there is no way of arresting that market decline, but they will need to be more open-minded if any progress is to be made to salvage at least some of the 21 pits now in the review mode.
I no longer have access to resources to put forward detailed alternative options, but I suggest with some diffidence that the following should at least be looked at. First, restraint should be applied to any further expansion of gas generation until the relative costs of energy from all sources are firmly established. Secondly, the regulator should, as a priority, have a close look at those so-called "sweetheart" deals between the RECs and the independent generators. In the interest of equity with coal, the protection and ring-fencing of the nuclear industry should be terminated. One of the prime reasons for that privileged position was the need to have a strategic alternative to coal, but that role is now filled in full measure by gas. That termination will lead inevitably to an earlier phasing out of the Magnox and

699
subsequent AGR reactors. However, they are technologically antiquated and will make little or no contribution to the development of any radical new cost-competitive nuclear industry which I agree in due course has to come. The French link should be at least temporarily suspended. That heavily subsidised supply is alone equivalent to the output of four large pits. That will undoubtedly involve a difficult contractual negotiation; but one is aware that during three critical periods the French have cut off our supply to preserve their own. Thought should be given to the continuation of the 11 per cent. nuclear levy. If it is felt that that is necessary, would it not be fairer to share it with the domestic coal producers for, say, a limit of three years? That would allow British Coal to compete fully with imported coal in the short term. If British Coal continues its cost reductions at the present rate, and the pound/dollar exchange rate trends continue, as seems likely, its coal should be competitive with the importers at the end of that three-year period.
What is not generally appreciated is that British Coal has consistently made an operating profit since the mid-I980s and has not received any direct operational support. Cash subsidies from the Government have been essentially to cover interest charges on historic loans which are then paid back to the Government—in 1990 that amounted to a staggering £574 million; a tremendous figure—and the rest of the subsidies relate to restructuring costs. Having been critical of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, I must now praise him. He was the architect of the financial restructuring in 1990. That was probably the best thing that has happened to British Coal recently. That interest charge has now been reduced to an acceptable commercial level.
I know that the Government will throw up their hands in horror at those suggestions. But if the proposed review is to be meaningful, one or more of those options will have to be grasped if it is to be seen as providing a fairer balance to those employed in the coal industry. Looking at the cost structure of the individual pits, I have always hoped that the fighting weight of British Coal could be about 30 pits, plus of course its profitable open-cast mining activities. That would be a sustainable core industry which could operate profitably even in this highly competitive international market. We now have 50 pits; 10 are being closed; and another 10 will become exhausted within the next 10 years, so we are debating whether we should have 20 or 30. I believe that 30 is the figure. To try to do better than that would be to try to climb a hill that we cannot climb. Finally, whatever transpires, I hold fervently to my consistent view that British Coal should be privatised as soon as is humanly possible. That would be a real shot in the arm for the industry in terms of opening up new opportunities and vistas.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Brookes: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships' House if my early departure may mean I shall not be present at the end of this debate. However, that fact is irrelevant in terms of the extraordinary
700
political and social folly that has been inflicted upon an afflicted nation by recent events. Many people have telephoned me to say that those recent events have rendered them speechless. Those people came from all sides of industry and from all sides of politics. I ponder what peculiarities and what extraordinary mental cocktail can concoct an event which reflates a deflated Mr. Scargill and destroys faith, and perhaps hope and a future, for the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and Mr. Roy Lynk who has done so much good for the nation at a time of great need.
Recent events demonstrate an irresponsibility of a kind which I believe is not only politically unforgivable but is also socially unforgivable and is economically damaging. In short, grave offence has been given to the whole of our nation. Grave offence has been given to our nation's heart and even its soul. Offence has been given to our nation's faith and to its belief in itself. Offence has also been given to our nation's belief in politics and to its faith in the future. Some price should be paid for that and the impromptu, almost indecent, patch that was put upon a big puncture yesterday will not and should not prove enough.
I dismiss with equal serenity the implication that the step which the Government are about to embark upon has a resemblance of being an authoritative independent inquiry. That measure should not satisfy your Lordships' House and it will not satisfy the British people. That is for sure. Truth loses none of its force, its rectitude or its quality by repetition. Our indigenous energy including coal—most certainly not excluding it—should not be diminished on some of the grounds that have been presented in your Lordships' House today. Our indigenous energy is and never has been more vital to our balance of payments, the crisis of which is increasing hour by hour in terms of our trade and in terms of what is happening in foreign currency markets. Therefore, in the best of the national interest we must ensure that we use our own resources rather than rely on unpredictable foreign resources which all too often will be priced in international dollars and not in pounds. Coal is not merely historically but is necessarily a part of our sorely afflicted industrial manufacturing base. Recent events are yet another assault upon the human interests, the financial necessities and the pride and the standing of a man, which hang on that industrial base.
Coal is vitally important to our defence. Reminiscence can be a pointless waste of time but I remind noble Lords that at the outbreak of the last war Britain's forging industries, which burn oil, electricity and gas in their furnaces, had rapidly to switch to pulverised coal. Thank God the technology was there to do that. I thank God even more that the coal was there and that the miners, even though they were often reviled and despised, were also there to provide that coal. I shall never forget that time. Pulverised coal is still a possible future use of coal as such coal can be turned almost into a liquid.
Coal is here under our own feet and under our own ground. It is there for the getting, the retaining and the securing. How vulnerable would we be and how vulnerable would our oceanic oil and gas platforms

701
and pipelines be to air warfare, surface sea warfare and undersea warfare? What would we do if those platforms and pipelines were all shot to hell? I do not believe that the in-depth, independent inquiry, which I hope will take place in a manner which satisfies the natural sense of fair play of our people, will be enough. I feel no sense of responsibility, and neither should the British people, to the quasi-monopolies which have been established in doubtful circumstances for the supply of electrical power. They deserve no special consideration or protection at this time because they are nationalised industries that have been turned into monopolies of political and profitable convenience.
Therefore I would suggest that because energy is the tap root of our industrial and manufacturing base this country stands in immediate need of a national energy authority whose job would be to plan, coalesce and co-ordinate all sources and resources of energy and all applications of energy. Such a national energy authority would not own the energy sources but it would ensure that a framework was established in which the various parties involved in a situation which is inevitably interrelated had unified control of those energy sources. In business or in industry we would not contemplate this lack of unified control of a common and vital asset. We would not tolerate this disparate uncontrolled situation which reflects lack of thought. I plead for that unified control. However, I do not feel that that will be conceded by a government who would interpret such a move as nationalisation. The co-ordination and control of assets and the unification of asset control is good business. It is not a matter of nationalisation.
I feel I am speaking for the nearly 3 million unemployed people. That number will be added to by means of the admittedly relatively light step upon which we are now about to embark. I have not heard it contradicted that it costs £9,000 per annum to service an unemployed man. I do not validate that figure but I have not heard it contradicted. I cannot work out the cost per head of this measure but I know that no businessman would feel he had done anything other than take leave of his senses if he caused such expenditure to have a negative worth by throwing it at nothing to make nothing, except to break up lives, break people's hearts and break up the social structure of whole communities. Enough is enough. Our people cry out for faith and hope. They cry out not for charity but for work.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Brookes. As a distinguished former businessman and industrialist he speaks for many businessmen and industrialists and everything that they have been saying over the past few days.
As is the custom in this House, I have to declare an interest. I am involved as an adviser to a company involved in coal mining contracting. I want to make that plain although, fortunately, I do not have to rely exclusively on that company for remuneration.
702
I do not want to spend too much time going over the ground of how the Government got themselves into the present position. However, they were warned over several months that they were set on a totally indefensible course. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, as he is alleged in today's issue of The Times to have said to the Cabinet,
"We are perhaps too close to the detail to realise the extent of the shock caused by announcing all these closures at one time".
My complaint about the Government is that they have not been close enough to the detail, because they have not considered it closely. If they had they would have come to an entirely different conclusion.
Last year the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy made it absolutely clear that the Government were pursuing a policy which would blow up in their faces. While the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, today, in responding for the Government to the Opposition Motion, mentioned that report he did not mention the conclusions. The conclusions were against practically everything that the Government are proposing to do now.
I wrote to Michael Heseltine, President of the Board of Trade, on 28th August—nearly seven weeks before the pit closure programme was announced and before "Black Wednesday" when sterling was devalued. As other noble Lords have said this afternoon, the sterling devaluation makes the case for coal and for this review even stronger. The President of the Board of Trade is an old sparring partner of mine. I like him quite well. I was in full line when he once picked up the Mace in the other place and I was sitting on the Government Front Bench. I thought it my duty to write to warn him. I said in my letter:
"To allow the generating companies to bring about the irrevocable decline of the most successful coal mining industry in Europe would be an act of great folly … Surely there is something you can do to prevent the power generators from making the Government's problems worse?"
Of course I received a nice, courteous reply from him but he did not really take the point on board.
It is no good the Leader of the House telling us that "x" hundred pits closed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. There is no comparison with what is taking place today. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, a former political friend of mine in another place. In 1967, as a Member of the miners' group, I was one of those Back-Benchers who at that time were harassing him. I believe that on reflection the noble Lord will bear in mind that we are now in a totally different situation from the 1960s and 1970s. Pit reserves were exhausted at the time when he had to deal with these matters. There was full employment. When my right honourable friend the then Member for Cardiff was Chancellor of the Exchequer there were 500,000 unemployed. Miners could get jobs. Inflation was in the region of 3 per cent. a year. We had an economic policy for the country which was working. Therefore, the plans of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, at that time, draconian though he made them sound, could be dealt with in a much more humane way. I know that he had difficulties. I know that he had trouble with the miners' group in the other place,

703
and I suppose that I gave him as much trouble as anyone else. But the economic situation now is in no way comparable to the situation which existed then.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. My point was that whatever the state of the economy at that time or the level of employment, the Labour Government would desperately have liked the need for that particular cut to have been removed from us. The reason we went ahead with it was not that there were jobs available but that we could not do anything else.
Lord Varley: My Lords, of course I understand that completely. I shall return to that point in a moment or two because it is relevant to what I am about to say.
We have reached a situation where there are only a few pits left. The great inefficiencies in the UK coal industry have been rationalised out of existence to a large extent. That was achieved in the days of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, more latterly, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. Those rationalisations were handled differently. They were not announced in the way that these proposals have been announced.
There are those who say that security of supply no longer matters and that we can obtain cheap coal from overseas. But for how long? Wiping out one-third of Britain's coal production will force up the world price of coal. Everybody accepts that. We have heard some of the arguments before. One of the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, had to deal with in the 1960s, when he was Minister of Power, was the firm belief at that time that oil, at 2 dollars a barrel, would be cheap and plentiful for ever more and there would be no need to worry about it. Under a previous Conservative Government Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, as he then was, imposed an oil levy to protect the coal industry because of the cheap oil which was coming into the country. The Yom Kippur war put a stop to that in 1973. Almost overnight oil prices quintupled. Many people say that they quadrupled, but they quintupled over that period.
Those who do not accept the need for security of supply ought at least to take into account the impact on our balance of trade of replacing a large amount of British coal. I do not want to go over the ground that has been covered by my noble friends Lord Callaghan, Lord Brookes, and others, but great swathes of manufacturing industry have gone. There is no way of replacing them. That occurred in the 1980s, and the same is happening now. The hope that that would be replaced by invisibles and earnings from the City is no longer realistic. Therefore, we shall have gigantic problems of a trade imbalance for years to come.
For example, our energy exports in the mid-1980s contributed some £8 billion to our good. That has all gone. At present there is talk about 50 years' supply of gas from the North Sea. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, said that there may be 50 years' supply, but what will the price be? It is totally unrealistic to look at the matter in that way; just as it is, I concede, to say the same about the 200 or 300 years' supply of coal. We are already importing 13 per cent. of the gas that we need and those imports are bound to increase.
704
Some people estimate that the £8 billion surplus on energy in the 1980s will swing to a deficit of something like £14 billion.
The burden of the case was put by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I ought not to use such emotive words as "rigged" in this House as I did yesterday, but the market is certainly tilted against coal and in favour of the electricity supply industry. It is the way in which the electricity supply industry was privatised which has brought this situation about. Electricity is not a commodity in the sense that sugar is a commodity or tea is a commodity. One cannot put it on a shelf; one cannot stock it. One can store electricity for a short while but not in great quantities. One needs electricity instantly, on demand. What matters about electricity is the fuel it uses and the plant which generates it. That is the nub of the argument now.
I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate will answer the following point. It has been widely reported that we shall finish up with something like 50 per cent. more electricity generating capacity than we need in the next few years. If that is the case—and if the Department of Trade and Industry do not begin to understand it and have done no research upon it then it is time they started—why do not the Government tell Professor Littlechild, the electricity regulator, to speed up his examination of the so-called sweetheart deals between the regional electricity companies and the planned gas-fired projects to generate electricity? Every independent body that has looked at those projects says that the electricity planned to be produced by those stations will cost more than electricity from coal.
The internal review and moratorium announced yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade will not do. As has been said by people who are not political animals in the sense that they belong to political parties—we have heard Lord Brookes and other Cross-Benchers—it has not fooled anybody either, least of all the miners. One mineworker in his thirties at one of the temporarily reprieved pits phoned me yesterday and said, "On Sunday I was being strangled; now I am being slowly suffocated". That is the feeling of mineworkers at this stage. They do not know what is happening to them. I have never seen such emotion. I started work in the coal industry in 1951 and worked there until 1964 when, by the grace of the people of Chesterfield, I was elected to the other place. I still live in what is essentially a mining community. Over the weekend there were tears. I have never experienced anything like it in my life. I hope the Government can take that point on board.
The issue of whether we can get more coal into our power stations was neatly summed up today by the present chairman of British Coal, Mr. Clarke. He said that a government review of the plans to close 31 mines would amount to little more than a stay of execution unless the Government overhauled the market for power station fuels. Unless that changed the market for British coal was finite. He also said that only if there was an enlarged market could any larger coal industry be sustained.

705
Why are the Government so afraid of an independent inquiry? It would be in their own interests. As my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff said, let us have an independent inquiry. Nobody is going to be convinced by the Department of Trade and Industry, together with a few others, with British Coal management having their arms twisted and told exactly what they have to do to come up with something. That will not carry credibility in the mining communities of Britain. Only an independent review will do that. If it turns out as the Government say we shall have to look at the facts and face up to them and judge what is in the best interests of the nation.
I do not subscribe to the view that the Government are totally heartless or that they are going to fall. Unfortunately, they will survive for a normal parliamentary term. My complaint is that we have a half-hearted and half-baked government. I feel a bit embarrassed for them when they get into this sort of mess. The Government say that the ERM is at the heart of government policy. Then, instead of re-aligning within it, they withdraw and sterling goes into free fall. They get the Bank of England to brief on a Wednesday that there will be no interest cuts, and cuts take place on the Friday. The Government say on Sunday that no changes to pit closures will take place and a plethora of Ministers appear on television to tell us that. We are then told on Monday that the closures are postponed. What are they playing at? For goodness sake, let us have an independent inquiry so that we know exactly how things stand. The Government may even come out of it with a bit of credit.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this has been a most illuminating debate on a matter of widespread and deep concern throughout the nation. I rise to speak with some diffidence since we have had such enormously well-informed and experienced speakers this evening. I do so partly because I want to share these expressions of concern and partly because I am not altogether clear why we feel the concern so much more acutely on this occasion than on the previous occasions to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred.
I think there are one or two elements of genuine common ground on all sides of the House, though they may lead us subsequently in different directions. First, we all recognise the misery of the continuing run-down of the coal industry that is felt in the mining communities. It is not a new experience but it is a very painful one. Secondly, we all recognise that there comes a point when it is false economy to bolster up industries by large-scale subsidies. In that way one simply makes other forms of employment uneconomic when they should be economic. Thirdly, it is probably a point of common agreement that some further pit closures are inevitable—perhaps at least the 10 which we have heard are still likely to be closed after the brief moratorium.
It is clear that at this particular time the
706
announcement has touched a nerve in the nation in a much more severe way than had been anticipated by some and in a much more severe way than earlier closures on a comparable scale had touched a nerve. No doubt that is partly because the announcement was abrupt to the point of seeming ill-considered. That must be admitted. But later historians will analyse why the closures are so disquieting in a manner which earlier announcements of closures were not, or at least not to the same extent. No doubt one factor is the unsettled state of the nation after leaving the exchange rate mechanism and the devaluation of the pound. I have no doubt that that is one factor which will one day be brought into the relationship.
Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, this is not only a reduction. The originally announced reduction comes close to being a terminal one, or at any rate we can see that we are on the way to the end of the British coal industry if we are not careful. Thirdly—and for me above all—I am not at all sure of the cost analysis. It has not been very satisfactorily presented.
There are different views on the economy, in particular on the economy of energy, but it has been asserted in many quarters—and has not been effectively contradicted—that effective coal production costs have been falling and are likely to continue to fall while gas costs in the middle and long term are likely to rise. Those points were very effectively and most informatively made by my noble friend Lord Haslam. I think the country will expect to be satisfied much more fully on those issues than perhaps we can expect to be by the government side on this occasion.
I see no particular merits in an independent inquiry. It would be an unusual way for a government to go about their business. Generally governments set up Royal Commissions when they want to temporise. It seems odd for the Opposition to suggest there should be an independent inquiry. Nor is it a proposal that I feel has been very carefully thought through. No speaker this evening has offered any suggestion as to how that inquiry might be constituted or conducted. I have heard no suggestion that anybody has thought about it. On the contrary, I think this debate is a deep expression of concern, and it is appropriate that it should be so.
While we on this side of the House support the Government this evening and welcome the change that was announced yesterday in another place, we expect a much broader and more thoroughgoing review than simply a re-analysis along the classic economist exercise of simply computing prices as they appear to be. We are told the current prices of coal and gas as if the whole matter were simply an exercise in market economics. But it is not an exercise in free market economics.
We are aware that there is a nuclear levy and the whole history of the nuclear industry is the history of a subsidised industry. We have a suspicion that the newly privatised industries—the electrical production industries—are in many ways anomalous. That is recognised by the Government; they have a regulator. They are anomalous partly because they are a duopoly

707
and partly because they are in the early days of their life when all kinds of historic constraints emerge, such as the price of the shares and so on.
In addition, we have not heard brought into the equation today the capital costs of gas fired electricity. We have not heard how they are met and whether they are effectively reflected in the economic discussions that have taken place. Nor have we heard very much about the capital costs of clean coal technology. Moreover, there are all kinds of assumptions: the possible relationship between gas and oil prices has not been touched on this evening. In one sense the gas prices might be regarded as stable. We have that asset in the North Sea and gas is being produced, so why should the gas prices change? But if oil prices rose dramatically through circumstances outside our control, I assume that the market price of gas would similarly rise.
Various speakers have touched on the long-term issues. There may well he a real national interest in retaining a viable coal industry. We have not yet been given adequate assurances that the consequences of the Government's policy will be to retain a viable coal industry.
I do not feel that an independent inquiry is a very coherent way to proceed. but many on this side of the House will expect that the Government's consideration must be placed in the much wider context of a review of energy policies. It should not merely say that this is the price in the market now; let the market roll. As I and other speakers, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, have tried to emphasise, we are not talking about free market conditions. There is not a free running market. There are all kinds of forces into which policies of other kinds enter and should enter.
When the Government have given us the very coherent presentation that we shall expect in due course and when the matter has been debated in this House and in another place, we may well have confidence that the policy enunciated is one which the country will believe to be well judged and a sound base for the future.
7.43 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, the Motion calls for a thorough, independent inquiry into the future of the coal industry. It echoes what many noble Lords, including myself, called for yesterday. The House has heard from the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham and Lord Marsh, what I call the technical reasons why an inquiry is unnecessary and why the Government are totally right in closing the mines. The way that that is done is, as I understand it, from the Government's point of view something that they are prepared to reconsider.
I shall not rehearse the technical arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham and Lord Marsh. We heard much from many other noble Lords which went in the other direction and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, who has great experience in this field. I thought that he gave very compelling reasons why we should not go ahead too quickly. I shall make only two observations. First, it is for any inquiry, if
708
there is to be an inquiry, to go into all those arguments. Secondly, let us not forget that when a mine is closed it is closed for ever.
My first thought is whether the Motion for the inquiry is wide enough. The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Callaghan, said that it should be wider in some part or other. I should like to see a review of our overall energy policy with special reference to the future of coal and its miners. I need not develop that argument very far. In the last analysis, if, as I hope, the Government accept the need for an independent inquiry, clearly it is for them to decide the terms of reference in the light of all that has been said, today and at other times.
There is one other point; namely, as it stands the Motion—or resolution—does not stress the urgency of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, spoke of a Royal Commission. Heaven defend us from having the inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission. If there is to be an inquiry it should he quick. I suggest something like a 90-day maximum for the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that nobody had developed what I call the terms of reference and who ought to compose the membership of the inquiry. Curiously enough I had exactly that consideration in mind as the main theme of my speech. Let me dare to suggest the people who I think should be members of such an inquiry. The number must be small; otherwise the inquiry could go on for ever. Let me suggest the well tried formula of three wise men.
Who should they be? Perhaps one should be a judge—not because of the legal angle, although there is a legal angle in certain aspects, but because a judge is well able to weigh up the evidence that is presented to him. There must certainly be somebody from industry or from the City—someone who has great technical experience on economic matters. For the third member I turn to the European Community. I shall give just two of my many reasons. One is that the European Community is very much involved in what happens in Britain. We are fortunate that we have two great assets which are rare in Europe: coal and gas. Therefore what happens in Britain to those great assets is of concern to the Community.
A second reason for my feeling strongly that the European Community should come into the matter is that outside help may be very welcome. Clearly that would be part of our thinking in bringing in a member from the European Community, which is a perfectly natural course to follow. Although in theory the decision is made by the three members of the committee, I believe that the chairman should be a Briton.
In conclusion, the Government should not be afraid of such an inquiry. I do not understand the fear. Let us suppose that the independent inquiry confirms their fears and confirms that the general course—I do not refer to the timing—which they propose is right. In those circumstances not only will the Government be vindicated but, more importantly, the country will understand and accept. However, if it were decided that there should be variation in certain respects—that the Government are too one-sided and blinkered

709
having only had advice from their officials over the past year or two that coal must be reduced—then such a decision would give government an opportunity to make the change in a way that they are surely bold enough to accept. It would save their face and show that they have the well-being of the country at heart.
For those reasons I plead that the Government will accept an inquiry which is independent but will not bind the Government. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, it is for the Government to govern. I accept that absolutely. However, we are calling for an independent inquiry which the Government can then consider and make up their minds as to what to do.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Earl turned his mind to the nature of the inquiry. I wish to return to that in a moment. If we vote tonight on the need for an independent inquiry, it is essential that we suggest the important aspects that should be considered.
As the saga of the coal industry has developed in recent weeks, I have had a change of mood. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the incompetence of Government: that the President of the Board of Trade reported to the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee. However, let us leave that issue alone. Everyone understands that the Sunday Times, the Observer and other newspapers will investigate the story for a long time because it is so unusual and reflects on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I did not wish to go into that issue. I have written the word "brewery" but I have forgotten why.
My second mood arises from the debate and from listening to the radio programmes in the mornings. Although Mr. Perot in the United States will not do very well, he reflects a mood: it is that narrow party politics on a major issue will lead to the ruination of democracy and to wrong decisions being taken. What prompted that thought in my mind? Of course pits have to shut. I was born in South Wales although I never represented the area as a Member of Parliament. It provided steam coal. In 1914, quite properly, Mr. Churchill decided that the Royal Navy was going to turn to oil. It was the death knell of the South Wales coalfields after the war was over. The oil did not come quickly, but after the war that was it.
I was in Cardiff, Penarth and Barry only last week. They used to export coal to Buenos Aires, Aden and Gibraltar for shipping. That export has gone, and properly so. Anyone who tried to preserve such export would be flying in the face of economic facts. In the 1950s less and less coal was burned on the home fires. Factories turned to electricity. Electricity became the norm. Of course there were closures after that. But to compare the closures now with what happened in the 1960s and 1970s when my noble friend Lord Mason was Minister of Power is wrong. It is fooling people. It is a good, political point but there is no comparison between the two events.
I say this to the right reverend Prelate. I know Yorkshire having lived there for 30 years. If the right
710
reverend Prelate is worried about what happens when pits shut down let him go to the valleys of South Wales. There is nothing there after all these years, and all the money spent. I am sceptical. I repeat that cynical, sardonic phrase of the older Welsh miners who say, "All they provided were dolls' eyes factories". That was not the position in the Vale when Fords and Japanese factories came along. However, such factories are not on the sites of the villages.
Great social changes result in a mining community from shutdown. We in the leafy suburbs of the south of England have never experienced them. Such shutdowns have not been experienced to the same degree in Yorkshire where I now live. At one time I represented miners. The point has been made; I shall not develop it. Why was there not the same outcry then? It is because there was full employment. Another reason is that the miners were older men. I am now in my 70s. Men who went to school with me and who became unemployed 20 years ago were glad to be unemployed. They had had enough working in the pits. They were glad to take the redundancy money.
The situation is different now. We have heard about men of 40 years and 36 years with family responsibilities who live in owner occupied houses and have cars. Such men do not take kindly to the situation. Older miners were in different social circumstances. They accepted the situation more easily than those new miners from the current 50,000 miners. Their commitment was shown in their voting habits. There is not the same commitment to my party as there used to be in some places. It was the miners who formed the Labour Party. Until recently—it may now have gone—there was a miners' room along the corridor. They regarded themselves as the aristocrats and watched carefully those Johnny-come-latelys who came into the Labour Party at a later stage. The miners had a great influence on the political development of this country.
However, in Wales it was different. My father was severely damaged in the First World War. He was a miner. The last thing he would have allowed would have been for me to be a miner; and my mother even more so. My father was sceptical about coal owners and generals. He used to say to me, "When the people in Dorking, Surrey, are queuing to work in the coalmines, my lad, then you'll know it's a good job to have." That was in Wales. When I moved to Yorkshire, having lived in Nottinghamshire for a while, the situation was quite different. Noble Lords may have seen on television recently a young man who said, "I want my boy to work in the pits." When I went north years ago, I found it strange. The situation was foreign to me. Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire are quite different areas. That is one reason why the response is so different today.
Why do so many of us want an independent inquiry? I do not particularly want a Royal Commission. In fact, that never crossed my mind. I gave evidence to a Royal Commission last week on miscarriages of justice. It is just not possible to leave such an inquiry to a government department to unravel and a Royal Commission is absolutely right

711
for such a purpose. Government departments are incapable of carrying out such inquiries, as are Ministers and Home Secretaries, and I have been one. People with a wide range of experience are needed. I am concerned that the commission, or whatever it is to be called, should deal with the facts. I believe that Claus Moser would be an ideal chairman. He ran the statistical service of the Government and he tried unsuccessfully to teach me statistics at the London School of Economics. He is a strong-minded man who could provide the facts.
It may be that one thing atavistically—I used that word in my maiden speech the other day and I am using it again today; I wonder why?—that people remember in their bones is that after the miners' strike and then the general strike in 1926 the Government set up the Sankey Commission. That commission did not please the government of the day but 10 or 15 years later it proved to be right.
A commission must look at the facts. What should it look at? I have learned something from speeches made today by former Ministers and those with experience of the coal industry. We could all learn from the collective wisdom of people who know what they are talking about and who are not in an emotional spasm about the situation.
I have made a list of the facts which need to be looked at. We should look at the comparative costs in two ways: the economic comparative costs, the alternative costs, and the financial comparative costs. In the Library there is every expert's article from all the journals at the weekend and they all tell a different story. It may be that that is inevitable. I believe that an independent commission would get nearer the truth as regards comparative costs. The effect of the exchange rate should be considered also. Recently the pound has floated. Are we to go back into the ERM? We can only make guesses but the exchange rate is extremely important as regards imports and exports.
We should also consider the subsidies in Europe that l have learned about today and the subsidies for the nuclear industry at home. It is most important that the Government take that into account; otherwise they are not making judgments on the facts as they are seen at the time. I have learned today—although I knew something of it before—about the generating boards in their new form. When the Government privatised electricity, their decision was disastrous as regards the structure which was set up afterwards. We hear of the sweetheart deals. They have to be taken into account. There are no sweetheart deals with the coal industry and I do not suggest that there should be. There should be no such deals.
I was astonished to hear that we import 50 million tonnes from South Africa. I thought that that surely could not be true. However, in Cardiff Bay the other day—in the docks which once exported coal—I was looking at what is to be done as regards the barrage and the changes that will take place. I saw a great pile of coal. I had been told that there were only three pits in South Wales, two of which were to be shut. I said, "Look, you are exporting coal." "Oh no," they said,"
712
that is coming in from South Africa". Bringing in coal from South Africa to South Wales really is economic nonsense in my view.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. I said that 55 million tonnes is the total exports from South Africa and not just the amount which is coming here.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Some of it comes here. That is the point I am making.
I turn now to research and development. Let us take Grimethorpe, not just because of its brass band. I hope that an industrialist will take it over. It won the brass band championships last week. At Grimethorpe there is the fluidised bed research which is vitally important for the future but I hear that it has been shut down or mothballed. Who is responsible for research in the coal industry? Coal is not just for burning in a boiler. It is a precious chemical product. A commission should get the facts about that.
The last matter on my list is the structure of the coal board which has changed dramatically over the years. In my view the coal board gets more kicks than ha'pence. My family fought for the public ownership of coal. That was not because the industry was run well. Anyone remembering the coal industry in the 1920s will know that it was run badly. There was no centralisation. It was taken over for extremely good reasons. However, that does not mean to say that the structure is right today.
I wonder whether public expenditure would come within the remit of the inquiry. I have found one set of figures which demonstrate that 30,000 miners out of work would cost £2 billion in redundancy payments. Noble Lords can work out what would he the cost of 45,000 other people made redundant as a result. At present there is much talk about public expenditure and the Government are deciding to provide an enormous sum of public money to put people out of the jobs in which they are at present. Why should not the inquiry look at public expenditure and consider whether there are any better options? We should not seek to maintain the coal industry as a monolithic or prehistoric animal but so that it can change and so that other changes can take place.
Unlike the Norwegians, we have not used our oil revenues very well in recent years. We may well use our public expenditure rather more effectively. I am told that a subsidy of £75 million per year would maintain 10 million tonnes of coal and save 8,000 jobs. All that needs to be analysed. Let us use our public expenditure intelligently.
A committee would have to give its view but Parliament would have to decide. Parliament must decide on the unknown factors. Today in the Library I have been looking at the Royal Commission of 1871 which was made up of eminent people such as Jevons the economist. One decision that was made was that Britain would run out of coal by 1900. Therefore, even when we receive the independent report, Parliament must use its own judgment because there are

713
imponderables in the situation. Any energy policy must take into account imponderables as well as the certainties of the day.
Today we are debating coal and we shall debate coal when some sort of report comes back to us. However, we are really debating the economy. I can never remember a situation such as this. I was alive in 1931 but in retrospect I was not very aware of what was going on. There is something basically wrong with the economy of this country. Politicians dance on the top like cream cake. The debate on coal is part of that. If we allow our manufacturing base to disappear, our future generations will never forgive us. We have not done very well in the past 10 years.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I too have greatly appreciated this debate in which extremely eminent people have taken part; for example, ex-chairmen of British Coal and ex-Ministers with vast experience of the energy industry.
I can claim a certain knowledge of the coal industry. For all of my life I have known quite a lot about the coalfields of East Northumberland and County Durham. When I was a child my home was near enough to the East Northumberland coalfield for me to hear the pit buzzer at night. That was bad news for the village concerned because it meant that there was no work the next day. Later on in my life I became a parliamentary candidate and the constituency concerned was Ashington. Ashington has always been described as the biggest pit village in the world. Having stood there twice to represent the Conservative interest, I agree entirely with that description of it. I learnt an enormous amount about the coal industry from being a candidate in that constituency and through living so close to the coalfields. I have known many miners in my lifetime and I have a great respect for them.
In 1947 there were 188 pits in Northumberland and Durham—a remarkable thought—which employed 149,000 people. By 1984 the number of pits was down to 18 and since then 13 have ceased to exist. In the short time that I propose to speak in this debate I shall address the social problems of the current closure proposals. As I indicated, they are not new problems for the North-East of England. Indeed, ever since the late 1950s the North-East has seen a great deal of industrial contraction, not only in coal, but also in shipbuilding and steel. Therefore the people in the North-East know about redundancy and the social problems that it raises.
The encouraging aspect of the enormous employment problem that we have known is that so much has been achieved in the North-East—I hasten to say in the periods of both Conservative and Labour Governments. New industry throughout the region has been encouraged and is now thriving. There have been enormous environmental improvements. I believe that in the North-East we possess the finest road system in the country. That is all due to the
714
enormous efforts made by successive governments to deal with the redundancies caused by contracting industries.
I should like to give two examples of what has been achieved with regard to retraining and reemployment. I listened with interest to what the right reverend Prelate had to say regarding the villages in his diocese which would be flattened by the closure of pits, and I ask him to take some heart in what I say. It is not always so. Ashington, the biggest pit village in the world at one time, no longer has a pit. The two shafts which were sunk in the middle of the last century no longer exist; they are closed. But driving through Ashington, as I did last weekend thinking of the possibility of a debate on this subject, one sees a great deal of new light industry. That is extremely encouraging and pleasing.
The other example is that in September 1980 the Consett steelworks closed. At the same time a pit close by was closed. That had an immediate massive unemployment effect; 5,000 in Consett itself and 8,900 in the Derwentside area were made unemployed overnight. Today Consett is a remarkable place. It has a remarkable spread of new industry, and since 1980 6,000 new jobs have been created. It has a development park full of new shining factories. At the time of the closure of the steelworks there was one factory on what was called Consett No.1 Trading Estate, and it was empty. Today the factories are all full. Today in Consett we have factories on biotechnology and quality foods; Phineas Fogg tasty pieces are exported all over the world from Consett, once a stricken town. We have state of the art computers. Most encouraging of all is that in those factories, which I visited a short time ago, are ex-miners and ex-steelworkers who have been retrained and are now in good employment which will last because it is needed at this time. Best of all, because British Steel had the courage in 1980 to close the Consett steelworks and concentrate its efforts on the South Durham Steelworks at Redcar, Redcar is now second to none in Europe as a steelworks.
I should like to say this to mineworkers and their families, whose anxiety at this time is understood by all. As I see it, the Government wish to encourage by all means in their power the same kind of development in the areas of closure which we have known in Ashington, in Consett and in other places in the North-East of England. We need an extension of training, which we are to have according to the package being produced. We need extra encouragement of English estates. We are to have that, too. The proposed extension of regional enterprise grants is extremely acceptable and desirable. The extension of the highly successful enterprise zones will do a great deal to cope with the massive unemployment which faces us.
I was particularly pleased that my right honourable friend included in his Statement the fact that he was making available an extra £2 million for the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation. That is important to the Wearside section of the North-East of England and is greatly appreciated.

715
I therefore look to the longer term. Sad as it is that coal mines should close—in my area they have been closing for a long time—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that it was inevitable that this industry should contract. When looking to the long term it is to he hoped that we shall have an efficient coal industry of the right size and with a market for its products; that we shall provide power at a price which will allow our entire industry to be fully competitive in the world; that our workforce will be trained for modern required skills and know a high standard of living. As I see it, those are the Government's essential aims.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I thought I was digging a pit for myself in Statement time and Questions yesterday until I was hauled up the shaft by the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I was sorry about that. Of course, I am only sorry that the Government are not digging any pits for our own coalminers. It looks as though the last pit has been sunk.
What a devastating blow to our coalminers and horrific news to our coalfield communities that 31 pits are to close; 19 may survive but more likely only 12. Two-thirds of the coal industry will close down within months and that is still the case. Yesterday's Statement was not a cave-in; it was a con trick. It was a statement of salvation. It was a temporary pause for some pits and immediate death for the others. There is to be no independent review.
Thirty thousand miners' jobs are still to go and at least 60,000 jobs in supportive industries—many of them all over the country outside the mining communities. It affects steel, engineering, mining machinery, safety equipment, safety clothing, pit hoots, lamps, conveyer belting, canteen provisions, freight, road and rail, private contractors at the pits and the closure of coal-fired stations. There will be a massive knock-on effect. All that comes on top of 2,800,000 unemployed, manufacturing shedding jobs at the rate of 3,500 a week and unemployment racing to 3 million this year. What now of the Prime Minister's classless society? The Government are creating the largest mass of underclass citizens that we have ever known—a society of poverty-stricken no-hopers.
Last week's announcement sparked off a national outrage. Every spectrum of political life and indeed every walk of life—Church, business, commerce, workers and unemployed—rose in horror; nearly a people's revolt. That was because of the loss of 30,000 jobs; but nearly 100,000 jobs will be lost on top of 2,800,000 already unemployed in the country. That is what shocked the nation. But what a colossal blunder. The President of the Board of Trade obviously has no political nous. He is not aware; he has no sensitivity, no feeling. In his Statement he said that thousands of jobs were to go that very week, with all the consequent disturbing reverberations throughout the nation. That is political ineptitude of the highest order. How can anyone in trade and industry, even in politics now, have any faith or confidence in him any more? Never
716
before have a Government sunk so low in the eyes of their people. He has been the main cause and I believe that he ought to go.
As yet we have had no reasoned presentation why the coal industry is virtually going to die. Perhaps a dozen pits may survive. Why are we annually expanding the imports of subsidised foreign coal—20 million tonnes this year—produced by cheap labour, at the expense of 20,000 miners' jobs'? The Leader of the House said that special coals are coming in. One can understand about special coals, but why are we importing 10 to 12 million tonnes of non-specialised coal? Why are we importing French nuclear power equivalent to the output of five coal mines, or 5,000 jobs? Again, the Leader of the House says it is free trade. Why then are the Germans not taking our cheaper coal? We are subsidising nuclear power to the tune of £1.3 billion, equal to £50 per tonne of coal. Is that fair competition? The Germans heavily subsidise their coal industry and they are free to export to Britain. We are producing the cheapest coal in Europe and yet we are closing our mines. Where is the level playing field and where is the economic sense in all that?
The market has been, and still is, rigged against coal. It is unfair competition. The Government know it because they know that Government policies are removing British coal markets.
What do they say about the dash for gas? PowerGen put out a statement. I was not going to mention it, but it has been mentioned many times by noble Lords, by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, and by my noble friend Lord Varley:
"PowerGen has taken substantial volumes of coal from British Coal (26 million tonnes in 1991/2). These contracts expire at the end of March 1993 and new contracts arc under negotiation. Although we expect British Coal to remain by far our largest supplier, the volumes of coal for which we can contract are being squeezed through the privileged access that uneconomic nuclear power stations and independent gas-fired stations have to the market".
With "privileged access" and with the sweetheart deals mentioned previously by the noble Lords, Lord Haslam and Lord Marsh, it is obvious that the market is being rigged against coal.
I believe that British coal can compete with gas. PowerGen's most recent figures show a unit of electricity from gas ranged from 2.64 pence to 2.89 pence, and the cost of coal ranged from 2.20 pence to 2.73 pence. The Campaign for the Coalfield Communities carried out a survey. It established that one coal station could achieve 2.1 pence per kilowatt hour, gas between 2.7 and 3 pence per kilowatt hour. The TUC carried out its own survey and circulated all the information to my noble friends. It found that British coal would cost 2.2 pence per kilowatt hour and gas would be 2.7 to 2.9 pence. The chairman of British Coal said the same, but he would, wouldn't he?
The latest edition of International Coal Reports states that:
"No estimate of gas generation prices has been presented by the trade department to justify the closure of coal mines".
The further point was made that the surge of gas buying for new stations has already raised the price well above coal.

717
All these are disturbing and ominous signs. I gather that many industrial observers are very unhappy and quite concerned that a vital decision on the future of the coal industry appears to have been taken in isolation. Not only was it taken without fully considering the economic and social implications, but there is mounting evidence and concerned anxiety that the dash for gas is likely to mean higher prices for industry and the domestic consumer.
Then there is the wider question of the balance of payments. There is already a deficit balance on our overseas trade running at £12 billion per year. Getting locked in to an increasing deficit on imported coal and nuclear power is inevitable if the coal closure programme goes ahead. As worldwide demand for coal increases so will the price and allied freight costs; likewise, as we import more gas from other than our own gas fields. Once our coal industry has been shattered and practically shut we shall be trapped in a spiralling increase of balance of payments deficits. What then will happen to our security of supply? We shall be held to ransom. Anglo United, British Coal's second largest customer after the electricity generators, is being forced to increase its annual coal imports from 100,000 tonnes to almost 1 million tonnes because of the pit closures. So it goes on.
The social consequences will be appalling following on the wave of closures in the 1980s from which we have still not recovered in South Yorkshire. There will be more misery, despair, unhappiness, frustration, and no hope. The average age of miners is now 36 years of age. What hope is there of a job when every vacancy will be chased by 50 applicants? Of the 10 pits that are to close immediately, two are in Barnsley and one nearby—Houghton Main, Grimethorpe and Markham Main. One small pit of 500 men remains at Goldthorpe. We shall see the end of an era.
How ironic it is that Grimethorpe colliery is closing and on its surface there is the development of fluidised bed, for which I was responsible in 1968. I raised the money to put the research on at Leatherhead, the Coal Board's research station. How ironic that it has come to Grimethorpe, to Barnsley, to be developed, and that when the Government had the chance of developing clean, cheap, efficient coal burning fire stations they withdrew their finance. They still have to answer for that.
My area is shattered. We have lost 20,000 miners' jobs in the past eight years, and as many in the supportive industries. Our unemployment rate is destined to rise well over 20 per cent. That epitomises the scale of coalfield community devastation and the depth of the slump that we are suffering. The right reverend Prelate spelt that out.
Let us have no misunderstanding of what happened in the 1960s when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was deputy chairman of the board and I was Minister of Power. In those days, with hundreds of coal mines and relatively low unemployment, the age of miners in the pits was 55 to 60 years of age, and there were still many mines available for transfer. There was no problem as there is today. On this occasion we have 2.8 million people on the dole, 31 pits to close out of
718
50; that is, two-thirds of the industry going in the next few months. The average age of the miners is 36. Never before in the history of government or of the coal mining industry has there been a decision as harsh as this.
It is therefore obvious that there is a case to halt all these closures. It is vitally imperative that they be halted until a full examination has been undertaken of all aspects of their impact on the questions of total job losses: true energy costs; what energy deficits will accrue on the balance of payments; the concern over the security of supply; how to alleviate the social consequences; and a proper analysis of the costs in terms of unemployment payments and lost tax revenue. This examination should be conducted by independent, chosen energy analysts, not by party political committees and certainly not by the President of the Board of Trade. He is not going to bring out a determination that makes him look a fool or a liar.
The whole country feels that an injustice has been done. The national conscience has been stirred, and it can be calmed only by the report of a truthful, honest, independent examination of all these issues. I believe that that should be done.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, nothing is for ever. If one goes to Grimes Graves which I think is in Suffolk (but it may be on the border with Essex), one will see what is left of an old neolithic industry in chipped flints. It is called flint knapping. Who today could go down to Brighton beach, pick up three flints, use one as a hammer, one as an anvil and chip the third into an arrow-head? The craft is dead and gone. Need coal mining go the same way?
That brings me to an attempt to answer the rhetorical question that was put yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, which was, "Who wants to buy our surplus coal?" She said that nobody had given her the answer to that question. If the noble Baroness will be patient, I shall give her the answer. The answer to the question "Who will buy our surplus coal?" is the electricity boards, provided that one puts an embargo on the use of North Sea gas for base load purposes. I do not mean that one may never use North Sea gas for power generation. The use of a gas turbine for peak load shaving (as it is called) would have to be exempt for that purpose. I simply cannot understand why we cannot do that.
My noble friend Lord Marsh has reminded us that this has all been done before—and so it has; but if doing it again could gain time, surely that is something that we should try to do. I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that our current poor performance in manufacturing industry has nothing whatsoever to do with fuel prices. It is an altogether independent phenomenon which, as I told your Lordships when we met for the special Session at the end of September, must be attended to. I have some ideas about that.
I approach this problem rather like King Magnus in Shaw's play "The Apple Cart". He was addressing a rather squabblesome Cabinet and trying to remind

719
them what he was there for. He said that he represented the great abstractions: the posterity that has no vote, the past that has never had one and
"for the evolutionary appetite against the day's gluttony".
Talking of posterity,1 have quite recently become a great-grandfather.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, thank you. Becoming a great grandfather has enlarged my horizons because with this latest addition to my family what I call the future has been pushed forwards by my lifespan so far to the year 2077. I have reminded your Lordships on so many occasions in the past that I hope I shall not weary you by reminding you again that the next century is on us now. Anything that is decided today will not come into effect until about 1997. I said this when the turn of the century was 20 years ahead. I said it again when it was 15 years ahead of us and I say it again tonight when it is only eight years ahead of us. As I have said, I am thinking as far as the year 2077 as being comparable to my own life span starting from now.
Let us talk about today's gluttony. I must be frightfully frank here. Both parties, irrespective of their ideological persuasions have been guzzling natural gas from the very moment that it was discovered in the North Sea. This is exactly as described by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who defended its use for the housewife. I entirely agree. North Sea gas is ideal and is a priority issue for the housewife. For cooking, central heating and so on there is nothing like it.
In supporting the Motion, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should not suppose that I think his party guiltless in this matter. Without taking sides, which would be most unfitting for a Cross-Bencher, for historical reasons the noble Lord's party currently has rather less practical experience of misgoverning than the party in power, but its time will come.
Let me begin with the point at which I joined the North Thames Gas Board in about 1962. Incidentally, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has returned to his place because I have just paid him a compliment. No doubt he will read it tomorrow. I took part in two revolutions in the gas industry. The first was the transformation from carbonisation to hydro-carbon re-forming. That was a major revolution that affected the entire gas industry. The second was the transformation from towns gas to North Sea gas. That transformation has been described as the biggest single industrial enterprise ever undertaken by anyone. Whether or not that is the case, I did not think of the phrase, other people did.
Having done that, I was horrified at a board meeting of the North Thames Gas Board when up for discussion came a contract for an enormous amount of natural gas at a cut price to be supplied to the Slough Trading Estate. I protested against that on behalf of the future housewives. I said, "This thing must not be allowed. I shall not be a party to it unless I am pressurised into it by the Gas Council in which case it will not be a resigning issue because nobody will
720
notice". The matter went from the Gas Council, which endorsed it, to the Ministry which also endorsed it. That was the thin end of the wedge that set us on this path and I experienced it with great misgivings. I am sorry to say that, so far as I remember, the Labour Government of the day were a party to it. If it had not been them, it would have been a Conservative Government because nobody was ever willing to make a stand about it.
I entirely agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Marsh; but is analysis the ultimate value in life? I seek a synthesis—the "evolutionary appetite" that King Magnus referred to in "The Apple Cart". Like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, I too am aware of coal mining and coal miners. Some 10 years ago I constituted myself into a travelling reporter on coal mines for what was then Sub-committee F—now Sub-committee B—of the Select Committee on European Affairs. I made it my business to go down every coal mine in the country that represented the extreme of something. I have watched the thinnest seam being mined and I have watched the thickest. I have watched the wettest seam being mined—that is the Seaforth mine under the Firth of Forth, where five tonnes of water are mined for every tonne of coal. I have been to the most inclined seam, the most gassy seam, and so on. I made quite a hobby of it.
I became acutely aware that coal mining is a kind of sub-culture of our national life. Underground, everyone is friendly. Everyone smiles and says, "good morning" when one passes, escorted by the mine manager. I do not know whether they were saying "good morning" to him or to me. It all seemed very friendly-like. One thinks of how a mining village starts. In the first place, a pit shaft is sunk where it is most economical and then a village grows up around it. The inhabitants of the village all inter-marry. They become a family; and if there is a disaster in the mine, it affects very many people.
Arising out of these matters, I tabled a Motion calling for Papers in March 1979. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was then in office as Prime Minister. We had a very interesting debate with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, replying on behalf of the Government. I should like to read to your Lordships what I then said because I want to emphasise the fact that I have been saying this for so long. In 1979 I said:
"North Sea oil and North Sea gas will not be there for ever, and I am much concerned about what I call the squandermaniacal depletion of our reserves of North Sea gas due to extremely unwise drawing of the contracts with the oil companies in years gone by. That is another topic and I shall not explore it in depth this afternoon".—[Official Report,7/3/79; col.189.]
I ended the debate with these words:
"we ought never to use gas where we can use oil; we ought never to use oil where we can use coal; and we ought never to use coal where we can use nuclear power".—[Official Report,7/3/79; cols.265–66.]
That is what I felt in 1979. I received what I call a rather confirmatory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. He more or less said that he quite agreed and that it was quite a good idea, but it did not make the slightest difference. We went on with our squandermania just the same. I very much hope that

721
this Motion will be passed as, for my part, I want to give evidence to that committee of inquiry and tell it what I think on behalf of the housewife.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I thought today that the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a most convincing case against the privatisation of electricity generation. He told us that it was illegal for the directors of the two power companies to act in the public interest. That was exactly the case against privatisation. It was not illegal for the Government to advise them to act in the public interest but it was illegal for the directors to take the Government's advice. It is no good therefore the Government saying that there is no market for British coal. The Government have deliberately rigged—I used the word "rigged"—the market against coal by handing it over to a duopoly of two private power companies, which incidentally I believe have a vested interest in the gas powered generating stations. That privatisation of power is the main cause of the whole of the disaster which we are discussing today.
Although that is so in the short term, have the Government given no thought also to the longer term and to our national security both in economic and defence terms? Economically, if we massacre our coal industry we should put our whole economic life at the mercy of oil exporting countries which could hold us up to ransom and which may not be particularly friendly to this country. After all, as has been said by several noble Lords today, our oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, unlike our coal supplies, are dwindling and will not last for a great number of years.
The defence risk, which has not been mentioned by anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, is surely even greater. In the two great wars we were more nearly defeated in 1916 and 1942 by loss of shipping space than in any other way. We survived only by help from the United States. Shortage of shipping space became a major bottle-neck in the whole of the last war effort. I speak here, though only a grandfather and not as yet a great-grandfather, as one who played a modest part in the economic war effort in the second war. Only the most essential materials could then be imported. But our fuel supplies were adequately maintained just because they were almost wholly dependent on home produced coal. Our coal industry saved the situation in both wars and saved the balance of payments situation in the 10 years after the second war. Have the Government really considered—I very much doubt whether they have because they did not even bother to consult their own Cabinet—our defence prospects if we deprived ourselves of our coal supplies and became almost wholly dependent on oil, gas and nuclear supplies?
I should have thought that oil installations, oil rigs and natural gas installations in the North Sea are about the most obvious sitting ducks for either air or naval attack, if that situation ever arose—more obvious than almost anything one can imagine. Perhaps the only other similar sitting duck would be a 200,000 tonne oil tanker fully loaded with oil sailing
722
from the Middle East to Liverpool or Southampton. Yet on the Government's policy, as I understand it, almost the whole of our electricity supply would in the event of a war go to industry, to the railways, and to munitions production. The armed forces would be dependent on imported oil or gas, with a little help from nuclear energy.
I know someone will say at this point in the argument that what I have said is scaremongering and involves looking too far ahead, that this situation will never arise and that we shall never be engaged in hostilities again. If that is so, why do we have armed forces? Why do we spend more than £20 billion a year on our armed forces? I have always been in favour of a British nuclear deterrent and the Trident programme, but whatever else is true it really cannot be common sense to spend £10 billion on three Trident submarines and then not have any oil to enable them to go to sea. Therefore, I do not think it is a sound argument to say that all this can never happen and that we need not give any thought to it now. In that case there does not seem to be much point in our huge defence expenditure which otherwise I should defend.
The sober truth is that we maintain our defence capacity because none of us knows what will happen 40 or 50 years hence. Indeed, we all pay insurance premiums because none of us knows what is likely to happen to our house or car. Who can say now this reflection is worth while—what kind of government the Russians will have, the Germans will have, the United States will have or indeed France will have 50 years from now? It would be a reasonable spread of risks, economic and military, to make our electrical power 50 per cent. dependent on a home produced coal,25 per cent. dependent on oil and gas—it is reasonable to have some—and the remaining 25 per cent. dependent on nuclear stations.
That is only an amateur judgment made without knowledge of all the statistical facts, but have the Government made any expert and authenticated judgment of the practicabilities and the possibilities? If so, what are their conclusions; and, if not, the Government, quite apart from the rest of the problem, are under an imperative duty to the nation and to Parliament to make such an assessment of the defence risks before they destroy the British coal industry on the advice of two power companies and apparently Messrs. Rothschild, who had some major part in the whole of this story.
I would argue that the greater the difficulties and the greater the uncertainties in assessing this defence risk the greater is the national obligation to allow a fair margin of safety in our favour. Even if a subsidy were necessary for home produced coal—and that has not been proved—it could very properly and reasonably be counted as a defence insurance and be paid for under the defence budget. That is another reason why the Government must take these problems seriously and accept some kind of genuinely impartial and objective inquiry before they proceed further down this dangerous road.
8.49 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I shall not waste your Lordships' time with an explanation as to why I have the temerity to speak in the debate in the face of so much expertise, fluency and lay and spiritual concern. I hope that that will become clear as my brief remarks unfold. Those remarks will, I fear, not compare with those of my distinguished predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Jay.
I welcome Ministers' change of heart even if that heart is not always worn on their sleeves. I agree with much of their logic as applied to the coal industry, even if the presentation fell far short of what was desirable or appropriate, especially when pointing directly to job losses in an industry where the limits of endurance and guts are needed to mine coal.
Secondly, I believe that if management in the coal industry judges that a pit is incapable of generating profit, having explored all avenues such as the level of future coal prices, investment and the other relevant issues, then it is wrong to spend public money on keeping it afloat longer than is necessary for an orderly closure. Thirdly, I agree that unsaleable stocks of coal should not be accumulated at vast cost to the taxpayer. Those three propositions seem to me to be self-evident and must override all other considerations however painful. They call for a review of other remedies but do not allow retreat.
Having said that, questions follow from those propositions which I hope my noble friend will be good enough to answer in her closing speech. First, as regards the proposed reduction of over one-third in the likely usage of coal by electricity generators, what savings in the cost of electricity to industry are envisaged? There must be estimates. The massive investment in gas-fired power stations could not have been justified without detailed estimates of savings. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in his former office must have discussed them with the electricity generators. However, he has told us nothing about them. Ministers must know them. Parliament and the public—and more especially the employees of British Coal—are entitled to know. I hope that my noble friend will be in a position to produce such figures at the end of the debate.
Secondly, at what averaged price is coal delivered at power stations competitive with gas—that is, averaged over the quantities per cent. of different grades of coal, and taking into account transport costs? Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that all pits earmarked for closure are unable to mine coal at such low cost that it cannot be delivered to where it is needed at the required tonnage and at that price? Thirdly, does the increase in gas-fired power station capacity equate to the likely reduction of intake of coal by the electricity generators? If so, there is very little to discuss apart from the timing and method of closures and the scale of compensation as I have not heard one of your Lordships recommend that those gas-fired power stations should stand idle and unused while coal continues to be mined in the same quantity as before.
Those are relatively simple questions. If the Government know the answers and will give them, I
724
personally do not see why the expense, and scale of time and effort, of a public inquiry should be warranted. But if Ministers and British Coal continue to keep Parliament and the public in the dark, and if my noble friend in her closing speech is economical with facts and figures, then I shall have to rethink my views about the need for a full public inquiry into the proposals.
Whose are those proposals? The President of the Board Trade says that they originate with British Coal. If so, management made short-sighted decisions from which miners have only been granted a reprieve because public opinion made itself felt through Parliament and ministerial recantation. My noble friend Lady Denton said yesterday that privatisation would strengthen British Coal. But how? Will it improve the competitive position of British Coal? Will it increase the demand for British coal? There must be considerable doubt in respect of those questions. How can there be justification for my noble friend to use the word "market" to describe the source of demand for British coal? There is no market in the sense in which my noble friend was using the word. In fact, there are negotiations between one supplier and two customers leading to contracts. That is hardly the scenario in which market forces can exert their pressure on prices in the interests of the consumer. Further, how can British Coal expect to find buyers for its shares when the current prospectus is no market for coal?
Finally, I should like to remind your Lordships of how many Members of this House have at one time or another been associated with the famous names detailed for closure in the ministerial Statement. I ask those Members, as former coal owners, or their descendants to join me in expressing our sympathy to the sons and grandsons, facing redundancy, employed by our fathers and grandfathers. I ask the House to do all within its limited powers to safeguard their interests and ensure that they get a fair and even a generous deal from British Coal, co-ordinated and facilitated by the wisdom, the experience, and, above all, the humanity of my noble friend Lord Walker who, I hope, will be able to build a Chinese wall between his gas interests and his new coal responsibilities. That will also be at the behest of the Minister who, on this occasion, is not attired in a loincloth, but, more appropriately for the coal industry, in sackcloth and ashes.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at this late hour I speak neither as an MP for a mining constituency nor as a former Minister or chairman of the National Coal Board or even the grandson of a mine owner. I speak merely as an economist. I must say that I have felt deeply insulted professionally—that is, riot just for myself but also for the profession of economists in this country. People have been bandying about words like "competition" and "market" as if there has been no reliable information on the subject.
If I may, I should like to sort out some of that confusion this evening. First, the Government have for a long time been confused about the words "private" and "competitive". They have always taken

725
the view that whatever is public is wrong and monopolistic and that whatever is private is good and competitive. Well, as many noble Lords have said, that happens not to be the case as regards gas and electricity privatisation. Moreover, British Coal's privatisation is likely to be another mess.
We cannot talk about competitive markets when we have a system of private monopolies. We cannot talk about competitive markets when, due to regional differences and local conditions, there can be one electricity supplier only in a region. That is not competition. It is elementary. Just because a business is private, it does not become competitive. Every price set in a private market is not necessarily competitive; nor is the fact that a firm makes a profit an indicator of efficiency just because it is private. That is a little lecture, and I shall answer questions afterwards.
It could be argued that the coal mines lose a great deal but that for various social, economic and political considerations we should like to defend them. Before I deal with efficiency generally, I want to talk about the simple accounting facts of the coal mines that it is proposed should be shut. A subsidy of £100 million has been mentioned. I should like to know from where that figure comes. The total loss incurred in the latest year for which I have figures in the 31 pits scheduled for closure was £8.5 million—no more than £8.5 million. The profit made by the 10 pits about which it is said there is an unanswerable case for closure was £3.4 million. Those figures come from the accounts of British Coal. They are not loss-making pits. They are profit-making pits. I grant your Lordships that the figures are accounting figures and not economic figures, but if a strong case is to be made out that the nation is throwing money down the drain, let us pause and ask where are the figures to justify such concepts.
People as different as Mr. Andrew Glynn of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and Professor Colin Robinson, who is the director of research in the Institute of Economic Affairs, agree that the manner in which gas and electricity were privatised and the way in which the entire energy economy is structured cannot carry the name of competitiveness, and the figures cannot bear the scrutiny that should be given to them.
I do not believe that all the pits are loss-making, although I do not deny that some of them are. Together they lose £8.5 million. If the pits are loss-making, we then ask whether to concentrate upon the short and narrow concept of efficiency is justifiable or whether we should look at the social costs of redundancy in the coal industry. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who made many of these points succinctly, have said that we should examine all the options available, not just in relation to current prices of gas and electricity but also the possible trends in prices which could be envisaged if they did not have the monopoly powers which the Government have granted them. We must then ask ourselves whether, if the prices are not taken as God given, could we still justify the idea that somehow the coal industry is inefficient. It may be. It may not be, but the Government gave us no evidence in the first
726
instance when they announced the closures, in the retraction, or anywhere else, to justify the idea that we somehow have a coal industry which is throwing money down the sink and obtaining no return.
Before I reach the argument about the social costs of unemployment, the narrow economic case for shutting pits has to be examined. It must be examined on the grounds that some of the prices, if not rigged, are distorted. Not only are they distorted, but, as many others have said, much of the planning for the efficient gas-fired plants has been based on the simple static idea that whatever was the price in 1990 would be the price for ever. We have made such mistakes before. As many noble Lords pointed out, we made the mistake with oil. We thought that oil was going to be cheap. In 1990, some teenage scribbler in Rothschild's, or whatever it is—vastly overpaid, I have no doubt—thought that the then current prices for gas and coal would last for ever and therefore calculated that coal would be inefficient. There is no justification for that.
Proper accounting should be done with alternative spot prices. Calculations should be made as to which pits are efficient and which are not. That is not new. Economists do it all the time. This country has some of the finest economists who have pioneered cost benefit analysis. We can do it much better. The calculations do not necessarily have to be done in the private sector just because they charge a great deal of money. The universities can do them. They can charge a great deal of money if that is what is wanted. They should be done in a way that does justice to the talents which exist in this country as well as to the strength of public opinion which says to us that we should not take decisions in such a peremptory manner.
There are large issues of efficiency to be considered on the grounds of a single industry, on different assumptions, and the energy economy, taken together. Lastly, as people have said, one cannot decide upon inefficiency independently of the state of the economy as a whole. That is where the balance of payments, the exchange rate and the PSBR come in. If we are going to spend £1.6 billion extra on redundancy payments for miners, what are we going to cut? If we are to be told that the PSBR will be added to, that is fine; but the matter must be clarified. Economics is about choices and options. If we are to spend £1.6 billion this year and £600 million a year for a long time thereafter on the closures, we must have clarification as to the choices the Government are making: what they are giving up, and what will be the unemployment consequences of those choices. That is what we should like to know.
What we do not want to hear, after 15 or 20 pits have been shut down, is the Government saying a year later that the entire policy is changed. We do not want the Minister to start singing in the bath one year further on. Let him sing in the bath now. We do not want policies that cause a lot of misery only to be told later that the Government did not believe in those policies anyway. That is a serious problem. We have been subjected to economic policies which we were told were a central part of the economic strategy of this Government. Then we are suddenly told without

727
any apology that the policies are not a central part of the Government's economic strategy, and that the Government never believed in those policies. How can a government who not only change their mind but do not even explain why they have done so command any credibility?
The Government believed that after Black Wednesday they were acting in British interests. That means they were not acting in British interests before Black Wednesday. That is somewhat surprising. Will the Government now tell us whether they think they are acting in British interests or whether they will do so after some catastrophic event has occurred? We must know the answer to that question.
An independent inquiry is necessary for two reasons. First, the credibility of this Government and their decision-making structure is zero if not negative. Secondly, only an independent inquiry can consider private monopolies without prejudice as the members of the inquiry do not have a stake in those monopolies. The members of the inquiry have not made decisions in the past relating to those private monopolies. The people who have made those decisions in the past would tend to defend their decisions. I suspect that the consultation we have been promised will confine itself purely to the coal industry and will miss out gas, electricity, the balance of payments, the public sector borrowing requirement, unemployment and other such issues. I believe an independent inquiry would be broader, deeper, more impartial and more useful than the consultation we have been promised.
No one has mentioned so far in the debate the environmental consequences of shutting down coal mines. Some noble Lords may have seen a letter in the Times from Dr. Emma Rothschild who has great knowledge of environmental matters. She described in graphic detail the consequences of shutting down coal mines. She said that such a process can be quite disastrous in terms of water pollution and fish life. Even if it is decided to abandon certain coal pits, we must ask ourselves carefully whether it is in the environmental interest to shut them down for ever. The environmental costs of shutting down coal pits may be the largest unaccounted costs of the measure the Government are taking. The environmental and unemployment consequences of that measure make us all plead, for sanity's sake, for an independent inquiry. Then the correct decision can be arrived at.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, last week when the Government announced the closure of 31 pits and the redundancies of 30,000 miners an emotional spasm went right through this country. People said enough was enough and that the Government had gone too far. I believe that a phrase attributed to the Duke of Wellington on the eve of the Battle of Waterloo was that he did not know what the effect of the troops he was reviewing would be on the French but they certainly scared the hell out of him. I wonder whether the Government's action was taken as a result of their enmity towards the mining community for various actions taken by that community in the past.
728
When we arrived here yesterday we all felt a sense of anticipation as we knew a significant government Statement was to be delivered. We listened to that Statement with bated breath. The Statement caused me terrific anger as it effectively asserted the Government would continue with the policy that emerged last week. The Government have conceded they will temper their policy a little for a couple of months but it will inevitably go ahead. That anger was still with me today just before this debate began. I intended to move a manuscript amendment to the Motion before us. My manuscript amendment would have asserted that this House was totally appalled by the Government's decision. I wanted to ask the Government to stop the closure programme and to demand that they take action to secure the future of the coal industry.
However, as the debate has progressed my anger has to a certain extent been dissipated. It has been interesting to listen to the wisdom and the information from all parts of the House. That wisdom has been spoken by our Leader on the Opposition side of the House, by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and by a host of other speakers. They have all contributed pertinent information as to how we have reached this stage and where we go from here.
We are discussing the future of the coal industry. As many speakers have said, the issue relates not only to the coal industry but to energy policy generally. We are now at a critical juncture. The question arises as to how we have got where we are and why this is a critical juncture.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out that over the years there have been reductions in the size of the coal mining industry for various reasons. In the 1950s and 1960s the use of gas, and to some extent oil, for domestic consumption was prevalent. That resulted in tremendous benefits for this country, not only for households in the domestic sector, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, but also for the environment. We achieved clean air as a result of burning gas in our domestic residences rather than coal. That meant a reduction in the demand for coal.
We have also seen a reduction in the demand for coal as a result of the building of oil-fired power stations and the development of nuclear power stations. It is interesting to consider those factors, because cheap oil was considered to be the fuel of the future. Yet what happened in the early 1970s? The price of oil rocketed so that it was no longer significant as a major fuel for electricity generation. For 30 or 40 years we were told that nuclear power was a cheap form of energy. It is only in the past few years that the truth has emerged: nuclear electricity is in fact more expensive than any other form of electricity generation.
We are now debating the closure of 31 pits, with 30,000 miners being made redundant, for two significant reasons. The first is the rise in imported coal being burnt in our power stations. The second is the development of gas-fired electricity generation. We are told that both of those factors will effectively hit

729
the UK economy from April next year and that the demand for British coal will decline from 65 million tonnes to 40 million tonnes.
It is very easy to blame the Government for that. A great deal of blame does attach to the Government. I believe, however, that it is more a question of the cock-up theory of politics rather than of conspiracy. I do not believe that there was a conspiracy on the part of the Government to destroy the British mining industry by organising electricity supply in this country so that gas was used more effectively along with imported coal. I do not believe that that was running through the Government's mind. Yes, they changed the circumstances. They privatised the gas and electricity industries, and that has led to the present situation.
How do we get out of that situation? The noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out one mechanism in his opening remarks. He said that if the use of gas by the regional electricity companies to produce electricity resulted in more expensive electricity they would be in breach of their licensing conditions. What are the mechanisms for dealing with that? If that gas-fired electricity generating capacity is installed who will pay for it at the end of the day? I suggest that the only people who will pay for it are the electricity consumers.
For that reason we need to stop that programme now. We need to stop the programme of pit closures now to enable the inquiry which we have proposed to look at all the problems. One of the problems is that the coal-fired electricity producers have the opportunity to buy imported coal or to buy from British Coal. If the generators sign up long-term contracts with British Coal to supply the majority of their needs the security of British Coal is assured for the longer term.
I make the plea that the Government go a little further than they have already and say to the coal mining industry that there will be no more closures until we have had a thorough review. It is not good enough to say that individual miners can take redundancy if they want it. If the threat of closure is hanging over the industry anyway people will volunteer for redundancy. Effectively, the industry will haemorrhage to death. We need to stop that haemorrhage and identify the best way forward. That can be done only by the inquiry for which we are calling.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my father was a mining engineer. I recall that on one occasion he was called down the mine in the middle of the night because there had been a fire on the night shift. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, has told us that today there are mining families who are anxious to see their children go into the pits. His knowledge of this is infinitely greater than mine, and I bow to his superior wisdom. But I still have the feeling that if I were a mother in a mining village the last thing I would want would be to put my child down the pit.
Not so very long ago a prominent trade unionist in the mining industry said he would not be satisfied until
730
all the men down there were up on the surface in white coats, with bunsen burners, doing civilised, comfortable jobs out in the open. I have always felt a sense of guilt that so much of the prosperity of this country, and the prosperity of so many in this House, has been built on the work of men who have had to work in such dangerous and unsatisfactory conditions. I know they are better today, but surely nobody is seriously going to deny that it is still a dangerous and in many ways an unpleasant industry in which to work.
It is not the shutting of the mines as such that one regrets or protests against. If the circumstances were right it would be a good thing to have the work done in other ways. But what are those circumstances? The circumstances are that we would have to be entirely satisfied about all the environmental conditions and the economics of the change. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us earlier today, it is perhaps even more important, or at least equally important, to be satisfied about the future of the men who will be coming out of the mines and about the communities in which their families have been living for generations. We are satisfied about none of those things.
As I have listened to the debate this afternoon it has become increasingly plain to me that there is no agreement about any of the essential facts which we need to know before we can make a reasoned judgment about what ought to be done and the extent of the changes that ought to be undertaken. That is why we on these Benches wholeheartedly back the demand for an independent investigation. I know that the noble Baroness is going to say, as the Leader of the House said at the beginning of the debate, that the Government will carry out further investigations and the facts will be put before us. I do not wish to be brutal. I understand that the Government have many problems. But the plain, brute point is that facts put before us by the Government are not going to be believed.
It is no use giving facts that will not he believed. The Government have contradicted themselves too often. They are too deeply compromised. They are too involved in the decisions that have already been made—their decisions, after all—for anyone, even with the maximum amount of good will in those circumstances, to credit figures given to us by the Government. The alternative is either that the Government continue arbitrarily in their own way, leaving us all without the information that we need to make a reasoned judgment of whether what they are doing is right or wrong, or they must hold an independent inquiry.
The independent inquiry must also take into account the position of the electricity industry. As my noble friend Lord Ezra said, the electricity industry has the mining industry by the jugular. That is the key to what will happen. Going back a little further, the troubles start with the way in which the electricity industry was privatised. These Benches protested again and again that a private monopoly was being created. We have to deal with a private monopoly and it is a private monopoly with which the coal industry has to deal today. A private monopoly has no place in a free market. It is useless to say that what we see is the

731
operation of the market and that is why the coal industry has to be sacrificed. It is not a free market. It is nothing like a free market.
I ask the noble Baroness to comment in particular on the point made by my noble friend. If those contracts are signed between the Coal Board and the electricity industry limiting the purchases of the electricity industry to 40 million tonnes, the independent inquiry will be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. The question of the electricity industry and its bargaining power with the coal industry must be looked into now.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that there were legal reasons why nothing could be done to change the decisions made by the electricity industry. I find that very difficult to believe. Surely in such a crisis, with so much at stake, there must be a way in which pressure can be brought to bear on the electricity industry so that it does not go ahead and sign the contracts until the independent inquiry has had a chance to report.
We have been told that it cannot be done because of the interests of the shareholders. We know that 60 per cent. of them are private shareholders. But the Government have a 40 per cent. shareholding, presumably in the interests of the nation. The nation is a 40 per cent. shareholder in the electricity industry. It has a right to be heard too. There is not such a very great difference between 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. Surely it has become apparent throughout the country that the nation as a whole has a deep and profound interest in this matter. It would be extremely reluctant to see those contracts signed and therefore any future changes made impossible.
It is not only what the Government have decided to do that is at issue. As noble Lords from all parts of the House have said this evening, it is the way in which it has been done. The Government could have acted in many different ways. I do not feel that quite enough has been said about the way in which Parliament has been bypassed. This is a matter of very great national importance. The reaction all over the country has made it clear that the nation as a whole is deeply concerned.
At the weekend I was in Nottingham, in the Midlands. A local lady there, one of the remaining landowners of the extreme Right (so everybody thought), was urging the parishioners after church to write to their MP to protest at what the Coal Board was doing. When one has such reactions from such sources something very special indeed is going on. That is only one example of a nationwide protest. There may be a degree of hysteria about it. But that national reaction surely gives credence to my argument that 40 per cent. of the country are represented in the electricity industry and have a right to be heard.
Parliament has been bypassed on this issue. A matter of such national importance should not have been decided by the Government and the information should not have been handled in such a way. The decision was made before Parliament came back and not discussed with Parliament in advance. There should surely have been at least a White Paper which
732
could have been discussed before those changes took place. In their previous life this Government were accused again and again, in particular from these Benches, of treating Parliament like a rubber stamp—telling Parliament about decisions which had been made and were almost fixed in concrete before we had a chance to get a word in. They are now a different Government. I beg them not to follow that practice any more and to recognise that such a matter should have been fully discussed with Parliament before the decision was handed out as being final.
I comment also on another aspect of the way in which the issue was handled. Will the Government never learn? Have they never seen how a more enlightened industry carries out a difficult change of organisation? Have they not read the volumes of literature? I refer to academic and industrial literature on how to have change accepted. It is by involving people in the change and having discussions with them in advance. Consultation is not a matter of making up one's mind, telling people that that is what one has decided to do and asking whether they have any comments. Consultation is saying to people in advance, "This is the problem. We have ideas as to what we might do. We have sorted out various lines of action. Let us discuss them". Nothing like that has happened.
Ask any modern employer, my Lords. There is plenty of experience of bringing about difficult changes in such bodies as ICI and other large-scale organisations. They do not achieve it in this way. They have real consultation with the people who will be involved. Unless those people believe that they are party to the change, that they can see something in it for them and that they have some ownership—not in a financial sense but in a decision-making sense—in the changes being brought about, experience tells us that the change will be rejected. Do the Government never learn?
9.33 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is clear that the whole House has welcomed the debate which is central to the anxieties of the nation today. We have heard some remarkable speeches. We have heard the impressive authority of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the moving speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, the passion of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, the expertise of my noble friend Lord Dormand and of the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, effectively, and without conclusion, refuting the case of the Government. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, with all his industrial experience, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, from the Cross-Benches supporting an inquiry. Whatever the number of feet in the Division, it cannot be denied in this debate that the overwhelming consensus of voices expressed deep concern about the future of the coal industry and were in favour of a full, independent inquiry. Where genuine disagreement existed—such as over the nature of the energy market—to me it confirmed the case for a genuine inquiry to establish the true facts and figures on which those disagreements were based.

733
Naturally we welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, who for the first time attempted to clarify and define the issues to be reviewed. The speech was not comprehensive but it was certainly helpful. In fact, to me, the noble Lord the Leader of the House moved some way down the path of logic which, to the rest of the House, leads inevitably to a full independent inquiry. He set out several aspects of the energy situation which require review—nuclear power, gas and exports—but stopped short of the obvious conclusion; namely, to have an independent review of them. He did three-quarters of a somersault compared with the Government's position last week. But why does he still stop short of the logical conclusion and still advocate that internal review?
The worst and least trusting interpretation is that the internal review has been chosen as a kind of cynical political trick to fudge and delay the closure issue without any real change of intention and so to quieten Conservative Back-Benchers for tomorrow's debate. I prefer not to take that view; but certainly one simple way to bury that suspicion would be to have an independent inquiry.
The problem with obstinately insisting on an internal consultative review is that we know—as has been said frequently—that the internal reviewers are in fact pre-programmed. The Ministers concerned have stated that they find the arguments for closure compelling. The Prime Minister said that on Friday in Birmingham; Mr. Heseltine said it on television on Sunday; yesterday's Statement repeated that. On the present proposals those Ministers will, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, be judge and jury in that internal review. Why should they change their minds without convincing independent arguments?
Our view is that sadly this issue is at present pre-judged. That is why an internal review cannot carry conviction. Only an independent inquiry can carry credibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Brookes, said, an internal review should not satisfy this House and will not satisfy the nation. I cannot better that. We need an independent inquiry with published terms of reference and an agenda which covers the main issues that have been raised so well and argued so ably in this House today.
I should now like to summarise those issues which should constitute the terms of reference and agenda for that inquiry, all of which have been referred to by noble Lords in this debate but not all, I must say, were mentioned by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his opening speech. Perhaps the noble Baroness will assist us in her winding-up speech.
I ask the House and the Government to include the following items and agenda in the review. It must begin with an independent analysis of the market for coal. That has cropped up again and again. We know the assertion that:
"there is no market for British Coal",
and therefore, there is no alternative to butchering the coal industry. That has been Mr. Heseltine's constant refrain, a kind of TINA in a flak jacket. So far there has been no objective analysis and no independent
734
evidence. No supporting, objective, convincing numbers have been presented to prove and demonstrate that. We have just had assertions. They may be correct. However, I believe that the House wishes to see the evidence. We need an independent analysis of it. If we have that, we can consider it. Parliament and the nation can consider it and be convinced. But we cannot take it on trust without proper evidence when the only evidence we have is that ministerial minds seem to be made up.
That will involve also having on the agenda an analysis of the true relative costs of coal and gas in electricity generation. That matter has been raised again and again. I must say that I, the House, the nation and noble Lords from both parties are bewildered by the conflicting claims as regards that question. That needs to be analysed and established.
We also need to know objectively the extent to which the electricity market is rigged—or "tilted" as it was cleverly re-defined by my noble friend Lord Dormand—against coal. My noble friends Lord Mason and Lord Desai also made that suggestion. The Leader of the House acknowledged that problem and must surely accept that it needs independent analysis.
We need to know and understand the true level of subsidy for coal. The President of the Board of Trade suggested a figure of £18 billion as the alleged subsidy. I am informed that that includes loans to the coal industry which must be repaid with interest. On that basis, much of private industry is subsidised by its loan capital. We therefore need that aspect to be properly considered.
We need to know the true net cost of the closure programme—not mentioned by the Leader of the House—compared to the alternative of keeping the pits open. That needs professional independent cost-benefit analysis. We need to examine whether it is true, as I believe it is and as my noble friend Lord Desai convincingly argued, that the majority of threatened pits cover their operating costs. In addition, one must take into account the huge indirect cost of closures and the terrible social cost, as referred to at some length by my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lord Varley. Is it not cheaper to keep the pits open, and more expensive to close them? There must be independent analysis of that issue. Even with that cost-benefit analysis, we shall still need to set against the result the terrible social and human cost of closure. Would an internal review cover that?
The nuclear question was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and is important. On 13th October PowerGen stated that the markets are rigged against coal by the nuclear industry,
"by increasing levels of output from heavily subsidised nuclear power stations including plant whose design life has been extended".
That must be independently examined. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, made a powerful and convincing argument on that point.
We must scrutinise the true level of imports to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was convincing on that point. Is that a fair market? I believe that Colombian imports to this country are subsidised. They receive public loan capital on which they do not

735
pay interest for five years. Is that true? Why do we expect British coal to compete on that basis? It seems not to be a truly level playing field. An independent inquiry can examine that.
Moreover, I believe that the European Commission wrote a letter to the court examining European tendering stating that it has no objections to the UK blocking non-EC imports. Is that true? It has significant implications. As for exports, which were not mentioned in the opening speech, on the question of our markets, how do we know what is the true market for British coal when the European market has not seriously been tested? We have not seriously tried to sell coal in Europe although apparently there are no constraints. I believe that British Coal has not participated in the EC fuel-tendering process. Is that true? If so, how can we decide that there is not a market for British coal? After all, Britain has the largest reserves and the cheapest production in Europe. An independent inquiry should examine that question of the potential export market.
The role of the electricity regulator has not been mentioned often, although the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, commented on it. It needs critical analysis to discover whether he is adequately protecting electricity consumers by ensuring that the generators buy the cheapest fuel source and by refusing, as I believe he should, to allow them to pass on to their customers the cost of buying higher cost fuels. That is strictly linked to the question of regional electricity companies buying higher cost fuel from their own plant. The independent inquiry should examine that and call upon the regulator to explain or to act.
There is the question of rail freight. We are still due to consider rail privatisation, although it has been rather overwhelmed by the coal question. I believe that coal is crucial to rail freight revenues. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will confirm for the information of the House that 65 to 70 per cent. of rail freight revenues derive from coal, and whether any examination will be made into the implications for rail of the closures that are proposed? Any such inquiry should look into the impact on related industries.
The final and overwhelming reason for an inquiry which should be on that agenda and derived from that agenda is to help to clarify and establish a national strategy for a secure energy supply based on a balanced mix of sources, including a future for coal. That would be backed by independent analysis, by objective figures, shorn of preconceptions about so-called free markets, shorn of any ideological clutter, and shorn of any residual vindictiveness towards the miners—and there may be none—bearing in mind that the United Kingdom loses its energy self-sufficiency within a few years.
Then, with the results of such an inquiry from such an agenda, with the facts, figures and objective analysis, Parliament, this House, the nation, can assess the conclusions that should be reached and, crucially, the true market prices and costs of such proposals. Having assessed that, it can approach the final important question which my noble friend Lord Callaghan posed: should that market price be the only
736
consideration in the decision; and how should one set against those objective numbers the terrible human costs of the proposed closures?
The views that I and others have put are not partisan views. This is not a partisan Motion, nor a partisan attack on the Government. I think we all understand the terrible dilemmas and complexities of the situation in which the Government find themselves. I believe that noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and opposite can support this Motion because a proper independent inquiry is not an Opposition view; it is in the national interest. Therefore, I believe it is in the Government's interest to accept and adopt it.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness—and she has our sympathy in her thankless task—that the Government will lose nothing by having an independent inquiry; the Government and the nation will lose by not having one. I trust that that will be the message from this House tonight.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for providing an opportunity for your Lordships to debate today, at length and with due consideration, issues which are so important that they should be discussed in such conditions and not simply at short notice in the heat of the moment as happened yesterday.
We are talking about policy, but we are also talking about people, their lives, their future and the future of their children. We have welcomed the opportunity for a more considered debate.
I am personally grateful. There are few occasions in life when one gets a second chance to put more clearly that which might have been better put on the first occasion. Coming from a mining village and with some of my family married into mining families, I understand the real community spirit that hard and sometimes dangerous work welds. I therefore appreciate the intense nature of the shock to these areas. I appreciate also the sincerity of the views that we have heard today.
Let me assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was concerned about the leaks and about the many newspaper and radio stories that were rife this summer, sowing fear. When he had organised the best possible redundancy package to support British Coal's proposals, he rightly felt that the people affected should know.
The Motion that we are debating shows the agreement among all that it is not simply enough for decisions to be taken on the basis of all the relevant information and with the exercise of sound judgment. Decisions must be taken and must be seen to be taken in a manner which enables all concerned in the industry, in Parliament and in the country as a whole to be confident that the right decisions have been taken.
It is precisely because it is clearly felt across a wide range of opinion that the case for the pit closures had not been made that the Government decided yesterday

737
to ask British Coal to allow time for further consideration of the corporation's proposals. Early pit closures are therefore to be limited to 10 collieries which are loss-making even at the high prices which the electricity industry is currently paying for its coal. I shall return later to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. All other closures and redundancies, other than those accepted voluntarily, are to be subject to a moratorium. This moratorium should enable the final outcome of the negotiations between the electricity generators in England and Wales to be considered. Again, I shall return later to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The Government have also undertaken that Parliament will be given a full opportunity to debate the findings of a review. At that time this House will have the opportunity to decide for itself whether the proposals being made are sound and worthy of its approval. Before addressing the Motion in specific terms, I should like to address some of the specific points that have been raised. I am more than conscious of the lateness of the hour but I am equally conscious of the concern and deep feeling which have been expressed in the House today.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked whether we were aware of the vast improvement in the miners' productivity. We are very aware of that. We are also aware that that is part of the problem that we are facing. This is not unique to the coal industry. If any large industry is to be competitive globally it must aim at productivity. That means that it will not be a generator of jobs in the future. The noble Lord also drew our attention to an independent inquiry in a period in which, whatever the answers, the results—the figures—are still the same: 313 pits and 200,000 men lost their futures.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, felt that we should slow down the process, but I am very conscious that we have been fighting not to talk about things but to reach decisions and to get movement in the economy when it comes to gas. I believe that the last thing that the miners would want us to do would be to slow down the process of gaining knowledge. We have to be aware of that. It is important that there is an energy policy—a point which I explained yesterday and to which my noble friend the Leader of the House drew attention again today—and that the nation has adequate, secure and diverse supplies of energy in the forms that people and business want and at competitive prices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that the contracts with generators should not be concluded before the review is completed. The essential point is that the contracts should aim for the largest possible volumes at the best advisable prices. As soon as it is clear that that point has been reached heads of agreement shall be signed, but final contracts will not be signed before the review.
The noble Lord also said that coal research and development should be maintained. The Government recognise the importance of the development of clean coal technology. We shall be giving careful
738
consideration to the future of British Coal's research in this area. I understand that the experiments at the Grimethorpe facility were completed before its closure. The closure will not affect the development of British Coal's topping cycle on which work is continuing at the Coal Research Establishment.
The House listened with a great deal of attention to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. I find common ground with him when he expresses nervousness at standing up in a House full of experts. I understand that feeling well. I hope he will understand some of the issues better than most because he has seen in south Yorkshire the market for coal go in the changes that have taken place in the steel industry. I know that he and other members of the Church will help those businessmen who, with the extra money going into the training and enterprise councils, will be endeavouring to make any change as painless as possible, will be aiming to reduce a sense of fear and despondency and be looking towards the future. The spirit of south Yorkshire aims well for that. The right reverend Prelate raised the issue of the balance of payments. I suggest that people look at South Wales.
I was delighted to listen to the speech of my noble friend Lord Elliott. It is appropriate that I mention it now because he brought to the discussion the ability of the North East to manage change. I am full of praise for the area and congratulate those involved on being able to look forward and on their achievements in giving jobs to the people we are talking about—the younger generation of miners who will now be affected. We were offered in my noble friend's speech a message of hope for the future. What always impresses me when I visit the North East is how it works—people work together across the whole spectrum on concerned parties.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that Parliament will have the fullest opportunity to look not at a narrow review but at one with the widest of interests in the context of our energy policy. The aim among other things is to create jobs for young people. We must look to the future. No one today has suggested that the mining industry has a future in creating jobs. We have been talking about the situation now but no one is suggesting that the industry will create jobs. We believe it is important to create wealth and to look after those in need. There is major structural change which needs proper handling.
My noble friend Lord Boardman emphasised the point that I believe the whole House knows: the miners do understand some of the issues which have to be faced. That applies, again, in any industry. The workers do know what you are going to say to them. In emphasis of that fact, I should like to point out that since 1989 44,000 miners have taken voluntary redundancy. But, as my noble friend said, there has to be the security of a diversity of power sources and we must always bear the environment in mind.
My noble friend also mentioned steel. Of course, it is from the steel industry that we see the effectiveness of the enterprise zones which were part of the programme put forward in yesterday's Statement. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, raised the question

739
of how far we are looking ahead and what would the picture be in 50 years' time. It is impossible to say precisely what the picture will be 50 years on—for example, what will drive the cars and what will provide the power for homes and factories. But we are well aware of the need to look at the long term.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, eloquently pointed out the problems which have always faced the coal industry. I hope that we are now better aware of the needs of training and the support for change that we need to give and the creation of opportunities. We must have learned from all the work that has gone on in other industries undergoing structural change. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the £165 million programme which I brought to the House yesterday will be of benefit in that area. Everyone on all sides of the House agrees that there is no pleasure in looking forward to closing pits; it is a matter of how we handle some of the issues.
I was somewhat amazed to hear—though I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was delighted—the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, praise economists. That is not something I have come across in his previous speeches. In turn, perhaps I may praise British Coal Enterprise which is working in the area. The noble Lord said that it was not easy to create jobs. Of course it is not easy; we are not underestimating the situation. However, I am delighted to share with the House the fact that British Coal Enterprise has been able to find new jobs for around 85 per cent. of the miners leaving the industry who have registered at their job shops. More than 32,000 mineworkers have been found alternative employment since the job shops began operating. I think that the organisation has to be praised. The task will not get easier. It is a task that is dealt with by professionals.
From the debate, I gather that there is a common and unfortunate misconception on the question of import subsidies. The main areas of competition for the British coal industry are the coal industries of the United States and of Australia. Those industries are not subsidised. But the German coal industry, which is, exports very little coal. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, asked about the Point of Ayr coal liquefaction project. I understand that there is secure funding to ensure its completion.
My noble friend Lord Haslam brought much experience to the debate. He contrasted the United Kingdom and the German coal subsidies. Again, I would say that the support that the Government have given to the coal industry since 1979 to the equivalent of over £400,000 per miner currently employed with £8 billion of investment being financed does not leave us with a feeling that we are not concerned about the industry. Instead of Germany being quoted at us in the future as the economic wonder, I hope that we shall begin to point at our own industry and some of the aims that we are tackling. We are trying to build an industry for the future. The review will not prejudge the answers, as was perhaps suggested.
The noble Lords, Lord Varley and Lord Callaghan, mentioned a possible excess electricity capacity of 50 per cent. That reflects an alarmist view of the amount
740
of gas-fired plant that will he built. The gas-fired capacity effectively committed will produce nothing like that figure.
I am pleased to quote Professor Littlechild in answer to noble Lords' questions. If necessary, he will advance that part of the review which would help shed light on the prices of electricity from all fuel sources offered by various suppliers. I have been nervous throughout the debate as to why noble Lords felt so strongly that an independent inquiry was necessary. I listened to their colleague from another place this morning who said that Labour would have reviewed the energy strategy to make sure that we maintain the present coal burn going into our generating power stations. That would give a secure future to British Coal and the pits. I understand your Lordships' anxiety if that is the definition of an independent inquiry by government.
I am pleased to tell your Lordships that most of the recommendations of the Energy Select Committee were directed towards the Director General of Energy Supply who responded positively. My noble friend Lord Renfrew asked that the government inquiry should fully and closely analyse the factors underlying the economic position of the coal industry. That is a request which, I can assure my noble friend, will be met. I assure him also that whatever the fears we are not looking at a terminal situation for the coal industry. We are looking at strengthening it in order to enable it to compete.
The noble Earl spoke about urgency. The matter is urgent. As I said, we are talking about people's jobs, lives and futures. It is important that the facts and the context in which they exist are clarified. I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, that mothers in Yorkshire are happy for people to go down the pits. I doubt that very much. I certainly doubt whether we want to encourage people to work in the 18-inch seams that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, mentioned. I believe that the noble Lord will be satisfied by the facts placed before the House. He said that he learnt today from statements made in the House. I suspect that he also learnt, as I did, that there are two interpretations to most facts.
When we talk about sweetheart deals I suggest that £18 billion is a fairly friendly gesture. We say that we will review the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, in his usual forceful manner, told us what the figures will be. We are not in that position. We shall bring the facts before the House, and the discussion will be on the facts. I was amazed today to hear requests for an independent inquiry coming from the side of the House which wants independence for coal. I had quoted at me the views of, and figures from, the Campaign for the Coalfield Communities and the coal journals. I must have been a little naive if I expected the figures to be quoted from the gas journals next. The fact that the private sector is having to import coal now while there are stocks available at the pitheads emphasises the different nature of the coal that is required.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, shares with me a concern about a youngster. He has a new

741
great-grandchild. I have a great-niece whose future is important to me. It is important that we protect the future. I share the view that nuclear power gives us some of that protection. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will agree with that view. However, I do not share the view that an independent process involves protecting miners before offshore workers and protecting coal before gas. However, I am sure the noble Earl will be pleased to know that Slough Estates is commissioning a new coal-fired generating capacity. I hope that balances his concerns.
My noble friend Lord Dudley asked me to address specific questions. The savings in the cost of electricity from the proposed new coal contracts from next year should result in savings of around £300 million. We expect these savings to be passed through in full to the electricity bills of smaller customers, including domestic users. My noble friend also asked about the average delivered costs of coal delivered to power stations compared with the costs of gas. I shall have to write to my noble friend on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made many points. One has to envy the dexterity of thinking of his pupils. He asked whether gas and electricity were not competitive. The transmission and the distribution of those commodities constitute monopolies and therefore they are regulated. However, the generation and supply of those commodities can be and are being opened to competition. The noble Lord asked whether or not the pits that British Coal had proposed to close made heavy losses. However, at the same time he conceded that he had merely seen the accounts and therefore it was not easy to define the figures. I believe the noble Lord is overlooking two points. One is that the coal prices paid by the electricity generators at the moment are artificially high. In April they will fall substantially when new contracts are agreed. Secondly, the requirement for coal on the part of the electricity generators is likely to fall by 25 million tonnes. New factors will come into the equation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke with her normal care and fluency. She stressed that good management is needed in the industry. We have seen enormous changes in the management of British Coal. British Coal is to be congratulated on its ability to introduce quality programmes for its workforce. Relations between the employers and the employees have changed enormously in a way which I am sure pleases the noble Baroness.
Yesterday my right honourable friend asked for a moratorium from British Coal. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked us to look into the rail freight issue. I can definitely say that we shall do so. I am delighted to say that. I take on board the list of requirements the noble Lord feels should be considered in relation to that issue.
I shall not pretend that I enjoyed being in the firing line yesterday. I am beginning to think that the word "Statement" will be engraved on my headstone. However, it was appropriate that I should be on my feet, not only because of my roots but because for 30
742
years I have worked in industry, at a time when the manufacturing edge was lost to competing nations. We let them overtake us. We always seemed to be at the back of the business cycle. In order to ensure that we can regain our rightful place in the manufacturing scene—a matter on which there seems to be no disagreement in your Lordships' House—it is important, and the Government are aiming to ensure, that we have competitive energy supplies and that British coal is strong and competitive within those to supply a further source of fuel.
I am concerned about the allegations of short-termism that I heard today. I assure your Lordships that we in the DTI are determined to help build and support our manufacturing base. We believe that we can match the best in the world. Inward investment successes have proved that the workforce certainly can and has.
We worry about the miners, but we also worry about their children. There is no growth of jobs in the mining industry. One inherits the future. There are two statements which I heard in the summer which gave me optimism about the future. Chancellor Kohl was heard to tell the Germans that they must work harder. That is not a message which has so far come out with great frequency. Secondly, a French Minister suggested that his country should stop closing for August. There are changes on the Continent and all the problems are most certainly not ours.
My noble friend Lord Dudley raised the question that it is wrong to use public money to subsidise a declining industry. We must build for the future.
I should return to the Motion before the House. I have already referred to the moratorium which the Government have placed on further pit closures and the review that is to be conducted. A final decision on the closures that should be approved will be an extremely difficult one and, as my noble friend pointed out, is unavoidably a decision for Government. It is a responsibility that only the Government can accept. It must be for Government to conduct the review, with wide-ranging consultation, not only of the providers of energy but also the customers, the trade unions and other interested parties. Then Parliament must be given a full and proper opportunity to debate the findings of the review in the context of the Government's energy policy.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has assured the House, there will be the fullest possible opportunity for all concerned to make known their views. He has also assured the House that those views will be considered very carefully before final decisions are taken. We shall bring the facts to the House. We shall talk about the facts, and from there the decisions can be analysed. It is therefore with great pleasure that I add my recommendation to that of my noble friend that the Motion before the House should be rejected.
10.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents,100.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Alport, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kagan, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blyth, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bolton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Brightman, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brookes, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Cobbold, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mishcon, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monkswell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mulley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Parry, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perth, E.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gibson, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gray, L.

Serota, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gregson, L.

Sheffield, Bp.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harlech, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Howell, L.

Varley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Winstanley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aldington, L.

Butterfield, L.

Arran, E.

Cadman, L.

Astor, V.

Caithness, E.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Croy, L

Barber, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chalker, B.

Blatch, B.

Chilver, L.

Boardman, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Borthwick, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

744

Cranborne, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cross, V.

Margadale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L.

Morris, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Donegall, M.

Newall, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Prentice, L.

Elton, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Rodger of Earlferry, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gridley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hacking, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stewartby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Haslam, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Joseph, L.

Vivian, L.

Killearn, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Long, V.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, after a most impressive debate—I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree with that conclusion—we have had an equally remarkable result. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will convey this to his colleagues in another place as soon as possible so that they may come to a similar result tomorrow evening.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I accept the first part of his advice. I am not so sure about the second part.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) (No.2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with an amendment; the amendment was considered and agreed to.

Greater Manchester Light Rapid Transit System (No.4) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT: CONFERENCE
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT: CONFERENCE
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT: ENFORCEMENT
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT: ENFORCEMENT
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT PROCEEDINGS: EXPERT WITNESSES
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT PROCEEDINGS: EXPERT WITNESSES
  MENTAL HOSPITAL PATIENTS: SERIOUS CRIMES
  MENTAL HOSPITAL PATIENTS: SERIOUS CRIMES
  PRISONS: OVERCROWDING
  PRISONS: OVERCROWDING
  LONDON INLAND REVENUE OFFICES: TRANSFERS TO NOTTINGHAM
  LONDON INLAND REVENUE OFFICES: TRANSFERS TO NOTTINGHAM
  MANUFACTURED GOODS
  MANUFACTURED GOODS
  CHARITIES: TAX REFUNDS
  CHARITIES: TAX REFUNDS
  CHARITIES: TAX RELIEFS
  CHARITIES: TAX RELIEFS
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: AUDIT SCRUTINY
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: AUDIT SCRUTINY
  RED STAR PARCELS SERVICE
  RED STAR PARCELS SERVICE
  TRANSPORT SECURITY ANNUAL REPORT
  TRANSPORT SECURITY ANNUAL REPORT
  PASSENGER RAILWAY SERVICE FRANCHISING: CONSULTATION
  PASSENGER RAILWAY SERVICE FRANCHISING: CONSULTATION
  DVOIT AGENCY: FUTURE
  DVOIT AGENCY: FUTURE
  OVERSEAS MARKETS: ECGD PREMIA
  OVERSEAS MARKETS: ECGD PREMIA
  UNEMPLOYMENT BLACKSPOTS: ASSISTED AREA STATUS
  UNEMPLOYMENT BLACKSPOTS: ASSISTED AREA STATUS
  LORD CHANCELLOR: JUDICIAL SITTINGS
  LORD CHANCELLOR: JUDICIAL SITTINGS
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND SOLICITOR- GENERAL: JUDICIAL APPEARANCES
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND SOLICITOR- GENERAL: JUDICIAL APPEARANCES
  A.830 ROAD UPGRADING
  A.830 ROAD UPGRADING
  LIVE BIRTHS, STILLBIRTHS AND INFANT DEATHS
  LIVE BIRTHS, STILLBIRTHS AND INFANT DEATHS
  SUDDEN INFANT DEATHS
  SUDDEN INFANT DEATHS
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  CHILD SUPPORT ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  WIDOWED FATHERS: ASSISTANCE
  WIDOWED FATHERS: ASSISTANCE
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: UK HUMANITARIAN AID
  FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: UK HUMANITARIAN AID
  VIETNAMESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
  VIETNAMESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS