Sitting of 21 October 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Enterprise
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the Scottish economy.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My ministerial colleagues and I frequently meet both the chairman and the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of economic development and training issues. I last met the chairman last week.
    Mr. Donohoe: When the right hon. Gentleman met the chairman, did he discuss the Government's intention to cut the training budget of Scottish Enterprise by up to 10 per cent? That cut will mean the loss of £2 million to £3 million from the Ayrshire economy, although it is a part of the country which has already been devastated by high unemployment, not least in south Ayrshire where the mines have already been shut down by policies introduced by the Government. There have been further redundancies this week in my constituency at Amkor Anam—a factory which the Secretary of State visited about two years ago—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is coming to his question, is that right?
    Mr. Donohoe: Yes, Madam Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the intended training cuts do not go ahead?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is premature in his speculation as to the budget next year of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. He might like to reflect on the fact that the combined budgets of those two bodies have been far in excess of £500 million this year, and that that is a remarkable increase on the paltry resources put in the hands of the old Scottish Development Agency by the last Labour Government.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's constituency, of course I regret the loss of jobs at Amkor Anam, which reflects world trading conditions. The hon. Gentleman might like to recognise the good news in his constituency—the arrival of another 125 jobs at SCI and another 50 jobs at Volvo in Irvine. So it is not all bad news.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the analysis in The Times on 15 October, showing that pay in Scotland is 2 per cent. above the national average
    418
    and that Scotland is so successful that costs are 2.5 per cent. less, and the average standard of living and quality of life is 4.5 per cent. above, the rates in any other area of Britain, apart from Greater London?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the quality of life in Scotland and also to its advantages as an industrial location. I would not wish to disguise the fact that Scotland is suffering in the world recession, just as every other modern industrialised economy is suffering, but gross domestic product is at an all-time high, output and exports are close to an all-time high, and we should not lose sight of those facts.
    Ms. Rachel Squire: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware of the high unemployment throughout Scotland and of the desperate need to create jobs and to fill them rapidly? Is he aware that there are parts of Fife where the official unemployment figures are 23.4 per cent? If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that and is concerned about creating jobs, why does he not tell British Coal to reopen the Frances colliery, to create 1,100 direct jobs and to create and maintain many hundreds more jobs throughout Scotland in manufacturing and engineering?
    Mr. Lang: I am as keen to see unemployment fall in Scotland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Unemployment in Scotland has been rising at half the rate of that elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which reflects the greater strength of the Scottish economy in the past few years. The headline total fell in Scotland by 8,000 last month. I hope that the return of confidence that will follow the recent falls in inflation and interest rates will lead to further employment in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State breathtakingly talks about good news, does that not show the complacency that has all too often been this Government's hallmark, particularly in relation to Scotland? Does he not think that he should be explaining that unemployment has risen every month since the election, that even with the fiddled figures, a quarter of a million Scots are unemployed and that, because of the Government's failed economic policies, there are bankruptcies, job losses and repossessions on an unprecedented and unacceptable scale? The party that promised recovery has delivered a major slump.
    The Scottish people expect the Secretary of State to display at least a fraction of the commitment to the Scottish economy shown by the Scottish miners lobbying the House today who are committed to jobs and a future for Scotland. The Scottish people expect more from a Secretary of State than they receive from one who merely wrings and washes his hands.
    Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government are doing nothing to help the Scottish economy recover, he should consider the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies all over Scotland. He should recognise the extra resources that are going into the urban programme and the specific area initiatives that we are taking, including the Monklands initiative in his constituency. He should also recognise that, under the Government, inflation has fallen by two thirds in the past two years and interest rates have very nearly halved. Those are the conditions for recovery. That will come with returning confidence and would be helped if the hon. Gentleman did not seek to talk Scotland down.

    Hospital Trusts
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of health boards to discuss hospital trusts.
    Mr. Lang: My noble and learned Friend the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland held one of his regular meetings with health board chairmen on 10 July 1992. In the course of that meeting, NHS trusts were discussed.
    Mr. Ross: Given that the majority of those who drafted the applications for the opting out of the hospitals are presently employed by the chairmen as managers in the hospitals in the national health service, will the Secretary of State ask those chairmen why, if they were making all the exaggerated claims for service contained in the applications, those claims have not been implemented? Does he think that it is reasonable for the people in Dundee and Tayside to believe that services will be improved simply on the basis of the trust application made by Tim Brett and others? Does he not think that that is a leap in the dark for those people in Dundee and Tayside to make on the basis of hope?
    Mr. Lang: I think that it is desirable that those involved in making trust applications should be familiar with the health service. If they were not, and did not have the necessary experience, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise. He talks about exaggerated claims for the future of trust status. He may like to consider the progress of those hospitals that already enjoy trust status. The chairman of the South Ayrshire NHS Trust hospitals summarised the main achievements the other day, saying:
    "The Trust is treating more patients than expected.
    Waiting lists and waiting times have been reduced.
    The Trust is obtaining better value for public money.
    Support from the local community is tremendous.
    The Trust's financial status is healthy."
    Trust status is good news for patients throughout the health service and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kynoch: Would my right hon. Friend like to tell the Opposition of the great success story of the Aberdeen royal hospital's NHS trust, which now has a one-stop breast clinic, evening gynaecology clinics and two new consultants and where a record number of patients are being treated who no longer have to wait for an hour when they are given an appointment? Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that trusts are working successfully in Scotland and improving health care for the nation?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to the achievements of the Foresterhill trust which he mentioned, he could have listed the introduction of bone marrow transplantation, increased levels of cardiac surgery, direct access for GPs to ultrasound and radiology, and the creation of additional neurology and paediatric consultant posts. Trust status hospitals in Scotland are working well.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: In the event of hospitals receiving trust status, is there any intention to cut the number of beds? Is there not a danger that the trust hospitals will be closed by the health board before hospitals directly controlled by the health board are closed?
    Mr. Lang: I see little danger of the kind of circumstance that the hon. Gentleman describes. The fact is that trust status has enabled hospitals to treat more patients more effectively, to use better equipment and to increase the number of medical posts. That is all to the advantage of patient care; it is the positive aspects of trust status that are clearly shown up by experience.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Tayside, where we have a superb health service, one of the great benefits of trust status would be that places such as Stracathro and Forfar would find it immensely to their advantage? We do not want trust status only in Dundee and not in the rural areas. Rural people and those who work in our rural hospitals want to have a say in their future—which is what trust status will give them.
    Mr. Lang: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments. He will know why we were unable to consider trust status for Forfar when it was first considered. If Forfar or Stracathro want to submit further applications, those will be looked at.
    My hon. Friend might like to reflect on the fact that if the 14 applications that we have received in the second wave and the 20 expressions of interest for the third wave are translated in due course into trust status, 90 per cent. of hospital and community health budgets throughout Scotland will enjoy trust status. I feel sure that that will represent a positive advantage for Scottish health care.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether, if he has such trust in trusts, there will be genuine dialogue with the local community, unlike the trusts in England? Will local health councils have a statutory right to consultation; if not, why not? Will trust board meetings be open to the public; if not, why not?
    Of the nine chairmen-designate of the trusts announced three weeks ago, three happen to be well-known Tories and others may be less well-known Tories. It is true that all of them have good works in common, but do so many of them have to have faith in the Tory cause as well? Does not such bias create some doubts about the way in which those hospitals will be run?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly hope and expect to see the full involvement of the community with trust status hospitals. Indeed, I enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) when he and I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when opening the South Ayrshire Trust hospital. That is the sort of community involvement which I welcome.
    The hon. Lady asked me about the membership of trust boards. If members of the Labour party show an interest in becoming involved in trust boards, I will be interested to learn their names. I wrote to the leaders of all the Scottish political parties after the general election asking them to submit to me names of members who might be suitable for health board membership. I have not had a single reply.

    Unemployment
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his Department's priorities for reducing unemployment in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): We shall continue to give

    421
    priority to measures that create an environment in which companies will create new jobs. We are doing this by cutting back on Government intervention in business, by creating the conditions to stimulate entrepreneurial activity and by reducing inflation.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister now address the future of Scotland's deep-mined coal industry? Is he aware that to let British Coal flood the Frances colliery would be to sanction an act of colossal industrial vandalism? Will he give the House an undertaking this afternoon that the Government will not allow that to happen?
    Mr. Stewart: In relation to the two Scottish pits: I agree with the statements of the vice-president of the National Union of Mineworkers about Longannet. There have been unfortunate scare stories about it to which I give no credence.
    I fully appreciate the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point about Frances colliery. We are in touch to seek assurances from British Coal on that point and, as the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues may know, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Mr. Campbell Christie, has been in touch with the Government on this point and will receive a response shortly.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, I am pleased to say, last month unemployment fell in my constituency? I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland on their work in bringing to Prestwick 500 jobs in British Aerospace. I greatly appreciate that. Prestwick currently enjoys intermediate development status. Will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State ensure that that continues?
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on unemployment in his constituency. Last month, seasonally adjusted unemployment fell not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in almost all of Scotland's 72 constituencies. Naturally, hon. Members welcome that. Of course, we were delighted by British Aerospace's decision on Prestwick and were pleased to offer assistance with that crucial investment, which will provide a substantial number of new jobs in Ayrshire. On my hon. Friend's third point, we are currently consulting on the future of the assisted areas. I note with great care what he said.
    Mr. Wray: What plans does the Minister have to eradicate the poverty and misery being caused in my constituency which has the highest unemployment in Britain? Every person who is unemployed in my constituency costs the Government and the taxpayer £9,000. Unemployment totals 5,274 and costs the taxpayer £47 million. Fifty youngsters are chasing every vacancy. What do the Government propose to do about it?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is a vocal constituency Member of Parliament, although he lives in my constituency and not in his own. No one underestimates the problem of unemployment in his constituency or more generally throughout the west of Scotland. But during a recession that has affected the whole of the industrialised world, Scotland, together with the north and Wales, has recorded the smallest increase in unemployment over the past 12 months of all areas in the United Kingdom. That shows that the economy has
    422
    diversified and restructured. Therefore, the Scottish economy is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities when the world economy turns up. That will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents and, as he knows, the Glasgow Development Agency's specific programmes will help in a number of additional ways.

    Governance
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received since 9 April relating to the government of Scotland.
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the governance of Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: Since the general election, I and my right hon. Friends have undertaken a range of consultations relating to the government of Scotland. We are considering ways of making government more responsive to Scotland's needs within the Union.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that the magnificent campaign currently being waged by the National Union of Mineworkers demonstrates that this Tory Government will react to only one kind of pressure—extra-parliamentary pressure? Therefore, does he agree that if the people of Scotland want self-government, they will have to exert extra-parliamentary pressure by turning out in their thousands to support the mass lobby of this undemocratic Parliament on 26 November and the mass demonstration at the Euro summit on 12 December? Where will he be on that date—skulking in his constituency, frightened to show his face to the Scottish people because he has so blatantly let them down in this place?
    Mr. Lang: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was taking part in extra-parliamentary activities when he set up Scottish United, along with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). They claimed that thousands were rallying to their cause, but at every meeting the numbers fell by 1,000 or 2,000. I do not think that they are campaigning at all now, are they?
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State referred to bringing forward proposals responsive to Scotland's needs. Does he accept that another feature of democracy is having proposals that are responsive to the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland? What wish has he identified for privatisation of our water supplies? Does he believe that taking away local control of the water industry in the teeth of overwhelming opposition is a good exercise of proper democratic government?
    Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman is a month or two premature with his question. The Government do not have a policy that commits them to water privatisation. We are considering a consultation document that will set out a range of options for the future of the water industry in restructured local government. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's representations when he has had a chance to read the consultation paper and consider the answers to the questions that must be addressed.
    Mr. Rowe: My understanding is that most of the proposals for changing the governance of Scotland would

    423
    result in Scottish Members spending more time in Scotland than here in Westminster. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although losing some Scottish Members would be of benefit to Opposition parties in the House, we on the Conservative Benches would be sorry to see them spending less time here?
    Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to recognise that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which Scottish Members, English Members, Welsh Members and Northern Ireland Members all have equal rights.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution and Parliament are the finest safeguards that the Scots can have to ensure that their interests are looked after? We have only to consider the occupancy of the Government and Opposition Front Benches to realise that Scots, with less than 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, always enjoy much more representation—probably more than 25 per cent.—on those Benches.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland enjoys advantages from its membership of this United Kingdom Parliament. Scotland's economy enjoys advantages from its membership of the United Kingdom. Nothing in our consideration will undermine Scotland's place as a full partner in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Galloway: Listening to the smirking arrogance of the Secretary of State for Scotland, we would scarcely believe that just under 25 per cent. of Scottish electors voted for him at the general election six months ago. Having listened to the humbug that he uttered a few moments ago, no one would believe that probably about half those electors would vote in that way again if they could have the general election again.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked the Secretary of State a question. What will he be doing when thousands of Scots are down here lobbying Parliament? Will he undertake now to meet the lobbyists who come to press Scotland's case for self-determination? Will he name two of the hirelings sitting next to him to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East and myself in a public debate in any constituency in Scotland? We shall then see what the Scottish people think of his case and ours.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's figure was incorrect. He talks of humbug and calls for meetings in this Parliament. Yet on 8 July—this appeared in the Daily Record—the hon. Gentleman called on his Scottish colleagues to boycott Scottish questions which
    "would leave Scottish Secretary Ian Lang to address an empty Chamber."
    It seems that the hon. Gentleman's ruse does not work.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the Secretary of State now admit that in the disastrous months since the election, it is his stock, his party's stock and London government stock that has nose-dived in Scotland? Can he name any group of Scottish workers—fishermen, miners, nurses or teachers—who have any remaining confidence in his government of Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: As the leader of a party who promised to win 37 seats and ended up winning three, the hon. Gentleman knows all about nose-diving. I believe that the vast
    424
    majority of people in Scotland recognise the success that the Government have achieved there in the past few years in helping our economy to diversify and strengthen and in preparing it now for emergence from recession, when we shall continue the process of sustained growth and the development of new prosperity.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition are used to broken promises on the part of the Conservatives, but that we are not used to the Secretary of State betraying the true interests of Scotland? Will he tell the House and the Scottish people when the constitutional farce, popularly called "Taking stock of the governance of Scotland", will end? Does he agree that Scots are treated with contempt when they are lectured about getting closer to the people from the cosy confines of the Monday Club in Brighton when every decision taken by the right hon. Gentleman rides roughshod over public opinion on every conceivable issue?
    Is he also aware that while our European colleagues are taking the issue of subsidiarity seriously we have the spectacle of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister using it to cover cracks in the Conservative party? Why is he not using subsidiarity to better the government of Scotland? Does he accept that 75 per cent. of Scots want costitutional change? There is a compelling case to be made for a voice for Scotland so that our aspirations and our priorities can be met much more effectively. When will he stop treating the people of Scotland with contempt and, more importantly, when can we expect to see some leadership?
    Mr. Lang: I would never treat the people of Scotland with contempt. I put my case to the people in the general election just as my party did and we won re-election as the Government of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman asked me about subsidiarity, but he does not seem to be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl of Germany have been the two leading figures within the European Community who have driven the principle of subsidiarity forward.

    Development Corporations
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish New Town Development Corporation to discuss the future of the development corporations.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairmen and deputy chairmen on 5 October.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware of the deep unease and mistrust in the new towns of Scotland about the Government's policy to sell off the assets of those new towns under the demands of the Treasury? Does he accept that the Government have failed to give assurances that the district councils will be given proper resources if the new town tenants elect to choose those district councils as alternative landlords in the wind-up of new towns? Now that the new towns are to be faced with the uncertainty of local government reform, do the Government accept that it would be better to delay the wind-up until the whole question of local authority reform has been settled and shown to be effective?
    Mr. Stewart: In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, he may know that I have discussed this issue with SLANT—Scottish Local Authorities with New Towns—recently and I have made clear the Government's commitment to the diversification of tenure after the wind-up. I have also made clear the choice that will be available in respect of local authority tenants.
    The reorganisation of local government has been addressed in the consultation paper. I note that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of it and I am sure that he has pored over it; I look forward to his response.
    I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms can be upheld. I had a meeting with the board of the East Kilbride development corporation on 13 October followed by a meeting with the East Kilbride business forum. Both of those meetings were constructive and useful.

    Industry and Commerce
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for industry and commerce in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Scottish industry and commerce are striving hard to improve their competitiveness, to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by the completion of the single European market and the creation of the European economic area. The recent cut in interest rates will certainly help in that regard.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that the prospects for Scottish exports have become greatly enhanced in recent weeks?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is laughing. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish economy is highly export-oriented. We export a higher percentage of industrial production than does the United Kingdom generally, particularly to the European Community. There is no doubt that the depreciation of sterling against European currencies improves the competitiveness of Scottish exports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up Scottish Trade International, which brings together the expertise of the Scottish Office and Scottish Enterprise. The Scottish exports forum, which brings together a large number of people from the public and private sectors to improve exports, will meet under my chairmanship on Friday. The task of ensuring that Scottish business takes full advantage of new export opportunities, particularly in Europe, will be an important item on its agenda.
    Mr. Canavan: Has the Secretary of State yet received the Quayle Monroe report on the possible privatisation of Scottish Water and its effects on Scottish industry and commerce? Will he, in the interests of open democracy, place a copy of it in the Library, so that the House may have a frank discussion on the full facts? For example, domestic users in the Central region of Scotland pay water charges of only £20 per annum, compared with more than £200 per annum in many parts of England and Wales that are supposed to be served by privatised water companies.
    Mr. Stewart: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers is confidential—
    Mr. Canavan: Why? We have secret government instead of open democracy. That is a disgrace.
    Mr. Stewart: For reasons of commercial confidentiality. I may tell the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members who appear to be expressing an interest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will issue a consultation paper in the next few weeks, and we look forward to receiving from the hon. Gentleman what will no doubt be considered and constructive comments.

    Local Government
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's review of local government.
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to change the structure of local government.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the Government's preferred option for Scottish local government reform.
    Mr. Lang: I published a consultation paper on 12 October that seeks views on the most appropriate single-tier structure for local government in Scotland. I have asked for responses by the end of January next year.
    Mr. Clarke: Given that a major document was published but not presented to the House, does not the Secretary of State owe right hon. and hon. Members an apology? The report was published at an extensive press conference in Glasgow a few days before the House returned, when—if there is to be any element of democracy in these matters—a statement should have been made to the House itself. What is the justification for embarking on local government reform in the midst of the longest recession for half a century, and who asked the Secretary of State to do so? If this is an exercise in democracy, why is the Secretary of State allowing a mere three months for the kind of response that he claims to welcome—particularly when there was a commission for England but not for Scotland?
    Does it not strike the Secretary of State as ironic that in answering an earlier question, he said that the Government do not have a policy for water? How can there be a genuine review of local government when we do not know the Government's thinking on the structure of the Scottish water industry? If the Secretary of State wants a policy, he should take our advice and make a U-turn over his determination to privatise water, which is overwhelmingly opposed by the people of Scotland. Unless the right hon. Gentleman wants to impose on Scotland the chaos—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a substantive question to ask the Secretary of State, he should ask it.
    Mr. Lang: Oh dear. Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman. On the one hand, he asked why we had produced the consultation paper before the resumption of the parliamentary Session; on the other hand, he asked for a long consultation period. We produced the consultation paper last week so that we could have as long a consultation period as possible, lasting until the end of January and still leaving us time to present the House with

    427
    a considered policy decision, to prepare legislation and to bring it before Parliament. I should have thought that that was fairly evident.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the degree of interest in local government. I note that, in an otherwise dull article in today's Glasgow Herald, he describes local government reform as an irrelevance. He may like to know that we have received 68,000 requests for our leaflet on local government reform, a further 10,000 for the full consultation paper and more than 400 for the video. That, I think, demonstrates the dramatic interest in local government reform that exists throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Home Robertson: There is indeed a consensus that government in Scotland needs to be reviewed, starting with the Secretary of State's own office. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is an equally strong consensus in Scotland that the troglodytes of the Scottish Office who gave us the poll tax cannot be trusted with the task of redrawing the maps of Scottish local government?
    The consultation document refers to the Wheatley commission. Does the Secretary of State recall that the commission included not only Labour party supporters and local government specialists, but Miss Betty Harvie-Anderson, the former Member for Parliament for Eastwood, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)? On this day of independent reviews, will the Secretary of State accept the case for a fair, independent review of the future of Scottish local government?
    Mr. Lang: One of the reasons why the consultation paper has been so widely welcomed is that it lays out alternatives, options and illustrative choices in an entirely neutral and fair-minded way. That is our purpose: to consult the people of Scotland and to obtain their views so that we can make a decision.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wheatley commission. He forgets that the decisions on boundaries made in the last local government reform were made by Parliament—and it is Parliament which will make the decision this time.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the reasons why such interest has been expressed in his consultation document is the fact that many jobs may be at risk? The Government's irrelevant project has led to a hiatus in the morale of local government professional staff.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the cost-benefit analysis that accompanies the document? I know that the Touche Ross consultants have produced their own figures, but those figures are directly contradicted by figures produced by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which says that although the costs are certainly quantifiable, the savings are not. COSLA believes that the cost will be £200 million.
    The assumptions made by Touche Ross are not the Government's assumptions. When will we see the Government's own assessment of what the reform will cost?
    Mr. Lang: Touche Ross produced a paper containing cost figures based on various assumptions, and COSLA contributed to the work done by Touche Ross in drawing
    428
    up the figures. We shall, however, be keen to hear any further output from either COSLA or local authorities on those cost assumptions.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me what the assumptions were. The broad expectation from the Touche Ross report is that the reconstruction of local authorities, putting them on a single-tier basis, will result in some job losses and some reductions in bureaucracy, involving fewer than 3 per cent. of the total number of people employed in local government. Those reductions, however, will lead to savings of up to £200 million a year. That is a dramatic contrast with the figures given by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who, on successive days, offered us cost estimates of £400 million, £500 million and even £600 million.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In the consultation document, the city of Aberdeen is given single-tier status in three of the four possible options. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the weight of evidence is unquestionably in favour of Aberdeen's once again having a single-tier authority and that, with the support of the ruling Labour group on Aberdeen city council, we shall have that?
    Mr. Lang: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for such an outcome, and I have no doubt that his view will be widely held in Aberdeen. I look forward to receiving contributions to the consultation process from the people of Aberdeen; I myself see a strong case for an all-purpose, single-tier authority based on Aberdeen.
    Mr. Welsh: As the Government admit the failure of the previous root and branch reform of local government structure only 18 years ago and produced the poll tax, which led to the greatest shambles ever seen in local government finance, how can anybody be confident that the Government will get it right this time? Will the Secretary of State listen to members of his own party and to the vast majority of Scottish people who want water services to remain under the control of local authorities? Will he ensure that the same £700 million green dowry as he supported for England is made available to Scottish local authorities to allow them to improve water services in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: I have already dealt with the water question. The changes that resulted from Lord Wheatley's commission substantially improved the structure of local government in Scotland. That is beyond doubt. However, Lord Wheatley said that we cannot afford to allow the structure of local government to remain static. That is my view also. Changed circumstances and changed needs require a changed structure. The structure that we are putting before the people of Scotland in our consultation paper will improve service delivery and accountability, reduce costs and strengthen local democracy.
    Mr. Maxton: How can the Secretary of State describe this as a genuine consultation process when his junior Minister in charge of local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is publicly campaigning for the retention of Eastwood? In other words, he is campaigning for the 51-unit structure. He has also made it clear that Eastwood will go into Glasgow only over his dead body, which means that he rejects the 15-unit structure. Is it not time that the Secretary of State told his junior Minister either to shut up or to get out of the Government?
    Mr. Lang: I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be exempt from taking part in the consultation process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have his views on how he believes the interests of his constituents would be best served. I hope that all hon. Members will give me their views on how their constituents' interests would be best served. If we are able to achieve such a consultation response, plus all the input that we shall get in response to the tens of thousands of leaflets and booklets that have already been sent out, we shall have a worthwhile consultation process and end up with a better structure of local government.

    Higher Education
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish students are entering higher education in the current year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In 1990–91, the latest year for which final figures are available, 26,690 full-time and 23,183 part-time Scottish students entered undergraduate higher education courses in the United Kingdom. The figures show a rise of 30 per cent. in full-time entrants since 1980–81. Estimates for 1991–92 indicate continued growth.
    Mr. Marshall: That is a very welcome answer. Does my hon. Friend remember the forecast made when the student loan scheme was introduced—that it would discourage students from going to university? Does his statement not suggest that those who made that forecast were bad forecasters as well as being misguided educationists?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is correct. About 260,000 loans have been made, and 37 per cent. of eligible students took out loans in 1991–92. The take-up rate is expected to rise, which we believe is welcome and will help to increase access to higher education.
    Mr. Connarty: Does the Secretary of State not realise from his correspondence with me that many students who have obtained places on postgraduate courses have been denied grants because the Government have not allocated an adequate amount of money for that purpose? Will he do something about it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our present package of maintenance grants, loans and free tuition remains one of the most generous in the western world. If we were greatly to increase the resources allocated to grants, we should reduce access to higher education. I believe that to increase and widen access to higher education is generally welcomed throughout Britain. In Scotland, one in four school leavers achieves the qualifications to go on to higher education. Ten years ago it was one in six. Before many years have passed it will be one in three. We want to encourage that process and make certain that it becomes a reality.
    Mr. McFall: Does not the educational prosperity of these 50,000 students depend on quality staff, and is not it time to think again when a moderate person such as Sir William Kerr Fraser, principal of Glasgow university and a distinguished former Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Office, says that the Government's cynical action in
    430
    stopping the university pay deal will do severe damage to academic motivation and morale? Does the Minister agree with Sir William and his fellow Scottish principals that a system that has shown a 30 per cent. decline in university salaries—related to average earnings—in the past 12 years will undoubtedly lead to a third-rate higher education system? Do not the student community and lecturers deserve better, or are the university lecturers and miners being treated equally? Both are being contemptuously trampled on by this disreputable Government.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I congratulate the hon. Member on his elevation to the Front Bench. We believe that pay levels should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the required quality. There is no evidence of general recruitment and retention difficulties.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional development fund since its inception.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, Scotland has benefited from awards totalling more than £1 billion.
    Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend say how Scotland has fared under the European structural fund, and how it compares with other European Community countries?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have an excellent record on not only the European regional development fund but the structural fund. Since 1979, nearly £1.5 billion has been allocated, which compares favourably with our European partners.
    Dr. Reid: However much money Scotland receives from Europe, it is as nothing compared with the industrial devastation that has been wrought by the Government. Why should we expect the Europeans constantly to bail out a Government who betrayed Scottish steel workers, Scottish miners, their commitment to stay in the ERM, their promise not to devalue and their promise of economic recovery? The Government should be prepared to fight for Scotland and Britain first rather than depending on others to do it for them.
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong if he thinks that nobody is fighting to help in Lanarkshire. The Lanarkshire development agency, Industry Scotland and everybody else is working to find the best possible solution to bring work back to Lanarkshire. He is wrong to criticise what we are hoping to achieve.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that if the Government's support for increased expenditure from the regional development fund to the highlands and islands is to prosper the Government will have to support larger budgetary allocations to regional development throughout the Community, in accordance with the views of the newly reappointed Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan? Is he prepared to accept increased structural expenditure within the European Community in Scotland's interests?
    Sir Hector Monro: It is early days to give a decision. We are fully alive to the needs of the highlands and islands

    431
    area and its campaign for objective-one status. I cannot predict the outcome of the forthcoming negotiations, but the Government will continue to ensure that the needs of the highlands and islands are kept to the fore.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local authority funding.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I met the convention on 5 October as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters. I expect to have further meetings in due course.
    Mr. McMaster: Given the appalling state of Scotland's economy, where the only growth industries are crime, unemployment and bad housing, will the Minister tell us what more the Secretary of State has surrendered in his secret talks with the Treasury? Is it true that the Secretary of State had not only meekly surrendered to massive public expenditure cuts without so much as a whimper but has nodded through the abandonment and abolition of the banded formula, which will deal a double body blow to Scotland? The Minister has been asked the question before: will he answer it today? When will the Secretary of State stop being the Cabinet's man in Scotland and start being Scotland's man in the Cabinet?
    Mr. Stewart: First, naturally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the position of Scottish Whip. He had an excellent reputation for keeping order when he was leader of Renfrew district council, although I believe that his new task will be somewhat more challenging. Nevertheless, the whole House will wish him well.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense, with his allegations about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he is so worried about local government finance and its effects on the people of Scotland, I suggest that he and his party ask some Labour authorities how, if they have all those financial difficulties, they managed to give huge increases in salary to top officials across Scotland?

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest unemployment rate in Lothian.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The number of claimants in Lothian region in September 1992 was 34,173. The workforce-based unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent.
    Mr. Devlin: Given that the unemployment rate in Lothian region is about half that in Teesside, where I come from, and given that both areas have undergone painful restructuring in recent years, I wonder what my hon. Friend can tell us about the employment growth in Lothian region, and what lessons may be drawn for the benefit of other parts of the country.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, who defends the interests of his constituents with immense vigour, is absolutely right to emphasise the fact that, relatively, Lothian region, among other parts of Scotland, has survived the recession extremely well. The specific answer that I would give to my
    432
    hon. Friend is, first, that in recent years Lothian region has had the advantage of the substantial increase in service employment associated with the financial centre in Edinburgh and, secondly, among other things, that Livingston has been successful in attracting inward investment to the region.
    Mr. Chisholm: Does the Minister realise that in five wards in my constituency within the Lothian region, male unemployment is officially between 21 and 23 per cent? Female unemployment would be as high, if it were properly calculated. Does he realise that the official unemployment figure is 4,900, and that if it were calculated in the same way as in 1979 the figure would be 6,900?
    Finally, when will the Minister realise that his insistence on market forces and reducing public expenditure, and on prioritising inflation, is a way of increasing rather than reducing unemployment?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I recognise that there are problems in particular parts of the Lothian region, including parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I must point out to him that Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise has a current budget of £43 million. That represents a considerable commitment of taxpayers' money by the Government. The number of unemployed people in Lothian fell dramatically—by about 50 per cent.—between January 1987 and June 1990. Total employment has been increasing, so I urge the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of his constituents in Leith, to present publicly a more balanced picture.

    Fish Farming
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's role in expanding fish farming.
    Sir Hector Monro rose—[Interruption.]
    Sir Hector Monro: That sounds like a pre-run of Ibrox.
    The Scottish Office provides financial assistance and a regulatory framework for the development of fish farming in Scotland. I welcome the important contribution that salmon farming in particular makes to the economy of some parts of rural Scotland.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he tell the House what effect removing minimum import prices has had on fish farming in recent times?
    Sir Hector Monro: Since May, when I did not review the minimum import price, because the reasons for doing that in relation to Norway no longer existed, the price has firmed very well. The price of small salmon is 50 per cent. up over the price in May and the price for large salmon is up by about 60 per cent. I hope that that trend continues towards Christmas.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that people in the fish farming industry are angry and disappointed at his failure to support their proposal for a producers' organisation? Given the importance of this industry for the Scottish economy and the west coast, will the Minister change his mind and look again at the proposal for a producers' organisation which the industry believes is vital to its long-term future?
    Sir Hector Monro: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that fish farming is most important. I was glad to visit a fish farm in the Western Isles only a few weeks ago. The
    434
    Government will continue to give all the help that we can and we look forward to a steady increase in production, which has been remarkable over the past 10 years.

Sergeant Robert James Irvine
3.30 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the slaughter of Sergeant Robert James Irvine. the first member of the Royal Irish Regiment to be murdered by the IRA in Northern Ireland."
The matter is specific, and the stark facts are as follows. Sergeant Irvine served in the police reserve and served for 15 years in the Ulster Defence Regiment. When that regiment was merged, he joined the Royal Irish Regiment. He had to shift from his present accommodation because it had to be rebuilt and enlarged for his family. He moved to his mother's home where his sister and his uncle still live. His family of two and his wife moved into an outbuilding of his mother's home.
Last night, after he came home and had a bath at his mother's home, he went over to the house where his wife and family were. He was brutally and in a cowardly way shot down by the IRA and was riddled with bullets. When Margaret his wife, his son Gordon and his daughter Allison opened the door, their father's dead body slumped in across the threshold.
I must tell the House today that, with the clampdown on the roads of Ulster by the security forces, which is welcomed and the resulting hindrance for the IRA to shift its bombing material, no doubt the IRA is now turning to soft targets. As members of the Royal Irish Regiment often live in isolated areas—the part of my constituency where the murder took place last night is isolated—they arc more prone to such attacks than ever before.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that this matter, and the safety of wives and families of members of the Royal Irish Regiment, which we were told when it was formed would gain acceptance in the community, be considered. It is a prime necessity that urgent steps be taken along the lines that I have described.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said and I must give my decision of course without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, important though it is, is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House. I am sorry.

Aircraft Noise (Control)
3.33 pm
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the control of noise pollution by aircraft; to establish a method of compensation for local residents affected thereby; and for connected purposes.
I recognise that the House is awaiting a much more explosive and noisier debate than that from aircraft noise. However, I am going to take full advantage, preceding the pyrotechnics that are about to follow, to present my Bill while the House warms up for the main event.
My Bill is about privacy and the right to a quiet life. It may not sound very important, but my Bill is about the right of people and their families to sit in their living rooms and, if the weather is good, to sit in their gardens in peace and quiet. My Bill recognises that, since the introduction of the jet aircraft about 25 years ago, communities and families living near airports have had to suffer high and unacceptable noise nuisance. Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, I know the efforts that have been made over the years by manufacturers and operators to reduce the impact of noise on the local community. Their efforts and endeavours—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise pollution in this Chamber. I cannot hear the hon. Member. Mr. Deva—speak up.
Mr. Deva: Their efforts and endeavours must be commended. They have achieved much, and I look forward to their achieving more.
In the past 15 years, aircraft noise impact has been reduced by introducing minimum noise routes, which are minimum population routes, with quieter noise-certified aircraft, noise insulation grant schemes, noise monitoring and night flight restrictions. Aircraft noise creates disturbance and annoyance. In addition, night flights, even one night flight, can cause people to be woken and can then prevent sleep.
In the summer months in particular, windows need to be open, which nullifies the efficacy of noise insulation for the lucky few who have it. In summer, of course, people want to spend more time out of doors and in their gardens, and aircraft noise can become extremely annoying and intrusive. In 1989, the date for which the latest figures are available, half a million people in west London, where my constituents in Brentford and Isleworth reside, were obliged to suffer disturbing levels of aircraft noise, about 35 noise number index or 57 LEQ.
There is now the prospect that aircraft movements at Heathrow will grow from more than 360,000 a year to more than 390,000 by the year 2005. However, it is sadly an indubitable fact that airport noise will not simply go away. The modern turbo fan is now fully noise optimised and there is no clever technology around the corner to reduce noise further.
More alarmingly, the next generation of engines, the ultra-high bypass jets and unducted prop fans will be fundamentally noisier than the current generation of noise optimised turbo fans. The British Government and the EEC, acting in concert with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, have begun to take action to reduce and eliminate the use of noisier aircraft. Under the

437
ICAO annexe 16, a framework agreement was made in November 1991 for the phasing out of the noisier chapter 2 aircraft from April 1995 to March 2002. But the year 2002 is a long time indeed to wait for noise-exposed residents. If no encouragement is now given for their early and more rapid phasing out, particularly at heavily populated airports such as Heathrow, local communities around airports will continue to suffer unacceptable noise nuisance well into the next century.
But that is not all. As aircraft noise certification is weight-related, the heavier an aircraft the louder it is. That means that even the so-called quieter aircraft defined in chapter 3 and not required to be phased out can be very noisy indeed.
My Bill seeks to establish that chapter 2 aircraft need an added inducement to be phased out at highly populated airports such as Heathrow more rapidly than hitherto envisaged, and that chapter 3 aircraft need to be compelled to be flown at all times in such a manner as to create the minimum noise on every occasion and every flight. Modern technology now enables us to put that into effect for the first time. The very recent introduction of the new noise tracking and monitoring equipment has enabled the British Airports Authority to have precise information on each aircraft and the noise that it generates on the ground on a real-time basis.
My Bill will seek to establish that, unless those aircraft are flown in such a manner as to create the minimum permissible noise defined and specified in an annex to my Bill, they will suffer a financial penalty related to their weight, which naturally approximates to the number of passengers carried by each aircraft type. I have always believed that the polluter must pay. On that basis, I suggest that if the limit is infringed, the aircraft responsible
438
should pay a noise charge. The charge would be collected by the airport authority and given as compensation to the local noise-exposed community on a pro-rata basis, depending on the extent of the noise exposure.
For far too long, international air passengers have continued to accrue the benefits of using airports near heavily populated centres because it is convenient to them to do so. They have paid scant regard to the inconvenience, disturbance and noise caused to local residents, who have not benefited from their individual activities. My Bill seeks to redress the balance on the occasions when noisy aircraft are used and when quieter aircraft are flown in a manner which disregards the environmental needs and rights of the local community.
I know that all airline operators and organisations involved, from the BAA to local organisations in my area such as the Heathrow Association for Control of Aircraft Noise, are committed to reducing the level of noise nuisance. My Bill will create a more harmonious relationship between the air transport users and the local airport community.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Toby Jessel, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mr. lain Sproat, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Michael Fabricant.

Aircraft Noise (Control)
  AIRCRAFT NOISE (CONTROL)
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the control of noise pollution by aircraft; to establish a method of compensation for local residents affected thereby; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December. [Bill 68.]

Pit Closures
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I should also tell the House that more than 70 Members wish to participate in the debate. Therefore, it will be no surprise to the House to know that I have limited speeches between the hours of 6 and 8 pm to 10 minutes and I shall expect those Members who speak outside that time to exercise a great deal of voluntary restraint.
3.43 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the failure of the President of the Board of Trade in his statement on Monday 19th October to provide for a review of the programme of pit closures; and demands that no pit be closed until the Select Committee on Trade and Industry concludes a review of the costs and benefits of closing the pits and the comparative costs and benefits to the nation of retaining them in production.
Last week, when we announced this debate, it was dismissed by one of the newspapers as a parliamentary ritual. Far from proving a parliamentary ritual, the debate has already proved a parliamentary first. It is the first occasion in the history of Supply days on which most of the Opposition motion has been conceded by the Government in the 48 hours since it was tabled.
We begin our motion by regretting the failure of the President of the Board of Trade to announce a review in his statement on Monday. We now have it, on no less an authority than the Prime Minister in his briefing yesterday, that it was always the intention of the President of the Board of Trade to announce a review. Somehow, in two hours of statement and answers to questions, he ran out of time to announce it. We are told that the great communicator was unable to express himself lucidly in the frenetic atmosphere in the House.
In the motion, we also call for the review that the President of the Board of Trade did not announce on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I called on him to give us a review. This is what he said:
"A review … will … raise a range of conflicting arguments upon which there will he no agreement before, during or after the review … I am responsible for the Government's energy policy … and I shall make clear the basis on which we intend to proceed."—[Official Report 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 233.]
That was on Monday. On Tuesday, Lord Wakeham made clearerer the basis on which they intend to proceed. It is appropriate that Lord Wakeham should have been chosen for that role. After all, it was Lord Wakeham who, during the last general election, issued a press release with the heading "Labour's plans for coal would mean lost jobs." For good measure, the following week he added another press release, in which he said:
"I want to set the record straight, by restating the profound commitment of this Conservative Government to the coal industry and to everybody who works in it."
I understand why Lord Wakeham would wish to rescue his credibility from the assault on it by the President of the Board of Trade. On Tuesday, Lord Wakeham made it plain that there was going to be a wide-ranging review, that the issue of how much coal was burnt by the electricity industry would be a part of it, and that we could look again at whether gas should substitute for coal and whether it made sense to import so much coal.
I must ask the President of the Board of Trade: who is responsible for Government energy policy? Is Lord
440
Wakeham still responsible? He has done more to make clear the basis on which they will proceed than the right hon. Gentleman did in two hours on Monday.
Finally, our motion calls for the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to carry out an inquiry. On Monday, the President of the Board of Trade managed to address the House for two hours without once uttering the words "Select Committee." By Tuesday, the Prime Minister was telling us how pleased he was that there might be a Select Committee inquiry and how full the co-operation with it would be. My only regret is that, when we tabled the motion, we did not call for a general election now, in the hope that they might call for that too.
I notice that the Government have sufficiently retained the habits of parliamentary ritual that they are not able to accept our motion but have tabled an amendment. If they meant what they were saying yesterday, why cannot they accept our motion after swallowing so many parts of it?
I do not flatter myself that it was the cogency of our arguments that convinced them. What shifted Ministers was a nation united in anger at the destruction proposed for Britain's mining communities—an anger that transcended party political differences. I know that, because my office has been inundated for the past seven days by calls from Conservative supporters from Surrey to Somerset. Conservative Members know it, because they have had the same experience with Conservative voters in their constituencies. The President of the Board of Trade knows it, because he knows to what extent he has had to shift his position during the past three days.
We await the right hon. Gentleman's speech with eagerness to find out how much further he has moved today, because there are still two flaws in the Government's broad promise of a review. First, it will be a review of only two thirds of the closure programme. The amendment is adamant that the review will affect only 21 of the 31 pits. We are told that the other 10 are uneconomic and must close. Grimethorpe produces coal at £32 a tonne. That is cheaper than the coal imported to Britain.
But the review promised by Lord Wakeham went wider than simply a pit-by-pit examination of whether any one pit was profitable. The review promised in the House of Lords yesterday was to look afresh at whether it made national sense to burn gas rather than coal. If it is to be a real review considering broad questions of energy strategy, why should one fifth of the British coal industry be shut down before we receive the answers?
Another flaw tempers our joy at the change of heart. Yes, the Select Committee may carry out an inquiry, but it is clear from the Prime Minister's amendment that the review that the Government have in mind is a review by the Government—by the Department of the right hon. Gentleman who made the decision. How seriously can we take the proposition that, having made the immense blunder, the President of the Board of Trade is the right man to make a success of reviewing it? If we are to take it seriously, we must hear today from the right hon. Gentleman which part of the decision he now thinks that he may have got wrong and needs to be reviewed.
Mr. Derek Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but I am conscious of what Madam Speaker has said about the number of people who wish to speak.
Mr. Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. While he is on the matter of responsibility, will he explain to the House on what basis the leader of his party, when in Cabinet, agreed to the closure of 277 pits?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman flatters my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition too highly by suggesting that in the few months that he was a member of the last Cabinet quite so many pits were closed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]
I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point. I have several times heard the President of the Board of Trade reciting the figures for the closure of pits since 1945. That means—I think that this was the thrust of the claim of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—that what we see now is not a new energy strategy but the continuation of previous trends. A large number of pits were closed in the 1950s and 1960s as the demand for house coal collapsed, but there was a new market for coal for the power stations.
During every Government since 1945, be it Conservative or Labour, there has been an increase in the amount of coal going to power stations to be turned into electricity. The Government elected in 1992 will be the first post-war Government to propose reducing the amount of coal being burnt for electricity. That is the source of the current crisis in Britain's coal industry. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who sits before us is the Minister with responsibility for industry; he shares with the Chancellor the responsibility for pulling industry out of recession and putting the economy on the road to recovery.
Last week, there was another announcement: the unemployment figures, which show an increase of 32,000 in the number of people out of work. The level of male unemployment is higher than at any time since the 1930s, even after the many times that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have manipulated and massaged the unemployment figures.
There can be no higher aim of economic policy than reducing unemployment and getting Britain back to work, yet, in the same week, the President of the Board of Trade added another 30,000 to the unemployment total. For the men who live close to each other in the small communities that were shattered by last week's blow, the offer of retraining is an insult unless someone tells them where the jobs are for which they are to be retrained.
It was not just the miners who lost their jobs because of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. They are only the first wave. There are the 5,000 staff at the coal power stations who also will not work if the mines cease to produce the coal to burn. There are the 10,000 men who work the freight trains and lorries who also will not work if there is no coal to transport. There are people with jobs in the factories that supply the mines, 20,000 of whom are likely not to work if there are no mines to supply.
That will bring redundancies to places far from the coalfields—to Tewkesbury, where they make the pit chocks; to Basingstoke, where they make the cable belts; to Pudsey, where they make the underground motors; to Worcester, where they make the mining chains; to Chippenham, where they make the electronic controls.
442
These redundancies will reach every part of Britain including the Tory part. The real casualty list of last Tuesday does not number 30,000; the total number of jobs destroyed by that statement is more than 100,000. The country was looking for a decision that would expand the economy, not tear another great hole in the demand in the economy.
We must therefore ask the President whether he will now admit that he got this part of his decision wrong and that the damage to the economy is a powerful argument for reviewing his decision.
Mr. Eric Pickles: What message will the hon. Gentleman give to the Yorkshire miners who will lose their jobs because Labour-controlled Leeds city council has decided to use imported Colombian coal?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has just joined us in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: -A promotion."] I have to confess that I have flattered the hon. Gentleman, in that not even his Front-Bench colleagues love him enough to make him a right hon. Member. I understand, however, that he knows something about local authority law. It is therefore disingenuous of him to come to the House and protest about the consequences of the law on competitive tendering which the Conservative Government passed and which removed freedom of action from local authorities.
To return to the present troubles, the President of the Board of Trade is fond of reminding the world of his title—that he is indeed President of the Board of Trade. Our economy faces another challenge on another front as well. We have a trade gap with the rest of the world which is mounting at the rate of £1 million an hour. That is a major challenge to our economy. If the right hon. Gentleman closes these pits, in the short run Britain will survive only by increasing its imports and in the long run Britain's industry will continue in production only if it imports gas to run the power stations that will replace the coal power stations.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No.
On Monday, the right hon. Gentleman told us that North sea gas will last for 50 years. His own Department does not believe him. It has published a thick assessment of the reserves of North sea gas which shows that proven gas reserves will last for 10 years. The undiscovered possible reserves may last for 50 years, but, as the Department says, those are the reserves to which least certainty can be attached. They may exist, but they will certainly not come in at the price of gas from the North sea today, as we move into the deeper water.
There is another reason why we know that the Department does not believe the right hon. Gentleman. Last month it published energy paper 59, which contains the Department's scenario for the year 2020, well within the right hon. Gentleman's 50 years. It makes it plain that, in the year 2020, Britain will be dependent on importing its gas from Siberia, Algeria and Norway. By the year 2020 Britain will be importing three quarters of its primary energy needs—this in a nation that five years ago was self-sufficient in its energy demands.
How much will that add to the trade gap? How many more export orders will our declining engineering industry

443
have to find to pay for the gas on which it will depend to run, and what other country in Europe would be daft enough to make itself dependent on imported energy when it is sitting on hundreds of years of coal reserves? Will the President now admit that he got it wrong when he endorsed a strategy to replace British coal with imported sources, and that the impact on the balance of trade is another reason for him to admit that he was wrong and to review his decision?
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Can the hon. Gentleman name one occasion during the huge rounds of pit closures in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when a Government of any colour initiated an independent review of those pit closures?
Mr. Cook: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he tells me of a single compulsory redundancy under the last Labour Government. He knows perfectly well that there has not been one compulsory redundancy in the mining industry, not just under any previous Labour Government but under any previous Conservative Government either.
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I seem to have a point of order. It had better be a point of order to me in the Chair, and not a matter for debate.
Mr. Oppenheim: Lest the hon. Gentleman wishes inadvertently to mislead the House, may I point out that miners in my constituency—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He is debating with me and I am not in a position to debate with him. He must wait to be called. If he is fortunate, he might catch my eye.
Mr. Cook: There is another portfolio in the President's lap. As well as our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and our President of the Board of Trade, he is now Britain's energy Minister. Therefore, his decision must be judged on whether it adds up to a sensible energy strategy for Britain.
What is most worrying about last week's decision is the fact that it is impossible to glimpse any energy strategy behind it. I hope that, when the President addresses us, he will spare us his solitary claim to justify that energy strategy that, as he has claimed in the past seven days, gas-fired electricity is cheaper. It is not, and nobody outside the DTI believes that it is. The Select Committee on Energy, which has a Conservative majority, does not believe that it is.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is much cleaner.
Mr. Cook: I would take the hon. Lady's sedentary intervention more seriously if her Government were not importing orimulsion, which is the dirtiest fuel known to mankind.
The Select Committee's report in February said that electricity from present coal power stations would be generated at prices of up to 2.2p per kWh; that electricity from the new gas power stations which will replace it will start at 2.6p per kWh; that it is almost impossible to
444
discover a single new gas power station which will generate electricity that will not be more expensive than the existing coal power stations; and that the one gas power station which has started to generate electricity is doing so at 3p per kWh, which is more expensive than almost all the coal power stations.
Last week, the chief executive of PowerGen said:
"Our coal-fired plant is able to generate more cheaply than most of the gas-fired plant which is now threatening to displace it."
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but it must be the last.
Dr. Hampson: It happens that the Select Committee also stated:
"if improved technology had not been available there might have been no new entrants to power generation in Britain."
It added that combined-cycle gas turbines are
"much the cheapest form of new generation, but are economic at smaller sizes than conventional coal-fired stations."
If the hon. Gentleman reads the submissions that many of us have received from the electricity trade unions, he will find that they too agree that gas-powered stations are more economic.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friends will have noted, has made an elision in referring to comparisons between new gas-powered stations and new coal-powered stations. The question that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has to answer is, why should he shut down coal-powered stations that have another 10 or 15 years of useful life, stations that have been built and paid for and are therefore producing electricity more cheaply than a new power station can possibly do?
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I know from long experience that one might as well get the pain over with.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is referring to power stations that have been written down and are therefore producing cheaply. A power station that my husband went round the other day—[Laughter.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It was not very funny.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Opposition evidently do not wish the be informed. The power station has been written down to £195 million. Alongside it, a cleaner plant is being constructed at a cost of £220 million. The surrounding landscape will be devastated, because it is necessary to extract the limestone. Production now is cheap, but if we take into consideration the cost of the cleaner plant—as I have said, it will be £220 million—production will be jolly expensive.
Mr. Cook: First, I bow to the authority and expertise that is the basis of the hon. Lady's intervention. Secondly, I refer her to the Select Committee. As well as taking into account comparisons between new gas-powered stations and existing coal-powered stations, it considered price comparisons once existing coal-powered stations had been desulphurised. The figures showed—even after allowance

445
had been made for that cost—that existing coal-powered stations were still producing electricity at a lower price than new gas-powered stations.
If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is serious about wishing coal-powered stations to be fitted with clean technology, she must ask those who occupy the Government Front Bench why, even now, only two coal-powered stations are being retrofitted, when every coal-powered station throughout Germany has been fitted with clean technology. Indeed, Germany has done so time and again by using technology developed in Britain that is not being applied here.
The two chief executives of both Britain's generating industries have gone on record as saying that electricity from their coal-powered stations is cheaper than the electricity that will be generated by the new gas-powered stations. I must tell the President of the Board of Trade that the statements of those two chief executives carry more credence than his promises of the flat opposite.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of his case. Last week, his case was that his decision would produce cheaper electricity, which would support industry and create jobs in industry. If the chief executives of our two major generating companies are right—that the decision will result in dearer electricity—by his own logic he is imposing a penalty on industry and destroying jobs in industry.
Over the past eight days, however, I have noted another interesting shift in the right hon. Gentleman's presentation of the economic case. When he discovered that he could not demonstrate that electricity from gas would be cheaper, he shifted his ground to inventing a subsidy. By last weekend, he was quoting a subsidy to the coal mines of £100 million a month. That has turned out to be a complete mystery to British Coal, which was unaware that it was receiving £100 million a month. It turned out to be a complete mystery to the right hon. Gentleman's officials at the Department, who were unaware that they were paying £100 million a month.
In yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, one of those officials was quoted as saying that the President of the Board of Trade had in mind "a theoretical subsidy". I must say to the President of the Board of Trade that the job losses are not theoretical; the hardship to the families and the destruction of coal mining communities is not theoretical. In the months of his review, the right hon. Gentleman will have to find a harder financial case for closing those pits than a theoretical subsidy that nobody is paying them.
The Secretary of State then fell back on another position when he discovered that he could not justify the subsidy. He took refuge in the sweeping assertion that, because the electricity supply industry wants to produce electricity from gas, it therefore must be cheaper. That is the way markets work, he tells us. They always give the consumer the best deal. They are never distorted by the commercial interests of the company selling the product, are they?
The first thing that the President of the Board of Trade should note is that there is no market in electricity consumption. The consumer does not have a choice. The consumer does not wander to the wall and wonder, before he turns on the switch, "Will I go to LEB or NORWEB tonight? Who is offering the best spot price?" What the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have created are private monopolies in which the consumer has no alternative.
446
The second point that the President of the Board of Trade must take on board is that the regional electricity companies have shares in most of the gas power stations being built. It does not matter to them if they pay more, because they cream off the profits as owners of those power stations. The only reason they are doing that is that they see it as a way of undercutting PowerGen and National Power. What will we be left with?
Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: What about the regulator?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has asked about an official appointed by his own Government—an official chosen by his Government after, we are told, an earnest process of head hunting. And lo, that earnest process of head hunting came up with the choice of the man who had advised them on the privatisation of the electricity industry—a man who is plainly under judicial review at the present time for being in default of his powers under the Electricity Act 1989.
To sum up, we are now left with an energy strategy that makes no sense to the consumer because it results in higher prices, no sense to the economy because it results in higher unemployment and deeper recession, and no sense to national security because it writes off access to our coal reserves. It does make commercial sense to those electricity companies. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to let Britain's energy strategy be decided by what is in the commercial interests of those electricity companies, even if it is against the national interest?
It is no good the President of the Board of Trade spreading his hands in innocence and saying that all the gas stations were the decision of the electricity industry and not his decision. Every one of the gas-fired generating stations coming on stream was given a licence to do so by Ministers. As late as August, the President of the Board of Trade himself approved two further licences—that at a time when, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, he was agonising over the number of pits that he would have to close. If the right hon. Gentleman really was agonising about the effect on the coalfields, why did he approve two more licences for two more stations that will take out two more pits?
On Monday, the President of the Board of Trade said that the electricity companies would not sign a coal contract, even though he had spoken to them nicely. He may even have spoken to them rudely, but he said that they would not sign up, and asked what he could do.
The remedy is in the right hon. Gentleman's own hands. Condition V of the licence makes it explicit that the electricity supply industry must buy electricity from the cheapest source. It is not doing so, but is closing pits to buy from a more expensive source—and the right hon. Gentleman should not let it get away with that. The President of the Board of Trade should no more let the electricity supply industry break the law in its purchasing than he should have connived with British Coal in breaking the law over its redundancy package.
The pits that are being abandoned contain some of the richest coalfields in Europe—seams that are about to be flooded. No wonder the rest of Europe thinks that we have gone mad. The President of the Board of Trade says that he must not let his heart rule his head. I will not quarrel

447
with that—I do not want the right hon. Gentleman's heart to rule his head—but I ask him to use his head in providing an energy strategy that is in Britain's interests.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the plight of Britain's mining communities has touched the heart of the nation, which has been moved by reaction to the statement that the right hon. Gentleman is destroying not just jobs but the virtues of close-knit, loyal communities based on a work force that understands that solidarity is important not just to the output of the shift but to the lives and safety of its members.
Another characteristic of mining communities is the courage that they have shown in mining coal from the earth, and in rescuing workmates trapped under that earth. But there is another kind of courage than physical courage—the courage to admit that one was wrong. It does not carry the same risks of danger, but it demands some humility.
The President of the Board of Trade owes it to miners to show that courage and humility. He should admit that he got it wrong and promise a real review of energy strategy, that no pit will cease production until it has been proved that the nation does not need its coal, and that he will intervene to challenge the electricity industry's short-sighted priorities.
If the right hon. Gentleman will do those things, I will applaud his courage. If he will not, I warn him that we will harry him at every turn. We will press the miners' case before breakfast, before lunch, and before dinner—and we will get up and do that again the next day. We will mobilise the public anger that the President of the Board of Trade has aroused until he admits that he was wrong, agrees that the British economy needs the British coal industry, and removes the axe that he has poised over 31 pits.
4.18 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to insert instead thereof:
"recognises the difficult economic judgments the Government had to make in accepting British Coal's proposals to close 31 collieries; endorses the Government's conclusion that British Coal should introduce a moratorium on the closure of 21 of these pits unless the workforce agree otherwise; welcomes the speedy action of the Government in introducing special assistance measures for coal mining areas; and notes that the moratorium will enable the Government to take views and evidence on the future of the pits in question and to consider these in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and the employment prospects for the industry, and allow the Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider the issues as it thinks fit, and the House to debate the issues that will be presented to it in the New Year before decisions are reached about future closures.".
I think that the whole House will have listened to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) rehearsing broadly the same approach to nationalised industry that caused such devastation to so many industries under the Labour regimes. Regardless of the advice of management, difficult decisions were put off, costs were subsidised and change was prevented, at considerable cost to the rest of our economy, and cost to the consumer as a consequence.
Everyone will have realised that, in setting out his arguments today, the hon. Gentleman gave no concept of
448
the cost of the implications behind his words. He gave no indication of how he would carry his policies through, or of the consequences for the industry itself and its customers; he gave no indication of the costs, or of the competitiveness of the industries that depend on the electricity generating industry.
On Monday, I made a statement to the House in which I acknowledged the existence of widespread concern at the speed of the proposed rundown of the coal industry under the previously agreed proposals. Consequently, I announced that British Coal would be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 clearly uneconomic pits, after the statutory consultation period had been completed. I also announced that the remaining 21 pits originally identified for closure would be the subject of a moratorium until early in the new year, and I confirmed that there would be no compulsory redundancies during that period, although voluntary redundancies would still be allowed to proceed under the terms announced by British Coal last week.
Ms. Joan Walley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heseltine: I certainly intend to give way during my speech, but it is important for me to set out the answers to important questions for the benefit of the House. I hope that I shall be able to answer a great number of the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it may be helpful if I am able to do that in an orderly way so that the comprehensive nature of what I intend to say is available to the House before we discuss its implications.
Finally, I announced a substantial and very wide-ranging package of new measures to assist the coalfield communities as and when they suffer job losses, or in anticipation of such losses.
The consequences of the introduction of the moratorium will be as follows. First, it will enable negotiations to continue between British Coal and the electricity generators on new coal contracts. Secondly, it will enable a widespread process of consultation to take place with all the principal providers and consumers of energy, the trade unions and other interested parties. That process of consultation will allow us to examine in detail whether the case for further closures has been made, and whether ways and means can be found to increase the use of coal and, as far as possible, to lessen the impact of any closures.
Self-evidently, those who wish to make representations or submit evidence to us are full masters of any decision about whether that should be published. I neither seek nor have the powers to prevent whatever publication they choose. I shall commission my own inquiries. I intend—with one exception to which I shall refer immediately—to make public the findings of such inquiries.
Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Mr. Heseltine: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that he will give way later.
Mr. Heseltine: The exclusion that I must make is that I shall not be able to publish information with which I am provided in confidence and which is commercially

449
sensitive. Unless I give that assurance, it is inevitable that private sector companies could well withhold relevant facts and figures from my inquiry. I assure the House—
Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I appear to have a point of order. I hope that it is a point of order for me to deal with and not a matter for debate.
Mr. Hood: It is a point of order for you directly, Madam Speaker. Is the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister in order if we are now told by the President of the Board of Trade that information will be withheld from the Select Committee which is to hold the inquiry?
Madam Speaker: I must inform the hon. Member and the House that the amendment would not have been printed were it not perfectly in order.
Mr. Hood: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it further to the original point of order?
Mr. Hood: Yes, it is, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade has said that some of the information presented to him will be kept from the Select Committee.
Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
Mr. Hood: He has. Will he now clarify that statement, and if he cannot do so—
Madam Speaker: Order. If the House were to allow the Minister to proceed, we should know exactly what he was talking about.
Mr. Heseltine: Let me make it absolutely clear that I have no powers to constrain a Select Committee in any way. It may make any inquiries of any parties. It has very powerful weapons at its disposal to compel attendance and to secure what information it requires.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Heseltine: No.
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand the anxiety of hon. Members, but the Minister has barely got a word out of his mouth.
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the House appreciates that I have no power to constrain the proceedings of a Select Committee, and I would not be involved in that process.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Several hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend referred to the Select Committee inquiry. His own inquiry will deal with questions that would exclude the 10 pits that are to be closed. Therefore, I ask him, his having considered the letter that I wrote to him this morning, to be good enough to give me an indication of whether he would take the Trentham pit out of the 10 pits that have been listed, in the light of the evidence that I have given to him in that letter.
Mr. Heseltine: I want to deal seriously with the point made by my hon. Friend, although I should have come to a part of the speech where it would have been easier to do so. However, my hon. Friend has put the question to me. He gave me notice yesterday lunchtime of specific information that he had available about Trentham. I received that information around lunchtime today. I have, of course, made as early an inquiry as I can from the Coal Board in what are obviously very limited circumstances. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I can withdraw the Trentham pit from the list of 10, in the light of the reply that I will be sending him and the information that the Coal Board has made available to me, but I think that I am able to help my hon. Friend, in that—and I shall say this a little later in my speech—when a colliery is going through the consultative process it is the responsibility of the Coal Board not to prejudice the outcome of that consultative procedure. By that, as I understand it, it is the Coal Board's responsibility not to do anything that would preclude the continuation of that pit, should the consultation produce evidence so to justify. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that that is as full an answer as I can give in the circumstances and in the time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
Mr. Tony Benn: May I ask the Secretary of State to explain one point arising from his last answer? Is he saying that if evidence in the review is brought to bear that could affect the fate of the 10 pits that he has sentenced already, that, too, would change the view on the 10? It is a factual question. It is very difficult to understand the argument. Is he saying that the 10 pits could be reprieved in the review, when they have already been closed under a decision taken without proper consultation?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the generalisation that flows from what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The statutory consultative process is now beginning in respect of the 10 pits. It must be a genuine consultation, and it is the responsibility of the Coal Board so to manage those pits during that consultative process that if it is persuaded that there is a case to continue the pits it will not have prejudiced that position during the consultative process.
Mr. Benn: If it is true that that is open to British Coal in the light of the consultation, which the right hon. Gentleman says is now to be resumed, why was the decision announced on Monday that, whatever happened, the pits would close? The Secretary of State has prejudged the consultative process, which he has now used to try to win support from his own Back Benchers. What is the position of the 10 pits? Are they able to be saved, and if so why did the right hon. Gentleman say that they would all have to close?
Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House know, British Coal has advised me that these pits are uneconomic. [Interruption.] It is no use the Labour party arguing against a consultative procedure that it followed when it closed pits. British Coal is

451
proceeding along that path, and I have made it absolutely clear that it must fulfil that statutory obligation. That is the position.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my question, because I have discussed the matter with him. There is much confusion about this point. It is not understood exactly what has been said. Does he mean that there will be care and maintenance in those 10 pits for the whole of the consultative period, because in the High Court yesterday Charles Falconer QC, on behalf of British Coal, said:
"But we give an assurance that what we do will not prejudice the outcome of the consultations".
Does that mean full care and maintenance, because there is much confusion about whether it does?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, who has taken a vast and proper interest in these matters, is asking me to reaffirm the very point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. The Coal Board is compelled by the procedures to maintain the option of continuing with the pit. It must indulge in the appropriate care and maintenance to keep that option open. I do not believe that I could have said it more clearly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: I must get on.
Early in the new year, I shall publish a White Paper setting out the results of my inquiries set in the context of the Government's energy policy and making clear the consequences of this for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry.
Dr. Michael Clark: I am most sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend as he is moving on, but I still believe that the issue of the 10 pits is of paramount importance to many Conservative Members.
If those pits are left on a care and maintenance basis, and if there is consultation, does that mean that at the end of the consultation period they can continue open, and continue to produce coal, if the consultations and the Coal Board's decision suggest that that should happen? If so, how are the 10 pits different from the other 21? Why are they not all subject to the moratorium?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has asked the question to which I have already, in part, given the answer. The distinction, for which the House is fully entitled to ask, is that those 10 pits are actually losing money now—[Interruption.] They are losing money now, at the prices that prevail now—and British Coal knows that from next April it will not obtain those prices. That is why those 10 pits will be subject to the procedures that will make it possible to close them. [Interruption.] I confirm to my hon. Friend—
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. There is another point of order.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help the House considerably, and it would probably help you too, if the President of the Board of Trade would use the microphone and address the Chair, instead of turning his back on the House and addressing his Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: That is a helpful point of order for me, because I cannot hear the President of the Board of Trade at all.
Mr. Heseltine: I am finding it difficult to hear myself, Madam Speaker, so I appreciate your difficulties.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: May I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), and reiterate what I have said? The statutory procedures for closure must not prejudice the outcome of those procedures, but the advice of the Coal Board is that those pits are now losing money, and therefore the board's advice to me is that they should proceed to closure. There is no case that I can see for waiting until the end of the moratorium in order to begin the consultative procedures; the advice from the management of those pits is clear—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not persist. The Minister is making it clear to me that he is not giving way at the moment—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the Minister will make it clear when he wants to give way, and I ask hon. Members to let us proceed with the debate until then. I want to hear more Members speak. I want to hear not only the Front Benchers but the Back Benchers, too.
Mr. Heseltine: Early in the new year I shall publish a White Paper setting out the results of my inquiries in the context of the Government's energy policy, and making clear the consequences of that policy for British Coal, the implications for individual pits and the employment prospects for the industry. Before then the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will have a full opportunity to consider all those issues as it thinks fit. Members of the House will also have an opportunity to debate the issues fully. I shall present the conclusions and future decisions to the House.
I shall now set out in detail how I intend to proceed with the review. I say at once that I have—
Dr. Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt now, but I have been trying to intervene and refer to the question asked by—[Interruption.] I have been trying to raise a point of order, subsequent to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—a point of order about the resolution itself. The question is whether the resolution is in order—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the question is whether the Government's amendment is in order. It would be in order only if it could be shown that the information available to the review would be equal to that available to the separate inquiry that has just been announced.
If the amendment was accepted as being in order prior to the knowledge that there were to be two reviews, one by the President of the Board of Trade and another by the Select Committee, and that the information available to the President of the Board of Trade under commercial

453
confidentiality could be used by him to overrule the Select Committee, surely it cannot be in order now, because that information undermines the basis of the amendment. That is what the President of the Board of Trade is trying to present to the House. He will overrule it on the basis of information that is not available to the Committee—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been rising to intervene on the President of the Board of Trade by saying that he wanted to refer to the White Paper. He now raises with me a point of order which has already been raised. The amendment would not be acceptable and it would not have been selected by me unless it was perfectly in order. I have already dealt with that matter.
Mr. Heseltine: I want now to set out in detail how I intend to proceed with the review. I must say at once that I have listened most carefully to the many points that have been put to me, particularly by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that I will be able to address their concerns. I intend to look separately at every one of the 21 pits in question and decide whether the case for closure has been fully made.
I have today invited Boyds, an international mining consultancy of world repute, to report to me on the viability of those pits. I also intend to appoint consultants to report on the prospects for British Coal, including any alternative markets that may exist for this product, and to comment generally on the competitiveness of British Coal as an organisation. I shall be having discussions with the generators and the 12 regional electricity companies to satisfy myself that the market prospects for coal have been correctly assessed and that no company is abusing its position in the marketplace.
I will, of course, consult the regulator charged by Parliament with this responsibility. I will report to the House on the level of coal stocks, both at the pithead and at the power stations. I will consider whether plans to run them down are sensibly phased. I will set out for the House the consequences of the switch to gas and the whole question whether gas is cheaper.
I will produce for the House the latest estimate of the likely reserves of gas and the conclusions that we draw from that. I will report to the House on the present scale of gas-generated power stations in production, in build and in the planning process. I will review the use of the consent powers as foreshadowed by my predecessor in his statement of 9 March. I will consider whether it is sensible to mothball—
Mr. Robin Cook: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his list, will he answer a simple question to which the House is entitled an answer? Why did he not do all those things before announcing last week's decision?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we have considered all those things, but the House wants further and better details—[Interruption.] It is because we are persuaded that that is the right way to go that I have promised the House that I will set out these issues and that the House will have a full opportunity to consider them. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Heseltine: I will be considering whether it is sensible to mothball some of the 21 pits which were due to close. I will explore once again the opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. Finally, I will report on the existing and anticipated level of imports and the wider economic implications of this.
Throughout that process, I will be pleased to receive the views of all interested parties, both inside and outside this House. Let me also promise the House this: the consultation process will be aimed at considering all views without restriction. It will have no pre-ordained outcome. The concerns of the House will be met fully in this respect. It will be a genuine review.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his most helpful and detailed clarification of the parameters and elements of this thorough review. The words used towards the end of the amendment are very important. They are
"the Government … allow the Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider the issues as it thinks fit".
Is it not therefore, in the light of what my right hon. Friend has just said most helpfully, the same thing as saying that he will accept the recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Heseltine: The House knows that I have always tried to be as helpful as possible to Select Committees. However, I have to say that no Minister can give a blank cheque to a Select Committee.
At the end of the three-month consultation period, I will present a White Paper to the House taking into account all the arguments that have been presented and setting out our full conclusions and their implications for the coal industry within the context of our wider energy policy.
Mr. Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not a tradition and courtesy of the House that when Ministers give way—which is entirely voluntary—they should do so on a basis that recognises that there are different sides and different parts of the House?
Madam Speaker: It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade has hardly got into his swing yet. He will probably do that later.
Mr. Cormack rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade was about to give way to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
Mr. Cormack: Those of us on the Conservative Benches, and there are many of us who have been extremely concerned over the past week, much appreciate the thoroughness of the review that my right hon. Friend has announced. It is for that reason alone that many of us will support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby this evening. If, by any chance, the review is not as thorough as he promised—although I fervently believe that it will be—we will still have the opportunity to vote against the closures.
Mr. Heseltine: I can only say that that thought had occurred to me.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the review is to be as far reaching as the right hon. Gentleman has said, does he accept that it could affect the profitability or otherwise of pits, including the 10 pits that the right hon. Gentleman has on his list for closure, one of which, Taff Merthyr, was said to have made a £5 million profit? Will he also give an assurance that there is absolutely no substance in the report in today's Guardian which suggested that seven more pits, including Tower in Wales, could be on the hit list?
Mr. Heseltine: I will come to an important part of that, but let me give a categorial assurance that I have instructed British Coal that there is to be no change in the number of pits on the closure list. It is 10 and there will be no change in that position. I hope that there will be no room for doubt about that position. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Beith: Why did the right hon. Gentleman's list contain no reference to the obligation on the electricity industry to buy nuclear power at whatever price it is offered? Will that feature in the review, as it was mentioned in the Coal Board's statement as one of the reasons why its market has declined?
Mr. Heseltine: Of course. I am coming to that later in my speech, but, of course, in anticipation of what I am going to say—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Heseltine: Let me also say that I have instructed British Coal that development work should continue at the 21 pits covered by the moratorium for the period of the review so that there can be no question of the outcome of that review being prejudiced. I have set out as clearly as I can the comprehensive nature of the review I am to undertake. It would be wrong if I did not set the review in the context of the problems that exist.
The coal industry can sell only what the customers will buy. British Coal has said that the demand for its product from National Power and PowerGen will fall from 65 million tonnes this year to a maximum of 40 million tonnes next year, and only 30 million tonnes thereafter. It is inescapable that we have to take account of the millions of tonnes which are being produced over and above what the market will take.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Livingston, when talking about the record of the Labour party, seemed to think that it was perfectly all right for the Labour Government to reduce the number of pits and to reduce the number of miners when householders stopped buying coal, but when those who produce electricity for British industry stop buying coal, somehow or another a different set of criteria has to apply. All that one can conclude from that is that, when there were votes at stake, the Labour party was prepared to back the voter without regard to the interests of the manufacturing economy.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I make the very fair point to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody rigged the household market for coal in the way in which he and his Government have rigged the power station market for coal. I put it to him that he has invested so much in his judgment that the economic case for the closure of 31 collieries is, in his own words, absolutely unanswerable that nobody can realistically believe that he has what the
456
Prime Minister calls an open mind about the future of collieries that he has already sentenced to death. Is he aware that in the House and elsewhere we know that he is now not working for the future; he is playing for time?
Mr. Heseltine: It was never an open mind for which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was famed, from what I remember, but the fact of the matter is that it reveals as clearly as anything that I can remember how little experience the right hon. Gentleman had in government. He talks about the choice and rigging the market. There was no market under a nationalised programme under a Labour Government. People turned up for beer and sandwiches, to be told what the allocation was going to be year by year, regardless of the cost to the consumer or the damage to the industrial base. It is because the Opposition hanker to go back to that that they cannot understand the language in which we are talking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Secretary of State has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Heseltine: And nothing more clearly revealed the hypocrisy behind the views of the Labour party than the behaviour of Leeds city council—[Interruption.] Yes, which actually cancelled its contract with British Coal in order to import coal. So can I understand from the right hon. Gentleman why it is right for a Labour-controlled city council to buy coal in a competitive market when it is wrong for the generators—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once again, the Secretary of State has made it very plain that he is not giving way. Will the House now calm down and let him carry on with his speech?
Mr. Heseltine rose—
Mr. Battle: Will the Secretary of State give way, please? [Interruption.] On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I hear a point of order.
Mr. Battle: In what circumstances can I raise with the Secretary of State the fact that he is seriously misleading the House? When he was Secretary of State for the Environment he made it clear that local authorities could not know where they got their coal from.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for quite a few years. He knows that that is not a point of order for me and he knows the avenues to go down.
Mr. Heseltine: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what opportunities he has got—get on the phone to Leeds city council and ask it. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is one of the most important debates to take place in the House for many years. There are many thousands of people outside

457
watching the debate, so let us conduct ourselves in an orderly way and hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
Mr. Heseltine: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson).
Dr. Hampson rose—
Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) must take his seat. Mr. Jimmy Hood has a point of order.
Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has asked to intervene and the President of the Board of Trade has refused to allow his intervention. May I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know full well that it is a matter for the Secretary of State, not the Chair, whether he gives way.
Mr. Heseltine: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West.
Dr. Hampson rose—
Mr. Hood: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the further point of order?
Mr. Hood: The President of the Board of Trade has indicated to an hon. Member from Leeds that he wishes him to refer to a piece of paper that he wishes to be held up in front of the television cameras, and he has agreed. As I sit down he will give way to his hon. Friend and former campaign manager from Leeds. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know full well that it is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide to whom he gives way. [Interruption.] Order.
Ms. Walley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade has already indicated that he would give way to me. He has reneged on that. His hypocrisy is the same throughout the entire course of this debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair and the hon. Lady knows that full well.
Mr. Heseltine: I give way to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
Dr. Hampson: My colleague from Leeds, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), made a statement about the situation in Leeds. I am intervening only because he raised a point of order to point out that the leader of Leeds city council—I am pointing it out to my right hon. Friend—Councillor Trickett, in the Yorkshire Evening Post, has apologised to the mining community of Yorkshire for the fact that the Leeds city council took a contract for Colombian coal because it was £600,000 cheaper than the equivalent contract for British coal. [Interruption.]
Mr. Heseltine: I thought that the Labour party wanted a full and open inquiry into these matters. I thought that it wanted to reveal all the things that were going on, not just the things that suit the Labour party. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State—I repeat it once more—has made it very clear that he is not giving way.
Mr. Heseltine rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Battle: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must take his seat. The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions that he will not give way.
Mr. Heseltine: I thought that it was relevant to our debate today to read in the Yorkshire Evening Post:
"Leeds snubs Yorkshire pitmen to buy cheap coal mined by slave children in Colombia."
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade has invited my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to telephone Leeds city council. In order that the telephone exchange may be meaningful, will the President of the Board of Trade tell the House that his Government propose to release local authorities from the obligations that the Government imposed upon them? Those obligations mean that the local authorities do not know the source of the tender that they have received and leave them no freedom to take any alternative bids.
In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to my hon. Friend to blame Leeds council, will he now free that council and every other local authority to make the decisions that they want to make in the national interest rather than commercial interests?
Mr. Heseltine: There you have it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is exactly what the Labour-controlled councils want—freedom to build their empires, regardless of the cost. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is now time that the House settled down. Many thousands of miners, many of whom may lose their jobs, want to listen to the debate. They will be keen to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
Mr. Heseltine: Back to the old monopolistic jobs for the boys at any cost.
Mr. Hood: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Heseltine: It is obvious to me and to the House that we need to consider these matters in a measured way, with the facts before us. It is obvious that the Labour party has no interest whatever in listening to the case that I intend to make, so I shall rely on my right hon. and hon. Friends—
Mr. Michael Carttiss: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is heard. As a member of the Government who wished to ensure that the coal mines were not closed, I want to hear why the

459
Government believe that I should vote for them. Opposition Members have ensured that my right hon. Friend has my support tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to answer that point of order. I have had great difficulty in hearing the Secretary of State because of noise from both sides of the House.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has clarified the issue. The Labour party has no interest—
Dr. Tony Wright: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you help me with a constitutional point of order? I thought that it was a matter of constitutional principle in the House that, if a policy was announced and that policy collapsed, the Minister who was personally associated with that policy made a further statement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Constitutional points of order in the House are not common.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give me an assurance before he sits down that if, during his inquiry and review, it becomes apparent that the rules, disciplines and regulations attached to the legislation on the electricity privatisation are flawed—as several of us believe that they are—and prejudice the position of coal, he will introduce amendments to that legislation?
Mr. Heseltine: I say to my hon. Friend without reservation that there would be no point in the review if I were not prepared to consider such options. I have given the clearest possible undertaking to the House that the review will be genuine. I will listen to the representations. I will present the Government's views. The House will have an opportunity to debate the matter.
It is apparent that the Labour party is not prepared to indulge in a proper examination this afternoon. It is more intent on shouting down my argument. Labour Members are letting down the miners they have come here to represent. [Interruption.] Therefore, I will rely on my right hon. and hon. Friends to give me the three months that I require to set the matter in proper order. I hope that they will support me and the Government's amendment in the Lobby tonight.
5.6 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly please?
Mr. Bruce: I hope that the House can now debate the substance of the big hole in the Government's energy policy rather than the ritual exchanges that we have just witnessed. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members show common courtesy to the hon. Member on his feet and leave the Chamber quietly?
Mr. Bruce: The Secretary of State has had, by his own admission, an extraordinary few days. He should revise
460
and review the speech that he made to the Conservative party conference. It seems to be U-turns before breakfast, lunch and dinner. It is interesting to note that he is now talking about a review, although there were huge omissions from what he had to say about great areas of energy policy.
I suggest to Conservative Members who have expressed their concern and opposition to the Government's performance over the past few days that any of those who believed that the problem was merely a measure of presentation should now accept that that is an unacceptable excuse for supporting the Government. The presentation was totally unacceptable. It was utterly brutal and ill thought out. It was also based on a fundamental mismanagement of energy policy that goes back many years. It is difficult to see how a Government who have persisted in mismanaging energy policy for so long are likely to come back to the House in three months with a substantially different or altered energy policy.
On several occasions in the past few days the Secretary of State talked about the market for coal as if it were an absolutely fixed, defined law outside his or anybody's control that had been submitted effectively to the market place by an invisible hand. I suggest that that shows an intellectual vacuum in the Government's thinking. To suggest that there is no alternative to his definition of the market is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Everyone knows that markets and business decisions have to be based on judgments about future developments and a number of different factors. It is a matter of opinion how the market for energy will develop. It is not a matter of simple fact, as the Secretary of State has tried to pretend in the face of overwhelming and growing national opposition.
People can be wrong, and—sad to say for Britain—the Government have been too often and too consistently wrong on energy policy. It is sad that the Secretary of State apparently has not yet recognised the strength of feeling and views outside the House among ordinary men and women who believe that the Government are fundamentally wrong in their policy.
The Secretary of State has shown little understanding of why people have been so angry during the past few days. I should have thought that many of his hon. Friends would have told him about the phone calls and letters that they have received from his supporters—Conservative party members who are utterly confused as to how the Government have got into this mess. They cannot understand how we can conquer unemployment, avert bankruptcies or pay our way in the world if we tear the heart out of the industrial base of our economy, and yet that is what the Government appear to be intent on doing.
The Secretary of State's last few remarks suggest that—at least for the benefit of tonight's vote—he has broadened his outlook. The review cannot simply consider the case for closing 31 pits. It must be a review of the roles of gas and nuclear power. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would have had more credibility if he had been prepared to put a moratorium on the development of gas-fired power stations until the outcome of the coal review had been completed. As those developments continue they will limit options for coal, which puts into question the Government's sincerity in producing alternative opinions.
The former Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy said pertinently that if the review is to be genuine

461
and total, it should be a review of 31 pits and not of 10 and 21. The Secretary of State failed to answer that criticism with any credibility or authority.
Mr. Terry Lewis: If the Secretary of State had given way to me earlier I would have raised this matter. The moratorium should include opencast coal, because the relationship between opencast and deep-mined coal is close. The Secretary of State is diverted for the moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Permanently diverted."] Yes, but perhaps he could listen to this argument. There will be outrage in areas which are threatened with opencast coal mining while deep coal mines are being closed down.
Mr. Bruce: The Secretary of State's diversion is disappointing. If it is a reflection of his open mind, it is not being demonstrated with any conviction to the House—he does not even have open ears, let alone an open mind. If this is the way we are to carry on, his discourtesy does not give us any confidence that in three months time things will be any different from the way matters stood last weekend.
Coal does not face a squeeze on the market because of inevitable forces within it, but because it has been put at the end of the queue in the Government's privatisation programme, after gas and electricity. That is the reality. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to seek assurances that the Government recognise that they have mismanaged the privatisation of electricity. Lord Parkinson was determined that electricity should not be privatised as a monopoly and so he cleverly devised a duopoly, which works in much the same way, with much the same consequences. He could not privatise nuclear power. Those Members who served on the Committee told him, hon. Members told him on Second Reading, and on Third Reading, that that would not be possible. He assured us that he knew what he was talking about and that we did not. Fortuitously for him he resigned and left his colleague Lord Wakeham to sweep up the mess and to make the embarrassing statement to the House.
The net result is that a moratorium that does not tackle the failure of the market for electricity does nothing other than prolong the agony and postpone inevitable closures, and is not likely to lead to a serious review of the case for coal. I hope that Conservative Members who expressed such strong reservations understand what they may be taken in by, and that they will not be taken in.
Can the Secretary of State tell us why it is apparently sensible to mothball coal-fired power stations, which have half their useful lives left, and yet continue to squeeze extra life out of nuclear power stations, which have long passed their original lifetimes? What is the proper justification for that, and will it be tackled in the review?
Secondly, why are coal-fired power stations which are of no interest to existing generators not offered to others who might be willing to take them over?
Mr. Heseltine: It is for the hon. Gentleman to raise those matters with me. Even if I did not want to raise them—which I shall—I would have to respond to him. He has not fully understood the comprehensive nature of what I have told the House. It is within his discretion to make representations to me or to encourage others to do so, and I will have to answer them.
Mr. Bruce: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will say that and he will get his submissions. The question is how
462
well is he prepared to listen and whether he will be prepared to accept a finding from outside his Department. He has said that he is conducting his own inquiry independently. One wonders to what extent he will judge his findings, as opposed to those of a more independent body such as the Select Committee.
Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the alternative possibilities for certain pits. Is he aware that it is possible that the private sector will be interested in the Betws deep drift mine in the Amman Valley in west Wales, yet it is among the 10 down for closure? Does that not demonstrate that that is a crazy way to deal with the issue, if we are to keep all the options open?
Mr. Bruce: I shall come to that, although I think that the hon. Gentleman has argued the case well enough. British Coal's priorities might not always accord with the priorities of others who can do something with a mine and make it profitable where British Coal has failed.
Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
Mr. Bruce: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I have given way several times and I wish to make room for other Members to speak.
Another question which must be considered is why there is a dash for gas. I was disappointed to hear that during the past 48 hours both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have almost implied that if there is such a dash it must be because someone thinks that it is profitable; it must be because the market is right and therefore it must not be reassessed. All the experts recognise that the reasons for the dash for gas are nothing like as simple as that. They are complex, but the main reason is the monopolistic position of the two generators, and the desire of local electricity companies to give themselves more bargaining power with them. Because the regulator cannot prevent them from passing the cost of their mistakes on to the consumer, they will buy more expensive gas to achieve diversity and simply pass on the costs.
If a model along the lines of the American regulator had been copied, that could not have happened. No American regulator would have allowed it to happen. That should be considered in the legislation for electricity.
Consumers are being asked to pay to produce a more effective market because the Government's legislation failed to produce it. In those circumstances I do not understand why we should create 60 per cent. of excess capacity that the country does not need, at an extra cost to the consumer. It seems as if one sector's perceived short-term profit is being bought at the expense of the nation's long-term profit. That cannot be in the national interest and I urge the Government to include that in their review.
I shall suggest some avenues that the Government should pursue while the review is taking place. First, can they extend the moratorium to all 31 pits, because that is the only basis which could give credibility to the Government's sincerity when they say that it is a genuine review rather than a delayed stay of execution? I am glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged that development work will continue. Can I seek clarification on whether such work will continue at all 31 pits or only at 21? Secondly, miners are worried about how their redundancy payments will be calculated. I have been advised on the

463
matter, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who went down Rufford pit this morning, said that specific questions were asked of him. The miners wanted to know whether the redundancy payments would be based on the last 90 days worked, the 90 days worked up to this weekend's announcement or on an average of, for example, £300 a week? That is clearly an important point.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene yet again. I wanted to cover that point in my speech but eventually decided that it was impossible to make progress. I have looked carefully at the matter and instructed British Coal that no miner must be disadvantaged by the announcements that have been made in the past few days—no miner.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the Secretary of State.
It would still give greater credibility to the scale of the review if the moratorium were to extend to gas developments. There should be a requirement that the coal stations that are being taken off the market before they are fully exhausted should be offered to others. That would seriously alter the balance within the market. There should be a review of the oldest Magnox stations, as that factor will clearly affect the demand for coal.
It should be recognised that the regulator should have more power and should be required to act more speedily. Professor Littlechild's invisibility during the past few months has worried many of us. His published findings will be utterly irrelevant if they are not produced sooner rather than later. I hope that he listens to our debate and takes appropriate action. That would create more confidence in him than many of us have at present.
We are greatly concerned that any review should be genuinely independent. There should be something more than a review by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It should be recognised that we want an assessment of the entire energy strategy, not just the future of 31 coal mines. If the Government are not prepared to consider the electricity market, they should refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to explore and, if necessary, introduce additional legislation to correct the position.
I think that honest Members of the Government and Conservative Members will acknowledge that the privatisation of electricity is not yet a resounding success. It would give the Government more credibility were they to produce further legislation rather than pretend that something that is not working is satisfactory. Nobody believes that pretence—not even the Secretary of State. He was not responsible for the legislation—I am not sure whether he has read it. In those circumstances he would have no problem in tabling suitable amendments.
It is sad to see how depleted the Tory Benches are now; it suggests that too many of those who had shown a recognition of the seriousness of the position are now prepared to go along with the Government. If any hon. Members who are still uncertain—if there are any—decide to back the Government tonight, I believe that they will live to regret it, as will their supporters. They will realise that the Government are only delaying the agony, not tackling past mistakes. Were the Government to be
464
defeated today it would force a much more fundamental reappraisal of their energy policy than they have yet laid before us.
The Government's survival tonight would mean that the muddle would be likely to continue, with the probable consequence of dearer electricity. It would inevitably result in closed pits, while the balance of payments would move further into the red. All the economic factors about which people are concerned would deteriorate. Even the long-term security of electricity supply would not be guaranteed.
A defeat for the Government tonight would be welcomed, even by most Tory voters. It might even do the Tory party good to be forced to reassess the fundamental mistakes that it has made. It would certainly do the country good.
5.25 pm
Mr. Michael Alison: One of the most remarkable features of the Government's announcement on the prospective coal pit closures has been the deep concern and the essential rationality of the questions raised in constituents' letters. They have searched for facts and tried to come to grips with the reality of the position. That has happened to such an extent that even Arthur Scargill and his heavies have decided to lie low and try to encourage a rational debate.
Against that background, it is all the more regrettable that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have been subjected this afternoon to a frenzy of baying and points of order that were not remotely constitutional when trying to put forward a rational and constructive case for examining the facts calmly and factually. He was subjected to choruses of barracking, interruptions and shouts such as to belie entirely the claim that the Opposition seek a review, although that word appears on the Order Paper.
If the performance that we have witnessed from the Opposition constitutes a review, what on earth would happen if the Labour party decided to move from a review to a campaign to prevent such pit closures? My right hon. Friend would have to come to the House covered by one of the tanks that are made so successfully in Leeds. It betrays the claim of those who say that they are concerned that they have exposed my right hon. Friend to such treatment this afternoon. But it further enhances the essentially constructive and rational way in which my right hon. Friend seeks to progress.
I want him to agree with me on the prospects for a bright future for British Coal, particularly for those pits that I am proud to represent in Selby. There are seven mines, including Kellingley and Gascoigne Wood, which make up the Selby group or complex. As my right hon. Friend reminded the House last Monday, £1.3 billion worth of investment has been sunk into the Selby complex, largely by him and his predecessors in this Government. As a result, we now have a complex with 4,000 employees set to produce 12 million tonnes a year, which works out at about 3 million tonnes a year per thousand men employed in mining.
To put that in perspective, 1,000 men at Grimethorpe, one of the older pits, one of my neighbours in Yorkshire and one of the 10 set to close in my right hon. Friend's initial list, produce less than one third of the quantity produced by 1,000 men in Selby.
Dr. Kim Howells rose—
Mr. Derek Enright rose—
Mr. Alison: I must finish my argument, but then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), my neighbour in south Yorkshire.
The implications of the Selby productivity level was vividly brought out in the fifth report of the Select Committee on Energy, which showed that, compared to the recent United Kingdom national average of 5 tonnes per man shift, Selby mines regularly score 30 tonnes per man shift—six times the level of national average productivity.
Mr. Enright: British Coal has acknowledged the stupendous strides and improvements made by Grimethorpe. I deeply resent the slur cast on the miners who work there, live in my constituency and are all to be thrown out of work at Havercroft, Ryhill and Hiendley, thus leaving a desert.
I ask the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to join me in appealing to the President of the Board of Trade to reiterate an important part of his speech. I was informed this morning that all development had already ceased in Frickley and the other 21 pits. Therefore, I was pleased to hear what the President of the Board of Trade had to say and I would be delighted to have the backing of the right hon. Member for Selby in appealing to the President to repeat—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has introduced a novel intervention technique—intervening in my speech to secure a response from the Secretary of State. I do not dispute that technique's validity, and if my right hon. Friend wants to intervene to reply I will willingly give way to him.
Mr. Heseltine: I cannot resist the opportunity offered me so succinctly by both sides of the House. I can reassure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). I discussed this matter with the chairman of British Coal yesterday. For the avoidance of doubt, I made it absolutely clear to him that he would ensure whatever level of development was necessary so as not to prejudice the outcome of the review of the 21 pits.
Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Hemsworth alleged that I had cast a slur on Grimethorpe: I repudiate that notion. When I say that output per thousand men in Grimethorpe is about one third of that which we score in Selby, I merely draw the attention of the House to the fact that investment went into Selby in the 1970s and 1980s, whereas Grimethorpe is nearly 100 years old. These are the essential differences that demonstrate the structure of the modern coal industry.
Two reasonable points follow from the productivity achievements of the Selby pits. First, British Coal is producing coal at about £40 a tonne. If that can be secured with a productivity average of £5 per tonne per man shift, how much more competitive could British Coal be if output were concentrated in pits such as those in Selby, at six times that level of productivity?
With the landed cost of foreign coal at about £32 a tonne, a high-productivity British coal industry could beat all comers, foreign coal included.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if coal continues to operate in an unfair market, then, no matter what the productivity at Selby or any colliery, if coal has no access to the base load of electricity generation, even those pits will be impaled?
Mr. Alison: I do not believe that the figures that I have quoted sustain the hon. Gentleman's point. It was said earlier that Grimethorpe's production, at £32 a tonne, could beat imports; how much better could British Coal perform with output concentrated in pits such as Selby, where productivity is infinitely better than that secured at Grimethorpe? It could beat all foreign imports easily.
This point is further elaborated by one of the most interesting observations in the fifth report by the Energy Select Committee, paragraph 104:
"Even a 20 per cent. change in the exchange rate changes the effective price of British coal relative to imported coal by £12 to £14 per tonne".
Given high-productivity Selby coal, and given the floating exchange rate, with the pound tending to drift down, the capacity to beat imports and to erect a solid long-term platform for British Coal—providing it from modern, highly productive pits—is almost limitless.
We seem to be a little mesmerised by the 40 million tonne figure quoted as the likely residual coal burn in our power generators, even though my right hon. Friend has confirmed that coal will continue to provide by far the greatest fuel input to power generation. We should not forget that British Coal is selling more than 13 million tonnes to other customers, including 1 million tonnes in exports. If we concentrate capital investment in modern pits—my right hon. Friend's strategy—there is a magnificent prospect for British Coal now, and there is even a prospect of expanding the output and sales of British coal.
My right hon. Friend's dual strategy of contracting old inefficient pits combined with a reasonable programme of mitigation of the effects of that for those who will lose their jobs, together with continuing his constructive work of the past and pouring in huge sums of capital investment to the pits of the future, is surely the way ahead. We ask my right hon. Friend to consider the pits with a future and not to allow himself to be mesmerised by pits dating from the 19th century, many of which are approaching the end of their natural lives.
We must look forwards, not back. There is a bright future for British Coal under my right hon. Friend's dual strategy if it is pursued rationally, constructively and deliberately—and that is what he promises to pursue.
5.35 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I understand why the Ministers on the Front Bench nod in agreement when the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) tells them not to be mesmerised by what is happening. I do not know what would have happened to the people who took these decisions if they had been in my constituency last Tuesday night—and now we are told that those decisions are up for review.
The President of the Board of Trade said that this action was to do with costs to electricity consumers. Perhaps he or the Minister for Energy will tell us why, given that, since the privatisation of electricity, the cost of British coal has fallen in each of three succeeding years—those costs constitute 70 per cent. of the costs of the

467
generators—and the price of domestic electricity has risen by about 30 per cent. in the same time. The nation wants answers to these questions.
This House today was as silent as a graveyard compared to the reaction to the announcement last Tuesday in the mining communities that I represent. It was a Conservative who brought up the trivial issue of a Labour council buying foreign coal. Last week, 30,000 families were shattered by the announcement by the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is shameful that a Minister should attempt to trivialise the argument in such a way.
The right hon. Gentleman told his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that there is now some doubt about whether Trentham, which we were told yesterday is to close, will actually close. Miners in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), working at one of the 10 pits, were refused access to their work underground there this week. So the President should stand up and tell us what is in the review and what is not. The Government amendment states that 21 pits will be included—not 21 plus Trentham. He owes it to the miners and their families in these 10 collieries to specify what will come under the review.
Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to leave the hon. Gentleman in any doubt. I had hoped that I had explained the position with total clarity, but I shall repeat it. The 10 pits moving to the closure procedure are subject to statutory procedures within which all these issues can be explored. I have given the clearest undertaking that, if a case emerges differently from how the Coal Board has put it to me, the board is responsible, during the statutory consultations, for preserving the option that the pits can be given a new lease of life. That is therefore part of the review procedure with which Labour Members will be familiar.
The review procedure for the other 21 pits I have already outlined to the House. I shall conduct it, and the Select Committee will also conduct a review. So there will be two types of review, depending on the two categories of pits. I hope that that removes uncertainty on the matter.
Mr. Barron: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention clarifies little. How can anybody say that any of the 10 pits are worth keeping open when the work force at some of the pits were sent home when the men tried to prove that the pits should remain?
On Monday, the President said that there was no market for coal because the generators, not just PowerGen and National Power but the so-called independents, had chosen to burn gas. He said that that was because gas will produce cheaper electricity, but no one agrees with him. PowerGen and National Power have admitted that, over the next few years, it will be more expensive to burn gas than to burn coal. British Gas has expressed concern about the extensive use of gas in power stations, and earlier this year the report from the Select Committee on Energy was scathing about this dash for gas.
In a statement to the press in March, the President's predecessor, Lord Wakeham, said that he was considering reining back the use of gas. He should have been considering that, because he gave permission for the construction of gas plants, whether they were needed or
468
more expensive or would decimate the coal industry. It was only in the face of evidence from almost every section of the energy industry that he admitted that something had to be done, not by the market but by the Government. That was the Government who rigged the market in favour of nuclear power and who not only allowed but encouraged the abandonment of coal in favour of gas. Why are we now being asked to believe that the Conservative Government will be able to conduct their energy policy properly when we never had a level playing field in the past? Is it because the present policy is the same as the one that applied before the election?
I have some minutes that have never appeared of a meeting last December between Lord Wakeham's office, when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Energy, and British Coal. His policy was described as being to reduce the United Kingdom's coal industry to less than what could be economically sustained by the market by allowing a second tranche of gas stations operating on a guaranteed base load and with long-term contracts. That is evidence of meetings between the British Coal Corporation and senior civil servants and Ministers at which they were warned about what would happen to the coal industry if that second tranche went ahead.
The Government even got round the EC directive against the use of gas in power stations, because they were giving permission for gas-fired stations to be built before the directive was abandoned. They ignored the warning that 22 million consumers would face higher electricity bills because of the sweetener deals agreed between regional electricity companies and independent gas generators. They even dismissed the threat to our balance of trade when Britain loses energy self-sufficiency and has to rely on imported gas and coal.
The President of the Board of Trade told the House on Monday that imports were a matter for generators. He said:
"It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 228.]
It seems that his office and his position have little to do with trade and industry. If the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the trade of this nation, who is? His much-heralded interventionist speech took him about a week to abandon. Now that his rhetoric has been exposed to the whole nation as empty, he tries to buy off his critics by:
"giving time for a wide understanding and a slower pace in certain circumstances."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 229.]
I am not convinced that an opportunity to look seriously at the long-term needs of this country through a moratorium on 21 of the threatened pits has to do with our long-term energy needs. It has more to do with trying to get the President off the hook that he has been on since Tuesday of last week. He said on Monday:
"My task in announcing the moratorium and promising to come back to the House is to provide for the House the evidence on which the 40 million tonnes calculation is based and, consequentially, the evidence to show why there is no greater market for the pits that face closure. That is the task that my review must undertake,… "—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 220.]
The right hon. Gentleman might as well not bother having any review if he chooses to use words such as that, which threaten 30,000 miners and their families.
After reciting a long list, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would appoint a company called Boyds, a mining consultancy. Last year, that company was involved in

469
looking into the privatisation of the British coal industry. Its report has been kept secret, but the infamous Rothschilds report which appeared last year and the announcement on Tuesday of last week are directly related. We can look forward to eight coal mines by the end of this decade—fewer than the number announced.
The country needs clear and unequivocal answers to the questions posed over the past eight days. Most important, the 2,000 coal miners who work at Maltby and Kiveton Park collieries in my constituency need to know whether the review will be a face-saving exercise for the Government or whether it will determine the nation's needs for years to come.
Last week's decision should not be seen in isolation from the closures over seven years of almost 150 coal mines and the loss of more than 140,000 jobs. In the past two years, my constituency has seen three of its remaining five pits closed. As a consequence, unemployment has increased by 52 per cent. In addition to the closure of the three mines, a coke works has closed and there have already been job losses at Kiveton colliery, the closure of which was announced at the end of March. Supply industries have also suffered and there has been a knock-on effect whose impact is already being felt by local shops and services.
The travel-to-work area covering Maltby has 16.5 per cent. total unemployment. Male unemployment is 23 per cent. Among those aged 25 to 30, mining in south Yorkshire provides one in four jobs. At a stroke last week, 2,000 people in that age group in the Rotherham borough were threatened with the sack. Last month, 68 vacancies were advertised in Maltby and Dinnington job centres—a ratio of one vacancy for every 66 people registered as unemployed. Those areas already have assisted area status, the trumpet blown last week by the DTI when it made the announcement. The Government's amendment mentions the introduction of special assistance measures. They would need to take that back to the drawing board.
Last week, the Government said that they would speak to English Estates, which has a good record in providing factory space throughout Britain, but, in the past 12 months in the Rotherham borough, 30 per cent. of factory floor space has become vacant because of the current recession and the pit closures. No simple answer will be provided by people running into those factory spaces in the Rotherham borough where jobs are threatened. There are too many empty factories as it is.
Last week, we were also told about clearing pit sites and making them available for sale or development. The Rother Valley already has 655 acres of derelict land as a direct result of pit closures. The closure of Kiveton will increase that to over 760 acres.
Last week the DTI mentioned RECHAR. I do not know how many times we have heard about that in the House. We were told that RECHAR was the answer to the problems that would be caused by the job losses. The scheme was approved in principle in 1989, and eight months ago the Government announced that agreements had been reached with the European Commission to enable money to be spent in coalfield areas. When the President of the Board of Trade came to the House on Monday, only the expenditure of £782,000 of the £23 million allocated by Brussels for south Yorkshire had been agreed. Absolutely nothing is currently being done about using that to sort out our problems.
470
We have already seen the Government's commitment to the regeneration of coalfield communities in action. In my constituency and many neighbouring constituencies, that commitment is pathetically poor. The communities of Rother Valley reacted last week with shock and disbelief to the news that the Government were prepared to compound the already desperate problems that those people face.
Kiveton colliery was widely regarded as having only a short life, despite the fact that the low seams in the colliery are worked with great difficulty but great skill by the miners and that it has made good profits in earlier years. Yet in spite of the expectation that at some stage in the not-too-distant future the colliery was likely to close, no steps were taken to encourage inward investment in the area. Nothing has been done to alleviate the effect of the closure on a community with high and rising unemployment.
The other colliery in my constituency that will be affected by recent announcements—Maltby—is the one in which I worked before I left in 1983 to come to the House. Members of my family live in the area. It was announced last week that Maltby would be one of four collieries to be mothballed. It is just completing a £183 million investment programme, and, as the right hon. Member for Selby said, the future of British coalmining lies in a high investment of capital in mining areas. An investment programme of £ 183 million has opened up some of the richest coal seams in Britain. They equal anything that has been found elsewhere, including the Selby coalfield. Everybody at Maltby, from the manager to the newest recruit, was told last Tuesday that he would be sacked before the end of March 1993. Nobody at the colliery or in the community could believe that such a senseless decision had been taken.
Maltby has been a showpiece coalmine. It has been heralded as an example of the future of British mining. The national press reported last week that its work force had won the Business in the Community award for voluntary effort.
Mr. Winston Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for hon. Members to follow Madam Speaker's injunction and to restrict the length of their speeches even outside the 6 to 8 pm period?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that everyone in the Chamber is aware that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. There is no limit on the length of speeches except between 6 pm and 8 pm. In the meantime, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear in mind the fact that there are many who wish to speak.
Mr. Barron: For health reasons, this is the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber since being re-elected in April. It is my intention, however, not to let last Tuesday's announcement—it will have a devastating effect on my constituency—pass without comment. At the same time, I should like soon to resume my place and let others participate in the debate.
As I was saying, Maltby colliery has been a shining example of what the future of British Coal should be. Those involved have worked throughout the community. I have received letters from business men whose companies are not directly affected by the announcement. I have received a letter from a local head teacher who is

471
concerned about the future of the children in his school, who are themselves fearful of the poverty and homelessness that is a direct result of unemployment. The chairman of the area health authority has written to highlight both the physical and psychological damage to miners and their families that will be caused by pit closures and consequent unemployment.
The opposition to the closure announcement has been unanimous. I have never known such breadth of opposition and depth of anger. Rother Valley Conservatives from Dinnington and district have sent me a copy of the letter that they wrote to the Prime Minister last week. Part of it states:
"In view of the fact that during the last few years the nearby Maltby colliery has had a multi-million pound modernisation packet and now finds itself being 'mothballed', we are finding difficulty in arguing against the accusation that this money has been spent only with a view to privatisation."
Their meeting was unanimous in its "feeling of disgust" at what was described as the decimation of coalmines.
Political parties, Churches, schools and other representatives of the local community are joining this Saturday in Maltby to express their anger at the Government's actions towards their local pit and to every pit that is under threat. This is not a narrow, party-point-scoring exercise but the expression of entire communities throughout the country. They are saying to the Government that they, the Government, are on a course that is unacceptable to the British people.
The President of the Board of Trade keeps telling us that he has made it clear that National Power and PowerGen should consider the impact on communities of their decisions. On 9 April, those who voted Conservative did so because they thought that they were voting for a Government who would accept responsibility for the social fabric of the nation, including mining communities. They were wrong. The Government have made it clear that they do not accept the obligation placed on them by the democratic process back in April. In reality, they think that decisions should be made for commercial and business reasons and not for the government of the country. The Government have no justification for using the argument that they have produced against 30,000 miners and tens of thousands of others who will be affected by the announcements of last week. It is time that the Government considered whether they are fit to govern the nation when the people have said that they believe that they are not.
5.55 pm
Mr. David Howell: There is no doubt that the announcements of last week—enormous numbers of threatened pit closures and redundancies—came as an appalling shock to many. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fairly recognised this afternoon, the suddenness of the decision indicated that the handling of the matter had been too speedy and too rushed. I think that that must be recognised. That is the starting point for the return to the more balanced approach that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, has always been the aim of successive Governments in dealing with the transformation and modernisation of the coal industry.
472
It must be recognised, however—I believe that right hon. and hon. Members with longer memories than others will accept this—that under successive Labour and Conservative Governments since the second world war it has been the policy to create, by modernisation, a smaller but highly efficient coal industry. That process has been inevitable. That has been the aim of successive Governments, and there have been many difficulties along the way. I shall outline shortly how these difficulties seem to arise and cause such agony.
It is not true—this is what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) seemed to suggest—that there lies ahead the wipe-out of the coal industry for power generation in the United Kingdom, the rest of Europe or the world. Coal, particularly that which is internationally traded and including highly competitive British coal from many superb pits, will continue to play a major part for decades ahead in electricity generation. It is our job to ensure that the conditions that allow that to happen are maintained and developed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to go for a review. He would be even more right—I hope that he is saying this—to set in place policies and programmes to ensure that every redundancy is handled sensitively with the utmost care. The entire policy of shaking up appallingly the lives of many thousands of dedicated workers, many of whom are employed in awful underground conditions, must be handled in a way that is worthy of the tradition of the Conservative party as well as that of the Labour party. There must be humane social policies when we are all faced with appalling levels of change.
Why did everything arise so suddenly? Everyone was caught by surprise. I want to focus on the relevant institution, which has not had much of an airing so far in the debate. I refer not to the Department of Industry or British Coal but to the Treasury. I suspect that if we trace the powder trail from where the explosion took place last week, we find that it began in the Treasury. I do not have inside knowledge of how these matters suddenly came to the fore last week but I have a personal and painful experience of the same thing happening on a smaller scale about a decade ago when I was Secretary of State for Energy. I shall share with the House what happened then. It will see for itself, I suspect, that something similar happened in the recent past.
Matters begin with the Treasury getting into a public expenditure cutting mood, which heaven knows it is in now. When that happens it begins to say, "This sort of subsidisation, especially with growing stocks of coal that are not being sold, cannot continue." Pressure is put on the Secretary of State to cut cash limits and investment limits. The Secretary of State then goes to British Coal—previously it was the National Coal Board—and says, "This is your funding position. You had better start drawing up plans that will realistically fit the proposed funding." The industry produces plans and returns to the Secretary of State, who examines them. At that stage, the plans always leak. That is not the result of Government malignancy but because British Coal, which is a huge organisation—previously it was the National Coal Board at Hobart house—find it impossible to keep them secure.
At that point the whole thing turns into uproar and the Minister is left with a fizzing hand grenade in his hand. The question is whether he can run fast enough to his Cabinet colleagues before the damn thing blows up. In my case I

473
ran very fast, but not fast enough and the thing blew up and quite hurt my hand, but I have recovered now. That is what occurs when such issues come to the fore and plans are leaked in advance before Ministers have time to complete their plans. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that what was in the pipeline was a major, sensitive and elaborate programme to handle such a gigantic transformation.
I draw two lessons from the experience that I have recounted and from the uproar of last week. First, we must prepare years ahead when it comes to the transformation of this huge industry. We must involve every Department in the social programmes and the community revitalisations. My right hon. Friend is now seeking to do that with the help of Lord Walker and others. Every village and community must be visited; every family problem must be understood.
The transformation must be undertaken on a careful, prolonged basis. That is what they did in Belgium when its huge coal mining industry was reduced to zero. That is what happened in Japan where the work force were reduced from 348,000 to 5,000, working in only five mines. To some extent, a similar programme was undertaken in France and that is what we must do. I am glad that we are hearing about those transformation plans now. I think that I can guess why we did not hear about them so clearly when the whole thing blew up a week ago.
My second conclusion, which will not be welcome to my right hon. Friends, is that the Treasury will screw up anything given the chance. In this instance it is important to examine the relationship between the handling of the coal modernisation programme, the inevitable redundancies that will occur, the deflation that we and the rest of the world are experiencing and the current state of public expenditure policy. Those things are linked and it is not entirely right just to concentrate on the narrow issue of energy policy. We must consider it in the wider context of the Government's economic policy. I understand, greatly to my delight, that that policy is now beginning to undergo an adaptation as we face the fact of worldwide deflation and recession and the prospects of rapid recovery retreating into the future.
The pressures for economies in the coal industry, which I am sure are necessary, are undoubtedly part of the programme designed to contain the growth in public expenditure. Those economies are the first taste of many similar economies in all sorts of programmes. Last night the Prime Minister said that there are many other unpopular decisions to come regarding public expenditure.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends call in general terms for cuts in public spending, that sounds terrific, but we must recognise that when cuts are made to particular programmes it becomes a sensitive and difficult issue. It is no use just running from those decisions when we are faced with something that we do not like. There is also the great danger that the public expenditure drive can become too rigid and lead to the kind of explosions and over-sudden decisions that we have seen in relation to the pit closures and the coal modernisation programme.
My right hon. Friends believe that, next year, public expenditure should be subject to a rigid, control total which cannot be broken and into which everything must fit. It is thought that if one cannot stop expenditure on unemployment benefit from going up, something else must be cut. That concept has great relevance to the coal
474
modernisation programme and should he treated with great care. We tried that concept in 1982 and 1983 and, frankly, it did not work. Even if one puts in place a control total in boom times, one ends up cutting capital spending because one cannot cut a lot of social spending. In times of deflation it is wrong to cut public capital spending. It is wrong to pursue policies too quickly which, in times of full employment, might be more appropriate. I urge my right hon. Friends to be extremely careful about that control total as it might lead to more decisions that will lead to explosions similar to that which occurred over the coal modernisation programme.
In times of deflation, public spending should be determined by what can be prudently financed—what the markets will finance without forcing up interest rates. Right now lower interest rates and more public spending, but not just any kind, are both possible. Hon. Members who follow such things closely will know that narrow and broad money are not swelling as one would expect; they are well under control. It would be perfectly possible to reduce interest rates further as long as that was announced by the Bank of England and not seen as a politicised gesture. I know that I have bored hon. Members with my favourite hobby horse on many occasions, but until we depoliticise the announcement of our short-term interest rates we will continue to have difficulties when handling short-term rates and monetary policy. In the light of existing deflation we could now have lower interest rates.
We should not cut capital spending now. We should restore any existing cuts that may have been agreed, or proposed by Treasury Ministers a few weeks ago. We should increase capital spending. The huge City of London transport programme, for example, would provide additional employment and help, if not directly to miners, certainly to the ancillary and heavy engineering businesses.
We want to see a package for small businesses. That could all be done without any inflation risks. If hon. Members question that, they should consider countries such as Japan which has vastly increased its anti-deflation packages without any risk of inflation. Above all, we need to reform unemployment policy.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to know whether we are now subject to the 10-minutes rule? If so, when are you going to ring the bell on my speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The 10-minutes rule operates between 6 pm and 8 pm. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech at 5.55 pm, so he will have to finish by 6.10 pm.
Mr. Howell: I shall try to pitch my speech even shorter than that.
To cope with the challenges raised by the pit closure programme we need to restore and increase capital spending in the public sector. We need a rescue package for small businesses. All that could be done without the risk of inflation. We also need to reform unemployment policy. I am not satisfied that we spend £.8.9 billion a year on unemployment benefit when we get nothing for it. Even the word is wrong—today there should be no need for anyone to be unemployed involuntarily. The idea of the scrap heap is an outdated concept that belongs to the economics of the past.
Everyone in our society should have a function and should have the dignity afforded by performing it, unless

475
they happen not to want to work. Everyone should have the opportunity to perform that function even though it may not offer a full economic wage. The transformation and the modernisation of the mining industry should proceed at the right speed and every miner and worker related to the industry should be reabsorbed into a job or function, if only after a while. That can be done and is consistent with any changes to the industry.
When interviewed last night, the Prime Minister recognised the tasks that confront us—in part they have been prompted by the suddenness of the decision on the coal industry. We must get on and cut interest rates further --it is perfectly prudent to do that providing that the Bank of England announces those cuts, not the Treasury. We must increase capital spending; we should certainly not cut it. We must also revise the unemployment strategy from head to toe so that we get far better value for the enormous expenditure that is poured out now.
Last night the Prime Minister said that he and the Government were looking for "a strategy for growth", recovery and the future. Out of the suddenness and shock of the coal industry decision we have the opportunity to outline and carry out such a strategy. Without it there will be no growth, no recovery and no future worth having.
6.8 pm
Mr. John Evans: I participate in this debate with a heavy heart. In the past 13 years, it seems that every time I have spoken in the House it has been on an Opposition motion about closures, sackings, rundowns or the collapse of British industries. This debate is indicative of much that is wrong with Great Britain in the 1990s.
Ten days ago, seven Ministers meeting in secret agreed to slash Britain's coal industry from 50 collieries to 19 by closing 31 pits, with the loss of 30,000 mining jobs and 50,000 to 60,000 jobs in related industries. Tragically, most of those losses are in areas already suffering unacceptably high unemployment.
The closures announced last week were the most savage rationalisation ever inflicted on any sector of British industry, and come at a time of deep recession and massive unemployment. They are also a waste of Britain's most enduring energy resource. This country has the greatest coal deposits in western Europe, and most of them are to be left in the ground in collieries that will be flooded and filled with gas.
That seven-man, secret decision was not divulged to the Cabinet, Parliament or public, and the subsequent uproar when the public realised the extent of the industrial vandalism being inflicted on the country scared the wits out of a considerable number of Tory Members in marginal seats—many of whom subsequently made public statements that they could not and would not support the Government in any vote on that policy in the House. That caused the Government in turn to panic.
The Government were terrified that they might lose a critical vote, and on Monday we had the spectacle of the President of the Board of Trade coming to the House with a statement that apparently offered concessions. I submit that they were aimed more at buying off dissident Tory MPs than at meeting the country's energy requirements.
476
I read the right hon. Gentleman's statement to the House three times, and nowhere did he mention the word "review". Today's appalling speech by the right hon. Gentleman will cause bewilderment among the miners in my constituency who are to lose their jobs, because he never addressed any of their problems. Today, the President of the Board of Trade said that everything is to be reviewed, whereas on Monday he said that virtually nothing was to be reviewed. His main concession was that British Coal would immediately close only 10 collieries. He stated:
"We have therefore concluded that, for the time being, British Coal should be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 pits, which it has told me are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future."
The case of Parkside colliery in my constituency is absolute proof of the necessity for a wholly independent review of the closure programme and of Britain's energy requirements. On Monday, I told the right hon. Gentleman that the closure of Parkside without further review was incredible. He replied:
"The figures that British Coal has shown me for that particular colliery indicate that it is not able to make a profit even in today's circumstances. That is the real world that I have to confront."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol 212, c. 205, 224–225.]
The closure of 10 collieries was confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he replied to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
"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".—[Official Report, 20 October 1992; Vol 212, c. 315.]
In the information that the Coal Board has given the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, it has at best been economical with the truth, and at worst has told them a pack of lies.
Parkside, opened in 1964, is a profitable colliery. British Coal's own figures show that in 1987–88 the colliery made a profit of £5,093,000; in 1988–89, £3,258,000; in 1989–90, £1,720,000; and in 1990–91, £5,074,000. Despite a difficult first half-year in 1991–92, Parkside still made a profit of £2,874,000.
Although the first quarter of this year also was difficult, new coal-face machinery costing £6 million has just gone on stream and is being bedded in. The miners at that colliery expect the pit to be profitable by Christmas. If Parkside closes, that £6 million machine and all the other equipment there will be left to rot in the ground. None of it will be salvaged.
Parkside is strategically placed at the junction of the M6 and the M62. It can compete with imported coal, and serves the entire north-western region with fast access. It has a guaranteed market at Fiddler's Ferry power station, which takes 80 per cent. of its coal, only eight miles away by train.
The British Coal figures for Parkside prove that it is profitable. If it merits a review, I suggest that any figures suggesting the unprofitability of all the other collieries on the closure list are also dubious. If the review is to be meaningful, all 31 collieries must be individually examined and the facts presented to the House and the country. The miners of Parkside and all my other constituents are entitled to nothing less.
Mr. Rod Richards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter seriously

477
concerns Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is to wind up the debate. I hope very much that right hon. and hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies will be called.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We will have to wait and see.
6.18 pm
Sir Rhodes Boyson: Last week's announcement of 31 pit closures certainly shook everyone in the country. There are no pits in Brent, North—at least, none has been discovered as yet—but the strength of feeling on the issue in my constituency is stronger than on any other in the past 10 years. Judging by the mailbags right hon. and hon. Members have received, whatever the closures may have done for miners—for whom I have full sympathy—they must have increased the number of postmen being employed.
The idea of putting 30,000 miners out of work in one fell swoop, some at three days' notice, and of jeopardising the jobs of 70,000 other workers has shaken the country—particularly at a time when we are moving from recession to depression, for we are almost in a depression now, and what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) gave us an idea of the desperateness of the measures that are required.
In the Lancashire town where I grew up, there was only one employer—the cotton industry. I grew up during the depression of the 1930s, when unemployment, especially male unemployment, was intense: the family earner, whose wife and children looked to him for their income, could expect to be out of work for a long time. Mass unemployment is evil. It destroys the family, and it destroys the sense of community.
Now, there is a new factor. In the 1930s, people could move more easily, because houses were generally rented. They could move from the north, which was experiencing a depression, to London, which was then experiencing prosperity—it no longer is: my constituency is currently in the depths of a depression that particularly affects middle-class workers who used to be employed in the City. Now, even people in the mining villages have bought their own houses—with the Government's agreement, and backed by my own enthusiasm—and many are trapped by negative equity.
In many ways, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers enabled the Conservative Government to defeat the miners in 1984–85. It is unduly felt that the union has now been stabbed in the back for what it did.
I am glad that the Government have retracted a good deal of what was in the original statement: the future of 21 pits is being reconsidered. I only wish that that applied to all 31. That, surely, would be a generous and sensible gesture, especially in the light of this afternoon's exchange in the House between the Secretary of State and others. I also welcome the review. Any such review must be both thorough and open. It must cover two areas—the existing situation, and the country's future energy policy.
I suspect that energy pricing has been rigged against the miners, and that some pits are being closed unfairly—that there has been no free market or level playing field. That should certainly be examined. There should be an investigation of the relative cost of production, and of how the mines compare with gas and nuclear fuel which is heavily subsidised by Government. Secondly, the review must consider the long term. It is said that the country has
478
250 years of coal supply; we probably have only 10 or 20 years of gas. It would be suicidal to use up that gas, which represents a strategic reserve in the long term. The world is now a much more dangerous place than it was before the collapse of the communist empire in Russia. Years ago, I did not think that I would ever say that, but I have now seen what is happening in eastern Europe, north America and elsewhere. We should conserve our stocks of gas, coal and oil for the future.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, I feel that any policy decision that the Government make at this time of high unemployment should take employment into account. I would welcome nil inflation, but I certainly do not want it if it would involve nil employment. Every Cabinet decision should relate to how many people it will employ. One thing that can be said of coal is that it is a labour-intensive industry. Similarly, I hope that the Government will help with the extension of the Jubilee line, which will employ 12,000 people. The first item on the Cabinet's agenda from now on should be the effect of its proposals on the employment market.
The points that I have made have also been made by my constituents. They feel that the miners have been let down. It is now up to us to make it clear that they have not been let down, and I am also glad that the Select Committee is doing its best to bring about a return of confidence. Many Conservative Members—although we may differ on economic policy—are one-nation Tories, and it strikes us as very serious to condemn to continued unemployment areas that have no employment alternative.
Although I represent a London constituency, I shall never forget what unemployment was like in the 1930s in the area were I grew up. I trust that the review, when it is published, will give the mining industry sustenance and hope for the future; and I trust that we will have a distinctive policy for energy, covering 20 to 30 years, with which all hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree.
6.25 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: One of the 10 pits is in my constituency—Betws, near Ammanford. It should not be on the list, because—as the Secretary of State and the Minister know very well—it is an anthracite pit, and anthracite is not dependent on any contracts between British Coal and the two power generators. The market relates to domestic heating, and possibly to industrial heating as well.
Even in west Wales, the demand for anthracite exceeds supply. We do not really have any problems with imports; we can just about compete on price, and we can certainly compete on quality. Betws is a modern pit. British Coal has mined anthracite there for 15 years or slightly more; at one time it employed nearly 500 people, but that is now down to 100. It is not an uneconomic pit: it is uneconomic only in the sense that British Coal—having mined it traditionally for 15 years, using the equipment that it has used in other mines to extract soft rather than hard coal—does not wish to extract any more coal from the seams that it has been mining, and probably cannot do so. That does not mean that there is not a considerable amount of coal left in those seams—in the pillars, as they are called. British Coal, however, cannot extract it, because it is locked into a certain way of mining that does not lend itself to the process.

479
Under those seams lie other seams, but British Coal has decided that it does not wish to make the investment—essential investment, perhaps—that would be required for it to start on those seams. It has decided to leave the anthracite coalfield. It still extracts anthracite by opencast mining, but it is no longer interested in the slant and drift methods.
It was announced that Betws was likely to be closed some time ago, before the list was published. Some of us decided, having talked to the magnificent leadership of the NUM—it is a magnificent leadership in the Betws colliery, and, indeed, throughout south Wales—that, if British Coal was bent on leaving the anthracite coalfield, the only alternative apart from closure was to see whether other operators were prepared to come in. After all, British Coal was to be privatised in any case. Would other operators—responsible and respectable companies—be prepared to extract the remaining coal, use the money from that extraction to boost cash flow and then decide whether it was possible to go for the other seams?
If a different mining method were used—I am not talking about pit ponies or pick and shovel; I am talking about the under system that has been developed in the United States and, to some extent, in South Africa, a technique in which British Coal was not interested—a considerable amount of coal could probably be extracted from Betws. After there had been some publicity, three separate organisations contacted me and my office a few weeks later and said that they were interested. One of them is an international mining company. It has had no previous connection with Britain, so it is not Hanson or anybody like that. The second company is owned by a business man with high technology factories in the south of England, but he has local connections. The third company is Ryan Mining, which has now made its intentions public. It has shown tremendous commitment. I pay tribute to the chairman of Ryan Mining, Mr. Hodson, for his tremendous commitment and dedication to the coal industry in south Wales.
These three companies would, I believe, be acceptable to the leadership and members of the National Union of Mineworkers. We are not talking about cowboys or fly-by-nighters coming in to flout the safety rules and everything else. That would be unacceptable. We are talking about responsible organisations that are interested in coming into the area.
I hope that British Coal decides not to close Betws. If, however, it decides to do so, the problem will be not the men, or the coal, or the shortage of bidders but British Coal. I have discovered that it is almost impossible to communicate with British Coal. Whenever one puts forward any ideas they are shot down. One cannot get through to the right people. The mining of anthracite coal in west Wales is governed from Nottingham, so one cannot get hold of anybody. Therefore, rumours are flying around.
A few weeks after the announcement of the closure, journalists rang up British Coal and were told that British Coal did not know what it wanted to do with Betws. A few weeks later, a business man rang me up and said that he wanted to go and have a look at the pit. I rang the office of the chairman of British Coal and asked him to get in touch with that gentleman. He was told by British Coal,
480
however, that on no account was he to go near the Betws pit. He was told one cannot buy a coal mine just as though one was going into a Kwik Save supermarket. That gentleman said to me, "British Coal should really have sent a car to fetch me. It should have laid out a red carpet for me. I was actually going to put money into that pit during a slump, during a recession. I wanted to invest money in that coal mine and save possibly 60 or 70 of the 100 jobs."
Rumours are still flying around. I was told by the lodge secretary the other night that bricklayers are now going down the mine and beginning to brick things up. I do not know why they are doing that. I see that the Minister for Energy shakes his head, but perhaps his writ no longer runs that far. In his speech the President of the Board of Trade used the word "instruction". He is a bit of a lame duck President these days. I do not know how far the Minister's instructions go, but I have been told that the bricklayers are going down the pit and bricking things up.
I was also told the other day—no doubt the Secretary of State for Wales can answer this question—that British Coal has approached the Welsh Development Agency and asked it to turn the site into a business park. The last time the Welsh Development Agency took over a mining site in Wales it turned it into a Tesco supermarket.
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No, my time is limited. I have only two minutes left to me.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales, who is to wind up the debate, will say that on no account will anything be done to close down Betws, to cement it up, or whatever else British Coal wants to do.
Mr. Eggar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: Yes, I will give way to the Minister.
Mr. Eggar: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I shall personally make sure that British Coal responds to indications of interest from the three parties he mentioned, or from any other parties. We shall not preclude that.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
We are not romantics. We believe that the anthracite coalfield of west Wales can be developed for the economic good of the area, that value can be added to it by the creation of other jobs. The anthracite coalfield can contribute to the economic well-being of the area. It has also made a tremendous contribution to the Welsh language and to the cultural life of the whole of that community. We do not intend to let that go. We shall fight to preserve it. We shall regenerate the anthracite coalfield of Wales.
6.34 pm
Dr. Michael Clark: We have heard a lot recently about the importance of Select Committees in reviewing the case for pit closures. May I begin, therefore, by reading from the final report of the Select Committee on Energy, submitted in the spring of this year. The final sentence in paragraph 19 says:

481
"we believe that the Energy Committee should remain in being even if the Department of Energy is abolished … we firmly believe that this is not the time for the House to reduce its ability to scrutinise energy matters."
How right we were then and how right we are now. In our previous report dealing with the market for coal after 1993 when these contracts expire we said:
"if a significant portion of the UK's coal reserves were abandoned, which we hope will not happen, resulting in a major reduction of long-term energy security, the Government should understand that the country would see this not as a commercial decision, but a largely irreversible decision of historic significance to the United Kingdom."
We were right about that, too. Therefore, one wonders whether our reports were well used by the Government or whether the Select Committee on Energy wasted its time. One has to draw the conclusion that any other Select Committee that looks into the matter will be wasting its time, too, unless there is a positive pledge from the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy that the Select Committee's report will be taken seriously.
We are told that there is no demand for coal. Yesterday, however, I chaired a conference in France, called Coal Trans, which was attended by 1,050 delegates. They talked about how they were going to trade coal on the world market. They are looking at a potential vacuum here, and there was the gleam of nice cash registers in their eyes.
We are also told that our coal stocks are too large. Of course they are. We have carried strategic stocks of coal for a long time, in case there should be strikes. We are told, too, that it is expensive to stockpile coal. We are not told whether it is the space on the ground that is expensive or whether it is the capital cost of tying up the stocks that is expensive. If it is the capital cost that is expensive, British Coal and the Government should do the same as any other business has to do: sell the coal at a price at which it can be sold, even if it is a marginal cost price, rather than try to hold out for the full price.
We know that there are no contracts for coal beyond 1993. That seems to have come as a great surprise, but we have known that for a long time. In our report on the consequences of electricity privatisation we reported in paragraph 149:
"The new evidence we have received has made brutally apparent how drastically and rapidly Britain's coal industry will contract if present policies continue."
We also referred to the fact that contracts should be in place.
Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that the coal industry is suffering because it was privatised after the electricity supply industry. I believe that it should have been the other way round. If coal had been privatised first, there would have been safeguards for the electricity supply industry. The shame is that those same safeguards, which could have been devised then, were not devised for the coal industry.
As for contracts, as far back as 1988 we said in another Select Committee report that contracts should be put in place quickly for the benefit of the coal industry and for the benefit of all the generators. It is said that British coal is expensive. That may be so. We know that British Coal has a plan to bring down the price of British coal to the same price as world coal by 1994–95. Why, then, after 40 years of investment in the coal industry since the second world war and the spending of £17 billion since 1979 alone are we thinking of cutting out 60 per cent. of our coal industry when we are within two years of getting coal prices down to world market prices?
482
Since the 1984–85 strike—I do not wish to dwell upon that—new working methods have been introduced into the pits and there have been dramatic increases in productivity. One could argue that that was a year lost, and I regret that we lost that year. We could have been a year further down the road without that strike. But let us not forget that the Government were able to continue to run the country and businesses survived because of the new union in my native Nottinghamshire, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, headed by the remarkable Roy Lynk. I spoke to him last Saturday—he was down the bottom of Silverhill and I was in the comfort of my sitting room—for a long time and about many things. I asked, "Roy, is there anything I can do to help you?" He said, "I think in many ways you have tried to help already. There is just one thing that I would like from your side of the House—a smidgen of appreciation." My constituents, all those associated with him and all miners, whether they belong to his union or the other union, want to give him more than a smidgen of appreciation.
We have heard about the dash for gas and the consequences of it, on which the Select Committee reported. In paragraph 154 of our report on the consequences of electricity privatisation, we referred to the fact that it would be wrong to allow the dash for gas to cut out British Coal to such an extent that in due course electricity prices increased, and wrong to cut out coal, which might add about 6 per cent. to the electricity bills of those who do not have a franchise tariff, compared with an increase of 11 per cent. from nuclear fuels, despite its having the fossil fuel levy to subsidise it. That should not be forgotten.
The Government have decided to shut 31 pits, with 30,000 redundancies at a cost of £1,000 million in redundancy pay. The topping cycle—the forerunner of clean-coal technology, in which we lead the world—was being developed at Grimethorpe. Last year, £10 million was required to keep that pilot plant going. The Government and the Coal Board could not find £10 million, yet they can now find £1,000 million for redundancy, and last week another £150 million was found to try to allay distress in coal mining areas. Like many others, I am tired of so-called investment in failure and redundancy. I want more investment front-end in success and opportunity, not investment back-end on redundancy and failure. The £150 million extra that was offered to miners would have built a demonstration plant for clean-coal technology. Texaco has had one in America since 1984, Germany has had one since 1985, another one has been in America since 1987 and Shell is building one on the continent that will be ready later this year.
The Government, in offering these massive unemployment redundancy terms and concessions to miners, have misread the mood of the people, who do not want to see redundancies, and have misread the characters of miners, who do not want charity money. I say to the chairmen of the regional electricity companies that the £30,000 that is paid in redundancy to miners who have spent all their lives in the industry is equivalent to one quarter of the self-awarded pay rises that those chairmen are giving themselves each year, and it is those chairmen who largely will cause the demise of the coal industry.
If the Government want my support, they must have an open, public and published review of the coal industry. They must state their energy policy, which they have failed

483
to do for many a year. They must commit themselves to clean-burn technology and treat all 31 pits alike without putting 10 to one side.
I was disappointed to hear the statement in the other place yesterday that some reliance will be put on Select Committee reports. That statement was made by someone who had been presented with Select Committee report after Select Committee report when he was Secretary of State for Energy.
I cannot, as things stand, vote for the amendment unless all 31 pits are included. I do not welcome speedy action to give assistance to miners; I want speedy action to save the pits. I do not see this as being a decision in the context of the Government's energy policy, although I might if I knew what it was. I do not think that it is adequate to say that the House will debate Select Committee reports; we have debated all the Select Committee reports, and this is where we have arrived. If things do not change, I shall vote not against my Government but for the coal industry, even if it means voting for the coal industry in that Lobby—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The rule applies to all hon. Members equally.
6.45 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I have had the pleasure today of getting a bit of exercise, which I need, by walking a few miles around London with more than 200,000 people, who within seven days have responded by coming from all parts of the land to demonstrate against the disgraceful announcement that was made last week by the President of the Board of Trade.
It was an experience that I enjoyed in my younger years, when some said that such demonstrations would never happen again. I remind the Government and the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) where that march went today. They must be worried and must think seriously what they are doing. The Government and the President—he wanted to be Prime Minister but now he likes to be called the President—have shown their lack of energy policy, of economic policy and their lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected by that decision and whose lives will be made worse be their contempt for the British mining industry.
I am not convinced that the decision was made on economic grounds. I have been here for only five years, but I have never seen any evidence that the Government or Conservative Members believe in the British coal industry. Sadly, we have seen the politics of dogma, and in last week's decision we saw the politics of vengeance. I do not make that statement lightly; I honestly believe that it was vengeance.
The former Secretary of State for Energy, Lord Parkinson, said, "Remember 1972 and 1974." What did he mean by that? He could only have meant that the Government have intended all along to get their own back on the miners, their families and their communities for the 1972 miners' strike, which few miners wanted, and the 1974 strike, which, equally, miners did not want but which was necessary to fight to maintain their living standards. The 1974 strike led to a general election. Some people like
484
to say that the miners brought down the Government, but it was a general election that brought down the Government, not the miners.
The British people had a fair-sized delegation on the streets of London today. It was a delegation, but only a small proportion of the millions of people who were disgusted by last week's statement. The statement was bad enough, but its tenor made it far worse. They were saying to the miners, "Your jobs will be gone in two days. By the way, don't say anything. Don't you dare open your mouths, or you will lose that redundancy money that we are promising you."
Some of us are old enough to remember when people were screaming at the miners to have ballots, in 1984. Yet Terry Wheatley, who used to be a British Coal manager at Thoresby colliery in Nottinghamshire, and is now an area director in the midlands, told the unions, "If you seek to hold a ballot on pit premises I shall consider that destructive action and we shall withdraw all your redundancy benefits." That struck a chord with hundreds, thousands, even millions of people in our country, because that is the way they are treated in their workplaces today. When they hear about such treatment, they feel akin to the miners, and they say no.
The Government had better listen. The British people are saying, "No; we have had enough. It is our coal industry to keep, not yours to shut down and sell off." The President of the Board of Trade's display today was appalling. We are used to the politicking in the House—we are professionals—but today I saw a man of jelly. I am being as kind as I can, but I still have to say that I do not know how that man can stand up, because he has no backbone. It is nonsense for a man to turn round, somersault and twist as he has done in a matter of 24 or 48 hours.
I walked through this House at a quarter to I I last night, not long after the House of Lords had considered the matter and, wisely, reflected the view of the British people. I saw a lonely man walking into the Chamber with a colleague. I shall not mention the colleague's name, but he is sitting on the Government Front Bench now. They walked into the Chamber all alone, clicking their heels and looking about them. Guess where they were standing. Here, by the Opposition Front Bench. May I never move from this spot if the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Energy, who is now in raptures of laughter, were standing here. I thought that they were showing a little foresight, and getting used to the new side of the House towards which they are quickly heading.
We should think carefully before we make our decision tonight. Let us make no bones about it—we shall be deciding whether there will be a British coal industry. Some people will be bought off. I saw one hon. Gentleman on television this morning saying, "Oh well, 10 pits have gone, but we have a review for 21 pits." What nonsense. If anybody believes for a minute that the Government will save the 21 and close only the 10, he is kidding himself.
Far be it from me to advise Conservative Members on their political and professional futures, but they must think little of their constituents if they believe that they will be conned by such behaviour. We have a saying in Scotland, "That will sort the weak from the chaff." Conservative Members have been chaffing all this week, and we shall see who is weak and who is determined to stand by what they have been saying.

485
The weak will be in the Lobby with the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade, but those who really have the backbone that they have been telling everybody they have will be elsewhere. To be fair to the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), he has made the same statement today, repeating that he will not necessarily vote for the Labour motion, but that he will vote for the coal industry. I take my hat off to him—and I do not do that often. He is standing by what he said seven days ago, and he is more of an honourable gentleman than those who said the same seven days ago but do not say a word now.
My time is running out, so I shall add only that what happens here tonight is important for the mining communities and for the broader community—with the hundred thousand jobs that will be lost in related industries. The mining communities will not win or lose the vote tonight. We shall not be impressed by those wishy-washy characters who go through the Lobbies to allow the Government off the hook—if that is what happens—to buy more time to save the job of the President of the Board of Trade, and in the hope of sacking 30,000 miners.
We shall come back. What happened in London today will happen again next week. There will be a massive rally on Sunday, and the campaign will go out to the British people until we save our British coal industry.
6.55 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I have more than a little sympathy with those who have opposed the closures—for two reasons. First, I represent a constituency which has suffered more than its fair share of closures over the past few decades. The second reason is the way in which the announcement was made. Not many Conservative hon. Members who have employed people in private industry would have given people only three days' notice that they were to lose their jobs, and I do not think it right for Governments or state-owned industries to act in that way either.
I also have more than a little sympathy with the complaints about the way in which some of the gas-fired power station contracts have been set up. It is never satisfactory when distributors act as producers too, and that may be a cause for complaint here. However, the regulators have the power to examine the contracts and the boards have a statutory duty to ensure that they are obtaining the lowest price. The regulator can penalise them severely if the gas contracts prove uneconomic.
However, it is often forgotten in the debate that we compete not only with British gas but with imported coal. There has been much concentration on German policy because the Germans subsidise their coal industry and their coal price is high. Many people have said that we should follow their example. Just because the Germans follow a mistaken policy it does not mean that we must do the same. Furthermore, the costs of the German policy are habitually underestimated, at £1 billion, whereas the true cost of all the direct and indirect aid more than quadruples that to £4.5 billion, because of the so-called "coal penny"—a levy on energy-consuming industries. Hon. Members who go to Germany will find that that policy is far from popular. It is highly controversial, especially in the steel industry, and is certainly not the subject of any cosy consensus.
486
Leaving Germany aside, we live not only in Europe but in the world economy, and we have to compete there. We currently pay £43 a tonne for British mined coal. The import price into the United Kingdom is £33, the OECD average is £26, and the price in Australia and the United States is as low as £15 to £18 a tonne.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Oppenheim: No, I am sorry but I am short of time.
In their heart of hearts, many Opposition Members know that the easier British coal seams were worked out long ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anyone who goes down pits such as Bentinck, on the border of my constituency, and crawls along the narrow face will know how difficult it is to win such coal and how skilled the men are at winning it. None the less, it strikes me as a wrong economic policy to mine difficult coal regardless of the cost. Why turn what has traditionally been an asset to the British economy into a millstone around the neck of British industry by penalising it with high energy prices? Not to buy cheaper imported coal would be sheer protectionism. To put it simply, the Government would be putting the interests of one group and industry above others by placing a ban on cheap imports.
The history of coal since the war has been just that. For years, the National Coal Board had cosy guaranteed contracts with the Central Electricity Generating Board, and imports were virtually banned. As a result, consumers and industry paid over the odds for coal; taxpayers paid a huge subsidy to the Coal Board and the economy as a whole was penalised. For every job preserved in the mines, jobs were lost elsewhere. That is, and always has been, the cost of protectionism.
It did not even really help the miners. They still lost their jobs by the tens of thousands. They were paid less than they are now in real terms because, being protected from foreign competition, there was no incentive to raise productivity. As a result of that, they could not be paid as much. The British coal industry is a classic example of the failure of Government policies of intervention in industry.
Meanwhile, other countries benefited from diversity of energy resources by opting for cheaper imports of energy. Japan closed down virtually all its mines. As a result, it buys as cheaply as it can on the world markets. In the EC, France, which has a socialist Government, has long since closed down the bulk of its capacity. It now has only 20,000 miners. France buys coal at £26 a tonne and Italy pays £33 a tonne. Those are far lower prices than we pay.
It is often argued that we need domestic supplies for our energy security. However, even with the closures, 30 to 40 per cent. of our energy needs will be met by domestic coal, on top of which we have indigenous gas, oil and nuclear which will give us far greater security than most. I should have thought that simply to refuse to import energy and to use up our domestic supplies as soon as possible would guarantee our insecurity rather than our security in energy supplies.
We are, anyway, over-reliant on coal in comparison with our main competitors. Sixty-seven per cent. of Britain's electricity comes from coal. That is higher than the level in all the major EC countries. Even Germany, which is much quoted, gets only just over 50 per cent. of its electricity from coal. The figure in France is 8 per cent.

487
Even the United States, the land of cheap coal, gets only 55 per cent. of its electricity from coal. We are way out of line with out international competitors.
Opposition Members argue that foreign coal is unreliable. Very little of the so-called cheap foreign coal which is habitually sneered at comes from Russia, Poland and the third world. Opposition Members say that those countries are unstable and that we cannot rely on them. However, those countries will become even more unstable unless richer countries like ours trade with them and allow them to sell to us the goods that they can best produce.
I sometimes find it extraordinary that people who call themselves socialists urge us to refuse to buy products from poorer countries. That does not sound much like the brotherhood of man. The vast bulk of our coal imports do not anyway come from the third world, from Poland, Russia, eastern Europe or Colombia. They come from the United States and Australia. They supply the overwhelming bulk of our imported coal. They are long-standing allies of ours and they are stable democracies. There is a huge and diverse competitive international energy market and if we cut ourselves off from it, we will penalise our industry and our economy as a whole.
My experience in Amber Valley has shown me at first hand the problems caused to coal communities when there are pit closures and I understand those problems. However, I must point out to Opposition Members that most of the pits in my constituency—in fact, almost all—were closed down under Labour Governments. The miners received a pittance in redundancy and even their concessionary coal was taken from them. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the redundancies were effectively compulsory. I suggest that he should not come to my constituency and tell the thousands of miners who were made redundant under Labour that they were not made compulsorily redundant.
Amber Valley is also an example of regeneration after coal. Notwithstanding the effects of the recession, it has built up a very successful, diverse industrial base since the coal mines were closed and I willingly pay tribute to councils of all parties that contributed to that regeneration.
So despite the perversity of the situation in which I find myself in supporting an avowedly interventionist Minister who, for once, is doing the right thing by the market, which I support, as I believe in open markets and a liberal open economy; and despite my deep concern about the way in which the whole issue has been handled, I will oppose the Opposition motion.
7.5 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: When the collieries were closed in Amber Valley, there was full employment in this country—not like the situation facing the miners at Silverhill today. I want to speak for the miners at that colliery which, in case the constant references by Conservative Members leave anyone in doubt, is in my constituency. I want to speak for the staff at the colliery and for the families who depend for their livelihoods on the colliery continuing to produce coal.
Those miners want to work and they proved that on Monday morning when, despite the closure announcement, they turned up ready to work. However, they were
488
sent home. When the President of the Board of Trade was still in the Chamber, I wanted to ask him how any of the 10 pits will be able to prove that they are economic during the next 90 days when the miners are not allowed to work. If the Minister who is on the Front Bench answers any of the questions, he must address that issue. If he does not, the exercise in relation to those 10 collieries is cynical and cosmetic.
The debate is about whether the miners at Silverhill will ever work again in the colliery which they have worked to make economically competitive and whether they and their families will be condemned to unemployment and poverty by a callous, incompetent and short-sighted Government.
In effect, Silverhill has been condemned to closure by the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister. On Monday, the President of the Board of Trade said that Silverhill was "currently loss making" and that it had
"no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 205.]
The Prime Minister repeated the same charge yesterday and stated categorically:
"In our judgment, the 10 pits … have no sustainable economic future."—[Official Report, 20 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 315.]
On what did those two mining and energy experts base their judgments? Where is the evidence that leads them to that conclusion? It can be nothing in the recent history of Silverhill. The colliery has made a consistent profit in each of the past four financial years. In 1988–89 it made a profit of £3.6 million. In 1989–90 the profit was £620,000. In 1990–91 it was £1.1 million and in the last complete financial year—1991–92—it was £1.94 million.
The figures for 1991–92 are perhaps the most remarkable. Not only did the miners produce their biggest-ever output of 932,000 tonnes, but they did so in the face of considerable geological difficulties. By August 1991, Silverhill colliery was as much as £3 million in the red as the men struggled to cope with those geological difficulties. By sheer hard work, by April 1992, they turned a deficit of £3 million into a profit of £2 million. In seven months, they were able to add £5 million in profit in that colliery.
The miners in Silverhill are realistic, as are miners everywhere. They know that they work in conditions which are less easy and less attractive than some of the so-called super pits in which some miners can almost walk along a seam. Silverhill miners are forced to crawl along seams less than 3 ft high. That makes their achievements of last year all the more remarkable.
Since 1988, with a work force of between 750 and 800 men, the colliery has produced more than 850,000 tonnes of coal a year. Last year was a record. Therefore, how can the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade tell us that those miners have no sustainable economic future?
The miners know the difficulties that they have to contend with. They know because they work in those difficulties every day. They know that coal does not jump on to the conveyor belt. They know that they have to struggle to mine that coal. They know that they can go for weeks without producing any useful coal, only to clear the way for substantial gains later. That is exactly what happened at Silverhill last year and that is exactly what can happen again if only the miners are allowed to work.

489
How can the Government conclude that there is no future for Silverhill and the other nine pits of the 10 when British Coal last year drew up a five-year plan for Silverhill? That plan looks forward from 1992 to 1997; it is based on the production of coal at economic prices over that five-year period. That plan picks out the best bits of the colliery and the best bits of the remaining reserves. On the basis of the record of that colliery, when it published that five-year plan, British Coal had every expectation that the colliery would survive and would develop along economic lines.
It is not only a five-year plan that British Coal was prepared to put forward on behalf of Silverhill colliery. There is also a new face ready and available for work. British Coal has spent £4 million on preparing that face and it could be mined today if only British Coal and the Government allowed the miners at Silverhill to take advantage of that opportunity.
Those are the economic facts of Silverhill. How can they be reconciled with the Government's present position? According to the Government last week, Silverhill and 30 other collieries were uneconomic. Today, Silverhill is not to benefit from the review, from a moratorium or from any other public consideration of its position. Its miners are not even allowed to work. Where was the Government's credibility when they said on Sunday that there was no turning back? How is it that the Government say, "Oh yes, for the 21 collieries there is a need for a review"? How can they tell us that for the other 10 that review cannot be available?
We need to consider those 10 collieries in the context of the review that is available for the other 21. If that does not happen, it will be difficult to give much credibility to the review that the Government are proposing in relation to the 21. How can those 10 collieries be condemned by the process that originally condemned all 31 without the 10 now being considered? Conservative Members who doubted over the weekend how they would vote tonight have to square their consciences in relation to the 10 collieries. How can they say that they were doubtful about supporting the Government over the weekend when they cannot still support those 10 collieries tonight?
The miners of Silverhill want a real review. They want the opportunity of putting their case economically in the way that they do best—by cutting coal. That is what they must be allowed to do, even in the 90-day period. They must be given the opportunity to work. They must be given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the other energy resources that are available.
7.12 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: I must confess that the original statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade embarrassed me, but I welcome the review. Traditionally, the United Kingdom has had a four-fuel economy for electricity production, and a balance must be maintained among the fuels.
In Germany, by the end of the century, about 30,000 jobs will go. Their production will abate considerably from 72 million tonnes. Bearing that in mind, we must consider whether we will accept the German idea and have what is known as a strategic element for coal in the economy. The Government would then have to decide what that figure should be.
490
I am in favour of an expanding coal industry, as are the Government. They now have the largest share of electricity production, and that will continue to be so, but two other matters arise. One relates to imports and was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). Imported coal has a 1 per cent. sulphur content, whereas local coal has a 1.5 per cent. sulphur content. That is why power-producing companies are turning to gas. They are turning to imported coal because of the lower sulphur content. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I have to say.
Coal has many great problems. We have the problems of nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, all of which are inherent in fossilised fuels. Unless we confront those issues, and if we are eventually to face a European carbon tax, the industry will be in great difficulty. Further, there are some important issues regarding the disposal of fly ash and, if limestone is used, of calcium sulphate, which has no market. Also, there is subsidence and the fact that working in mines is still a dangerous occupation. All those matters will have to be dealt with in the review.
Hon. Members will appreciate that a coal mine producing coal for a power station has a maximum efficiency of 37 to 38 per cent. A gas turbine has an efficiency of 52 per cent. That is why people are seriously considering gas turbines.
I hope that the Minister realises that, in respect of nuclear power, which is one element of United Kingdom fuel production, a 1994 review later will be totally inadequate, and that we must bring it forward and let the industry know precisely what is to happen. Hon. Members will recognise that it would be wrong to destroy one industry, the coal industry, and at the same time destroy another by getting rid of our nuclear power industry. Those stations have been here for many years, and they are here to stay.
The Minister might like to consider the nuclear levy that is to terminate in about 1998. As the company made a substantial profit last year, that could be considered in the review. That might be a helpful suggestion.
I do not know why so many hon. Members fear the threat of gas. About 11,000 MW of new capacity is envisaged. However, in a free economy, much of that might not materialise. In respect of the assessment of domestic reserves in the United Kingdom, I firmly believe that between 45 trillion and 55 trillion cu ft may be available. Many of our reserves have not yet been discovered, but, believe me, North sea reserves have consistently been underestimated.
The House should have no problems in recognising the general position of gas in Europe. In the Netherlands, 50 per cent. of electricity is produced by natural gas. In Italy, the figure is 18 per cent., and in western Germany it is 8 per cent. If we are to share and have a balance between fuels which is good for the supply industry and, in particular, for the miner, it is right not to destroy another industry which contributes to the economy.
I wish to say a few words about the cost of electricity from various sources. The price for the cheapest available low-priced gas—although it has recently increased—is between 2.5p and 2.6p per therm. Higher-priced gas works out at 2.7p to 3.1p per therm. Imported coal with flue gas desulphurisation works out at 2.6p per therm, but British coal with FGD works out at 2.93p per therm. I apologise

491
for quoting so many figures. If coal is to succeed against its competitors, it must be imported coal. That would not be helpful to British miners.
We must also look ahead. We expect to hear shortly that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will come back to the House. If we go further towards ratifying the Maastricht treaty, possibly a carbon tax will be introduced in the United Kingdom. That could be the final death knell of the United Kingdom industry. I hope that it will not come but that we will bypass Maastricht and keep sovereignty in our country.
It may be said that, having devalued the pound by 10 per cent., we are fairly successful and the prices of gas and coal will come into equilibrium, but it would require another 10 per cent. devaluation to bring about a proper equilibrium which will benefit the coal industry.
You have enjoined us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief to enable as many mining Members as possible to speak. I wish to make two further observations. We are naturally worried about one or two points.
From the beginning of this century, the amount of coal produced in the United Kingdom has fallen consistently, largely because consumption has fallen. That has been traditional under all Governments. Therefore, the decision of the President of the Board of Trade is simply a continuation of that pattern.
A similar trend has occurred in western Europe. In France, little coal production remains. In Belgium and the Netherlands, it has been abolished. In Germany, it has been gradually diminished. In the United Kingdom, many people recognise that we cannot keep coal in stocks for ever. It is expensive to do so, and the more the coal is exposed to weathering, the more it is destroyed. By Christmas, the stocks of coal will amount to about 50 million tonnes. It will cost the taxpayer—to whom we must all account—£800 million per year to maintain the stocks.
The burden on the taxpayer is enormous. I beg the House to ensure that we consider the matter coolly.
7.23 pm
Mr. John Cummings: I find it extraordinary that this evening the Secretary of State for Wales will reply to the debate and deal with problems in the county of Durham. That is little compensation to him for being ignored last week. I found the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon insulting. I am sure that the 30,000 people who marched through London and the many millions of people who support the trade unions and the miners on this occasion also found his remarks insulting.
The President of the Board of Trade has been rumbled by the House and the nation. His platitudes and crocodile tears will not be accepted. People will treat them with the contempt that they richly deserve. Indeed, on Monday he did not even know where Vane Tempest colliery was. He could not respond to me about Vane Tempest. He referred to Easington colliery, which is one of the 21. He did not even know where Vane Tempest was. That showed his contempt for the workforce at Vane Tempest, the people of Seaham and, indeed, the population of Easington. For
492
his information, Vane Tempest has made a profit of £2.3 million this year. It can go forward with the correct inward investment to make further profits in future.
Easington colliery is in profit. It has tremendous reserves lying under the North sea, where subsidence is not a problem. The reserves lying under the sea cannot be exploited by opencast mining. They will be lost to the nation for ever. It will cost some £48 million to close Vane Tempest colliery. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) had better wipe the smirk off his face or he might get it wiped off outside. The hon. Gentleman shows contempt for workers who have given a lifetime to the industry and the nation. It is disgraceful.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is one way to get rid of votes.
Mr. Cummings: The Government will lose votes.
Unemployment in Seaham is the highest in Great Britain. Seaham has the smallest number of job opportunities. With the loss of Easington colliery and Vane Tempest, unemployment in Easington will be 17 per cent. overall. But that disguises figures of 20, 25 and 30 per cent. in villages which previously had coalmines. It disguises an overall figure perhaps in excess of 50 per cent. among young people between 16 and 24 who have never had a real job. It is a disgrace to see fine young men standing on corners who should be underground moving coal for the benefit of the nation.
In Easington we shall have an imbalance of population. Young people will have to move away. We shall be left with an aging population chronically sick and disabled from a lifetime of work in the mines and heavy industry at a time when services are diminishing as a result of the Government's attitude to expenditure on social services. A feeling of helplessness and hopelessness exists in the community of Easington and, indeed, in the north-east as a whole.
We have heard the promises and platitudes of the Government. The people of Easington have not received one penny piece from RECHAR or any other funds. In 1984 and 1985 the finger was pointed at miners and people said that they were the enemy within. I ask now who is the enemy within. It is a Government who will rely on Algeria, the middle east and the Soviet Union for future gas supplies. We all know what happened when the Soviet Union fell out with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania: the Soviet Union turned the gas off. Are we to be subjected to that in the future?
A tremendous amount of money—£ 15 billion—is in the mineworkers pension scheme. Who will get their grubby hands on it? Have Conservative Members and people from the City got their eyes on it? Of course, they have. Thousands of acres of land are also held in trust by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. There are tennis courts, football grounds and miners' welfare halls which were paid for off the pit point by miners. That property is held in trust which can be negated by this Parliament. We have to beware. We must ask ourselves what we can do. We can bring to an end the incestuous behaviour of the electricity supply companies—stop them involving themselves with generating plant. The Minister can ensure tomorrow that power generators burn British coal. This is Parliament. We make the laws, we amend the laws, and we can make a law tomorrow to make the generators burn British coal.

493
When I first came here I said that I was a child of the mining industry, and was proud of it. I have a great love of my community, heritage and culture. My grandfather did not leave me vast estates or money; he left me an industry whose reserves had been worked prudently and had been conserved for future generations. I would like to be in the same position and to be able to leave future generations secure in their energy resources well into the next century.
7.30 pm
Mr. Winston Churchill: I understand and respect the passion with which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) spoke. Last week's announcement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade angered and outraged the nation. In the 22 years that I have been in the House I do not recall any Minister so misjudging the public mood.
I opposed that decision and I shall continue to oppose it on social, economic and energy grounds. The scale, the time scale—five days to five months—and the brutality of that announcement, which consigned 30,000 miners and their families to the slagheap of unemployment at a time of the highest male unemployment since the 1930s, is unacceptable. And so it has proved for the nation and for millions in the ranks of the Tory party.
The miners are not asking for charity. They are asking for jobs and for a level playing field. What can they do with the average redundancy pay of £22,000 that they are being offered? As they live in isolated communities they cannot sell their homes. They cannot get on their proverbial bike—as Lord Tebbit would no doubt urge them to do—because they cannot move to a place where there are jobs, as they could not find a home even if they were able to find a job.
I oppose the decision on economic grounds. A week ago, I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to ask him two questions: what was the Government's estimate of overall job losses that would be consequent on throwing 30,000 miners out of work, and what would be the cost to the taxpayer of people who last week were contributing their tax, national insurance and value added tax to the Revenue, now that they are out of a job, on the dole and drawing social security? I have received no reply.
I had the opportunity to put those questions, face to face, to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and to the Secretary of State for Social Security. To my utter amazement they admitted that they did not know the answer, and that no cost benefit analysis had been made by the Government of the consequences of that decision to the taxpayer. No properly run company would contemplate sacking half its employees in a given field without carefully analysing the costs involved. I am at a loss to understand how the President of the Board of Trade felt that that was not necessary in this case.
Perhaps I may help my right hon. Friend. The best estimates that I have been able to get from the Commons Library—they will have to stand until the Government come up with figures of their own—are that putting 30,000 miners out of a job would lead to a loss of at least 100,000 jobs, and an annual cost to the taxpayer in lost tax revenue and increased benefits of in excess of £125 billion. On top of that is a further £1.15 billion in redundancy pay. The cost of throwing them on the dole would far exceed the £1 billion that would have been required to subsidise every
494
tonne of coal produced by British Coal last year down to world prices at a rate of £15 a tonne. I request that a cost benefit analysis be instituted by the Government.
I oppose the decision on energy grounds because, beyond the nostrums of the free market and laissez-faire, the Government have no energy policy. A free market is the last thing that we have. It is a rigged market, in which the dice are heavily loaded against British Coal and British miners. A nuclear subsidy of £1.2 billion a year is paid for by an 11 per cent. surcharge on every consumer's gas bill. Meanwhile, the regional electricity companies have a direct incentive to embark on a dash for gas because it provides the quickest way to establish generating capacity and not because it provides cheaper electricity. They are allowed to pass on the cost to the consumer.
Nigel Lucas, professor of energy at Imperial college in London, said recently on BBC television:
"By buying gas-fired electricity from independent power producers, the RECs are probably paying up to 50 per cent. more than the price of electricity which might be available to them from existing coal-fired stations."
The dash for gas will almost double the rate at which we are using up our North sea gas supplies, which will run out in the early decades of the next century. What then? Pipelines from Siberia, at vast expense, or tankers from Algeria? The costs will be enormous.
World energy prices are low, but what if there were to be another middle east crisis—we have had those in the past—and there were a shortage? Prices would go through the roof. We would have no security of supply and would rue the day that we abandoned British coal.
Government policy—if such it can be called—is driven by opportunism and short-term considerations. That is something that must change.
I welcome the major change in Government policy and thank them for it. It represents a victory for common sense. If people power in my Manchester Davyhulme constituency, and in every other constituency, has played its part, let us not forget the silent and lonely vigil kept by an elderly miner 1,200 ft under ground in Silverhill pit—Roy Lynk, to whom the House and the Tory party in particular owed a debt of gratitude when parliamentary democracy was threatened by the Scargill strike of 1984.
I am grateful to the Government for heeding requests for a full and wide-ranging review of energy policy and for the assurance that I have received from the President of the Board of Trade that his review will tackle the unlevel playing field which operates against British Coal.
On that basis, I shall support the Government in the Lobby tonight, but that is not the end of the matter. This is just the first round. Ahead of us lie three months of hard pounding. The Government have to convince us in the debate on the Floor of the House early in the new year. The Government have 90 days to come up with a detailed, coherent energy policy—
Mr. Robert Litherland: Hypocrite.
Mr. Churchill: When Labour were in government they closed pits twice as fast as any Conservative Government—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is getting too carried away.
Mr. Churchill: It must be an energy policy in which British Coal and British miners have a central part to play in the provision of base load electricity during the decades ahead.
It is no good my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade saying that there is no alternative. He must make it his task before the 90 days expire to come up with an alternative; he must set his Department the job of finding an alternative. If he fails to do so he will be selling short future generations and the security of Britain's energy supplies. He will be failing the Government and the Prime Minister. He will be letting down the nation. He will rekindle the anger and outrage that he has stirred up, and will lead the Government to defeat on the issue when we have the substantive vote. It is not only the 23,000 miners who have been granted a 90-day stay of execution; the same is true of the President of the Board of Trade.
7.40 pm
Mr. Terry Patchett: I am grateful to be called in the debate, and I have promised my colleagues that I shall be brief.
I was anxious to speak in the debate as two of the 10 collieries that are to close are in my constituency: Houghton Main and Grimethorpe. I worked at Houghton Main for 26 years and I am familiar with its reserves. Those two collieries are linked, and many is the time that I have walked the two and a half miles underground to Grimethorpe colliery, so I am also familiar with its reserves.
The argument is not about reserves, but about losses. When I investigated the position at Grimethorpe colliery I found that it had made a profit in the past two years. In recent months it has produced coal at £1 a tonne cheaper than imported coal that the generating industry has attracted to this country.
Some four or five collieries have been closed in my constituency. The closure of a further two will mean an additional 2 per cent. on the already high unemployment figure. The Barnsley metropolitan authority has lost between 25,000 and 30,000 mining jobs in recent years. We have been concerned about that and have looked to the Government to assist us in rehabilitation. They have promised help once again. But our experience has been that any movement has come from the local authority in spite of the Government, whose standard spending assessment has always worked against the Barnsley local authority.
There have been many arguments in the House about the RECHAR money, designated to assist our district. We finally received a commitment, and central Government tried to take the credit for that allocation, which came from Europe. As yet, we have not had a penny of that, and I blame that delay on the Government. Therefore, it is easy to understand the cynicism that we feel about promises made about replacement jobs.
Grimethorpe colliery is profit making. Houghton Main colliery had some trouble a few months ago, but has now settled down and is making profits. The reason for the trouble was that the management insisted on throwing money down the drain on an area of coal that the local branch of the National Union of Mineworkers knew was a waste of money. If we are to have moratoriums and investigations, and if British Coal is to report to the Select Committee, will the conclusion be that the pit could have
496
been profitable but the management persevered and lost it millions? There must be a detailed analysis that goes much wider than merely studying a broad spectrum of pits. I would not expect the colliery manager of any of the pits involved to say that it was his fault and he was sorry about the bad mining practices. We must make a deep and clinical analysis of the profit and loss.
I listened carefully to the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon and I still do not understand the position of the 10 named collieries—I do not know whether they are in or out of the review. The President's speech this afternoon tended to confuse me more. We are dubious about what he has said, as we have experience of previous reviews.
When the news was announced in my constituency that we were to lose Houghton Main and Grimethorpe collieries, there was shock, outrage and disbelief. Then the moratorium was announced and we could not honestly believe how the Minister or British Coal could have decided that 10 out of the 31 collieries would not be treated in the same way and would not have the same review or investigation.
One of the main problems that has faced Houghton Main and Grimethorpe has been the ever-moving targets. One week the staff were told that they were doing well if they had made a specific advance, and were given a pat on the back and told to go home and play. The next week a different target was put forward. I do not entirely blame British Coal for the moving targets, as I do not believe that it knew what was happening. It has been blackmailed by the generating industry with overseas coal and for too long it has not had proper answers. It has also been blackmailed due to the dumping of coal in Europe, about which it has complained to the European Commissioners. It has received no assistance from the British Government for the two to three years that the dumping has occurred.
The Government can do nothing about energy because they have neglected their responsibilities. They have sold off the power generators who are now dictating the terms. I do not expect PowerGen to be concerned about the state of the country. I expect its loyalty to be to its shareholders. What matters to it is its shareholders, not the balance of payments, who pays for unemployment and the loss of revenue through loss of taxes. It has no responsibility for those aspects, yet it dictates our energy policy.
I accuse the Government of having no say in this country's present energy policy. They have been happy to see our manufacturing base smashed. We have become the laughing stock of people all over the world who cannot believe that a country such as this, which is so rich in energy sources and indigenous fuels, has got itself into this mess.
I understand that the review will analyse what has been called the uneven playing field. However, I have already heard Ministers saying how much has been put into the industry. We have had to repay with interest a large chunk of capital investment, while the Government have made out that the money was a gift of assistance. However, a major slice of the money was used for redundancies, not to support the industry. We remain cynical and angry.
Whatever the review or the Government's amendment says, I cannot accept that the people who made the initial blunder in introducing such a policy in the way that they did will change their minds when they hear the results of the review. We are setting those same people up as judge, jury and executioner.

497
I do not expect Ministers to change their minds radically, but I hope sincerely that they will stand back and look at the overall impact on the economy. When they consider not only the number of jobs that are likely to be lost, but the effect on the rail and steel industries, the energy market, transport and local traders in my constituency, I hope that those Ministers do not remain sitting back. I hope that they will at least put the 10 pits alongside the other 21, and treat all 31 in the same way. I hope that they will consider the overall economic impact on the United Kingdom of their stupid decision.
7.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: There would be little point in using the short time available to me tonight to flagellate the Government further for the errors of judgment in last week's announcement. The situation has changed significantly over the past five days. I want tonight to be constructive and to make a number of suggestions to the Minister about the way ahead.
I speak as a Nottinghamshire Member of Parliament whose last pit closed shortly before the last general election. I want to express my gratitude to the President and the Secretary of State for Wales, to whom I spoke over the weekend. I fear that I called him out of his constituency surgery. I am grateful for the clear hearing that I received from both of them.
The Government have made it clear that they want to look again at these issues. I trust what the Government have said. I have five suggestions to make.
The first is that there is immense confusion over the relative prices of coal and gas. There is a real fear that gas is being wrongly favoured and that the treatment of written-down power stations that produce from coal is not correct.
As I understand it, the regulator has all the powers that he needs. Condition 5 of the licence granted to the regional electricity companies makes it clear that electricity must be produced
"at the best effective price reasonably obtainable having regard to the sources available".
In a recent announcement the chief executive of Powergen, Ed Wallis, made it clear that
"our portfolio of coal-fired plant is able to generate more cheaply than most of the independent gas-fired plant which is now threatening to displace it."
We need these matters urgently investigated by the regulator; and we need a report, to be issued rapidly.
In this country, unlike in the United States, the regional electricity companies can invest in gas projects and guarantee the offtake from them. In the United States that would be illegal. I hope that that will be considered too, because two can play at that game. If it is acceptable for the industry, why could not the Government, when they come to privatise the mining industry, include in that package the 40 per cent. stake that the Government hold in the generators? We need a level playing field in this area.
My second constructive point is that there are serious question marks hanging over the judgment and management skills of British Coal at the most senior level. I am not talking about area management; I have the greatest possible respect for people like John Longden who try to manage the Nottinghamshire coalfield. But there is little confidence in the negotiating skills at the top of British Coal. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has once again called in Boyd to advise him, and I know that
498
an earlier Boyd report made a number of recommendations making it clear that British Coal is not well managed at the top.
We all accept in Nottinghamshire—I hope that we are realistic—that coal is under great pressure, and I accept that manpower will have to decline. But some of the old mines can be worked for two or three years by a relatively small number of miners—the coal comes out for practically nothing. These are the sort of management decisions that we need to examine.
We need to look at Richard Budge's suggestion, announced last night from his company RJB. I cannot understand why Calverton—not in my constituency but not far from the border—was in the list of pits originally proposed for closure. It sells about 70 per cent. of its coal to the private sector—70 per cent. does not go to the electricity industry. Obviously the pit should not be closed down; the 70 per cent. should be expanded to 100 per cent.
Some pits have access to huge reserves and it is clearly futile to close them. Perhaps they need to be mothballed, but certainly not shut. Above all, I urge the Government to use the expertise and advice of Malcolm Edwards. He is respected throughout the industry; he is a realistic friend of the coal industry; he is a keen privatiser; and he is an adviser to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The Secretary of State should see him urgently and hear what he has to say.
My third suggestion is that the Government follow the lead given by Commissioner Cardoso, who in his latest initiative said that coal capacity in Europe may need to be reduced. But he asked: why start with Britain—the lowest cost producer'? The German industry is contracting. Let us put flesh on the idea of the single market. British coal could be delivered to central Germany, including all transport costs, at a saving to the German economy of £40 per tonne. These are important matters relating to the single market, and I urge the Government to pursue that initiative.
Moreover, British Coal has launched an anti-dumping complaint which may have fallen foul of subsidiarity. Will the Government look into that again, and allow British Coal to pursue the complaint?
My fourth suggestion has to do with coal stocks, which are very large. They need to be. British Coal carries the whole strategic reserve. We cannot store hydro-electricity or nuclear power, gas, or very much oil, but we can store coal. At the moment British Coal is carrying 14 million tonnes, which is probably 4 million tonnes too much, and the generators are holding 33 million tonnes; but if, as we hear, the generators are seeking to run down 10 million tons in one year that would cause a massive distortion of the market. We need to be wary of temporary expediency affecting long-term strategic judgments about size.
In the House I have consistently opposed the arguments for imported coal. Half the coal that comes into this country through the ports is not necessary. 1 notice that the original plans which the generators had in respect of new port facilities—I voted against them in the House—are not proceeding at the moment, which is evidence that the economic case for imported coal has not been made.
My fifth constructive point is this. There will be similar problems in the nuclear industry unless we announce as soon as possible that the nuclear levy is to be dismantled between now and 1998. The facts are well known: if the same levy were available to the coal industry, coal could be delivered free of charge and still show a profit of between

499
£10 and £15 a tonne. Bradwell, the old Magnox reactor, is being kept open until 1998 purely because of the levy. That is not a level playing field; it hopelessly distorts the market. We must dismantle the levy.
I want to make it clear that I am not starry-eyed about the coal industry—I understand the pressures that the industry is under. They are many and various. There has been a long-term contraction in the coal industry and that contraction will not end overnight. It will continue, and I accept that.
The emissions targets to which both parties signed up almost toll the bell for the industry. But our aim must be to give coal a fair deal. These matters must be handled sensitively, not in the manner of some 19th-century mill owner. I genuinely believe that the coal industry deserves better—none more so than the UDM, whose members have met every single productivity target set for them. They have done everything management has asked. They have negotiated for the industry—the NUM has not had a look-in in recent years. They ushered in modern, forward-looking, constructive trade union practices and sounded the death knell of a peculiarly unpleasant form of militant trade unionism—and saved this party and this country's bacon in 1984. Many of the UDM and their families paid a high personal price during the strike and the national contribution of Roy Lynk, one of the heroes of the 1980s, has been greatly underestimated.
In the public interest there should be 10-year contracts with the generators. That is what happens around the world wherever deep mines are worked except when pits have an arrangement with a captive power station. The UDM has earned the right to these contracts, not for reasons of sentiment but because of its record of reliability and on economic grounds.
These are five constructive suggestions. I invite the President and Lord Walker, who achieved remarkable success in regenerating Wales, to visit Nottinghamshire as soon as the plans for the East Midlands development office are further advanced. I want them both to come to Nottinghamshire to talk to local people, to those in the industry and to all the many bodies concerned about regeneration there.
I shall support the Government tonight. It would be churlish not to in view of the change in their position of the past five days. I believe that the review is real, and I and my constituents will be among the first people to contribute to it.
7.58 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I intend to speak for less than 10 minutes even if the rule does not apply.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) has done himself a disservice, as do other Tory Members who have enjoyed a great deal of publicity defending the coal communities, if they deny the words that they uttered a few days ago and go into the Lobby with the Government. Certainly there have been many promises, but many of the touches that the Government have applied to their policy in recent days have been cosmetic.
I tried to intervene in the Secretary of State's speech because I wanted to ask him whether, during the review, he intended to give licences to the gas-fired stations which are now in the planning process. I intended to ask whether, if
500
the review revealed that an arrangement of great disadvantage to the electricity consumer applied, he would revoke the licences that he has already granted. I would have asked for a guarantee to the House that the legislative base upon which faulty licences were issued would be amended during this Session.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) spoke about the splendid productivity at the Selby pits. Enormous productivity matching that at Selby has been achieved in many other collieries. The right hon. Gentleman failed to understand that even the most profitable pit is likely to disappear by the end of this century unless a different regime applies, because collieries will not have access to baseload electricity. If coal is to be allowed to work only on the margin of peak demand, no one will wish to work in collieries, because they will be at an appalling disadvantage.
Hon. Members who seek to defend the industry should pause before deciding to vote with the Government, because the Secretary of State joined in the rejoicing of some Conservative Members who spoke about the importation of coal from Colombia. That coal is mined by children in dangerous pits. I represent not only my constituency, which has been devastated by Government policies, but NACODS, the colliery association of underground officials who have made such an enormous contribution to mine safety. That contribution has enabled Britain to have a proud record, but apparently that record is not admired by some Conservative Members. Because of the success and safety record of British mines and mining technology, a considerable export market can be maintained.
It is time that Conservative Members started to consider the economy and the balance of payments deficit, because the fundamental weakness of the British economy is the failure to export. Sooner or later, the enormous trade deficit will have to be resolved or Britain will continue the decline which has marked the Conservative years. To write off the export potential of coal and mining engineering would be irresponsible. However, I have not detected any great concern about that in what the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues have said.
The Secretary of State for Wales visited my area when he held another office and will remember the work carried out by David Trippier in securing, or attempting to secure, the future of the Dearne valley, which has been viciously assailed. In the last few weeks, the Environment Minister who was supposed to be caring for the Dearne valley has been replaced by an Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. That means that, instead of speaking to a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I have to speak to a Minister whose responsibility is social security. Does that mean that the Government have now written off my area, and that, although cosmetics have been applied to try to bring Tories into the Government lobby, we are not to have the sincere and serious review that an energy policy requires?
I have real reservations, and my questions about the licences need to be answered quickly, as do the questions posed by my hon. Friends. If the answers are not satisfactory—and so far they have not been—I hope that the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who have been eager to secure publicity for their championing of the mining communities, will act with some consistency and vote with us.
8.4 pm
Mr. Michael Bates: We have heard much about the importance of jobs and communities in mining areas. Those matters are important, but I wish to speak about the jobs and communities which depend on gas-fired power stations. There are no coal mines in the county of Cleveland, nor does it have a coal-fired power station. It has a nuclear power station, and a gas-fired station is under construction.
Two important companies, ICI and British Steel, are desperate for cheap energy and jobs, and communities depend on those companies. The lobby of Parliament has been impressive in terms of the number of people who came to London and those who wore lapel badges in support of the coal industry. However, workers in the gas supply industry have families and mortgages and live in communities as well.
The gas supply industry is important. In parts of my constituency, unemployment is as high as in any of the mining areas. Gas will soon be delivered via the new CAT pipeline from the North sea into Teesside at Seal Sands. That represents a capital investment by Amoco of £500 million. That is important for the local economy, and jobs have been created not only because of the pipeline but because of the gas exploration platforms.
Mr. Allan Rogers rose—.
Mr. Bates: I shall not give way, because time is short.
Those two gas and oil exploration platforms were constructed in Scotland. Gas is already being piped ashore, and the Enron power station represents a commitment of about £1 billion of capital investment. Some 2,000 jobs in my area depend directly on the construction of that power station. Another gas-fired power station, the Neptune project, is on the drawing board. It is likely to be constructed and that will mean more than 2,000 construction jobs. The pipeline is delivering about 300 million cu ft of gas per day and has the capacity to bring to Teesside about 1,500 million cu ft of gas per day. That will have a dramatic effect, not only because direct jobs will be created in two new gas-fired power stations, but because some of the gas will be processed to produce propane, butane and naphtha.
The Opposition talk with vigour and determination about the balance of trade. Naphtha is used by companies such as ICI and BASF in Cleveland and is currently imported from Rotterdam. By 1996, Teesside will be able to export to Rotterdam gas derivatives such as propane and naphtha. I hope that all hon. Members agree that that industry is important to us. About 4,000 to 5,000 jobs depend upon it in my area, and just because the general election is over we cannot ignore the environment.
Gas-fired power stations produce less than half the CO2 emissions of coal-fired power stations that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Nitros oxides are crucial when it comes to protecting our environment, and these are key concerns. As I have said, industries in the north-east need to be competitive as a result of cheap energy. I have in mind ICI, BASF, British Steel, Nissan and British Alcan. Thousands are dependent on cheap energy.
Some say, "Listen, is there that demand? Is it really going to be cheaper?" Would companies be investing about £2.5 billion if they thought that the plants would not
502
be effective? Would AMOLO be investing £500 million in a 250-mile pipeline out into the North sea if it were not to be cost-effective? Of course these projects will be effective.
In the north-east, I am second to none in acknowledging the part that the coal mining industry has played in the past. I do not deny that role. However, the strength of the north-east has always been its ability to look to the future. In the 1890s and the early 20th century, much of our wealth and prosperity depended on coal, but the prosperity of the region and of industry generally in the 1990s and early 21st century will depend upon gas, and that industry should have our support as well.
8.11 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: Entirely lacking from the Conservative party has been any awareness of the sense of public outrage that people could be treated as the President of the Board of Trade did when he announced the closure of 31 pits. Of course, individual Members may take a different view, but I say that it was callous and brutal. That treatment came from a party that prides itself upon a citizens charter and a classless society. That is why hundreds of thousands are marching in London today. The little seminar on gas prices does not get near what the real argument is all about.
All my right hon. and hon. Friends know that these events are part of a sustained attack upon the mining industry. It is taking place because the previous Prime Minister regarded the National Union of Mineworkers as the enemy within. That term was coined for that reason. It gives me huge pleasure that the Tory party threw out Thatcher and the miners re-elected Scargill. That man told the truth, and truth still has value in the politics of our society when all the lies, half truths and half promises about independent reviews are dismissed.
The President of the Board of Trade said that he agonised over the decision that was before him. He is not the one who will suffer agony if pits are closed. If he agonised, why did he not have a review during that process? If there had been a review, others could have submitted other views while his discussions took place.
I have a letter that came from the office of Cecil Parkinson when he was Energy Secretary. It is a response to someone who wrote from Derbyshire, and states that the privatisation of the electricity industry will have no effect on pit closures. Ministers have lied, lied and lied again about the mining industry. That is why people are so incensed.
Do not tell us that this is all about market forces. If those forces applied to the farming industry, half the farms in Britain would have closed years ago. We could get cheaper food from New Zealand and Australia. Of course, the Tory party depends on the farmers and so it supports them. I am not in favour of applying market forces to farms. It is not possible to close a farm one year and open it the following year. We all know that the miners have not received set-aside grants. They have not been given money to stop producing coal. That is the reality of the debate.
There was a preparedness to pay a great deal of money to the gamblers two weeks ago when so-called market forces were working on the currency. That, I think, has played a part in these matters.
I am intensely proud that I had a role to play in the energy policy of the Labour Government. That Government authorised the Selby project, as we

503
authorised the Drax B coal-fired power station. We encouraged 42 million tonnes of extra capacity to be found. Selby was opened and there was an assisted burn scheme. We recognised that the then Central Electricity Generating Board needed a small grant to change the merit order of the power stations so that more coal could be burnt. We introduced earlier retirement for miners, something for which they had pressed for a long time. We then—[Interruption.] Closures took place after negotiation and agreement. They concentrated mainly on pit exhaustion and dangerous working. As the then Secretary of State, I offered the NUM a veto on all closures. I discovered that Australian coal had been imported on the instruction of the now Lord Walker when he was Secretary of State for Energy. When it arrived it was so expensive that the generating board sold it to France at a loss.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: I shall not give way for one moment.
We require a re-examination of energy policy that brings fuel suppliers, fuel industries, customers and unions together. There was such a re-examination from 1976 onwards; the papers were published and the discussions were serious. When that process takes place it will be necessary to determine the objectives of the energy policy, and one of the objectives of the Labour Government was extremely simple. It was that everyone should have heat and light at home. That was not a bad energy policy objective. It was a recognition of the fact that in the end an energy policy is judged by whether people can get hold of energy.
It has been said, "If there is surplus coal, why not give it to pensioners?" That is a sensible argument. Coal could be supplied free of charge to the generators to pump it down the wire, as it were, in the form of cheap electricity. There are those who shake their heads in dissent, but that is an energy policy. It is one in which Conservative Members do not believe, because they believe in profit and not in people. That is what the argument is about.
We must think about imports and opencast mining.
Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I hope that it is a point of order.
Mr. Richards: It certainly is, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to rewrite history?
Mr. Benn rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a point of order. I take strong exception to such a use of points of order.
Mr. Benn: I hope that the time taken by that point of order is taken into account, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am advancing a serious argument that has more in common with what those outside this place are thinking than with the little arguments that we have heard from Conservative Members.
It is necessary, of course, to consider opencast mining. The environment of a village is destroyed by stripping it,
504
as it were, for opencast mining. We must have regard also to desulphurisation, assisted burn and winter fuel concessions. As many have said, how can we justify subsidy by way of the nuclear levy, a fuel that is three times as expensive as coal?
The House should not think that that for which I am arguing cannot be done. In 1945, Winston Churchill as Prime Minister, a distinguished predecessor, presented the Fuel and Power Act—I operated under it and so does the President of the Board of Trade—which, when enacted, charged the Secretary of State with the general duty of securing the effective and co-ordinated development of coal, petroleum and other mineral resources—fuel and power—in Great Britain. That is the statutory responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade. He is not merely a spectator of market forces. Indeed, in 1973 he was a member of a Government who introduced the Fuel and Electricity Control Act which bore on every fuel transaction in the country. When the right hon. Gentleman was a junior Minister he controlled the supply of fuel to the aircraft industry.
The result of tonight's Division will not determine the issue that is before us. If anyone thinks that it will, he or she is making a great mistake. In fact, the British public have been awakened to the realities of the mining industry and to the rotten philosophy of the 1980s. We were told that everything was about cash and that chartered accountants had to be brought in to tell us what to do. That is not what it is all about. The issue is whether our society puts people in a place of dignity and serves them or whether we hand over money to gamblers who create no wealth. Arthur Scargill has been rehabilitated more quickly than any man I have known. Within 24 hours, everyone knew that he was right. The miners certainly did.
What has happened—I warn the Government about this—is that after 10 years during which people took things that they should never have taken, there is a return of self confidence and hope. It was that sort of self confidence and hope that got Mandela out of prison and got the Berlin wall down. Next it will get the President of the Board of Trade out of his office in favour of a better society.
8.19 pm
Mr. Richard Alexander: I have to advise the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the spectre of Arthur Scargill is one that would unite those on the Conservative Benches and our constituents as never before.
When the pit closure programme was announced last week a wave of anger swept over north Nottinghamshire such as I have never known before. In a time of deep recession that decision was brutal. I therefore called, together with other colleagues, for a moratorium for the sake of people's lives, their hopes and their aspirations. Until then, there had been no hope, no appeal, no reprieve. Therefore, I welcomed the decision to have a review and a moratorium on the closures. My immediate reaction was that they would give the pits a breathing space in which to prove themselves. I regret that that has not apparently proved acceptable to my constituents, but perhaps one can see why.
In my area of north Nottinghamshire—Opposition Members also represent that region—those closures, any closure, mean devastating unemployment in our travel-towork area. The pit closures mean that possibly up to an

505
extra 20 per cent. of the local population will be unemployed in that travel-to-work area and 30 per cent. extra in the villages. I am articulating those concerns to the House tonight. There are 3,000 jobs in the industry and 6,000 ancillary jobs at risk. My constituents have said that I should look after their interests and express them in the House tonight.
It is a Member of Parliament's duty and task to look after his constituents. I recognise that even the potential closure of some of the pits, in such large numbers and even after a review, is unacceptable to my community. If I vote against the Government tonight, would I be acting in accordance with unacceptable pressure, or would I be acting in accordance with the wishes, and indeed instructions, of literally thousands of people outside who have asked that I should express a view in such a way?
I have never faced such a difficult decision on behalf of my constituents. I accept that I am not the only one with such a difficult decision, but perhaps with the number of people involved, the pressure on me is greater. Tonight I voice that anxiety to the House and I express the words of pressure that I received this afternoon and continue to receive tonight.
My constituents, of all political parties and at all levels of society, have told me that they require a full and independent—I stress the word—inquiry, which must include the 10 pits which are subject to closure. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said about the problem with some of those pits which are unprofitable. However, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has told me that one of those pits, Silverhill, which is next door to my constituency, has been profitable over the years. We are considering the future of the coal industry and the Government have said that we will have a review of it, but it will exclude one large pit in my area which, on the figures given, is profitable.
A difficult decision must be made. It is not the viability of the Silverhill colliery as such that is really at issue, but all the pits. If we are to have a review it must be a complete one.
I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that during the review it is business as usual. I have put to him two or three specific examples about how the work force felt that that might not happen. In fairness to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister, I should say that I have been given absolute assurances about those anxieties. I have referred those assurances to my constituents, but I received a fax today from one firm in my constituency, Northern Specialised Site Services Limited, which said:
"Development work at Bevercotes"—
that is in my constituency—
"like other threatened collieries has been stopped".
I accept from my right hon. Friend that he has given instructions that that work will recommence, but, as I said earlier, I must recognise the fears of my constituents. Until they actually see that work recommencing, they will not believe that that will happen. I repeat that I am not casting any slur on my right hon. Friend and I recognise the considerable steps that he has taken.
Mr. Eggar: For the avoidance of doubt by my hon. Friend and his constituents, may I repeat that development work will continue at Bevercotes. If he or his constituents come to me with clear evidence or statements
506
to show that development work is not continuing, I will personally instruct the chairman of British Coal that that development work should recommence.
Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance.
Ms. Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all of us whose constituencies are home to the collieries in the 10 areas chosen for closure by the Government share the views of his constituents? If there is a case for development work to continue in the hon. Gentleman's colliery, surely exactly the same argument applies to each of the other nine collieries, including Trentham in the north Staffordshire coalfield. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the benefit of his views, but whatever assurances he has been given by the Minister, he should note that, last week, an all-party delegation from north Staffordshire, including the Bishop of Stafford, visited the Department of Trade and Industry and we were not given such assurances. I want the Minister to give me such an assurance tonight.
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Lady intervened to make a specific point, to which I do not think she expected me to respond, but no doubt it has been noted elsewhere.
The review must start with the most recent report of the Select Committee on Energy which concluded that electricity consumers had nothing to gain from a hasty rundown of the coal industry. The review must then look at some of the industrial practices in our coal mines, all of which have a bearing on profitability.
I make no criticism of trade union practices, but ours seems to be the only country that works only a full 15 shifts out of an available 21 in any one week. The first shift on a Monday therefore spend a lot of time making their working conditions safe, whereas if 21 shifts were worked, including at the weekend, mines could be much more profitable.
Why is Britain the only country that throws away 50 per cent. of the material that is brought to the surface, in the form of dust and rubble that is put on spoil tips? Other countries are much more selective in the material that they extract. I repeat that only a wide-ranging, independent review will do.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the review should include imports? Should not the Minister for Energy get on the phone to the Ministry of Defence, which in the next day or two is to announce the purchase of 300,000 tonnes of imported coal for Aldermaston, and 200,000 for Bicester? The British Government try to shroud themselves in the British flag while Russian coal is used to power the Aldermaston nuclear defence station. That is a pity and a shame.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although I appreciate the strength of feeling that exists, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions must be kept short—particularly in a debate of this nature.
Mr. Alexander: I am glad that a recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated that if British Coal cannot continue to work a pit economically, the private sector could become involved. That should have been done long ago. If British Coal cannot support a particular colliery, that is no reason to say that it can no longer operate. At present, British

507
Coal would rather close a mine than allow anyone else to work it, and that must be wrong. I am glad that steps may be taken to make changes.
There are opportunities for private sector involvement in coal mining before it is run down and collieries are closed. There would be cost savings, greater competition, and an erosion in the level of imported coal. The private sector has a place in using its skill, technology and risk capital to revitalise the industry. Closures now would make it irrecoverable.
I ask for an independent review before our areas are devastated and the taxpayer has to foot a £1,000 million bill for social security and other payments. Nottinghamshire miners brought common sense, sanity and moderation to the ugly situation that arose in 1984, and I join other right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to Roy Lynk of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers for his role in that. Nottinghamshire miners did so often at great personal and family cost, and that is still continuing. Now they ask for common sense, sanity and moderation—and we owe them that.
8.33 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I must first declare my interest as secretary of the parliamentary miners group, and as someone who worked down the pits for 21 years and is sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. I have a badge to prove it, and unlike Roy Lynk I am not sending it back. I am proud of my NUM affiliations.
I am concerned about this debate not for parochial reasons but because if the proposals are pursued, every pit in Derbyshire will be wiped out by the end of the current financial year. Shirebrook, Bolsover, Markham and High Moor will all go.
I took part in a magnificent rally today—and this time the march took a different route. Instead of going towards Trafalgar square, we marched around Chelsea and Kensington—and we captured Chelsea and Kensington for Labour today. I have never seen so many people hanging out of windows, including those at the Kensington Gardens hotel—and, by Christ! is it posh. The people were cheering us on—"Good old Arthur." It was the return of the prodigal son, except that this time we will not kill the fatted calf because half of us are vegetarians. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is anyway.
It was an exhilarating experience. Normally, the odd person makes a challenge or shouts an insult—but not today. As we passed the end of the road in which Princess Di lives in Kensington palace, I am certain that I saw her there with a bucket.
A catalyst has been at work in the past few days and has overwhelmed us all. We did not appreciate the extent to which the closures had got up the nose of many Tories and others of no political affiliation. We have all been swamped with letters from our constituents. The Government might have cobbled something together over the past 72 hours, but it will not work. The public will turn this Government over—and whether that happens this week, next month, or next year, you can bet your bottom dollar that that political sea change will make sure that this is the last run for home.
508
It may be that the President of the Board of Trade has been set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. It is conceivable that something is afoot. It looks a lot like that.
We all knew that the poll tax would produce a lot of support for the Labour movement, but we did not expect so much over this issue. It is not a case of people holding a romantic view of miners. They have always done that, and I am not agin it. But unlike 1984, many people—Tories as well—now acknowledge that there is an economic argument to answer. There was in 1984, but we did not convince the public. This time, they have grasped it. The other day, I was on a bus from Chesterfield to Bolsover and heard some 11-year-old kids say, "Coal is 30 per cent. cheaper than gas, and 350 per cent. cheaper than nuclear." They knew. That is why I am convinced that the case is for real.
I will not troop through all the arguments, but it is common sense that if the price of industrial coal has not increased for six years, it must be getting close to being competitive. Let us also get rid of the nonsense about a £18,000 million subsidy. When such a claim comes from the mouths of the people who make it, it is bound to be a lie. There is no such thing as an £18,000 million subsidy. British Coal repaid £574 million to the taxpayer last year in interest on the money that it borrowed way back to pay for investment and redundancies. The nonsense about a £18,000 million subsidy has nothing to do with the real arithmetic.
Today, we are quids in. Everyone knows that after devaluation of between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent., British coal can compete with many imported coals. We thought that we might be able to do that some years ago, but now we know that is true. We should be having an export drive—selling coal to the Common Market. Where is the level playing field when German coal is coming into Britain at £110 a tonne? We should be selling them our coal, which after Black Wednesday is about £37 a tonne.
What is all this talk about money? Around £10 billion went down the drain on Black Wednesday. That would provide money for the miners. It would give every single miner currently employed by the industry money for 10 years—and there would be money for the pensioners and a bit for the health service as well.
A bit of a change has taken place. I think that we are on to something big, politically. It happens every so often. I have never believed in the idea that you are going to win every time you wake up in the morning, but sometimes things turn full circle. Nelson Mandela had to wait 27 years before that happened. The last time that we experienced such a change in the political and economic landscape was in the early 1970s; as a result, the Tory Government of the day had to put the Industrial Relations Act on to the back burner, and they had to settle with the miners in 1972. It finished with their being kicked out of office in 1974. History will not exactly repeat itself in this instance, but I think that it will come very close to doing so.
Let us put something else on to the agenda. It is not just a question of the miners; 3.5 million are without jobs. People will be living in poverty this winter, and there are pensioners who could do with some of the stocked coal to keep warm. The Government should use that coal instead of talking about the £100 million a month that it will cost to stock it.

509
What else is going to happen this winter? The Government are up to their neck in it economically, and, as a result, public expenditure cuts of about £14 billion are likely to be made. It looks as though there will be a pay freeze, or wage cuts, for millions of public-sector workers. We shall go into the autumn and the winter with more than just a small army from the NUM; millions of other people will be involved, right across the trade union and labour movement.
Make no mistake: the Government had better watch out. Things are going to change. The 1980s were miserable; the retreat has gone on for too long. I cannot wait to see the change. The 1990s have put socialism back on the agenda. They have helped us a little—and by Christ, we are going to see the results.
8.41 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: We have heard a traditionally enthusiastic, if somewhat unrealistic, speech from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and we have all thoroughly enjoyed it. What would have happened if this Government had closed down as many mines as the Government of which he was part when they were last in office? It was uncharacteristically modest of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that, when he walked past the Royal Garden hotel, he was less of an attraction than Arthur Scargill. Perhaps we shall see more of that modesty in the future: if so, it will be welcomed by the whole House.
On Monday, I had quite made up my mind to vote with the Opposition, against the Government. [Interruption.] Hear me out. I was appalled at the way in which the Government were proposing to treat whole communities. I come from the Royal Forest of Dean, which is a former coal-mining area, and I have seen at first hand how the transition can be made from a community that is dependent on a single industry to one that is much more broadly and securely based. It takes time, however.
Years ago, when the mines in the Forest of Dean began to be run down, Rank Xerox was in the process of development and gave alternative employment to those who no longer worked in the mines. Then, in the early 1980s, Rank Xerox wanted to reduce its workforce substantially, from over 5,000 to just over 1,000. That, however, was done piecemeal: Rank Xerox invested heavily in small workshops and other facilities, so that its ex-employees could either create work for themselves or find alternative jobs. The initiative was firmly backed by the Forest of Dean district council, led by the late Arthur Cooper, who—with others—set about developing small industrial estates in the district. With the council's help, I persuaded the Government to make the Forest of Dean an assisted area. The transformation has been a great success, but it has taken time: such action must be taken gradually.
It was the lack of time, and the indecent haste with which the pit closures were proposed, that turned me—along with many of my constituents—against the Government's initial proposals. The letters of protest from my constituency have had to be weighed rather than counted, because there are so many. It is not that the people of the Forest of Dean want to support inefficient pits or an outdated mechanism; they were concerned about the way in which the Government proposed to treat whole communities.
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has now changed his
510
mind, and has agreed to a full and open review to keep all the interested parties abreast of what is going on. I am glad that he has also agreed to bring the results of his inquiry back to the House in January, in the form of a White Paper.
I believe that it takes a strong man to admit that he was wrong, and to do something to put matters right. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has done just that, and, rather than cursing him, we should give credit where credit is due. He has seen the error of his ways, and has made an effort to remedy the position. I thank him for initiating a review.
The coal industry now has a chance to prove its case, and we, who do not know the details, have an opportunity to learn the full truth behind the allegations about cheap German coal, price rigging, the running out of our gas supplies and the role of nuclear power. Nothing is to be hidden; nothing is to be done behind closed doors. This is the first-class outcome of what was a first-class blunder.
I spoke earlier about the success of the industrial development of the Forest of Dean, and the way in which it has rebuilt hope. In the heat of today's debate, however, it is important to remember that developing businesses need cheap and reliable energy. We must not lose sight of that. I have observed it at first hand in another industry, in my capacity as parliamentary adviser to the British Scrap Federation. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may snigger, but the industry is very important to this country. It does a great deal to preserve the environment, and to save energy costs.
In the course of my duties this summer, I had occasion to visit a gigantic steel works in Rotherham. Opposition Members may know of Rotherham Engineering Steels, whose entire feed stock is scrap metal. The cost of electricity is one of the plant's major production costs. Its annual electricity bill currently runs at £42 million, and the cost per kilowatt hour is 3.4p. In Holland the cost would be 2.2p; in France 2.3p; in Germany, 2.9p. Most of those prices are one third lower than the United Kingdom price. That high energy cost adds about £14 million a year to the running costs of Rotherham Engineering Steels.
High energy costs disadvantage manufacturing industry in this country: we should not forget that. We cannot go on indemnifying home-mined coal when it cannot be burnt at home or sold abroad. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made that point. The same applies to the farmers: they cannot go on producing cereals that cannot be eaten in this country or sold abroad, and they are gradually being run down. The agriculture industry is gradually changing its ways—but such things take time.
Let me emphaise that today's debate is about people and their future, and about options. That is why I welcome the proposed wide-ranging review and the Select Committee's inquiry into the coal industry, which will enable us all to understand the pros and cons and plan the way forward.
I wonder whether there is any point in asking for voluntary redundancies throughout the coal industry at this time, so that when the review is over those who wish to remain in the industry but who are currently attached to unprofitable pits can be moved to more profitable ones and have a successful career underground. The economic argument for cheap energy remains unassailable but today the need, above all, is for care and understanding and a new opportunity for those who are no longer required in the mining industry. That care and attention has been

511
applied before to the rundown of pits in south Wales. It will be done again. There is nobody better qualified than Lord Walker to ensure that the job is done properly. I am very pleased that he has taken the job.
In view of the changes that have taken place since Monday, I am happy today to give the benefit of the doubt to the Government and to vote in favour of their amendment so that everybody can take a fresh look at the facts, come back here in January and discuss the White Paper.
8.50 pm
Mr. Roger Godsiff: My constituency is not a coal mining area. It lies at the centre of Birmingham—what used to be the heart of manufacturing industry in this country. For 36 years the constituency was represented by Denis Howell, who has now, rightly, been elevated to another place.
I am speaking tonight because I wish to point out a few facts. Unemployment stands at 74,000 in Birmingham. Seventeen per cent. of the work force in the city are unemployed. Four out of 10 people in Birmingham have been jobless for more than 12 months. In my constituency, 26 per cent. of the working population are unemployed.
I state those facts because I wish the House and, in particular, my colleagues who represent mining constituencies to know that my constituents know what it is like to experience long-term unemployment—an experience which, I fear, will be shared by many people in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire in the very near future.
I also mention these facts because the impact of the closure of these pits will be felt not just in the mining communities. More than 30,000 jobs will most certainly be lost in the mining communities, but three or four times that number of jobs will be lost in the many firms that supply the mining industry. Many of those firms come from Birmingham. Many of those jobs are in the west midlands.
I know of firms in Birmingham that supply cable belts and winding ropes to the mining industry. They are not small contracts; they run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. What is more, these firms export winding belts and cables. They need a secure base in this country. The closure of the 10 pits means that many of these firms will have to lay off workers and that a number of them will go out of business. The exports that those firms contribute to the balance of payments will be lost to this country.
The question that my constituents and the people of Birmingham ask is, what is the justification for the carnage that was announced by the Government last week? We are told a lot about the dash for gas and that it will result in lower electricity prices. I have heard nothing during the last seven days to convince me that that argument is proven—that there will be lower electricity prices which will benefit the consumer. What I can believe is that the electricity companies will make larger profits. Nobody has yet produced figures, however, that convince me that this country's consumers will benefit from the dash for gas.
Even if the economic argument for the dash for gas were proven, there are many other important factors that need to be taken into account. We all know that in this
512
country there are 200 years' worth of good-quality coal available for the use of this country. At best, we know that there might—and I repeat "might"—be a 50-year supply of natural gas. We all know, too, that the nuclear power industry is beset by problems. Nobody in his right mind would base a national energy policy on the use, solely and simply, of nuclear power. Furthermore, we know that this country has a limited amount of oil reserves, but, once again, nobody will base the basic energy needs of this country on oil. Are we, therefore, really acting sensibly by abandoning Britain's rich coal seams for ever? Once the coal mines are closed, those seams will never be used again, those mines will never be used again.
What will happen if the Government's projections for gas are proved wrong? Shall we end up with the country's basic energy needs having to be accounted for by imported gas and imported coal? Above all, what will future generations think of us here today if we make them, and their grandchildren, totally dependent on other countries for this country's basic energy needs? I am sure that I do not need to remind hon. Members of the many conflicts that have taken place in the world over energy resources. That is what the Gulf war was about. Nor do I need to remind hon. Members of what happened in the early 1970s when this country was held to ransom by an oil cartel, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Do we really want to place ourselves in a position where we can be held to ransom in the future over this country's basic energy resources and energy needs?
Even if there were a justifiable economic argument for the dash for gas, there surely has to be an even more important consideration—the community and social argument. Closure of these mines will destroy whole communities. There is no prospect whatsoever, whatever the Minister may say, that in the middle of a massive slump new industries will be brought into those communities. Thousands of redundant miners will not suddenly become thrusting, entrepreneurial business men, setting up their own businesses. It will not happen. What will happen is that those communities will wither and die. They will die as their coal resources die.
What will happen then? Hon. Members who have served as local councillors know what happens when communities die. Vast amounts of money will not go into council coffers and the Government will lose huge amounts in taxes and national insurance contributions.
Tonight, the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) openly said that he asked the Minister for a cost-benefit analysis of the closures. The Minister's answer was that one had not been carried out. The Government cannot tell the British people how much the closures will cost. The unofficial figure is £1.4 billion. The question that I have to ask is, why? That is what my constituents are asking. What is it all about? It is about figures on a balance sheet. It is about accountants drawing up a profit and loss account and deciding that, as loss wins, communities must go by the board. A civilised society cannot be run on the basis of accountants' profit and loss accounts.
Why did the Government reach this decision? I believe that the answer is to be found in the way in which it was done: "Three days' notice, and then your jobs are gone. Do not say anything and do not complain or your redundancy pay might be cut." That was brutal, heartless, uncaring and illegal.
I am not alone in believing that the roots of the Government's decision go back not five or 10 years but to

513
what happened in 1974 right in the middle of my constituency at the Saltley gas works. During the miners' strike, an unknown NUM official from Yorkshire and a large number of Yorkshire miners picketed the works and prevented coal from being delivered, which resulted in the defeat of the Tory Government at the general election. I believe, as do many others, that what happened in 1974 figured very much in the minds of Ministers when they made their decision last week. The decision was not about economics or whether coal is better than gas but about revenge—the Tory party exacting revenge on the miners of this country for the Government's defeat in 1974. All hon. Members who want to see a future for the coal industry must support the Opposition motion.
9.1 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: It is an honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). I congratulate him on choosing an important debate in which to make it. I appreciate that I have only a few minutes in which to speak, having sat here for almost seven hours waiting to do so.
When the announcement was made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I was shocked. In fact, I was ashamed that a Conservative Government had made it. Not only did it have an effect on me, but within 10 minutes almost all my constituency was clamouring to come into my office or was ringing. Since then, my telephone and fax machine have not stopped working and I have received hundreds of letters, not only from my constituents but from the great British people, who have risen up because of the decision.
As well as being a Member of this House, I am president of Yorkshire Conservative Trade Unionists. Having worked for so long in the area, I know that, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, they feel that we have let them down badly.
I must acknowledge the great step forward that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has taken in the past week, which I welcome. It is a serious step forward along the route that I asked him to take. I welcome the review and the fact that 21 pits are included, but, as my right hon. Friend knows very well, I do not welcome the fact that he was unable to include the other 10. The wider public outside are always concerned to ensure a sense of fair play.
I take the economic arguments. Representing a manufacturing area, and having fought for the textile industry for 10 years, I know about imports and that businesses must be competitive, but, having taken the decision to have the review, why did not my right hon. Friend include the other 10 pits? Had he done so, he would have had the backing of the House and of the country. We are talking not about 30,000 jobs but about 100,000.
We have heard some hon. Members say that the argument is about revenge and about trade unions. It is not; it is about people. Our industries and our communities are always made up of people. We cannot take the heart out of communities without causing misery, devastation and worry for many of those families. Of course, there is always rationalisation in industry, but does it all have to involve such huge numbers, in such a way that whole pit villages and mining communities disappear altogether'?
514
I must say a few words about a lonely man sitting at the bottom of a pit shaft. He must really feel that he has let his members down—and they feel that he has let them down. But he must also feel that the Government have let him down. That man helped to keep the lights on in 1984 and 1985—perhaps against the advice of many people who talked to him. He took a band of men with him, and they kept this country afloat and alight. We owe him a much greater debt of gratitude, and I hope that we find a better way to reward that man for his eight years' work—I hope that he is listening.
I do not want to see our country held to ransom on energy policy in the future. I should like to think that in the years to come, when the history of this period is written, the Conservative Government will not be seen to have abandoned the miners and this country's energy policy. I would not wish to see myself depicted as having abandoned those miners and the whole coal industry, either. I regret to have to say to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that I cannot support him.
9.6 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I have been reminded by one of my hon. Friends that in the Betws drift mine there is a famous Peacock vein of anthracite coal. We hope that the Peacock vein will survive, just as we hope that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will survive after she has joined us in the Lobby tonight. I hope, too, that she will not be alone in joining us there.
We have heard several fine speeches tonight. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on his maiden speech. We hope that in the years that lie ahead he will be able to participate in the pertinent and concise way that he has tonight. We have also heard other speeches from Opposition Members—
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Neill: In a moment.
We have heard several speeches from those of my hon. Friends who, before coming to the House, spent their lives in the mining industry. They spoke movingly about the collieries in which they have served. From their experience both at work and in the service of their constituencies they know of the problems facing the condemned 10 pits. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), for Easington (Mr. Cummings), for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) all spoke with great authority on the unjustified choice made between the condemned 10 pits and the other 21.
My hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that the debate has become the political fault line of the new Session of Parliament. Almost prematurely—certainly far earlier than we expected—the debate has brought up the whole question of how this country should be run.
That is not a new question; its genesis lies in the previous Parliament. It all goes back to the nature of the privatisations of gas and electricity, and especially to the regional electricity companies' ability both to distribute power and to own shares in the gas-fired production. We can pick over the bones to try to establish whether that was the intention of the original legislation, but the consequence has certainly been that the RECs can both

515
generate and distribute electricity. The relationship is not only dubious but questionable in that those companies have sizeable shares in the new power stations. If they have to pay an increased charge for gas-fired electricity, that can be passed on to their monopoly customers. They have no choice. What the gas-fired generators charge can be passed on to individuals and can be reflected beneficially in the balance sheets of the companies to which I have referred.
More importantly, the Government's protector of the public interest—the regulator—seems to be supine and paralysed. He is hiding behind the inaccessibility of evidence saying that he does not have the evidence upon which to act or make recommendations. If he does not act quickly, the exercise will be academic because the collieries will not exist and the future of our mining industry will be thrown into doubt.
We have been along this road before. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to past oil prices and the sensitivity of this country to oil price rises. Reference has been made to the effects of political instability and in recent days we saw once again the impact of the variance in the rate of exchange.
We saw what happened when oil prices changed in the 1970s and 1980s. Let us not forget that gas prices are linked inextricably to oil prices and the two phenomena that occurred in the past could well be repeated. Some hon. Members have tried to lecture the Opposition about the comparative records of Governments in respect of redundancies. We have heard about the willingness of the Labour Government to introduce redundancies and pit closures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) explained the manner in which he conducted many of the closures when he had responsibility for them.
Over the past few days, we have also heard about the record of the 1960s. It is worth placing on the record the fact that between 1960 and 1970 there were 300,000 voluntary redundancies. Between 1960 and 1964 under Conservative rule, there were 114,000 redundancies. Between 1964 and 1970 there were 186,000 redundancies. That works out at 28,500 a year under the Conservatives and 31,000 under Labour.
There is little to choose between the two. Certainly, there is little to choose between the two when we take account of the unemployment levels prevalent in the 1960s when the people who lost their jobs had an opportunity to go to other employment. They were given the chance of new work. During that period, both Labour and Conservative Governments were prepared to participate in and pursue energetic regional policies.
It is significant that it was the Macmillan Government who facilitated the construction of the Ravenscraig plant in Lanarkshire to create work for the miners who lost their jobs when the Lanarkshire coalfield closed. It is significant that the present Conservative Government have merely facilitated the closure of Ravenscraig and the decline of manufacturing industry in that part of Scotland.
We will no doubt receive promises and Government initiatives, task forces and visits from Prime Ministers. Some jobs will be created. Nevertheless, there is a feeling throughout the country that too little is taking place far too late. Certainly, the experience that I have instanced in
516
respect of Ravenscraig is mirrored throughout the country. There is a profound feeling that the tidal wave of redundancies and closures must stop.
When the first rumours of pit closures emerged, the Government assumed that they would be received by the people in the way in which other lay-offs have been received. Somehow people would think, "Bad luck, but thank God it's not me." Only when the scale of the redundancies and their impact on whole swathes of the country became apparent did our people realise that enough was enough.
Conservative Members have referred to their mailbags, interruptions and demonstrations that they have had at their surgeries. They realise that people in Conservative constituences know that what is happening in mining areas will be happening in their areas before too long unless something is done about it.
When one industry—the mining industry—represents the sole source of employment for an area, it becomes all too clear how fallacious and criminally wrong was the Thatcherite view that there is no such thing as a community, only individuals and families. It is exactly because miners and their families make up what we know to be coalfield communities that public indignation rose to such levels. People became aware that not only the 30,000 British Coal employees but the 3,000 to 4,000 coal workers who are employed by the private contractors who drive the roads under the mines to facilitate the winning of coal will lose their jobs. About 72,000 people are employed by members of the associated British mining equipment companies. It is suggested that, pro rata, for every 1,000 jobs lost in coal mining another 600 will be lost elsewhere. The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) suggested that 100,000 people will be affected, costing the Exchequer £1.25 billion per annum in lost tax, in social security and in unemployment benefits. On top of that there will be nearly £1.2 billion in redundancy payments.
The impact on areas where mining is the sole source of employment will be almost incalculable. What the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is now a buzz of conversation, which is discourteous to the hon. Gentleman who has the floor. I ask the House to be very much quieter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: It is that little Whip.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The noise is not confined to one side, I have to say. Mr. O'Neill, please continue.
Mr. O'Neill: The Government have not realised that there is tremendous public respect and admiration for miners and for mining communities. In 1972 the public recognised that the miners had a case, and in 1974 the British public threw out the Tory Government who sought to make the miners dispute a pretext for the general election. In 1984, almost perversely, the British public backed the miners in two ways. One section supported the NUM in its valiant struggle to defend jobs and communities from the threat which tragically became the reality of closure and contraction, while the other section of the public fought miners who refused to strike and carried on working. But none of those who wanted to see the mining industry destroyed and none of those who supported the miners wanted the social and economic devastation which last week's statement unveiled. Faced

517
with an outburst of public feeling on such a scale, it takes a monumentally inept Government to embark on such a course of action.
It is perhaps unfair to blame the whole Government. After all, it was only the magnificent seven who made the decision, but the magnificent seven, like their Japanese forebears, the seven samurai, were supposed to defend villages against tyrannical oppression. The Tory Government make the job of the magnificent seven to act as plundering vandals laying waste to villages, in much the same way as the United States general justified laying to waste a Vietnamese village on the basis that that was the only way in which the village could be saved.
By closing 27 mines British Coal would be left with 21 pits, four of which would be put on a care and maintenance basis, and there would be 17 pits producing coal. The output from the 17 pits will be 31.5 million tonnes in 1993–94 and 29 million tonnes in 1994–95. Output will not be 40 million tonnes because 11 million tonnes will be accounted for by coal which is already in the coal stocks. The Secretary of State for Wales might care to tell the House how, in 1994-–95, we will achieve 2.5 million fewer tonnes of production. Will that come from an additional round of pit closures? If so, which other collieries will be closed? I say that not in a frivolous way; I speak as the hon. Member who has the Longannet mine in his constituency. It was announced last week that another report had suggested that—
Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the case—[Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was an intervention, not a point of order.
Mr. O'Neill: Something will have to be done about spurious points of order. I hope that the Chair—[Interruption.] Make no mistake about it: both sides of the House are using spurious points of order as a means of interrupting debate and spoiling the flow of discussion. That is something that must be considered. The inept interruption of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) suggests that something must be done quickly.
There is a distinct possibility that in 1994–95 the size of the coal industry will be reduced further to accommodate the fall in production of 2.5 million tonnes that is anticipated between now and that time. There has been a drop in morale and production at the mine in my constituency, which was mentioned earlier as one of the possible candidates for closure. When people recognise that closures are taking place, they immediately feel vulnerable to a possible further round of closures. I urge the Secretary of State to clarify the position this evening.
We are not here tonight solely to talk about which mines should or should not be closed; we are talking about whether it is necessary for coal production in Britain to fall from 65 million tonnes to 31 million tonnes. Why have certain collieries been designated as running at a loss when we know that in recent years about 35 collieries have gone from loss to profit within 12 months? We also know that five of the 10 collieries that are on the hit list are in that category. It is suggested that six out of the 10 collieries are making a profit. There is no question of their being involved in making a loss.
It has been suggested by Lord Wakeham in the other place that an inquiry should be held to consider the future of the industry and the reduction in the size of the coal take. In the past few days we have seen the politics of the
518
rolling statement. A little more has been disclosed in every discussion, every television programme, and every parliamentary speech. Yesterday, Lord Wakeham identified six points. He said that each colliery should be examined to see whether a case for closure could be sustained. We want to ensure that not just the 21 collieries but the other 10 are included in such an examination.
It has already been suggested today that Trentham is on one list and may go into the other. If that is good enough for Trentham, it is good enough for the other nine. We also want guarantees that, if the colliery review procedure is carried out in respect of the 10, they will not be disadvantaged by the failure to invest. We have had assurances for the 20, but we have not had assurances for the other 10. We need those assurances if the collieries are to have a future.
Mr. Heseltine: I confirm beyond any question of doubt that exactly the same comments I made about Trentham apply to the other nine. It is the responsibility of the Coal Board to conduct its statutory consultation. lf, as a result of that consultation, it is decided that any one or all of the 10 should continue, the Coal Board must preserve those pits during the consultation so that they can continue to exist.
Mr. O'Neill: The President of the Board of Trade has not cleared up the matter to everyone's satisfaction. There is a simple way to do so. He could again intervene with British Coal, as he has done during the past two days, and require all 31 pits to be treated equally, so that throughout the British coalfield there will be a sense that justice is being done.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again in limited time. I have spoken to the chairman of British Coal—the hon. Gentleman may call that intervening—to establish that it is British Coal's responsibility to keep open the option that, if consultation provides such a conclusion, each or all of the 10 pits may continue in existence. I have also agreed with the chairman of British Coal that development will be kept going at the other 21 pits during the review so as not to prejudice their continued operation in any way.
Mr. O'Neill: I think that that tells us that there will be o development in the 10 pits, but that there may be in the other 21.
During the debate we have heard instances of miners being sent home from collieries—the right hon. Gentleman would have heard them if he had been present. That is not the way to keep a level playing field for the condemned 10, and until he can give us an assurance that he will intervene in that matter we shall not be prepared to believe what he tells us.
Mr. Heseltine: That is obviously a critical issue. As regards the 10 pits, it is necessary for British Coal to take what measures are appropriate during the statutory consultations to maintain viably the option for them to continue. That does not mean that they will be operating at full production during the statutory period, but that British Coal must be able to ensure that the option to continue exists at the end of the 90 days.
Mr. O'Neill: We shall wait to find out whether that is the final and definitive word from the President.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my hon. Friend seek clarification of which 90-day review period is under discussion? As I understand it, the 90-day review period is the statutory consultation period for redundancy under the employment protection legislation. It has nothing to do with the future of the colliery or with the profitability, or lack of it, of the pits. The other review procedure is the independent voluntary review established after the 1985 strike—it is voluntary and it is up to both sides to agree to enter that procedure.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as that is a valid question. There is confusion. There are two 90-day procedures and we are not clear which of the two is being applied. It is fair enough if we are saying that there is a review procedure which is totally independent of the redundancy payment requirements, but that matter should be clarified during the right hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."].
Mr. Heseltine: It is the statutory period under the employment legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. But the matter of concern to the House is that the option to continue those pits in operation is preserved.
Mr. O'Neill: The situation is now clear. The President of the Board of Trade, probably inadvertently, misled the House this afternoon by confusing the statutory redundancy procedures with the review procedure, which was arrived at after 1985. Those of us who have been involved in collieries where the review procedure has been brought into play know from bitter experience that it is very difficult to win an argument with British Coal when it has decided to put a colliery into that procedure.
Yesterday, Lord Wakeham said that there would be discussions with the generators and the 12 regional electricity companies on the market prospects. I hope that the President ensures that the talks do not prejudice the prospect of coal share being maintained at 65 million tonnes by assuming that all the proposed gas-fired power stations will be allowed to proceed. We should like a response this evening to a question posed on a number of occasions: what is to happen to the future applications and those that are in the final stages of consideration? Will they be given the rubber stamp, as has happened in the past, or will there be an attempt to ringfence whatever figure is decided for the coal industry?
We have had an undertaking that there will be a belated examination of the dash for gas. I say "belated" and I am mindful that, yesterday, Lord Wakeham said:
"There is no question but that gas is cheaper."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 December 1992; Vol. 539, c. 673.]
But the Government are supposed to be an open-minded Government who will take everything into consideration.
Lord Wakeham continued—this is the disturbing part—by saying that if the regional electricity companies chose gas in preference to cheaper energy sources and passed the cost on to the consumer in increased prices, they would be in breach of their licence conditions. That will be a fat lot of good to the mines if the closures have already taken place and it is impossible to reopen them. There is no threat to punish a breach of the licence provisions if the measure cannot be enacted quickly enough to restore to the collieries their right to supply coal to the power stations.
Consideration has been promised on the mothballing of some of the pits that are due for closure. The Frances
520
colliery in Kirkcaldy has been operating on a care and maintenance basis for some time. Last week it was announced that, instead of being sustained, it would either be closed or sold if a buyer could be obtained. That does not bode well for the possibility of mothballing in future.
The last undertaking given in the House of Lords yesterday was to look at the proposed level of imports to see whether it was appropriate.
Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State and the President—the great interventionist—say whether he has now picked up the phone to stop Russian coal being burnt at Aldermaston? He gave us a lecture earlier about another local authority. Will he stop 300,000 tonnes of coal from Russia being burnt at Aldermaston?
Mr. O'Neill: I think that the Secretary of State can answer that question when he winds up the debate. We all want to know what the attitude will be towards a wide range of imported coals and what the Government propose to do about the importation of coal from Colombia, which has risen by a phenomenal amount to 2.5 billion tonnes.
Leeds council has yet to sign a contract. Under the competitive tendering process, Leeds council exchanged letters of intent with the coal company. That undertaking has now been revoked. Until the competitive tendering legislation was introduced, there was an agreement whereby all coal burnt had to come from Yorkshire collieries. Therefore, we do not need any lecturing about Labour authorities being forced into taking on responsibilities.
The level of imports does not merely involve numbers, but quality. We want to ensure that orimulsion plays no part in the future energy mix of this country. We want to ensure that a potential pollutant of that character has no part in our energy mix.
It is assumed that if there is a second look at the closure programme it will involve little more than tinkering at the margins. There is certainly a feeling that the people who advised the Secretary of State on the initial statement are those who are to act as judge and jury on the review. In our judgment they are not people to be trusted. We do not have confidence in them or in the way in which they have carried out their responsibilities so far.
The Opposition believe that there is another way to carry out the review. We believe that our motion provides the means whereby the Government can enjoy the respect and confidence of the people of this country—if they carry out the review independently, if they afford the Select Committee proper access to all the materials, and if they require the companies to provide the information on which the Select Committee can make its judgment.
The coal industry does not ask for special pleading. It responded like no other industry in the 1980s to the challenges of new technology and of change, and miners have carried out their work in a way that has resulted in the country respecting them. Everyone—apart from Ministers—respects British Coal and the industry.
If the Government are to discharge their responsibilities in respect of energy policy they need to secure and enjoy public trust, the trust that springs from the belief that the Government are in full possession of the facts and are acting rationally. The events of the past week suggest neither. Our motion offers a way forward which will enjoy the support of those affected by colliery closures. It will

521
enjoy the backing of the country and the agreement of the Labour party. I urge Conservative Members to join us in the Lobbies in support of the motion.
9.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): This has been a wide-ranging and comprehensive debate. We have heard 28 speeches and I, like some other Members, have not missed a word of them. I congratulate all who have contributed—especially the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great compassion and vigour. It was a good speech; we will hear many more from him. I note that he is a supporter of Charlton Athletic, who are second in the first division and unbeaten this season. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will score many goals for the Opposition in future speeches.
We heard at length from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but we did not hear an alternative policy from the Labour party. Indeed, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said at the end of the debate that there was little to choose between Labour and Conservative Governments when it came to who had closed most pits. He is wrong. I have the figures. The Government who closed most pits and put most people on the dole were the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970. It is about time we had the facts in this debate. Between 1967 and 1968 there were 59 colliery closures. I have a list of every year since 1946, and there have never been as many closures as that in one year since the war. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about today?"] I am answering the point made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. It is no use the Labour party thinking it can get away with cheap points without reply. In 1968–69, 46,146 people in the coal industry were put on the dole—so the Labour Government clearly hold the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) asked a number of questions. He will know that I have always taken his points very seriously indeed. I have great respect for his expertise in this matter. He asked whether the Select Committee report, which has been quoted by several hon. Members, would be taken seriously. I assure him that it will, but I remind him that it said that no overseas experience is relevant to how the energy industry in England and Wales will develop. I have carefully read that important report which must be taken into account in the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who has always been noted for knowing a great deal about the energy industry, raised some important facts. Opposition Members who were not present during my Friend's speech should read it in Hansard. In it they will see some facts of which they were unaware, if one takes their speeches at face value.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked whether the review would be serious. The answer is yes. He also asked whether Liberal Democrat submissions would be accepted. Of course they will, if they are acceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do no other than to put to the Government all the facts that he and his colleagues wish to put.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Hunt: I shall not give way. I am replying to issues raised by the hon. Members who spoke in the debate.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has much experience of the National Union of Mineworkers and I respect his expertise on the coal industry. I respect also the expertise of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) who for many years has represented NACODS. I ask both hon. Gentlemen to respect the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) who said that we must consider not only coal communities but the jobs and communities which depend on power stations and gas exploration and the manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom that depend on cheap energy.
Mr. Barron rose—
Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment, but I should first like to respond to the important issues that have been raised. I shall respond in writing to those that I am not able to deal with now.
I hope that people will pay attention to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). It was an important statement by a Member who represents a large number of coal miners in one of the most productive collieries in the world. He said that we should look to the future. I have gone underground at the Selby pits which are now reaping the product of a £1,300 million investment by producing 12 million tonnes at a rate of 30 tonnes per man shift. That is quite remarkable. I refer the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. They may well look back with some pride to the past—all hon. Members have a right to look back with pride at the coal mining industry—but we must not become rooted in the past. We must look to the future. We cannot shore up any pit, however uneconomic. On 29 January 1985 the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said:
"There is not a single pit in Britain which is uneconomic."
He probably still holds that view. The greatest threat to the coal industry would be any attempt to average up the cost of economic low-cost pits to subsidise pits that can only be a burden on the economy in general and the coal industry in particular. Those were the words of a right hon. Member who was a Minister for power under a Labour Government.
Mr. Barron: The Secretary of State for Wales was in the Chamber when I spoke earlier. I said that I had no disagreement with the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) about the long-term future of British coal. The Secretary of State heard me say that there is a colliery in my constituency that has recently completed a £183 million investment programme. As a single pit, it has reserves that are better than any of the Selby pits. Last week, the 1,300 who work there—many of them sat in the same classroom as myself as children—were told that they were sacked because it had been decided that the mine would be mothballed. How is that looking after the nation's future?
Mr. Hunt: I shall reply directly to the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer. I still rely on my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, who talked about looking to the future. I say to the hon. Gentleman that in the 1960s there were many pits that had large economic reserves of coal. Machinery was in those

523
pits. They were closed so quickly by the then Labour Government that the machinery was lost. I say directly to the hon. Gentleman—
Mrs. Peacock rose—
Mr. Hunt: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I shall reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley and then I shall give way.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley knows that there have always been different views. I am sure that he has been present during review procedures. There are always differences of view about what is an economic pit.
Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has just said—much information has been brought to some of us this week—is a good reason for including the 10 pits in the review? If my right hon. Friend can give the House the assurance that they will be included, he will persuade me not to vote against the Government this evening.
Mr. Hunt: I note that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is in his place. Taff Merthyr is one of the 10. I understand from the Taff Merthyr work force that the pit has serious problems. I know that the hon. Gentleman will disagree, but the closures of Taff Merthyr and Betws were announced on 20 August and not last week. They are part of the 10, but, as I have said, the closures were announced not last week but on 20 August. The men met and, as I understand it regrettably—for them—they had to accept that the pit did not have an economic future.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I intervene because the Secretary of State for Wales has referred specifically to Taff Merthyr. There is a sense of resignation because a good and reasonable plan was put forward but rejected—it was not listened to—by British Coal. We are asking only that that plan should be submitted to a new review procedure and not to the same people who turned it down. The plan should be reconsidered during the 90 days.
In the Taff Merthyr area nearly 25 per cent. of the men are out of work. There has been a loss of 4,000 jobs in manufacturing. Thorn has been closed. There is now the prospect of another 380 job losses, and three other pits are being closed. Is the right hon. Gentleman offering us more of the same?
Mr. Hunt: No, not at all.
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will disagree with the miner whose words I am about to quote, but when asked about whether he would fight for the future of the pit on BBC Wales he replied:
"Why should we fight when we run out of reserves next year?"
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) that British Coal has told my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the 10 pits are currently loss making and that there is no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future.
Dr. Michael Clark: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the men employed in the 10 pits subject to the review procedure will be laid off work on full pay for three months whereas in the 21 pits that are subject to the
524
moratorium the miners will be mining coal for three months and earning bonuses? The difference is that both sets of men will be paid while one set is mining no coal and the other set continue to mine. What sort of economic sense is that?
Mr. Hunt: Let me make matters absolutely clear about the 10 pits. British Coal is under a statutory duty to consult on those closures.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hunt: Just one moment.
It must be a genuine consultation. British Coal has given the criteria to show that those pits are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. If there is any serious doubt about whether those criteria apply, British Coal will have to demonstrate that that doubt is removed and that the criteria have been met, because, under the legislation, it not only has to give reasons for closure, but it must prove that the consultation is a genuine one. That is absolutely clear.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On the review, can my right hon. Friend say whether the best possible estimates can be given for all costs, whether direct or indirect, which would be incurred by all Government Departments for each option under review?
Mr. Hunt: I know how deeply my hon. Friend feels about this matter and I know that he has discussed it with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I want to be as helpful to him as possible because he has raised an important point. These are complex matters, as he knows, and I will arrange for my right hon. Friends and myself to explore his concerns with him and, if possible, to satisfy him that we have considered the issues properly.
Mr. Roy BeggsThe right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have two large power stations in my constituency. He will be aware that we in Northern Ireland are dependent upon external fuel resources—we have to import all our needs. He will also be aware that we still await an interconnector to Scotland, a gas pipeline to the mainland and opportunity to develop our own lignite reserves. What assurances can he give me and my colleagues that, in any future strategy review, the particular needs of Northern Ireland will be given consideration?
Mr. Hunt: Without any qualification, I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
Mr. Hunt: There are still a number of points to which I wish to refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) quite rightly raised the whole issue of Euro-comparisons. During the debate we have heard a great deal about German coal. I have a copy of the German coal plan 2005 and I want to put the record straight. It states:
"Kohlekonzept 2005 lays the foundations for an efficient and viable German hard coal mining industry in the long term though on a lower level than today."
I cite from page 18 headed "Conclusion".
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What about British coal?
Mr. Hunt: German coal was also debated tonight. That report states:
"Kohlekonzept 2005 has serious and far-reaching consequences for the mining companies and their employees. The number of mines will now decline from 26 to 17. Hard coal production must he reduced further. In the hard coal mining industry alone, as many as 40,000 workers will have now to he made redundant mainly in the areas with serious structural problems."
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley was therefore right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) spoke about the overall economic situation, and he will have been heartened by the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) emphasised the dangers of a one-industry town, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland).
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) also contributed—and let no one say that there is no compassion on this side of the House. All my right hon. and hon. Friends care deeply about the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) spoke at great length, and I take account of all his points. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen knows that I share her deep concern for mining communities.
Mr. Churchill: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the review will address aggressively the unlevel playing field against coal, and specifically the reduction from 65 million tonnes to 40 million tonnes?
Mr. Hunt: Without qualification.
Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend and I worked together closely during the miners' strike and he knows what I am getting at. As there is some confusion, can he make one point clear? On the basis of his remarks today, is there any reasonable expectation—is it Government policy—that the 10 pits will be included in the review procedure set up by the Government? A clear answer please—yes or no.
Mr. Hunt: The 10 pits will of course be considered under the statutory consultation procedure, and British Coal must prove its case.
Mr. Illsley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for raising one at this stage, but the House is in danger of inadvertently being misled. There is no 90-day statutory review procedure. The statutory procedure relates to redundancies, not closures.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order but a debating point.
Mr. Hunt: I am talking about the 90-day statutory consultation procedure. I have been very open about that. It must be a genuine procedure, genuine consultation—that is, about the 10 pits.
Wales has seen a dramatic decline in the coal industry but we have looked to the future, not to the past. We have provided many new jobs in former coal-mining constituencies. When Labour closed pits, it left slag heaps. There was no enterprise company, people were thrown out of work, and valley communities were dispirited. Since this Government came to power, we have pursued a massive land clearance programme and brought new jobs and opportunities to Wales.
I give one other example. In one day we lost 8,001) jobs at Shotton steelworks. This Government created the
526
Deeside industrial park, which now provides 10,000 jobs. The valleys of south Wales have new jobs and opportunities, and an environment that has been painstakingly restored to its former glory.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must contain herself: the Secretary of State is not giving way.
Mr. Hunt: Our case is unanswerable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Members to join me in throwing out the Opposition motion and accepting the Government amendment.
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 320.

Division No. 75]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ainger, Nick

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Alexander, Richard

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Allen, Graham

Coffey, Ann

Alton, David

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Connarty, Michael

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corbett, Robin

Ashton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Austin-Walker, John

Corston, Ms Jean

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Cox, Tom

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

Battle, John

Cummings, John

Bayley, Hugh

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Bell, Stuart

Dafis, Cynog

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dalyell, Tam

Bennett, Andrew F.

Darling, Alistair

Benton, Joe

Davidson, Ian

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Betts, Clive

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Blair, Tony

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

Blunkett, David

Denham, John

Boateng, Paul

Dewar, Donald

Boyce, Jimmy

Dixon, Don

Boyes, Roland

Dobson, Frank

Bradley, Keith

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dowd, Jim

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Burden, Richard

Eastham, Ken

Byers, Stephen

Enright, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Etherington, Bill

Callaghan, Jim

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Canavan, Dennis

Fisher, Mark

Cann, Jamie

Flynn, Paul

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Foster, Don (Bath)

Clapham, Michael

Foulkes, George

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Fraser, John

527

Fyfe, Maria

McFall, John

Galbraith, Sam

McGrady, Eddie

Galloway, George

McKelvey, William

Gapes, Mike

Mackinlay, Andrew

Garrett, John

McLeish, Henry

George, Bruce

Maclennan, Robert

Gerrard, Neil

McMaster, Gordon

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McNamara, Kevin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Madden, Max

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mahon, Alice

Gordon, Mildred

Mallon, Seamus

Gould, Bryan

Mandelson, Peter

Graham, Thomas

Marek, Dr John

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Grocott, Bruce

Martlew, Eric

Gunnell, John

Maxton, John

Hain, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Hall, Mike

Meale, Alan

Hanson, David

Michael, Alun

Hardy, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Harvey, Nick

Milburn, Alan

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Doug

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Heppell, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morgan, Rhodri

Hinchliffe, David

Morley, Elliot

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hood, Jimmy

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mudie, George

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mullin, Chris

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Murphy, Paul

Hoyle, Doug

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Olner, William

Hume, John

O'Neill, Martin

Hutton, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Ingram, Adam

Paisley, Rev Ian

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Parry, Robert

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Patchett, Terry

Jamieson, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Janner, Greville

Pendry, Tom

Johnston, Sir Russell

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Pike, Peter L.

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Prescott, John

Jowell, Tessa

Primarolo, Dawn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Purchase, Ken

Keen, Alan

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Radice, Giles

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Randall, Stuart

Khabra, Piara S.

Raynsford, Nick

Kilfedder, Sir James

Redmond, Martin

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Dr John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Richardson, Jo

Kirkwood, Archy

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Leighton, Ron

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lewis, Terry

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Litherland, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Livingstone, Ken

Rooker, Jeff

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Rooney, Terry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Loyden, Eddie

Rowlands, Ted

Lynne, Ms Liz

Ruddock, Joan

McAllion, John

Salmond, Alex

McAvoy, Thomas

Sedgemore, Brian

McCartney, Ian

Sheerman, Barry

McCrea, Rev William

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

528

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Short, Clare

Wallace, James

Simpson, Alan

Walley, Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Watson, Mike

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Welsh, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wicks, Malcolm

Snape, Peter

Wigley, Dafydd

Soley, Clive

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Spellar, John

Wilson, Brian

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Winnick, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Steinberg, Gerry

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Stevenson, George

Wise, Audrey

Stott, Roger

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Wray, Jimmy

Straw, Jack

Wright, Dr Tony

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tipping, Paddy

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Vaz, Keith

NOES

Adley, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Aitken, Jonathan

Churchill, Mr

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Clappison, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Amess, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Ancram, Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Arbuthnot, James

Colvin, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Congdon, David

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Conway, Derek

Ashby, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Aspinwall, Jack

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Atkins, Robert

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cormack, Patrick

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Couchman, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Cran, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Critchley, Julian

Baldry, Tony

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bates, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Batiste, Spencer

Day, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bendall, Vivian

Devlin, Tim

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dickens, Geoffrey

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dicks, Terry

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Dorrell, Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Booth, Hartley

Dover, Den

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Dunn, Bob

Bowden, Andrew

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bowis, John

Dykes, Hugh

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Eggar, Tim

Brandreth, Gyles

Elletson, Harold

Brazier, Julian

Emery, Sir Peter

Bright, Graham

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brown, M. (Brigg &, Cl'thorpes)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Evennett, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Faber, David

Burns, Simon

Fabricant, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Butcher, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Butler, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Butterfill, John

Fishburn, Dudley

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Forman, Nigel

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carrington, Matthew

Forth, Eric

Carttiss, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Cash, William

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

529

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Freeman, Roger

Lord, Michael

French, Douglas

Luff, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, Sir George

MacKay, Andrew

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Maclean, David

Garnier, Edward

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gill, Christopher

Madel, David

Gillan, Cheryl

Maitland, Lady Olga

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Malone, Gerald

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mans, Keith

Gorst, John

Marland, Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mates, Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hague, William

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Mellor, Rt Hon David

(Epsom-Ewell)

Merchant, Piers

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Milligan, Stephen

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mills, Iain

Hanley, Jeremy

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Moate, Roger

Harris, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Haselhurst, Alan

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawkins, Nick

Moss, Malcolm

Hawksley, Warren

Needham, Richard

Hayes, Jerry

Nelson, Anthony

Heald, Oliver

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Norris, Steve

Hicks, Robert

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Ottaway, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Page, Richard

Horam, John

Paice, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Patten, Rt Hon John

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

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Pawsey, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pickles, Eric

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Powell, William (Corby)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Rathbone, Tim

Jack, Michael

Redwood, John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Richards, Rod

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Riddick, Graham

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Robathan, Andrew

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Key, Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Knapman, Roger

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Sackville, Tom

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

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Knox, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Shersby, Michael

Legg, Barry

Sims, Roger

Leigh, Edward

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lidington, David

Soames, Nicholas

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

530

Spencer, Sir Derek

Trotter, Neville

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Spink, Dr Robert

Viggers, Peter

Spring, Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sproat, Iain

Walden, George

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waller, Gary

Steen, Anthony

Ward, John

Stephen, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stern, Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Stewart, Allan

Watts, John

Streeter, Gary

Wells, Bowen

Sumberg, David

Wheeler, Sir John

Sweeney, Walter

Whitney, Ray

Sykes, John

Whittingdale, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Willetts, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wilshire, David

Thomason, Roy

Wolfson, Mark

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wood, Timothy

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

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

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Question accordingly negatived
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendements):—
The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 305.

Division No 76]

[10.17 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Aitken, Jonathan

Budgen, Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Burns, Simon

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Burt, Alistair

Amess, David

Butcher, John

Ancram, Michael

Butler, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Ashby, David

Carrington, Matthew

Aspinwall, Jack

Carttiss, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Churchill, Mr

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clappison, James

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Baldry, Tony

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Coe, Sebastian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Colvin, Michael

Bates, Michael

Congdon, David

Batiste, Spencer

Conway, Derek

Bellingham, Henry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Couchman, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cran, James

Booth, Hartley

Critchley, Julian

Boswell, Tim

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bowden, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bowis, John

Day, Stephen

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Brandreth, Gyles

Devlin, Tim

Brazier, Julian

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bright, Graham

Dicks, Terry

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dorrell, Stephen

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

531

Dover, Den

Jenkin, Bernard

Duncan, Alan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dunn, Bob

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Eggar, Tim

Key, Robert

Elletson, Harold

King, Rt Hon Tom

Emery, Sir Peter

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Knapman, Roger

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

Evennett, David

Knox, David

Faber, David

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fabricant, Michael

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Fishburn, Dudley

Legg, Barry

Forman, Nigel

Leigh, Edward

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Forth, Eric

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lidington, David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lightbown, David

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Freeman, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

French, Douglas

Lord, Michael

Gale, Roger

Luff, Peter

Gallie, Phil

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gardiner, Sir George

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

MacKay, Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Maclean, David

Gill, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gillan, Cheryl

Madel, David

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Maitland, Lady Olga

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Major, Rt Hon John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Malone, Gerald

Gorst, John

Mans, Keith

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Marland, Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mates, Michael

Hague, William

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

(Epsom-Ewell)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Merchant, Piers

Hampson, Dr Keith

Milligan, Stephen

Hanley, Jeremy

Mills, Iain

Hannam, Sir John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Harris, David

Moate, Roger

Haselhurst, Alan

Monro, Sir Hector

Hawkins, Nick

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hawksley, Warren

Moss, Malcolm

Hayes, Jerry

Needham, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Nelson, Anthony

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Neubert, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hendry, Charles

Nicholls, Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hicks, Robert

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Norris, Steve

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Horam, John

Ottaway, Richard

Hordern, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

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

Patnick, Irvine

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Pawsey, James

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Pickles, Eric

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hunter, Andrew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Jack, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rathbone, Tim

532

Redwood, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Richards, Rod

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Riddick, Graham

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Robathan, Andrew

Thomason, Roy

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thurnham, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Tracey, Richard

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Tredinnick, David

Sackville, Tom

Trend, Michael

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Trotter, Neville

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Viggers, Peter

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Walden, George

Shersby, Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sims, Roger

Waller, Gary

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Ward, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waterson, Nigel

Soames, Nicholas

Watts, John

Speed, Sir Keith

Wells, Bowen

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wheeler, Sir John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Whitney, Ray

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whittingdale, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Widdecombe, Ann

Spring, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Sproat, Iain

Wilkinson, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Willetts, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilshire, David

Steen, Anthony

Wolfson, Mark

Stephen, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Stem, Michael

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Sumberg, David

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Caborn, Richard

Allen, Graham

Callaghan, Jim

Alton, David

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Canavan, Dennis

Ashton, Joe

Cann, Jamie

Austin-Walker, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Barnes, Harry

Clapham, Michael

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Battle, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bayley, Hugh

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Beckett, Margaret

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Coffey, Ann

Bennett, Andrew F.

Cohen, Harry

Benton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Bermingham, Gerald

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Betts, Clive

Corbett, Robin

Blair, Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

Blunkett, David

Corston, Ms Jean

Boateng, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Boyce, Jimmy

Cox, Tom

Boyes, Roland

Cryer, Bob

Bradley, Keith

Cummings, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

533

Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

Janner, Greville

Dafis, Cynog

Johnston, Sir Russell

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Darling, Alistair

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

Jowell, Tessa

Denham, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Keen, Alan

Dixon, Don

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Dobson, Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Khabra, Piara S.

Dowd, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kirkwood, Archy

Eagle, Ms Angela

Leighton, Ron

Eastham, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Enright, Derek

Lewis, Terry

Etherington, Bill

Litherland, Robert

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Livingstone, Ken

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fatchett, Derek

Llwyd, Elfyn

Faulds, Andrew

Loyden, Eddie

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Fisher, Mark

McAllion, John

Flynn, Paul

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

McCartney, Ian

Foster, Don (Bath)

McCrea, Rev William

Foulkes, George

Macdonald, Calum

Fraser, John

McFall, John

Fyfe, Maria

McGrady, Eddie

Galbraith, Sam

McKelvey, William

Galloway, George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gapes, Mike

McLeish, Henry

Garrett, John

Maclennan, Robert

George, Bruce

McMaster, Gordon

Gerrard, Neil

McNamara, Kevin

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

McWilliam, John

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Madden, Max

Godsiff, Roger

Mahon, Alice

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mallon, Seamus

Gordon, Mildred

Mandelson, Peter

Gould, Bryan

Marek, Dr John

Graham, Thomas

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martlew, Eric

Grocott, Bruce

Maxton, John

Gunnell, John

Meacher, Michael

Hain, Peter

Meale, Alan

Hall, Mike

Michael, Alun

Hanson, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hardy, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Milburn, Alan

Harvey, Nick

Miller, Andrew

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Henderson, Doug

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heppell, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Morley, Elliot

Hinchliffe, David

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Home Robertson, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hood, Jimmy

Mudie, George

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Murphy, Paul

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hoyle, Doug

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Olner, William

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

O'Neill, Martin

Hume, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hutton, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Ingram, Adam

Parry, Robert

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Patchett, Terry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jamieson, David

Pendry, Tom

534

Pickthall, Colin

Spearing, Nigel

Pike, Peter L.

Spellar, John

Pope, Greg

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Steinberg, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stevenson, George

Prescott, John

Stott, Roger

Primarolo, Dawn

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Purchase, Ken

Straw, Jack

Quin, Ms Joyce

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Radice, Giles

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Randall, Stuart

Tipping, Paddy

Raynsford, Nick

Turner, Dennis

Redmond, Martin

Tyler, Paul

Reid, Dr John

Vaz, Keith

Richardson, Jo

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wallace, James

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Walley, Joan

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Wareing, Robert N

Rogers, Allan

Watson, Mike

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Wicks, Malcolm

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Salmond, Alex

Wilson, Brian

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wise, Audrey

Short, Clare

Worthington, Tony

Simpson, Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Dr Tony

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the difficult economic judgements the Government had to make in accepting British Coal's proposals to close 31 collieries; endorses the Government's conclusion that British Coal should introduce a moratorium on the closure of 21 of these pits unless the workforce agree otherwise; welcomes the speedy action of the Government in introducing special assistance measures for coal mining areas; and notes that the moratorium will enable the Government to take views and evidence on the future of the pits in question and to consider these in the context of the Government's energy policy, including the consequences of that policy for British Coal and the employment prospects for the industry, and allow the Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider the issues as it thinks fit, and the House to debate the issues that will be presented to it in the New Year before decisions are reached about future closures.

Pit Closures
  PETITION

    Pit Closures
    10.31 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: I rise to present a petition. It says:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom—
    between 25,000 and 30,000 of them from Chesterfield and elsewhere—
    showeth that the closure of more pits in Britain will cause terrible hardship and destroy many mining communities and tens of thousands of jobs in industry; that Britain's manufacturing strength was built upon coal; that coal

    535
    reserves are available that would last for hundreds of years and are essential for our industrial renewal; and that British coal is the most suitable coal available for the generation of electricity.
    The petition concludes with the traditional words:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will instruct the Government to reverse the pit closure programme at once, to stop the importation of subsidised coal from abroad, to suspend opencast operations and adopt new policies that put people before profits and protect the environment and the quality of life that depends upon it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Slaughterhouse Closures (South-West)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
10.32 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting this subject for debate, since it is of crucial importance to rural communities in the United Kingdom. It is instructive to see how the Labour Benches are emptying. Opposition Members were screaming about employment prospects for one group in the community earlier today and beating their breasts about the perils of unemployment, yet they do not see fit to stay to defend the jobs of the rural community which remain under threat from some of the resolutions which are before us today.
At the outset we must ask who directive 497 and some of the subsequent regulations have been made for. Have they been made for British consumers, who have not been subject to any particular disease processes in the food chain? Have they been made for British farmers, who might now find themselves disadvantaged? Have they been made for British animals, who might now find themselves transported over greater distances to slaughterhouses? Have they been made for the rural communities, which might now have to face higher unemployment and more hardship? Perhaps they have been made for fellow European farmers.
By studying the statistics, I have found that the answer to all those questions must be no. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the regulations are drawn up to suit the bureaucrats of Brussels and beyond.
I thank my fellow Conservative Members of Parliament, and not only those from the west country. I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) and for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) for their tremendous support in this venture. I also thank the many Conservative Members who have been in touch with their local branches of the National Farmers Union and who have shown great sympathy in the issue, which affects the whole of the United Kingdom and not merely the south-west.
The issue is of particular importance to the south-west because of the number of small abattoirs there. The effect of directive 497 cannot be underestimated. The Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers has said that it will cost about £400,000 for the smaller slaughterhouses to reach the level of standards of structural change required by the directive, and an infinitely greater sum for some of the larger ones. That is unacceptable.
The most recent information supplied to the Commons Library by the Meat and Livestock Commission said that it expects the number of slaughterhouses to fall from 670 to possibly fewer than 350. That is extremely serious.
Why do we face that situation? Several factors are involved. First is the question of grants. Why is it that in Belgium, France and parts of Germany grants are available to small slaughterhouses to make the structural changes required by the directive, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has not made those grants available to small British abattoirs? I expect to hear a clear statement on that from the Minister this evening.
The second factor is derogation. Eighty derogations have been approved so far for the United Kingdom, and

537
512 have been applied for. I may be very simple, but it seems to me that the majority want to stay in business. The Government are asking for structural plans and for three-year business plans so that small abattoirs show that they want to stay in business for the full three years. In the present economic climate, what business in the United Kingdom can give an absolute guarantee that it will be in business in three years' time? Does not the Minister think that that is an unrealistic question in this year?
The third question is animal transport. I have had many submissions on that subject from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other interested groups. If we lose small slaughterhouses, animals will have to be transported over ever greater distances to be slaughtered. That cannot be in the interests of animal welfare, which is extremely important to many of my constituents and to those of many of the hon. Members remaining in the Chamber.
An additional welfare question concerns casualty stock. At present, an animal can be taken to the closest abattoir. Under the changes, if small abattoirs go out of business, animals will either be transported over a greater distance or, if there is a spare vet—which will be unlikely—they could be shot on the spot and then taken. It is far more likely that they will be taken to the knacker's yard and used for pet food, with a subsequent loss of income to our hard-pressed farmers; that cannot be in the interests of the farming community.
On top of all that, there is the issue of competition. If there is a reduction in the number of small slaughterhouses, there will be far less competition in the sector and far more price fixing. Therefore, smaller farmers in the south-west will find it far more difficult to obtain the sort of economic deal that they require to make their businesses viable. Competition lies at the heart of the Government's policy, and we must be willing to maintain it at all costs.
What about those with small numbers of stock who wish to take three or four animals per week to slaughter? Will they be dealt with by the large slaughterhouses which have contracts with Tesco or Sainsbury? No, they will not—such slaughterhouses are designed for a steady throughput, and it would be uneconomic to put only a few animals through. Therefore, there will be more farmyard slaughter which will not improve animals' welfare or hygiene in the food chain. It will go against all the standards that we rightly set out to maintain.
Conservative Members are not complaining about the directive. We are not talking about the implications for public health or food hygiene—we are right behind all those aims, as every right-minded citizen should be. We want the Government to take a sympathetic attitude to the implementation of the directive.
As if all those problems were not enough to bear, new veterinary charges have been imposed on our small slaughterhouses. Having escaped the knife of Europe, it now seems that they are to be sacrificed on the high altar of domestic bureaucracy. They are being asked to stomach charges when vets come to make ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections in addition to the existing meat inspections, although meat inspectors have many years of experience and have never been shown to be inadequate. That creates a monopoly for vets whereby they can charge the small abattoirs not only £41 per hour as at present—in the poultry sector the charges are already £48 per hour or more—but a standing charge for appearing, unsocial hour charges and travel-to-work expenses.
538
Baker's slaughterhouse in Nailsea in my constituency has estimated that those charges alone, irrespective of the structural changes that it will have to make, will impose additional costs on it of £40,000 to £45,000 per year. That is inconsistent with the survival of many slaughterhouses in the south-west of this country.
Quite rightly, much anxiety has been expressed in the House today about the loss of jobs throughout the country—possibly 8,000, with the closure of 10 pits. In the south-west, there could be job losses of 1,000 to 1,500 from the closure of the small slaughterhouses alone. There is no beating of breasts about it; Opposition Members are not screaming about it. My small farmers who might go out of business are not being offered £37,000. I want to know why.
Today we are looking for flexibility. I accept that we need decent health and public hygiene regulations for our slaughterhouses, but will the Minister consider a possible compromise? While we accept that, for the sake of public confidence, we must maintain veterinary inspection in our small slaughterhouses, why does it have to be all day and every day that they are slaughtering? Why cannot there be as—for sheep dipping—regular inspections of which the houses are given warning so that they are encouraged to keep up their standards, without the penal levels of funding otherwise required?
Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend emphasise a point that I think he has missed—that the slaughterhouse is essential for the community of the town? If it is taken away, one begins to destroy part of the agricultural base of many communities and towns in the south-west. It is imperative for my hon. Friend the Minister to understand that.
Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. All too often in the House we measure everything in pounds, shillings and pence—if I may say that in this communautaire age. We are talking about the quality of life in a rural community. People should be able to go to their local butcher and get the cuts of meat they want, and not have to go to the nearest Tesco or Sainsbury for it. The quality of life in rural areas is being put at risk by the attempt to impose, by means of a centralised European directive, a certain solution across the whole Community which takes no account of regional variations.
Mr. David Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the Opposition Front Bench is not manned for this debate and that only one Labour Member—and from an urban constituency—is here?
Does my hon. Friend further agree that, although we may implement the conditions of the regulations, we know full well that people on the other side of the channel, especially in Spain and France, will not do so? Is not that diabolical? If the far west of Cornwall loses its abattoirs, that will mean immeasurable suffering for animals and for rural communities.
Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The only surprising aspect of his intervention was his surprise that no one is on the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition have no interest in rural issues, yet they are the very people who make the biggest fuss about the environment and social issues. They have no interest in what happens outside towns. It is a symptom of the increasing

539
urbanisation of our politics that the Opposition show not the slightest interest in an issue that affects large parts of the United Kingdom.
What is happening in the rest of Europe is certainly important. My plea to the Minister is: whatever directives are implemented in the United Kingdom, will the Government ensure that they are equally implemented in the rest of Europe? The farming sector is sick and tired of being made to follow one set of directives in the United Kingdom, fully policed, while different practices are followed in the rest of the Community, inadequately policed. Surely it is not too much to ask for fairness.
This week I have received many letters from constituents on this issue. One of them said to me, "Please ask the Minister for fairness and flexibility. If we are not given them, there will be no slaughterhouses left in this constituency." Then the south-west will lose more than its small slaughterhouses; we will have lost part of our community and our quality of life—and that is too much for us to bear.
10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on securing such an important debate about a matter dear to the heart of Ministers. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) says, extraordinary that the Labour party should not even field a Front-Bench spokesman for so important a debate. And only one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has always taken a close interest in rural affairs, is present.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is seized of the real importance and difficulty of this matter and of the crucial importance that it represents to the farming communities of all my hon. Friends who have stayed behind tonight. My hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), for Westbury (Mr. Faber), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robertson), for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall), and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), have all drawn my attention to the important contribution which the slaughterhouse industry makes to the local economy and to the needs of farmers, and to the need to ensure that these necessary new regulations are introduced sensibly and sensitively.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister acknowledge that my colleagues from the south-west have also made representations to him? In the absence of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, may I say that we welcome the determination of the Minister and his colleagues, while in the European Community driving seat, to ensure not only that the details of the regulations are fair but also their enforcement? We look for action and results by the end of the year.
Mr. Soames: I freely acknowledge the presence of a large number of Liberal Members who, representing rural seats, take a close interest in these matters. Many of them have written to me, and, I hope, have received prompt replies.
540
I shall set the new legislation in context. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has said, there has been a steady decline in slaughterhouse numbers in Great Britain over the past 20 years. In 1972, there were 1,890 red meat slaughterhouses. In 1982 there were only 1,062, already a substantial fall, and we now expect licence applications from just under 600 in 1992. They have closed as consumers have demanded better quality and more hygienically produced meat. That is because of consumers' growing preference for one-stop shopping, with all that that implies—many of them not necessarily for the better. Therefore, with or without these new rules, the number of slaughterhouses would continue to decline.
About half the meat produced in this country already comes from slaughterhouses which comply with European Community standards. In preparation for the single market, the Commission published in 1990 a package of proposals extending the scope of the long-standing EC hygiene directives to cover all meat production, and not just that intended for intra-Community trade. The new red meat directive has been implemented in Great Britain by the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 which were laid before the House on 10 September.
In drafting these rules, we had full and close consultation with the industry which, having suffered for years from the cumulative effects of various food scares and highly alarmist media coverage, recognised the need to make sure that the highest possible standards are operated at all stages of the production chain, from the farm, right through to the retail shop. The Government for their part took the view that implementation of the single market rules offered the opportunity to ensure that, against the background of the continuing rationalisation of the industry, those slaughterhouses which survived were the ones which were willing to invest in maintaining the best possible level of hygiene.
Consumers increasingly demand that the meat that they buy comes from animals which have been reared in accordance with good sound husbandry and welfare practices. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the brilliant characteristics of this country's husbandry will be an immense advantage to our farmers in securing further export markets.
Consumers wish to be sure that animals have been slaughtered humanely and in hygienic conditions.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Joseph Morris of South Kilworth in my constituency has the strong backing of innumerable consumers who enjoy his product and wish to continue to buy it. Unfortunately, he cannot afford to employ a vet full time. Could my hon. Friend the Minister look into that? Mr. Morris, who is a slaughterman, will be put out of business by the new regulations.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that case to my attention. If he writes to me, I shall look into the matter in detail. I shall speak about official vets later.
For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government have fully supported the principle of a common hygiene standard throughout the European Community. As my hon. Friends know, the public are now exposed to far more information than in the past—and unfortunately misinformation, as those of us who sat through the Opposition day motion on BSE before the summer recess know. We witnessed the serious damage that Labour's

541
allegations caused to the beef industry in this country. Unfortunately, people are exposed to more misinformation by ill-informed sensation-seeking media about food and its risks and benefits than they were 10 or 20 years ago. As a result, they are much more interested in and critical of the practices involved in food production.
The time has come to do away with the distinction between meat produced for the EC export market and meat produced for home consumption. The new regulations replace nearly all existing British legislation on red meat hygiene. They come into operation on 1 January 1993 when all slaughterhouses, cutting premises and cold stores will need a current licence from the relevant territorial agricultural department.
Dr. Fox: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Soames: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. I must get on.
The regulations should come as no surprise to anyone, in view of the high degree of consultation that has taken place. Last year we circulated more than 10,000 copies of an information pack describing exactly what was required post-1992. They made it plain that the fresh meat regulations apply to all slaughterhouses and to wholesale premises where red meat is cut up or stored. Premises that supply the final consumer directly—for example, butchers' shops—are exempt.
Dr. Fox: I follow my hon. Friend's argument about exporting meat, but what are the domestic reasons in terms of health hygiene? We have an excellent record of meat inspection. For example, many of our animals are inspected at livestock markets before going to slaughter. Why are our domestic farmers being penalised? I fail to understand why extra precautions are being introduced when there has not been a hygiene failure in the market.
Mr. Soames: I shall come to that, if my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument.
The hygiene requirements of the regulations merely reflect the good hygiene practices which have been embodied in our legislation for some time and which domestic slaughterhouses should have been following in any event. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept, however, that there is, in some plants, clear and irrefutable evidence of a need to achieve real improvements in day-to-day hygiene if the plants are to remain in business.
There are some new structural requirements in the rules. They are all designed to ensure that meat is protected from contamination during the production process. However, we negotiated for extra time to be made available after 1992 for businesses that are committed to achieving the new structural standards but are unable to do so before the regulations come into force. Over 1,600 businesses in England and Wales, including over 500 slaughterhouses, have indicated that they wish to upgrade. Our field staff are working closely with them to agree what needs to be done.
We are being as flexible as we possibly can—I ask my hon. Friends to accept that that is the position—in the advice that we are giving. The local Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinarian and the plant operators are working together to find the best solutions to problems within the context of the regulations. Where my
542
hon. Friends find that there are problems in this context, I shall be grateful if they will get in touch with me. If they do so, I shall have the matter thoroughly investigated.
There are less onerous structural requirements for slaughterhouses which slaughter less than 12 livestock units a week for supply to the home market. There are no derogations from the hygiene requirements, and all premises, in order to be licensed, will need to comply with the requirements from 1 January 1993. We are conscious of the need to maintain a sense of balance where premises need extra time to make structural changes, and we are looking for sensible short-term expedients to protect hygiene that will not soak up the funds that are needed for major works.
I accept that, because of past under-investment, the regulations will require many red meat plants previously operating only in the domestic market to incur considerable expenditure on upgrading their premises. On the other hand, many operators have already invested considerable sums of their own money in bringing their premises up to European Community standards. They are understandably concerned that their competitors should also have to improve their premises. They are already aggrieved that those same competitors may be given up to three years after 1992 in which to do it.
The House would not expect me to go into any confidential details of the individual premises that we are intending to license. I can give the assurance, however, that, if any premises close as a result of the introduction of the fresh meat regulations, it will be because they cannot meet the required hygiene standards or they have made a commercial decision not to invest in the requisite structural upgrading.
Everyone in the industry recognises that there is over-capacity in the British slaughterhouse sector. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that those who are prepared to achieve the best meat production and hygiene standards should be the ones that survive. In my view, that is only right and proper.
When we consulted publicly on the fresh meat regulations, it was clear from the responses that we received that there was considerable concern about the extension of veterinary supervision to the domestic meat market. I know that it is a matter that concerns many hon. Members who are now in their places. It is a controversial requirement in the United Kingdom, but in most other member states veterinary supervision of meat and animal products for public health purposes has always been the norm even for meat sold on the domestic market.
We fully support the principle of veterinary supervision at the slaughterhouse and, in particular, the requirement that an official veterinary surgeon should inspect every animal, ante-mortem, to detect animals which may be suffering from conditions liable to render the carcase of the animal unfit for human consumption. Veterinary surgeons receive training that uniquely equips them to detect these problems and to give expert assessment of animal welfare in the lairage.
We appreciated from the start that the directive's requirements on supervision would have significant implications for plant operators who will have to meet the increased costs of the inspection regime. We are aware that that was borne out by the responses to our public consultation exercise and by the letters that we have received from hon. Members.

543
In our guidance to local authorities on how to implement the regulations, we have sought to give them as much flexibility as we can. It will be for the local authorities to decide what the most cost-effective arrangements will be in their particular circumstances. We have drafted the guidance in such a way that, for example, a veterinarian based at a large slaughterhouse might also be able to supervise one or two smaller premises in the area. I would urge local authorities to take full advantage of the flexibility that we have made available to maximise the use of all available staff, including the meat inspectors who play a very valuable role in ensuring the safety of our food.
Local authorities should consider whether they can co-operate over the provision of official veterinary surgeon services and to see whether some change to the hours of slaughter in slaughterhouses in their area would help to make best use of OVS staff and minimise the cost to the operators. On this point, of course, the slaughterhouses themselves have a significant role to play.
What we cannot do is regulate the individual contracts between the OVS and the local authority. I know that there is some concern about these charges but they are a matter for local negotiation and will, inevitably, be subject to the operation of market forces.
I do not believe it would be in the interests of our meat industry to exclude any slaughterhouse from the requirement for veterinary supervision. That would be contrary both to the European legislation and to the interest of consumers. There is a real danger that other
544
member states could challenge lax controls or use them as an excuse not to allow imports of our beef. Furthermore, they would introduce an element of distortion between slaughterhouses in the same area, and I think that my hon. Friends would agree that it is hardly likely that we will get a level playing field in Europe if we cannot even establish a level playing field in the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that we shall be sensible and flexible in our interpretation and application of the new regulations. I recognise that it is not easy for businesses to finance major structural improvements at present. We will do all that we can to be sensitive to firms that are genuinely committed to reaching the new standards, but we cannot and will not ignore bad hygiene practices.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other points in connection with the travelling of animals, grants and casualty slaughter and, because of the time constraints, I will, if I may, write to him in detail about those points.
If premises close, it will be either because they cannot or will not improve their hygiene standards or because they have taken the commercial decision not to invest in the future of their business. At the end of the day, I have no doubt that the British consumer will continue to enjoy the best meat in the world, prepared in premises that will be the equal of anything in Europe. I want to assure my hon. Friend that we take seriously the extremely important matter that he has raised tonight and we will ensure, to the best of our ability, that no one will be disadvantaged.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Water Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the standard costs of mains water and sewerage installation in the constituency of South Down from 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1992;

  (2) what are the current standard costs of mains water and sewerage installation in respect of domestic properties in the constituency of South Down.

  Mr. Atkins
  The tables show the Department of the Environment's tariffs for connections to public water mains and sewers from 1980 to 1992. The tariffs are the same for all areas of Northern Ireland and cover the cost of time taken and fittings supplied by the Department for the connection between the two pipes.

  Since 1988, where the connecting pipe to a water main is over 25 mm in diameter or, in the case of a sewer over 150 mm in diameter, the charge levied is the actual cost to the Department in carrying out the connection.

  Connection to Water Main

  Connection to Sewer

  Year

  15mm diameter pipe

  22mm diameter pipe

  28mm diameter pipe

  100mm diameter pipe

  150mm diameter pipe

  1980

  38

  42.00

  49

  21.00

  28

  1981

  42

  46.00

  50

  24.00

  32

  1982

  42

  46.00

  50

  26.00

  35

  1983

  42

  46.00

  50

  26.00

  35

  1984

  38

  42.00

  45

  29.00

  38

  1985

  42

  46.00

  50

  36.00

  48

  1986

  50

  55.00

  60

  38.00

  50

  1987

  52

  58.00

  63

  42.00

  55

  Pipe not exceeding 25mm diameter

  Pipe not exceeding 150mm diameter

  1988

  70.00

  55.00

  1989

  77.50

  66.50

  1990

  83.50

  67.50

  1991

  95.00

  85.00

  1992

  105.00

  90.00

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the numbers of patients waiting for out-patient treatment on 31 March for each individual health authority(a) in total and (b) by main speciality for periods (i) under 12 months, (ii) 12 to 24 months and (iii) over 24 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on waiting times for first out-patients appointments is not held centrally.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the numbers of patients 290
  waiting for in-patient treatment on 31 March for each individual health authority (a) in total and (b) by main specialty for periods (i) under 12 months, (ii) 12 to 24 months and (iii) over 24 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  (a) Total of patients waiting for in-patient treatment in each Health and Social Services Board area at 31 March 1992

  Board

  Number

  Eastern

  18,922

  Northern

  2,113

  Southern

  1,627

  Western

  3,905

  (b) Patients waiting for in-patient treatment in main specialties by months waiting at 31 March 1992

  Main specialty

  0–11 months

  12–23 months

  24+ months

  Eastern Board

  General Surgery

  2,001

  317

  601

  Urology

  672

  267

  376

  Trauma &Orthopaedic

  2,354

  555

  22

  ENT

  1,720

  102

  21

  Opthalmology

  2,721

  694

  224

  Oral Surgery

  285

  75

  7

  Plastic Surgery

  874

  249

  572

  Gynaecology

  1,434

  17

  3

  Other

  1,723

  443

  593

  Northern Board

  General Surgery

  681

  18

  4

  ENT

  657

  296

  8

  Gynaecology

  442

  5

  —

  Other

  2

  —

  —

  Southern Board

  General Surgery

  606

  13

  —

  ENT

  675

  4

  —

  Gynaecology

  312

  2

  —

  Other

  15

  —

  —

  Western Board

  General Surgery

  451

  83

  236

  Trauma & Orthopaedic

  359

  158

  159

  ENT

  986

  4

  —

  Opthalmology

  654

  122

  25

  Oral Surgery

  252

  —

  —

  Gynaecology

  412

  —

  —

  Other

  4

  —

  —

  Housing
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the number of Housing Executive properties(a) demolished and (b) replaced in each of the Province's local authority catchment areas for each year since and including 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information which is readily available is as follows:
  291

  Housing executive properties demolished

  District Council Area

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Antrim

  36

  —

  6

  323

  13

  Ards

  110

  14

  —

  50

  45

  Armagh

  1

  2

  24

  10

  3

  Ballymena

  —

  —

  5

  13

  29

  Ballymoney

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  14

  36

  21

  41

  2

  Belfast

  1,372

  1,321

  911

  734

  645

  Carrickfergus

  5

  34

  1

  —

  6

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Coleraine

  16

  6

  3

  2

  8

  Cookstown

  2

  3

  —

  —

  17

  Craigavon

  314

  117

  139

  145

  16

  Derry

  93

  38

  123

  52

  14

  Down

  4

  10

  10

  32

  1

  Dungannon

  6

  5

  13

  2

  10

  Fermanagh

  54

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  14

  1

  —

  4

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lisburn

  1

  7

  2

  2

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  4

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Newry and Mourne

  45

  60

  61

  31

  8

  Newtownabbey

  27

  3

  43

  16

  95

  North Down

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  4

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  —

  1

  19

  7

  13

  Note (1) The total number of Housing Executive properties demolished from 1982–83 to 1986–87 was 12,239; information on demolitions by Council area did not become available until 1987 when the executive's database was computerised.

  (2) Information prior to 1982–83 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Executive Properties Replaced

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Antrim

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ards

  81

  19

  44

  38

  40

  28

  —

  32

  11

  —

  61

  31

  61

  Armagh

  30

  9

  6

  30

  20

  22

  8

  19

  29

  5

  12

  31

  —

  Ballymena

  49

  63

  20

  41

  30

  4

  18

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballymoney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Banbridge

  6

  4

  17

  13

  3

  12

  —

  31

  17

  17

  32

  18

  30

  Belfast

  280

  704

  926

  1,740

  1,455

  1,276

  1,385

  936

  952

  754

  726

  591

  370

  Carrickfergus

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  9

  —

  —

  —

  18

  26

  —

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  14

  —

  —

  Coleraine

  —

  10

  14

  —

  34

  26

  —

  22

  8

  6

  —

  5

  2

  Cookstown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Craigavon

  79

  —

  22

  69

  21

  16

  39

  2

  40

  —

  24

  14

  32

  Derry

  90

  31

  47

  70

  95

  44

  37

  18

  61

  95

  24

  27

  —

  Down

  17

  47

  4

  41

  30

  32

  8

  31

  —

  16

  —

  14

  8

  Dungannon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  28

  15

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  —

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  52

  —

  —

  92

  44

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  13

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Moyle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  9

  1

  Newry and Mourne

  36

  6

  —

  74

  49

  7

  51

  5

  17

  67

  78

  30

  8

  Newtownabbey

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Omagh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  4

  6

  —

  Strabane

  19

  27

  19

  7

  12

  31

  31

  5

  17

  14

  4

  6

  2

  Note (1) This does not cover the Housing Executive's total new build programme but relates mainly to the replacement of dwellings in redevelopment areas and of unfit dwellings in housing action areas. It also includes replacement dwellings for the demolition of obsolete purpose-built stock such as Orlit dwellings, aluminium bungalows and rural cottages.

  Anaesthetists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by regional health board the current establishment requirement for anaesthetists; and what is the number in post.

  Mr. Hanley
  No establishment requirement figure is set by the Department. The table gives the number of consultant anaesthetists, expressed in the form of 292
  "whole-time equivalent", for each health and social services board as at 30 June 1992, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Health and Social Services Board

  Consultant Anaesthetists

  Eastern

  59.68

  Northern

  11.00

  Southern

  13.00

  Western

  13.00

  Newtownbreda Bomb
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes were damaged as a result of the terrorist bomb explosion at Newtownbreda on Wednesday 23 September; which public services were present in Belvoir estate on Thursday 24 September to assist those who had suffered damages; what arrangements have been made to either rehouse house owners or repair the homes of house owners; and if he will arrange for immediate interim compensation payments to those who have experienced loss as a result of this bomb.

  Mr. Atkins
  The number of homes damaged at Newtownbreda is estimated to be 1,002 of which approximately 10 per cent. were seriously damaged, 40 per cent. were moderately damaged and 50 per cent. suffered minor damage.

  Officials from the following public services were present on 24 September:

  1. The Compensation Agency

  2. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  3. The Social Security Agency

  4. The Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  5. The South-Eastern Education and Library Board

  6. The Royal Ulster Constabulary

  7. Castlereagh Borough Council

  8. Northern Ireland Fire Authority

  9. The Department of the Environment.

  In addition, 500 meals were provided by Purdysburn and Belvoir Park hospitals on 24 September.

  Twenty-four houseowners were rendered homeless as a result of the explosion; three of these have been found temporary accommodation in the Belvoir/Cregagh area, and 11 have been allocated mobile homes sited in the area until such times as the repairs to their own homes are completed. The remaining houseowners have made their own arrangements. Eighteen families in Housing Executive properties were similarly affected and have either made their own arrangements or been found alternative accommodation by the executive.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive carried out first-aid repairs to approximately 300 owner-occupied houses and to 574 of its own houses. The executive is currently carrying out permanent repairs to its own houses and estimates that all its houses will have been repaired by Christmas. In addition, the executive has been authorised to carry out permanent repairs to private houses, under the special arrangements announced by the Secretary of State, if requested by the owners.

  Following the explosion, the Compensation Agency had an incident team of eight people together with a team of 18 loss adjusters working on site by midday on 24 September. The agency has manned an information point in Belvoir activity centre until 15 October and loss adjusters remain on site to assist the public in furthering their claims. As at 14 October 890 notifications to claim compensation have been received and the agency has advanced £30,714 as interim payments. Everything possible continues to be done to ensure that interim payments are made speedily to those in need.

  Eye Operations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been on the waiting list for eye operations at the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast in each of the past five years.
  294
  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of persons waiting for in-patient treatment in ophthalmology at the Royal Victoria hospital in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Position at 31 March

  Numbers Waiting

  1988

  1,610

  1989

  2,572

  1990

  3,083

  1991

  3,752

  1992

  3,639

  Exact numbers waiting for eye operations are not available.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Servants' Shareholdings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance, other than the civil service pay and conditions of service code and the establishment officers' guide, his Department provides relating to civil servants' shareholdings; if he will list the number of occasions within the past five years on which civil servants have reported shareholdings to establishment officers in his Department; what regulations apply to the staff of the next steps agencies within his Department; what mechanisms are in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's guidance is contained in the departmental personnel management manual which is based on the code and guide. There have been no reports of shareholdings to establishment officers in the last five years.

  The code and guide regulations apply to the next steps agencies as to the rest of the Department.

  The personnel management manual and next steps agency regulations require all staff to consult personnel if a shareholding might raise a question of possible conflict.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Investment
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing state investment in national railway networks in each of the 12 Community countries in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Traffic Accidents
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the past five years the numbers of people(a) killed and (b) sustaining serious injury, where excessive vehicle speed has been a contributory factor; and if he will provide a breakdown of those figures according to the number of incidents involving motor cycles and each other convenient type of vehicle.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This information is not collected by the Department, but we estimate that about one third of all serious accidents are caused by excessive speed.

  Environmental Protection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the initiatives relating to environmental protection taken by his Department since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; and what further proposals he plans for 1992–93.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Speed limiters for new heavy goods vehicles were introduced on 1 August. Certain existing vehicles over 16 tonnes will be required to have speed limiters from 1 August 1993. These measures will improve fuel consumption and reduce emissions.

  On 1 September a metered smoke test was introduced into the annual roadworthiness test for heavy goods vehicles. A similar test will be introduced for diesel engined cars and light vans from 1 January 1993.

  From the end of this year most new cars will require catalytic converters to meet tighter EC emissions standards. The United Kingdom Government continue to press for even tighter emissions and noise standards for vehicles and to discuss with other member states and the Commission measures to improve the fuel efficiency of new cars.

  We are working on a number of other initiatives for 1992–93, including the publication of an updated manual of environmental appraisal. The White Paper "This Common Inheritance—The Second Year Report" gives further information about our work to reduce the impact of transport on the environment.

  Bus Deregulation
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult on the consequences of bus deregulation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am reviewing the operation of bus deregulation to see whether some minor modifications to the system might be appropriate. A consultation paper will be issued in due course.

  Leicester Roads
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the origin/destination surveys were carried out on the A47, A6 and A46 on vehicles approaching Leicester; what were the results; and if further surveys will be carried out at a later date.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The most recent origin and destination surveys on the A47, A6 and A46 were carried out in 1988. The surveys showed that through journeys on each of these routes were relatively low. Further surveys will be carried out.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Citizens Charter)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the citizen's charter applies to the rights of prisoners and, in particular, their dietary requirements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. The principles of the citizen's charter fully extend to all those held in custody. A code of standards will be published by the end of 1993 and will include a range of standards relating to dietary requirements.

  Muslim Prisoners
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances any prisoner who is a Muslim is entitled to have halal meat at any meal; what alternatives are available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) for what reasons Muslim prisoners at Armley prison cannot obtain halal meat at weekday meals; what plans exist to change this situation; and whether the current instruction is consistent with the prison dietary scale.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Prison service standing orders provide that prisoners are entitled to a diet which accords with the requirements of their religion as agreed between a relevant religious body and prison service headquarters. The directory and guide on religious practices in the prison service sets out the permitted observances and facilities for Muslim prisoners, as agreed with the Islamic Cultural Centre. This provides that prison establishments should seek to provide halal meat on a number of days each week. Where halal meat is not available and other meat is not acceptable, a vegetarian diet should be provided. The arrangements at Her Majesty's prison, Leeds accord with these requirements. Halal meat is provided at the weekends; otherwise a vegetarian diet is available in accordance with the dietary scales.

  British National Party
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 497, if he will make available in the Library copies of those documents seized by the Metropolitan police from the headquarters of the British National party.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The documents which were seized by the Metropolitan police are with the police at Bexleyheath awaiting collection by the British National party.

  The documents consist of samples of a large number of different British National party publications which are available from the British National party bookshop. The Home Office has no copies of the documents to make available to the Library.

  Carl Bridgewater
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the Carl Bridgewater convictions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  This complex case is being considered with every care and expedition and I hope to be in a position to reach a decision soon.

  Racially Inflammatory Publications
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to increase its effectiveness in dealing with racially inflammatory publications.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government deplore any actions and publications which are likely or intended to stir up racial hatred. We believe that part III of the Public Order Act 1986 has played an important part in deterring them,
  297
  but it is for the police and prosecuting authorities to decide whether proceedings should be taken in any particular case. We shall continue to keep the legislation and its operation under review, but we have no present plans for amending it.

  Fire Brigades (Fleet Maintenance)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining the procedures to he followed in the event of a company which had gained a tender for the fleet management of fire brigade vehicles subsequently getting into financial difficulties and having its assets seized while still maintaining the tender.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Compulsory competitive tendering for maintaining fire brigade vehicles remains under review, but there are no plans to require tendering for fleet management.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received concerning the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering in the fire service; and how many of these representations have called for the upkeep of fire engines to be made exempt from compulsory tendering arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  With the exception of Hertfordshire fire authority, all fire authorities and other fire service representative bodies in England and Wales have expressed opposition to compulsory competitive tendering for the maintenance of their vehicle fleets.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the direct fleet maintenance costs for fire brigade vehicles in each fire brigade authority in Wales; and if he will outline the comparable direct costs for each fire brigade authority area which has put tenders out to external companies in England.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about costs of brigade vehicle fleet maintenance is not available centrally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the fire brigades in Wales which are currently able to identify unit costs throughout their fleet management organisations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the eight brigades in Wales, four are currently able to identify their brigade vehicle fleet unit costs, one will have identifiable costs by April 1993 and three are within their local authority costing schemes.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff employed by his Department currently specialise on electoral issues: of those staff members how many are responsible for accessibility to the electoral process for disabled people; and what plans he has to increase staff numbers in this area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are currently four members of staff who spend all or most of their time on electoral matters. All include voting rights for disabled people among their responsibilities. There are no plans to increase staffing levels.
  298
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to undertake regular consultation with representative groups and organisations concerning the accessibility of the electoral process for disabled people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We already consult some groups representing disabled people on matters in which they have an interest. We would welcome an approach from any others who wish to bring their particular concerns to our attention, or to offer their special expertise.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to conduct sample surveys on the accessibility of polling stations before, during and after each round of local, general and European elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. Sample surveys would not be an effective use of our resources in this area, which are better directed to providing financial support. It is our long-term aim to have all polling stations capable of easy access by disabled electors, and we issue regular reminders to district and London borough councils of their obligation to designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, only places which are accessible to the disabled.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to review the implementation of schedule 4 to the amended Representation of the People Act 1985, concerning the accessibility of polling stations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We keep all electoral law and practice under regular review. We are currently undertaking a comprehensive review in the light of experience at the general election in April.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made in implementing the recommendations of the Woolf report on remand prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Progress has been as follows:

  (a) The assisted prison visits scheme was extended from 1 April 1991 to apply to the families of unconvicted prisoners from the date of the prisoner's reception into custody.

  (b) Guidance on visits by relatives and friends of unconvicted prisoners on the lines recommended in the Woolf report was issued to governors in May 1991.

  (c) A statement of principle on unconvicted prisoners has been adopted, as announced on 15 July in the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) at column 783.

  (d) Bail information schemes are now in operation at 18 local prisons and remand centres and are under consideration at a similar number. The aim is to have schemes at all such establishments by 1995.

  (e) The particular needs of unconvicted prisoners are covered

  (i) in a model regime for local prisons and remand centres, which is about to be issued as a framework for planning enhanced regimes, and

  (ii) in guidance to be issued shortly on the management of reception and induction arrangements.

  299
  Action is in hand on other aspects of the Woolf report relating to unconvicted prisoners, as indicated in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice".

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department holds about the number of remand prisoners in the United Kingdom currently being held in the same cells as convicted prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the number of remand prisoners sharing cells with convicted prisoners is not collected centrally. The prison service seeks to keep unconvicted and convicted prisoners separate but the two classes of prisoner are held in the same wings, and occasionally even share cells, where the alternative would be to increase the overcrowding of part of the prisons or lead to prisoners being held in police cells. In particular, prisoners being segregated for their own protection may be mixed in this way because of limited accommodation.

  Murder Statistics
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period served in custody by those convicted for murder in the latest convenient

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments under an immediate custodial sentence by sex and previous convictions, 1987–90

  Number with previous convictions

  Sex and year of reception

  Total number of receptions

  Not recorded

  Recorded

  Percentage with 0 previous convictions as a percentage of total with previous convictions recorded

  Total

  0

  1 or more

  Males

  1987

  64,551

  16,370

  48,181

  2,923

  45,258

  6

  1988

  62,206

  18,369

  43,837

  3,948

  39,889

  9

  1989

  56,795

  21,637

  35,158

  3,363

  31,795

  10

  1990

  48,736

  21,723

  27,013

  3,579

  23,434

  13

  Females

  1987

  3,084

  1,236

  1,848

  313

  1,535

  17

  1988

  2,813

  1,058

  1,755

  377

  1,378

  21

  1989

  2,650

  1,347

  1,303

  288

  1,015

  22

  1990

  2,115

  1,090

  1,025

  162

  863

  16

  House Fires
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to reduce to risks of death or injury through fire in the home, in particular among elderly people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office provides multi-media publicity on fire safety in the home which is targeted at various age groups. Part of that material is specifically for the elderly age group and provides general guidance on fire prevention and fire safety in the home.

  The Home Office targeted its 1990–91 and 1991–92 national television advertising campaigns on smoke alarms primarily at elderly people and their carers. The elderly are the group most at risk from fire and among the least likely to purchase alarms. Fire brigades make the maximum use of the available material in their own localities.

  There is legislation in place in respect of residential care homes for elderly people which, among other things, makes provision for fire precautions. Such legislation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
  300
  period for which figures are available and in respect of whom there is no recommendation for a minimum period of detention.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to the records held centrally, which are approximate, the average time served under sentence in prison service establishments by murderers first released on licence in 1991 was 11.8 years. This figure excludes one prisoner who was the subject of a formal minimum recommendation under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) sex and (b) year for the last four years, the percentage of prisoners sentenced to prison who have had no previous convictions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available for 1991. Information for 1987 to 1990 is given in the table. This is based on figures published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales"—tables 3.11, 4.9 and 5.9 of the 1990 issue, Cm 1800.

  Escaped Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by(a) category, (b) sex and (c) length of time at large, the number of escaped prisoners that are currently on the run; and what are the corresponding figures for 12 months ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information relates to prisoners who escaped between 20 June 1988 and 31 August 1992. During this period 1,461 prisoners escaped from prison or prison custody. By 31 August 1992, 1,348 had been recaptured or returned to custody and three were known to be dead, leaving only 110 either at large or unaccounted for. The average time that the 1,348 who were recaptured spent at large was 29.5 days. Of the 110 still at large, 101 are male and nine female; two were remand prisoners provisionally regarded as category A; 10 category B; 53 category C; two category D; and 43 were not categorised, being either remand prisoners, convicted young offenders or women who were not category A or civil prisoners. Corresponding figures for 12 months ago are not available.

  Religious Discrimination
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to prevent religious discrimination in employment due to certain unavailability for work due to religious observation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commission for Racial Equality's second review of the Race Relations Act 1976, presented to the Government on 9 September, recommended that legislation against religious discrimination be given further consideration. We will be looking carefully at the recommendations contained in that review, but the Government have no plans at present to introduce such legislation.

  The Government believe that it is for employers to agree with employees arrangements for meeting religious needs. For example, employers might consider whether they can vary or adapt working patterns or facilities to help meet such needs. The Government encourage this voluntary approach, for example, through the guidance

  Total prisoner nights by police force, April to September 1992

  Police Force

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Avon and Somerset

  1,187

  1,208

  1,214

  1,288

  1,127

  746

  Bedfordshire

  651

  695

  658

  549

  199

  113

  Cambridgeshire

  537

  605

  575

  612

  331

  39

  Cheshire

  1,414

  1,213

  1,200

  1,237

  1,220

  1,075

  Cleveland

  886

  708

  140

  112

  17

  0

  Cumbria

  799

  750

  612

  666

  498

  349

  Derbyshire

  732

  414

  347

  723

  407

  454

  Devon and Cornwall

  607

  790

  596

  321

  414

  117

  Dorset

  95

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Durham

  867

  710

  405

  268

  266

  170

  Dyfed and Powys

  274

  573

  544

  482

  246

  40

  Essex

  546

  451

  998

  888

  39

  85

  Gloucestershire

  0

  129

  251

  232

  245

  260

  Greater Manchester

  7,581

  7,212

  7,213

  7,596

  7,101

  7,572

  Gwent

  583

  585

  561

  561

  301

  155

  Hampshire

  698

  431

  407

  431

  283

  394

  Hertfordshire

  607

  587

  648

  453

  0

  0

  Humberside

  994

  875

  810

  802

  673

  648

  Kent

  54

  11

  87

  0

  1

  158

  Lancashire

  3,111

  3,223

  2,205

  2,182

  1,988

  1,707

  Leicestershire

  854

  713

  609

  901

  794

  152

  Lincolnshire

  420

  313

  254

  218

  136

  0

  City of London

  6

  0

  0

  8

  136

  0

  Merseyside

  2,827

  2,476

  2,304

  2,656

  2,183

  2,382

  Metropolitan

  5,579

  4,421

  2,034

  3,771

  1,667

  1,499

  Norfolk

  532

  280

  0

  0

  136

  0

  North Wales

  406

  406

  364

  158

  393

  270

  North Yorkshire

  737

  639

  567

  579

  632

  380

  Northamptonshire

  727

  871

  751

  751

  342

  0

  Northambria

  2,780

  2,215

  1,688

  1,945

  2,224

  1,585

  Nottinghamshire

  992

  891

  704

  609

  475

  65

  South Wales

  1,590

  1,887

  1,596

  1,711

  983

  684

  South Yorkshire

  1,779

  1,571

  1,171

  908

  953

  325

  Staffordshire

  563

  443

  241

  375

  467

  341

  Suffolk

  488

  671

  702

  427

  100

  0

  Surrey

  416

  308

  365

  334

  499

  340

  Sussex

  53

  37

  136

  541

  808

  640

  Thames Valley

  1,162

  712

  751

  507

  314

  0

  Warwickshire

  315

  320

  265

  199

  136

  0

  West Mercia

  1,843

  1,704

  1,291

  1,243

  1,142

  1,041

  West Midlands

  1,431

  1,533

  1,266

  1,057

  996

  510

  West Yorkshire

  3,778

  4,026

  2,344

  2,056

  739

  712

  Wiltshire

  507

  583

  185

  253

  359

  304

  Payments made to police forces since 1 April 1992

  Police Force

  £ paid since 1 April 1992

  Paid up until

  Avon and Somerset

  1,897,490.34

  31 August 1992

  Bedfordshire

  515,263.68

  31 August 1992

  Cambridgeshire

  675,856.99

  31 July 1992

  302
  pack published recently by the Employment Department and entitled "Equal Opportunities—Ten Point Plan for Employers".

  Police Cells
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much his Department paid each police force for holding people in police cells in the first six months of the current financial year;

  (2) how many individual prisoners were held in police cells in each police authority area in England and Wales in each of the first six months of the current financial year who would normally be held in prison accommodation;

  (3) how many prisoner-nights in police cells were covered in each police force area in England and Wales on each of the first six months of the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the tables. Information on individual prisoners is not collected centrally.

  Police Force

  £ paid since 1 April 1992

  Paid up until

  Cheshire

  1,356,102.75

  30 June 1992

  Cleveland

  no payment

  —

  Cumbria

  453,438.42

  13 June 1992

  Derbyshire

  550,510.58

  31 July 1992

  303

  Police Force

  £ paid since 1 April 1992

  Paid up until

  Devon and Cornwall

  226,067.94

  31 May 1992

  Dorset

  no payment

  —

  Durham

  539,676.71

  31 July 1992

  Dyfed and Powys

  540,341.61

  15 June 1992

  Essex

  540,955.46

  31 July 1992

  Gloucestershire

  114,808.79

  30 June 1992

  Greater Manchester

  6,927,811.00

  26 July 1992

  Gwent

  642,142.94

  30 June 1992

  Hampshire

  no payment

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1,025,701.81

  29 July 1992

  Humberside

  824,690.81

  8 August 1992

  Kent

  no payment

  —

  Lancashire

  2,038,819.56

  30 June 1992

  Leicestershire

  1,135,458.70

  30 June 1992

  Lincolnshire

  no payment

  —

  City of London

  no payment

  —

  Merseyside

  741,494.56

  31 May 1992

  Metropolitan

  3,205,757.89

  21 June 1992

  Norfolk

  369,758.52

  26 May 1992

  North Wales

  236,042.28

  30 June 1992

  North Yorkshire

  no payment

  —

  Northamptonshire

  525,799.33

  30 June 1992

  Northumbria

  1,311,585.70

  24 May 1992

  Nottinghamshire

  519,602.00

  30 June 1992

  South Wales

  1,429,598.37

  31 July 1992

  Force

  Authorised establishment 1992–93

  Strength 31 March 19921

  Strength 31 July 1992

  Avon and Somerset

  3,087

  3,081

  3,061

  Bedfordshire

  1,178

  1,093

  1,107

  Cambridgeshire

  1,241

  1,250

  1,245

  Cheshire

  1,920

  1,874

  1,865

  Cleveland

  1,502

  1,477

  1,498

  Cumbria

  1,187

  1,179

  1,190

  Derbyshire

  1,850

  1,706

  1,768

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,928

  2,898

  2,901

  Dorset

  1,302

  1,289

  1,299

  Durham

  1,389

  1,389

  1,380

  Dyfed Powys

  969

  947

  963

  Essex

  2,950

  2,898

  2,920

  Gloucestershire

  1,184

  1,174

  1,174

  Greater Manchester

  7,077

  7,061

  7,064

  Gwent

  1,010

  1,009

  1,000

  Hampshire

  3,269

  3,211

  3,245

  Hertfordshire

  1,684

  1,695

  1,681

  Humberside

  2,034

  2,026

  2,029

  Kent

  23,136

  3,074

  3,080

  Lancashire

  3,229

  3,198

  3,198

  Leicestershire

  1,853

  1,845

  1,833

  Lincolnshire

  1,206

  1,196

  1,194

  Merseyside

  4,706

  4,621

  4,681

  Norfolk

  1,446

  1,414

  1,423

  Northamtonshire

  1,190

  1,158

  1,182

  Northumbria

  3,613

  3,464

  3,500

  North Wales

  1,369

  1,347

  1,354

  North Yorkshire

  1,418

  1,398

  1,398

  Nottinghamshire

  2,344

  2,331

  2,337

  South Wales

  3,168

  3,168

  3,158

  South Yorkshire

  3,031

  3,008

  3,011

  Staffordshire

  2,215

  2,176

  2,195

  Suffolk

  1,233

  1,218

  1,213

  Surrey

  1,673

  1,706

  1,700

  Sussex

  3,014

  2,984

  3,005

  Thames Valley

  3,812

  3,772

  3,839

  Warwickshire

  1,020

  990

  990

  West Mercia

  2,053

  2,034

  2,045

  West Midlands

  6,977

  6,941

  6,930

  West Yorkshire

  5,295

  5,087

  5,078

  Wiltshire

  1,181

  1,221

  1,230

  City of London

  798

  808

  798

  Metropolitan

  28,279

  28,381

  28,113

  TOTAL

  127,020

  125,797

  125,875

  304

  Police Force

  £ paid since 1 April 1992

  Paid up until

  South Yorkshire

  494,178.30

  30 April 1992

  Staffordshire

  no payment

  —

  Suffolk

  130,004.00

  17 May 1992

  Surrey

  294,330.48

  31 July 1992

  Sussex

  239,420.97

  31 August 1992

  Thames Valley

  601,228.47

  21 June 1992

  Warwickshire

  311,166.77

  30 June 1992

  West Mercia

  609,643.62

  6 June 1992

  West Midlands

  507,823.11

  17 May 1992

  West Yorkshire

  3,205,530.50

  28 August 1992

  Wiltshire

  no payment

  —

  Police Forces
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the authorised establishment figure for each police force in England and Wales for 1992–93; what was the actual strength on 1 April; and what was the actual strength on the last day for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  305
  1 Figures for I April are not available, 31 March has therefore been provided.

  2 Includes 40 posts with effect from 1 January 1993.

  Prisoners (Clothes)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether prisoners will be allowed to wear their own clothes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice, the Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales" announced that the Government aim progressively to allow convicted male prisoners to wear their own clothes if they wish; female prisoners and unconvicted male prisoners are already allowed to wear their own clothes. Prisoners at HMP Belmarsh have been allowed to wear their own clothes since the prison opened last year, and similar arrangements will apply at High Down and Woodhill prisons when they open this year. Formal trials are being set up in HMP Wellingborough and in Huntercombe and Finnamore Wood young offender institutions to assess the implications of a more general move towards prisoners wearing their own clothes.

  The White Paper also announced that the Prison Service would consider the scope for permitting prisoners to wear specified items of their own clothing, in particular, underwear, socks and shoes, in advance of extending the arrangements to prisoners' outerwear. Prisoners in category C and D establishments, including open young offender institutions, will, where adequate laundering or exchange arrangements can be made locally, be allowed to wear their own socks and underwear. Prisoners in these establishments will also he allowed to have one pair of their own shoes in addition to a prison issued pair.

  The scope for further relaxations will be considered in the light of the trials.

  Convictions (Safety)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further information he has received concerning the safety of the conviction of Sam Kulasingham and Prem Sivalingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: No information about the safety of these convictions has been received since I answered a question from the hon. Member on 8 June, at column 4. We will give further consideration to this matter as soon as we receive the report from the Essex police to which I then referred.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received into the safety of the conviction of Robert Maynard; if he proposes to refer the case to the Court of Appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Representations about the case have been received from solicitors acting for Mr. Maynard—and Mr. Dudley who was convicted with him—and from a number of individuals. As I explained in my reply to a question from the hon. Member on 19 October, at column 59, these representations and the material supplied in support of them are still being examined.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to help secure the release of the 800 individuals removed from Kuwait to Iraq in 1990 and still believed to be held by the Iraqi authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are maintaining pressure on Iraq to fulfil all its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions, including the return of Kuwaiti and other nationals still missing in Iraq.

  We fully support Kuwait's efforts through the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the whereabouts of its missing citizens, of whom some 800 are believed to be in Iraq.

  We raise this question at each Security Council review of sanctions and will continue to do so until Iraq meets its obligations.

  Lorry Blockade, France
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to seek compensation from the French Government for British businesses and tourists who suffered financial loss during the recent French lorry drivers' dispute.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  We made it clear to the French Government in July that British hauliers would be lodging claims for compensation with the French Government and that we supported these claims. Other countries acted similarly. Regrettably, the French Government have said that they do not intend to pay compensation, though they have not yet responded to all the claims submitted.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated cost to the United Kingdom of implementing title XII on trans-European networks proposed under the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply. The Maastricht treaty does not specify any particular level of expenditure for trans-European networks. The European Community's spending plans for the next few years are presently being considered on the basis of the Commission's proposal in document COM(92)2000; however, decisions have yet to be taken.

DEFENCE

  RAF Wattisham
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Wattisham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has been looking at possible defence uses for RAF Wattisham after the withdrawal of the Phantom force by mid-1993. I have
  307
  now decided that two regiments of the Army Air Corps should be based at Wattisham. There are currently two Army Air Corps regiments based in the United Kingdom, at Netheravon and Dishforth. Under "Options for Change", this will increase to four regiments on the redeployment of two of the three regiments currently based in Germany. RAF Wattisham has been identified as the most cost-effective option for an operational base for the two regiments returning from Germany and their support units. The units co-locating at RAF Wattisham will be 3 and 4 Regiments AAC, 71 Aircraft Workshops and 2 Aircraft Support Unit. In addition, two RAF search and rescue Sea King helicopters will move to Wattisham in 1994. It is too early to say what the detailed implications will be for the staff at RAF Wattisham. Full consultation will take place with the trades unions concerned in accordance with agreed procedures. There will also be some other rationalisation moves within United Kingdom: one squadron from 7 Regiment at Netheravon will join 9 Regiment at Dishforth and will be replaced by one of the three new TA flights being formed in 1993. The other two TA flights will be based at RAF Shawbury and RAF Turnhouse.

  RAF Search and Rescue
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions he has reached on the future basing structure of the RAF search and rescue force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have given careful consideration to the future deployment of the RAF SAR force in the light of the reduction in military flying flowing from the conclusions of "Britain's Defence for the Nineties" and the civil helicopter coverage criteria agreed by the helicopter coverage group in 1986. These proposals have been discussed with colleagues at the Department of Transport who have agreed my proposed way forward.

  The size of the RAF SAR helicopter force, which is funded from the defence budget, is based on the wartime requirement. Taking all the relevant factors into account I have confirmed that the RAF now requires an all Sea King SAR fleet of a minimum of 25 aircraft to meet the war requirement in the United Kingdom. The intention to order an additional six Sea Kings was announced by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the House on 19 February, Official Report, column 332.

  The RAF Sea King force makes an important contribution to the civil SAR services for which the Department of Transport and others are responsible. SA R helicopters are also provided by both the Royal Navy and Her Majesty's coastguard, through a contractor. All these elements combine to provide the Great Britain civil SAR helicopter service.

  In order to maximise the flexibility of response to SAR incidents in Great Britain, the practice of basing two aircraft at each flight to provide back-up will be continued. This approach allows flights to respond to concurrent incidents, and in the case of major rescues, to maintain area SAR cover while several SAR helicopters are deployed to assist. It also represents the most cost-effective means of providing area SAR cover. In accordance with the criteria agreed by the helicopter coverage group, during the day one helicopter will continue to be at 15 minutes notice and a second at 60 minutes notice at each
  308
  station. At night one helicopter will continue to be at 45 minutes notice. As at present, the very great majority of our territorial waters can be covered within this time scale.

  The new basing structure is based primarily, as now, on both the areas of high-intensity military flying and the established civil SAR criteria. The RAF assets will be deployed so far as possible to maximise the military contribution to the civil SAR response which is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. This will involve some new arrangements; a new SAR flight will be established at RAF Wattisham, while RAF Chivenor and Valley will benefit by upgrading of their flights with Sea Kings. RAF Leconfield, Lossiemouth and Boulmer will retain their Sea King flights. The flights at RAF Brawdy, Coltishall, Manston and Leuchars will be withdrawn or transferred. This deployment will ensure that the RAF continues to make virtually the same contribution to meeting the criteria laid down by the helicopter coverage group as at present. The flights at RAF Brawdy and Manston will not be withdrawn until April 1994 and mid-1994 respectively, shortly before the RNLI's planned deployment of new, more capable, fast all-weather boats to south-west Wales and Kent later that year.

  Complete details of the changes and an explanation of the reasoning behind them are set out in an open government document entitled "The Future Provision of RAF SAR Helicopters", copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  The move to an all Sea King SAR helicopter force represents a significant improvement by making this highly capable aircraft more widely available throughout Britain for civil and military missions. Without compromising its military effectiveness, the RAF has sought to deploy these assets in a way which maximises their effectiveness for civil and military SAR operations. The future force will therefore continue to make a very substantial contribution to civil SAR in and around Great Britain.

  My Department is also considering the future arrangements for the co-ordination of the military response to SAR incidents by means of the rescue co-ordination centres. Once I have reached my conclusions on this issue I shall inform the House.

  The Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport believe that with the military and the Department of Transport helicopters, the RNLI and HM coastguard a good SAR service will continue to be provided to meet the requirements of the civil community.

  Dismounted Public Duties
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of dismounted public duties was completed; and with what results.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  After consultation with the royal household, the Metropolitan police and other Departments, a number of measures have been identified which will reduce requirements for the employment of Foot Guards manpower on public duties while maintaining essential security and appropriate ceremonial. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to these measures and they will be implemented between now and 1994. A document providing the full details is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Airborne Warning and Communication System
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the defence contracts placed by United States purchasing authorities as part of the offset for the AWACS early warning contract placed with Boeing; what is the value of each contract and the total value; and to what extent this achieves the target for offsetting contracts agreed between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments.

  Mr. Aitken
  As I announced in the House on 20 May,Hansard, volume 208, column 190, Boeing has now met its obligation under its industrial participation agreement with my Department. The agreement required Boeing and its subcontractors to offer competitive bidding opportunities to British defence companies, and United States purchasing authorities were not parties to it. Details of individual contracts remain commercially confidential.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been treated and what amount has been spent under the home energy efficiency scheme in each network installer area in Scotland since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  The figures are as follows:

  Network installer area

  Homes treated

  Amount spent in £

  1 Borders/Lothian

  2,259

  240,635

  2 West Lothian/Edinburgh

  3,413

  385,948

  3 Dumfries/Strathclyde

  714

  97,330

  4 Strathclyde

  1,533

  279,655

  5 Strathclyde West

  4,157

  533,451

  6 Strathclyde East

  8,265

  772,086

  7 Strathclyde/Glasgow North

  4,392

  472,284

  8 Strathclyde/Glasgow East

  4,787

  539,975

  9 Strathclyde/Glasgow South

  1,224

  136,331

  10 Strathclyde Central

  1,939

  205,350

  11 Fife

  4,260

  468.691

  12 Tayside

  3,641

  379.517

  13 Grampian

  3,447

  378,435

  14 Grampian Highlands

  1,429

  157,025

  15 Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  16 Orkney Islands

  145

  31,085

  17 Western Islands

  —

  —

  Total

  45,605

  5,077,798

  The original area 14 was divided into four on 14 December 1991. No suitable bid for registration as a network installer for the Western Isles has since been received. A network installer was registered for Shetland islands in April this year.

  Housing (Pregnant Women)
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pregnant women were successfully prosecuted in 1991 for fraudulent attempts to gain priority status on housing waiting lists in the London borough of Camden.

  Mr. Baldry
  Such information is not held centrally.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of sites of special scientific interest in England and the number of these that have been(a) partially or (b) wholly damaged.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 October 1992]: At 31 March 1992, a total of 3,621 SSSIs had been notified in England under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The latest available information on damage to SSSIs is contained in the 17th and final report of the former Nature Conservancy Council, a copy of which is in the Library. Information in respect of the year ending 31 March 1992 is currently being gathered by English Nature and will be published in its first anniversary report to be presented to Parliament later in the year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what financial provisions, and how much, she has made within her Department in order to look at the potential for deregulation of each of the regulatory measures for which she has responsibility.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department has two central departmental deregulation units—DDUs—one for the Health and Safety Executive and one which deals with the rest of the Department. Staff costs for the DDUs, including economic support is estimated at £57,245.

  In addition, all staff in the Department are fully aware of the need to ensure that regulations should not impose unnecessary and costly burdens on businesses, causing damage to competitiveness and job prospects. Ensuring that proposals for new regulations are assessed thoroughly for the costs they will impose on businesses and reviewing existing regulations are an everyday part of the activities of policy sections.

HEALTH

  Cycling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department is carrying out or sponsoring into the health benefits of cycling.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The health benefits of safe physical activity are well established. The Allied Dunbar national fitness survey, published in June, includes comprehensive research data on the whole area of safe physical activity. The survey notes that cycling is a good aerobic exercise.

  The "Health of the Nation" White Paper commits the Government, in consultation with others, to develop physical activity strategies in the light of the survey results. Work on this is already taking place.

PRIME MINISTER

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total, to date, of the financial assistance given by Her Majesty's Government to fund the cost of maintaining
  311
  refugees from the former states of Yugoslavia; what is the total, to date, of financial assistance given by Her Majesty's Government to fund humanitarian relief in the former states of Yugoslavia; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for increasing the United Kingdom contribution.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: I announced yesterday an additional bilateral British contribution of £15 million in the light of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This brings Britain's total commitment of humanitarian aid for victims of the conflict in former Yugoslavia to over £70 million; of this, £29.5 million is bilateral aid and £41 million our share of European Community actions.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Currency Unit
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest ecu/sterling exchange rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  The market ecu: sterling exchange rate at the London close on 20 October was 1.2497 ecu per pound.

  Bank of England Governor
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates he met the Governor of the Bank of England during the period 12 to 18 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Throughout the period from 12 to 18 September I was in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England.

  Currency Intervention
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which spending programmes he estimates will be affected by the expenditure involved in currency intervention in the period 14 to 18 September.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The use of foreign currency reserves for intervention purposes involves an exchange of assets and is, therefore, not public expenditure.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reasons for the Government's practice of not revealing the amount of intervention, gains and losses arising from currency support to the United Kingdom Exchequer.

  Mr. Nelson
  It has been the long-standing convention of successive Governments not to reveal the extent of intervention. It would not be in the national interest to do so, because the information is market sensitive.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what privileges and immunities Her Majesty's Government have assessed to be necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European central bank in the territories of the member states under article 40 of the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on European central banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  The relevant privileges and immunities are set out in the protocol on the privileges and immunities of 312
  the European Communities annexed to the treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities—sometimes known as the merger treaty. This is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, No. 152, 13 July 1967, and reproduced in the full edition of "Treaties establishing the European Communities" published by the office for official publications of the European Communities. In addition, the protocol amending the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities annexed to the treaty on European union would exempt the European central bank from liability to tax on increases in its capital and from liability to turnover tax.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sanctions exist to ensure the compliance of national central banks with the instructions of the European central bank under article 14.3 of the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on European central banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  If the European central bank were to consider that a national central bank has failed to fulfil an obligation under the statute, it may bring the matter before the European Court of Justice under the procedure in article 35.6.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to article 15 of the protocol to the Maastricht treaty on European central banks, what(a) efforts have been made to ensure the harmonisation of national central banks' accounting practices and (b) what estimates have been made of the cost of article 15.4.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 26.4 of the protocol on the statute of the European system of central banks and of the European central bank—ECB—provides for the governing council of the ECB to establish the necessary rules for standardising the accounting and reporting of national central bank operations.

  It is not possible to estimate the cost to the ECB of issuing reports under article 15.4.

  Mr. Peter Clowes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 82, what is the current position of repayment made in respect of the court order for interim payment of damages of £6 million made on 13 April against Mr. and Mrs. Clowes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 21 September 1992 the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Clowes's appeal against the judgment of the court given on 18 March 1992. It also dismissed Mr. Clowes's appeal against the order of the court, made on 13 April 1992, for an interim payment of damages of £6 million.

  Currency Speculation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake an analysis of the impact of clearing banks not speculating against the pound but merely dealing for customers with genuine international trading requirements.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no plans to do so.
  313
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking against British banks which speculated against the pound in the period 14 to 17 September; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  It would not be appropriate to take any such steps. It is for banks and other financial institutions to make decisions about the deployment of funds within their control, subject to the framework of law within which they operate, including prudential regulations.

  Economists
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many economists are employed in the Treasury; and what is their total remuneration.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are currently 87 staff working as economists in the Treasury. Their total annual remuneration is about £2,500,000 based on current pay rates.

  Amounts invested

  Cost of income tax relief

  Total

  of which investment in private rented housing

  Total

  of which in respect of investment in private rented housing

  £ million

  amount (£ million)

  per cent.

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1983–84

  105

  —

  —

  50

  —

  1984–85

  148

  —

  —

  75

  —

  1985–86

  157

  —

  —

  85

  —

  1986–87

  169

  —

  —

  95

  —

  1987–88

  201

  —

  —

  120

  —

  1988–89

  421

  368

  87

  150

  130

  1989–901

  216

  162

  75

  75

  55

  1990–911

  323

  283

  88

  120

  105

  1991–921

  450

  420

  93

  160

  150

  1 Provisional estimates.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme in 1989–90 there were in(a) south-east England and (b) the United Kingdom; and what percentage these figures represent of (i) all privately rented property and (ii) all rented property.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional estimates for new lettings from investments under the business expansion scheme in 1989–90 are as follows:

  New tellings

  As a percentage of:

  Total number

  All privately rented property Per cent.

  All rented property Per cent.

  South-east England

  1,100

  0.20

  0.05

  United Kingdom

  3,100

  0.18

  0.04

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) total amount invested in the business expansion

  Companies receiving BES Investments

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Industry

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment

  £ million

  £ million

  Agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing

  23

  2

  7

  1

  Minerals, chemicals and manufacture of metals

  21

  2

  26

  1

  Mechanical engineering

  11

  2

  9

  —

  Electrical and electronic engineering

  25

  2

  14

  2

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) total amount invested in the business expansion scheme, (b) amount invested in private rented housing, (c) total cost of tax relief and (d) amount of tax relief in respect of investment in private rented housing for each year from 1987–88 to 1990–91; and for each year of the existence of the business expansion scheme what were the percentage and amounts of BES money invested in residential and assured tenancy schemes and associated revenue forgone by the Exchequer.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The business expansion scheme was extended to include investment in private rented housing in 1988–89. The latest estimates are as follows.

  scheme, what was (a) the regional distribution of BES funds and the associated cost to the Exchequer, (b) the distribution of BES investments by two-digit standard industrial classification and (c) the average size of investments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information on the companies receiving investments through the business expansion scheme is published in chapter 7 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991". Further information that is readily available is as follows:
  315

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Industry

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment

  £ million

  £ million

  Manufacture of transport equipment

  14

  2

  22

  3

  Instrument engineering

  9

  1

  11

  1

  Food and drink industry

  7

  —

  10

  1

  Textile, clothing, footwear industry

  6

  —

  4

  —

  Manufacture of paper and paper products

  32

  2

  26

  2

  Other manufacturing iustries

  30

  2

  28

  2

  Construction

  7

  —

  14

  1

  Wholesale distribution

  46

  3

  48

  3

  Retail distibution

  37

  3

  29

  3

  Distribution and repair of motor vehicles

  13

  1

  7

  1

  Hotels and catering

  51

  8

  34

  5

  Transport and storage services

  24

  10

  18

  2

  Business, professional and technical services

  70

  6

  66

  8

  Medical, educational and social services

  33

  4

  32

  4

  Recreational, hairdressing and personal services

  32

  2

  34

  2

  Private rented housing

  483

  162

  446

  283

  Total

  974

  216

  885

  323

  The average size of investment per company is as follows;

  £ Thousand

  1983–84

  147

  1984–85

  183

  1985–86

  224

  1986–87

  221

  1987–88

  245

  1988–89

  167

  1989–901

  222

  1990–911

  365

  1 Provisional.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the loss in all tax revenues because of the recent announcement of job losses in the coal mining industry and the knock-on effects in other industries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effect of job losses on tax revenues depends on a large number of factors and cannot reliably be estimated.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total receipts from taxes on tobacco products in the last financial year for which figures are available; and what estimate he can make of the level of such receipts in the current year.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Revenue from excise duties on tobacco products in 1991–92 was £6,288 million. The estimate provided in this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report for these receipts in 1992–93 is £6.6 billion. A more up-to-date estimate will be available after the autumn statement has been published.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how many points United Kingdom interest rates have been reduced(a) since leaving the exchange rate mechanism and (b) between joining the ERM and August 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1992, c. 188]: On the level of United Kingdom bank base rates, bank base rates were reduced by a further 1 per cent. to 8 per cent. on 16 October.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Southern Africa
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community, to press the international community to fund the entire $854 million requested in the United Nations and Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference appeal.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have already committed more than £51 million of bilateral aid in response to the drought in southern Africa. From the outset we have played a leading role in urging EC and other donors to contribute generously and we will continue to do so.

  Food Security
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community to press for the structural adjustment programme to include methods of achieving food security.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hope that the EC Development Council on 18 November, which will be chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, will agree on a statement of development co-operation policy for the 1990s. This will set out how the
  317
  EC's development policy, including assistance for structural adjustment programmes, can best contribute to sustainable development and the relief of poverty, and thus to improving security of access to food for people in developing countries.

  Pakistan (Floods)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to help alleviate the suffering caused by the recent floods in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain was the first donor country to provide assistance and, having committed over £475,000, is second only to Japan in the size of its bilateral response to the current flooding. On 12 September we made an initial contribution of $200,000 before any needs assessment had been carried out. When actual needs became clearer, we arranged a charter flight to Lahore delivering tents, blankets, antibiotics and oral rehydra.tion salts—£227,320. Since then we have arranged to deliver further locally available relief supplies in Sindh province through Pakistan non-governmental organisations—£80,000—and made grants available to the following UK non-governmental organisations:

  £

  CAFOD

  500 tents for Sindh Province

  23,768

  Adventist Development and Relief Agency

  Medicines for Sindh and Punjab

  40,000

  We continue to monitor the situation and we are actively considering what further assistance we can provide.

  Malawi
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Malawi Government about political and religious rights in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We made representations with our EC partners reflecting these concerns in December 1991, March and April 1992. These issues were also addressed in bilateral discussions with Malawian Ministers in May and June this year. Further representations are currently being made to the Malawi Government urging them to respond positively to the call from the religious community and other bodies for democratic reform and to lift the ban on the Catholic bishops' pastoral letter.

  World Bank Loans
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if human rights issues are taken into account by Her Majesty's Government when considering World bank loans.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom judges all World bank loans on their economic and technical merits, in line with the provisions of the bank's articles of agreement.

  Global Environment Facility
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom contribution to the global environment facility will continue to be additional to the overseas aid budget in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom contribution to the global environment facility has been separate from and additional to aid to developing countries and will continue to be so. The amount of resources which we shall provide in 1993–94 has not yet been decided. This will depend on the outcome of talks with the World bank and other donors.

  Somalia
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid the Overseas Development Administration has given this year to Somalia; and what plans there are to increase it.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since January the Government have pledged £26 million in humanitarian aid for Somalia. This includes our share of EC aid and a new pledge of £7.5 million which my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on 15 September. The major constraint to the relief effort in Somalia is the volatile security situation, particularly in the centre and south of the country, which are the regions most affected by famine.

  Yugoslavia
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part British aid has played in the provision of relief to the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  To date Her Majesty's Government have committed over £70 million in humanitarian aid for the former Yugoslavia, including the £15 million the Prime Minister announced yesterday. Of this, £29.5 million is bilateral aid and £41 million aid attributable through the European Community.

  The £29.5 million bilateral aid is being channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other United Nation Agencies; Red Cross; British charities, including CARE and Feed the Children; and Overseas Development Administration direct actions.

  Direct actions taken so far by the ODA include the provision of 21 British trucks, based in Split as part of UNHCR road delivery operation, running two or three convoys a week to Sarajevo—during the suspension of the airlift, these trucks were Sarajevo's lifeline—five British logisticians seconded to the United Nations; a British road engineer who undertook an assessment for UNHCR of the state of convoy routes in winter; delivery of £1,130,000 of medical supplies to the World Health Organisation in Zagreb following assessment by British medical team which were then distributed throughout Bosnia, including Sarajevo and Gorazde; support to UNHCR and WHO with anaesthetics, computer equipment and specialist advice; funding of two pharmacists and one computer expert working with WHO and one logistics expert assisting WHO with new consignment of medical supplies; a shelter team to identify where the ODA could best help with the "winterisation" of collective centres in central

  319
  Bosnia—funding for the activities identified will be provided from the £7.5 million which my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on 24 September to allow rapid implementation of the teams recommendations—and mining and power teams for UNHCR to provide assessment of current position and detailed plans for the emergency provision and distribution of fuel for heating during winter months.

  In addition, the ODA is in the process of providing a further 22 trucks plus all support staff and vehicles, the first convoy of which is due to leave the United Kingdom on 26 October; all equipment and staff to run one relief warehouse; a further £1 million of medical supplies for

  Somalia: Food aid: 1992

  Donor

  Commitments

  Value

  Deliveries

  Value

  (Tonnes)

  (£ million)

  (Tonnes)

  (£ million)

  United Kingdom

  34,100

  5.8

  19,100

  2.7

  EC

  206,386

  36.7

  105,000

  18.7

  Madagascar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Disaster and Natural Resources Institute has received the recommendations of the Food and Agricultural Organisation's locust consultant in relation to Madagascar; and what action he is taking.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 October 1992]: The Natural Resources Institute has received the recommendations of the Food and Agricultural Organisation's locust consultant and has now passed these on to ODA's disaster unit for consideration. We have recently agreed to support a field trial of insect growth regulators—IGR—in collaboration with the FAO. The trial is expected to produce specific recommendations on the use of IGRs in controlling locust populations which can then be implemented within months. We are currently addressing the specific short-term recommendations of the FAO consultant and will make decisions on further United Kingdom support very shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Governance
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further stock he has taken about the future governance of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to announce the results of the Government's taking stock exercise with respect to the governance of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) earlier today.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on holding a multi-option referendum on the future government of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Since the general election I have received 54 representations calling for a multi-option referendum on the future government of Scotland.
  320
  WHO, the initial consignment of which will travel with the first truck convoy; 10 Land-Rovers for UNHCR; and 10 extra staff—logisticians/radio operators—for UNHCR.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what quantity and value of food aid has been promised to Somalia by the United Kingdom and EC in the current year; and what quantity and value of food aid has been actually delivered.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 20 October 1992]: Relevant figures for United Kingdom and EC food aid to Somalia are set out in the table.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of the implementation of article 3b of the treaty of European union on the governance of Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The proposed new article 3b of the EC treaty refers specifically and exclusively to the relations between the Community and individual member states. It is up to individual member states to order their own constitutional affairs at the national and sub-national level.

  Cashmere and Woollen Garments
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of cashmere and woollen garments sold annually out of Scotland; and what percentage is exported from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I can best answer my hon. Friend's question by referring to the estimate of the Textile Statistics Bureau that, in 1991, exports of woollen and fine animal hair garments from the United Kingdom were in the region of £472 million. Separate figures are not available for Scotland.

  Romanian Orphanages
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work done in Romanian orphanages by Scottish charities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed information on the work done in Romanian orphanages by Scottish charities is not held centrally. A number of Scottish-based organisations have provided and continue to provide valuable aid of various kinds to Romania.

  Sub-standard Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses there are in Scotland which are classed as being below tolerable standard.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities estimated that just over 81,100 houses in Scotland fall into this category.

  School Management
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he received to the consultation paper "School Management: The Way Ahead".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office education department has received about 1,200 responses to the consultation paper. We will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).

  Local Government
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet with representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assured tenancies exist within Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no assured tenancies within Scottish Homes housing stock; in common with other public sector landlords, Scottish Homes' tenants hold secured tenancies.

  Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss the Scottish economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Council at Gleneagles on 30 October when he will be addressing the Council's international forum.

  Grampian Healthcare
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on national health service trust status for Grampian Healthcare.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Grampian Healthcare is one of 14 units in Scotland which have applied for national health service trust status in April 1993. The applications are at various stages of public consultation and my right hon. Friend will be announcing his decisions in due course, following careful consideration of comments received.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to assist young people in Glasgow which are unable to obtain a place on a youth training scheme.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The delivery of youth training in Glasgow is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and the Glasgow development agency, which have assured me that sufficient places are being made available to cater for those young people in Glasgow who wish to enter the programme. A financial safety net is in place, via the income support severe hardship provision, for those who need financial help while waiting for a start on a youth training place.

  Roads, Ayrshire
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the roads programme in Ayrshire.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Many improvements are planned to both trunk and local roads in Ayrshire. So far as the trunk road programme is concerned, the upgrading of the A77 between Glasgow and Ayr to motorway or near motorway standard is one of the Government's top priorities. The programme of improvement of local roads within Ayrshire is a matter for Strathclyde regional council, as the local roads authority, to determine. Work is under way on the local authority's section of the Ayr road route between the existing M77 and the Glasgow city boundary. Work on the trunk road section immediately to the south is planned to allow the two sections to open at the same time. The first of the two schemes to upgrade the remainder of the route has been announced for a start in the next three years.

  The Government are also pursuing a programme of smaller schemes on other routes within Ayrshire to ensure that they can continue to provide safe and reliable links to the A77 and other strategic trunk roads.

  Fishing Policy
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the west coast fishing industry to discuss fishing policy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I regularly meet leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation which speaks for many west coast fishermen. It is my intention to continue to meet fishermen's leaders from all parts of Scotland to hear their concerns.

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner practices in Scotland have applied to become fund holders; and how many already are fund holders.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Currently there are 10 operational fund-holding practices in Scotland. In addition, 12 practices are involved in a small practice pilot scheme but are not full fund holders.

  Latest returns from health boards indicate that 67 practices have applied, and are likely to be approved by

  323
  boards to become fund-holding practices in 1993, although not all of these will commence fund holding on 1 April. A number of other practices are likely to follow up their expressions of interest and apply to become full fund holders during 1993. It is therefore expected that up to 90 practices will be fund holders by the end of the 1993–94 financial year.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with regard to the Skye bridge construction project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since construction began at the beginning of July, the contractor has made good progress. It is planned that the caissons for the bridge, which have been constructed at the Kishorn dry dock, will be floated out and sunk at the main pier positions within the Kyle in two to three weeks' time. The precise timing is subject to the prevailing weather and tidal conditions. This will be a very significant step towards the eventual completion of the project programmed for the summer of 1995.

  EC Presidency
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for promoting Scotland during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The holding of the European Council in Edinburgh in December offers a tremendous opportunity for promoting Scotland on a world stage. The Scottish Office is working with a number of other organisations to ensure that the most is made of that opportunity. A co-ordinated media strategy is in place, which includes a programme of visits to Scotland by foreign journalists. Scotland is also playing a major role in the programme of presidency special events, of which over 25 have or will take place in Scotland.

  Poverty
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to eradicate poverty in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's economic policies are designed to sustain long-term growth which will have benefits for all members of society and the defeat of inflation is essential if this is to be achieved. Monetary and fiscal policies will continue to be dedicated to this objective.

  A number of Government programmes are designed to address the complex problems of poverty, including the four Scottish Office-led urban partnership initiatives and the urban programme. This has a budget of £81 million in 1992–93—up from £76 million in 1991–92—and provides 75 per cent. central Government support to projects, in all urban areas of exceptional need, which aim to address problems of poverty and disadvantage.

  Investment
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Scottish local authorities to discuss European-funded investment.
  324
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Secretary of State meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on a regular basis to discuss local government finance in Scotland. At the last three such meetings, the latest of which was held on 5 October, the subject of European-funded investment was discussed. The next meeting has yet to be arranged but it is likely to take place early in the new year.

  Cambuslang
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for a special industrial and economic agency for Cambuslang.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Responsibility for the industrial and economic development of Cambuslang, as for other parts of its area, rests with the local enterprise company, Glasgow development agency. The enterprise company is free to determine the priorities and resources available to it and which, in the current financial year, amount to more than £58 million.

  Council House Management
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has received to his consultative document on the future of council house management.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The closing date for responses to our consultation paper "Competing for Quality in Housing in Scotland" was 18 September. Around 100 responses have so far been received, and these are currently under consideration.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of patients waiting for in-patient treatment on 31 March for each individual health authority(a) in total and (b) by main speciality for periods (i) under 12 months, (ii) 12 to 24 months and (iii) over 24 months.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is set out in the NHS "Patient Treatment and Waiting Time Bulletin" for 31 March 1992, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the numbers of patients waiting for out-patient treatment on 31 March for each individual health authority(a) in total and (b) by main speciality for periods (i) under 12 months, (ii) 12 to 24 months and (iii) over 24 months.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  This information is not centrally available.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans to continue the policy of not allowing domestic disconnections from the water supply in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  We have no plans to change the present policy that domestic water supplies provided by water authorities are not subject to disconnection except
  325
  for operational reasons. My right hon. Friend will shortly be publishing a consultation paper on the future structure of water and sewerage services.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the timetable for consultation on alternative forms of organisation for water and sewerage services in Scotland; what steps he intends to take to ensure maximum possible participation by the general public; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend will shortly publish a consultation paper on the future organisation of water and sewerage services in Scotland. The paper will be made available to all interested parties, including the media and the general public.

  Railway Viaduct, Kirkcudbright
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the Big Water of Fleet railway viaduct near Gatehouse of Fleet, Kirkcudbright was removed from the register of listed structures; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Big Water of Fleet viaduct was removed from the statutory list of buildings of special historic or architectural interest in 1990–91 in the course of the national re-survey. It was assessed as not meeting the standard required to justify its retention on the list because of the extensive use of brick in strengthening the viaduct.

  Although it is no longer a listed structure, the viaduct has been recognised by Dumfries and Galloway regional council in the regional structure plan as an important industrial archaeological site. The council also recognises the contribution made by the impressive span of the structure to the high visual and amenity quality of the locality.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Fees
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will estimate what would be the additional revenue for the Church Commissioners if the current fees charged for marriage, funerals and baptisms were doubled.

  Government expenditure on regional financial assistance to industry at current prices1

  £ million

  Table 1

  Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  158.8

  151.2

  150.8

  178.3

  159.7

  130.2

  125.5

  96.6

  137.3

  109.3

  134.1

  117.0

  85.0

  63.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  37.4

  34.1

  52.4

  62.1

  53.5

  36.3

  44.3

  36.4

  41.9

  38.8

  50.2

  32.4

  29.4

  18.2

  East Midlands

  3.4

  4.4

  4.7

  8.7

  13.8

  17.5

  11.4

  8.8

  10.7

  9.4

  8.8

  9.5

  5.5

  2.6

  South West

  9.6

  11.1

  12.5

  14.9

  16.6

  12.1

  14.6

  12.3

  23.0

  14.8

  14.7

  10.7

  9.0

  8.3

  West Midlands 2 3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.1

  10.6

  19.3

  26.2

  19.9

  18.0

  8.7

  North West

  514.1

  596.1

  536.5

  5174.9

  5124.8

  5104.2

  106.4

  87.5

  129.6

  79.0

  82.3

  74.3

  57.5

  49.5

  England

  323.5

  297.0

  357.0

  438.9

  368.4

  300.3

  302.2

  248.7

  353.1

  270.6

  316.3

  263.8

  204.4

  151.1

  Wales

  132.1

  112.9

  175.3

  197.5

  182.1

  120.0

  147.5

  138.4

  150.7

  132.4

  148.2

  131.7

  133.7

  153.9

  Scotland

  156.1

  135.2

  194.5

  232.5

  369.4

  228.6

  187.1

  197.0

  242.4

  153.2

  151.2

  144.6

  159.1

  135.4

  Great Britain

  611.7

  545.1

  726.8

  868.9

  919.9

  648.9

  636.8

  584.1

  746.2

  556.2

  615.7

  540.1

  497.2

  440.4

  326
  Mr. Alison
  Fees for marriages and funerals—they are not charged for baptisms—are paid to the officiating minister and the parochial church council, not to the commissioners.

  Total fee income for the year to 31 March 1991 was about £13 million. An increase of 15 per cent. in most fees was implemented from 1 January 1992. It is difficult to know whether a doubling of the fees would result in a pro-rata increase—that is, to about £30 million—because there could be a slackening of demand.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the second progress report of his advisory committee on business and the environment; what response he has made; and if he will list those recommendations in the first ACBE report on which his Department has taken action to date.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Monday 19 October,Official Report, column 227.

  Wind Power
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's assessment of the proportion of United Kingdom energy requirements that could be supplied by wind power; and what he is doing to ensure that maximum use is made of this renewable energy source.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 October 1992]:I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her on 19 October, Official Report, column 236.

  Regional Preferential Assistance
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the amount of regional preferential assistance paid to each standard region of England, Scotland and Wales in each year from 1978–79 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices and with an annual index.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on regional preferential assistance in each standard region of England, Scotland and Wales from 1978–79 at cash and 1991–92 prices with an annual index is set out in the tables. The expenditure is gross of recoveries. Regional information on a net basis is not readily available.
  327

  Government expenditure on regional financial assistance to industry at 1991–92 prices1 4

  £ million

  Table 2

  Region

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  430.4

  350.8

  296.3

  319.0

  266.6

  208.0

  190.7

  139.2

  191.5

  144.6

  165.6

  135.4

  90.0

  63.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  101.4

  79.1

  102.9

  111.1

  89.3

  58.0

  67.3

  52.4

  58.4

  51.3

  62.0

  37.5

  31.4

  18.2

  East Midlands

  9.2

  10.2

  9.2

  15.6

  23.0

  28.0

  17.3

  12.7

  14.9

  12.4

  10.9

  11.0

  5.9

  2.6

  South West

  26.0

  25.8

  24.6

  26.7

  27.7

  19.3

  22.2

  17.7

  32.1

  19.6

  18.1

  124

  9.6

  8.3

  West Midlands 2 3

  0.5

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.2

  14.8

  25.5

  32.3

  23.0

  19.3

  8.7

  North West

  5309.2

  5223.0

  5268.2

  5312.9

  5208.3

  5166.5

  161.7

  126.1

  180.8

  104.5

  101.6

  86.0

  61.5

  49.5

  England

  876.7

  689.1

  701.2

  785.3

  614.9

  479.8

  459.2

  358.3

  492.5

  357.9

  390.5

  305.3

  218.6

  151.1

  Wales

  358.0

  261.9

  344.4

  353.3

  304.0

  191.7

  224.2

  199.4

  210.2

  175.1

  183.0

  152.4

  143.0

  153.9

  Scotland

  423.0

  313.7

  382.1

  415.9

  616.7

  365.2

  284.3

  283.9

  338.1

  202.6

  186.7

  167.4

  170.2

  135.4

  Great Britain

  1,657.7

  1,264.7

  1,427.7

  1,554.5

  1,535.6

  1,036.7

  967.7

  841.6

  1,040.8

  735.6

  760.2

  625.1

  531.8

  440.4

  Notes to tables 1, 2 and 3:

  1 All figures are gross and include payments to nationalised industries.

  2 Includes some minor expenditure in West Midlands in respect of Oswestry TTWA which ceased to be an assisted area in 1982–83.

  3 Certain TTWAs in the West Midlands were designated as assisted areas on 29 November 1984.

  4 Expenditure on a 1991–92 price basis for each year is calculated by applying the appropriate deflator to expenditure at current prices.

  5 Includes expenditure in Cumbria, otherwise shown within the totals for Northern region.

  The items included in the expenditure are regional development grants, regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants; expenditure on Land and factories by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, the Development Board for Rural Wales, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

  Table 3

  Index

  1991–92 prices

  1978–79

  36.9

  1979–80

  43.1

  1980–81

  50.9

  1981–82

  55.9

  1982–83

  59.9

  1983–84

  62.6

  1984–85

  65.8

  1985–86

  69.4

  1986–87

  71.7

  1987–88

  75.6

  1988–89

  81.0

  1989–90

  86.4

  1990–91

  93.5

  1991–92

  100.0

  Energy Requirements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approximate proportions of national energy requirements, excluding transport, have been supplied by(a) coal, (b) domestically produced petroleum, (c) imported petroleum, (d) domestic natural gas and (e) renewable sources, for each of the past five years; what proportions he expects those sources to supply in the next five years, consequent on the published plans of the bodies concerned; and if he will give the net costs for past years using the actual exchange rates, and, for future years, a range of possible exchange costs likely to be incurred.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992.]: Data on final energy consumption in the United Kingdom are published in table 8 of the annual "Digest of United

  £ million

  Coal1

  Petroleum

  Natural gas

  Renewable sources

  Other fuels2

  1987

  1,060

  1,880

  6,870

  440

  12,410

  1988

  975

  1,625

  6,635

  460

  13,125

  1989

  855

  1,730

  6,670

  490

  14,310

  1990

  840

  1,985

  7,210

  525

  14,745

  1991

  900

  1,960

  8,280

  570

  16,295

  1 Excluding other solid fuels.

  2 Includes solid fuels other than coal, coke oven gas and electricity produced from non-renewable sources.

  My Department does not produce forecasts of future range of energy requirements However, an indication of the likely
  328
  Kingdom Energy Statistic". The shares of final energy consumption by the transport sector, met by coal, petroleum, natural gas and renewable sources during the period 1987 t0 1991 are set out in the table.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Coal1

  10.3

  9.5

  8.6

  7.8

  7.9

  Petroleum

  15.3

  17.3

  15.7

  15.2

  15.4

  Natural gas

  46.3

  45.0

  45.7

  47.1

  48.1

  Renewable sources

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  0.8

  Percentage share other fuels2

  27.3

  27.4

  29.2

  29.0

  27.8

  1 Excluding other solid fuels.

  2 Includes solid fuels other than coal, coke oven gas and electricity produced from non-renewable sources.

  In 1991, approximately 10.1 million tonnes, or 13.6 per cent. of the consumption of petroleum products in the United Kingdom, including that by the transport sector, was met by imported petroleum products. During the same period, exports of petroleum products amounted to approximately 19.4 million tonnes. These figures and data for earlier years are published in tables 33 and A8 of the annual "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".

  In 1991, approximately 89 per cent. of natural gas consumption was domestically produced. This figure and data for earlier years can be derived from table A10 of the annual "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics".

  The estimated expenditure on energy by final consumers is published in table 9 of the annual "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics". Figures consistent with the previous table—that is, excluding the transport sector—are set out in the following table.

  range of energy requirements in some possible future energy scenarios can be obtained from Energy Paper No.
  329
  59, which was recently published by this Department. A copy of this paper has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Imported Coal
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the main fluctuations in the price—cif—in pounds per tonne, or energy equivalent and an indexed figure" of coal of power station quality available for import into the United Kingdom over the past eight years, the current price and his estimate of trends in future prices in a situation of European or world economic recovery.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The annual average prices for imports of steam coal over the last eight years were:

  £ per tonne (cif)

  1984

  56.6

  1985

  47.5

  1986

  37.2

  1987

  35.0

  1988

  36.5

  1989

  39.0

  1990

  37.6

  1991

  33.9

  11992

  31.2

  1 January to August.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  During this period, monthly average prices have fluctuated between £27.6 per tonne in July 1992 and £69.8 in February 1985, while the price in August 1992, the most recent available was £28.4 per tonne, cif.

  My Department does not make forecasts of future fuel prices. However, an indication of the likely range of coal prices in some possible future energy scenarios can be obtained from Energy Paper No. 59, which was recently published by this Department. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has of the proportion of coal imports into the United Kingdom for 1991 and the first six months of 1992, respectively, that were carried to the United Kingdom in ships other than those owned or registered in the United Kingdom, stating the approximate non-sterling costs incurred thereby, and his estimate of the range of such transport costs likely to be incurred in 1994 and thereafter.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: Imports of coal, coke and briquettes to the United Kingdom both in 1991 and in the first six months of 1992 carried by ships registered outside the United Kingdom amounted to 64 per cent. of the total of these imports. From the information available we are not able to provide a reliable estimate of the non-sterling costs involved.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the tonnes of coal imported into the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1992, and his estimate of the quantities likely in 1993, stating broadly the proportion or quantities from each of the main supplying areas or states.
  330
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The breakdown of coal imported into the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1992 by country of origin is as follows:

  Country of origin

  Quantity (thousand tonnes)

  Percentage

  United States of America

  4,367

  39

  Australia

  2,418

  21

  Colombia

  2,038

  18

  Former USSR

  472

  4

  Canada

  407

  4

  Poland

  469

  4

  South Africa

  403

  4

  Others

  709

  6

  TOTAL

  11,284

  Source: Customs and Excise.

  The Government do not produce estimates of future coal imports.

  Coal Prices
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current price per gigajoule of deep-mined coal sold by British Coal to the main electricity generating undertakings, and the price at 1992 prices expected to be charged following implementation of its plans for pit closures.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The prices paid by the electricity industry to individual coal suppliers are confidential to the companies concerned. The average price of all coal purchased by the major United Kingdom electricity generating companies is however published in table 26 of "Energy Trends", the Department's monthly statistical bulletin. In the second quarter of 1992 the average price was £1.81 per gigajoule.

  Equivalent prices for the second quarter of next year will not be known until the necessary returns have been made, but the prices are likely to be substantially lower.

  Electricity Generating Plants
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is, in pence per unit, and as a percentage of the domestic price, the approximate cost of(a) capital cost of generation, (b) fuel and its safe disposal, (c) transmission and distribution and (d) other costs, respectively, of each of the main fuel categories of power available for installation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The average price of electricity used in domestic premises this year is expected to be approximately 8p/kwh. Of this, around half is attributable to generation costs and around one third to transmission and distribution, with the remainder accounted for by supply costs and the fossil fuel levy.

  Trade in Energy
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what overall assessment he has made since assuming office of the trends in the balance of payments of the United Kingdom trade in energy—including the channel link—other than in oil; and where such assessments are published, what distinction he draws between his responsibilities for attaining a balance or surplus of trade in this commodity, as compared to any other.
  331
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1992]: The balance of payments deficit for United Kingdom trade in energy, other than in oil, in 1991 was £1,260 million, broadly the same as in the last five years. Data are published by the Central Statistical Office in the 1992 Pink Book, "UK Balance of Payments".

  The Department does not aim to maintain a trading surplus in any particular commodity or fuel but rather to ensure that overall the United Kingdom remains competitive with the other trading nations of the world.

  Inmos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 361, if he will make a statement on plans to intervene to ensure that the production of semi-conductors by Inmos Ltd. continues at Newport, Gwent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following extensive discussion, the European Commission ruled out United Kingdom Government assistance at the exceptionally high level sought by this company to develop its operation at Newport. We have made it clear that the Government remain ready to explore further with the company whether there is any alternative basis on which assistance might be provided.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library statistics relating to the performance of disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce that from this month such statistical information will be placed in the Library each month. We will aim to make the information available within seven working days of the end of the previous month.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the estimated cost to his budget of the recent announcement of job losses in the coal mining industry and their knock-on effects in other industries.

  Mr. Burt
  The characteristics of individual claims will vary widely and entitlement to benefit will be affected by redundancy and/or compensation payments. However, the effect on expenditure of a variation of 100,000 in the numbers of unemployed people is given in figure 25, page 18, of the second departmental report of the Department of Social Security, Cm 1914, published in February 1992, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the number and percentage of total applications which were refused for(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans for each of the years of the social fund's operation; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) local DSS office.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 June 1992, c. 596] Some of the information requested was inadvertently omitted. The missing tables have now been placed in the Library.

WALES

  Special Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of children in special schools in Wales do not have a statement of needs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information provided by schools indicates that, at September 1991, 4 per cent. of children in special schools did not have a statement of special educational needs. However, many of these were in assessment centres and in the process of having their needs assessed prior to a possible statement.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning a proposed grade-separated cross-over road access from Eastern avenue to the University hospital of Wales, the Heath, Cardiff.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received 15 representations, including one from the Allensbank Permanent Allotment Association. Those making representations have expressed concern about environmental matters, the possible loss of allotment land, and traffic.

  Infrastructure Projects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is currently allocated by his Department to(a) road and (b) rail infrastructure projects in Clwyd; and if he will publish an estimated figure for expenditure by his Department in Clwyd in 1993–94 and 1994–95 indicating in each case the principal projects allocated moneys.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1992–93, some £16.7 million has been directly allocated to road projects in Clwyd. This includes expenditure on the recently opened Mold bypass and the county council's transport grant settlement. Additional expenditure is incurred by Clwyd county council using credit approvals and revenue support grant provided by the Welsh Office. The Department does not directly provide funds for British Rail infrastructure projects. Expenditure decisions for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be announced following the annual public expenditure surveys.

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 Walker of Worcester
The Right Honourable Peter Edward Walker, MBE, having been created Baron Walker of Worcester, of Abbots Morton in the County of Hereford and Worcester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Sandys and the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
The Hon. Mrs. Margaret Ann Jay, having been created Baroness Jay of Paddington, of Paddington in the City of Westminster, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Pit Closures
2.58 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they are to have with British Coal concerning the further closure of pits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that in the Statement I made in the House on Monday I set out the steps now to be followed in relation to the pit closures announced by British Coal last week. British Coal will, of course, be fully involved in that process, in addition to the usual ongoing contacts between government and the corporation about this and other matters.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the Government's devastating defeat last night, may we have an assurance from the Minister that the views of this House will be conveyed fully to British Coal and the Prime Minister? Will the Minister and the Leader of the House stress not just the figures at the end of the debate but the fact that the Government's case for closing pits was demolished completely by the excellent speeches made in this Chamber by those who oppose the proposal, and that the House was speaking for the overwhelming majority of the people of this country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord's summing up of yesterday, but I can assure him that the views of the House have been conveyed to the
748
appropriate quarter and I am sure they will be fully taken into account in the debate in another place today.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, has any member of the Government recently had discussions with British Coal about its further plans to close another seven pits? Secondly, is it true that the Government have advised British Coal that no development work should be financed in any of the pits on the closure list?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord told me facts that were unknown to the department, such as the number of pits that would be left after the review. He is again drawing attention to facts of which I have no knowledge.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, and the second question, that Her Majesty's Government have advised British Coal not to finance any development?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry, but I referred to facts of which I have no knowledge.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the fact that between 4,900 and 7,000 jobs in British Rail's transport of coal are involved, will consultations take place with British Rail on the consequences of pit closures? In view of the projected privatisation of sectors of British Rail, including freight, have the Government measured the impact of the loss of 62 per cent. of the freight traffic involved in those closures? What impact will that have on prospects for the privatisation of that sector?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I confirm the statement I made yesterday that the effect on rail freight will be fully taken into account in the review.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister accept that last night the House passed, on a Division, a Motion to resolve certain matters—namely, that an independent inquiry should be set up? What do the Government think about the status of the House if they wholly disregard the opinion of the House as expressed on a Division?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that no one is ignoring the view of the House. The constitutional position of the House is clear. I am sorry that he thinks that last night's vote is not being taken into account.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if I may press the Minister for a moment, does that mean that the Government will appoint an independent inquiry?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said earlier, the debate and the resolution of the House last night will be taken fully into account in discussions in another place. I am afraid I have to confess to the noble Lord that I am not psychic.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, psychic or not, as a result of the Division last night, will the Government now undertake to accept an independent inquiry? We are a House of Parliament.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I repeat, it will be given proper consideration.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister may not be psychic but she is certainly evasive. We are asking for an answer to a perfectly reasonable question. If the Government will not have an independent inquiry, will they say what they have to hide?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sorry that people's memories seem a little short. As we said last night, there will be a full review of issues that will be brought to the House to be discussed. The Government have nothing to hide.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a merchant bank is advising the Government and also advising the gas interests over this affair? Does she not think there is a conflict of interest here?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there are noble Lords in this House who understand the merchant banking system much better than I. However, I am quite certain that advisers advise and the Government take decisions.

Traffic Wardens: Pay
3.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action with the authorities concerned to prevent traffic wardens from receiving remuneration in proportion to the number of tickets issued for offences in public parking places.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, police traffic wardens are not paid according to the number of tickets they issue, nor is there any intention that they should be. Discussions are continuing as to how traffic parking attendants will be paid.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I conclude that it is the parking attendants who have so far been affected. If the intention is payment by results, should not the higher remuneration, if any, be in inverse proportion to the number of tickets issued as the best result is good parking practice caused by the effectiveness of the work of the attendants and wardens?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the best result would be to make all traffic wardens and parking attendants redundant through people parking properly in the first place.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole House will be grateful to hear there is no question of paying traffic wardens according to the
750
number of people they succeed in arresting? Will the Minister give an undertaking that in no field of law and order is payment determined by the profit motive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original reply, discussions are continuing as to exactly how parking attendants will be paid.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what worries some of us is the people who clamp cars? Those are the people who are apparently paid by results. If that is so, it is a scandal and a disgrace. Moreover, if that is so, what do the Government propose to do about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware just how effective wheel clamping has been in helping the speeding up of traffic in London and in proving a deterrent to illegal parking. As I have said, traffic wardens are not paid by results.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, are the wheel dampers paid by results or not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, so far as I know, a wheel damper is a traffic warden and therefore constitutes an arm of the police. As I understand the situation, such people are not paid by results. However, I shall check the position on that matter as it is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he may be mistaken in the answer he has given, and that it is the understanding of many noble Lords that clampers are paid by results?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it certainly would not be the first or indeed the last time that I am mistaken. However, as I have said, I shall look into the issue and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, when the Minister considers this matter, will he take into account the private dampers, too? It is a well-known fact that those people receive bonuses. Does the Minister accept that this whole issue is becoming a farce, certainly in the eyes of the motoring public, when double yellow lines are being removed so that parking meters may be erected? If the yellow lines were essential in the first place to assist the flow of traffic, what is to be gained from removing them and putting in meters? The meters cause another line of obstructive traffic. This issue is quite clearly a means of gathering taxes and is recognised as such by the general public.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper. I tried to be helpful earlier, but I shall not try to be helpful now.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if law enforcers—which traffic attendants will effectively be—are given financial incentives to penalise as many members of the general public as possible, it opens the way to every form of abuse?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I read with great care the amendment to the Road Traffic Bill moved by the noble Lord in June 1991. That amendment was not accepted by the House. I understand the noble Lord's point of view; but, as I said, discussions are continuing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that traffic wardens receive no remuneration for extra keenness. However, can the noble Earl assure the House that there is no form of quota comparison in the employment of wardens? In other words, do they have to operate to a certain standard in respect of the number of people they charge?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know the exact answer to that question, but I shall look into the matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister's briefing on the issue of the role of dampers and their remuneration leaves something to be desired. Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that he will examine very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had to say? Furthermore, more radically and more importantly, does he realise that the deficiencies of public transport in London are the real issues which have to be tackled when it comes to congestion? He himself has spoken about the need to speed up traffic in London.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is good to see the noble Lord back on his feet on transport matters. After yesterday, I thought that he had left the issue behind and found something else to do. With regard to the noble Lord's question, it is well wide of that on the Order Paper.

Family Planning: Rio Summit
3.12 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What influence they were able to have at the Rio Summit in response to the worldwide demand for family planning.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we and others were influential in ensuring that population featured significantly in the discussions at Rio and that Agenda 21—the Rio plan of action—emphasises the importance of helping developing countries to establish comprehensive population programmes. I hope that that will serve to encourage donor countries generally to do more in this critical area.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Does the noble Baroness accept that her individual efforts and her very forthright and plain words on the subject in Rio were very welcome and much appreciated? Can she say how the momentum of the Rio conference on population, such as it was, can be maintained? In particular, can she say how we might influence and encourage our European partners?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his kind remarks. I believe that we have made real progress since Rio. In New York member states and the UN Secretariat are currently agreeing the modalities for the establishment of the Special Development Commission. That commission will be responsible for getting on with the work, including the protection and promotion of human health. That will indeed help us, as will the resolution which I intend to put before the Development Council of the European Community in November.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the speculation about a possible cut in the overseas aid programme, which we hope the Minister will successfully resist, can she give an assurance that the funding for family planning through NGOs will continue? Secondly, and more particularly, can she say whether the funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation has been increased by more than 200 per cent. in the last two years in the same way as the funding for the UN population fund?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not intend to seek to pre-empt the discussions currently taking place about budgetary and public expenditure matters. However, I can tell her that we shall play a forward role with the NGOs in helping women to have the opportunity to choose the size of their families and the spacing between their children. To that end we shall continue to help the IPPF and other organisations. That may not always be by the same amount, but it is a development priority.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the most effective assistance which we can give in relation to population control is to promote and increase support for the education of women?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree that the education of women is absolutely fundamental to allowing them to have a choice. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I wish that we could get away from talk of population control and talk instead about family planning, because it is the right of every couple to decide when to have children and how many children to have.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what is the position in countries where the establishment is actively working against allowing women access to family planning and how that problem is to be addressed? There are women who want access to family planning but are denied it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are still a few governments which will not willingly put their own resources into giving men and women the choice to plan their families. We seek to persuade them otherwise. At present we are doing quite well in persuading some of the less forward-looking countries to take on the whole idea of family planning policies.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that one of the most grim realities which face us all is that every 2.4 seconds of every day somewhere in the world a child dies of poverty? Taking that challenge, together with the undertakings given by the Prime Minister at Rio, and taking into account the very real respect on all sides of this House for the commitment of the noble Baroness, will she stake her very considerable reputation categorically on the principle that, whatever the pressures on government, public expenditure cuts will not be at the price of the solemn pledges by this Government to increase the resources available for the fight against world poverty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows me very well. He knows full well that we shall maintain those programmes, concentrated as they are—75 per cent. of our bilateral expenditure—on the poorest. We shall do all we can to alleviate poverty. The noble Lord would not expect me, any more than I would have expected him a few years ago, to pre-empt the public expenditure round.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the United Kingdom was the pioneer of family planning programmes and that we shall have more women of childbearing age in this country in 1994 than we have ever had before? Can she give an undertaking that, as a good example to other countries, we shall maintain to the full our own family planning programmes?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I certainly intend to seek to do that.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, what progress is being made on the British initiative arising from the Earth Summit to call a global forum of NGOs in 1993? Some of us are not as sanguine about the final communiqué on the question of family planning and population which came out of Rio. Can the noble Baroness therefore assure us that the global forum will have in the forefront of its terms of reference the question of population and family planning and that NGOs working in that field will be invited to the forum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am delighted to assure the noble Baroness that the consultation note on this proposed forum has already been prepared. It will shortly be circulated both within the United Kingdom and abroad. We expect a planning meeting to take place very shortly with the main groups outside government, including the non-governmental organisations. The groups will include those on environment, development and population along with representatives of the private sector and the local authority representatives who can make the difference that I know your Lordships' House seeks.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following my noble friend's question, can the Minister assure the House that any government aid to population activities does not take place at the expense of aid for general economic and
754
social development, including the educational matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and also maternal and child health? Does she agree that it has been shown both in this country and the countries of the South that this form of development is the surest guarantee of a long-term fall in population growth?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have no hesitation in saying that population planning, family health and mother and child health are all part of our social and economic assistance to developing countries and that education will always continue to play a very major role in all that.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will the Minister say what preparations the Government are making for the 1994 World Population Conference, which I understand will be held in Egypt?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have already had some preparatory meetings. The UN has recently proposed that all countries undertake their own national preparations and I shall work with the results of those preparations to formulate what should be done for the 1994 conference.

Housing: South-East England
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to increase housing opportunities for those households in South-East England who are unable to buy or rent at current market prices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we have substantially increased resources for the Housing Corporation for low-cost social housing; £925 million has been allocated to schemes for approval this year in London and the South East to provide 20,500 new homes.
In addition, we are about to introduce a statutory rent-to-mortgage scheme. We have introduced a rent-a-room scheme to encourage householders to take in lodgers, and we are making £25 million available to local authorities over three years to bring flats over shops back into residential use.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that across the political parties throughout the South East, the London boroughs, the shire counties and the districts all want to provide more affordable housing? What is the Government's attitude to funding housing for rent without an option to buy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to local authorities to decide how to carry out their planning functions and how to encourage more affordable housing for low income households. Of particular concern is their ability to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing; for example,

755
to help young people set up home. In providing new housing we accept that there must be a mix of house types and sizes to cater for a range of housing needs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether it would harm the Government's new economic policy to provide more low cost housing and therefore help to revive the building industry and the building materials industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is part of our economic policy to make sure that we have long-term sustainable growth. I believe that that is currently being done by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister answer the latter part of the noble Earl's supplementary question, which was about the attitude of the Government towards the building of houses for low-cost renting when the present legislation enables tenants to buy their houses and thereby reduce the stock? That is the question that was asked.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a logical problem in what the noble Lord has just said. The housing stock is not reduced if a tenant buys his house.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's reply to the original Question that the Government are now prepared, as part of an alleged capital investment programme the details of which have yet to be revealed, to release to local authorities the money that has been received from the sale of local authority housing so that local authorities throughout the country can now begin a large-scale programme of house construction? In the event of some local authorities having no available remaining receipts from council house sales will the Minister ensure that they are suitably funded so that at long last there will be a proper housing programme throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord clearly understands that it is not possible to allow local authorities to spend their receipts because some local authorities would do considerably better than others. That is why the money is remitted to the central Exchequer which decides, through the SSAs and on the basis of need, what each local authority area should receive.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the acquisition by local authorities of properties on short lease is a useful resource, particularly at a time when property owners may not be able to sell because prices are not what they were a few years ago? Will he confirm that it would be helpful to use short lease properties for families who otherwise would be homeless? Does he further agree that to move those families from one property to another is distressing to them and a cost to the poll tax payer? If he does so agree, will he instigate an amendment of the capital finance regulations which preclude local authorities from leasing individual properties for more than three years so that they have to continually find new properties just to stand still?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall not take up the kind suggestion of the noble Baroness to amend the legislation. We feel that increasingly the way to help people on low incomes is through the means of the Housing Corporation. In my original Answer I explained how much extra finance we are allocating to the Housing Corporation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that for a number of years the Government have claimed that an increase in the private rented sector was one of the major answers to the problems raised in the noble Earl's Question? Will he tell the House what success that policy has had in terms of numbers of units becoming available since 1988? Would he care to explain to the House why the Government's social funds specifically disallow payments for deposit or advance rent? Does he agree that such payments are a severe deterrent to those most in need to find private rented accommodation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct to say that one of our major planks is to increase the private rented sector. That has not been as successful as we had hoped and the supply has not increased. However, evidence from a recent survey shows that the decline in the private rented sector has stabilised. As I explained in my original Answer, we have introduced a number of schemes which we believe will encourage it. The problem is not one of social funds and extra help for tenants; it is to make sure that the supply is there for the tenants to find.

Business
3.29 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and Lord Chalfont. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, eight minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.
On the ground that it has been several Wednesdays since we have had a debate on a Wednesday, I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that on the digital indicators on the three sides of your Lordships' House when 10 minutes is indicated the eleventh has commenced.

European Economic Area Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision in relation to the European Economic Area established under the agreement signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

The Water Industry
3.31 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh rose to call attention to the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for ensuring full representation of the consumer's interest in the operation of the water industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me first declare an interest in the private water company, South West Water plc, by holding shares on behalf of my elder son who is seven years old. They are doing very nicely, thank you very much indeed—but at what cost?
In February this year this House debated with some vigour the method and handling of privatising the 10 national water authorities. Another 22 are private but not all of them are to do with sewage disposal. Some of the issues raised in the debate today may have been discussed in February, but since then more facts and details have come to light which will require a fuller answer and greater explanation.
We are aware of the authorities and bodies which are responsible for monitoring the water that we consume and for the way in which it is disposed of. Ofwat, the Office of Water Services, is responsible for ensuring that the water industry in England and Wales provides consumers with good quality water efficiently and at a fair price. Ofwat was set up and financed by Her Majesty's Government using taxpayers' money. Every asset controlled by the Government is in reality owned by the taxpayer or Her Majesty the Queen. A sum of £7.52 million of taxpayers' money has been allocated to Ofwat in this financial year.
The National Rivers Authority is another monitoring body financed by the abstraction finance fees and set up by Her Majesty's Government to ensure maintenance and improvement of the quality of water for all those who use it. It also receives 29 per cent. of its income from a government grant, again taxpayers' money—water consumers' money. The Drinking Water Inspectorate and the maritime district councils are other authorities which monitor, the latter being financed out of local tax money—soon to be the council tax. It is responsible for armouring coastlines among other aspects, as is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which this year has contributed £64 million towards flood defence, coastal defence and arterial drainage. That again involves taxpayers' money.
The West of England has the longest and most frequently battered and eroded coastline in England and Wales. What a shambles has been made of that coastal protection. Stone has been imported from Sweden. Certain rock-laden barges have sunk before they have reached the coastline which is to be armoured. Within 10 miles of certain of the coasts in Devon there are English limestone boulders in
758
abundance. There is employment for Englishmen. If boulders are not used why not use dolos? They are double anchored reinforced concrete blocks of varying weight. They are already in use in the Scottish nuclear power station and at Llandudlas in Wales. They have been used effectively in Australia, Sweden, Saudi Arabia and many other countries. Their construction and positioning would create employment and coastal protection in England.
What responsibility lies on the shoulders of the privatised companies? The private water companies must provide clean, healthy consumable water for everyone living in or visiting England and Wales. They must also be considerate and sensitive to the extra requirements for many of the disabled people in this country before even threatening disconnection for failure to pay.
Her Majesty's Government are well aware that the European Commission had every intention of instituting many legal obligations on member countries which related to the treatment and protection of the environment both onshore and offshore. It is rumoured that Her Majesty's Government were well aware of that as far back as 1985. They were also aware that they would have to budget up to £28 billion in order to comply with that law.
Let us look at the costs. They do not involve just the amount paid, the expenditure on an item. They involve the suffering experienced to obtain an end. For example, South West Water plc may have paid the Exchequer £216 million in 1989 to purchase the water authority which it took over. Let us look at the cost, the financial suffering for the taxpayer, the water consumer. First, there was a grant, a green dowry, of £266 million from the Government. It was taxpayers' money. We must remember that money is the central reality of government policy. But good management, not just monetarism, is what wins governments taxpayers' applause. Secondly, there was a write-off of a £130 million debt inherited from the nationalised water authority. That was taxpayers' money. In effect the taxpayer paid that plc £180 million to avoid the inevitable embarrassment to the Government of being unable to implement the European Commission's policy and obligations by 1999. It should not be forgotten also that South West Water plc benefited handsomely to the sum of £293 million when the company shares were floated.
But the suffering, the cost, does not stop there. Throughout the country the plcs decide their own standing charges. Those may range from a ridiculously high annual payment of £61 for water and £65 for sewerage per household in Dwy Cymru plc to £22 for water and £28 for sewerage in the Thames Valley Utilities plc. It is felt by the monitoring authorities that those standing charges generally should be lowered.
Ofwat regulates the K factor which was instituted and imposed in 1990. It will not be reviewed until 1995. But everything in that K factor is linked to inflation, which is falling. Look at the action taken by Ofwat last week when, with effect from 1st October, Ofwat placed an interim determination notice on the

759
water companies. That should result in a 2 per cent. reduction in the consumer cost since it reflects a 15 per cent. reduction in the construction costs that the water companies had expected this year. Will the Government, through the Department of the Environment, support Ofwat's director who still has four dissenting authorities to bring into line with his direction?
In August South West Water plc received a £30 million loan from the European Investment Bank to help it with its obligations. The interest charged will be paid for by the consumer. The K factor will not change from 11.5 for South West Water until 1995. It is then hoped that Ofwat will take into account such capital loans and accordingly adjust the K factor rate to the benefit of the consumer. Quite apart from obtaining loans on a long-term repayment basis, the water plc should consider making rights issues to the existing shareholders to raise money required for capital expenditure. Another step which the Government could take to ease the burden on the consumer would be to accelerate the tax relief on the capital expenditure of the water companies.
When one considers that the water plcs are a monopoly organisation—a point which was admitted by the chairman of South West Water plc—the capital return is far too high in relation to the low-risk industry in which they operate. What an excellent investment was made by the consumer-supported purchasers of the nationalised water authorities. There was guaranteed capital value growth; no competition over sewerage; ever rising share values; the value of the public limited company increasing without question; and in 1999, once the 10-year restoration/renovation period is over, the companies can be sold at a sinfully large profit. Is the Minister happy about that, especially considering the fact that the consumer paid for the companies in the first place?
Perhaps the greatest attention should be paid to the cost to our health of complying with the European as well as the Westminster standards for potable water. I shall read out the names of 10 different chemicals which the water authorities can add to the water and I beg your Lordships to consider the effect that they can have on one's system. The chemicals include five flocculents, which cause chemical precipitants in lumps or masses. There are the PH or acidic adjusters with chlorine and chlorous introduced to destroy forms of bacteria. Sulphur dioxide is another chemical added which simply adjusts the two chlorines. Our stomach fluids contain natural antibodies which the chlorine is killing. Furthermore, medical studies carried out in the United States show that chlorine is a prime contributor to rectal and bladder cancer. That relates to chlorine in swimming-pools, showers, bath water and drinking water.
Homoeopaths argue that smaller herbal doses are as effective and less harmful than chemical cures. The frequent doses of chlorine which we suffer in our bodies—that is quite apart from the aluminium which is flocculent and which contributes to Alzheimer's disease, as does acid rain—need to be looked at.
What happened at Camelford in Cornwall? A delivery driver accidentally tipped aluminium floc-culent into a tank, the contents of which were distributed directly to the consumer. Was that a shock to the system? If the chemical had been chlorine the amount would have been classified as an overdose. How many accidents and overdoses do we not hear about? Perhaps the major benefit from chemicals is the introduction of fluoride, otherwise we should all be toothless. Doubtless the Minister used his influence to select Strathclyde as the first target for the biggest fluoridisation company in the United Kingdom.
On a slightly lighter note perhaps we should consider that 75 per cent. of our body structure is water. When a friend of mine, who is an alcoholic, visited his doctor he was told, "You must remember, you are just a fingertip away from drowning yourself when you go to the pub"!
Is the National Health Service budget of £27 billion net, apart from private medicine costs, geared to allow for the effects of chemicals in our potable water for drinking or our bathing water? An inquiry into the medium and long-term effect of those chemicals should be instigated by the Government for the sake of the consumer.
We have an alternative; that is bottled water. Companies producing that must comply with EC Regulation No.777 but no chemicals are added. Highland Spring from Scotland is low in salts and minerals and is often used in the treatment of kidney ailments. That is a natural benefit. When looking at the consumption of bottled water throughout Europe, one sees that France, Germany and Italy are major consumers. I wonder why. Demand in the United Kingdom is increasing rapidly. That is the only form of competition to the private water companies but it has obviously been affected by the recession and the consumers' caution as regards spending. Bottled water allows nature's in-built filtration system to provide the cleanliness and the distinction in taste depending on the type and depth of the aquifer.
As has been noted, the majority of consumers pay costs based on the rateable value of their house, but an increasing number of meters are being used to monitor the use of water. Surely it is fairer to all parties for meters to be in operation throughout the country. Approximately 25 per cent. of water is wasted through leakages. If one has a meter one pays only for the water which passes through and not a contribution towards the amount of water lost in the crumbling infrastructure of our water supply pipes.
In this high-tech world homo sapiens is so wasteful. I recently visited Canada, which has the same problem. Despite the fact that Canada has an over-abundance of water it is desperate to see the introduction of metering. It gives the consumer a choice; that is, how much is used casually and how much is obliged to be used.
There exists a regional customers' service committee to hear complaints and pass them to the relevant departments or authorities. Would it not be considered wise to establish a water consumer representation council working in collaboration with the regional bodies and hand-in-hand with Ofwat?

761
The people, the consumers, everyone at Westminster and the taxpayers require their voices to be heard. Let us see H20 remaining as a chemical formula and not the water companies' motto and acronym, "Happy2 Overcharge". My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject. I do not propose to speak on behalf of the authority of which I am chairman but as someone who, as a former MP and Secretary of State for Wales with direct responsibility for water and now chairman of the NRA, has had a particularly close involvement with the industry for more than 20 years.
I recall the moment when the water authorities took over the responsibility from local government. I remember that in my constituency and elsewhere in Wales people were horrified to discover how many sewage treatment works disappeared for ever under brambles and nettles with no records kept of them.
I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that as the Secretary of State along with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who now has responsibility for industry, we intervened in the affairs of the water authorities by calling in a prominent accountant to crawl over them and to suggest reductions in their pricing and capital investments. Not many consumers felt very closely involved in that decision-making process during those years and under those structures.
Against that background I listened with a certain amount of surprise to the lines of criticism which the noble Lord pursued, and with some disappointment that he missed the opportunity to address what seems to me, at any rate, the central issue. He talked a great deal about costs and charges but little about the way in which we should arrive at the balance between costs and benefits.
I remind the House of what has happened over recent years. The Water Act privatised the water supply and water sewage treatment functions of the former water authorities, freeing them from the shackles of the Treasury and interfering Ministers like me and allowing them access to the markets. It set in hand a massive and unprecedented round of environmental improvements. It created the NRA and Ofwat which, with the drinking water inspectorate, performs a wide range of regulatory duties, not just of an environmental nature but concerning other vital consumer interests.
The NRA and Ofwat receive immensely valuable help and advice and are greatly influenced at regional level by their network of advisory committees which represent consumers and a wide range of interest groups.
Since the passing of the Water Act the Environmental Protection Act has added hugely to the protective arrangements for the environment—surely a central consumer interest. Soon we are to have an environmental agency wisely incorporating all the functions of the NRA. All that represents some of the
762
most important and beneficial environmental legislation ever passed by a British Government. They have set in motion the largest investment programme for the improvement of water quality and water environment that has ever been undertaken.
By means of privatisation, financial arrangements have been created which make all that possible. Is it even faintly conceivable that without privatisation that programme could be continued in the present grey economic conditions? Of course not. The programme would have been slashed immediately, as it was by all previous governments during similar cycles. Indeed, expenditure on that scale would never have been contemplated. All that seems to me to be of great benefit to the consumer.
When we turn to the mechanisms for directly protecting their more specific and immediate interests, can it really be argued that the old water authorities and the incestuous arrangements within government, within which poacher and gamekeeper cohabited, provided such protection? The answer must be that it did not. The NRA has an extremely effective system of advisory committees and regional advisory boards. It consults widely. There is vigorous and open discussion about the development of policy, with all the issues on the table and not as a cosy discussion inside government departments.
There are ultimate decisions which are quite properly taken by the Government about standards after that public debate. There are also appeal mechanisms in place; for example, the NRA is answerable for its flood defence functions to the local ombudsman and for its other duties to the parliamentary ombudsman.
For its part, Ofwat seems to me to have been fairly vigorous and outspoken in protecting consumer interests, even to the extent that it has sometimes led to tension with its fellow regulator. It has exposed and brought out into the open the debate about costs and benefits, and that debate will be taken further as the NRA and the Government develop the new system of statutory water quality objectives. It has not only dealt with the great strategic issues of the obscure complexities involved in the setting of K but, judging at least from a news release which was issued on 22nd September, it is going about the practical business of raising the standards which the water authorities must achieve. As the noble Lord has already pointed out, it is placing pressure on the public companies about the prices which they charge.
The director-general has also been applying some fairly effective pressures on those costs, about which the noble Lord spoke. I have repeatedly talked about openness. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the extraordinary contrast between the existing situation and the old arrangements which led to decisions of fundamental importance about quality standards, environmental protection, levels of pollution and availability of water, together with the timing and scale of programmes and their pricing consequences, being taken in little huddles in what were probably, in those days, smoke filled rooms with almost no public awareness of what the decisions were and what the consequences might be.

763
In the present developing situation, the highly desirable and urgent requirements of the European Commission, the British Government and the NRA, urged on by the environmental campaigners, must be costed, prioritised and publicly debated because they can be achieved only if the means are found to pay for them.
To me, that is the central issue which, so far, has not been referred to although it is of such enormous importance for the consumer. The Government, the regulators and many informed organisations are now devoting much time and effort to try to find fair and acceptable ways of establishing what is the proper balance between cost and benefit, between what Greenpeace might demand on the one hand and what the water customer is prepared to pay on the other. We are trying to find ways not just to measure the costs of implementing schemes for environmental improvement but also to measure the value of the environment itself and the cost of the damage done to it.
Recently the director-general drew attention to some of those issues and suggested that the decision should perhaps lie with the water company's customers. However, that is not satisfactory. There are much wider interests entitled to take a view of the matter. Much work is being done on the evaluation of environmental benefits but we are still far from the promised land. In their recent White Paper the Government have come out strongly in favour of a greater use of economic instruments and incentive charges. Sadly, the noble Lord did not touch on those issues and the important and interesting observations made about them in that recent White Paper. However successful the measures may be, I feel confident that there will still be a need for a regulatory regime. The market will be imperfect and, to quote the White Paper, there will have to be a safety net to maintain basic environmental standards.
Those are important questions which need debate and examination. The water quality objectives statutorily set will be a major step forward in determining costs, standards and benefits by open presentation of the arguments. The ultimate decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State and will have to be defended in Parliament. That is the right place for the balance between cost and benefit to be ultimately decided.
The system established by the Water Act, which is already in operation with its three regulators openly stating their position, has moved us already a long way down that road. I hope that the House will contribute significantly to the debate which is taking place about the way in which we carry forward that process with the introduction of water quality objectives.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. The noble Lord mentioned some shares. I have some shares in Wessex Water. I understand that that company has recently bought the largest
764
manufacturer of meters in this country. Therefore, if I get through this speech, noble Lords will understand that far from promoting my own interests, I am actually speaking against them.
The privatisation programme has led to the setting up of regulatory bodies which are actually much more important than we realised. In fact, I came across a paper from the pressure group, the Consortium for Fair Electricity Regulation, dated 6th August 1992 and complaining about the long-term contracts placed by the regional electricity companies with the combined cycle gas turbine generating stations. It states that the former Select Committee on Energy tried to tackle the problem by asking the director general to look again at the urgent need to enforce the RECs' licence condition 5 on economic purchasing. It goes on to say,
"Currently Professor Littlechild is not planning to do this until he reviews price control in 1994/5, by which time irrevocable decisions on power station and pit closures may have been taken".
That is fairly germane to what has been happening recently.
I mentioned the regulators in a speech which I made on 30th July in your Lordships' House. I said that there must be a culture developing among them. They are only human and there must be competitive elements and stresses between them. I drew to your Lordships attention the outbreak of "polyphotitis"—the frequency with which photographs of the director general appear in the annual reports, the worst example being the Ofgas Report of 1988, when no fewer than 13 separate photographs of the director general appeared. I asked whether the condition was contagious and suggested that it was, because in the Ofwat first report of 1989 there were seven photographs of the Director General of Water Services and in 1991 there were only three. Possibly the disease is either being cured or is in remission.
I concluded by asking who regulates the regulators. It seems to me that possibly the present Director General of Water Services may have an ambition to impose metering on the people of this country and that this may be his epitaph.
Ofwat recently conducted a consultation exercise. There is a need for a new charging system. The Water Act of 1989 prohibits companies from using the rateable value-based charging methods after March of the year 2000. An enormous amount of paper has been produced relating to that question and I cannot imagine anyone reading it all unless they intend to write a thesis on the matter. For example, The Social Impact of Water Metering, jointly produced by Ofwat and the DoE, comes in three parts. The first report and tables cost £5 each; the hardship report costs £10. In all they consist of 408 pages and weigh 31b 10oz. It must be a great consolation to a young couple wondering whether they can pay the bill to think that they can always look at the hardship report provided they can fork out the £10 required to buy it. The information pack produced by Ofwat consists of a huge volume of material. It weighs just over 2.51b—not the kind of thing one puts in one's pocket for light reading.

765
The results of the consultation were summarised by the director general in the annual report of 1991, which stated,
"Consultation plays an important part in our work".
It said that the views were sought of both the public and representative bodies as well as the industry. It continued,
"In the light of these responses I published, in December, a strategy for companies to adopt, starting now and progressing towards the late 1990s".
That is summarised in the leaflet, which I am happy to inform your Lordships is free. Setting out his strategy he states,
"In the long term, metering is the only satisfactory way of achieving payments which are well related to the amount of water used … metering should be targeted, and should spread progressively".
That is the ambition and the conclusion reached as a result of the consultation exercise.
Let us examine the consultation exercise. The main part consisted of a survey among domestic customers. At Ofwat's request,28 companies agreed to include with the water bills leaflets and questionnaires in regard to alternative methods of paying for water. They made the point that respondents to the large-scale survey were a self-selecting sample and it was always expected that customers with the strongest views or those who considered themselves likely to gain from a specific option were the most likely to respond.
More than 18 million customers were given the opportunity to exercise their opinions. Almost 290,000 responses were received, representing a response rate of 1.6 per cent. It was said that that response was higher than anticipated when compared with other surveys in which, as in this case, prepaid envelopes were not supplied. It seems to me that to base a strategy on a response rate of 1.6 per cent. is a little dubious to say the least.
What was the leaflet that was issued? I possess a copy of it and, as your Lordships can see, I am one of the 98.4 per cent. of non-responders. It outlines why a change is needed and gives three alternative ways of charging. Anybody who produces a questionnaire of this kind, where different options are given, knows that a virtual science has grown up in the preparation of the questionnaires to ensure that they are totally objective; that they are in no way pointing people towards the answers which the enquirers wish to receive. There are actually people in universities and other departments who specialise in such preparation.
What does this questionnaire consist of? The first alternative given is flat rate charges or a licence fee. It goes on to say,
"The company charges each household the same amount irrespective of its size. If your water usage is very small it may be worthwhile opting for a meter".
To me, that is a clear steer to people to choose the second option of metering. That must devalue the whole exercise. I cannot see how any objective result can be obtained from the questionnaire when that steer is given.
There are other points I find strange about the leaflet. When it talks about metering, one of the advantages it quotes is,
766
"you know that neighbours who use more water will pay more".
That does not seem to me to be a neighbourly thought. It reminds me of a phrase we used in the Navy from time to time, "Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm inboard". When it discusses banding or "stepped charges", one of the reasons why this is said to be unsatisfactory is that,
"economical users subsidise lavish users".
The word "lavish" is pejorative. It means that economical users will subsidise large users. Someone with a large family or with health problems in the family may use large amounts of water. In those circumstances I would not say that the word "lavish" is suitable.
Despite the unsatisfactory nature of the questionnaire, the director general based his whole strategy on it. The largest trial area selected, the Isle of Wight, consists of fewer households with children than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If we go to universal metering it will bear hardest on those who can least afford it—people with large families, disabled people and people with dirty jobs. The National Consumer Council gave an example of a single parent with four young children who moved to Bradford to a housing estate with water meters. The first year's water bill amounted to £348 compared with a water rate of £60 at her previous home.
If we really care about the problems of society, then we should be thinking of the people with medical problems such as users of home dialysis machines and people with incontinence problems. We must think extremely carefully before we adopt a system which will bear down most severely on those in our society who are the least able to stand the consequences.
4.10 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has explained very fully the many problems which are of concern to consumers with regard to the water industry. This is very timely because there are currently many justifiable complaints which have been carefully reported to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, by local citizens advice bureaux.
For many people on low incomes there is no specific benefit rebate to help pay for water, but increases in income support, which are to be welcomed, have not adequately reflected the steep rise in domestic water bills. Although now the price of water is included in the calculations for the up-rating of income support, the shortfall for the years up to 1991 was not made good, thus causing difficulties for low-pay families.
The CAB report, which focuses on evidence submitted to the central office of the service between April 1991 and April 1992, showed a sizeable problem with water debts. In certain areas such as the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, water problems represented dramatically larger proportions of the areas' total debt count than the average. Many pensioners, disabled people, and families on low incomes with young children, face great problems because of the increased charges. Therefore Ofwat's production of guidelines on debt and disconnection

767
are to be warmly welcomed. That was in April 1992. They are, I understand, having an overall review of debt and disconnection later in the year.
There are still serious problems with water charges being submitted to the central office of the CAB which also has grave reservations about the introduction of metered water supplies in trial areas. Their evidence shows that for many households, especially in large households on low incomes and many disabled people, water metering proves extremely costly. A CAB in the Isle of Wight in a meter-trial area, reports a household of two adults with seven children whose bill was £660 for 1991–92. It was an increase of about £540, following the installation of a meter. They are in receipt of family credit. They could not meet the charge and they received a summons from Southern Water.
A CAB in north London reports a pensioner couple, both aged 86, living on income support. They are faced with a £30 increase on their 1991–92 water bill. They have not got enough to meet the increase. There are some cases where there is a need for companies to accept affordable payments, such as weekly or fortnightly payments, which would help.
There are also the serious problems of disconnections. For example, in Tyne and Wear a CAB reports that a client with two small children whose husband had left her three weeks previously, had her water supply disconnected. Sunderland and South Shields Water Company refused to accept weekly payments and would not negotiate at all. A CAB in the West Midlands reports that the South Staffordshire Water Company disconnected the water supply of a consumer with a severely disabled child. The company required a reconnection fee of £94, which the consumer could not afford.
In the case of disabled people, I understand that some need to use a great deal of water; for example, among others, paraplegics and tetraplegics, especially in cases of incontinence. I refer also to the sufferers of multiple sclerosis. I am told that they need extra water for hygienic and health reasons, apart from feeling comfortable. If for any reason one of these consumers is cut off, he or she is unable to go out somewhere to acquire water. They are certainly unable to use a standpipe if that alternative should be suggested. Water metering will also increase their bills.
A CAB in the West Midlands reports a disabled woman on invalidity benefit who, since her meter had been installed, finds her water charges have been quadrupled. In those parts of the country where supply and disposal are dealt with by separate companies, there is a good deal of confusion among consumers, many of whom do not realise that they will receive two separate bills. In Kent a CAB reports a case of a 72 year-old consumer who was confused by the two bills. The consumer paid one only and was summonsed for non-payment of £41 plus £31 costs.
In those areas where there are two different companies it would seem essential that bills should be easily understood and perhaps an explanation should be enclosed with the bill in order to explain that that particular bill is only for supply and that another will follow for disposal. The Consumers' Association
768
would suggest a national consumer body for the water industry such as that which currently exists for the gas industry. If it could not be agreed that a national consumer body for water should be set up as an independent body, perhaps there could he a body set up with a semi-independent status within Ofwat with the needs of vulnerable consumers kept in mind.
At the present moment only gas consumers have such a body in the Gas Consumers' Council. Could not that example be followed elsewhere in the telecommunications and electricity industries as well as in the water supply industry? For myself, I cannot see, since water is a basic necessity of life, how its supply can be based on ability to pay. There is no alternative to water in order to drink, to wash or for sanitation. It appears to me that the effect of the increase in the cost of water to the consumer has been ill-thought-out and that the matter requires the urgent attention of the Government.
My noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh has already mentioned bottled water. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he can tell the House whether it is true that the quality of water from taps has to be to a higher quality than that which is bought in a bottle. I should also like to ask him whether the Government can ensure that the needs of vulnerable people are met, especially with regard to the payment of their bills, and advice given to any who are in danger of being disconnected.
4.16 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I believe that this is a timely debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for initiating it. I would like to raise three issues, two of which have already been the subject of supplementary questions at Question Time. There is no doubt that the water companies have a complete monopoly. There is no alternative supplier or alternative product so it is very much in the public interest to ensure that that monopoly position is not abused in any way.
I would like to draw attention to two areas where I believe problems do exist. They have both been mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, but I would like to expand a little on them. The water companies have an obligation to make capital investments mainly to meet future demand and to satisfy the environmental requirements. Too often, when price increases are made and often criticised, the water companies justify those price increases by saying that they have to be made in order to provide the funds for capital expenditure.
That is a very happy and unduly cosy position for a company which many of us who have worked in competitive industry would very much liked to have had. If we needed funds for capital investment how nice it would have been just to put up prices in a non-competitive situation. Of course, that is not possible in normal business and nor is it in the consumers' interest. It certainly was not the practice either in the old statutory water companies. There the value of retained profits was restricted by law. In my experience as a director many years ago of such a

769
statutory water company, that restriction never caused any difficulty in raising new capital for well-conceived capital projects.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend who is to reply whether the Government will ensure that Ofwat makes it compulsory for such capital expenditure as is required to be provided by raising new capital and not by increasing the costs of water to the consumer.
There is an abuse of the monopoly position of water companies in the field of contracting. Several noble Lords have referred to water meters and the value of installing them. My own experience in that connection is not a very happy one. I asked my local water company for an estimate of the cost of putting in a water meter. They told me that the minimum cost would be £200 and that in addition there would be a survey fee—which I call a fee for an estimate—of £25. That would enable them to give me a firm price which would not be less than £200. I said that I thought that this was rather a high price for installing one simple water meter in one pipe in my garden. They replied that they were allowed to require the work to be done by themselves, and that that was their charge.
I pressed the point and said that I should like to get an estimate from my local plumber to do the work to see whether he could do it cheaper, as I was sure he could have done. They said that they would not allow that. That seems to me to be an abuse of a monopoly position and not in the customer's interest and not in the interests of getting a bigger use of water meters. Again, may I ask my noble friend who is to reply whether he will ensure that customers have the right to obtain competitive tenders in such cases and for the work to be done to the specification of the water company concerned by the contractor chosen by the consumer.
Lastly, I should like to raise a point that I raised with my noble friend during Question Time earlier in the year. It is in the consumer's interest to have fully adequate supplies of water at all times and not to be rationed even in a drought. There is a general shortage of water in the southern part of the country and ample supplies in northern parts of the country, particularly, as I mentioned at Question Time, at the Kielder Dam in Northumberland. Can the Government assure us that the studies being made into the possibility of having a trunk water supply main from the north to the south of England are being actively pursued? I hope the Minister can also give us assurances on the other two points that I have raised—as I believe he can—and that the Government are taking steps to ensure that the monopoly position of the water companies will not be abused in the future.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in the few minutes at my disposal, I propose to limit myself to one point that was touched on at the end of the speech by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh in initiating this debate. As I have been listening to the interesting discussion—and I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised these issues—I could not help thinking of the debates that we had at the end of the
770
last Parliament on what is now the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992. That Act concerned the powers of the regulators of the four privatised public services. It stood out a mile that in only one of the four was there anything like adequate representation of consumers.
As my noble friend Lady Kinloss has already explained the industry concerned is the gas industry, where the Gas Consumers Council alone has the staff, the resources, and the independence to make something like an effective contribution at national level to issues affecting consumers. The Bill was perhaps not the appropriate place for trying to extend that example elsewhere, and indeed we were pressed for time and had to be content with provisions strengthening the role of the regulators, with one or two additional provisions, and notably that which put an obligation on the regulators to conduct market research into the standards that consumers are looking for.
There are certainly arguments for doing still more about the powers of the regulators and possibly making them subject to some additional kind of accountability. But all that would not solve the basic problem that underlies much of what we have been discussing in this debate: that the regulator is not there just to protect the consumers. His job, as I understand it, is to strike this balance between their interests on the one hand and the interests of the industry and its shareholders on the other. Water, as it happens, is just about the most complete of the natural monopolies, and the case for a more effective consumer representation seems to me a powerful one.
I would be the last to decry the work done by the regional customer service committees set up by Ofwat and to which reference has already been made. They identify the anxieties of consumers, look into complaints and advise Ofwat on consumer interests. But they have limited resources, and the plain fact is that they do not add up to a national voice that might influence national decisions on difficult and complicated issues such as pricing formulae and procedures for disconnection.
I do not altogether go along with the rather idealistic picture that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, painted in such attractive and eloquent terms. I would concede that the position is different now from what it was when I used to deal with water problems in what was then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. But it seems to me that the need for something more is self evident. I have no intention of going over ground that has already been well covered, but it bears repetition that prices for water and sewerage have been soaring at an alarming rate well above inflation, and that this is something that hits those on low incomes especially hard.
Like my noble friend Lady Kinloss, I have been told that problems with water bills—at any rate, in some parts of the country—are increasing faster than pretty well any other type of debt, and it looks as though social security payments have not been able to keep up with the increases. Then there has been a disturbing rise in the number of disconnections. I am told that there were over 21,000 in a recent period of

771
12 months, and that this is a much larger number than in the previous 12 months. It is worth remembering that disconnection means that one cannot flush the lavatory, one cannot wash the baby's clothes and one cannot even boil a kettle.
Then there is talk of metering. I have some sympathy with those who have already spoken and have expressed some doubt about the merits of metering on a large scale. It can be argued that in general consumers in this country do not waste water. We are near the bottom of the table in Europe for the use of water per head of population. I cannot help thinking that the millions of pounds that would have to be spent on meters might be better used to repair the leaks in the mains which, as has been pointed out, account for waste on such a massive scale. There are a number of quite conflicting considerations that make this a difficult issue.
This is not an exhaustive list by any means of the problems which concern consumers; but I hope that it will perhaps serve as enough to bring out the point that there are a good many issues in this vital service where the voice of the consumer ought to be heard at the national level through an independent body with adequate resources. Since this already happens with gas, it cannot be easily dismissed as a far-fetched fantasy. I hope that the Minister will not try to write it off lightly. It is something that matters to a lot of our fellow citizens.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. I feel diffident in speaking at all considering that many speakers today are or have been in various ways experts in the working of national boards and privatised utilities. The comments that I have to offer spring from a little knowledge—and we know to what that can lead—so I shall be as brief as possible.
My justification for intervening is partly that I was one of only nine of my noble friends on this side of the House who voted against the Government and in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent when the privatisation Bill was before the House. That amendment recommended privatisation by a route which would have removed the profit/dividend motivation completely and would also have required that all the proceeds of the privatisation should go to the new water companies for the capital investment that everyone knew was needed.
Another reason is in some degree parochial in that the area of the south where I live—the Eastbourne, Bexhill, Hastings area—is not heavily represented in your Lordships' House, and sometimes I feel I should speak up for it. By the same token, I must declare an interest, since my water supply at home comes from the Eastbourne Water Company monopoly.
I have had lengthy correspondence with Eastbourne Water and Ofwat, although Dr. Byatt did not see fit to reply personally to me. Answers came, at intervals so great as to be impolite, from a body called
772
the Consumer Affairs Division of Ofwat. This appears to be the sort of stockade that is set up to prevent anyone from pestering the boss.
Others more experienced than I have already referred to the historic absurdity of the water rates being based on the old rating system, so I am going to concentrate on the cost of Eastbourne water. First, must briefly explain the set-up in our area. At present there is a company called South-East Water which does not seem to do much at present although I understand its time of power lies in the future. South-East Water owns Eastbourne Water, Mid-Sussex Water and West Kent Water. Incidentally, those companies are water-only companies—that is, they do not provide sewerage facilities. In our case those come from Southern Water. What is more, South-East Water is owned by the French company Saur, who thereby own the whole lot.
My sources have repeatedly stressed the point that there is no reason to believe that those French-owned companies, or other French-owned companies in other parts of the country, have behaved with any greater insouciance in increasing prices than the general run of British-owned pies. I must emphasise that point.
I come now to the figures. On 31st May this year the Sunday Times published an investigation into water charges which was concerned in particular with the gigantic personal gains accruing to the chairmen of the 10 largest plcs. In one case, the increase in three years amounted to 290 per cent. In the case of charges, the worst was Anglian with an increase of 46 per cent. But that is nothing compared with Eastbourne Water which contrived rises of 100 per cent. in the same period. There are people who cannot pay that. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, developed that vital point most admirably and passionately.
On 18th June 1991 the Daily Telegraph made the following comment:
"His"—
that is referring to Byatt—
"report shows, for instance, that Eastbourne's citizens pay more for their water than any other in Britain (having also suffered almost the highest increases) but that the cheapest water is merely a few miles along the coast in West Hampshire".
I can add that even closer Southern Water charges for water supply in Hastings are about half those in Bexhill, the two towns being five miles apart.
I come now to the heart of the matter in the form of a letter from the Sunday Times Insight team with whom I had correspondence following the investigation I referred to earlier. This knocks out all the gobbledygook provided by Ofwat consumer affairs division and speaks in plain, lucid words as follows:
"During Insight's investigation into the bonuses being paid to water executives we did indeed take a close look at the former statutory companies like Eastbourne Water.
As you thought, many of the smaller companies have increased prices to an even greater degree than the 10 former water authorities. Furthermore, many of their executives have large shareholdings in their companies which have been extremely lucrative thanks to generous dividends paid from high profits largely resulting from increased charges".
Of course I had permission for that quote from the Sunday Times.I repeat it:

773
"extremely lucrative thanks to generous dividends paid from high profits largely resulting from increased charges".
That sounds to me like the plain truth, and I should be especially grateful if my noble friend the Minister would comment on those interesting allegations when he replies to the debate.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although this is a short debate, we have nevertheless ranged very widely. It has been introduced with considerable skill by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and those who have followed have either had direct experience of the water industry or have very clear views on the subject.
We are going through a changing period in the great history of the water industry in Britain. Privatisation was introduced not very long ago. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that a number of issues which have been touched on today should have arisen. Because the nature of the water industry is basically monopolistic strong regulatory bodies have had to be established—notably the NRA, under the distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, whom we were glad to hear today, and the Office of Water Services.
I should like to mention some of the main difficulties that have arisen. Before that I wish to emphasise what I believe most of us feel: that is, that the water industry of Britain is a great industry with enormous technical skill. As one who has taken a considerable interest in its affairs, and who has visited water treatment plants, sewage plants and research centres, I feel that it is about as advanced an industry as we have in Britain. We must recognise that fact in order to get the balance right, and then consider the shortcomings which have emerged under the changing conditions.
The issue of prices has come in for much comment. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Hardinge, referred to that. There is not the slightest doubt that, of the prices that one pays for the services of the utilities, it is water prices which have gone up fastest. Undoubtedly, a very large measure of investment has to be made to compensate for lack of investment in the past, and there are new environmental standards to be met. Nonetheless, the prices do seem excessive, and they are causing considerable hardship.
Reference has been made to the CAB report which has drawn attention to the fact that water bill problems are increasing faster than any other single type of debt. So one must consider not only why the charges should be rising so fast but also whether there are adequate social security provisions to safeguard those who are least able to afford them but who must have the use of water, as must everybody.
Ofwat is to be congratulated on the debate which it stimulated among consumers about some kind of trade-off between quality and price. It drew the basic issue out into the open: do we want large sums to be spent on continually improving the quality of water, or do we feel that price is more important and that we
774
can make do with a lower quality of water? The unfortunate point about domestic water in particular is that we have to have the same quality whatever use we make of it. It would be very much better if we could have a very high grade tap water for drinking—eau potable, as they say in France—and a lower grade water for the other more menial domestic tasks which I shall not go into. That would be a sensible arrangement if it were commercially and financially possible. I do not know what the problems would be in doing that but it seems to me that we waste much good quality water.
There is also the question of disconnections, which seem to have risen at an alarming rate—a rise in 1991–92 of 177 per cent. over the previous year. That is very disturbing. It is a matter of grave social concern that so many more households should be deprived of such a basic element as water—or indeed gas or electricity in other cases—because of simple inability to pay. There may be among those who are disconnected people who just refuse to pay, but I am sure we all hope that great care is taken about disconnections. It is a disturbing development.
The question of water metering, to which several noble Lords have referred, is a controversial one. Here again we have the impact of the fact that water is a natural resource which we all have to use and that metering has a different impact on the type of user. In the small household in a highly rated area, metering is a great advantage. If one uses relatively less water and pays more for it on a rateable value basis, then one goes for a meter and one gains. But, in the large household with a low rateable value, metering introduces an considerable burden. If metering is to be introduced I believe that it will have to take account of that issue.
In addition to that we have the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, on the possible abuse of monopoly. This is a natural monopoly and we have to be very watchful all the time that monopolies are not abused. I was horrified to hear his story about the meter. In this day and age when we are meant to be going for an open market I should have thought that he should have been free to have anyone install the meter so long as it was of an authorised type and did the job. That the local water company should have had a total monopoly and been able to fix any price it liked and prevent him from going outside is entirely wrong. I hope that the Minister will comment on that situation. I am sure that that was not intended in framing the legislation.
Finally, we come to the form of consumer representation. It has been pointed out that, in the case of the water, the consumer representation is an integral part of the regulatory authority, as distinct from what happens in the gas industry, where the consumer body is completely different. This is a point to which a number of noble Lords have referred.
I am interested in consumer bodies, having served on a number in my time. The annual report of Ofwat for 1991 starts with an important phrase from the director general. He says that he has
"sought to increase the power and influence of consumers".

775
He puts that right at the beginning of the report. The second chapter, which is entitled Protecting the Consumer, demonstrates quite an impressive story. There is no doubt that the consumer protection business is taken seriously. In addition I have looked at one of the individual CSC reports—Thames—which is also an impressive document. The chairman, Mr. Philip Chappell, is someone with whom I have dealt in my time and who may be known to other noble Lords. It is a report which recognises the responsibility the body has to safeguard the consumer interest.
There is no doubt that a good deal is being done to safeguard the consumer within the organisation of Ofwat. But the point of principle still remains. Should it be there? Should there not be a totally independent body? The need for an independent body is supported by the fact that the consumer watchdog or consumer representation body—whatever it may be called—not only has watch over the interests of the consumer vis-á-vis the companies but also vis-á-vis the regulatory bodies. It ought to be in an independent position. Even though so much is being done within Ofwat to safeguard the consumer interest, this question of principle needs to be looked at seriously.
4.46 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the gratitude expressed by a number of noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for introducing this important subject of debate. Unlike many noble Lords I have no particular experience in the water or sewerage industry but I had the task of speaking from this Dispatch Box on both the Water Bill and the Environmental Protection Bill. Some of the debates—not all of them, by any means—are engraved on my heart. Those who took part in the debates at two or three o'clock in the morning will not readily forget the experience and may even have learnt one or two things from them.
The issue of consumer protection in the water industry and in the other utilities is not one which arises for the first time with privatisation, but it certainly is one which achieves prominence and a sense of urgency when the monopolies become private monopolies as opposed to public monopolies. Even the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who certainly did not emerge as a critic of the existing system, admitted that the market for water will be imperfect. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, from the same Benches, also referred to the monopoly position of the water companies and to the possibilities for abuse. It must be accepted that, although these will always be monopolies, despite was was said by the Government when the Water Bill was being put forward, nevertheless the obligation to have some formal structure for protecting consumers is very much greater when those monopolies have their obligation not to the public interest but to their shareholders.
When we look at the water industry we have to ask ourselves the question: what do consumers actually want? They want quality of water, although the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made a very good point about whether they want a single quality. Both Ofwat and
776
the Water Services Association have published discussion documents on the issue of whether consumers of water really want the very high standards of elimination of impurities which are being imposed by the European Community. That debate will continue. Consumers want a full range of services to be available at all times of the day and night, including in rural areas. Those can be generally accepted to have been maintained under privatisation.
Consumers want social policies to be right; in other words, in particular, they want to see an avoidance of the very painful experience of disconnection to which a number of noble Lords referred. We must remember that, when there is disconnection, it is not free of charge. The pain that is suffered is not paid for only by the people who are deprived of water. In the end, it becomes a public charge in the sense that something has to be done by the publicly-funded social services. The rising tide of disconnection in water is certainly a matter of concern. It is a matter which plainly concerns the Office of Water Services.
But, above all, what consumers of water want is protection from excessive prices. That is where the introduction of privatisation has really made a difference. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said that the capital return to the water industry is too high. Many noble Lords referred to the fact that it is possible for the water industry to reap the benefits of limited liability and of equity pricing on their shares and yet have no risk whatever. In effect, the Government have guaranteed that water undertakings will not go bankrupt. There is none of the speculative risk which accompanies truly private investment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, made clear. In those circumstances, to have a return on capital in the water industry which is higher than the return on capital in the public sector can he achieved only at the expense of water consumers. Unless we have—as I believe we do—a very powerful and determined regulator in the water industry, the consumers will suffer very severely.
There are still a number of other measures which could be carried out to improve the functioning of the consumer protection system in the water industry, even without the issue to which I shall return; namely, the independence of the consumer protection structure. Under any structure, there could well be—and should be, in my view—some provision for a line of complaint directly to the customer services committee, not only after unsuccessful complaint to the undertaker. That matter applies not only in water but also in transport, gas, electricity and so on. If you travel on a London bus or the tube, the way in which London Transport allows the London passengers' committee to advertise is noticeable. Reference is made to "comments" or "suggestions". The word "complaint" itself is taboo on the buses or on the tube. That is clearly designed to minimise meaningful objection by consumers.
I do not see why we should not have what exists in many parts of the United States—a system of public hearings. In Wisconsin the Public Services Commission holds public hearings at which there can be attack on proposals for increased tariffs by utilities.

777
The utilities have to defend their position and the commission takes a view at the end of those public hearings. It has never been clear to me why the Government resisted that suggestion when I made it during the passage of the Water Bill.
Above all, there is the issue of the price of return on capital. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is very satisfied with the present situation. All the same, it is extraordinary. What we have is statutory protection for the water undertakings to carry out the investment which they need and which they can justify to the regulator at a price which they can justify to the regulator. I admit all of that. However, they carry out that investment directly at the cost of current charges to consumers. That is a very curious concept and one which would not really find acceptance in private industry where, normally, you would expect to fund capital investment by borrowing rather than simply through the ability to raise prices on a current basis to the consumers. It does not just raise the issue of a difference between phoney market mechanisms, which is what we have in the water industry. It also raises major issues of inter-generational equity between us and our descendants and, in due course, between our descendants and us. In all of those cases, I suggest that the current regulatory framework for setting prices is more fundamentally wrong than even the Office of Water Services is prepared to accept.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the crux of the matter so far as concerns the water industry is the role of the regulator. Nothing that I say—and, indeed, nothing that any noble Lord has said—has been in criticism of the activities of the present Director General of Water Services. His reports and his activities have been quoted with approval. I share that view. I believe that Mr. Byatt is making a conscious, deliberate and largely successful effort to overcome the difficulties which arise form the statutory provision that consumer customer services commit-tees are under the control of the regulator. But the fundamental principle is still sound: the role of the regulator ought to be to hold the balance between the consumer and the water undertakings. What he is required to do is both hold the balance and protect the consumers. There is a fundamental inconsistency there.
Therefore, with the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Ezra, and with others, I, too, believe that consumer protection in the water industry ought to be independent of the regulator—that is, even the best regulator—and should be more like the Gas Consumers' Council. We have had a worthwhile debate. I am glad to have had an opportunity to contribute in a small way.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for drawing the attention of the House to the question of consumer representation in the water industry. I thought that he made a very good speech, as did all noble Lords. Indeed, I think the House will agree that what we lacked in quantity we
778
made up in quality. I am especially glad that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who made an excellent speech, is present today, not least because of his great experience and technical knowledge of the water industry.
Clearly, the main event over the past decade has been privatisation. That has provided the spur to better opportunities to raise investment income and plan for the long term and has led to efficiency savings and improvement in services beyond that which would have been possible within the restrictions of the public sector with its competing interests and political interference. Privatisation of the water industry has proven to be a huge success, and the improvements made in the water industry are real.
Today's debate is about the role of the consumer and his representation. In many industries, consumers are automatically represented through their freedom to choose whether or not to buy a product or to make use of a service being offered. It is that very freedom to choose which is the basis of a market economy, and the efficiency and quality incentives which that provides were among a number of compelling reasons that persuaded the Government to privatise the utilities.
When that happened to the water industry, it was recognised that it was, to an extent, a natural monopoly but one which could equally benefit from the disciplines of the private sector. Because it was a natural monopoly, one of our primary concerns was to ensure the representation and the protection of the interests of consumers. I am sure we all agree that it is especially important for there to he clear lines of responsibility for the protection of consumers. We achieved that through the regulatory system which we established. Its purpose was to ensure that the industry could be monitored properly and that standards paid for were met, with full accountability to those who ultimately foot the bill.
In the 1970s there was a decline in investment in the water industry because of a squeeze on the economy which affected all public sector spending. The need for public sector spending restraint in later years meant that while it was in the public sector the industry could never have hoped to carry out the massive programme of investment which is now under way. Privatisation has released the water industry from the inevitable conflict with other government spending priorities. It has improved the economy of delivery and provided the means to invest in much needed renewal of infrastructure and to meet new environmental standards which we all want.
The noble Lords, Lord Clifford and Lord McIntosh, talked about capital restructuring and the debt write-off. The capital restructuring of the water and sewerage companies was necessary to encourage shareholders to take on the burden of those companies. It is the shareholder who takes the risk. The customers pay for the services that they receive. It is the shareholders who have the use of the assets to provide the services, but if they ever lose their licences, they also lose the assets. The key point must be that the services are supplied to the customer as efficiently as possible and without interruption. It is up to the

779
Director General of Ofwat—I was glad to hear so many noble Lords congratulate him on the work that he does—to endeavour to achieve cheapness of delivery without interruption at minimum cost to the consumer.
Perhaps I may touch briefly upon a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who talked about the possibility of having a quality differential. The problem, I suspect, would be the huge infrastructure costs of installing new water lines, but it is something which needs to be discussed more openly.
During the past few years we have seen massive investment in the industry. It is the consumers who will benefit ultimately from that investment. Consumers will ultimately benefit from the massive investment programme for which the charges limits provide. However, the consumer is not always aware of the reasons for, or the level of, investment, now estimated at £30 billion in the 10 years to the year 2000, or the extent to which standards are being raised. That massive investment is required to meet the drinking water regulations and EC standards for bathing waters and to comply with discharge consents, improve river quality, restore ageing infrastructure and raise levels of service. To that must be added a continual change to requirements as scientific and medical research advances.
Consumers, particularly those on low incomes, are generally and understandably more immediately concerned with the bill coming through their door, the rate at which it is increasing year by year and how it compares with the neighbour's bill. Their anxieties are fuelled by the media's preoccupation with high salaries of company chairmen, directors and senior management, dividends to shareholders, and pollution scares.
The bills are higher, as we knew they must be. The demand for higher standards and improved services and the cost of remedying the under-investment of past years, necessarily mean higher charges. The result is that the average consumer feels vulnerable to the whims of the water companies which can seemingly increase their charges at will.
To ensure specific, independent protection, we needed a new regulator in addition to the newly created National Rivers Authority whose role is essentially to oversee river quality regulation and the continuing Drinking Water Inspectorate. So we appointed the Director General of Water Services whose primary functions are to carry out licensing and financial regulation of the industry and protect the consumer's interest.
The director general's responsibilities range across the whole of the water and sewerage companies' activities from their duties to provide and maintain systems of pipework and treatment works for the supply of water and the removal of sewage to the calculation of individual customers' charges. He exercises those responsibilities in a number of ways. First, the industry's consumers have a right of access to information about their local company's performance and services. On charges, the director general has recently issued a consultation paper, The Cost of Quality, which expresses his concern over possible
780
levels of future increases and aims to ensure that water companies take account of customer views on the quality of service for which the customers are prepared to pay.
Guaranteed standards of service provide consumers with protection on a range of individual matters of concern such as the speed of turn round of inquiries about billing. Failure to achieve those standards entitles the consumer to payments in recognition of the failure and provides the companies with an incentive to improve. The director general has recently proposed extending the existing guaranteed standards scheme regulations to provide improvements for the consumer. Those improvements will include queries being dealt with more quickly; more convenient appointments; and payments or credits when services are affected under certain conditions being extended and increased. Details of the standards are sent annually to every customer.
However, not all consumers will feel that they have been treated fairly by their water or sewerage undertaker. Ten regional customer service committees were set up by the director general specifically to represent consumers' interests and to deal with their complaints. Many of the inquiries they receive are from customers who face difficulty in meeting bills and complain about the unfairness of charging methods. Much work is being undertaken by the CSCs in liaison with the companies to overcome those problems.
I recognise the argument put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Lord McIntosh, and many other noble Lords for an independent national council able to campaign on water consumer issues, but I believe that the director general already does that with the help of the committees. They have been operating for two years and have an excellent record of dealing with customer issues and contributing to national debates. I have no reason to believe that the present system is in itself deficient, but I am always open to reasoned argument and evidence which shows that it is.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the basic issue, the Minister is right to say that the system works extremely well with the present director general. The anxiety is that a future director general may not be so dedicated to that principle and that there should be some greater structural safeguard for the interest of the consumer than exists under the present regime.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is the kind of point that could be looked at in the longer term. But, as the noble Lord admitted, the present system does not seem to work too badly.
Perhaps I may now turn to water metering. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said that it is not a matter that I should take lightly. I hope that he agrees that it is a matter which is not taken lightly by me, the Government or anyone else. It is a serious and important matter for water consumers throughout the country.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, what I said should not be taken lightly was the idea of setting up

781
a body comparable to the Gas Council. I expressed some scepticism about metering; I did not suggest that it should be taken lightly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I know that he is worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, about metering. Metering is of course only one option for setting charges, but it is potentially the fairest. The director general has raised with the water companies the cost of installing meters. Several companies now operate schemes which reduce that cost or provide for payments to be spread. The cost of installing meters is usually met by the companies, while the customer pays for the meter. At least one company has offered free meters if customers pay for the installation.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, talked about the hardship aspects of metering. As part of the review carried out it was found that less than 4 per cent. of the sample experienced difficulty. I accept that there will be cases of hardship my department and Ofwat have already indicated that there is a need to seek ways of alleviating such a problem; but, as I said earlier, although metering may not be a panacea, it must be one of the options at which water companies should look between now and the end of the current system in 2000.
Of course, if the consumer believes that he or she has failed to obtain the standard of service to which he or she is entitled, or that there has been unfair treatment in the matter of charges, having involved the company and the customer service committee he or she is entitled to take the case to the director general who is responsible for dealing with any unresolved disputes and who has the statutory duty to protect the consumer's interest.
That brings me to the question of the director general's own accountability. Apart from his or her appointment the director general remains an independent regulator. This is because the water companies are in the private sector and to introduce explicit political control of the regulator could mean that the companies were unduly and unfairly subject to controls which were commercially biased or might ultimately lead to a less satisfactory delivery of water and sewerage services to the consumer. The director general has to answer to the Parliamentary Ombudsman and ultimately the courts. Regulators also appear before Select Committees when asked.
I have concentrated on the water consumer as a customer of the water companies—as the receiver of water and sewerage services—and I realise that I have been unable to give a fuller picture of the work of the other regulators for the customer as consumer; that is, the National Rivers Authority and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, both of which regularly publish reports on their work. The NRA looks after the water environment and has powers to determine the most immediate and practical way to bring about an improvement where water quality in the natural environment falls short of prescribed standards. It also has duties with regard to abstractions from water courses, regulates fisheries and navigation and has
782
flood protection responsibilities. Anyone concerned at any of those issues may telephone their local NRA area office which will deal with the matter, often by sending one of a team of inspectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, asked about chemical additions to water. As I understand it, the standards covering the chemical composition of drinking water are strictly monitored by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The standards are set on the basis of the best available research and this research is continuing. We can and do take every account of decisions reached in respectable scientific circles both nationally and internationally.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about bottled water which is subject to different regulations than those applying to public drinking water. Drinking water provided by the water undertakers is regulated to the highest standards and compares favourably in purity with bottled waters. However, to answer the point directly is rather difficult because mineral waters may by definition contain minerals which are not permitted in mains supply drinking water and there is also the question of taste. Tap water has one of the highest standards of purity and I believe that is what most noble Lords would wish.
One area I should mention is the continuing public consultation on the development of water services. At the present time the NRA is consulting on a development strategy for water resources; my department is consulting on water conservation; and Ofwat is seeking views on the affordability and desirability of various proposals relating to quality standards.
In describing the way in which the water customers' interests have been covered I have not lost sight of the fact that the consumer is also in a sense affected by the activities of the companies; for example fell walkers, farmers and holidaymakers on the beaches. I also appreciate that there are certain consumers for whom the cost and quality of service are crucial to their livelihoods as well as to their lives; for example consumers in hotels, residential homes and hospitals. Noble Lords will understand that the range of consumer concerns is very great and that the director general particularly takes account of the specific problems which they pose.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote asked about the transfer of water from region to region, particularly between Kielder reservoir in the north and the reservoirs in the south which have suffered some years of drought. There are areas where interregional transfers already exist but the costs involved in creating the infrastructure to transfer water from Kielder to the south will almost certainly be too great. However, I understand that the British Waterways Board which is responsible for our canal system is working on plans to transfer water from the North West to East Anglia.
I have already mentioned the cost of meters and metering. I should say to my noble friend Lord Caldecote that water meters remain the property of the water companies and therefore they may nominate who installs them. As regards whether the cost is too

783
high, my noble friend may wish to take that matter up with the Director General of Ofwat who, I know, is looking carefully into the whole matter.
My noble friend Lord Hardinge talked about directors' salaries and bonuses. That matter has arisen many times. I hope all noble Lords will agree that those salaries and bonuses are ultimately for the market and shareholders to decide. However, as a Government we have often expressed our concern at large pay rises and at the fact that some companies have set an extremely bad example. We hope that in the future directors will desist from giving themselves such steep pay rises.
My noble friend Lord Hardinge also asked about the Eastbourne Water Company. I shall have to look into that matter further. I hope that I may write to my noble friend. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that the arrangements which exist for the representation and protection of water consumers' interests are wide-ranging and effective. They may not in all cases be perfect, but I feel the debate we have had today and the questions that have been raised on consumer representation and the interests of those who may or may not be water metered are paramount in the mind of the Government. Finally, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for bringing the matter to our attention.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am grateful for the valuable comments that have been made in this afternoon's debate. We all hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take heed of exactly what has been said. Before the Scottish and the Northern Ireland water authorities are possibly privatised there are many lessons to be learnt. Those lessons have been paid for at the cost of the British and Welsh consumer, just as the Scots were the stalking horse for the community charge. Whether or not water authorities are privately operated, it is still Her Majesty's Government's responsibility and elected role to ensure the defence of our shores against both human foes and nature's erosion. Her Majesty's Government must also ensure that the consumer and the taxpayer can afford that essential to life, water. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Security
5.18 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the need for a comprehensive review of the economic, military and other factors underlying a satisfactory national security policy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am gratified that this short debate has attracted such a distinguished list of speakers, including three maiden speakers, one of whom, the noble Lord, Lord Younger, is a distinguished former Secretary of State for Defence. His speech will therefore be listened to with more than usual interest.
It is not my intention to use this debate simply as a pretext for reopening the arguments about Options for Change. Nothing has happened since we last debated that issue in your Lordships' House to alter my own view that the consequences of Options for Change, unless that policy is substantially modified, will have a malign effect not only on the morale of the Armed Forces but also on the ability of this country to discharge effectively its national and international commitments.
The first of those consequences has, I fear, already begun to surface. I returned last week from Hong Kong, where I had been with a delegation of the All-Party Defence Study Group of Peers and MPs on a visit to the British forces in Hong Kong. Although the commitment, discipline, training and bearing of the troops there is of the highest order, it was in Hong Kong that I first heard, not once but several times, the rather sardonic comment from officers and soldiers that instead of the smaller and better Armed Forces that were promised under Options for Change what we are really getting is smaller and bitter Armed Forces.
There is a great deal still to be said about overstretch, tour intervals, infantry battalions and other such issues, and it may well be that some of it will be said in this short debate this evening. Indeed, I know that my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall is especially concerned about some of those matters. My own contention is that Options for Change is no more than one of the symptoms of a much more fundamental weakness in the direction of national policy as a whole and of security policy especially.
Simply put, I believe that that weakness is the absence of a broader and deeper conception of the emerging world structure and the role that this country is destined to play in it. Some people call that a moral vision, others call it a total strategy. Whatever it is called, it is essential to the whole range of policies—foreign policy, strategic policy, social and economic policy—on which the national status, prosperity and security of this country will depend in the long term. As the Motion on the Order Paper requires me to do, I shall concentrate on the aspects which are usually known as defence policy but which involve much more than simply the organisation and strength of our Armed Forces.
What I believe is now needed is a comprehensive reappraisal of the whole of our national security policy. That will necessarily involve an intelligent assessment of the proportion of national resources which should, in the current economic circumstances, be devoted to our military capabilities. That does not mean that it should be predominantly resource driven. It must, as the military historian, Correlli Barnett, said in a recent address, reflect a comprehensive approach, embracing all the factors which are relevant to preserving the power and prosperity of the nation in the face of rivalry from other powers, other groups of powers and other developments in the political scene, in an increasingly unstable international environment.
It is silly to suggest, as some well intentioned and distinguished figures occasionally do, that it is impossible to evolve a long-term security policy

785
because, they say, what eventually happens is always what is least expected. Such thinking leads inevitably to the kind of muddling-through process which has often been accepted with a mixture of affection and resignation as a British substitute for coherent planning. Of course the unexpected will always happen, but that is no excuse for failing to make provision for what can be legitimately anticipated or for ensuring proper flexibility in the structure of our Armed Forces to cope with a more diffuse security threat and a more unpredictable security environment.
Defence planning must always begin with a range of contingencies or "scenarios", or whatever one might like to call them, in which possible developments in the international power structure have to be considered and assessed according to the degree of probability that they will actually emerge. From that it is possible to evolve a number of threat assessments, including a number of worst-case scenarios which, however unlikely, must be taken into account in any consideration of a nation's military requirements.
Of course, in the calculation of force levels the availability of national economic resources has to be a powerful factor. No one would deny that. But the vital decisions about the proportion of such resources to be devoted to defence cannot sensibly and intelligently be made until there is a clear understanding of the international role which this country is intended to play. If we are to be and to remain in any real sense a significant power, continuing to influence world events, becoming involved in the legitimate exercise of substantial power, the resources needed for the military establishment will obviously be much greater than they would be if we were to be content, as some people may well like us to be, with a tame or minor role.
It is true to say that in the post-imperial years Great Britain has exerted considerably greater influence in the world than might have been warranted by our purely economic strength. I believe that that influence has been exercised to the ultimate benefit not only of Britain's reputation but also of our political and material interests. The government of the 1980s, for example, was not impressed by the argument that we should be fearful of spending 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. more of our GNP on defence than some of our European Community and NATO partners. In two general election campaigns in which defence issues figured prominently—those of 1983 and 1987—the electorate appeared to accept the Government's view of who we are as a people and what kind of role we should aspire to. During the Falklands operation and during the Gulf conflict, which might not have been waged by the coalition forces had it not been for the strong advice given by the British Government to the US President, opinion polls repeatedly demonstrated public willingness to pursue the military option in pursuit of enlightened and long-term national interest.
The present Government seem to stand in the same tradition. Yet the fact that the formulation of defence policy should have been permitted to proceed as it did
786
during Options for Change suggests that there is a lesser degree of certainty and conviction about our national role and that there is also a reluctance to think about the deeper implications not only of our existing obligations but also of possible future risks.
It is the responsibility of Government at the highest level to establish and give clear guidance about the commitments which they need to undertake in order to pursue policies commensurate with their view of our role in the world. Those commitments will require a certain level of military capability. As we have seen so frequently, there are many cases in which diplomacy alone is inadequate to achieve the objects of foreign policy. That has been demonstrated most recently in the case of Yugoslavia, where Britain is now committed to the deployment of more than 2,000 troops. Leaving aside the wisdom of that deployment, it underlines once again the truth of the observation made by the American journalist, Walter Lippman, who said:
"The elementary means by which all foreign policy must be conducted are the armed forces of the nation, the arrangements of its strategic position and the choice of its alliances".
As new security arrangements proliferate in the new and unfamiliar post-Cold War environment, there is a distinct impression that that great truth is being obscured. If Britain is indeed to occupy the kind of world status and accept the kind of military commitments exemplified by the deployment in Bosnia, adequate military resources must be kept constantly available. Failure to do so will either leave Britain impotent on the sidelines when its vital interests or those of its allies are threatened or—and this is what concerns me in the context of Bosnia—risk the possibility, if we do not keep adequate armed forces available, that our Armed Forces will be obliged to take unacceptably high risks when military operations are finally entered into. We cannot assume that the competence and courage of our Armed Forces will always compensate for lack of material, inadequate force levels or the disinclination of political leaders to take difficult decisions.
If we are to accept a lesser role, with substantial reductions in force levels, it seems to me that another implication emerges; namely, that the industrial and social consequences of reductions in force levels also have to be confronted. It is simply not acceptable that the Government should at one moment sustain a substantial national defence industry and at the next declare that the future of that industry, faced with dramatic contraction, can be left entirely to the pressures of market forces.
That is not to suggest a return to any interventionist doctrines but simply to insist that the Government's responsibilities are not over when drastic reductions in the Armed Forces have been decided. There is far too much impact on the lives of servicemen and servicewomen and on the activities of the service industries which have sustained our defence establishments in the past.
I believe therefore that a radical review of defence policy must be undertaken. It must rest not only upon a coherent vision of the nation's role in the world order; it must derive from a comprehensive total

787
strategy encompassing the social, economic and industrial consequences of radical changes in the world scene and radical changes therefore in our security policy. To me there is no evidence that Options for Change was based upon any such consideration.
That should not be construed as criticism of the Ministry of Defence or the chiefs of staff. The business of national security cannot be left entirely to the Ministry of Defence. Still less should it be left to the Treasury. It demands clarity at the highest political level about the national ends being sought and firm political guidance about the resources to be made available. Above all, it demands an understanding that the aims of foreign policy must be matched by the military means necessary to achieve them. That includes a readiness to acknowledge that unfortunately, sometimes tragically, armed force is an essential ingredient in dealing with the realities of the international power structure, and that in its absence foreign policy will falter.
I must repeat that, from my point of view, so far it has not been possible to detect behind British defence planning as reflected in Options for Change any coherent view of the post-Cold War world order or Britain's place in it. Certainly it was a mistake to suppose that moving from a world in which there had been one single overriding threat to a world of multiple risk, equally dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous than the world of the single overriding threat, would require merely minor adjustments and that the ructions that accompany a major strategic review could be avoided.
It is also an error to imagine that change on such a scale can be managed entirely by Whitehall insiders without engaging the wider defence community outside Whitehall and other centres of influence and expertise. And it is a mistake to believe that the ultimate sanction of public opinion need not be obtained. Public opinion will not understand if the lives of our soldiers are lost needlessly because resources do not match commitments or if our people discover that Britain is denied a military role which might usefully be fulfilled in accordance with their own interests, their own traditions and their own instinctive grasp of the role that Britain should play. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Younger of Prestwick: My Lords, I am highly delighted and honoured to have become a Member of your Lordships' House. As noble Lords will appreciate, I always expected that it would happen to me eventually, but my father and I are united in expressing the view that we are very happy that it has been made possible without the need for a death in the family first. I must now embark on a period of retraining since the other place, for all its merits, is not the best place to learn how to make short and non-controversial speeches.
I want to make just four points. I am extremely grateful, as I am sure is the whole House, to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this most important subject at a time when a
788
large number of decisions are awaited and the background factors affecting those decisions are changing all the time.
Running the Ministry of Defence and all its activities is very big business. One of the most difficult aspects is the management of change. Change is difficult in small organisations—it is difficult everywhere—but change in such a massive organisation is always very difficult. Today the changes are also of a very distressing type. They involve contraction and reduction of numbers which raise problems of personnel and redundancies even in the armed services. There is also the vexed question of units going out of existence, and so on.
It is inevitable that that must be done. It is right that the scale of our military effort must match itself to the needs of the day. But we should spare a moment to remember how well the servicemen and women in all three services and the civil servants who back them up are tackling this extraordinarily complicated matter of change. It is clear that the level of professionalism in the armed services is every bit as good as it ever was. I hope that those people will feel, as they tackle these formidable tasks, that they have our full backing. In that I certainly include the Territorial Army and the reserves generally because they too have an important role in change.
The second issue I must mention is our deployment in the former Yugoslavia. I hope that nobody underestimates the enormously difficult new type of task in which we have become involved. For humanitarian and many other reasons we have to play our part in trying to sort out the awful mess there. But embarking upon a massive internal security operation with the backing not of our own Government and with our own rules of engagement but with the backing of the United Nations is a very different and new undertaking. It is new because the United Nations has not done such a thing before. Previously the United Nations' actions have been passive, reactive and basically unarmed. Now it is different because it is clear that we are sending our troops into a complex and dangerous situation.
The Secretary of State has been extremely good at making clear that our forces will have from him rules of engagement which will allow them to respond if they are attacked. It is important that they should know that and that we are resolved to support them in the inevitable problems that arise. That it is a new, difficult and unusual circumstance is, I am sure, known to everyone. We must encourage the Government and the military command to treat it as new and different and not to take anything for granted.
Our troops there will be peculiarly exposed. In a way the difficulty cuts both ways: if they were to fail—which I hope they will not—in their task of bringing peace to the area it would be extremely serious. But if they succeed it will result in the conflicting sides wishing to get them out of the way so that they can carry on with their current practices. It is a very difficult role. We must wish all our service people well. We beg our planners to realise that this is a new type of activity and must be treated as such.

789
Thirdly, I must briefly refer to the aspect that worries me most, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred; that of numbers in the Army. Options for Change was drawn up, quite rightly, to try to reflect in the size of our forces the completely different scenario after the end of the Cold War. Its objectives were to reduce the size to match that scenario and to produce better service conditions. A smaller but better equipped Army is its aim. The result is Options for Change.
However, since then, as we all know, while that scenario has continued its inevitable course new commitments have arisen. We now have two more major units in Northern Ireland than we had at the time Options for Change was drawn up. There is no sign that those two extra deployments will no longer be necessary in the near future. Bosnia is another major commitment.
The result is that the overstretch which has been the problem in running the Army for so long is now at an unacceptable level. It was made clear that the objective was a minimum gap of 24 months between major operational deployments. I understand from evidence given to the Select Committee that that is now down to 15 months. To bridge that gap may not seem great—it is only a few months—but it would require at least three more units. Successive Secretaries of State have stated that there must be continual review of that issue. I hope that it is being reviewed and that serious consideration will be given to whether we require two or three more units to bridge the gap between 15 and 24 months.
I now refer to the problem over the dockyards. A decision has not been taken on the matter and it is therefore open season to make suggestions. Perhaps I may strongly urge that the right solution for the dockyards is a concentration at Devonport of the surface and non-nuclear refitting programme—of which there is much important work—and the concentration at Rosyth of the nuclear refitting programme, as originally intended. Over £100 million has already been spent on preparing Rosyth for that programme. It has involved an enormous amount of work. The foundations are complete and seismically correct for such deployment. What is more, future plans can be more quickly adapted if the two are complementary but different.
Both aspects can be put together under one management. That would save some costs. It is undoubtedly cheaper in the long run, operationally and otherwise, to do so.
Many of us fought hard to explain to a sceptical Scottish population that it was right that the nuclear deterrent should go where it had to go, to the Clyde. It is still there. It will be very hard to face the people whom we have persuaded to accept that decision if we now take away from Scotland the work and important refitting programme connected with it. I hope that Ministers will think sensitively about that matter. Sensitivity is important.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I feel rather presumptuous in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, on his exceedingly effective, interesting and profound maiden speech. But for an accident of a few months, he would have been my Secretary of State and I would have been doing his bidding. However, this I most gladly do. As all Members of the House will agree, he was a most respected and effective Secretary of State. No one speaks on these matters with greater experience and authority. This House is indeed fortunate in being able to have available to them his wisdom in the years ahead.
I share many of my noble friend's worries, in particular that Options for Change can hardly be described as an entirely satisfactory exercise. It was hijacked too early in the day by the Treasury. It has amounted more to an options for cuts exercise, inspired not only by the increasingly dubious premise that the world must have become, and is likely to remain, a safer place, but even more (Ministers warned against wishful thinking) by an almost obsessional determination to take what seemed to the bureaucracy as a heaven-sent opportunity, just like the 1920s, to cut defence and the military down to size, whatever the short-term costs—and there have had to be considerable extra costs in the shorter term—and whatever the longer term risks, now more evident than ever.
We have been in real danger of having an Armed Forces not only that the Treasury is prepared to pay for but of the size and shape which the Treasury in its wisdom feels is appropriate—and after what has befallen the economy perhaps I need say no more.
Certainly the exercise was not a review of all the options set against the real world in which military capability not only provides a valuable, sometimes essential, adjunct to positive and constructive diplomacy, but also to some extent reflects the scale of influence that we wish to exert in international affairs. That was the very point made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont.
I take slight issue with him in that in practice I do not believe that a useful purpose would be served by unscrambling the whole exercise. As a result of the work done on Options for Change, various strategic requirements have emerged. They have been set clearly in the latest defence White Paper. Summed up in the sentence,
"to meet our inescapable defence obligations",
they are further broken down into three main requirements: the protection and security of the United Kingdom and dependent territories; insurance against any build-up of any external threat to the United Kingdom and our allies, presumably by helping to maintain and if necessary to recreate a reassuring balance of power; and, finally, the possession of such military capability as can promote Britain's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and security. Frankly, in a world in which the unexpected occurs

791
with such regularity, I doubt whether one can do much better than that as a guide to what the Armed Forces ought to be able to do.
In the present financial climate the idea that we would somehow make a better shot at reconciling those of us who feel that by and large resources should match commitments, with the invariable Treasury view, no doubt given impetus by the latest crisis, that commitments should he tailored to keep within an arbitrary level of resources and if necessary replaced exclusively by diplomacy—as they were in the days of appeasement—seems very optimistic. Quite apart from the uncertainty that it would bring, it would lead only, I fear, to the financial guidelines being unjustifiably drawn even lower than they now are.
I prefer to see some fine tuning of the existing Options for Change policy—like the curate's egg it is good in parts—in the light of what is happening, and shows no sign of abating, in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. That is the real world instead of the one which planners may have hoped for three years ago, even if that may, as one fears it must, involve some robbing of Peter to pay Paul.
As the noble Lord, Lord Younger, said, the most important fine tuning should come in Army manpower. That great soldier, the late Lord Slim, once said, "Anyone in this dangerous world who did away with a Gurkha battalion was mad. It would be better to do away with one rocket". With up to 512 rockets, all designed for a particular scenario now largely overtaken by quite different dangers and potential threats, many in your Lordships' House may feel that there is still a good deal in the Field Marshal's philosophy, especially as one can envisage the Gurkhas being particularly suited to United Nations duties, perhaps even as part of a permanent United Nations cadre, which I feel must come soon. However, be that as it may—because I would be the last person to reduce important arguments on Army manpower to one of special pleading for this or that cap badge—the Field Marshal's words may indicate the incongruity of reinforcing, however flexibly, our nuclear capability when our most urgent problem is keeping our units up to strength to meet everyday commitments.
The figure of 116,000 made little sense as an army's manpower ceiling when it was plucked out of the sky nearly three years ago; and it makes even less sense now. There is irrefutable evidence, some of which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Younger, that our Army is facing as severe an overstretch as can be remembered since the troubles in Ireland began almost a quarter of a century ago. If peacekeeping and humanitarian and disaster relief looks like being the name of the game, I do not need to remind noble Lords that all those are manpower intensive. That will become all too apparent as our troops are deployed in Bosnia, which for reasons of our international responsibilities and influence should be the case, provided that certain important provisos and requirements can be met. I understand that some of the circumstances on the ground are a long way short of what we would normally accept when committing troops into hazardous areas.
792
Certainly there are no organisations more qualified to bring quick and constructive relief to the suffering which we see in the world around us than well-organised and mobile military forces, not least our own. However, we must be under no illusion that in such situations one thing often leads to another. Therefore, fine tuning in manpower is essential. Although I know almost by heart the answer of the Ministry of Defence to such issues, noble Lords are entitled to know why the present stresses and strains in the world and world events have not yet been considered sufficient to justify such a revision. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. Perhaps we should raise some battalions of miners—and what magnificent soldiers they would make.
I believe that that fine tuning in manpower should be targeted in three areas. The first is the regimental system which, frankly, at present is in chaos. It is beset by uncertainty and is not geared to the future. The Army is in danger of missing a unique opportunity to produce larger regiments with stronger unit establishments more appropriate to sudden emergencies and modern requirements. The second area is the training machine, which is currently going through extensive contortions in order to achieve some dubious and possibly counter-productive long-term savings inspired by unreasonable manpower pressure. The third area is recruiting. If the capping of recruiting continues the remaining units will quickly become weaker than those which we have at present. I hope that the Government will listen to the points that I have made about manpower and that having achieved the right manpower ceiling they will help the Army to put its house in order more sensibly.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Ashley: My Lords, it is an honour to belong to this great, historic House. It has been a pleasure for me to meet so many old friends, including political allies and opponents. I greatly look forward to making new friends during my stay in this House.
Your Lordships have listened to three most distinguished speakers. The noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Younger and Lord Bramall, are men of enormous experience in this field. They have dealt with the need for a review of our military problems relating to security. Nothing could be more important but I do not propose to speak on the questions of strategy, tactics and finance, as they have properly done. I wish to deal with the problems of the men and women who make up our Armed Forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that the Army is now smaller and bitter. That may be so but I do not believe that the Army is bitter because it has been reduced. The men in the Army recognise the need for some reconstruction as a result of the end of the Cold War. I do not believe that the Army is bitter on that account. That is the only debating point that I am allowing myself in an uncontroversial maiden speech. However, some men in the Army are bitter because of injustice and I wish to explain why.
Some of your Lordships will recall Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Under that section any member of the Armed Forces who was severely

793
disabled as a result of negligence was not allowed to sue for compensation. That right was given to all other public servants but not to soldiers, sailors or airmen. That was wrong and in another place I campaigned to abolish Section 10. I was supported by a group of severely disabled ex-servicemen and I received the splendid help of Winston Churchill. As a result Section 10 was abolished.
But one injustice was replaced by another. The very ex-servicemen who had campaigned with me in another place to abolish Section 10 were denied the right. The Government said, "We cannot permit retrospective legislation", even though there are such examples on the statute book. Those loyal ex-servicemen were deeply embittered. They are the bitter people to whom I thought the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would refer. The Government refused to give way and even rejected the compromise of setting up a trust fund for those people. I find that most regrettable.
Another group of ex-servicemen who are equally embittered are Britain's nuclear test veterans. They have been denied compensation because the Government are demanding absolute proof of radiation damage, even though Professor Rotblat and other experts in radiation have said that no one can prove causal relationships. However, equally they say that nor can it be disproved. So what do we do if nothing can be proved either way? We must give those British ex-servicemen the benefit of the little doubt that remains. There is only little doubt because many people, including our Minister of Social Security, accept the fact that two cancers—leukaemia and multiple myloma—are caused by radiation. If that is the case, why cannot the Government accept that?
The United States Ministry of Defence has given the benefit of the doubt to its ex-servicemen. It recognises 15 cancers, but our Ministry of Defence recognises none. That is no way to treat British ex-servicemen. They are the reasons why I say that some of our ex-servicemen are bitter. I hope that the Government will grant them the reasonable request of a judicial inquiry. I hope that they will think again.
The Ministry of Defence thought again about another issue; bullying and brutality in the Army. When I first raised the issue some years ago the Ministry was complacent and dismissive. However, when evidence was put to it of real and appalling bullying it did something about it. The Ministry was faced with evidence of kicking, beating, enforced nakedness and buggery and humiliating initiation rites. Those facts were found in a court of law—in a court martial. When the Ministry of Defence received the evidence it did something about the situation. It took the matter seriously and said that such incidents must not be tolerated. The MoD gave orders to all the troops and then spent £3 million on trying to stop bullying and brutality. However, it did not do enough because since then there have been cases of bullying, as shown by the most recent case of some noncommissioned officers who were gaoled and dismissed from the Army.
I believe that the real answer is the appointment of
794
an Army ombudsman—an ombudsman for the armed services. That should be a man or woman of great stature and authority to whom men and women, especially young men and women, who feel bullied can go with their complaints. That is all I ask. Those people have a right to be bitter. They are marvellous service people. They love the Armed Forces. They are very loyal. They deserve the support of this House.
6 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, when I learned that it was to be my duty to return the thanks of your Lordships' House to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I was armed, as any full-time politician must be, with a general awareness of his record on behalf of the disabled and the underdog. I was armed also by the Whips Office with a short but not very helpful selection of facts about his career. Therefore, I turned to the works of my friend Andrew Roth who records the characteristics of Members of another place. I learned that we were gaining in your Lordships' House a forceful champion of the disabled and underdog, a relentless and strident battler, a genial, courageous, bloody-minded, relentless scourge of those who cause disability and unnecessary death. Your Lordships' House can do with more of those and in the speech today we have seen that the noble Lord intends to carry on his battles in this House. We hope to hear often from him.
When we consider a national security policy in 1992, we have to abandon a large proportion of the assumptions with which many of us have grown up. Roughly speaking, my generation grew up in the belief that there were two kinds of possible wars which might affect us. The first was a nuclear war between the superpowers. That did not cause many problems for someone like myself. As a Christian steeped in the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, I believe that the intention of committing a crime is nearly as bad as the crime itself and that, therefore, it was both wrong and silly to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons, even if we said that they were only to deter. As a Londoner, I thought that I was safe to assume that I would be wiped out with London early in any nuclear exchange, so that was nothing to worry about.
The second kind of war which we envisaged consisted of skirmishes between nations which were not educated, developed or advanced enough to be privileged to contemplate killing vast quantities of mankind and who would continue to dispose of them in job lots. We thought that those wars would always happen at a distance and it might or might not be our duty to interfere on the side of right, always assuming that we knew which side that was.
I suspect that the days of that simple analysis are over. The outbreak of war in the Balkans certainly brings us back to the problems of pre-1945, if not of pre-1914. We are entitled to hope and believe that the European Community will hold together under any circumstances, although I believe—as, I think, do my colleagues on these Benches—that the faster and tighter we can bind that Community together, the better and our present shilly-shallying as regards Maastricht is as unwise as it is disgraceful. It

795
underlines some of the doubts which some of us had in voting for Britain's entry, when we feared that if Britain entered, Britain might prove to be the undoing of the great European experiment.
Now, looking round the world, we are already engaged in a terrorist conflict on our own soil and we must prepare for the possibility of wars which will be much nearer home than we are used to, and which may not be over in a matter of days or weeks. That leads me to the main contribution which I wish to make to your Lordships' debate this afternoon, which is that, no less than in 1914 and 1939, this country must be able to feed itself or, at the very least, if we accept that the European Community will hold together, that the Community must be able to feed itself. An acceptance of that means that we must turn conventional economics on its head, as we did during the course of those wars, and, as it became clear in yesterday's debate on energy, we should probably follow the same course in that field.
It may be a terrible thing to say from these Benches but it is true that free trade, like any other absolute doctrine, has its limitations and must not be allowed to rule in all fields. It is right to protect the agriculture of Europe, and France is right to do so. The appalling set-aside agricultural policy of this country should be scrapped and we must encourage the kind of low-key, preferably small-scale agriculture which could be mobilised at very short notice in times of hostilities for the maximum production of food.
I believe that that is the kind of agriculture that we need in any event. However, this debate is not the occasion on which to deploy the full ecological argument. I shall look forward to doing that in future debates on economics and agriculture.
Meanwhile, I ask your Lordships to accept—and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, may well agree with me on this point, although not on a number of others that I have made—that a government which do not accept the traditional obligation of considering how to feed their population in time of war are not performing what is still the primary duty of any government; namely, the defence of the realm.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, anyone who arrives anew in your Lordships' House is likely to be much affected, as I have been, by the warmth of the welcome received. I thank your Lordships profoundly for that. In my case, that has been much tempered by a curiosity on the part of a number of noble Lords as to why I should have added the letters "by" to my former name. Perhaps I may take a moment to explain.
I know that these days it is not the fashion to change one's name on arrival at this House, but the village of Stewartby was named after my great grandfather who was not only a Member of Parliament for many years and a minister of the church—indeed, he baptised me when he was 97—but also an industrialist. In the early years of this century an enlightened industrialist did sometimes try to provide decent living accommodation for his workers.
796
Therefore, for that reason Stewartby was named after my great grandfather. I felt that it would do honour to his ideals and aspirations if I were to take that name.
When I had the honour of serving in the Ministry of Defence with my noble friend Lord Younger, I frequently paid at least as much attention to what was said about defence matters in your Lordships' House as I did to what was said in another place. What I have experienced of your Lordships' House so far has convinced me that that was a sensible judgment. I do not believe that it would be possible to have a debate of this kind, with contributions of such quality, if the nature of this House were to be altered radically as is sometimes suggested under the more radical proposals for reform which propose some sort of replacement by a representative or elected Chamber. Therefore, I hope that I shall not be thought to be premature or sycophantic if I make a few complimentary comments about your Lordships' House.
It seems to me that one of the great strengths of the Chamber is the marvellously random and arbitrary nature of the basis of its composition. If that were to change it may well lose its value as a counterbalance to another place; it may become a weaker reflection of it and would certainly lose much of its relevance and influence. Particularly in the field of defence that would be greatly to be regretted.
I want to use the few moments available to me to raise the issue of the reserve forces. The whole process of Options for Change has caused the individual forces, the Ministry of Defence as a whole and the Government to reassess not only the structure of our forces but the type of service they may he called upon to meet in the future. The one great lesson of the past is that one should be prepared for the unexpected. I do not believe therefore that we can take any too decisive a view in regard to what may or may not be needed in terms of our defence resources in future years. We must retain not only a range of capabilities but also the capacity to reinforce our regular forces by providing adequate reserves who are trained and able to increase the volume of our forces that could be brought into action, if need be, at short notice.
Last weekend I took the opportunity, with the debate in mind, of visiting HMS "Humber", which my wife had the honour to sponsor some years ago and which is now the tender for the Royal Naval Reserve on the River Mersey. The conversations I had with those who were serving in the Royal Naval Reserve were a little worrying. They were concerned that there had not yet been defined a clear and proper role for the Royal Naval Reserve. They were heartened by the comments in the open government paper published earlier this year on the future of Britain's reserve forces. On page 4 it said that a major effort should be made to convince the volunteer reserves of all three services that they have a key role to play in Britain's defence for the 1990s.
I have no doubt that the reserve forces of the Army and the Air Force, as well as the Navy, have their own idea of the clear role that they can play. But particularly in the case of the Navy, in order for reserves to be able to carry out sensible training which would be relevant in times of need and hostilities, they

797
must be able to perform a meaningful peacetime role which will give them the training and experience to enable them to fit more closely with the regular forces in such times of danger.
I do not know whether that will be mine counter-measures, as it has tended to be in the past. But I believe that something of that kind, which gives reserve forces training in seamanship, navigation and all the naval skills in coastal waters, would be ideal. I hope also that it will be possible to bring a closer relationship into being between the Royal Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve so that members of the reserve forces can more frequently serve alongside the regular forces and in that way exchange understanding and skill. I do not want to put the point as being one of the overwhelming issues that arise from Options for Change, but it is one that is easily overlooked. I hope that my noble friend will be able to respond positively on the point when he winds up the debate.
Perhaps I can conclude by reverting from the microcosm to the broadest of all possible issues; that is, what is to happen to the defence strategy of this country in its European context as a result of the Maastricht and related processes? I read the paragraphs relating to international security many times and simply do not understand them. I do not understand the relationship proposed between the Western European Union and NATO, between the European Community and the proposed European Union or, indeed, the WEU itself.
I hope that we can avoid the mistakes made on the economic front in relation to economic and monetary union and not force the pace too fast. Gradual co-operation between friendly states who share membership of the Community and the working out of ways of co-operating and co-ordinating our efforts will be much better than imposing some idealistic framework on the whole thing and then falling sorry when it does not work.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first on your behalf to offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, on his excellent maiden speech. We have listened and greatly looked forward to his future contributions. I congratulate him also on moving so sharply from formal introduction yesterday through the ordeal of a maiden speech today. That is excellent. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Younger—who also spoke most eloquently—were at one stage my ministerial masters in the Ministry of Defence. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I enjoyed working with them at that time. We look forward to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, in the future.
This year's Statement on the Defence Estimate goes into some detail regarding new ways being used to assess our force structures and new equipment needs. The concept of risks, whether likely or less likely, high or low, near-term or in some future longer term set of circumstances, is a useful tool. But it continues to rest on the foundation of starting, as we have done for half
798
a century, on the concept of perceived threats. In the light of our experience over the past decade I question whether that is now the best way to identify and justify the needs and size of our forces.
Neither the Falklands crisis nor the Gulf War was foreseen to pose a serious threat to our security. What we planned for—a Warsaw Pact offensive—was successfully deterred; it never materialised. So in spite of the best efforts and collective wisdom of many defence experts over many years, we were left to deal with the realities of life with the capabilities with which we had provided ourselves for a totally different set of circumstances. Some of the equipment used in the Gulf was new and very much state-of-the-art. Others, to put it charitably, were kept going long after their shelf lives and consume-by dates had passed.
That brief analysis leads me to the view that there is much to be said, in a period when obvious threats can no longer be identified, for considering a different approach; to think more in terms of our capabilities rather than of enemy threats. By that I mean that any nation which wishes to take its security seriously and to provide itself with armed forces for its territorial defence and the defence of its interests in other parts of the world, needs to have a range of defence capabilities—just as a golfer needs to have a range of different clubs in his bag if he is to be able to tackle the fairways and hazards of the course on which he is playing.
It would not be difficult to identify the range of capabilities upon which a country such as ours may have to call. There will be a range of factors to consider and of course some judgment will be required; for example, factors like our geographic location, our responsibilities for dependencies and our need to deal with terrorism are clear-cut. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out, less so is the degree to which we may wish to become involved in support of the UN and other peacekeeping and humanitarian activity, though those usually call for a mix of flexible and well-trained general purpose forces with the right levels of weapon stocks and other essentials.
The sorts of capabilities which I have in mind need not, and indeed should not, be threat specific. But we must recognise, after many years of justifying our defence equipments on the basis of a response to a perceived threat, that it is not going to be easy to break the habit of first having to identify the threat for which the capability and its enabling resources are a required need. My approach would start by identifying and listing the core capabilities which we should expect our Armed Forces to maintain. We already do it for our nuclear capability. There is no clear argument today that would justify this capability as a response to a present or likely threat. We justify it as a capability which it seems right in an uncertain world that we should maintain. We modernise or replace it with new as necessary due to the obsolescence or technical deficiencies of existing equipments. We do not do so simply because a new or more active threat has been identified.
What I have in mind is that we should adapt this type of approach to our range of capabilities in the conventional as well as the nuclear field. We could

799
assess the relative modernity and effectiveness of these capabilities if they were to be put to the test at the present time. The list would vary in effectiveness from first class, because we had just recently re-equipped in that area, to doubtful or positively outmoded and inadequate. From this listing we could then identify a programme of planned replacements and refurbishments.
The programme would not seek to respond to some hypothetical threat or risk, but to the need to keep our capability in that particular area up to date. In many ways such a rolling programme of planned replacements and refurbishments would be easier to manage and to project for future planning purposes.
I am reminded of a cautionary tale about updating capability. Some years ago it was fashionable to talk in terms of specialisation. In the Air Staff at that time there were some strong voices for dropping out completely of the airborne reconnaissance role. Very sophisticated techniques—expensive but in the hands of trusted allies and likely to be available to us—were coming along. Other very pressing needs faced the Royal Air Force. It would help if we did not also have to replace what by then was an antiquated, unreliable recce system, becoming more and more vulnerable to an enemy's defences.
Happily, as the Gulf War showed, we were right to continue to provide ourselves with a state of the art airborne reconnaissance system. It gave a unique and highly valuable capability to coalition air commanders. Today, in operations in air policing in Iraq, it continues to justify the confidence of those of us at the time of its near demise. I would much prefer to retain even a small scale of a key capability, thereby keeping the knowledge and expertise alive than giving it up completely. It will always be easier and ultimately quicker to build on an existing capability than to start afresh from scratch.
Today, the Royal Air Force's most pressing capability need is an air superiority fighter. Should all our partners in the European fighter programme withdraw, we must press on. We must not leave the Royal Air Force without an air superiority capability. It would not just be the Royal Air Force which suffered, but every soldier and sailor too who was at risk from enemy air attack.
Finally—because it would have a significant bearing on which capabilities we should provide—I should like to pose this question: how likely are we to need to carry out offensive operations in another country's territory? What your Lordships will recognise, and which gave me as much concern as any about the adequacy of our capabilities in the Gulf conflict, was that for the first time since World War II we were actually going to get involved on the ground inside the territory of a potentially very difficult foe; one who possessed a formidable array of modern equipment, including weapons of mass destruction, and who had had considerable recent battle-hardening experience.
Although we had adopted new training and planning guidelines as a result of our Falklands experience, even in that conflict we were operating to recover our own territory which had been taken by
800
force of arms and could never expect to have to face the whole of the enemy's war potential. That we succeeded so well in the Gulf, including deploying heavy armour—something which we had not done since World War II—only tends to disguise that we were not fully adequately prepared or trained to tackle such offensive type operations, not only at great distance from home, but most significantly in the country of our enemy. Happily for us, the period prior to the outbreak of hostilities gave time to train and to rectify many of the deficiencies we faced.
It will never be easy for a government to declare other than very obliquely that they will provide capabilities to undertake offensive invasive operations. But unless we face up to that issue, no amount of risk assessment, as outlined in the Defence White Paper, nor capability listings, will truly indicate the logistic and other back-up which such demanding operations so clearly need. We cannot always expect a period of stand-off prior to hostilities during which to make good training and other deficiencies.
So we need to devise new ways to identify our defence needs. To revert to my golfing analogy: I do not think that even Mr. Faldo would venture out to defend one of his many championship titles without a carefully selected mix of clubs in his bag ranging from driver to sand iron. For even he can be unlucky enough to land unforeseen, as it were, in a bunker. Our defence bag of capabilities needs to cater for the core ones, nuclear and conventional, and a selected range of others to fit the particular shape of our wider defence and security policies. We must no longer make its justification entirely threat specific.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we have had three deeply interesting, very different and all redoubtable maiden speeches in this debate. I should like to add my admiration of what has already been said.
This is a timely debate, because defence is one of the areas under threat in the expenditure round. It is too small a budget already to cover our ever-growing commitments in the UN context, in the Rapid Reaction Force and, above all, in Northern Ireland, which must be central to our national security and where we cannot but be deeply impressed by the sheer professionalism of our forces there.
However, today I shall stick to my last and confine myself, as usual, to those developments in the former Soviet Union, and especially Russia, which bear upon any assessment of our security policy. I may mention in passing that the Russians are now creating their special force for peacekeeping and rapid reaction.
I do not enjoy the role of Cassandra, but I believe that it is essential that we should not allow our very real admiration for the Russian people and their present leaders to cloud our judgment of the threat to peace, both for us and for them, which the continued power of the nomenklatura, the defence establishment and the KGB, still constitutes. This powerful group still seeks to re-establish the status quo ante and that is a threat to the present Yeltsin government.

801
The factors which must directly affect our assessment of the threat and therefore our definition of the defence resources we still need are, firstly, the real pace of conversion of the defence—industrial complex to civilian needs. Are we looking at conversion or a privatisation for greater efficiency and to secure western partners? Secondly, there is the pace of destruction of those sophisticated weapons of mass destruction which the former Soviet Union agreed to destroy. Thirdly, I refer to the defence and defence sales policies of, in particular, Russia and the Ukraine. Lastly, there is the stability of the country and the strength of the forces working against it.
There has been some conversion, but few of the major enterprises have been affected. That is partly because conversion costs money and of the 50 billion roubles allocated by the government,19 billion have apparently "evaporated" and have never reached the plants; but more because final policy decisions to convert are being steadily delayed. The avowed policy, which was recently quoted by the Finance and Economics Minister, Nechayev, is, on the contrary,
"actively to promote the sale of weapons abroad pending the conversion of military industries to commercial production".
The policy of defence sufficiency, moreover, requires sophisticated high technology for a leaner army and thus a careful review of the whole complex to identify what plants must not be converted.
Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg military complex, the most powerful in Russia, after a period of great difficulty will be selling military hardware and armaments, and it states that the money will go into the conversion fund. The latest figures cited on 16th October show that Russia also expects its earnings from arms exports to be between 4 and 12 billion roubles this year. The Khabarovsk aircraft plant will, for example, be selling military aircraft to fund the eventual production of a civilian passenger aircraft.
There are, of course, major social problems in any move to convert highly profitable and sophisticated plants, employing the flower of Russia's scientists and technicians, to serve civilian needs; making saucepans and light bulbs is both less satisfying and less profitable and sometimes simply not feasible. Whole towns are at a standstill. Where nuclear submarines were once repaired the town is paralysed, and the navy owes 300 million roubles. It is not surprising that Kokoshin, the deputy defence minister, should say:
"Russia cannot just close military enterprises, as is often done in the West".
However, the outcome for us is that the defence industry's programme of conversion is patchy and half-hearted, and that more effort is going into finding western partners and investment and, through them, good markets for an increased range of weapons than is going into conversion.
Verification is another cloudy issue, bound up with the defence sufficiency policy. To quote Colonel-General Dimidyuk, the chief of ground forces missile troops and artillery, on 4th August this year:
"Our former military doctrine obliged our armed forces to have … missile troops and artillery which were primarily developed in quantitative terms. Owing to our backwardness in developing and equipping the troops with intelligence-gathering systems, automation and precision weaponry, the
802
necessary level of effective engagement was achieved by increasing the number of weapons, which led to a large and diverse inventory of largely obsolete types of missile and artillery weapons".
He went on to say that despite the scrapping of the OTRK-22 TEMP and the OTRK-23 OKA operational tactical complexes under the INF treaty, in the future precision automated missile and rocket systems will play a far bigger role in effective engagement. He said:
"We are moving away from quantitative to qualitative parameters".
Thus, the destruction of obsolete weapons is a positive contribution to Russian defence sufficiency, and the power which could even yet fall into the hands of what Kozyrev, the foreign minister, has called the war party, propounding the psychology of the besieged fortress, the psychology of mistrust of the USA and the West, a dead end, a path that leads nowhere. While this war party remains powerful we should be worrying about verification of the destruction of the weapons that are not obsolete.
Even under a well-disposed government Russia is, for understandable reasons, maintaining her existing defence markets and developing new ones. She is selling rocket motors to India and diesel submarines to Iran; she is increasing sales of military aircraft and is entering new ventures like the proposed exchange or sale of defence technology to Argentina, where the joint development of an Argentine nuclear submarine is not excluded. Joint ventures, unspecified, in the Antarctic with Argentina are also on the menu. The more sophisticated successors to the Scud missile will no doubt also be very saleable in many countries.
These are only a few examples of the inevitable threat of arms proliferation, and the threat to the peace of the world which must arise from Russia's defence policies. But the other and greater threat is the internal volatility of Russia and the creeping power which could allow the old management to return to power. President Yeltsin is showing courage and an honourable openness about such things as the Katyn massacre, the truth of the shooting down of the Korean civilian airliner in 1983, and many other things. He, as much as we, needs to know that we remain strong. There is not yet any possible justification for reducing our forces.
6.35 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for moving the Motion for the defence of the realm and of British interests in other parts of the world is the first duty of Government. But the Ministry of Defence has based its calculations on the sustainable level of commitment for the infantry on projections which fail to recognise the present level of those commitments, far less allowing a prudent margin for the unexpected.
Civil war rages in what was once Yugoslavia, and, as I anticipated over a year ago in a speech in this House, Britain has been asked to play her part in sending a peace-keeping force there. I shall not discuss the rights and wrongs, and the advisability, of our doing so. At first, I understand, all we could muster was a field ambulance. This morning I was told that

803
we had troops amounting to approximately the strength of a battalion there, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has told us that the number is now over 2,000. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the precise number in his reply.
Well, my Lords, those troops will have to be relieved, and those who relieve them will have to be relieved in turn unless an unexpected miracle should occur. But since no real progress seems to have been made in restoring peace in the area, it looks as if we have another ongoing and probably increasing commitment for infantry battalions on our hands if we are to play our part in trying to keep the peace in Europe. How are we going to manage to do so if we proceed with what I shall call the Chapple/King plan for reducing the size of the infantry?
I much enjoyed the maiden speeches, and I warmly congratulate all three speakers. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Younger, who explained how the gap between tours of duty in Northern Ireland is now down to 15 months. Each tour probably requires at least three months specialist training for that particular theatre: so one may well be getting nearer to 12-monthly emergency tours and connected training. That is a serious matter for a service where overstretch has already led to an above average increase in the divorce rate, together with difficulty in recruiting and retaining high grade personnel.
It is clear to me that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for Defence, nor a great many Members of Parliament, never having served in the Army, have any idea of the stress suffered by service personnel and their wives, families and girl friends through these too frequent and too long tours in Northern Ireland, and possibly in future in Bosnia. I have said before, and I repeat, that unless you want to have a conscript army you must make service in the infantry attractive to recruits. Otherwise, you will not get recruits, or not good ones, and even if you do you will lose them before they become warrant officers.
Unemployment may assist recruiting in the short term, but we hope that unemployment will not always be with us. Viable infantry depends on officers and soldiers—above all, senior ranks—believing that their dedication is appreciated and on their having time to train properly and meet all their tasks professionally as well as having the opportunity to enjoy a reasonable quality of life.
In the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular we and the United Nations still seem to have unfinished business, particularly as regards locating and destroying biological weapon installations. Only today The Times reports that Saddam Hussein is conducting an intensive road-building programme to increase access to the marshes of southern Iraq in what Western experts fear may be the prelude to a final military push against Shia Moslem rebels and refugees. If we should be called upon to help finish that business, or if any other emergency should crop up, how could we respond without further reducing the time between tours of duty in Northern Ireland?
804
Then there is Russia where the situation is more unstable than ever. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, had to say. There are constant rumours of a new coup and the serious danger of hardliners regaining power on account of widespread anger at crime, civil unrest, hyperinflation, the black market and a Russia impotent to defend its interests in its former empire, let alone the world. The military and the former KGB have become the new champions of Russian nationalism and are goading Mr. Yeltsin to take vigorous action to defend the interests of Russians in such places as Moldavia and Estonia. What will happen if they succeed? Might not the United Nations forces have to take a hand? Might we, too, not be a part of those forces?
Those are just some of the areas where we know that there is already trouble or potential trouble. However, in the past trouble has often come from unexpected quarters, and no doubt it will do so again in the future. Heaven forbid that the defence of the nation be considered so unimportant that we become a second-class nation unable to play a part in world affairs or, indeed, to protect ourselves should the necessity arise. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his Motion.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who, unfortunately, is not in his seat, speak of the importance of our being able so far as possible to be self-sufficient in food production, to which I should like to add, self-sufficient in energy production too. I hope that the review which is so greatly needed will take place and that it will he comprehensive enough to include those aspects.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I am particularly pleased that she said what she did about the strain on the marriages of service families because of the reduction in time at home due to the decreased gap between tours of duty in Northern Ireland. I know a number of SSAFA welfare workers and I think that every one of them would back to the hilt what the noble Lady said.
The plans for the reduction of all three armed services were made and published while Mr. Gorbachev was still in the Kremlin. They were made in haste and without any debate outside the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. At that time nobody foresaw what would happen in Europe and the rest of the world following the collapse of Soviet power. Therefore, in my view those plans must be out of date.
Although a new world order does not yet exist, whether we like it or not the world is a different place from what it was before the Soviet collapse. Since the beginning of this century the service chiefs have seen their primary duty to be the well-being of their own service. This is still true, and in many ways quite rightly so. I should be surprised if vested interests did not play their part in in-house wrangling. Why else has the Royal Air Force Regiment been retained when it has no airfields to defend? Do we really need such a wide nuclear capability in the current circumstances?

805
A broadly based comprehensive review of our defence strategy for the next 10 to 20 years that goes much wider than just the Ministry of Defence is required. There are two questions that need to be answered. First, what are the threats to our national security, bearing in mind rising nationalism in Europe in the face of refugee and immigrant pressure, general world instability following the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union and instability in the so-called third world caused by famine, corruption, overpopulation and racism? Secondly, what are our responsibilities as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, of NATO, the Western European Union and other organisations?
As I see it, Russia cannot help, China will not help and the United States is reluctant to help. I suspect that after the coming presidential election that reluctance will increase. Therefore, it is left to the United Kingdom and to France to give a lead. If we do, others will follow. At present we give every appearance of being dragged into such commitments against our will. This hardly puts us in the centre of Europe, let alone of the world.
As I see it, the proposed structure of the army and, to a certain extent, the other services is designed to counter a threat similar to that which was posed by the Warsaw Pact. I suggest that that is a mistake. While we must be able to play our part in such a conflict, the likelihood of a war of that nature in Europe is small. We need a more broadly based army so that we can adopt a more responsible and helpful response to problems worldwide. I suspect that we are in danger of becoming too sophisticated in terms of weaponry and equipment.
The United Nations Secretary General is leading the argument for more money and forces to be made available to the United Nations for peacemaking, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. Public opinion is moving in the same direction. As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom has a duty to provide a lead. Such tasks do not call for sophisticated equipment of the kind that was required in the days of the Warsaw Pact. Indeed, much of it would be quite useless. Instead, the tasks are manpower-intensive, and the infantry, especially the British infantry, is best suited to those tasks. I would suggest that in fact the British infantry is better suited than the infantry of any other nation. I do not deny that the Army must be properly equipped for the tasks for which it is designated, but the present and future structure as currently planned is designed for a cold war scenario, albeit on a reduced scale.
I believe that there should be a proper public debate involving Parliament, academics, the Royal United Service Institute and others, as well as the Ministry of Defence, leading to a review of our capabilities in the area of support for the United Nations.
While I think of it, I wonder whether, when the Minister replies, he would let us know how many members of the Treasury Civil Service team have ever served as civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and had any experience of the needs of that ministry and of the armed forces.
806
The real peace dividend which follows from the collapse of Soviet ambitions is that the West can turn its attention and resources to bringing peace and stability to the rest of the world. If we do not do so, conflict between the haves and the have-nots is inevitable. The role of our armed forces has always been in the first place to prevent war, so there is nothing new in that suggestion.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, calls for a review of economic, military and other factors underlying national security. Noble and gallant Lords, and particularly the uniquely qualified noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, are better equipped than I to deal with the purely military aspects, but recent events have taught us one lesson. No one attacked the Soviet Union militarily but Soviet might was based on a steadily declining economy which went into chaos and collapsed. The Soviet Union as an empire ceased to exist without anyone firing a shot. Noble Lords will agree that any military defence is based on a sound economy.
The Chinese have seen the fallacy of simple numbers. They have carried out a mega-leap—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would be very proud of them—into a capitalist economy in order to get a sound economy going. They have abandoned Communism although they have not abandoned dictatorship. If that lesson is true not solely for those two countries, should we not review our economic situation to see how well it serves or is capable of serving our defence forces?
When the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was Prime Minister, the British pound was worth 11 deutschmarks. In 1970 the rate fell to 8.7 deutschmarks to the pound. I am citing these figures because this is not a party political matter. Successive administrations have suffered from a steady, relentless, dangerous decline. The rate has now reached 2.4 deutschmarks to the pound. But, more disturbing than that, this has occurred despite the £69 billion windfall profit of North Sea oil.
Perhaps more instructive is a comparison of the gross national product figures of Britain and Germany translated into English pounds at the rate ruling at the time. In 1964 Germany's gross national product was £38 billion. Britain's GNP was £34 billion. Six years later Germany's gross national product was £74 billion. Britain's GNP was £52 billion. By 1974 Germany's gross national product was £164 billion. Britain's GNP was £86 billion. In 1991 Germany's GNP was £903 billion against a British figure of £576 billion. That has occurred against a background of £69 billion windfall profits from North Sea oil. Is this due to bad government or is there a fault line in our system?
After the war, in which Britain was, fortunately, victorious, we installed single unions in German factories. Our trade union leadership left us with a handicap of multi-unions. We helped the German Government to get a constitution which incorporated a massive keel of moderation and wisdom in its

807
coalition structure. The German ship of state was like a boat with a deep keel. Genscher, the Foreign Secretary of the Federal Republic for 10 years, represented a party, the Free Democrats, which had the support of only 5.3 per cent. of the electorate. Therefore the German ship of state could not lurch from one side to the other or indulge in dogma or anti-dogma. I believe that we should not always blame the Government but should look to the fault line in our constitution. This could be a fundamental weakness in our economy.
I was recently in Lithuania in the Soviet Union, or what was the Soviet Union. I was talking to a young minister about democracy, which Lithuania is trying to introduce. He said that dictatorship is not only evil but that the leadership of a dictatorship is corrupt and that populations are completely controlled. In democracies governments are very honest; of that there is no doubt. But the way they achieve power is by making promises which they cannot keep and eventually they have to answer for the results.
There are not only external but internal dangers. If unemployment continues to rise and there are millions of poor people who have no hope of getting a job, society will be destabilised. I know that we are wedded ideologically and emotionally to the one-party system—perhaps this point can be followed through by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—but the fact of the matter is that we are in serious crisis. During the war Churchill formed a national government because he knew that in that crisis solutions could not be achieved by one-party government. I ask this question. Is our economic crisis less serious simply because there is no gore and blood'? Britain's problems can be solved through co-operation only. The luxury of adversarial politics and debates and scoring points is something which we could perhaps afford in the days of Empire. We cannot now. My Lords, I thank you.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I have listened with great care and attention to this interesting debate and I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this subject to the attention of your Lordships' House.
Some of your Lordships are aware that I retired from the Army less than two years ago and for this reason I feel that the most useful contribution that I can make in this debate is to focus on the armed services as the military factor that underlies a satisfactory national security policy. I agree that a comprehensive defence review by the Ministry of Defence is needed, but I shy away from a full-scale defence review, which, combined with our current economic problems, might tempt the Treasury to impose further cuts. Defence is our insurance policy and with all the uncertainties that exist in the world, now is not the time to reduce the premiums.
I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention some of the more significant factors that underlie our national security policy. First, there must be timely and accurate intelligence from which the Government can analyse threat assessments. It is from these assessments that we should arrive at our commitments
808
and determine the required force levels of men and equipment. Without high-grade intelligence our warning time and our threat assessments, both politically and militarily, could lead us to the wrong policies, with the wrong commitments and the wrong and inappropriate force levels. There can be no penny-pinching in the funding of our intelligence resources and it is essential that the current intelligence relationship that we have with other countries continues. I suspect that there is a real need for their expansion, when so many conflicts are emerging in a new and unpredictable world, where areas that were not of interest to us now hold significant concerns.
Secondly, the tasks and commitments must be clearly defined for our Armed Forces which must be seen to be credible and large enough to carry out those commitments. They must be correctly established, equipped and trained. They must be capable of rapid deployment not only in Europe as part of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, but anywhere else in the world where our interests may have to be protected. Lastly, our armed services must be able to act independently of our European and American allies whenever necessary.
There is no time, even briefly, for me to focus on aspects of the threat, but merely to say that some additional commitments have clearly been taken on by our contributions to United Nations' operations, with the likelihood of further responsibilities in the future, as has already been mentioned this evening. So far, as I understand it, it has been necessary to find an additional 500 Army posts for United Nations' operations, with approximately a further 1,800 to be committed soon. If the Options for Change defence cuts continue on the present time-scale, the Army will have only eight tank regiments (a force of around 450 tanks) and 41 infantry battalions to meet 41 commitments in 1995. There is already severe overstretch within the Army and further cuts will only exacerbate the situation; the promised two years between Northern Ireland tours has not been achieved. One infantry battalion goes shortly to Northern Ireland for its 14th tour since 1969 and only 15 months after returning from its 13th tour.
I should like to remind your Lordships that twice during this century at the start of both world wars, we have committed our sailors, soldiers and airmen to battle badly equipped, poorly trained and in too small numbers. In those days the cutting of defence funds caused thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths. Since 1984, the United Kingdom has been receiving the so-called "peace dividend" as we have been reducing our Armed Forces significantly since then. To continue to do so will not create a "smaller but better army" but, regrettably, a smaller and worse army putting at risk the defence of our country.
I ask myself why we imperil the security of the nation by insisting that all the proposed cuts go ahead without, once again, carefully examining the changing circumstances of the world—events now are very different from those in 1989 and 1990. Is the policy of slashing the teeth arms in an unrelated time-scale to continue regardless of world change? In these days of

809
high technology, I am sure your Lordships are aware that we can no longer issue soldiers with rifles and tanks and produce formed and effective units in a few months. It takes years and years to become a skilled and professional infantry battalion or tank regiment.
I believe that our defence policy is based to a certain extent on the premise that our European allies, as part of some future European defence policy, will always join battle with us against our enemies thus allowing us to reduce our force levels in peace time. I believe that those procedures have already started. However, after some episodes concerning the Gulf and some recent acts by our European partners, a policy of that nature should not be relied upon. We must be able to act independently. That not only means having sufficiently large armed services, but it also means retaining an independent capability of deploying those armed forces. Today we do not possess a realistic military airlift for rapid deployment, but are dependent on our own civil airlines or the military aircraft of our allies. Before any more cuts are made, we should see how the years evolve and when we are satisfied, and not before, implement the prescribed cuts. We cannot afford to reduce our forces now, based on merely how we feel future events may turn out. Yet that would appear to be exactly what we have done and what we are about to do.
I am aware that I have painted a gloomy picture. But the real truth of the matter is that if the Options for Change cuts go ahead as planned, Great Britain will have Armed Forces that are too small—in particular an Army incorrectly established, poorly trained and incapable of acting independently. What is the solution? I believe that it is to suspend the majority of the proposed cuts; re-examine our commitments; review our force levels against those commitments and adjust them to cover current world uncertainties. In reality, the United Kingdom has retained the majority of its defence responsibilities. However, the newly forming Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and the rundown of the Berlin and Hong Kong garrisons save some manpower. But the proposed cuts would appear to demand a reduction of 40,000 troops by 1995 when there will have been real savings of only about 20,000 troops.
In conclusion, if we retain our existing commitments, the Army will need about 130,000 troops and not just the 104,000 trained soldiers that have been proposed. If the future Army can be established at around 130,000, it would be one of the military factors underlying a satisfactory security policy for our nation. Failing that, commitments will probably have to be cut which may put the security of our nation at risk.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate on defence. It comes at a very opportune moment, for all this week we have been thinking and talking of short-term decisions with disastrous and unfortunate consequences for the confidence of our nation. Defence is a long-term issue.
810
It is something which needs thinking through carefully: it is planning for the future security and safety of our nation, and of the world. Like marriage, it is not to be taken in hand lightly or unadvisedly, but discreetly and soberly, duly considering the due purposes for which it was ordained. It was ordained for the future peace and tranquillity of our realm. As John Donne said:
"No man is an island".
Nor, in that sense, is Britain. We are all part of Europe and, through Europe, of the world.
There have been so many excellent informed speeches to which it has been a pleasure to listen that I dare not, if I could, inflict a lengthy diatribe on your Lordships. In a debate not long ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that he felt like a minnow among Tritons. Although appearance may belie it, I also never feel more than a very small amoeba.
There are just two points that I should like to make. The first has already been made most tellingly by my noble friend Lord Younger in his truly excellent maiden speech. I should like briefly to congratulate him, my noble friend Lord Stewartby, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on a winning treble. My noble friend Lord Younger spoke of the future of Rosyth. There are three important factors which argue strongly for its retention as a nuclear refitting base instead of Devonport. First, it is only 60 miles by road from Faslane, as opposed to the 400-odd miles between Faslane and Devonport.
Secondly, there is the question of safety. In Rosyth no civilians live within one kilometre of the docks; in Devonport 3,500 do. Within a radius of two kilometres there are only 1,600 at Rosyth compared to 38,000 at Devonport. If there ever had to be any kind of emergency evacuation, there could be no doubt as to which would be easiest to operate.
Thirdly, there is the question of employment in Scotland. Were Rosyth to close down, thousands of jobs would be lost in the Rosyth and Edinburgh areas, with estimated redundancy costs of £137 million. Currently I can think of no more sensitive or upsetting issue.
My second point is about not reducing the present levels of the Armed Forces. That point has already been made most splendidly by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friends Lord Younger, Lord Swinfen and Lord Vivian.
Last week I had the privilege and honour, as president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, to attend the El Alamein service in Westminster Abbey—for which we must all be grateful for the persistence of noble Lords and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It was, as many of your Lordships who were also there will know, the most beautiful and moving of services. In his address, the Dean of Westminster praised the quality and dedication of our forces today, who work long, dangerous, anti-social hours without overtime, and who are indeed the flower of our nation. We think

811
of our forces in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the world, preventing terrorism, saving lives and succouring the hungry and those in need.
Already the prophetic words of the late gallant Lord Cheshire, in his speech on 16th October 1991, are coming true. He said:
�The Armed Forces have a far greater role to play in the future good of mankind than we may think at present. I hope we shall not let that opportunity go�.—[Official Report, 16/10/91: col. 1127.]
I echo his words. Let us not cast away our finest flowers. We shall not get them back.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, your Lordships have heard a great deal about the problems facing the Armed Forces today. I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for again raising the subject of national security policy in the House.
The Armed Forces of the Crown are fundamental to this country's security. Without them, we undoubtedly face the breakdown of law and order which leads to eventual anarchy of the type that we see in several parts of the world today—Somalia and Bosnia, to name just two. There are many other places in the world where our forces are committed to maintaining order through the United Nations.
Chapter 3, paragraphs 324–328, of the 1992 Defence Estimates highlighted a number of manning, recruiting and retention problems. Since those estimates were published the problems have become more acute. Due to economic uncertainty, the predicted outflow of manpower has not occurred and to date force restructuring has not led to a better match between commitments and manpower levels. That, in turn, has led to a virtual standstill in service recruiting. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are allowing just a trickle of new applicants—principally for the technical trades. However, that is leading to serious shortages in a number of key posts, principally in the manning of ships and the servicing of our aircraft.
For the Army, where much greater numbers are required, the situation is much more serious, especially in the infantry. The recruiting of junior soldiers has been stopped. There are currently over 1,000 vacancies in the recruiting organisation. Those men, if recruited, would greatly relieve the overstretch in infantry battalions.
We face uncertainty, inflexibility and dogma within the chain of command. I should like to give one example. It is of a commanding officer of a well-known Scottish battalion who recently asked his affiliated Territorial Army battalions for TA manpower to reinforce his battalion before it was committed abroad. Volunteers were forthcoming in the true spirit of the TA, as happened at the time of the Gulf conflict and on other occasions since. However, for political reasons, TA soldiers were not allowed to reinforce that Scottish battalion, nor do they look like being allowed to serve with their regular counterparts for the foreseeable future. In the event of a total ban on recruiting for the Army, are the Government prepared to allow TA soldiers and reservists to make
812
up deficiencies in the regular forces when those regular forces are faced with manpower bills above their current strength?
As with the regular Army, there is natural anxiety in the TA about wastage and an overall drop in manning levels. Figures for the TA show a drop from 74,500 in August last year to just over 68,500 in August this year, the date of the latest figures. That is a drop of nearly 6,000 men. If the trend continues, TA strength will drop well below the target figure of 63,500. That may well be welcome news to the Treasury but not to the Ministry of Defence. However, there is some good news in that recruited units which are above strength can overbear that strength. That is a sensible move and will, I hope, keep up the TA's overall strength.
I congratulate those responsible for the work done by the National Employers' Liaison Committee, and I very much hope that the amount of money available to it will not be so reduced that it cannot continue to function as effectively as it has in the past.
As part of his Statement on reserve forces made in another place on 10th December last year, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, said:
"It is our duty to see that they"—
referring to reserve forces—
"have the support, equipment and training that they deserve".—[Official Report, Commons,10/12/91; col.739.]
When the regular forces are experiencing difficulties of undermanning and under-equipping, can we realistically maintain the reserves at their present level? I am especially worried about the companies of those battalions committed to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps and that they have all the man-training days, the challenging and worthwhile training and, above all, the equipment that they need. There is anxiety in the TA that support companies may not receive all the mortars, Milan anti-tank weapons and machine guns that they need to match their regular counterparts.
I apologise for raising this matter yet again in your Lordships' House but it is of major concern to the TA and those committed to the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. We live in dangerous and uncertain times, as we have already heard. If we fail to look after and harness our excellent regular reserve forces effectively, the country will lose interest in them and we shall endanger this country's security.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, every Member of your Lordships' House should express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, not just for the debate that he has set in train but above all for his expertise and enormous encouragement of us all, and all the places that he has visited. He told us that he had just returned from Hong Kong with a group of your Lordships and other parliamentarians. I too have been with him. I know how much work he puts into the subject. I hope that the debate will show him and your Lordships how much we appreciate what he does.
We have listened to three impressive maiden speakers today. We are all very much in their debt. I hope that all three of them will continue to give us

813
their opinions in the excellent and charming way that we heard today. We hope that they will be able to expand at greater length than is allowed in a time-limited debate such as we have had today.
My thoughts can be encapsulated in four letters—GCHQ—but my noble friend the Minister need not panic. I shall not refer to the establishment in Cheltenham. G stands for a general overview, although virtually everything I could have said has already been said. It could also stand for "get on with it", which is what I shall do.
In 1968, when I first started coming to your Lordships' House I remember a great review of defence policy and a White Paper. I remember hearing of a concept known as "East of Suez". It was said that we would never again necessarily engage in military activity or take a major military stance east of Suez. Yet in 1991 an immensely valuable and valiant contribution was made by all our armed forces in the Gulf and above all in the liberation of Kuwait.
Many noble Lords may remember that in 1982 we assembled in your Lordships' House one Saturday morning and heard how the Falklands had been invaded by a ruthless aggressor. I remember that Saturday morning. I remember wondering what might happen as an enormous expeditionary force was assembled and engaged. I believe it was my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham who said that that engagement was a feat of arms that was comparable with the Battle of Agincourt. Many of us remember that battle from our history lessons. Perhaps my noble and learned friend expressed himself in a fairly flowery fashion, though succinctly, but the Falklands episode, together with the operations in the Gulf in 1991, shows how extremely lucky we are to have the support of our military personnel in mounting such military campaigns as may be needed.
In 1969 other events took place within the United Kingdom. Some 23 years later we have in Northern Ireland thousands of servicemen committed to trying to suppress one of the most ruthless and professional campaigns of terrorism of the 20th century. The role that the British Army now adopts in Northern Ireland was completely unforeseen in 1969. All noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Stewartby and myself, have reason to admire the professionalism of the men and women who serve in Northern Ireland.
Was it last year that we received a fascinating document entitled Options for Change? I seem to remember thinking, on reading through that document, that it was somewhat more erudite than my university essays. Nevertheless the same comment can be made of Options for Change as of my essays. My tutors used to tell me that a great deal of work had gone into my essays but they did not necessarily concentrate on the required subject. It seems that a great deal of work had been done on Options. for Change but it is not clear that that valuable document answered the necessary questions.
The defence situation in this country changes every day. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and other speakers today have spoken about the position in Bosnia. Let us never forget the Cheshire Regiment,
814
which has set sail for Bosnia and which will soon commence its engagement there. We wish that regiment well, as we also wish the best for each and every one of the supporting servicemen who will accompany the regiment.
I wish to speak on the role of the army and the infantry in Northern Ireland. The role of infantrymen and young officers is far different to the role I was expected to adopt when I underwent my national service in 1957 to 1959. Looking at the list of speakers in this debate today I think there may be four or five noble Lords who have not been engaged in distinguished roles in the armed forces. However, I believe my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord St. Davids, has undergone national service like myself. When I think of the skills I had to learn as a young platoon commander some 35 years ago, they cannot compare with the skills that are now needed in Northern Ireland in terms of the complicated new equipment that infantrymen have to use. I have tried to operate the new SA80 rifle, the Milan anti-tank weapon and the new radios. I have tried to use those weapons on a practice range. It was fortunate I was on a practice range, as I found the weapons terrifying.
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that valuable, enthusiastic and skilled recruits to the armed forces are not being put on hold, let alone being turned away, because of financial or other organisational problems that may have arisen as a result of Options for Change? I wish to mention a hobby-horse of mine. I live in the county of Angus. My noble friend Lady Strange lives not far from me, although not quite in Angus. Both of us are familiar with Royal Air Force Leuchars, which is our local Royal Air Force station. I understand that Leuchars is not responsible for the low flying planes that pass overhead, although my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Glenarthur made a low pass over my home from Leuchars some years ago. However, those of us who live in Angus are familiar with the yellow Wessex helicopters that fly from Leuchars. They venture up the glens of Angus to rescue civilians who for some reason or another have got into difficulty in the mountains. We have heard there is to be an announcement on the helicopters. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the thanks of all of us in Angus and Perthshire for everything that has been done by RAF Leuchars in this field.
Finally, is my noble friend satisfied with recruitment, particularly for the army? Is he concerned about overstretch, especially as it applies to Northern Ireland? I hope my noble friend and all other noble Lords will join with me in expressing our best wishes to each and every serviceman who serves in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and anywhere else.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I wish to reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Lyell about the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I was lucky enough to go to Hong Kong under his able leadership. One military factor to consider is our responsibility for the security of Hong Kong before we hand it over to the Chinese on 1st July 1997. There appears to be a serious

815
divergence of views between us and the Hong Kong Secretary of Security about the speed of the security run-down. The Hong Kong Secretary of Security is under pressure from the Hong Kong Legislative Council to sell valuable military land and cut Hong Kong's contribution to the cost of British troops, although some of these same troops risk their lives daily in dangerous operations to catch smugglers and net the Hong Kong Government many millions of dollars. The Security Secretary felt a fast cut-back was necessary and that the number of helicopters in particular should be dramatically cut. He asserted that in the event of a future emergency troops could move by road. However, as any visitor to Hong Kong knows, most roads are solidly jammed with traffic.
The Security Secretary envisaged little risk of civil unrest in Hong Kong leading up to 1997. If that event arose he was confident that the police could handle the situation, although they now rely extensively on the military for back-up. However, no one knows what will happen and the proposed cuts mean we could be ambushed by an unforeseen scenario when the military personnel is far too scarce. As Mao Tse-tung said,
"A single spark can set the prairie afire".
There could he instability in China, with illegal immigration swamping the police. There could also be anti-British feeling over the passport issue and as 1997 approaches the belief may grow that we sold out to a brutal regime. Normal Chinese behaviour is to bully and the current arguments with China frighten people.
Hong Kong has a volatile society, as I discovered in 1967, when as a young troop leader I was mobilised during the appalling riots that lasted several months and caused much destruction and death. Recent public demonstrations in Hong Kong have often verged on spontaneous violence. I am told that the police, while being well trained and well equipped, are not always well led and corruption is on the increase. With all the uncertainties recruiting is difficult. In the event of a major problem the police would undoubtedly have to fall back on the garrison, as they quickly did in 1967. Even then, with a much bigger garrison, extra troops were brought in at great expense.
There is also a risk that members of the Hong Kong Service Corps, volunteers fully integrated with our troops and used as extra back-up to the police, could leave in large numbers through resentment at not being given a fair quota of British passports.
Military authorities to whom I spoke in Hong Kong, the business community, and the man in the street who, in a recent opinion poll, put law and order as a far higher concern than more democracy for 1997, all want a sufficient British military presence. So do the Chinese leadership, who have made it clear publicly that if the "weak" British were incapable of handling unrest before 1997, they would move in. That would be a real humiliation.
Last but not least, the lives of those troops who stay until the end, and their families, must be protected.
816
I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that a policy of "stronger for longer" will be pursued and we can hand over Hong Kong with British honour upheld.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was surely right to remind us in his Motion that security is far wider a concept than military defence. It involves economics, overseas aid, disarmament, and many other factors which contribute to or otherwise affect the safety of a country.
However, having begun on that note the noble Lord was tempted, as were so many other speakers, into the familiar pattern of demanding stronger forces and criticising Options for Change. I confess to having been astonished by the number of powerful speeches from the Benches opposite and from the Cross-Benches calling for greater Armed Forces and increased defence expenditure, because that is what it means. I have one sad warning for those speakers. I believe that when the Government finally decide on public expenditure for the next year they are in for a severe disappointment.
My own view is that Options for Change is right in one important respect and wrong in another important respect. It is right in that the document sets out plainly that the threat has changed and, overall, has diminished. Of course the threat overall has diminished, as the Government said: the Soviet Union no longer exists. I listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. A few years ago the likelihood of being invaded or attacked was very much greater than it is today. The threats have changed, but the overall threat has diminished. In that Options for Change is right.
Where Options for Change is disastrously wrong is that, though it referred to the new threats, it does not include plans to reorganise our Armed Forces to deal with the new threats as against the old ones. To begin with, I believe that we all agree that the new threats demand a major peace-keeping, peace-making and terrorist suppression role for the Army. Therefore Options for Change should have redressed the balance in favour of conventional arms rather than nuclear arms. In fact, it lays down an increase in nuclear arms and a decrease in conventional arms. That is the first major mistake. It provides for more warheads for Trident—more power than Polaris—and, in addition, an entirely new nuclear system—TASM, and on the other hand it provides for a reduction in conventional weapons.
Secondly, if Options for Change were realistic it would put more emphasis on ground forces than on naval and air power. However, there again, Government policy set out in Options for Change calls for a decrease in Royal Navy manpower of 13 per cent., RAF manpower of 16 per cent. and in Army manpower of 27 per cent. by 1995. That is exactly the opposite of what is needed in order to organise our Armed Forces to meet the new situation.
Further, in respect of conventional forces, and in particular the Army, the new threats require a greater

817
emphasis on lightly armed troops compared with armoured regiments. But Options for Change lays down a decrease in armoured and armoured reconnaissance regiments from 14 to 11 and a decrease in infantry battalions from 55 to 39.
That is the trouble with Options for Change. It is not that there is a need for more Armed Forces. That is absurd. It would involve more defence expenditure. What the policy fails to do is to adjust to the realities of the new threats. That is a great condemnation of Options for Change, which bears all the hallmarks of the outcome of a familiar Whitehall war in which the RAF and the Navy outfought the Army. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Younger, whose speech I greatly admired.
A serious, realistic defence review would begin by cancelling the TASM project. I have every hope that that will be done, and soon. All the arguments so well advanced by the noble Viscount struck no chord of agreement anywhere in this House, either on the Benches opposite or on these Benches. A realistic defence policy would then allocate Trident a fire power no greater than that of Polaris, or perhaps less. Such a defence review would make a careful assessment of the Royal Navy's role in the Atlantic in the new circumstances. It would carefully assess the RAF's air defence role in the new circumstances in which we find ourselves. A realistic defence policy would give priority to increasing the capability of the Army for peace-making, peace-keeping and terrorist suppression. Already, as was expressed so well from the Benches opposite, our soldiers are much the best in the world at that job, not only for their professionalism—not being conscripts—but also, as Yugoslavia shows, because they speak the most widely understood language in the world. That is very important for United Nations peace-keeping. Half of our soldiers are in the Rapid Reaction Corps. I should like the Government to consider that aspect. We provide 50 per cent. of the manpower of the Rapid Reaction Corps. That is too much; our partners should be doing more. Our forces should be specially trained and easily available for the threats which face us in the real world today.
Therefore, when the Government cut defence expenditure, as I believe they will, let them do so not in the spirit of Options for Change, not piecemeal, and not just to satisfy this or that service lobby. Let them have an overall concept of the real threats facing us and make sure they take the decisions to meet those threats.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing the Motion that we are discussing today. Noble Lords will also be grateful to our three "maidens" who have made such a distinguished contribution this evening. I was particularly impressed by the different points made by the different maiden speakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Younger, with his great experience in these matters, made some very telling
818
points on the whole question of management of change. My noble friend Lord Ashley, who has enormous sympathy for the problems of disabled people, brought fiercely to our attention the fact that we are dealing with human problems. If problems come up as a result of service—bullying or whatever—we must treat people with the maximum of compassion. We cannot be callous in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, brought our attention to the question of the reserve forces. As the noble Viscount will know, that is a problem which I have discussed with him in this Chamber on a number of occasions. I personally believe that we cannot go in for Options for Change on the basis of a cut in our reserve forces at the same time as we cut our front-line full-time forces.
Having congratulated the three maiden speakers and mentioned the most impressive points they made, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on his framing of the Motion. In my view, and I thought also in his, such a review would not simply be another look at defence policy in Options for Change. The Motion urges the need for a comprehensive review of the economic, military and other factors underlying a satisfactory national security policy. Therefore I thought the wording of the Motion was most successful. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Kagan, in a very powerful speech, pointed to the economic point; namely, that unless the economy is right, the defence will not come right. I say that very directly to the noble Viscount.
I welcome the recognition by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that security policy is not just a matter of a narrow defence policy. It needs to embrace defence but also to encompass arms control and disarmament, non-proliferation, export controls on nuclear technologies, arms trade policy and, in the economic context, overseas aid policy. Unless we get all those areas right, we shall not be secure in the sense implied by the noble Lord's Motion.
The United Kingdom commits some 95 per cent. of its defence budget to NATO tasks. NATO was created to deter the Soviet Union (by "Soviet Union" I mean the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies). In that role NATO was extremely successful. The Warsaw Pact has dissolved, the Soviet Union has disintegrated and the communist régime has fallen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, remarked, there is still all kinds of turbulence within the remnants of the former Soviet Union which need to be studied very carefully. In terms of the review called for in the Motion, we have to consider not only the forces that we require for our defence, which include the nuclear forces to combat any possible threat from disintegration in the former Soviet Union, but also the arms control policies that might or might not be in place and the non-proliferation policies needed to make us more secure.
Many noble Lords are much more expert than I on Options for Change. I have put forward my views and I do not want to bore noble Lords with what I feel about Options for Change. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, quite rightly and eloquently spoke about overstretch, as did other noble Lords. I

819
should like to concentrate on other aspects, and pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
First of all, there is our nuclear role. Clearly, we have to retain some ultimate deterrent capability and that will be Trident. But it must be right to limit the number of warheads in the Trident system to the same number as those employed in the current Polaris fleet. In the world in which we live, it cannot make any sense at all to multiply our nuclear strike capability. Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that it makes no sense to employ TASM at this stage. If the Treasury is looking for cuts it seems to me that that ought to be the first to go.
My next point concerns non-proliferation and arms control. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Kagan emphasised, there is undoubtedly a clandestine nuclear weapons programme in places (such as Iraq) which are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and still violate that treaty. In the context of a general security policy, the Government must encourage the greater use of short notice inspections if there are suspicious activities. That is the only way to do it. If my figures are correct, the UK provides the International Atomic Energy Authority with around 0.025 per cent. of our defence budget. That is not particularly convincing as a contribution.
I believe that we need to move much further on the comprehensive test ban treaty. Unless we do so, we shall find that any small or medium sized state in military terms will be able to test in a way that will be damaging to the security of the whole world. If I may put it this way, it is a shame that Britain has been forced to stop testing rather than taking the lead in the positive measure of stopping all testing in a comprehensive manner. However, for some reason the Government have refused to do that and I should like to know why.
We must tighten control on the export of nuclear materials and nuclear related technologies. Nuclear exports are still going to countries suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons programmes. They are subject to International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards, but those safeguards are inadequate. We must strengthen arms trade policy. According to the 1992 Defence White Paper, the Arms Transfer Register requires all parties by 30th April 1993 to provide the UN Secretary General with details of imports and exports in seven categories of major weapons systems. When do the Government intend to bring the necessary legislation before Parliament to provide for the disclosure of such information in the UK? Perhaps the noble Viscount will answer that question when he comes to wind up the debate.
With regard to chemical weapons, we welcome the outcome of the conference on disarmament in Geneva. We hope that the agreed text will be debated at the UN General Assembly to be held next month and that it will be signed in January 1993. Generously, I congratulate the Government on the efforts that they have made to secure that convention.
I apologise that I have overrun my time. I have tried to cover a number of subjects while leaving until the
820
end the basic questions that I hope the Government will answer. First, as the result of this debate will the Government consider, in the words of the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that national security will be studied as a whole in terms of economic, military and other factors, and will the study then be debated in this House? Secondly can we be assured that the study—let us call it a defence review if that is what the Government want—will start from the basic problem of what is necessary for the United Kingdom and the world? If the study starts from that base, and the Treasury input comes later—I accept that there will be a Treasury input—then we shall have a satisfactory outcome to the study. Thirdly, will the Government now recognise that there is much more to security policy than the simple minimum defence of this country? I pick up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. We are an international player and a European player. We should behave as one.
I return to what my noble friend Lord Ashley said. The callousness that has characterised so many Government decisions over the past few years, months and even days can no longer prevail. We are dealing with the lives and livelihoods of human beings and our own kith and kin. I warn the noble Viscount that unless that lesson has been learned by the Government his life, even in his job as a Minister in the Department of Defence, will be made very difficult by myself and my noble friends.
7.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like virtually every other noble Lord who has spoken in this most interesting debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for the opportunity that yet again he has given us to address ourselves to the higher and intellectual facets of the fascinating subject of defence and security. However, before I endeavour to answer the final questions that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, put to me, I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made about the three extraordinarily elegant maiden speeches to which we have had the privilege of listening today.
I warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Younger because he and I form a rather exclusive club in your Lordships' House. He adds a great deal of strength to the father and son teams which I hope will increasingly become a feature of your Lordships' debates. I welcome him for another reason. I know how much he was liked and respected during his time at the Ministry of Defence.
I too remember the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for the distinction of his contributions to debates in another place when I was briefly there. His knowledge and commitment on matters affecting welfare, poverty and the disabled are known to all your Lordships and struck me during my eight years in another place. I was particularly pleased at the remarks he made. The worries that he addressed in his distinguished contribution are directly my responsibility in the Ministry of Defence. I have endeavoured to pay a great deal of attention to them during the seven months that I have been in the department. I certainly

821
shall take up the challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as well as taking to heart the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I say to both of them that my door is always open and I very much look forward to discussing those matters, in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley.
I also remember the distinguished contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby in another place. I welcome another Hertfordshire man (if that is what he has become by adoption) to your Lordships' debates. I know that he speaks from a great deal of knowledge of the department that I have the honour to represent in your Lordships' House. I greatly look forward to the contributions that he will make to our debates.
As noble Lords know, for many years the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has made a deep study of the subject of security. Indeed Ministers in my department were grateful for an advance copy of his recent extremely interesting pamphlet on defence reviews and defence strategy. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made that clear in reply to the noble Lord. We were also extremely grateful for his subsequent acknowledgment in the follow-up correspondence that the Statement on the Defence Estimates had addressed a number of his anxieties. I was grateful for the qualified support of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in that respect.
However, in reply to the debate, I hope that your Lordships will agree that I should try to address myself principally to the Motion and the wider questions which the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Williams, addressed. I shall endeavour to address myself to some of the points which a number of noble Lords have made during the course of the debate. If I miss any, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, and I shall write to them.
We know that there has been a consistent call for a fundamental defence review in your Lordships' House at least since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Indeed, it has become almost a truism to say that the great events of the last few years have fundamentally altered the strategic situation.
As I believe I mentioned to noble Lords in May of this year when I first had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, the old certainties have disappeared along with the immediate strategic threat. I also said, and it has been stated again a number of times today, that those certainties have been replaced by uncertainty. We have to face a new range of security risks, all characterised by the quality of uncertainty. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, spoke most pertinently to that point. I say to the noble and gallant Lord that his remarks have been carefully noted by the Ministry of Defence, as they will have been by your Lordships.
In Europe we face an increasingly complex situation where we cannot yet be certain that we have successfully left the old threat wholly behind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, with her great knowledge and authority of the former Soviet Union and Russia, so rightly said, we do not know what will happen in the former Soviet Union. After 70 years of Stalinist
822
and post-Stalinist permafrost, the thaw has come. We hope and believe that democracy is taking root, however slow and painful that process may be. At the moment we cannot envision, even in our wildest dreams, a direct assault on the West. However, as the noble Baroness so rightly pointed out, Russia is still extraordinarily well armed and, as other noble Lords have said, quantity has given way to quality. Indeed, Russia still possesses a formidable military capacity, both conventional and nuclear. Your Lordships and the electorate would surely not expect us as Her Majesty's Government to relax our guard completely until the transition to stable government and a stable economy is complete. In that context I have noted the remarks of my noble friend Lord Vivian about the importance of intelligence.
Elsewhere in our continent the permafrost's melting reveals that atavistic instincts that the East-West stalemate had kept frozen are still alive. Conflicts such as the dreadful one in former Yugoslavia do not impose a direct threat to the United Kingdom, but they undermine the stability of Europe and threaten to spill over into the NATO heartland.
Outside Europe many countries are beginning to acquire sophisticated weapons which could pose a threat to our strategic interests. In that context I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, whether he would have preferred lightly armed troops to take on Saddam Hussein rather than the heavily armoured troops we were able to send to that conflict with the results that many of your Lordships have referred to this evening.
The changed situation and climate have in many ways prompted a gratifyingly swift response from NATO. When your Lordships consider the nature of the resources which we devoted to the Warsaw Pact threat they were fairly static in nature and in general terms our main forces pointed in only one direction. The security arrangements and the military alliance which we had in place were working well. Indeed, they were working so well that we can claim that NATO has proved a success almost without parallel for an alliance of that kind. In the circumstances there will always be a temptation to try to cling on even in the face of changing events—what one might call man's natural conservatism.
We can claim that we in the alliance have reacted swiftly to radical change. One must consider that we began with the London Summit in July 1990. There the 16 nations of the alliance had to decide to change as one, which is always more difficult than one person doing so. The process of giving birth to a new strategic concept came to formation in November 1991 in Rome. Here the alliance fundamentally overhauled itself and based itself on three key interlocking principles. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to consider that I am beginning to answer some of the questions which he addressed to me at the end of his remarks. The three interlocking principles can be described as dialogue, co-operation and a strong collective defence.
I have previously observed to your Lordships that our first line of defence lies with the institutions which give practical effect to the first two of those principles.

823
That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, appeared implicitly to recognise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised it too when he said that security policy encompasses more then merely defence expenditure. The United Nations plays a vital role. Through it we can promote international stability. The CSCE has become an important forum for consultation and co-operation; for instance, last year it decided to create a conflict prevention centre and an office for democratic institutions and human rights. At the Helsinki Summit this year outline mechanisms for crisis management were agreed upon. We also established a European security forum providing an institutional framework for arms control and confidence building. Indeed, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that in the arms control field we have made a great deal of progress. The CFE Treaty, under which we have already conducted a number of practice verification inspections in central Europe and Russia, is in place. We signed the Open Skies Treaty in March this year. In the nuclear field the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty provides for extensive verification—a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, addressed himself in particular—and a reduction of about one third in the superpowers' strategic arsenals. That is what one might call a start, indeed.
However, your Lordships will know that we cannot be complacent about the risks of nuclear control and proliferation. That was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. In parenthesis I wish to add that we are pleased that not only were shorter-range nuclear weapons quickly concentrated in Russia but that the new nation states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have agreed that strategic systems now within their borders should remove to Russia within the implementation period of the Start Treaty. Those three states have also agreed to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear weapons states.
Your Lordships will already know of the NATO nuclear planning group's planned reductions in sub-strategic nuclear weapons and of the successful conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention after many years of negotiation. That is an achievement in whose accomplishment this country played a distinguished part and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his congratulations to the Government in that respect.
Those general security mechanisms form the first line of our strategic shield. However, they cannot carry conviction unless the western allies maintain a military capability which gives our diplomatic démarche credibility. In that respect I find it difficult to over estimate the importance of the alliance. In the uncertain world to which I have referred, a solid alliance of nations, whose very nature is rooted in representative government and liberal economics, is in itself a force for stability and peace of inestimable value. To that end we are fortunate that NATO exists and has shown the welcome signs of adaptability which I have attempted to describe. Indeed, I would go further. The fundamental strategic approach so eloquently advocated by the noble Lord, Lord
824
Chalfont, would be almost impossible without the NATO alliance. It is the outstanding example of the whole being greater than the sum of the constituent parts. A strong NATO which is adaptable to changing circumstances is fundamental to our strategic approach and to the security of the United Kingdom.
I am all the more delighted, therefore, that our most important ally, the USA, continues to commit herself to the alliance. It is equally significant that France is showing signs of interest in participation once again in certain NATO forums from which she has excluded herself for so long. In that context we welcome in particular the recent remarks made by the French Minister of Defence in Paris and we shall follow developments in that sphere with the greatest interest. In particular, we hope that the WEU will develop primarily in its role as the European pillar of NATO as we believe it can and should.
Fundamental to the success of this approach is the British contribution. Our ultimate national survival is underpinned by our independent nuclear deterrent. In that context I point out to the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Williams, that we have publicly set a maximum on Trident warheads of 128 per boat. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows because I have told him more than once in your Lordships' House that we have not yet come to a decision on TASM. I know that he will be pleased to receive an update on that study. However, more than any previous government we have had to reconcile what I would call our "unduckable" commitments towards Northern Ireland, Belize, the Falklands and Hong Kong. Perhaps I can reassure my noble friend Lord Astor, who made a most interesting contribution, that we intend to discharge our full responsibilities in Hong Kong. We must reconcile that with our contribution towards the alliance, which must be the bedrock of our security policy.
It is essential that in these times of financial stringency defence Ministers should, however resourced-disciplined, be strategy led, as a former Secretary of State for Defence put it. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made that point more elegantly than I. Therefore our contribution to the alliance is clear. As regards NATO we have a leading role to play in the ace Rapid Reaction Corps, a formation successfully inaugurated earlier this month. I repeat that with the kind of weapons that are being bought by dictators outside the NATO area I would not like to send, to coin a phrase, "our troops naked into the battlefield." We shall continue to play a role in all three categories of NATO forces.
Our role and that of our allies in support of the United Nations is likely to become increasingly important. Indeed, it is significant that our contribution to escorting relief convoys in Bosnia is in NATO-committed troops. All noble Lords, and everyone in the country, will wish those men and women well. I am delighted that we in this House and my right honourable friends in another place have been able to give assurances on the rules of engagement. I answer directly the question asked by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. There are at present 101 service men and women in Bosnia, including the

825
base at Split, which is not strictly in Bosnia. The number varies and it would build up if our plans were to mature.
Many of your Lordships have expressed, not for the first time in your Lordships' House, extremely severe doubts as to whether or not our Armed Forces are sufficiently numerous to sustain the commitments which our overall strategy demands. It would be idle of me to rehearse the list of noble Lords who have mentioned that. However, one matter which we take extremely seriously is the point raised in particular by my noble friend Lord Stewartby about the importance of reserve forces. That was a point made also by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Last week I was fortunate enough to visit HMS "Eaglet" which I believe is the mother ship of HMS "Humber". I heard of Lady Stewartby's impending visit. I was able to hear also of the strong views expressed by the officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve during the course of that visit to Liverpool.
In spite of the fact that no one is able to deny that the situation is tight, most of your Lordships' doubts have concentrated on the Army. Therefore, I must make it clear that the advice from our professional advisers on this matter is clear. Once the transition under the Options programme has been accomplished, the present too-short tour interval of an average of 15 months will rise. A target of at least 24 months will be achievable once the transition period is over. That will include the whole question of public duties for the Foot Guards, on which my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has answered a Written Question, the details of which I have placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication as to when that 24-month period may be reached?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that will be once the draw-down has been completed, somewhere around about 1995. However, I should add—and I have said this to your Lordships on more than one occasion—that if circumstances change, and we all know that they are changing rapidly at present, we stand ready to change our approach on the question of the number of infantry in particular. We keep that under continuous review.
I pay tribute to the men and women of our Armed Forces. As a newcomer to defence matters I have been constantly impressed in the past seven months by their extraordinary cheerfulness and professionalism under extremely trying circumstances. I would be the last to say to your Lordships that I take them for granted or that we owe them anything less than the full attention and sympathy which they deserve.
This has been an interesting debate. I know that we shall often return to the matters raised this evening. As always, I shall look forward to listening to your Lordships' highly informed opinions and advice on this vital subject.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been interesting and valuable. In particular, I express my appreciation to the three maiden speakers. As other noble Lords have said, they were three memorable contributions, each of a different kind and character, and all extremely welcome.
There has been a general consensus in the House that a review of some kind is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, thought that I and others concentrated too much on a desire for stronger forces. However, if he consults the Official Report, he will find that at no time did I call for stronger forces. I want a review and I am not attempting to pre-empt the outcome of that. I do not know what size or shape of forces will be recommended by such a review but a review is necessary. It must be comprehensive and, as I said, it must not be regarded as a defence review. In other words, it should not begin or remain in the Ministry of Defence. This matter affects other government departments—the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and the broader defence community in this country. We need not a defence review but a review of national security.
The noble Viscount answered the debate impressively. I was pleased with some of his remarks, especially in drawing attention to some of the anxieties which have been expressed as regards the 1992 White Paper. As the noble Viscount said, this subject will be before your Lordships' House again and again. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Minicabs
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to improve the safety of users of minicabs in London.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, that I am asking this Question in your Lordships' House this evening will surprise no one. In February 1989 I moved the Second Reading of a local authorities Bill which included in its provisions the licensing of minicabs. That was referred to a Select Committee and considered fully by it. It returned to the whole House and was given a Third Reading in February 1990. Later, it fell in the Commons.
Since then I have asked questions on the subject, which concerns me greatly, and I was pleased that a working party was set up to consider the matter. The report of the working party was published as your Lordships' House rose for the Summer Recess, so that this is the first opportunity to pursue the matter further and to ask the Government to set in train legislation to control minicabs in London.
Everywhere but in the London area controls already exist on private hire vehicles, but the situation is not the same here. Of course, only in London do the black cab drivers have the "knowledge", as it is called. That means that they know every street and how to get

827
there and they have to pass a test to prove that. It may take two to three years to acquire the knowledge. Drivers who satisfy the Public Carriage Office and pass the test become licensed hackney carriage drivers. A so-called green badge is awarded to a driver licensed to operate in the whole of the London area. A yellow badge driver is licensed only for a particular area or zone. In reality, the badges are brass and they have either a green or yellow line on them.
The public have lived with the hazardous situation of no control whatever over private hire vehicles, mainly minicabs, as the public know them, for years. Crimes have been committed and the public are justified in demanding safe standards in all forms of public transport. Apart from crimes against the person, which are at a level which cause great anxiety, there is the added hazard that vehicles are sometimes of such a poor standard that they could not possibly pass an MoT inspection and, therefore, they carry no insurance. The driver is frequently unlicensed and may have a relevant criminal conviction which makes him unfit to be a licensed cab driver.
In 1989 anxiety was expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that local authorities might not be the right bodies to be the licensing authorities. In that same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who I see is here this evening, also expressed reservations about the proposition that I was putting forward for local authorities to license black cabs and minicabs in London. Now, local authorities do not want the job in London. That has become quite clear from recent votes on the Westminster council and I understand that other councils, such as Greenwich, never wanted the job, even at the time of the last debate.
Time has shown too that local authorities are not the ideal organisations for the job. Black cabs are licensed by the Public Carriage Office and I am convinced that the same body must be the licensing authority for all London cabs and hire cars so that a uniform standard will eventually be achieved. By that I do not mean uniform standards of the vehicles themselves. Many black cabs are now—and by the end of the century I believe all of them will need to be—specially designed for invalid carriages. However, for the volume of transport that we need there is room for other vehicles, as I believe drivers of black taxis now accept. Again, it would be limited to the area and use.
Two years ago drivers of black taxis were opposed to extending licensing to minicabs. I detect a change in their attitude and believe that they accept that it is unwise and unsafe for 40,000 completely uncontrolled and unidentifiable vehicles to be carrying fare-paying passengers in the London area.
Black cabs are not themselves entirely without fault, as I have often said before. Many people I know have told me that if one lives south of the river one has little hope of obtaining a black cab for the journey home, particularly late at night. Even in the past few days drivers of black cabs have agreed with that statement. The present economic situation is making them slightly more willing to go further. But we hope that times will improve and we may then be back in exactly the same position.
I agree with the point made to me by the drivers that it is important for there to be a levelling up rather than a levelling down. Even with my proposed scheme I should want to see a different type of badge for those people who were registered immediately but only on a provisional basis. We must have licensed, identifiable drivers; licensed, insured and fit vehicles; tested and reliable meters with set maximum charges. Those charges may of course be different in the case of a chauffeured limousine hire service, the type we think of as being at the top end of the private hire market. There may be some room for variation in that regard.
I was interested to learn that even in black cabs the meter shows the maximum charge rather than the minimum. A black cab could make special arrangements with a hospital, school or organisation, for which they provide a regular service, to provide that service at a lower fee. But how often do we hear stories of tourists, unaware of what the correct fare should be, being fleeced by unscrupulous drivers? Reports and statistics show that in many cases the greatest cause of arguments and assaults in minicabs is arguments over fares.
The vehicle and the driver must be identifiable by a member of the public. Was it not in Forest Gate that the tragedy occurred when a legitimate call was intercepted by a criminal who presented himself to pick up the fare and the victim had no idea that the car was not the one she was expecting. By providing a definite registered plate on the car a customer could be told what vehicle would be coming. The vehicle could then be identified before the customer entered the car. Elderly and invalid customers come to know their drivers well when they have them on a regular run and thereby establish a valuable rapport.
Clearly there is a need for the transport that minicabs provide. If there were not that need 40,000 of them would not be in business. The answer therefore must be to devise a system whereby those people now driving could register at once but be given a date by which time they would need to pass a "knowledge" test on either a local or all-London basis, in the same way as years ago people who had ridden motorbikes for many years, suddenly found that they had to pass a test by a certain date or give up driving.
I am delighted that we have a Minister of Transport for London—Steve Norris—with special transport interest and knowledge. He will need to work out the fine details. I do not intend to take your Lordships' time to go into detail tonight. I merely want to establish the principle of need.
I believe the point will be made tonight—it was certainly made in our previous debates—that the proprietors of reputable hire car firms should be given some kind of discretion and control over licences. That is perhaps interesting and possibly a good idea. However, I should like also to see the licensing of individuals. I do not want to see a monopoly or power-base created only for people who own fleets of hire cars. Many minicab drivers, and indeed many drivers of black cabs, are individuals who own and drive their own vehicles.
A few drivers may not register in the way I suggest. Among them will be those whose vehicles are unfit,

829
those who are disqualified drivers or those with relevant recent criminal convictions. If licensing does no more than weed out those dangerous vehicles and unlicensed drivers, it will have achieved quite a lot. The good, honest, reliable minicab drivers, of whom there are many, must welcome recognition and an opportunity to show their reliability.
My hope would be for an immediate registration system with appropriate area restrictions. That would mean no interruption in the working of minicabs and we would retain continuity of the full service. Neither the service to the public nor the employment of the drivers would be affected. But the public would be afforded the added safety and protection that they deserve.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, tabled the Unstarred Question tonight and I should like to support her.
No woman in her right mind, no child, no elderly person, walks on the streets after dark for fear of being attacked. Nor would those women, children or elderly people care to wait at a deserted bus stop late at night, waiting for a bus that may not come; nor would they enter a strange car with a strange man, again for fear of being attacked. They—we—are afraid, and rightly so, prudently so.
We therefore turn to taxis for safety, convenience and for peace of mind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, explained to us, in this country there are three standards of service provided by our taxis and minicabs. In London we have black hackney cabs which are licensed, inspected, regulated and tested by the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan Police. The result, as we know, is one of the most respected, knowledgeable and safe black taxi services in the world.
Outside London local authorities license and inspect both hackney carriages and private car hire vehicles—minicabs. Until April of this year such regulation and inspection was essentially limited to the state of the vehicle; that is, its roadworthiness, its cleanliness and its insurance. But thanks to an amendment to the Road Traffic Bill of June 1991—warmly supported by your Lordships—which permitted local authorities to require from the police evidence of criminal convictions, local authorities can now license and inspect, so to speak, the character of the driver alongside that of the vehicle. Both are equally important to public safety.
Nonetheless, outside London differences remain between black taxi cabs or hackney carriages, and private hire vehicles. Hackney carriages can ply for hire; they have regulated, registered and metered fares whereas minicabs have not and do not. But that outside London both vehicle and driver, whether hackney carriage or minicab, are fit and proper for their purpose, is undeniable. Local authorities and the citizens of this country whom they represent are truly and appropriately appreciative of that. The safety of the car and the integrity of the driver are now assured.
830
Women outside London may safely use such cars late at night. The elderly may use them to go to hospital, children to go to school and the disabled to go home. As a result of your Lordships' report—here I would like to pay an especial tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who made the amendment possible—we all now, outside London, enjoy greater peace of mind. That is, if we live or work outside London.
For I said that we have a three-tier service; there is the black London hackney cab, licensed by the police, the provincial hackney and private hire car, licensed by the local authority, and the London minicab, licensed and inspected by just no one at all. Yet there are as many minicabs in London as there are in the whole of England and Wales put together. We estimate that there are between 40,000 and 50,000. Too often they are dirty, dubious and even downright dangerous. They are unregistered and uninspected. A man with a criminal record for grievous bodily harm, rape or serious drink and drug offences, whose only legitimate skill may be driving a car, who may be a stranger to London and whose car, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has said, may barely have scraped through the MoT, can set himself up in minutes as a minicab driver.
I stood outside a theatre the other night looking for a black taxicab. An unmarked private car cruised up outside the theatre. A young woman called out "Are you my minicab?" He said, "Yes". She got into the car and off they went. I hope he was. I hope that he was reputable. I hope that she was safe. In Norwich, Nottingham or outside London that car would have had on its door the name of its firm so the woman could have identified it visibly. She would have known that the driver was safe, proper and a decent and fit person to drive that car. She might have taken a chance in Norwich; she was certainly taking a risk in London which I believe to be quite unnecessary.
Why should London—London people, London women, London elderly, London frail and London children—be denied what the rest of the country now has, which is a safe, inspected, regulated and licensed minicab system? Why should London people alone expect to take risks? Why should I be able to use such a minicab safely outside London and take a chance inside London if I use one? Indeed, it is precisely because the private car firms and minicabs are being licensed, regulated and inspected outside London that those who would fail such tests, those at the dubious end of the market—that is to say, the undesirable and the unemployable—are now moving into the London trade.
We all know that the need for minicabs is much greater in London than elsewhere. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rightly said, black taxis will not always work unsocial hours; they will not always go out to suburbs or to South London and they cannot always be found when it rains. We all know not only of the need but also that the demand for speedy and safe transport to jobs, appointments, hospitals, schools, hotels, railway stations or homes may well be greater in London than elsewhere. We all know, do we not? that it is impossible to walk across London because, unlike most cities, it is too large. One

831
cannot drive one's own car in London because one cannot park, which is not the case in most of the rest of Britain. We all know that London is a more violent and dangerous place than most others in Britain. We all know that in London one takes more risks walking home late at night through deserted streets than in most other parts of Britain.
The need for minicabs, the danger of taking them and the lack of a safe alternative are factors which are all much greater in London than elsewhere. Yet it is precisely here that private car vehicles are unregistered and unlicensed.
I hope that your Lordships will not think I am overstating the case. Clearly, most minicab drivers are decent family men who are careful and courteous. They do not have to have a clean driving licence, but they probably do. They do not have to prove that they can drive safely, but they probably can. They do not have to show evidence of any knowledge of their locality, but they probably have some. They do not have to have adequate or good physical health, but we hope that they have. They do not have to be law abiding, but they probably are. They do not have to indicate whether they have any previous criminal convictions, although by the law of averages statistically perhaps about a third of them will have. They are probably good, decent and courteous law abiding family men.
But undeniably a substantial minority of minicab drivers should not be on the roads. We have paedophiles driving children to school; former burglars helping old people into their homes; convicted rapists driving women down unknown streets and men convicted of assault and grievous bodily harm taking the disabled to hospital. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, like myself, has met Diana Lamplugh and recognised and responded to the work she has done—has interviewed 1,000 people who use taxis and minicabs. About a fifth (199 of them) had experienced from minicab drivers dangerous driving or physical abuse. More horrifying still, is a figure which I could barely bring myself to believe, which comes from Scotland Yard. It indicates that a quarter of all stranger rape was associated with minicabs. That is a level of risk, violence and threat that we would tolerate nowhere else in the United Kingdom, and we should not tolerate it in London.
We do not have to tolerate it in London and why should we? What are the options? Self-regulation has failed because those who most readily accept it are the better and more reputable firms. Those who most need it, such as the cowboys and the marginals, are precisely those who do not regulate themselves. What are the options? First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said, we could require all minicabs in London to come under the regulation of the Public Audit Office, which is analogous to the control imposed on black taxis, although there might be a problem of workload here for the police. There might also be a problem because of the flexible fares and flexible arrangements which the minicabs can offer. But that is one way forward.
Secondly, we could have a twin-track licensing
832
system, with local authorities regulating minicabs in London as they do outside. Again, there is the problem of the workload and again, as the noble Baroness said, there may be a problem in achieving common standards. Thirdly, there is another option which I should like to suggest to your Lordships. I hope that the noble Viscount opposite will respond to it. It is to require all minicab drivers to operate from licensed premises rather as is done with heavy goods vehicles. The proprietor has to be registered and inspected by the police or the local authority and that is perhaps analogous to environmental health officers inspecting restaurants or factories right across the country. That proprietor would be held responsible for the streetworthiness of vehicles and for the drivers. He would be required to have the vehicles inspected and to ask for previous criminal convictions, if any. He would be regularly inspected. He would require the minicabs operating from his premises to carry an identifying sign on the door in the form of an external plate. Such 40,000 cabs might operate out of, say,1500 such premises or 50,60 or 70 from a London borough. That is a perfectly acceptable workload either for an individual London borough or for a joint committee of such boroughs. It may also be acceptable for the audit office of the police.
I recognise that there is no consensus within the trade as to what should be done. Understandably black taxis wish to protect the property of their knowledge and understandably the minicabs wish to protect the current deregulated and flexible system that they mostly now enjoy. However, there is almost complete consensus among users that registration is essential and that Londoners should no longer have to tolerate what no one else will tolerate. With the help of your Lordships we could and do now enjoy a safe and reputable minicab service outside London, thanks in part to your Lordships' own amendment made about 15 months ago. Londoners deserve nothing less. I hope that, as a result, your Lordships will support the Unstarred Question introduced by the noble Baroness this evening.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I should first like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for asking this Question, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, from the city of Norwich. Both have produced excellent speeches on this subject. At one time I thought there was going to be variance and that I should have to make a longer speech, but I am now going to stick to my own speech, which will be extraordinarily brief. For over 20 years now attempts have been made by all parties to introduce legislation to control the private hire or minicab situation in London. It is well known that this is an area of transport where the total absence of control has led to a lowering of standards and increasing concern among the public.
The last time the matter came before your Lordships many spoke on behalf of the black taxi trade, because it was thought that controlling minicabs in some way implied the end of the black taxi. This is quite wrong and totally misleading. The

833
black taxi in London provides a service that enjoys the highest reputation both with Londoners and visitors from abroad; it must be encouraged to continue to retain its preferential right to ply for hire in London. We are not suggesting that minicabs should ply for hire. However, this should in no way deflect anyone from dealing with the 40,000 to 50,000 minicab drivers presently offering their services to members of the public without any guarantee of even a minimum standard.
Because this problem has been with us for so long perhaps we should look at more practical solutions than those so far proposed. Perhaps it is time to consider how problems of this nature were dealt with in the past, specifically in the betting industry, which was at one time run by a type of underworld bookmaker who employed bookies' runners, and from whom the public got a very bad deal. It was the Betting and Gaming Act 1961 which offered licences to all those who were soundly vetted and who wanted to run such businesses. In a very short time that industry was transformed and now contains national and international companies who employ several thousand people and who have the confidence of the betting public. That was a situation dealt with at a stroke and dealt with successfully.
We must look at the vital ingredient of putting responsibility with the operator. My noble friend Lady Gardner knew that I intended to speak on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, put it in a slightly different way as regards HGV or PSV drivers, but I do not think we are too much at variance in this area. If the operator fails to comply with the conditions of his licence he puts his whole business prospects at risk. Therefore it would appear sensible at this time to consider offering operator licences to "fit and proper people", as I think legislation states—I believe that "a reputable person" is better, although both sound patronising—within the private hire or minicab industry, putting conditions on their licence relating to the drivers under their control.
That would not involve licensing individual drivers, but the licence conditions could have the same effect. The fee charged to the proprietors would cover the cost of the administration involved. All drivers would have to work for a licensed operator, and details of each driver would be sent to the Metropolitan Police and the Department of Employment. Those operators holding licences would of course offer great assistance to the police when dealing with any drivers operating illegally. The end result would, at minimum cost and to maximum effect, be a system of control that would guarantee the public the protection which they have been demanding for over 20 years.
I have been brief on purpose. The Government said that they agreed that something should be done. We want to have some action, and I beg my noble friend not to put this issue on the back burner. Let us deal with it, and within a year or 18 months from now.
8.45 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing this Question in the House, not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham who, under normal circumstances and had he been here, would have addressed this Question. I have a particular interest in this subject as a motor cyclist, as one of the co-founders of the all-party motor cycle group, as a road user, and as one who is aware of motor vehicles in London. Therefore, I have to say that a proliferation of minicabs without the kind of controls that have been so well covered by previous speakers would pose a great threat to that particular class of road user.
It must be remembered that the "knowledge"—the term that is used for the procedure by which black cab drivers get to know their streets in order to pass the requisite examination—is gained by using a two-wheeled vehicle, often a scooter or a small motor cycle. Whatever complaints one may have from time to time about drivers of black cabs, their knowledge of motor cycles and two-wheeled vehicles is such that they are considerate towards motor-cyclists. The same cannot be said about the majority of minicab drivers.
The safety of the public is paramount in this respect. It is quite unacceptable to have unlicensed and unexamined drivers driving vehicles which are unsuitable for the trade that they ply. I do not think that any noble Lord has mentioned it, but may I say in passing that if competition from cheap cars, which are probably unroadworthy, at prices well below those charged by black cabs were allowed to exist, it would eventually put the black cabs out of business.
The London black cab is an expensive vehicle. My noble friend Lord Winchilsea told me—and he should know because he drives a black cab, obviously without a meter—that the black cab costs about £22,000. It is a hand-made vehicle. I regret to say that nowadays it has a Japanese engine but the bodies are made in the Midlands. It is especially made for the use to which it is put, and I imagine would require little adaptation for invalid carriages. I think that was mentioned by one noble Baroness. A car that can be bought for £4,000 or £5,000 and used as a minicab is not going to be able to meet that kind of special requirement.
I do not intend to add in any way to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said. She has not overstated the case at all. I did not know that one-quarter of all stranger rapes were associated with minicabs. It is terrifying. If it were 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. of all stranger rapes it would be horrifying, and would lead those in authority in the country to look carefully at the licensing of these vehicles. The safety of road users, of the people outside the cabs and of those who ride in the vehicles, must be protected. The cabs must be licensed. Only a lunatic would take another view. I know perfectly well that the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, is no lunatic. In fact, he is a very sensible chap who rides a motorcycle, and I hope he will have a long life ahead of him. He is a sensible rider as I have observed, and I am sure that he will give us a sensible and helpful answer.

835
I support everything that has been said about the need to inspect proprietors as well as vehicles, but I would add what might seem a trivial point. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned it. Black cabs in London have been part of the scene of London for years, rather like London policemen. Tourists come here and expect to see black cabs, and they like talking to taxi drivers. In fact, they probably learn more from taxi drivers than they do from anybody during their visits here. If the black cabs were forced to disappear from our streets because we did not bother to protect them against the wrong kind of competition, it would be a sad day for the London environment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, the only point I should like to make—probably the noble Viscount would have gone on to make it—is that what we are suggesting here is that no other order of black cabs should be able to ply for hire in the streets. The minicab situation is different. They have to be procured by telephone or by going to their offices. That is a different situation. There is no reason why the black cab should ever disappear on that pretext.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. This is neither the time nor the place to expand on it and perhaps I may talk to him about it outside this Chamber. But there is definitely a threat to the existence of black cabs, especially in times such as these when people are very hard up. Obviously, too, rather than going out at night to find a black cab, if people can get a cab at a quarter of the price, they are tempted to do so. I thank the noble Lord for his interjection, and I thank the noble Baroness for having had the chance to speak. I hope that I have done my noble friend justice. I know that he feels passionately about black cabs and their continued existence and about all the other points which have been so eloquently raised this evening.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for opening this question. It is a matter which she has raised a number of times and one in which she has a great interest. She referred to reservations which I have had from time to time, so before this debate took place I thought I would check what I had said on the last occasion when I intervened on a Question which the noble Baroness put on the 1st July. I said then that I thought that there was a general public desire for legislation to bring the minicabs into line with the black cab trade, but I also said that nothing should be done to weaken the position of black cabs in the splendid service that they give to the people of London. That remains my view today.
We are very grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for the publicity that they have given to this general problem which led to the establishment of the working party by the Department of Transport. That working party was very widely representative of the taxi trade, the minicab trade and everybody involved in that industry. We should look carefully at what they were asked to do. Their terms of reference were:
836
"To make recommendations on the framework needs to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs in London can travel in reasonable safety and security".
Reference has been made to the very strict regulation that there is on the black cabs. There is a very useful section in the report which details all those points. I shall not refer to it, but I think it is useful to take a look at the numbers involved. The report says that there are 17,000 licensed black cabs and 20,000 licensed taxi drivers, of which 2,000 are licensed to operate only in designated suburban areas. Contrary to that, there are over 40,000 minicabs operating without any regulation whatever. That is a point which has been made by other speakers.
I should like to assure the House and the reputable taxi firms that nothing that I may say is intended to be an attack on the minicab trade. I frequently use minicabs in my area. Plenty of black cab drivers seem to live in my area but no one seems to operate there. Therefore I use minicabs quite a lot, particularly to come to your Lordships' House when I need to come very early. Reputable operators of minicabs or taxicabs can only but gain from good, strong and fair regulation. In my local area, two minicab operators have recognised the desirability of introducing some identification of drivers. Without there being any mandatory requirement, they have voluntarily introduced identification cards for their drivers because they want to reassure passengers, particularly women passengers.
Reference has been made to the position outside London. I think we all understand the position, but, in relation to what my noble friend Lady Hollis said, and without referring to any particular area, when using a black cab in a certain conference town recently I was disgusted with the state of the taxi cab and with the attitude of the driver in his discourtesy. That was a case where it was obvious that the regulations were being ignored, and where, even though the district council had the responsibility for licensing, a lot more needed to be done. That does not apply to the black cab trade in London.
The report of the working party to which I have referred goes on to recommend that regulations should be introduced to cover minicabs in London. But instead of proposing how that should be done the working party concluded:
"However, given the diversity of views expressed by members during our deliberations we are unable to recommend what form such control should take".
That is not a very helpful recommendation.
The diversity of views is exemplified in a number of paragraphs of the report which set out two possible options: a single tier system for all vehicles and drivers wishing to provide a taxi service in London, with a single set of standards; alternatively, a two-tier system, one for taxis and another for minicabs.
I should like to draw attention to paragraph 23 of the report:
"If the Government were minded to propose a two-tier system of licensing in London, we believe that it should first look hard at the provincial system and any difficulties being experienced there".
It is surprising that no explanation of the difficulties referred to appears in the report, even though there were four representatives of the Department of

837
Transport on the working party, including the chairman. Yet we have no details of the difficulties that have arisen in the provincial system. That is surprising because there are press reports of intense differences of opinion arising in some towns. I particularly refer to Liverpool, Bradford and Hackney, in which there are quite strong press reports of differences of opinion and arguments between taxi drivers and minicab drivers. Yet we do not have any account of the differences and the problems that have arisen in the working party report.
The CBI recently issued a helpful memorandum which set out three options. The first was to leave things in London as they are—the status quo. The CBI claimed that there is a consensus in the industry that this position is completely undesirable. I believe that all noble Lords would agree with that. There then follow in the memorandum arguments for and against the single tier and two-tier systems. The CBI conclusion is that, despite initial difficulties, a single regulatory system for the minicab and hackney carriage industry in London is the most preferred route to take. The CBI memorandum suggests that the Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Steven Norris, who incidentally is my Member of Parliament, is considering the working party report and is likely to reach some conclusions by the end of the year. Can the noble Viscount tell me who will advise Mr. Norris? There were four members of the department in the working party. It failed to make any decision as to how regulation should be introduced. Therefore there are intense problems.
A single tier seems to be the answer, but how are we to proceed? This is not a party political matter but I have checked the position of my party on this subject. It is as follows:
"Labour is committed to a reform of the taxi and minicab trade to create a safe, regulated service. But we recognise that black cabs have traditionally been unwilling to work outside the central area"—
a point that has been made by previous speakers"—
"leaving large tracts of suburban London without a service and that it is this that has led to the growth of small minicab firms in such areas".
That is what is happening in my own area.
"Reforms will have to ensure that people dependent on these firms are not deprived of a service".
Moving towards a single system of licensing cannot be done over night. The CBI made a helpful suggestion and the Minister should consider the matter carefully. The CBI suggests that the Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Norris, should set up a committee to advise on the timetable and the best means to move the industry towards single tier regulation. The Government must accept that there is need for regulation of some kind. They should then decide on what kind of regulation it should be and how it is to be introduced.
The present position cannot continue. The public want some regulation. At the same time they want to see no damage done to the black cab trade. At the moment some areas of London have to rely solely on minicabs because of the desire of black cab drivers to work in central London. One can understand that. Can the Government say whether they accept the
838
recommendation that there must be regulation of minicabs in London? Do they agree that a working party, as suggested by the CBI, should be set up to consider a timetable for bringing this into operation? One cannot deal with regulation overnight, particularly when one bears in mind that some 40,000 minicabs operate in London. Do they agree that there should be a single tier? A decision has to be made.
This cannot be left to one Minister to determine. It is certainly not a matter that can be left to the political parties to argue about in Parliament. The working party that was set up should have made a recommendation of this kind. It did not do so. I should like to see something on the lines of a working party set up by the Department of Transport to work out these problems, having at the outset accepted the principle that there shall be some regulation of minicabs.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it was because the Government share the real concerns that have been expressed tonight that the working party was set up late last year by the predecessor of my honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London with the following terms of reference:
"To make recommendations on the framework needed to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs can travel in reasonable safety and security".
Its report has been with the Minister for Transport in London since its publication on 15th July of this year and copies have been placed in the Library.
I should first like to say one or two words about the background to this report and what has happened subsequently. The licensing of taxis in London has a long history, as you can tell from their legal name of "hackney carriages". Some of the legislation still in force in London dates back to the first half of the last century. The London taxi trade is a tough one to enter and its members are proud to work in what is, I think, the best taxi service in the world. They are therefore naturally sensitive to anything that they fear would damage London's taxi service.
The question of "what shall we do about minicabs" has been with us now for more than 30 years, since they first appeared with a flourish on the streets of London in 1961. They were introduced in an effort to fill what was seen as a gap in transport provision for hire cars at lower rates than the traditional taxis. Since that date there has been considerable animosity between the London taxi trade and the London minicab trade, and while an uneasy truce is perhaps the best description of the present state of the parties, this has not always been so.
In more recent times allegations have been made that the unregulated minicab trade is not a safe place for passengers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, so powerfully argued, the issue of safety in minicabs, especially for women, is a very emotive one indeed. We frequently have reports in the media of women being assaulted by bogus minicab drivers or driven to an isolated spot, robbed and abandoned. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I give due credit to the way Diana Lamplugh and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust have campaigned for users of

839
minicabs and taxis to be made aware of the dangers of getting into a strange car in a strange place without first checking that the driver is genuine. I am aware that my noble friend who instigated tonight's debate is a strong supporter of the trust. As a result of work sponsored by the trust and funded by the Department of Transport and the Woolwich Building Society it appeared that a case could be made for improving the safety of users of minicabs and taxis, so a Department of Transport working party was set up last year with representatives from interested parties.
Given the respective histories of the London licensed taxi and minicab trades, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that, after a few meetings, the chairman of the working party came to the conclusion that, although there was a measure of agreement that something ought to be done about minicabs, the two sides had really reached entrenched positions and however many meetings were held, agreement was unlikely to be reached over just what should be done. The report of the working party reflects that fact. Since its publication, my honourable friend the Minister of Transport in London has been consulting widely and has met with all interested parties. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the views that my honourable friend has heard, together with those expressed by your Lordships this evening, will be very carefully considered. My honourable friend hopes to announce proposals by the end of the year.
I should now like to turn to some of the issues that must be taken into consideration. The traditional "black cab", which of course nowadays comes in a multitude of colours and advertising liveries, is, as has been stated tonight, very much a symbol of London to tourists and Londoners alike. There are two manufacturers of London taxis, which are built to unique standards and have some very special features. They can turn on a sixpence—so useful in congested areas—they have good headroom inside so that everyone can sit in them in comfort, and, most importantly, by the year 2000 all licensed London taxis will accommodate people who are confined to wheelchairs.
That is a very important point because it will mean that people who are in that situation will be able to get out and about in London without taking someone else along to help them. But it does depend on wheelchair-accessible taxis being available. That, in turn, means that we must protect the concept of the London cab, as it is at present the best type to meet requirements for a highly manoeuvrable vehicle, able to seat four or five people in reasonable comfort, carry an amount of luggage and be easily useable by a person in a wheelchair.
As we have heard this evening, some people have asked that a single standard should apply to all hire cars in London; that is, both minicabs and taxis and their drivers. That is the so called "one-tier system". The idea is that minicabs would be phased out over a period of several years, by the end of which their drivers would have had to pass one of the knowledge of London tests. and be licensed as taxi drivers. At the same time, they would have to acquire a vehicle
840
meeting the standards set for a London taxi. If the standards for London taxis are to be maintained—and we intend to do so—that would mean the purchase of a black cab by all minicab drivers who remained in the business. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, emphasised, those cabs cost a good deal more than the secondhand saloon cars used by many minicab drivers.
The advantage of licensing minicab drivers as taxi drivers is seen to be that it would weed out the "unsafe" ones who would fail to meet the character tests that London taxi drivers have to undergo. That is all very well in theory, but there were two instances where the London licensed taxi trade does not fulfil the needs of the public. These are now largely met by the minicab trade, but would we be able to ensure that a 100 per cent. taxi trade in London did meet them in future?
First, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes noted, there is the question of the area of work. London taxi drivers either have a green badge entitling them to ply for hire anywhere in the Metropolitan Police district, or else they have a yellow badge confining them to a suburban area. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, it is relatively easy to get a cab in central London, unless it is raining! Certain suburban areas like Croydon or Wimbledon also have a supply of taxis, but there are large parts of the inner suburbs and many of the outer ones where, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, illustrated, you cannot get a taxi for love nor money. It is in those places in particular that minicabs make a useful contribution to public transport.
Secondly, there is the question of cost. Minicabs are cheaper. You can get a minicab from a reputable firm to take you from Kenton to Heathrow for £13.50, whereas for a licensed taxi cab the fare will be more like £30.50. We are conscious that there are many people who cannot really afford taxi fares, but who find great advantage in being able to hire a car when one is needed.
An alternative scenario is for a two-tier system where minicabs and their drivers and possibly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis and my noble friend Lord Teviot, suggested, the operators of radio circuits, would be subject to some form of licensing regime. At present, the only preconditions are that there is planning permission to cover the use of the office as such, and payment of the correct fee for the radio. There are also problems with that scenario.
First, there is no consensus as to what standards should be required for drivers or their vehicles. For example, should drivers be required to do the "knowledge", or should we continue to rely on them looking up the route beforehand? Should minicabs be required to have four doors? Should there be a partition between the driver and the customer in the back? What maintenance standards should be required? How would they be enforced?
Secondly, would a licensing or a registration scheme for minicabs and/or their drivers damage the motor cycle friendly licensed taxi trade in the way that the latter fears? If so that would make the outlook for

841
the London-type taxi bleak indeed, and in turn that for disabled people for whom ordinary saloon cars can cause a very real problem.
Thirdly, if we continue with the present knowledge of London test for taxi drivers, but license minicabs as well, would anyone still want to become a London taxi driver? After all, to pass the "knowledge" takes 18 months to two years, and the initial investment in a £20,000 London taxi is much more than the initial investment in a car suitable for a minicab.
With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Teviot, I make it clear at this point that the Government have no intention of licensing minicabs to ply for hire in the street.
There is a final point that I should like your Lordships to consider. We are all aware of the problems that occur with the minicab trade. As my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, we have heard of unlicensed, uninsured, unsafe cars being driven by drivers who do not know where they are, let alone where they are going, except if it is to sign on for unemployment benefit. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust's recent advertising campaign drew attention to the situation whereby a man can be released from prison in the morning and be driving a minicab by lunchtime, or he can have convictions for drunken driving and having had his licence back, or not having had it taken away, is still driving a minicab.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for giving way. I believe that he is reaching his conclusion. Before he does so, I want to ask him a question which arises from the proposition he put forward that the Government were intending to come forward with proposals before the end of the year. Have the Government in mind a White Paper, or, as I hope, a Bill? He will realise from the observations that have been made all around the House this evening that this a matter where time is of the essence and that further procrastination would be undesirable. I ask the noble Viscount to be more specific about that point.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I appreciate the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that further delay would be harmful, and I agree with him. All I can say is that the Government are consulting widely and hope to put forward proposals before the end of the year. I cannot be any more specific.
842
This is obviously an emotive issue as we have heard this evening, but we must not get carried away with the idea that all minicab drivers are rogues and criminals; and, in any event—this is an important point—one cannot detect the first time offender before he or she has committed the offence.
The problems with the safety of minicab users are, by common consent, largely those of the bottom end of the trade. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the point she made about rapes and minicabs, I have to say that the Metropolitan Police advise that they do not collect figures in that form and cannot substantiate that statement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I quoted from a report from Scotland Yard. I defer to the Minister but those were not my figures; they were attributed to Scotland Yard.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is the information that I have, but I shall go further into the matter and of course write to the noble Baroness on that important point.
We must remember that there are thought to be over 40,000 minicab drivers in London (as compared to about half that number of licensed taxi drivers) and that large numbers of people are carried in perfect safety each day and night by minicabs. What the Government have to weigh up is whether the advantages of regulating minicabs in one way or another is worth the costs, and more importantly, whether it would be effective. Or would the rogue element still trade in defiance of the law? It might well do so, and enforcement could well be a real problem. There are some parts of the minicab problem that could perhaps be dealt with by changes in the law independently of licensing; for example, touting and insurance. The Government will also be looking at those matters.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for putting her case so well, and to all noble Lords who made this such an interesting and useful debate. I am sure your Lordships will understand the complexities of the problem and will appreciate that a great deal of care is being taken on making the right decision.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PRISONERS
  TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PRISONERS
  RAIL NETWORK: GAUGE UPGRADING REPORT
  RAIL NETWORK: GAUGE UPGRADING REPORT
  RAIL SERVICES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES: MMC REPORT
  RAIL SERVICES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES: MMC REPORT
  FISHERIES COUNCIL,19th OCTOBER
  FISHERIES COUNCIL,19th OCTOBER