Sitting of 26 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CROSSRAIL BILL
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Committee on the Crossrail Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Industrial Diseases
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national health service care is available for people with (a) asbestosis and (b) other industrial diseases.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The national health service is a universal service. It provides quality health care for people of all ages who need it, regardless of how that need arises.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister accept that we are talking about terribly debilitating diseases that men and women have contracted in their places of work? It appears that the Department of Health has not done enough to improve the detection of asbestosis and related diseases. Is not it time that consultation took place between the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Employment to see what improvements can be made in the early detection and treatment of such diseases?
    Mr. Sackville: Mesothelioma and asbestosis of all kinds are a tragedy that will unfortunately affect many people who have come into contact with asbestos. The diseases are difficult to detect in advance, but we try to monitor the incidence closely to ensure that everything is done to avoid further contact and further contracting of the disease.

    Accident and Emergency Sites, London
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all accident and emergency sites that have been closed in London since 1988–89; and which sites she plans to close as she implements her policy of "Making London Better".
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): London is served by a dense network of accident and emergency departments. There are currently 40 A and E departments in the capital. No department will close until alternative cover is available and this will be the case before any changes arising out of "Making London Better" go ahead. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the available information since 1988–89.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: When will the Secretary of State stop deluding herself and attempting to deceive the public? Having confirmed in a recent answer that the number of accident and emergency sites has gone down by 17 per cent. since 1989, will she also admit that 9,000 beds have been lost in London in the past five years, that London now has fewer GPs and health visitors than it had three years ago, and that the number of people waiting for treatment in London has risen by 10 per cent. in the past year? Will she admit that, far from "making London better", her so-called reforms are making the health of London much worse?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect a little on the need to rationalise health care in London. Before they became too populist, the Opposition supported investment in primary care. There can be no doubt that the £85 million going into primary care this year is essential. We need to strengthen our centres of excellence and our A and E departments. The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked in his catalogue of misery the £8.2 million that King's is spending on A and E, the £4.3 million that Lewisham is spending on A and E, the £3.2 million that St. Thomas's is spending on A and E, the £2 million that the Whittington is spending on A and E and the £1.1 million that the Homerton is spending on A and E. Those are all in areas represented by Labour Members who never praise the successes of the NHS or our investment in it.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that better GP services will reduce the pressure on the accident and emergency departments? How much cash will her Department put into primary and community care in the coming year to improve the delivery of health care services to patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is aware that as many as 40 per cent. of the people who use accident and emergency departments in London could be helped either by minor injuries clinics or by better primary health care. That is why it is essential that we invest £85 million more in primary health care in London. It also matters to Londoners that there is a substantial investment in the London ambulance service, amounting to £14.8 million this year.
    Mr. Blunkett: In justifying the fact that one in five A and E units have been closed, will the Secretary of State tell us how she justifies spending £150,000 of public money in the run-up to the local and Euro-elections on a

    89
    propaganda leaflet, "NHS Changes in London", which has been put into every household in London and is a straight piece of Tory party propaganda?
    Mrs. Bottomley: That is an outrageous comment. Members of the hon. Gentleman's party will confirm that I was pressed by the Select Committee on why we had not taken more steps to explain to Londoners the need for change.
    When we started on the process, the Labour party pretended to be a responsible party of opposition and supported the need for change. It is only as the elections have come closer that Labour Members have become so populist that now even their health spokesman is not prepared to speak in the debate on London's health services this week.

    Domiciliary Care
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of current total expenditure by local authorities on domiciliary care; what was the figure in 1979; and if she will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Gross expenditure by local authorities on domiciliary care in 1991–92 was £3,111 million. This is the latest figure available. In 1978–79, the figure was £611 million.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on those excellent figures. Does he agree that the elderly deserve the highest standards of care in their homes, and that they deserve flexibility, choice and respect for their dignity? Will he confirm that he will continue his drive to develop the community care policy programme, also paying attention to the residential care afforded by local authorities? In particular, will he condemn Labour-controlled Lambeth and Islington councils, which have an appalling record of abuse of the elderly and vulnerable in their care?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is quite right. The fact that we are spending 38 per cent. more in real terms on services for the elderly this year than we were four years ago shows that we are putting into practice our commitment to looking after the elderly in the community. My hon. Friend is also right to criticise some of those Labour London boroughs which seem incapable of doing the same. If Charles Dickens were around today, he would recognise the conditions in some parts of Labour London. He would not understand the nuclear-free zones, but he would understand the neglect, incompetence and misery that sum up Labour London.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: But has not any expansion of domiciliary care been achieved largely thanks to the efforts of Labour-controlled councils which, unlike the Government, have a clear political commitment to developing alternatives to institutional care? If the Government believe in domiciliary care, why do not they drop the dogmatic requirement that councils spend the bulk of the care grant in the so-called independent sector? Directors. of social services are telling me that that requirement is forcing people unnecessarily into expensive residential care placements. Why do not the Government put the needs of users and carers before Tory party dogma?
    Mr. Bowis: I should have thought, after all this time, that the hon. Gentleman would at least understand that the transfer element in the special transitional grant relates to residential care which, before, was all spent in the independent sector. He should also recognise the considerable growth, shown by the figures that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), in the domiciliary care provided by local authorities around the country. He should stand up and pay tribute to the councils and directors of social services who have made that possible—thanks to the resources given by this Government. Resourcing for social services, including community care, has increased from £3.6 billion to £6.4 billion in four years. That is what has made the growth possible, and the trend will continue under this Government.
    Mr. Sims: But does not what my hon. Friend has just said completely contradict the Opposition's forecast that community care would not work because the resources would not be made available? Does my hon. Friend know of any local authority that has been unable to carry out the community care policy because of insufficient funds? Is not the truth of the matter that the policy is successful?
    Mr. Bowis: All the surveys of community care undertaken since it came into being one year ago this month show that there has been steady progress throughout the country. None of the surveys has shown any problem over resourcing. The problems that have arisen have been due to dogma on the left of the political spectrum, which has stopped local authorities benefiting from the input of the independent sector into the care of people in need.

    NHS Trusts
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals she has regarding the public accountability of NHS trusts.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: National health service trusts are fully accountable to me, through the NHS executive, for the delivery of health care and for the effective use of resources available to them. The new codes of conduct and accountability that I shall publish on 28 April will further strengthen trusts' accountability both to me and to the public. The codes will keep public service values at the heart of the operation and management of the NHS.
    Ms Quin: Will the new rules allow community health councils to be represented on trust boards? Can the Secretary of State explain why my local community health council in Gateshead has for two years been denied access to the NHS trust and has even been denied observer status? Does she agree that that contradicts any idea of proper public accountability?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I regret that the hon. Lady's community health council is perpetuating a party political vendetta against the establishment of the trust in the hon. Lady's constituency, which is performing outstandingly, with some of the best out-patient waiting times and patients charter achievements. The hon. Lady's community health council has been offered a great number of arrangements short of actually becoming a member of the trust board: it has been offered a meeting in the autumn to discuss the year ahead; it is invited to a further meeting in

    91
    the spring to finalise plans in detail, to a meeting in the summer to review progress and to bi-monthly meetings with the chairman and the chief executive, quite apart from other visiting rights. It is time for it to forget the past and work for the future.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Nicholas Winterton.
    Hon. Members: Wake up.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but there is another Winterton in the House and I misheard.
    I accept what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said—that the public accountability of NHS trusts is adequate and satisfactory—but does not she accept that the real problem lies with district health authorities, which are not in any way accountable to the public? They force policies upon the trusts which, in many cases, are unwilling to accept them because the DHAs are not accountable to the public in the same way as the trusts.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The task for district health authorities is to ensure that they communicate effectively with local people. They have to assess need and set priorities, and it is important that they work closely with local authorities and Members of Parliament and with all those in the community who feel strongly about the delivery of health care. The distinction between the purchaser and the provider is now well established and, thankfully, is the subject of agreement on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Blunkett: How are we to hold the Secretary of State to account when she has every intention of bailing out of her present job? Which of the shambolic changes with which she has been associated over the past four and a half years has contributed most to her decision to go?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have a great sense of achievement. Beyond our expectations, we now have 419 NHS trusts and 1 million more patients are now treated than were treated before the NHS reforms. Child immunisation is up to 90 per cent. and 80 per cent. of out-patients and people at A and E departments are being seen within half an hour. Those were all targets that we set the health service; we are delivering them effectively and I want us to do even better. I ask the Labour party why the hon. Gentleman feels unable to speak on London health services in the debate that is to be held this week. That is the question that we want answered.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the public really want to know about national health service trusts is how well they are doing, and will she make absolutely certain that she encourages them to publish the good news, such as the £45 million investment in the Medway trust and the state-of-the-art oncology unit in the Maidstone trust?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a transformation in the amount of information available about how hospitals work —an annual report, an annual meeting, accounts that have to be audited and the business plan—quite apart from the codes of conduct and accountability that I am announcing today. My hon. Friend rightly refers to his own trust, but almost every trust in the country has seen great progress. Trusts are better for staff and patients.

    Tobacco Advertising
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had on banning all tobacco advertising from hoardings within one or three miles of schools.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We are currently negotiating with the tobacco industry to strengthen the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion. The negotiations are confidential and we shall publish their outcome in due course.
    Mr. Jones: Is not there very clear evidence from abroad to suggest that advertising increases smoking in under-age smokers? The Exchequer gets an estimated £96 million-worth of funds from under-age smokers through taxation, yet the Department spends only £5 million on health education. Is not it time to do something for the health of under-age smokers in Britain and ban tobacco advertising?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, though he may not want to do so, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the evidence that I presented to the House in my Second Reading speech on the Tobacco Advertising Bill, which clearly illustrates that no concurrent evidence links cause and effect in the way that he suggests. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that advertising has a part to play and that is why we have had a voluntary agreement for 18 years. It is why we have sought over the years to tighten that agreement when it was appropriate to do so. That is what the current negotiations are about and I look forward to their success.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the present trend in tobacco advertising, which seems to produce advertisements so obtuse that they fail entirely to give any message about smoking itself and merely have clearly written on the bottom the warning that smoking can severely damage health?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a good point, although I am told that some in the community understand that they are tobacco advertisements. I take her point about the size of the warning, and I will bear that strongly in mind in the coming days.
    Mr. McCartney: The Minister must know that in the 18 years since the agreement came in, 1,100,000 citizens have died directly because of the tobacco industry. Will the Minister give a commitment on the 13th of this month to support the all-party initiative in the Tobacco Advertising Bill—or is the simple fact that, because of the £100,000 donation to his party by Rothmans in the month before the general election, he finds it difficult to change Government policy to protect children? If he is serious about children and tobacco, perhaps he will give a commitment to give Rothmans back the £100,000 and do something to stop kids smoking.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to say that there are some cracks from the Opposition Front Bench that are not worthy of a serious response. The hon. Gentleman and I together deplore the number of unnecessary deaths caused in this country by smoking. We deplore together the millions of working days lost as a result of smoking. We recognise together the importance of parental influence, parental behaviour and price—and also, I suspect, that the evidence surrounding those three issues, which is

    93
    compelling, is far more likely to be effective in reducing the death rate, which he and I deplore, than a ban on tobacco advertising.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a typical constituency there are 1,300 15-year-olds, of whom about 24 per cent. smoke, and that, according to the Royal College of Physicians about one third of those—or 100 of the 1,300—will die of smoking if we continue at the present rate? Is not it totally unacceptable to advertise within easy reach of those who are young and gullible, perhaps leading them into a habit that is likely to be lethal for them?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have already made it clear in the House that there is particular concern about children and their exposure to advertising. My views on that are on the record. They are part of our current negotiations with the industry, the outcome of which we shall report to the House in due course.

    Ministerial Visits
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make an official visit to Oldchurch hospital, Romford, to assess the effectiveness of the accident and emergency service.
    Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend knows, I had the pleasure of visiting Havering hospitals national health service trust on 14 February this year. It is the responsibility of the local health authority to ensure that the most effective possible accident and emergency service is available for the people of Barking and Havering.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not any proposal to reduce accident and emergency services, such as that in the Barking and Havering health district, a matter of understandable concern? Should not ease of access by road and proximity to the main centres of population be the overriding factors in determining the location of casualty departments? Does not that consideration point to the continuing need for Oldchurch hospital in that all important life-and-death role?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right in identifying a number of those features: they are exactly the sort of features, together with the public response, that the health authority must take into account. My hon. Friend will know that, following the public consultation, the health authority has already said that it wishes to have more information before coming to a judgment. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep reflecting to the health authority the views that he has so eloquently expressed on his constituents' behalf, today and to me in private.
    Ms Primarolo: The Minister will be aware of the problems already being experienced by Redbridge healthcare trust and that the closure of the Oldchurch hospital will put extra pressure on the accident and emergency units. Will he explain to the House why the Government are not only closing accident and emergency units in London but, with the closure of the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Hackney, plan to reduce the number of paediatric beds in London by more than half by 2003? How will children in London be treated under his Government?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Lady that children in London are getting better treatment than they ever have before and that that will continue to be the case. I am aware of the concerns about Redbridge healthcare NHS trust. I am also aware, as the hon. Lady may not be, that the response of the Redbridge healthcare NHS trust to the public consultation was welcoming. It made it clear publicly that it would have preferred the centralisation to be at the Harold Wood hospital. As I have told the House before, if there are to be changes in accident and emergency provision in London, they will take place only when we are entirely satisfied that adequate and appropriate alternative arrangements are in place.
    Mr. Wolfson: May I ask a broader question on the issue of accident and emergency units?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is much narrower than that. Does the hon. Member's question refer to Romford and Oldchurch hospital?
    Mr. Wolfson: In comparison with the Romford situation, Madam Speaker, what criteria are used, in deciding whether such a unit should remain open, to measure the time that it takes to get emergency cases to accident and emergency units in times of heavy traffic?
    Dr. Mawhinney: As in Romford, Oldchurch, Havering and other parts of the country, it is for the local health authority to consult, taking into account local circumstances and expert advice, before making judgments about what is appropriate.

    Civil Servants (Health Scheme)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants in her Department have taken up the offer from the Friendly Society to join the health scheme.
    Mr. Sackville: This is a matter for the individuals concerned.
    Mr. Miller: It is extraordinary that the Minister seems unwilling to comment on advertising that clearly seeks to encourage people to queue-jump in the health service. Will he unequivocally condemn the advertising material that is currently circulating, which encourages queue-jumping among civil servants in his own Department?
    Mr. Sackville: The Post Office and Civil Service Sanatorium Society, now known as The Society, offers certain services that cost its members 45p a week to supplement, rather than substitute for, the NHS. Its 1 million or so public sector or ex-public sector members will take due note of the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Perhaps he will find something more substantive to ask me on another occasion.
    Mr. Dickens: Is not it always the Conservative party that has stood for freedom of choice? Do not we believe that people should be allowed to spend their own money on whatever they choose? Of course, that is a fact, and long may it continue.
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman's question gives us some foretaste of the horrors to come in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.

    Personal Social Services
    Mr. Mandelson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the introduction of charges for personal social services other than residential care; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Bowis: Local authorities have had a discretionary power to charge since January 1984. In January this year, the Department issued new guidance about the use of these powers and since then seven representations have been received.
    Mr. Mandelson: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the Government's insistence on users paying for services such as home care, day centres and meals on wheels, some of the most frail and vulnerable members of the community must either do without those services or make invidious spending choices between heating or eating and cleaning or laundry? Does he accept that that undermines any true concept of care in the community? Does he further accept that the Government have a responsibility at least to monitor and to assess the impact of those charges in every part of the country?
    Mr. Bowis: The answer is no. I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman makes his assertion. The average charge in Cleveland, the hon. Gentleman's own authority, is 4 per cent. I do not believe that that will cause hardship to anyone who can afford it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is entirely up to his authority, which has discretion in the matter, whether to set charges and the level at which to set them. All that we require is that charges are reasonable and reflect the individual's ability to pay. There is no reason on earth why Cleveland council should not exempt people in need or give discounts to those on lower incomes.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not the truth that people who might otherwise be forced to enter a residential home and perhaps pay £1,000 a month would like to contribute to the cost of local authority services that enable them to remain in their own homes? That is good value for money and councils should be encouraged to charge where that is sensible and people can afford to pay.
    Mr. Bowis: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend is right to say that people who can afford to pay would think it entirely reasonable to be asked to make a contribution to the cost of the services provided to them. If a reasonable charge taking into account ability to pay is levied, that income can bring more benefits to more people in need and raise the quality of the care provided. That must be in everyone's interests.
    Ms Lynne: Is not it a fact that a number of authorities throughout the country are introducing charges for community care and that that is the ultimate responsibility of this Government, because of the underfunding of community care? Instead of blaming the local authorities, the Minister himself should take responsibility.
    Mr. Bowis: That is quite absurd. The average across the country is under 9 per cent. I remind the hon. Lady about the amount that the Government are putting into community care: in the first year, it was £565 million; this year, it is up to £1.2 billion; next year, it will be £1.8 billion; and the year after, it will be £2.2 billion. If she looks at the top-up that we have been able to incorporate
    96
    in that for respite and day care, she will see that the Government are backing councils around the country in enabling them to look after people in their own homes, when that is appropriate and when that is what they want.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the revenue from the charges allows local authorities to expand the services on offer? Those who oppose the charges should tell us which services they would cut or which taxes they would increase.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It does indeed give councils that possibility. The level of charge depends on the level of cost. Cost depends on efficient delivery of service, and in the partnership between the usually good Conservative councils and the independent sector, which provides better services at lower costs, charges will be lower than those in the high-spending, high-cost Labour authorities.

    Breast Cancer
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been allowed by her Department in each of the last three years to support research into breast cancer.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government spent £3.8 million on breast cancer research in 1992–93, of which £3.1 million was through the Medical Research Council. My Department provided £381,000 in 1990–91 for research specifically into breast cancer; £526,000 in 1991–92; and £607,000 in 1992–93—an increase of 59 per cent. over the three years.
    Mr. Connarty: I am very disappointed with the answer that I have just received from the Minister. It reeks of complacency in the light of the 26,000 cases that are diagnosed every year and the 16,000 deaths among women in the UK every year. I wonder whether the Secretary of State shares the concern of Professor Baum, who spoke to the all-party group on breast cancer, and said that the incidence of breast cancer in Britain is increasing faster than diagnosis through screening. Does she support his contention that research in molecular biology is the way forward? Is she aware of the £15 million that the Royal Marsden is trying to raise for research into breast cancer? Will she show some seriousness in the matter and put some serious money into the research to help the women who are frightened by the growing incidence of breast cancer in this country?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We give extremely high priority to breast cancer, it being the most common form of cancer suffered by women. One in 12 women is likely to develop some form of breast cancer at some stage. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Professor Baum. I received a letter from him only yesterday commending the excellent mammography screening service that takes place in this country and referring to the great improvement in life expectancy, which he—as the hon. Gentleman will understand—was also associating with the need to take forward some of the treatments that he advocates.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is not my right hon. Friend concerned about the high incidence of breast cancer? As one who has recently been screened, I commend her on the screening process and suggest that it be widened, but is she

    97
    aware that we need to put more resources towards research, because, at the end of the day, that will save the NHS money on treatment costs?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. She may wish to know that 7 per cent. of all expenditure on the health service goes on the treatment of cancer. The screening programme has been a success. Some 70 per cent. of people keep their appointments. I am concerned, as my hon. Friend will be, about the 30 per cent. who are not keeping their appointments. We know that we could do better in picking up cases earlier if only people would keep their appointments. As for research funding, we have to weigh this matter alongside other important priorities.
    Dr. Wright: Did the Minister see the recent "Panorama" programme in which many women who were dying of breast cancer described how their impending death would be the result of inadequate clinical treatment in the areas where they lived? Is not it a disgrace that high-quality, specialist treatment is not available to every woman who needs it? Why will not the Government divert their attention from the organisational mayhem that they are causing inside the health service and devote their resources to driving up clinical standards?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Frankly, I deplore programmes that seek to generate great alarm unreasonably among members of the public. I know that that is the Labour party's stock in trade, but I nevertheless deplore it.
    The standard of treatment for cancers is improving all the time and life expectancy is increasing as a result. However, as we learn from the most beneficial forms of intervention, we need to carry forward good practice. An expert advisory committee reports to the Chief Medical Officer on cancer generally and I hope that we will be able to produce better guidance on cancers that need to be treated at specialist centres and those that can be properly treated at local centres.

    District Health Authorities
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that district health authorities involve the public fully in their purchasing decisions.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I wrote in January this year to all district health authorities to ensure that arrangements were in place to seek, and act upon, the views of local people. The responses to my letter indicated that many, but not all, authorities had done much good work to involve local people.
    I have asked the chief executive of the national health service executive to write to regional directors to ensure that appropriate action is taken locally to address identified shortcomings and to report back to me later in the year.
    Mr. Paice: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the convenience of facilities is vital, especially to people living in rural areas? In that context, is he aware that my constituents in Ely are anxious for the Princess of Wales former RAF hospital to have a wide range of services, including the treatment of minor injuries and, they, hope, day surgery in the near future? Will he speak to the local health authority to ensure that it notes the views of local people, not just those of the professionals involved?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw particular attention to the issue of convenience as it relates to people who live in rural areas. That is one of the issues that I have drawn to the attention of the service generally. As for the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I know that he and other Conservative Members are acting assiduously on behalf of their constituents—not least because they have already raised the matter with me.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that if the public in my constituency had been consulted about purchasing decisions, they would have asked for resources to cut the present four-year waiting list to see an orthopaedic consultant at Addenbrookes hospital?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am encouraged by the fact that, for the first time that I can remember, the hon. Lady is starting to take a constructive attitude to the delivery of health care in her constituency.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise the importance of district health authorities' ensuring accountability in the provision of local health services. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the primary impetus comes from GP fundholders, who now treat 88 per cent. of my constituents? Will he ensure that the scope of reforms for GP fundholders is widened via the Bromsgrove project —which allows them to purchase accident and emergency services as well—and that single-hander GP fundholders will be allowed to operate?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point to the positive effect of GP fundholding in terms of the input of local people's views. I hope that he will be encouraged to learn that I have written to all GP fundholders in the country, asking them to suggest from their experience how we can best expand the scheme from April next year. We shall be holding a national conference on that very subject on Thursday this week.

    Malnutrition (Hospital In-patients)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will investigate malnutrition in hospital in-patients.
    Mr. Bowis: Our nutrition task force, which was set up in October 1992 under "The Health of the Nation" initiative, will be updating current guidance on nutrition for hospitals and health authorities.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that a recent study of in-patients leaving hospital showed them to be less well nourished than they were when they entered hospital? Will he discuss the matter—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister cannot hear what the hon. Lady is saying. [Interruption.] Order. Let us hear what she is saying.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Is the Minister aware that a recent study of in-patients leaving hospitals shows them to be less well-nourished than when they entered hospital? Will he discuss the matter with his ministerial colleagues in Scotland to ensure that patients do not rely on their visitors to bring them Chinese takeaways as well as the traditional bunches of grapes?
    Mr. Bowis: I think that I caught most of that question. The answer is that, yes, I am aware of the report—although of course I am not responsible for hospitals in Scotland,

    99
    which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The report appeared in the British Medical Journal. The hon. Lady will also have seen that Dr. Pennington made it very clear that the main problem is loss of appetite associated with illness. Enteral and parenteral feeding is certainly necessary in some cases, but in most cases hospitals need to have good nutritional policy. That is why our task force is issuing guidance and a handbook and is training health professionals. I am sure that the next time the hon. Lady visits a hospital she will see the benefits.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree with the words of the Home Secretary to the Institute of Directors convention this morning, when he said that the police, the courts and the prison services were having to pick up the pieces for the failures of others? Does he agree that the word "others" may include those who have been governing this country for the last 15 years?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen the text of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, but I am sure that he was seeking to convey that the causes of crime are many and varied; that it is not possible to let all the aspects of crime simply be dealt with by the police and others; and that everyone in authority, whatever that authority may be, may have to, and should be prepared to, take their share of responsibility.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the Prime Minister send a special message of encouragement to South Africa as the democratic elections continue there in order to welcome this final step away from apartheid? Will he continue to bend his energy to bringing South Africa back into the Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: I think that people around the world welcome the elections that are taking place in South Africa and hope that they can be concluded without any more of the violence that has scarred events in the last few days. When the election is concluded and a new multi-racial government is formed, I very much hope that South Africa will decide to rejoin the Commonwealth. As far as this Government is concerned, it will be a very welcome entrant.
    Mr. John Smith: How can the Prime Minister justify his Government's spending £500 million of taxpayers' money in fees to private consultants when, as is revealed in today's Financial Times, only £10 million was gained as a result?
    The Prime Minister: Let me set out some of the points related to that, because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may tend to agree with much of what I have to say about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking questions that I myself asked, which
    100
    is the reason why the scrutiny was established in the first place. It was set up because of the growth in expenditure on consultants and in order to find out whether it is good value for money or whether better value for money can be obtained. If it confirms that the expenditure is producing good results, we will maintain it; if not, we will make the changes required.
    As far as savings are concerned, the spending is on specialist advice to support programmes. It is not a search to find savings especially.
    Mr. John Smith: In other words, it is true: another grotesque waste of taxpayers' money has occurred. Is not the Prime Minister's game to delay this and any other bad news until after the local and European elections are over? Why not tell the truth for once before an election?
    Hon. Members: Withdraw!
    Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly and found nothing unparliamentary in what he said, but would he care to repeat it so that it is clear to all of us?
    Mr. John Smith: What I suggested to the Prime Minister was that for once he should tell the truth before an election.
    The Prime Minister: If there was an intention to hide anything, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could explain why we established the scrutiny in the first place—it is precisely to determine that the expenditure is conducted properly. However, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to judge without having seen the report, before the report is completed and without any understanding of the report or what is in it, let me give him a little more information. The examination of where the money is spent includes matters such as helping to design and evaluate weapons systems for the armed forces—not something that the civil service could do and conducting feasibility studies on technical aspects of the road programme, which is not something that could be done without specialist advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should find out some facts before he smears.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister realize that families all over Britain—the real quiet majority—who are now paying huge tax increases imposed by his Government will bitterly resent this further example of the Government's now legendary incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to criticise, was wrong and was not prepared to apologise. I am glad at last that he is taking a closer interest in value for money and efficiency. I hope that he will apply the same test to Labour local authorities up and down the country —every single one he knows. If he were really concerned about tax, perhaps he would indicate what aspects of public expenditure restraint he would support. If he were concerned about local authority tax, perhaps he will explain why he and his party oppose compulsory competitive tendering despite the savings that it has made in councils up and down the country. Every single thing that he has said today is bogus.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite having inherited a remarkably sound economy and having driven up the council tax quite unnecessarily, the

    101
    Labour-Liberal coalition which runs Kent has decided to cut the police budget? Will he comment on the amazing gap between the statements of the Front-Bench spokesmen of the two Opposition parties and what they do when they have office?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made the point very clearly. I am not familiar with the particular illustration that he produced, but there are many similar illustrations of which the House is well aware.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statistics that have just been produced by the North West health authority which show a 60 per cent. increase over three years in the number of youngsters aged 18 and under who have to attend hospital for treatment for drug abuse? In view of those alarming figures and the fact that there is a connection between serious crime and drug abuse, as evidenced by the number of murders in our cities, will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what he intends to do to combat the evils of drug abuse and serious crime?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important matter and I am pleased to respond to him. The sum total of expenditure by the Government on drug-related programmes and other matters related to drugs now exceeds £500 million a year. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Lord President to bring together the expenditure all across Government to make sure that we can target it at the right Departments and at the right problems to begin to cope with the problem of drugs, which exists right across the world but which I think every hon. Member would wish us to tackle at the roots as speedily as possible.
    Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir George Gardiner: In the course of his day, my right hon. Friend may have time to look at the final draft of the Conservative manifesto for the European elections. When he does, will he make doubly sure that it emphasises the crucial choice that faces our people in those elections—between Conservative resistance to further moves towards Euro federalism, while we protect British jobs by staying out of the social chapter, and Labour and Liberal eagerness to sign up to anything, to hand over control to the Eurocrats in Brussels and to saddle us with employment costs that would hit directly at British jobs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a sharp contrast between our policies on Europe and those of both the main Opposition parties, whose policies are almost indistinguishable. We believe in a free trade, deregulated, outward-looking Europe of independent nation states—unlike either of the Opposition parties, both of which, want regulation, intervention and more high spending in a federal European state. That is not for us and I do not believe that it is the wish of the British nation either.
    Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Quin: Following the previous question, and as the Prime Minister feels that he has a lot in common with the four countries that hope to join the European Union next year, will he tell the House how many of them have supported his Government in requesting an opt-out from the social chapter?
    The Prime Minister: I think that one will find that across Europe—[Interruption.] Across Europe, as the hon. Lady knows, countries are recognising that Britain is more competitive because we had the courage to stand up and say that destroying jobs in Europe was not a good idea. There are 19 million people unemployed in Europe; only in this country is unemployment falling. Only this country is becoming more competitive, and that is because we were prepared to say no to policies that destroy jobs and yes to policies that create jobs.
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kynoch: Although controlling inflation is not an end in itself, does my right hon. Friend agree with me and the many business men in my constituency that it is, however, a precondition for falling unemployment, low interest rates and, ultimately, sound and stable economic growth?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The necessity to get inflation down is self-evident, as is the necessity to keep it down to have the economy growing steadily. As a result of the disinflationary policy that we have followed, we have now had growth for eight successive quarters, unemployment has fallen by a quarter of a million and we have a higher growth pattern than any other nation in the European Community. A CBI survey published this morning showed business optimism continuing to rise. That is a scenario which most other nations in Europe would be pleased to have.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: On this historic day in South Africa, will the Prime Minister congratulate Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress and everyone else involved in the anti-apartheid movement for bringing democracy at last to South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to extend my congratulations to Mr. Mandela, to President de Klerk and to everyone else who over the years has worked towards a non-racial South Africa. That will be welcomed by people across the world, and I hope that it will bring greater stability for South Africa in the future.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the recent extensive and co-ordinated press attention to concerns about the Government's proposals to deal with new age travellers? Perhaps I can tell my right hon. Friend that the quiet majority in my constituency very much support the Government's plans as contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which will give them real protection from those unlawful activities.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. New age travellers have been an immense nuisance, not least, of course, in the west country over recent years. The legislation proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give the police far more powers to
    104
    deal with them. In view of the difficulty that there has been in the west country, I am surprised that we have not had more support from the Liberal Democrats on that matter.
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Enright: How does the Prime Minister square the suppression of the sleaze about Westminster on the "Panorama" programme with his aim of open government?
    The Prime Minister: No Government have ever been more open than this one and there is no suspicion of sleaze.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Chancellor of the Duchy to make a statement on today's revelation of the Cabinet Office efficiency scrutiny report, which shows that the cost of employing consultants —[HON. MEMBERS: "Bogus."]—that the savings from employing consultants is only 2 per cent. of the cost of using them?[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. It is a simple answer: no. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have answered the point of order. The question was, have I received a request from a Minister? The answer is no.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have received your letter concerning the conduct of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in breach of the rules governing the use of the House of Commons emblem in writing to constituents outside his own constituency on party political matters. In the letter, the Serjeant at Arms has made it clear that an explanation has been given by the hon. Member. Would you pass on to the House that explanation in view of the fact that the hon. Member is an experienced Member of the House and has been in breach of those rules before?
Madam Speaker: As it concerns the hon. Lady and her constituency, I shall certainly see that she gets the explanation to which she is entitled.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle rose—
Madam Speaker: That answer applies to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in the same way; and I shall see that he gets an explanation too.
Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it on a different point of order?
Mr. Kilfoyle: It is further to the point of order.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. I know that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman represent neighbouring constituencies. The point of order applies to them both, and I shall let him have an explanation.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the point that is being made is that my hon. Friend the Member for Walton would like a public statement which sets out the rules exactly.
Madam Speaker: If a public statement is required to set out the rules, I shall certainly be prepared to provide one so that every hon. Member will know about the rules. If that is the case, I shall certainly see that a public statement is made as early as possible. I shall be delighted to make an announcement. It is not often that I get time to say anything.
Mr. Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In addition to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), is not it an affront to the House that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter which I received gave an assurance that there would not be a repetition of the distribution of the smear letter, dated 21 April, which has been going out in various constituencies in Liverpool since then, those same letters have been distributed in constituencies outside Mossley Hill? Is not that contempt of the House?
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly look at the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and I shall be prepared to make a statement to the House on the general question of the use of our stationery for political matters.
Mr. Simon Burns: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. If I heard the hon. Member for Broadgreen correctly, she said that the problem involving the hon. Member for Mossley Hill had happened before. If that statement by the hon. Lady is correct, surely only slapping hon. Members on the hand for something and allowing them to do it again is not satisfactory.
Madam Speaker: That is why I intend to make a statement about the matter. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) will receive the explanation that I promised to give. I have been asked if I will make a statement to the House on the principle of the use of stationery for party political purposes, and I have agreed to do so. What I have said should be absolutely clear.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a convention of the House that, when a Minister quotes from a document, the document is placed on the Table so that other hon. Members may see whether the quotations are correct. At Question Time today the Prime Minister, in answer to one of my hon. Friends, quoted certain words. I hope that you, Madam Speaker, will ensure that the document in question is placed on the Table at the earliest opportunity.
Madam Speaker: It needs to be a direct quotation from a state paper. However, I shall check Hansard, and if the hon. Gentleman is correct I shall see that our conventions are observed.

Insolvency
3.35 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the holder of a floating charge liable for the fees of any administrative receiver appointed by him, such fees tó be recoverable by the chargeholder from the assets of the debtor company, the debt ranking pari passu with unsecured creditors; to introduce a lien system into contract law so that contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers in the construction and building industry can register a lien against an employer's interest in the land or property, ensuring that, in the case of the employer failing, such contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers are repaid before any floating charge on the development project; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to correct some of the injustices that have crept into our law on insolvency and receivership. No insolvency system will ever satisfy everyone as, by definition, there is insufficient money left in an insolvent company to pay everyone. Nevertheless, a string of cases that have been brought to my attention convince me that there is a fundamental imbalance in the law and that this leaves insolvency practitioners, particularly when they are acting as administrative receivers, with no incentive to keep their fees at a reasonable level, no incentive to secure a decent price for assets that they sell and, in the ultimate insolvency case, no incentive even to expedite their work.
Many hon. Members have expressed concern about the Maxwell case in which the work appears to drag on and on and most of the money seems to be going to the insolvency practitioners. I have reports on three cases in my constituency, ranging from a retail chain to a property developer, which between them have run for 17 years. Only one of them has been completed. Huge sums of money are still locked up in the other two.
The Government have, rightly, brought forward some proposals of their own. Their consultation document considers the question of how potentially viable companies can be kept going—a noble aim. I am concerned here with a quite different matter—the interests of the trade creditors and, indeed, individual creditors, who may be pensioners or even workers. I am concerned about the fact that, by appointing an administrative receiver, the holder of a floating charge—in plain English, the bank—can sweep everyone else aside and come to the top of the queue.
I propose two changes in the law. The first is to make the bank appointing insolvency practitioners working as administrative receivers liable for the fees. Thus, for the first time, the people to whom the practitioners report would have an incentive to persuade them to keep their fees down. In addition, as they would be able to recover their money only as a result of the company's becoming viable again or at the end of the queue along with the trade creditors, they would have an incentive to encourage the receivers to secure sensible prices for assets sold.
My second proposal concerns the building and construction industry, which, in many ways, is the worst insolvency area of all. Such cases often involve tens of millions of pounds. Very often construction projects are financed largely by trade creditors through the supply of goods on short-term credit. The banks often have a relatively small role, yet, through the legal devices that I have mentioned, they can secure priority. But the particular problem in the building and construction industry, unlike, for example, manufacturing, is that it is not possible to secure what is called a Ramalpa clause.
108
If I were a shoe manufacturer supplying a retailer, I could have a Ramalpa clause written into the contract. It would provide that the title to the goods would not pass until I had received my money. If the company were to go under, I would send a lorry round to pick up my shoes. English common law does not allow this in the case of any goods that have been united into the land—bricks that have gone into a house, cement that has gone into a structure, or tarmacadam that has gone into a road.
A company in my constituency supplied goods to a contractor working on the Thanet way in my constituency. An independent credit agency told the company that the contractor was good for at least half a million pounds' worth of credit. The contractor's bankers sent the company letters assuring it that the contracting company was fully viable and had no financial problems. In less than three months that same bank had appointed an administrative receiver. The company was given only 24 hours to pay. Of course, it could not do so within that period, although there were some who felt that it was a viable company. My constituency company, which had delivered a quarter of a million pounds' worth of goods, saw the only asset—the finished product—sold for a derisory sum. It received no payment of any sort.
I propose introducing a Canadian-style lien sytem which would allow contractors and suppliers to register where they have delivered goods and services to a construction project. It would prevent a bank that appointed an administrative receiver from taking precedence on a floating charge over the suppliers receiving payment for the goods and services that they had provided. There need not be compulsion. There is no reason why developers should not be free, with the agreement freely entered into of the suppliers, to opt out. The important feature is that the option would exist, as it does with the supply of manufactured goods in other areas of business. Such a system would prevent a bank that perhaps had provided only a relatively small proportion of the total credit from pulling the rug and appointing its own administrative receiver. That receiver would then pay off the bank, fill his pockets with an enormous fee, and sell the product for a derisory sum.
The lien system was introduced in Canada, which has the same system of common law as the United Kingdom, against cries of anguish from many vested interests in the financial system. That happened four years ago. The system has been a great success ever since. I have copies of the Canadian Act that sets out the lien system, which is the second of my two proposals, if anyone would like to read them.
Our insolvency system is inefficient and unfair to the trade creditor and the individual creditor. Above all, it is manifestly unreasonable that someone appointed by the banks should have so much power without any accountability in terms of whether a reasonable fee is charged, whether a reasonable price is obtained for the asset that is sold and whether the person appointed gets on with the job in an ultimate insolvency case. In many instances the insolvency practitioner wears the same hat as the administrative receiver at the final stage.
There is no magic solution to the problems that I have mentioned. I believe, however, that the two changes in the law that my Bill offers would do a great deal to right the significant imbalance in an important area of the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Sir Donald Thompson, Sir Trevor Skeet, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. David Martin, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Robert Spink and Mr. Jonathan Evans.

Insolvency
  INSOLVENCY
  Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to make the holder of a floating charge liable for the fees of any administrative receiver appointed by him, such fees to be recoverable by the chargeholder from the assets of the debtor company, the debt ranking pari passu with unsecured creditors; to introduce a lien system into contract law so that contractor, sub-contractors and suppliers in the construction and building industry can register a lien against an employer's interest in the land or property, ensuring that, in the case of the employer failing, such contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers are repaid before any floating charge on the development project; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 June, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
Orders of the Day

  Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Crime and lawlessness pose a supreme challenge to all modern democracies—
  Mr. Tony Worthington: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A substantial part of the Bill concerns Scotland. We in Scotland have been put into the Bill, as it were, in a most haphazard way. We do not even have a Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench. Is not that showing contempt for the House?
  Madam Speaker: It is not for me to determine which Ministers should be present. All Ministers have a collective responsibility for Government legislation. [Interruption.] I see that a senior Scottish Minister has now taken his place on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Howard: Crime and lawlessness pose a supreme challenge to all modern democracies. As I have repeatedly made clear, the Government are determined to meet that challenge by taking action across the board to ensure that we have the most efficient and effective criminal justice system possible. That is why we have taken action to ensure that more crimes are prevented and more criminals are caught, convicted and punished.
  The police service is at the centre of our strategy to meet that challenge. I believe that our police service is second to none in the world. And no Government has done more to support the police than this Government. Since we came to power, spending on the police has increased by 87 per cent. in real terms. The number of police officers has increased by more than 16,000. The number of civilians working in forces has increased by 16,000. What we now need to address is how we make sure that the huge investment that we make in our police service—amounting as it does to more than £6 billion a year—is deployed wisely and effectively.
  To achieve that, we need to examine the framework within which the police operate and, where necessary, to bring it up to date so that it meets modern requirements. That framework has become out of date and needs reform. The financial arrangements for police forces and police authorities are antiquated and arcane. Too much detail must be referred to the Home Office. The arrangements for accountability are opaque. People do not know how to influence the priorities of their local forces, nor how the accountability of the police is exercised. Personnel and pay procedures are outdated. The rank structure is top heavy. Pay depends too much on length rather than quality of service. Technology and scientific advances offer enormous scope for fighting crime more effectively, but much local police information technology has been developed without co-ordination and is incompatible between forces.

  111
  The present programme of change affecting the police looks formidable, but much of it represents change which the police themselves have been actively seeking.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I do not yet see a Welsh Office Minister present. The Secretary of State is concentrating on matters concerning the police. I hope that he will refer to magistrates courts and the Lord Chancellor's power compulsorily to amalgamate magistrates courts committees. I warn him that the proposal in north Wales whereby Gwynedd and Clwyd are to be amalgamated may not work because of cultural and linguistic differences and the massive size of the terrain. Will he ensure that there is a rethink on that matter in north Wales?
  Mr. Howard: No Welsh Office Minister is on the Front Bench because I am responsible for policing in Wales as well as England. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he is patient for a little longer, he will hear what I have to say about the relevant provisions in the Bill affecting magistrates courts.
  The reform programme has a number of strands. The local accountability of police forces must be strengthened and made clear to local people. The financial and managerial framework within which chief constables and forces operate must be modernised. The police service must have up-to-date personnel management and discipline procedures; and we need a national strategy for the development of information technology for the police.
  Many forces are already modernising their management arrangements on lines recommended by the Audit Commission. More responsibility for decision taking is being pushed down the line to local commanders who are best placed to judge how to deploy resources locally to best effect. Increased use is being made of civilians to free up more officers for front-line policing. But some things, such as setting the legal framework for the exercise of police powers, can be done only by the Government.
  The theme of our reform programme is clear—modernisation. But we must modernise in a way that keeps the key elements of British policing. The sharing of power between the Home Secretary, the local police authority and the chief constable will continue. Policing in England and Wales by local police forces, rather than some new national or regional structure, will continue. I have no plans to introduce a programme of amalgamations. The operational independence of police constables will continue, as will the tradition of combining a police law enforcement role with wider responsibilities to help local people.
  Part I of the Bill will provide the cornerstone for modernising the arrangements for police accountability, finance, management and personnel procedures. It will buttress the local basis of policing in this country through creating strong, independent local police authorities. It will give chief constables greater freedom to manage their forces to best effect. It will enable people to see and influence local policing priorities and to judge the performance of their local force. It will provide for better personnel management and discipline procedures for the police service.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: On the basis of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's law and order policies, what is his latest estimate of how much longer they will
  112
  need to be in operation before crime in this country—and in my constituency, where it has doubled—returns to the level it was at under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that over the past 15 years crime has risen throughout the western industrialised world. I certainly hope that the various measures I am putting in place will help to make a difference.
  Each police force will be maintained, as now, by a local police authority. Local police authorities will be strengthened and given clear responsibilities, which are set out in clause 4. There will be fewer financial controls from the centre. Each police authority will be required to set local policing objectives, to publish a local policing plan for its area, and to report annually on the outcome of that plan. For the first time, local people everywhere will be able to see clearly what their local police are doing with their money, and how well they are doing it.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Will the Bill correct the disgraceful sort of activity that is going on in Cambridgeshire—and, I suspect, in other places—where Liberal or Labour-controlled county councils switch funds intended for the police to other purposes? Will the Bill put an end to that sort of scandal?
  Mr. Howard: The Bill will give no guarantee that the irresponsibility frequently demonstrated by Opposition parties will not continue. With local policing, there will inevitably continue to be a local element, and that will entail a risk of the folly perpetrated by the Opposition parties—illustrated by the case of Cambridgeshire.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Some local authorities, however, face a genuine dilemma. They are told by the Home Office that if they go to full establishment they will not be capped, but the Department of the Environment tells them a quite different story. Thus they find it difficult to judge what to do. Will the Home Secretary hold some discussions on that?
  Mr. Howard: The answer to that dilemma is that local authorities should have proper regard to their priorities. If they give the provision of an effective police force the priority that that deserves, they will find a ready answer to the dilemma that the hon. Gentleman identifies.
  As the role of police authorities is changing, I believe that their composition should change too. They need to be small enough to function effectively as decision-taking bodies. They should include local people with a wide range of experience and expertise who may not have the time, or the inclination, to be councillors or magistrates. Schedule 2 sets out the procedures by which independent members of police authorities will be selected.
  The Government accepted in another place that the members of each police authority should continue to choose their chairman and that, in order to stress the independence of the new members, the Home Secretary alone should not select the independent members; but nor should they be selected by the councillor and magistrate members of the authority alone. So the procedures set out in the Bill reflect a balance between the influence of the Home Secretary and the influence of the other members of police authorities.
  I reject entirely the view long held by members of the Labour party that there should be directly elected police authorities. That would be a recipe for politicising the

  113
  police service. It would also mean removing all magistrates from the work of police authorities. I believe that that would be a retrograde step.
  The Bill abolishes unnecessary central controls—
  Mr. Worthington rose—
  Mr. Howard: I must make progress.
  As I was saying, the Bill abolishes unnecessary central controls on police manpower by removing the power of the Home Secretary to set establishment levels. In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision, not for the Home Secretary. Different forces have different priorities. For some the key to greater effectiveness may be investment in technology; for others it may be an expansion of the number of officers or civilians working on crime prevention. The best balance in resources for each force is a matter for them to settle locally with their police authority. It is not a matter for me.
  I intend also to reduce central controls on capital expenditure by repealing requirements to obtain the Home Secretary's consent. There has been too much second guessing at the centre on the spending of capital resources by forces, and I want to see central provision reserved solely for major projects.
  Clause 10 gives the chief constable management responsibility for civilian staff working within the force. This will encourage an integrated approach to the use of manpower and should foster a greater sense of cohesion between uniformed and civilian members of police forces.
  We also propose to introduce a code of practice under clause 13 which will encourage police authorities to delegate day-to-day financial responsibilities to chief constables, as already happens in some, but by no means all, police areas. The Audit Commission and many senior police officers have called for that. These measures represent a considerable transfer of power from central Government to local police authorities and forces. They will give the police new flexibility to meet local needs.
  The Bill also provides a clear framework for setting police priorities and measuring performance. Clause 13 also enables the Home Secretary to set key objectives for policing and to ensure that police authorities set performance targets for measuring the achievement of those objectives. Both the key objectives set by the Home Secretary and the local objectives set by the authority will be included in the local policing plan to which the chief constable will have regard. Police authorities and the Home Secretary have always influenced policing. The concept of a local plan—which I expect to be agreed between the chief constable and the police authority—simply crystallises existing relationships in a way that is visible to the public.
  Mr. Douglas French: For the benefit of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what he means by the words "have regard" in the context of the attention that a chief constable must pay to the guidelines set by the police committee?
  Mr. Howard: It is a well-known concept. In his decisions, the chief constable will have to take carefully into account what is in the local plan. His operational independence is unaffected.
  Mr. Tony Blair: This is an important point. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the performance targets set by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the objectives will be mandatory and not discretionary on the authority?
  Mr. Howard: In common with other aspects of the local plan, they will be matters to which the chief constable will have to have regard. I hope that chief constables and police forces will achieve those performance targets at which I want them to aim. As I have said, all these are matters to which the chief constable will have to have regard.
  Mr. Blair: The important question asked by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) related to the difference between having regard to them and being bound by them. Chief constables will have to have regard to the objectives, but will the Home Secretary confirm that if he directs them on the performance targets that are set in pursuance of those objectives they will be mandatory and not discretionary?
  Mr. Howard: The Secretary of State's power of direction is a different matter. Police plans and performance targets are matters to which police constables have to have regard. Of course, the Secretary of State has power to issue directions, but that raises different considerations. It is a well-known concept and I am astonished that it causes the hon. Gentleman any difficulty.
  Mr. Blair: Perhaps I can explain why it causes difficulties, not just for me but for the police. Clause 13, which inserts new section 28A in the Police Act 1964, gives the Secretary of State power to determine objectives. He is also empowered, at his own discretion entirely, to issue mandatory performance targets in pursuit of the objectives. Making those performance targets mandatory means that the police authority does not merely have to have regard to them, but will be obliged to follow them irrespective of whether it wants to do so.
  Mr. Howard: As I said a moment ago, the direction making power contained in clause 13 of the Bill is different from the objectives and plans to which I have previously referred. There is a power in clause 13 to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions, not to the chief constable, but to the police authority, and the police authority may then have to take those directions into account and act upon them in the way in which it sets performance targets. That is a different matter from the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who asked whether the key objectives contained in the plan and the plan itself were mandatory on chief constables or matters to which the chief constable would have to have regard, and the answer I gave him was correct.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, before giving any directives, he will be obliged by the Bill to consult police authorities, for example, and those whom he considers represent the chief constables of the forces concerned?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of consultation, and the Bill requires consultation to take place.
  The Bill aims to make clear and to open the way in which chief constables will be held to account. Chief

  115
  constables have welcomed the parts of the Bill which give them greater management freedom. I believe that they should also welcome those proposals which enhance their accountability. The principles of greater openness and effective accountability are as important here as they are in other parts of the public sector.
  Part I of the Bill also deals with police rank structure and conditions of service. Clauses 6 and 7 have the effect of abolishing two of the present nine police ranks. Clause 6 abolishes the rank of deputy chief constable. Clause 7, which was inserted in another place, would reduce the ranks between inspector and assistant chief constable from three to two.
  The purpose of reducing ranks is to provide a less top-heavy management structure within police forces which would allow clearer and more direct communication, put more officers on the front line and enable the best officers to progress more swiftly through the management hierarchy.
  The Government originally proposed to achieve that by abolishing three ranks. In considering the concerns which have been expressed about abolishing the ranks of chief inspector and chief superintendent, I have been encouraged by recent evidence of a change of attitude on the part of forces which are already thinning out middle management. Nearly 500 posts at inspector level or above were dropped in 1993, and the latest figures show a further reduction of more than 100 posts being achieved in the first two months of 1994 alone.
  The recent decision of the Metropolitan police to cut about 450 posts in the inspecting and superintending ranks demonstrates the momentum behind the process. Other forces are also planning to thin out their management tiers.
  In the light of the new evidence, I am now satisfied that it is not necessary for all three ranks to be abolished to achieve our original purpose. In assessing which rank to keep, I have been impressed by the strength of the Association of Chief Police Officers' argument that the rank of chief inspector provides the greatest management and operational flexibility. We intend, therefore, to retain the rank of chief inspector. There will be two ranks between inspector and assistant chief constable as clause 7 would require.
  Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. And learned Friend accept that there is a need to have someone designated as the number two to any chief constable if he should be away at any time? Could not that be achieved perfectly easily without great expense to any force? Without it, I am afraid that there will be a large number of other people wandering around. How does the chief constable lay hands on someone if he is not designated as the number two?
  Mr. Howard: I have always recognised that need. It would be perfectly possible to meet it by the chief constable's designation of one of his assistant chief constables as his deputy for that purpose, but it is quite unnecessary to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identified to have a separate and specific rank of deputy chief constable.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the light of the trends to which the Home Secretary has drawn attention—the thinning down of the ranks by chief constables themselves—why has he felt it necessary to minimise or restrict the flexibility of the police authorities
  116
  and chief constables to take those decisions in the light of local circumstances and to impose a legislative framework?
  Mr. Howard: I do not believe for one moment that the effect of the changes that I am making is to reduce the flexibility of chief constables. On the contrary, in many ways their flexibility will be increased. But the decision that I have announced reflects many of their concerns.
  Parts I and II of the Bill pave the way for revising the procedures for dealing with police officers whose behaviour or performance fails to come up to police standards. The aim is to reflect best personnel practice in the outside world while taking account of the need to protect officers from malicious or false allegations.
  Concerns were expressed about the Bill as it was originally introduced and certain changes were made in another place. Those changes, as they stand, would make it impossible to introduce the new procedures. We would be left with the existing rigid discipline system which does not allow police managers to review an officer's behaviour and performance as a whole, nor to decide what action should be taken in response to a failure to meet proper police standards. That is totally unacceptable.
  In particular, I shall invite the House to reverse the amendment introduced in another place which would prevent disciplinary proceedings being brought against an officer in respect of a matter for which he has been tried and acquitted in the criminal courts—the so-called, but wrongly so-called, "double jeopardy" clause. I believe that the arguments in favour of the amendment which were advanced in another place were fundamentally misconceived. I therefore intend to table an amendment to repeal subsections (1) and (2) of section 104 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: There is a parallel between what my right hon. and learned Friend has just suggested and the law of defamation. In the law of defamation it is possible for a defendant to justify a lesser meaning or to defend as fair comment a lesser meaning than perhaps the highest sting on which a plaintiff is suing.
  For example, if a police constable were to sue a newspaper which had accused him of being corrupt and guilty of a particular offence, it would still be open to the defendant newspaper to say that, none the less, although it cannot prove that high sting, the plaintiff police officer is still unfit to be a police officer by virtue of other evidence and facts that are proved in the case short of the full sting.
  Is not that a parallel which is of use to the police disciplinary system? If a police officer is aquitted of a criminal offence, there may still be findings of fact at the criminal trial which would allow the police service to draw the inference that he was unfit to remain in the police service.
  Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who draws an extremely interesting parallel from which there is much that we can learn which may well be of relevance to the proceedings that we are discussing at the moment and may well have a good deal of applicability to those proceedings. That is an extremely valuable point.
  I am persuaded that police officers should continue to have the right to be legally represented if they are at risk of dismissal, requirement to resign or reduction in rank. Under my proposals, legal representation will still be

  117
  available both on appeal and at the hearing at which a decision to dismiss, to require resignation, or to reduce in rank may be taken.
  I shall be seeking to make one further change to those provisions of the Bill that deal with appeals. As the Bill stands, an officer who is dismissed, required to resign or reduced in rank has a right of appeal to a police appeal tribunal.
  In order to ensure that the composition of the tribunal continues to reflect the present position and the position under general employment law, I propose to bring forward amendments that would add a former staff association representative as an additional member of the tribunal. He would sit together with a legally qualified chairman, a serving or recently retired chief constable from another force and a member of the police authority for the officer's force. The chairman will have a casting vote in the event of a disagreement. Those changes will, I am confident, enable us to make important and much-needed changes in the area of police personnel management.
  Part II contains purely Scottish provisions on the police. It makes various amendments and additions to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 in pursuit of our policy for reform of the police service that are comparable to those made for England and Wales in part I. Those include provisions to give greater management responsibility to chief constables, provisions on rank structure and conditions of service, and on discipline. The Bill also makes provisions that are relevant only to Scotland. They relate to matters such as the subjects to be included in chief constables' annual reports, and the responsibilities of inspectors of constabulary in Scotland.
  Part III of the Bill makes changes to the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 to give effect in Northern Ireland to the Government's decisions on police rank structure and conditions of service. The changes are comparable to those being made in Great Britain to enable greater flexibility in making regulations, while taking account of the special and different circumstances of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  The Government's aim in part IV of the Bill is that magistrates courts should provide an efficient, high-quality and expeditious system of local justice that commands public confidence. We are committed to maintaining both the local nature of the system and the independence from Government of judicial decision making. That requires improvements in the management structure and organisation of the courts service.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, he may find that I am about to deal with the point that I suspect he has in mind.
  The changes will achieve four main objectives. They will guarantee the judicial independence of magistrates and their legal advisers, yield improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the service, secure maximum co-operation in the management of the service with other parts of the criminal justice system and improve the accountability of the service—both locally and to Parliament.
  The day-to-day management of the magistrates courts service remains in the hands of local committees,
  118
  consisting almost entirely of local magistrates, but the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament for the operation of the service. At present, lines of responsibility both locally and with the Lord Chancellor are inadequate. The Government's proposals, which are based on those published in a White Paper in February 1992, will provide the Lord Chancellor with the minimum level of control over the service consistent with his accountability to Parliament.
  Clause 62 will enable the Lord Chancellor to initiate the amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas. There is at present a power to amalgamate magistrates courts committees, but only where the committees themselves so wish. In fact, no such amalgamations have ever happened. The power provided by the Bill will not be used arbitrarily. It is obvious that an amalgamation will work best if it has the full backing of the local people involved, and local consultations will take place in each case. But we have a duty to consider the best interests of the service as a whole.
  Where, for example, some of the smallest committees cannot use their resources as flexibly as larger ones, the opportunity for a higher level of service to the public and improved value for money might make an amalgamation appropriate even where not all local interests agree with such a move.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the people who are to consult on those matters to pay more attention to distance in rural areas? The closure of Garstang magistrates court has been universally deplored by all concerned.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point, as usual, and I will certainly draw it to the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
  Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of us are sceptical about the proposition of greater parliamentary accountability over magistrates courts? If a closure is proposed by the magistrates court committee and it is not objected to by the county council, the matter does not come to Parliament and we have no say. Does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to improve on that?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will refer it to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who is seated beside me and who will reply to the debate. I am sure that he will be seized of my hon. Friend's point.
  Magistrates courts committees will be restructured so that they can better fulfil their task of providing strategic direction. They will no longer be primarily representative bodies. Instead, members will be chosen for the particular experience or skills that they can bring to that management body.
  Committees will be strengthened by a full-time head of staff to take responsibility for the service's day-to-day administration, although always subject to a committee's direction. That head of service, to be known as the justices' chief executive, will be the manager of all the committee's staff. A number of committees have already structured their staffing on that basis, so far as is possible within the existing legislative framework.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I want to question the Home Secretary on a different point which arises from clause 66. It provides that the Lord Chancellor may give directions to magistrates courts committees so that they can meet specified standards of performance. Some people regard that as the green light to close many rural courts. Will the Home Secretary give me an assurance that that is not the proper interpretation of the clause?
  Mr. Howard: Having had the opportunity just a moment ago of refreshing my memory about the precise contents of that clause, I do not think that it contains any justification for the inference that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will be able to enlarge on that point when he replies.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Secretary of State confirm that I have persuaded him that he and the Lord Chancellor would be unwise to seek to merge two areas—Gwynedd and Clwyd—in terms of the magistrates courts committee? Will he undertake to reconsider that proposal, because on linguistic, cultural and geographical grounds they will not able to do it?
  Mr. Howard: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no proposals to make any such amalgamation. Should the time ever come when he has, I know that he will particularly take into account the hon. Gentleman's representations.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Home Secretary assure me that where, because of the shifting nature of the problem, fine collection in industrial and urban areas becomes a problem the magistrates courts in those areas will not be penalised on an efficiency basis simply because they cannot find the people to collect the fines from?
  Mr. Howard: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who was listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, will ponder at length on its implications and give full weight to its significance before he reaches any decisions on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way before he leaves this phase of his speech. He seems to be saying that our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give some guarantees later. He is, of course, aware of the worry about amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees in the outer London boroughs. He said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is simply seeking a power to amalgamate, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will realise that amalgamation of the outer London magistrates courts committees, only 10 years after a complete restructuring following the abolition of the Greater London council, would be very ill timed and ill considered.
  Mr. Howard: I am delighted to see such keen anticipation in all quarters of the House of the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. He is listening extremely carefully to all these points. Indeed, he has told me—I confess that I was not entirely familiar with them before
  120
  —that negotiations are under way in relation to the outer London boroughs and that they are making excellent progress. I hope that that will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend. No doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will have more to say on that point, too, in due course.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I broadly support my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals on the future of the magistrates courts, but what are his proposals for the proper cover of stipendiary magistrates throughout the country, because some parts of country, such as Teesside, have very large lay benches and the progress of cases sometimes is inordinately slow, while other parts of the country hardly ever have delays and have an overprovision of stipendiary magistrates? May we have a little more even cover throughout the country, please?
  Mr. Howard: I have no proposals to make for the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. I understand, however, that the attitude that the Lord Chancellor takes to the matter is dependent on whether an approach is made by the lay magistrates in the area concerned. If my hon. Friend thinks that that approach needs modification, I am sure that he will address that subject if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The magistrates courts service inspectorate has already been set up; the Bill will place it on a statutory footing. It will also enable the Lord Chancellor to issue in regulations standards of performance that he expects the magistrates courts service to achieve.
  Part IV of the Bill deals exclusively with the administrative structure of the service, not with what goes on in the courtroom. But, in the light of fears—which I must say that the Government do not share—that the changes may in some subtle way undermine the independence of the advice given to lay magistrates, there is a declaration on the face of the Bill that in giving advice to magistrates in court, or in exercising the delegated functions of a single justice, justices' clerks may not be subject to direction and will remain utterly independent in those facets of their work.
  All parts of the Bill will help crucial public services in the United Kingdom to operate with the benefit of up-to-date thinking about management and public accountability. No organisation can afford to ignore the constant search for more effective ways of getting people to work together to achieve common aims. In the private sector, any organisations that ignore it are likely to go out of business; in the public sector, they ossify and are in danger of becoming self-serving bureaucracies.
  The public service reforms introduced over the past decade have all been designed to allow the people who are running the services to get on with the job, free from unnecessary political or bureaucratic interference from outside. But the people running our public services should not dictate what the standards offered by that service should be. All our successful public-service reforms have proceeded on the basis that some person or body outside the service should have a role in setting standards. That is the way to make our public services more efficient and accountable.
  The changes being introduced in the Bill will ensure a modern, efficient and accountable police service, better able to tackle crime in the rest of the current decade and into the next century. We believe that the Bill's provisions

  121
  —which are an important part of our strategy to combat crime—will enable both the police service and the magistrates courts to function more effectively.
  The Labour party's attitude to the Bill calls for particular attention. For Labour to pose as an ally of the police is rather like Eugene Terre'blanche posing as a friend of Nelson Mandela. For years, Labour local authorities railed against the police; in the House, Labour Members have consistently voted against the measures to strengthen police powers that we have introduced. They called the Criminal Justice Bill unacceptable, and refused to support its passage through Parliament. The police called it "first class", and an essential measure in the fight against crime.
  When I made my statement in the House on the Sheehy report, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) attacked it vigorously; yet on the very same day, in another place, Lord McIntosh—his party's spokesman on home affairs—said that it was
  "a very welcome basis for future discussion of the way forward for the police service".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 1993; Vol. 549, c.944.]
  That evening, on Channel 4 News, the hon. Member for Sedgefield had already started to shift his position: he explicitly supported the decision to abolish the three police ranks. But he had reckoned without Lord McIntosh's ability to change his mind. Within months, Labour was voting against the abolition of the ranks in another place.
  The Labour party's attitude to the two Bills is evidence of a party whose commitment to law and order and to supporting the police is poll deep. It simply cannot be trusted to give the police and the fight against crime the unrelenting support that they require. We alone in the House are prepared to give them that support. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Home Secretary for his speech. I felt that it began to come alive when he was attacking the Opposition rather than defending his own measure, but that is not surprising, given that the Bill comes before us in a badly wounded and limping state—severely mauled in the other place, but none the less still dangerous. Thankfully, it has been changed; but it has not been changed nearly enough.
  I note that the Government have adopted a new ploy when attempting to justify a measure that has very little support: they make the very claim for it that its opponents cite as the reason for their opposition. Thus, the Bill becomes a measure to reduce political interference and improve local policing, just as the health service reforms become measures to cut bureaucracy. We reached the very height of justification the other day when I heard the junior Minister for the Environment say on the radio that the purpose of the value-added tax on fuel was to assist the elderly in the campaign for a more green, ecologically friendly environment.
  The Bill is now presented to us as delivering better local policing. The Home Secretary said today that, where it had been changed, change had occurred through a process of consultation. Let us be very clear about why the legislation has been changed, because that is the only way to secure further changes to it.
  122
  In truth, since the moment that the proposals were first spoken about in December 1992, they have come under more sustained attack than any set of proposals virtually in living memory. The attack was renewed every time that the proposals were reissued—which was frequently. I think that I am right in saying that the consultative process yielded no one in support of the proposals, and when the Bill was published nothing from the consultation resulted in changes to the Bill. Not one single change of any substance occurred until the clock was almost striking midnight in the other place and, under pressure of defeat and humiliation, change was announced. It was secured not through a listening Government, but through a scared one.
  Although the changes have been numerous—my office estimates that there have been about 23 changes during the passage of the Bill, but we may be underestimating—the legislation remains deeply flawed. The Bill is flawed simply because the thinking and the ethos that underpin it are flawed. With one or two exceptions—such as the proposals about greater flexibility in the financing of police authorities—the Bill represents the most determined and least popular attempt ever made to centralise policing in Britain, to give Ministers unprecedented control over the way that the police do their work, and to undermine police independence. It is driven not just by short-term cost cutting, but by an ideology that resents local freedom and has an aversion, bordering on paranoia, to local government.
  That is why the Bill has been opposed, not just by the Labour party or by Labour councillors, but by Conservative councillors; by the police, where the proposals have had the extraordinary effect of uniting almost every rank of serving police officers against them; by magistrates and their clerks, neither group noted revolutionaries in any area; and by virtually all independent commentators. Of course, the Government may dismiss their objections as special pleading, but that is unfair.
  The police are prepared to change and adapt—indeed, they have done so in many ways in the past few years. When magistrates are concerned about the independence of their clerks, it is not a vested interest speaking. When they express their concern about amalgamation, they do not speak out simply for their own convenience. They do so because they sincerely hold the view that their independence and, hence, that of the judicial system is being undermined by the proposals.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Among his catalogue of criticisms of the Bill, will he tell us about one or two Labour proposals—in particular, the proposal to have elected police authorities, which will do more to politicise those authorities than anything in the Bill?
  Mr. Blair: That is not the Labour party's proposal. As I have made absolutely clear in debate, I do not believe that the priority in policing today is about fiddling with the structure of police authorities. It is about getting the right local partnership between police and local communities in order to fight crime. That is what policing is about.
  Mr. Howard: The Labour party certainly fought the last general election on a policy of directly elected police authorities. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he

  123
  looks at page 20 of his election manifesto for 1992 he will find a specific commitment to that effect. Will he now tell us when his party's policy changed, if change it has?
  Mr. Blair: I have made it absolutely clear all the way through the debate that that is not our policy. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman stopped fighting the Opposition over these proposals and started listening to what is being said, not just by the Opposition but by others, he would find that they got broader agreement.
  The opposition that the Bill has aroused has been passionate not because of special pleading but out of a genuine belief that the proposals are not only wrong in themselves but will harm the fight against crime in local communities, and that their effect would be not only a denial of constitutional principle but contrary to the practical ways in which crime can be countered. It is, in other words, literally a counter-productive measure because crime is fought most successfully locally, where police and the local community work together. Every measure that ruptures or weakens that link diminishes our primary purpose which is to fight crime. I now illustrate with reference to the Bill how that occurs.
  Let us first consider the composition of police authorities. The original proposals were very much worse —I accept that entirely. Originally, the Home Secretary was to appoint the chairman of a policy authority and a third of its members. That suggestion has now been dropped—it was one of the parts of the Bill that were most savaged in another place—but the size is still to be reduced significantly.
  Let us consider also the provisions for the five so-called independent new members. Of course, these provisions are a vast improvement on the original ones, but, although the procedure for determining the new independent members may be an improvement on direct appointments by the Home Secretary, surely the whole process has been cobbled together by someone with an extravagant sense of humour. The way in which the proposals will work is one of the most extraordinary things I have come across.
  A panel of selection is to be established in every police authority area to select the independent members. There is a complicated procedure for appointing the panel; it, in turn, has very complicated procedures for deciding who is qualified or disqualified from serving on it. When the panel has, by this means, drawn up a list of 20 people, that list is put to the Home Secretary who then draws up a further set of regulations on how it is to be worked through. He then considers the 20 and reduces the number to about 10 or perhaps fewer. Further complicated regulations follow, and the list then goes back to the police authority to determine who the five independent members should be.
  All this extraordinary rigmarole, including special provisions for the Home Secretary to nominate where the numbers on the original list submitted to him are not sufficient, is to secure what? It is to secure the interpolation of people on to the police authority that nobody—not one single independent group of people—has ever said is necessary or wanted.
  I pose one simple question. Let us suppose that the Bill had never been thought of and that no word about reforming the police authority had reached the Home Secretary's office at Queen Anne's gate. Let us then suppose that an enthusiastic official had bounded into his room with a procedure of such complexity for reforming policy authorities. What would have happened? Would not
  124
  that official even now be in a padded cell with his arms stuck behind his back while he was examined by a range of psychoanalysts?
  What I have outlined is an extraordinary, expensive and wasteful procedure and it comes from the party of deregulation, from the party which claims to want to cut red tape and undermine bureaucracy; and for what? It is in order to ram through a proposal that no one supports and for which no one has ever asked. The absurdity of the process lies not only in the fact that it will foist on police authorities the duty to select colleagues with whose very existence they disagree; it lies also in the fact that it will undoubtedly reduce local involvement.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold indicated dissent.
  Mr. Blair: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, I shall explain. The police authority will, in the main, have about 20 or 30 local councillors on it. That figure is to be stripped down to a maximum of nine, which is an enormous reduction in many areas.
  Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill also contains provisions under which the Home Secretary can agree to a larger composition for a police authority, depending on the constituent area that the authority will cover?
  Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right. I read the debates in the other place carefully, and I think that I am right in saying that Earl Ferrers made it clear that that power would rarely be used. We cannot say that, as a matter of course, the Home Secretary intends to expand the number. I do not believe that that is the proposal.
  In County Durham, there is a range of different villages in an area, and there are almost 30 councillors on the police authority. It is important to recognise that those councillors, whether they are Conservative or Labour, give local people an input into local policing. Within their areas, those people are certainly more approachable than the average business chief. Considerable concern is shared by the police, never mind local authorities, that the change will weaken the interest and engagement of local people.
  Although we have no prospect of achieving it, I must say again that the fact that we still have no proper strategic police authority for our capital city of London represents an omission from the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blair: I must press on for a moment, but—
  Mr. Fabricant: On County Durham?
  Mr. Blair: On County Durham? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on that subject.
  Mr. Fabricant: I know County Durham well. It is a beautiful area, and I have stayed in Witton Gilbert.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole point of the Bill is to give local police authorities greater powers? Does he not also concede that any police authority, like the board of a company, will be more effective if it is smaller rather than larger?
  Mr. Blair: May I try to achieve at least the following consensus? If the hon. Gentleman says that the test of the Bill should be whether it gives power to the locality or takes it away, he should follow my argument and see

  125
  whether the new measures give power to local people or to the centre. If, at the end of that argument, he can find it in himself to be reasonable enough to accept the fact that the Bill gives power to the centre rather than to local people, perhaps he will join us in the Lobbies tonight.
  The policing objectives are important and it must be understood that there is no objection to chief constables and police authorities setting goals and objectives, or to their producing a local plan. Many, in effect, already do so. The objection is to the wholly unprecedented power that the Secretary of State is taking to overrule local objectives and to insist that national objectives, which he lays down, should be followed instead.
  It is important to read those objectives in line with the performance targets that are supposed to be published in accordance with them, in line with the power—which is not wrong in itself—that will direct grants to police authorities in aggregate from now on, and in line with the fact that chief constables will be on short-term contracts. The effect of all those measures together will be, for the first time in our history, substantially to remove local discretion in determining local policing priorities and to replace it with central control.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about objectives and performance targets. With all due respect, I think that the Home Secretary is not being entirely open with us about the effect of the provisions that he wants us to pass. Although it is correct to say that the police authority merely has to have regard to the national objectives that he will set, the new section 28B that clause 13 would add to the Police Act 1964 makes it clear that the performance targets set in pursuit of the national objectives—contrary to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, the two are directly linked—are obligatory. Indeed, under new section 28B(3) the Home Secretary may impose directions, which will also be mandatory, in order that the performance targets set in pursuit of the objectives may be met.
  What examples are there of the type of performance targets and objectives that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will set? What will he do? Will he set specific targets, such as specific cuts in burglaries in a particular area? Should forces be told to concentrate on certain types of activity? The concern is not only about those powers, but about how they will link in to the present investigation into what are called the core activities of the police.
  The agenda here, however hidden it may be, is that under the Government's proposals the police will become increasingly a law enforcement agency and less of a public service. What of working with local youth projects or old people's homes? How will those activities tie in with the type of objectives and targets that the Home Secretary wishes to impose?
  Mr. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is extremely important that there should be no misunderstanding about the provisions, that unnecessary anxiety should not be aroused and that false alarms should not be raised. The position, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will—on reflection—agree, is this: the new section 28B empowers the Secretary of State to direct that a target should be set in relation to a special objective. The level at which that target should be set is a matter for the police authority. The target is something "to be aimed at".
  126
  Those are the words in section 28B(1), so there is no question of the force being required to achieve that target on a mandatory basis, regardless of any other problems that the force may face.
  It is very important that we should not give any misleading impression of the effects of the legislation. I have set them out as clearly as I can.
  Mr. Blair: I am afraid that that does not deal with the point at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is simply expressing a matter of obvious common sense—one cannot impose some arbitrary target with an absolute duty to meet it.
  Mr. Howard: That is what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  Mr. Blair: That is not what I am saying. It is true that the authorities are merely obliged to aim at the target, but that in itself is important and must inform the nature of their local policing. However, the target is obligatory. What is more, it is backed up by proposals under subsections (2) and (3) of the new section for directions to be given by the Secretary of State for conditions to be imposed under which the performance targets must conform. It is not merely that the performance targets are, as it were, obligatory, but that they may have conditions attached to them under the direction of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Blair: I will certainly give way again. That is not an objection which is being raised merely by us; it has been raised after careful consideration of the Bill in the other place. Objections are being raised not only by the Opposition parties, but by the police themselves.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's analysis leaves out of account the fact that the levels are to be set not by the Secretary of State, but by the local police authorities, having regard to local conditions and to their other local priorities. It is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to say that those are matters in respect of which targets should be set. It is for the local police authority to decide on the level at which the target is to be set and it is then for the police authority to aim at achieving that locally set target. That is the important point and if we are to achieve transparently accountable policing, that is an extremely sensible way in which to go about it.
  Mr. Blair: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is studying carefully exactly what he is legislating. Of course, I am not suggesting that there is some arbitrary level that the authorities, as a matter of absolute obligation, must achieve. To meet the point that was raised earlier, he was suggesting that the objectives of the police authorities that he would set were merely something that they had to take into account, but not follow. In fact, that is not entirely correct, because the authorities are obliged to follow the performance targets that are set in pursuit of those objectives. What is more, under subsection (3), the Secretary of State may give the authorities directions on how they achieve those targets. Therefore, the idea that that does not give him centralised power over policing is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Blair: May I finish the point? Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may convince his hon. Friends, with the help of Whips, but the people that he must convince are the police and those outside the House who have constantly raised the matter— and he has refused to give them a proper answer.
  Mr. Howard: There is no substance in that at all. If the Bill provided that the Secretary of State could set the levels at which the targets should be aimed, there might be some substance to the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman. However, it is for the local police authority to set the levels. That is an absolutely crucial component of the series of changes. It is a sensible way—there is nothing sinister about it—in which to achieve transparent accountability. I have set out with some precision the sequence of events that will occur. The hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid to say, misrepresenting them.
  Mr. Blair: We may prolong the argument for ever, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong; the performance targets must be aimed at the objectives that he sets. In other words, it is not correct to say that the local policing authorities set their own targets and then merely aim at them. The targets are governed by the objectives. The correlation between the targets and the objectives means that the police are, in effect, following his instructions rather than those of the local policing authorities. No doubt the matter will be considered at length in Committee, but if the Home Secretary desires the authorities to have complete freedom in setting their own performance targets, irrespective of the objectives, he will agree to the amendment that we shall table.
  If I may turn to the amalgamation—
  Mr. Howard: Of course I will not accept any amendment to that effect, because I think it absolutely right that the Secretary of State should be able to identify the targets; but the levels at which those targets are to be aimed —that is the key point—will be set by the local policing authority. It was very noticeable that, in the hon. Gentleman's most recent summary of his version of the effects of the provisions, he left out all reference to the levels. The levels are critical. I will not accept any amendment along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has advanced, because it would subvert our entire objective of transparent accountability in which the local police authority, which would have the responsibility for setting the levels, would have a key role.
  Mr. Blair: With due respect—
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blair: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to press on. The Home Secretary is not dealing with the point that has been made, which is that the objectives that he sets determine the targets. I think that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads it carefully, he will find that he is wrong.
  In relation to amalgamation, there is the sense—
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blair: Yes.
  Mr. Cunningham: An interesting point is being raised and the Home Secretary is a little confused. If he knew
  128
  anything about police authorities, he would know that funding can often determine the level of targets. That is what the Home Secretary is obscuring.
  Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, if I may say so, he injects a welcome note of practicality into the debate on the construction of the Bill.
  The amalgamations are also extremely important. The sense of a hidden agenda is stronger in this area when we encounter the new fast-track procedure for amalgamation. When the Secretary of State announced the consultation in June, he never mentioned the issue of amalgamation of police authorities. In fact, there is an entire chapter devoted to amalgamation in the White Paper, which preceded press reports about the desire to whittle down the number of authorities from 43 to 25 or even fewer. What is absolutely clear from that White Paper is that, although the Government do not intend—for fairly obvious reasons—to press forward with amalgamation now, it is by no means clear that, as soon as the Bill is conveniently out of the way, they will not proceed then. May I simply ask the Home Secretary this: if it is no purpose of his to amalgamate authorities, and if that is not what he desires, why have the new procedure in the Bill? What is the purpose of the streamlining?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The new procedure is more efficient.
  Mr. Blair: The Under-Secretary says that it is all to do with a more efficient procedure. Let us see what the new procedure does. It strips away the public inquiry element of the procedure for amalgamating authorities so that the voice of the people—I need not say of the quiet majority —is not heard. The basic right given to the most minor local property developments is denied in the case of something as important as local policing. It is a disgraceful and anti-democratic measure. If police authorities are to be amalgamated, there is no reason whatever why there should not be a proper public inquiry. Of course, the reason why the Government do not want public inquiries is that they throw up opposition of, usually, a fairly co-ordinated type, which is usually backed up by local newspapers, the regional media and so on.
  Exactly the same criticism can be made in respect of the part of the Bill dealing with magistrates courts—a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) will no doubt develop later.
  Mr. Maclennan: Lest the hon. Gentleman provide the Home Secretary with an opportunity to represent him as being totally in favour of the status quo, will he acknowledge that when the existing 43 police authorities were created the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, found it perfectly adequate to reduce the number and to involve the public in the process?
  Mr. Blair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There may well be a case for police authority amalgamations from time to time, but such action should be taken on the basis of local consent and not simply because of a desire to centralise, to push matters further towards central Government.
  The magistrates courts procedures are exactly the same. Again, for the first time, we have the possibility of wholesale amalgamation of areas. Conservative Members will be very foolish not to take account of the genuine

  129
  concern in many places, particularly rural areas, at the idea that, as a simple administrative measure, magistrates courts can be pushed together.
  I should like to turn now to what remains in the Bill with regard to the Sheehy report. It is still unclear exactly what the changes that the Home Secretary announced last year will amount to, in practical terms, for the average police constable, particularly in relation to matters such as pensions. However, it is clear what they will mean for people in different ranks.
  I should like, briefly, to discuss specifically the fairly shabby attempt to persuade the public that these reforms will yield another 3,000 police officers on the beat. That claim has been made frequently. It was the most important justification given by the Home Secretary and other Ministers for part of the Bill, and it was the answer to the criticism of the freeze on police numbers and to the claim that the Bill runs counter to community policing.
  Having looked carefully into the matter, we believe that the claim that the Bill will deliver an additional 3,000 officers on the beat is utterly bogus. And so do the police. As can be seen at page 171 of his report, Sheehy anticipated that 3,000 officers might be released to be put on the beat as a result of the changes in rank structure, but only on the basis of the short-term severance package that he outlined. Letters to several of my hon. Friends from serving police officers—in particular, chief superintendents and others—seem to me to suggest that no such severance package has been agreed. Therefore, the idea that all these officers on the beat will be released is erroneous.
  Indeed, the matter goes further. I realise that the alteration in rank structure is a difficult area. It is one in respect of which we proceed with care. There is clearly a case for rationalisation of the structure. Let me put to the Home Secretary what must be the test when the matter is being examined in detail in Committee.
  First, it is important to understand that rationalisation of the numbers in the ranks of chief inspector and chief superintendent is already taking place. There has been very significant change over the past three years—a reduction of about 300. However, that has been achieved not by a blanket weeding-out of ranks but by case-by-case reorganisation.
  It may well be that in some forces not all the ranks are needed or there should be fewer people in a particular rank. However, not all services are the same. There will be exceptional situations in which the senior ranks are necessary—for example, spontaneous public disorder or disasters, where somebody must take charge and where there must be a local chain of command. The danger that has been put to me and will be examined in Committee is that, with the method by which the Home Secretary has chosen to proceed, either there will be no proper control in these situations or there will be an informal procedure by which someone is appointed as a senior superintendent. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that we are not criticising the objective of streamlining, but are concerned about the inflexibility of the method proposed.
  We shall also scrutinise most carefully the changes in disciplinary procedures for serving police officers. Here, too, we must strike a balance. We want to examine the
  130
  appeal process for officers being disciplined. It cannot be stressed too often that, in what is a monopoly service, disciplinary action will stay with a police officer for his entire career. In some cases—by no means all—the people who make complaints are convicted criminals with serious records. I yield to nobody in my desire to see incompetent, corrupt or abusive police officers weeded out. That is important to the entire police service, which is brought down by such people. However, we must ensure that there is a fair procedure.
  In the annual report of every police service this year, there is a recurring theme—the belief that the battle against crime can be, and is being, more successfully prosecuted, coupled with an absolute conviction that emphasis on local policing, in partnership with local communities, is essential to achieving that aim.
  Modern policing is about partnership, shared responsibility and a service fully integrated into the life of local communities. Those are not just fine words; they are an essential part of the fight against crime. To fight crime, people must have confidence in their local police. They must be confident not just that the police are fair and honest but that they are approachable and in touch. The police cannot fight crime on their own; the whole community must be enlisted on their side. The law-abiding majority —and, even in the areas with the highest crime levels, the majority are law abiding—must be put back in control of communities. Anything that facilitates the local link between police and people is welcome, and anything that harms it is to be deplored.
  The Bill harms that link—not as seriously as it would have done in its original form, but seriously enough. Some of its worst aspects have been neutered, but its fundamental philosophy and purpose remain. I suspect that the Government will not admit to wanting to use many of its powers today, but they may well be used—and used ruthlessly—in the future, if the Bill becomes law.
  Let hon. Members just think what the Home Secretary could have done if he had so chosen. He could, for example, have implemented the report of the standing committee on crime prevention—the Morgan report—and won support across the spectrum. He could have saved the millions of pounds that will be wasted through this legislation and used them to undo cuts in the youth service, to provide drugs education, to finance inner-city programmes or to put more police officers on the beat—this time for real rather than in theory. Instead, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is taking the police not just down a diversionary route but in the direction opposite to that in which he should be travelling.
  The people of this country do not want a centralised police service, under a Conservative or any other Government.
  Mr. Howard: Just a minute ago the hon. Gentleman complained that the redundancy package on the basis of which the middle ranks are being thinned is not sufficiently generous. Now he is accusing us of spending money that should not be spent. The truth is that we are achieving the reduction in the middle ranks without the package that the hon. Gentleman has identified. That is leading to the recruitment of more police constables—452 in the first two months of this year—and that is exactly the objective of our reforms.
  Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on both points. First, the severance package was crucial to the 3,000 officers to be released. But more important are the Bill's expenditure implications. The cost will run into tens of millions of pounds. I am suggesting that the Home Secretary could have won support for the expenditure of the money that is to be wasted on a Bill wanted by no one on such matters as education for young people about the dangers of drugs—measures that people do want.
  The Bill imposes measures of centralisation. Surely there is a terrible irony here. A decade ago, Conservatives alleged that Labour local authorities engaged in political interference. That is the very policy of their flagship today. What they are doing in the Bill is the very thing that they used to decry.
  There is another irony. In the report on the Los Angeles riots of a few years ago, Warren Christopher, who is now the United States Secretary of State, referred in glowing terms to the success of British police in pioneering local community policing. As the rest of the world moves towards such policing, the Home Secretary is undermining it at its birthplace.
  The Bill is a foolish exercise in mistaken ideology. Indeed, the only reason for its continued existence is not that it is wanted but that no one in government has the political courage to dump it. It will do nothing to fight crime or make our communities safe. It is without support outside Government and without reason inside Government, and it should not be given a Second Reading.
  4.59 pm
  Sir Anthony Durant: First, I declare an interest: I represent chief superintendents and superintendents in the House.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary rightly said that our police are the best in the world. I entirely agree. Several police officers have travelled to South Africa to give advice on the problems that are being experienced in that country in respect of law and order. It is a great credit to the United Kingdom that the South African authorities asked for those police officers to go and give their advice.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has told us that the rank of chief inspector will be retained while the rank of chief superintendent will not. When the Association of Chief Police Officers was asked about the matter, it initially wanted to keep both ranks. The effect of the amendment in the other place was that only one of the two ranks could be kept, and my right hon. and learned Friend decided to retain chief inspectors.
  The police have been through a period of great anxiety and great damage has been done to morale during the past few months. There are many worries about the future of the police service. The Sheehy report created mayhem within the police service: I have never known the police in such an anxious state following its publication. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reading the report carefully and eliminating many of the nonsensical findings that it contained. I saw Patrick Sheehy, and he tried to convince me that he was right. I had to tell him that the police are a service and not a business; he seemed not to understand that.
  The police have been doing much restructuring, of their own volition—that has been taking place for some time.
  132
  The remaining problems for the superintendents are rank, legal representation and double jeopardy. I shall deal with each of those issues in turn.
  Chief superintendents will, of course, be disappointed that their rank is being abolished. They will not be very happy about it. They have given me a list of reasons that they feel support retention of the rank of superintendent. First, the rank is in place and well understood both within the police service—which is within society in general—and among the organisations with which the police interact.
  Most forces in England and Wales have been through —or are in the process of or planning—major reorganisation involving considerable reductions in the numbers of superintendents. Indeed, 264 superintendent posts have disappeared. That is a reduction of about 13.3 per cent. The remaining chief superintendents are an essential part of the restructured forces. The retention of chief superintendents will mean a continuation of the operational command structure at senior level, which is essential for running major events such as large public events, major public disorders and large or complex inquiries. The retention of chief superintendents would assist in the devolvement of responsibility from chief constable level while at the same time providing management and command resilience in supporting assistant chief constables, especially during their absence. When senior officers are away, who is in command? That is something that concerns police officers.
  The retention of chief superintendents would ease administrative matters when personnel issues such as appraisals and career development, both for superintendents and inspectors, were being dealt with. Their retention would resolve potential difficulties in respect of appraisals and staff management, especially in larger forces.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: As the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of the area that I represent, he will appreciate the point that I am about to make. I am sure that he knows that the South Yorkshire force is divided into divisions, which are commanded by a chief superintendent. To facilitate local policing, the divisions have seven sub-divisions. My constituency largely forms the appropriate sub-division, as it were, of the South Yorkshire force. The sub-divisions are properly commanded by a superintendent. I believe that we could more easily be managed without chief inspectors than we could without a chief superintendent to command the division.
  There are superintendents commanding inspectors in the various divisions. The structure has made for an effective force in south Yorkshire despite some unfortunate comments made by Conservative Members. The Home Secretary's decision to disband or do away with chief superintendents may not help to provide well-structured policing in many parts of the country.
  Sir Anthony Durant: That is the point that I am making, which I will continue to make. The retention of chief superintendents would ensure that there are officers to carry out investigations of superintendents in criminal or disciplinary matters. Their retention would considerably ease operational command and management problems that are likely to be experienced by assistant chief constables, especially in larger forces where the number of operational command areas will be large. Some police forces, such as Thames Valley, are extremely large.

  133
  The retention of chief superintendents would provide a higher command level for senior posts in forces where there is shown to be a clear need for such a level—for example, basic command units divisions with large numbers of officers and/or particular socio-economic problems. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has made that point for me.
  The retention of chief superintendents here would resolve the issue of retaining that rank in the Royal Ulster Constabulary; for some reason, the rank is to be retained in the RUC. I am not against that, but it is odd given that we are to do away with it.
  The retention of chief superintendents would assist in resolving concerns expressed by the Police Complaints Authority over the availability of senior officers to carry out major inquiries. Many chief superintendents are heavily involved in such inquiries. A key difficulty with the work that is being carried out by many chief inspectors is that their conditions of service, linked to hourly rates of pay, overtime and other payments, are not appropriate. The agreement reached by the Police Federation with the official side at the police negotiating board has removed that difficulty.
  The pay agreement reached for superintendents with the official side of the police negotiating board lends itself to easy accommodation of the rank of chief superintendent, as it clearly allows for posts carrying higher levels of responsibility. In other words, the police pay negotiations may have to return to the drawing board. As I have said, agreements have been arrived at after considerable discussions. It seems that they may have to be examined again. That will cause considerable concern and difficulty within the police service.
  It is an essential element of change in any organisation that those people tasked with managing that change are motivated and feel properly recognised and rewarded for their efforts. The morale of superintending ranks is currently extremely low. The pay agreement has gone some way to restoring morale. Retaining chief superintendents would further lift morale and place the organisation in the best position to implement all the major changes that are envisaged.
  The Police Federation has no wish to retain the rank of chief inspector—that is on public record—but there has been a consistent argument for the retention of chief superintendents. As I have already said, ACPO argues for the retention of both ranks.
  The advent of single-line budgets and national criteria for posts, coupled with police authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate involvement, will result in posts being available only where there is a clear need for them, thus giving the best value for money and a good deal of commonality of structure.
  In New Zealand, they did away with the ranks of chief superintendent and chief inspector. That caused great difficulty for the police in New Zealand; as a result, the new post of command superintendent has been created. Effectively, that officer is the senior superintendent: he deals with the command of the various divisions of the New Zealand police force. The name has been changed from chief superintendent to command superintendent but
  134
  the net result is exactly the same. It was found that doing away with those two ranks caused difficulties within the New Zealand police.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me about what the effect will be if the Bill becomes law—and I hope that it will not? If a chief superintendent retires, the person who takes over his command job will expect to be remunerated accordingly for the more difficult task. Under the Bill, that would not happen. The New Zealand example would apply and chaos would occur in the ranks.
  Sir Anthony Durant: The hon. Gentleman is right. In New Zealand, pay had to be increased according to experience and as a reward, so superintendents were on all sorts of pay levels. That also caused difficulties because nobody knew who was in charge. They had to introduce the post of command superintendent so that people knew who was in charge.
  On disciplinary matters, I am delighted that the Home Secretary has agreed to legal representation all the way through. That is a great concession. I compliment the Home Secretary on realising the importance of that matter to the police. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who often deals with the courts, will know that villains often wait until a case is near fruition and then lodge a lot of complaints about the police officer concerned to try to get him taken off the job. Sometimes that happens, and it must be admitted that villains are becoming increasingly sophisticated in these matters.
  A matter that still worries chief superintendents, despite some of the Home Secretary's concessions, is the fact that the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" and "misconduct" is still unclear. I urge the Home Secretary to look again at that matter and discuss it with representatives of the different associations.
  Once those matters have been resolved, we need a period of calm so that the police can get on with the job. There has been too much alteration, discussion and change. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, the police want to get out and deal with the criminals. They welcomed the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill and felt that the increase in their powers was useful. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the points that I have made. I realise that he may have made a cast-iron decision but, on behalf of the chief superintendents, I hope that he has not.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Certain phrases came to mind when I first read the Bill, which in its original form I found ghastly and in its amended form I find a little less than ghastly. The two phrases were "the Big Brother approach" and "big is beautiful": those seemed to be the themes flowing through the Bill.
  The police half of the Bill deals with amalgamations. May I declare an interest as a practising barrister? I remember when amalgamation first began in south Yorkshire. The first amalgamation to take place was of Sheffield and Rotherham, which then became the South Yorkshire force. There was no evidence of increased efficiency as the force grew in size. Sometimes, forces can become too big. One can draw an analogy with the Crown Prosecution Service, which used to have some 40 area services and now has just 13. That created its own

  135
  problems. The South Yorkshire force now covers an area that stretches from Sheffield to Hull—a massive area with Lincolnshire included in the middle. Problems inevitably arise. I do not propose to discuss the Crown Prosecution Service this afternoon—simply to draw on the mistakes made in its amalgamation and restructuring policy and to show how the same mistakes are about to be made in the Bill.
  By taking away public inquiries, the Bill seems to open the way to amalgamation in both petty sessional and police areas. At the back of some people's minds is the idea that there is a creeping concept of a national police force. If the Bill removes the element of public participation, it removes the safeguard. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are vaguely worried about the question of a national police force.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman recall a recent case in which a high-speed chase took place between Staffordshire and the west midlands in connection with a kidnap in Birmingham? The Staffordshire police were unable to communicate well with the west midlands police because they use different telecommunications equipment and frequencies. Although I do not advocate wholesale amalgamation of different police forces, would the hon. Gentleman not concede that there can be advantages in acquiring police cars or equipment through volume purchases not only in terms of cost but in terms of standardising equipment?
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman, whose interventions I always welcome, pays me the compliment of thinking that I know every case that occurs in the country, which I do not. The answer to his question lies in his final remark. Why not simply standardise equipment, thus allowing the Staffordshire police to communicate with the west midlands police? It is incredible that that has not happened, but I take what the hon. Gentleman says to be absolutely correct.
  That does not destroy the simple argument that I seek to advance—that when forces begin to be amalgamated, particularly without public participation, we see the worrying feature of a national police force: the more command is taken away from the locality, the more it is distanced from the problems of the locality. That has happened time and again in many areas. For example, as the various hospital services became area health services, command began to disappear. There is an argument in favour of bringing command back to the people. Police officers who know their locality know the problems that exist there. For that reason, removing the question of public inquiries negates the influence of public opinion. In a democracy, public opinion must always play a part in the decisions of government, whether at national or local level.
  The second part of the Bill concerns me greatly. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) for allowing me to intervene in his speech. The reduction in the number of ranks poses a great problem. Again, I draw an analogy with the Crown Prosecution Service. If we reduce the number of chief crown prosecutors, the number of deputy crown prosecutors and, in turn, the number of specialist posts, we begin to create a career blockage.
  We have seen what happened when New Zealand tried to remove chief superintendents—it resulted in chaos. Let us be realistic and admit that nobody will do a more
  136
  difficult job without getting paid for it. If a force has 15 superintendents, one of whom is to replace the chief superintendent who has just retired, the person who will replace him will want to be paid properly. So 14 other superintendents—and perhaps a 15th who may be an inspector doing a superintendent's job—will say that they deserve the appropriate remuneration, and the New Zealand problem will occur. Moreover, the problem of career development will also arise because if a chief constable goes through the ranks of serjeant, inspector, superintendent and then chief constable, he has not made many career steps. So people in the 35–45 age bracket will find that there is nowhere for them to go.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary shakes his head, but that has happened time and again. I have met people in the legal profession and the Crown Prosecution Service who have suddenly found that they have no chance of promotion and nowhere to go.
  Mr. Howard: There would be every opportunity for people in that position to obtain posts of greater responsibility—and greater remuneration to reflect it. To achieve greater responsibility or greater remuneration, it is not necessary to be promoted to a particular rank. The hon. Gentleman leaves that out of account.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary leaves out of account the fact that human beings like their posts to be called what they are. The managing director of a company likes to be called that because, although he is a director, he is also the chap who is the managing director. That is only human nature. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests is that the new scheme, stripped of the ranks that he wants to take away, will still contain posts graded all the way up the scale—they will all be called by the same name, but the increments will remain. That makes the whole exercise an utter waste of time. In a sense, the Home Secretary has conceded that it does not matter what a job is called as long as it carries with it a certain pay packet. In that case, why are we all wasting our time?
  I welcome the idea of representation at disciplinary hearings. We practising lawyers are well acquainted with the problem of the malicious complaint—I have seen it time and again. People's careers can be wrecked by the malicious complaint. Some are driven to illness; others have to live with the lurking suspicion that there is no smoke without fire. Removing that from the system will be well worth while.
  If I went further, the Home Secretary would accuse me of being a perfectionist. I am a perfectionist: I want anyone accused of anything in any court or disciplinary tribunal to be allowed to choose his or her representative. There is an old saying: "Physician, heal thyself." In other words, a lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client. To act for oneself is extraordinarily dangerous; people need an independent, trained mind to present their case. Appearing before a disciplinary tribunal they can rest assured that those who are "prosecuting" have a great deal of experience of prosecuting.
  Leaving the police half of the Bill and turning my guns on the Lord Chancellor's half of the Bill, I must tell the Minister who speaks for the Lord Chancellor that he is making the same mistake as his colleague, the Home Secretary. He is adopting the Big Brother approach. The

  137
  magistrates courts of this land have worked extremely well for many centuries. Why do we need to interfere with them? What I have already said about amalgamation is equally true here. In parts of Lincolnshire, which I know fairly well, and of the north-west, which I know equally well, local problems which are peculiar to the areas can arise. Amalgamating such areas into bigger ones serving rural communities does not work.
  The magistracy is rooted in the populations of the areas that it serves, and that is a good thing. Arbitrary amalgamation of such places runs the risk of creating something that is big and may look beautiful but will not reflect local needs. The Yorkshire-Derbyshire border is a case in point. The local knowledge of magistrates in rural areas around Bakewell and Chatsworth is different from the knowledge that magistrates will need if they operate in Sheffield, an industrial area.
  To trespass on happy memories, I might add that, years ago, someone who appeared at Bakewell on a scrap dealing charge got a fine. In Sheffield he risked imprisonment for the same charge. If he appeared in Sheffield for poaching the odd rabbit on the Wentworth estate, not much happened to him; but if he appeared before Bakewell magistrates for pinching a trout out of the river or poaching a pheasant, these were virtually hanging offences.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Never having poached a ferret myself, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman would be entirely right if he were arguing in favour of amalgamating petty sessional divisional areas —is that what he is talking about?
  Mr. Bermingham: The Minister should know what I am talking about—it is his Bill. It has been pointed out already that there has been no amalgamation of petty sessional divisions for some considerable time. And why? Because amalgamation is not needed.
  What is the purpose, under clause 63, of allowing the Lord Chancellor to place someone on a magistrates courts committee? Such committees have for years been made up of the magistrates of an area who know the area and the courts in the division. So why must an outsider be brought in? Is the person appointed to report back to the Lord Chancellor? What is his or her function to be?
  I was a trifle amazed, when I read clause 68, to learn of the need for a justices' chief executive. What is the point of it all? We are just putting in another bureaucrat. In the old days the clerk to the justice ran his own court and advised his magistrates—he had total independence. Suddenly, a chief executive to the justices rears his or her ugly head.
  New section 25(2), in clause 69, stipulates that justices' clerks may be appointed only if the Lord Chancellor says so. For years, magistrates courts committees have been picking their people. Why do they suddenly need vetting? Does Big Brother have to tell us how to do everything? Will we be told that so-and-so is unsuitable because she has the wrong views, or that so-and-so is unsuitable because he is awkward?
  Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend think that this development, associated as it seems to be with the system of magistrates being appraised by their fellow magistrates
  138
  on the bench, means that we are entering a period of uncertainty and complexity which may not be necessary or wise?
  Mr. Bermingham: Bluntly speaking, my hon. Friend is right. What was a simple and straightforward system is becoming complicated.
  The next little clause presents us with the lovely idea of fixed-term contracts which, of course, are the death knell of independence. The analysis goes: if someone works in industry and performs well, his contract will be renewed. The problem with that is that people in the professions sometimes have to take decisions that other people do not like. A justices' clerk, for the sake of argument, may encounter a rogue magistrate—we all know of such cases —and that rogue magistrate may be a powerful voice on a certain committee. The justices' clerk is on a fixed-term contract—but I note that the Minister is shaking his head.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: There is no proposal for magistrates clerks to have fixed-term contracts. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is looking at an old edition of the Bill.
  Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps I could have an assurance that there will be no fixed-term contracts for magistrates clerks. I got this copy of the Bill from the Table Office about 20 minutes ago. The committees will have a discretion to introduce such contracts. I should be happy to hear from the Minister that that is wrong.
  Mr. Taylor: There will be no fixed-term contracts by virtue of the Bill. The thrust of the Bill is to put authority for magistrates courts in the hands of magistrates courts committees, which will determine the terms of reference of their staff. If they want fixed-term contracts for their chief executives, neither the Lord Chancellor nor I will interfere because we think that that is their province and their right.
  Mr. Bermingham: When one goes fishing it is wonderful what one sometimes catches. Here we have it. Some committees will be able to introduce fixed-term contracts. That should not be allowed, and for all the reasons that I have given the Bill should be amended to ensure that it does not happen.
  The various rules about the dismissal of magistrates' clerks need to be examined to ensure the independence of those clerks, because that is needed if the system is to run properly. In a magistrates court the independence of the clerk is crucial. His advice often guides the decisions of the magistrates in respect of law. Of course, the magistrates make up their own minds on the facts, and that is the way it has always been. There should be no interference or potential interference or a power to allow—
  Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bermingham: I wish that I could have finished the sentence, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that he is anxious to retain the independence of justices' clerks in giving advice to their benches. Clause 71 relates to the independence of the justices' clerk and staff in the context of legal functions. The reassurance that the hon. Gentleman requires is in the Bill.
  Mr. Bermingham: The Minister misses the point, which is a problem that can arise when hon. Members intervene before a sentence is complete. I know that clause 71 is about independence and that the Bill appears to allow

  139
  independence. The issue I am dealing with is the one that I tickled out—the question of fixed-term contracts. If clause 71 is to be effective, the Bill must state that there cannot be fixed-term or performance-related contracts. That is why I intervened on the Home Secretary and asked whether the difficulty in collecting fines would relate to performance and the performance contract. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not know the answer and had to be briefed rather quickly. I understand that because I cannot expect the Home Secretary to know all about the Lord Chancellor's Department—any more than I can expect the Lord Chancellor's Department to know all about the Home Office or, for that matter, anything else. The minute we begin to introduce performance-related terms to the justices' clerks or the chief executive—whatever he will do—we begin to interfere with independence. I want that link to be broken.
  The Bill contains dangers. The concept that big is beautiful is being promoted, but big can be disastrous, as we have seen in many other areas. There is also promotion of the concept that the state knows best. The Lord Chancellor can put his man or woman into a particular committee and the Home Secretary will have a say in who should or should not serve and how big a committee should be.
  The system has its flaws and could be tidied up, but it has worked well. Do we need a Bill that interferes with many parts of a system that has worked well for a long time? Such a measure wastes the time of the House. The real battle ground is in ensuring that police forces have adequate funds and structures to fight crime. That can be done only by detecting criminals. The detection rate over the past 14 years shows that there is much to be desired.
  The Home Office would be better employed in ensuring that the equipment and other resources that are necessary to detect criminals are in place than in tinkering with the structures of the police service. Bearing in mind what is happening in the Crown courts and the magistrates courts, the Lord Chancellor's Department would be better employed thinking not about making the Crown court clerks an agency service but about providing adequate clerking in those courts and adequate staffing and money in the magistrates courts. Conservative Members say that that would cost money, but detection and successful prosecutions would become a deterrent and we would not need so many police officers. That would save much money, but that part of the equation does not seem to cross the minds of some Conservative Members. I do not wish the Bill a fair wind: I wish it foul seas.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: Thus far, the handling of the Bill has not exactly covered my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary or my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor with glory. I say that in sorrow rather than in anger because I have great respect for both of them. Those responsible for putting the Bill together seem to have been remarkably insensitive to the opinions of those who will be affected by it. After all, it is no small achievement to produce a measure that is greeted by the united opposition of all the police organisations, the Magistrates Association, the justices' clerks and a cross-section of knowledgeable and experienced members —including a particularly distinguished former Home Secretary—of the other place.
  140
  After pressure in the other place a number of amendments have been made, but there is scope for considerably more improvement to what is not one Bill but two. Presumably the combination was effected for the convenience of the Government's business managers. I can certainly think of no other reason. The measure deals with two different aspects of law and order, covers two Government Departments and is being dealt with in the House, as in the other place, by two different Ministers.
  The task of the police is to maintain order, investigate crime and apprehend suspects. The task of the courts is to hear the evidence, decide on guilt or innocence and, if guilt is found, to impose a sentence within the constraints of the law. The essence of our system is that those are two separate procedures. We have been trying for years to get away from the concept of "police courts". I am afraid that that has been quite unnecessarily undermined by my right hon. and learned Friends between them producing the Bill and creating completely avoidable confusion. However, it is clearly too late to split the Bill, so we have to deal with it as it is.
  Some concessions have been made in part I of the Bill, but a number of aspects still concern police officers. Most police officers belong to bodies which have a voice in the House. We have already heard one of them, in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), and I suspect that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) before the evening is out.
  The most senior police officers have no such parliamentary representation; they do not seek it, nor do they feel that they need it, as they have direct access to the Home Secretary himself—on the assumption that he will take heed of their views. I find it sad that some of them found it necessary to approach Members of Parliament because, although they say that their views have been listened to, they do not feel that they have been taken into account.
  One proposal which concerns the most senior police officers appears in clause 6. It would abolish both the rank and the office of deputy chief constable. Apparently, an assistant chief constable will not be a deputy chief constable, yet the assistant can be given all the powers and duties of a chief constable in his absence. If that is not a deputy, what is? If he is to be a deputy chief constable, why not call him that and retain the office?
  Mr. Fabricant: I wonder on how many occasions a chief constable is absent. If one assumes that it is eight, 10 or 12 weeks in a year, does it make sense to employ someone full time for just 12 weeks' work in a year?
  Mr. Sims: I should have thought that 12 weeks represents quite a substantial proportion of the year, but it would vary between chief constables. It seems highly desirable that there should be one specific person who, obviously, will have other duties within the force, but is clearly known and accepted as the deputy to the chief constable.
  We have already discussed the concern about the possible abolition of other ranks by regulation. That issue was also fully debated in another place. It is one thing to reduce the numbers in each rank—we heard from my right hon. and learned Friend that that is already happening and is a continuing process—but it is quite another to remove

  141
  certain ranks altogether. It is essential that there should be no possible confusion as to who is the most senior person present and in charge.
  The chief constable is operationally independent. Surely he should decide the ranks he needs according to local circumstances and the policing necessary in his area. He should not have a rank structure imposed upon him.
  Clause 13 places on the Secretary of State responsibility for setting national objectives for police authorities and performance targets. That worries me on two counts. First, as has already been mentioned, local circumstances clearly differ, and objectives which are appropriate in one area may not be in another. A county may have a spate of car thefts, a city may have a drug problem and a county town may suffer from an outbreak of vandalism. They cannot all work to the same national objectives and performance targets.
  Inherent in the proposal seems to be the danger that chief constables will be tempted to move their forces from one task to another simply to improve the figures and meet performance targets, even though it may not be in the best interests of efficient policing or that expected by the local community.
  Mr. David Congdon: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that the wide disparity between forces in terms of clear-up rates—between 17 per cent. and 53 per cent. according to the Audit Commission report published in 1993—is proof enough that the Secretary of State is right to include in the Bill measures that enable him to set performance targets?
  Mr. Sims: I shall move on to local targets, but I would need persuading that to meet the circumstances my hon. Friend describes it is essential to have national targets because circumstances vary so widely in different parts of the country.
  Secondly, targets imply measurable achievements and figures. Much police work is not measurable. To take a simple example, if a couple of officers are sitting in the police station and get an emergency call, they might dash out and apprehend a shop breaker or someone burgling a house. That clearly is measurable, but if those two officers had been patrolling the streets, they may have deterred the potential offenders from committing the offences in the first place. That would have been better policing, but it is not clearly measurable.
  All sorts of preventive work are not measurable. I have been particularly impressed by the junior citizen scheme, which has operated in my constituency for successive years. Schoolchildren are taken to a building where various scenarios are set up and their reactions are noted and discussed. For example, they open what they are told is the kitchen door and smoke pours out of it. What do they do? How do they react? They are told to stroll up the road as if they were on their way home from school. A man is lying down on the road asking for help. As soon as one of them goes towards him, the child is grabbed. That scenario is discussed, with the children. They decide how they should react. Such schemes are ideal for teaching children responsibility and how to behave in certain circumstances. It is good policing work, but it is not measurable.
  142
  The logical next step after performance targets is league tables. I confess that I have reservations about the value of league tables for schools; so often they do not compare like with like. I would have even stronger reservations about league tables for police forces, because conditions can be very different, even in adjacent areas.
  A further dimension has already been touched upon. If, under clause 16, the chief constable is on a fixed-term contract with performance pay, how will the existence of league tables influence his judgment? Will he still fulfil an entirely independent role, as is intended?
  If there is doubtful merit in having national objectives and performance targets, obviously it is right that there should be local ones, but how they are set is crucial. The obvious method is detailed discussion between the chief constable and the police authority. Since they have operational responsibilities, chief constables would obviously like complete agreement between themselves and the authority. That may be too much to ask, but at present clause 4 requires only that the authority shall "consult" the chief constable, who will have the eventual task of implementing the policy. The Association of Chief Police Officers would like to substitute the words "to have regard" to the views of the chief constable, which does not seem an unreasonable suggestion. Surely any policy is likely to be more successful if the objectives have been reached by agreement rather than imposed. I listened carefully to the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but I think that I am even more confused now than I was before that exchange took place. I hope that the point can be clarified before the debate is completed.
  With regard to part IV, the Lord Chancellor has gone a long way to meeting many of the concerns of the magistracy and the justices' clerks, some of which were voiced at a special conference called by them in October, so strong were their concerns, but some still remain.
  Under clause 66, the Lord Chancellor can issue directions specifying standards of performance by magistrates courts. Exactly what does that mean? Does it mean that the Lord Chancellor can specify court sizes or the frequency or length of sittings? Again, local circumstances vary and, while it is reasonable to set certain performance objectives after consultation, we must leave it to the local magistrates courts committees to decide how to meet them.
  I return to the point raised by a number of hon. Members that under clause 62 the Lord Chancellor can make orders amalgamating magistrates courts committees. It says that he shall do so after consultation, but nevertheless the power is there in the Bill for him to act unilaterally. He can do so on grounds of efficiency, but I do not find in the Bill any specification of efficiency. What are the criteria for efficiency?
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, will be well aware of the alarm that the existence of that power has provoked in south-east and south-west London among the magistrates and their clerks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) referred earlier. At one time, there was one magistrates courts committee for south-east London and another for south-west London. In 1986, they were broken up so that there was a magistrates courts committee for each of the London boroughs. That system has worked well. It has been effective and efficient.

  143
  But a year or two ago, before the Bill was published, indications were given that the Lord Chancellor was considering steps to amalgamate the magistrates courts committees in south-east and south-west London. I have in my hand a letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department dated 27 July 1993, which says:
  "The Lord Chancellor has concluded that Merton magistrates' courts committee area should be amalgamated with Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Sutton, Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames"—
  in other words, south-east and south-west London.
  The letter goes on to say:
  "An order of the Lord Chancellor is required to effect the amalgamation. At present such an order can be made only at the request of the magistrates concerned. Primary legislation"—
  the Bill before us—
  "will be introduced to enable the Lord Chancellor to initiate the order."
  There were strong objections to that proposal throughout south-east and south-west London and at the meeting that I mentioned on 9 October the Lord Chancellor was handed a petition signed by 273 justices from south-east London alone. Discussions took place about that conclusion of the Lord Chancellor, including a meeting of a number of my hon. Friends led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when we met the Lord Chancellor to convey the concerns that had been put to us.
  We had some indication that the Lord Chancellor was prepared to have second thoughts. When I inquired of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at Question Time on 14 March 1994, he said:
  "we are still exploring with the outer London action group the details of its proposals … The Lord Chancellor and I are hopeful that it will be possible to find a system that delivers our objectives in restructuring the outer London service but falls short of amalgamating committees. We are working with the service to that end."—[Official Report, 14 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 612.]
  It will be extremely helpful if my hon. Friend could say, perhaps when he replies to the debate, what the present state of play is with regard to those discussions, whether a conclusion has been reached or when we can expect some concrete result from the consultations. He will appreciate that at the moment the only thing on record is the letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department stating his conclusions.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I give my word that I shall respond to my hon. Friend in the manner that he requires during my reply. I regard my reply to him in Hansard as being very much on the record. I meant that then and I shall have more to say to him later this evening.
  Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I still suggest that, in Committee, clause 62 should be amended to ensure that no order for amalgamation can be made unless it is not only in the interests of efficiency but without detriment to the delivery of local justice.
  The Bill has not had an especially happy history so far. I give credit to the Government for at least having made the changes that they have, albeit some of them a little reluctantly. I hope that Ministers will not stop at that point because there is scope for more improvement to the Bill. I shall support the Bill on Second Reading, but, as I said, with a number of reservations, and I hope that by Third Reading I shall have none.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a remarkable speech, with not one word of which I disagree. Neither his speech nor that of the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) can have been music to the ears of Ministers, but they are a valuable reminder of the wisdom of proceeding in matters concerning the police with a strong basis of cross-party agreement.
  It is worth reflecting that, before the Police Act 1964, the present basis of Britain's police, there was a wide-ranging debate. There was a royal commission and a debate in Parliament in which the views of all parties were broadly similar. What a contrast with this Bill.
  The Bill is the first major attempt for 30 years to reshape policing in Britain. It is unnecessary, it is unwise and it is quite without friends. It was launched by the Government as a flagship, but, following its inspection in another place, it was deemed unseaworthy and subjected to unprecedented amendment. It remains gravely defective and unfit to put to sea.
  The police and magistrates courts are the bastions of society against crime and disorder. Few measures could be potentially more damaging to British society than one which undermines the effectiveness and responsiveness of the police and the magistrates courts. The Bill, by its dangerous, centralising purpose, is just such a measure. It was conceived by two senior Ministers—the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. Their common characteristic appears to be remoteness from the good sense of those who make the criminal justice system work. They display a common desire to draw into their hands the power which, under our long-tested constitutional provisions, has been carefully balanced in favour of local policing and local justice. Their only threadbare justification is their express concern to secure greater efficiency. Efficiency is necessary, but centralisation is not necessary to efficiency.
  I recall to the Home Secretary the wise words of his predecessor, Mr. Henry Brooke—the father of the present Secretary of State for National Heritage—on Second Reading of the Police Bill, which became the 1964 Act, which is the secure base on which policing has been conducted ever since. Mr. Brooke reminded the House that the Royal Commission on the Police had recommended that the Home Secretary should be made legally responsible for police efficiency, but that all political parties had rejected that recommendation. He said:
  "To support such a specific responsibility as the Royal Commission recommended the Home Secretary would need powers of detailed direction which could not, in my view, live along with the continuance of a system of local forces. I see the police service continuing to develop as a partnership between central and local government; not as a service in which local authorities or chief constables act as agents of the Home Secretary."—[Official Report, 26 November 1963; Vol. 685, c. 89.]
  That careful balance is jeopardised by the Bill.
  The most offensive instrument that the Home Secretary has chosen to impose his will on local policing is the power that he will take under clause 13 to determine national policing objectives. That is coupled with the provision in clause 4 requiring that those national objectives be included in policing plans for local areas. To secure their implementation, the Bill provides for performance targets

  145
  to be linked to the attainment of those objectives in local policing plans. To secure police compliance, the pay of senior officers will be performance-related.
  There are no advantages in that scheme for the public, the police or the Home Secretary himself. For the public, there will be a blurring of local accountability and a loss of influence over local policing objectives, which could damage the trust between police and public which is so crucial to effective policing. Any perception that the police are pursuing arrest quotas to meet their targets could, for example, breed fear of wrongful or unreasonable arrest. Paradoxically, it could also damage police effectiveness. Criminals will be aware that the police are occupying themselves arresting burglars, for instance, because they are the national target. Criminals may simply turn to car crime in the belief that the backs of the police are turned.
  For the police, there will be a loss of flexibility and a diminution in the chief constable's authority. Some targets are already set by the police themselves—for example, response times or measures of satisfaction from surveys of victims and witnesses. The police set and pursue those targets as a means of improving their own service.
  Some targets cannot and should not be set—clear-up and arrest rates in particular. There is a world of difference between the work of a police officer in responding to 9999 calls and talking to victims and enforcing the law. A police officer's legal powers are, in the words of the 1962 royal commission, original and not delegated. No one—not even the Home Secretary—can lawfully require an officer to arrest anyone.
  For the Home Secretary—who is, willy-nilly, establishing league tables of performance—that provision will unleash constant criticism that his national objectives are not those of the nation, still less of the locality. The Home Secretary is already under fire for apparently differing with the Prime Minister over his introductory national targets, in not treating the elimination of drug crime as a national objective.
  A virtue of the present tripartite structure of policing is that it recognises the danger to civil society of placing in political hands the extraordinary powers of the police. Police officers alone possess the power of arrest and detention. They intervene in private matters between individuals. They ask questions and can expect answers. They make requests and can expect compliance. They may use force on our behalf. They are ordinary citizens, but they have extraordinary powers.
  From time to time, those powers come under strain. In the last decade, for example, during the miners' strike and the violent demonstrations against the poll tax, our policing system remained resilient and ultimately proof against the charge of political motivation. The success of the police and public confidence in their fairness rests on public perception. As Lord Carr of Hedley said in the other place, they are "our police", not "the police".
  The second virtue of the present tripartite balance is that it recognises the inappropriateness of trying centrally to measure the effectiveness of particular policing activities. The police are not a commercial organisation whose efficiency can be measured like profits in crimes solved per pound spent. An officer who defuses a punch-up is not a bad officer because he fails to add a few charges to the record. Nor is an officer who comforts a victim a bad
  146
  officer because she chooses not to join her colleagues in chasing the attacker. An officer who persuades schoolchildren of the dangers of drugs is no less important than the officer who stalks the dealers outside the school. High arrest rates alone do not a good police force make.
  The third virtue of the present tripartite system is that it allows chief constables and police authorities to establish their own priorities for the policing of their areas. The 1964 Act gives chief constables, who are appointed by their local police authorities, the legal authority to direct and control the force under their command. The Act also requires police authorities to secure an adequate and efficient force. That creates an identity of interest between the chief constable and police authority.
  Controls over policing policy available to police authorities and to the Home Secretary are indirect. The system relies more on influence than legal force to encourage locally managed and locally sensitive policing. I regret that the Home Secretary did not take the opportunity in the Bill to underpin and enhance the effectiveness of local policing, for there are glimmers of sense in some of its proposals.
  The concept of a local policing plan is valuable. If it is truly local, it could form a type of contract—a statement of priorities—between the police and public. I welcome the proposal in clause 2 that all police authorities should be established as independent corporate identities. That should avoid another threat to the independence of the police, of which we saw a nasty example in Derbyshire, where the police authority is wholly subordinated to the financial dictates of the local authority.
  I also welcome the lifting of the central control of police numbers—the establishment of particular authorities. But there, too, the Home Secretary points in two directions, as he seems hell-bent on following the bad advice of Sir Patrick Sheehy by centrally reducing the number of ranks available to chief constables. Enough has been said about that by the hon. Members for Reading, West and for Chislehurst for me to refrain at this stage from adding my objections. We shall return to the matter of rank in Committee.
  Although the Bill is almost wholly unnecessary, the Home Secretary could have used it as a vehicle for reinforcing the effectiveness of local policing by writing into the requirement that the local police plans be published a specific obligation to co-ordinate and promote practical crime prevention measures within its area. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will seek to amend the Bill to achieve that purpose.
  I deal now with part II of the Bill, which deals with Scotland. The structure of the Scottish police is laid down in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. The Government of the day did not simply make an administrative omission when they failed to run Scotland into the Police Act 1964. They reflected the fact that Scotland has a separate legal and criminal justice system from England which needs, therefore, to be treated separately. Yet the Bill runs the two together as though there were no such difference. The consequence will be that, as with the Criminal Justice Bill recently, Scottish Members will play a limited part in the shaping of the Government's legislation. That is constitutionally unacceptable. It strengthens the case for a Scottish Parliament.
  Spliced on to the Bill—the hon. Member for Chislehurst drew attention to the misfortune of these two matters being handled in the same legislation—are the provisions for

  147
  managing magistrates courts. They are no more welcome to the magistracy than are the police provisions to the police. It is true that the Lord Chancellor has already met some of the objections, but he has not removed the reasonable concern about future political meddling in the administration of local justice.
  The efficiency of the magistrates courts is crucial. Some 80 per cent. of the 2 million people who were prosecuted in England and Wales in 1991 went before a magistrate. The trebling in volume of the cases before the magistrates courts in 50 years has increased the challenge. But the Lord Chancellor has more than a managerial problem. The state of the criminal law itself, uncodified, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Law Commission, contributes to the complexity and length of trials. The Home Office's own figures show that, in 1992, the average number of days from first listing to disposal for indictable offences has risen from 41 days in 1985 to 64. Many of those facing trial will be on bail during that time—many of them still out there committing crimes. The less time that they have to do so, the better.
  At the centre of the debate, provoked by the Government's proposals in the Bill, sit the justices' clerks, who are responsible for giving legal advice to the lay magistracy. They are, however, also responsible for the management of the courts. That includes, for example, the scheduling of cases, which has a direct impact on the quality of justice. Here, as with the police, subsidiarity should apply. Those best placed to secure the efficient management of courts within a locality are the courts themselves, acting in concert through the magistrates courts committees. Justices' clerks hold their posts at the pleasure of the courts committees and it seems natural that they should be answerable to them, and them alone, for the efficiency with which they discharge their duties.
  Yet the Lord Chancellor will, through the Bill, be able to involve himself in these local matters. He will be able to appoint two of his friends, who need not be magistrates, to every local committee. The courts committees are to be subject to performance objectives and targets set by the Lord Chancellor. He is also to acquire for himself the unlimited power to amalgamate court areas without any legal duty to justify his reasoning or pay regard to the views of those involved. That level of intervention is unacceptable. There needs to be a new constitutional settlement to protect the independence of the judiciary and secure the greater accountability of responsible Ministers for the management of their budgets for the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor in particular has an anomalous role as the head of the judiciary and a partisan member of the Cabinet. The functions must be separated.
  I accept that the Minister who speaks in this House for the Lord Chancellor is right. He has a third function. But it is not one that impinges directly on the administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary. Those functions of the Lord Chancellor should be separated. A Minister of Justice in the Commons should be appointed to secure the proper administration of the criminal justice system and take charge of the enactment of a modern codified criminal law. The present Lord Chancellor, who, in some respects, is less political than most, has shown himself to be surprisingly insensitive to the dangers in the duality of his role.
  To my mind, the Bill embodies a dangerous tendency —that the public will see their local police forces and magistrates courts drifting out of their reach. Yet local
  148
  policing is good policing, and local justice is also where justice is best done. To centralise in the manner proposed is wrong in conception and would be damaging in practice. We shall oppose it.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I applaud my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his team for the many new initiatives that they are taking to reverse the rise in crime, which is threatening the very quality of the daily lives of our constituents—and, of course, I welcome the fall in recorded crime which was announced last week.
  After 14 continuous years of extra funding for the police, the Government are now right to pause and consider how better value for money can be obtained from existing resources through improved police structures and organisation. When a chief constable admits that the scenes of 60 per cent. of burglaries in his area have not been visited, yet police manpower is used to crack down on car licence dodgers, it must be right to review police priorities.
  I mean in no way to criticise our police forces. The increase in police manpower since 1979 of 16,600—an average of 1 per cent. a year—lags a long way behind the rise in crime during that period. Our police have been running ever faster just to stand still, frustrated by ever-increasing paperwork, the apparent leniency of the courts and the perceived inadequacy of the law, particularly towards young offenders.
  I pay tribute to the local police in Dorset, where crime fell and the rate of detection rose last year. Despite that, serious crimes of violence and robbery rose by 10 per cent., officers were shot and wounded on the streets of our conurbation and, for the first time, IRA terrorism threatened residents and holidaymakers during the height of our holiday season last summer. Yet the new Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council was prepared to reduce our police budget, by £500,000, and police manpower. What utter irresponsibility.
  I echo the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) to the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has responded to the concerns expressed by the police about some of the recommendations of the Sheehy report. They are far happier about those recommendations now.
  Mr. Shersby: I am aware that Dorset's local authorities have reduced the police budget by half a million pounds. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of the likely impact of that on the security of his constituents?
  Mr. Atkinson: I assure my hon. Friend that, although the local authorities were prepared to reduce police resources by that amount so that they could be spent elsewhere, my constituents and those of other Conservative Members did not allow them to get away with it.
  I welcome the streamlining of the composition of police authorities, and the amendments introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend to allow chairmen and the majority of representatives to be elected by authorities. I must say that I have not been impressed by the input of local democracy in the present authorities, whose response to local needs and demands seems most frequently to be yet more calls for more police on the beat. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend, they do not give much thought to the more efficient use of existing manpower and resources.

  149
  The new smaller, stronger authorities will have a greater commitment to achieving locally the targets and objectives that the Home Secretary will set nationally, on the advice of and in consultation with chief constables. But—I hope that I do not misunderstand the Bill's proposals—the chief constable, not the police authority, must ultimately be personally responsible for both the planning and the undertaking of operational matters. I look forward to hearing an assurance to that effect from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I look to the new authorities to pursue bolder initiatives in creating safer public areas—for instance, the installation of video cameras, and the injection of new life and direction in our neighbourhood watch schemes. I hope that they will build on the excellent "crimeline" confidential information services in newspapers such as the Bournemouth Advertiser, which is published in my area. Such schemes do very good work in requesting the public to come forward with the confidential information that the police need in order to track down criminals.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that some 90,000 neighbourhood watch schemes have been set up in the United Kingdom? Should we not congratulate citizens on taking responsibility into their own hands and working alongside the police?
  Mr. Atkinson: I have news for my hon. Friend: if he checks the facts, he will find that 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes have been set up.
  My hon. Friend is right to point out that those schemes are making a major contribution to the combating of crime in our communities. It must be said, however, that there remain too many unsecured homes that constitute a soft touch for the burglar, especially the homes of vulnerable elderly people living alone.
  I am very surprised that insurance companies do not encourage the installation of continental-style shutters: such shutters, which are widespread in Europe, strike me as the best protection available for domestic property. Surely burglar alarms and shutters should be standard on all new premises, just as alarms are now standard in all new motor cars.
  Once again, the Government have responded positively to the fear of magistrates courts that their judicial independence might be threatened. My local magistrates courts committee in Dorset is much happier now that the terms of employment of its justices clerk and the appointment of its chairman remain at its discretion, although it is still anxious for the work of the proposed courts inspectorate—which would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor—to be seen to be wholly independent of his Department in the making of recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will clarify the grey area between judicial functions and administration.
  My local committee is also concerned about the possibility that, if boroughs such as mine in Bournemouth and neighbouring Christchurch revert to their former county of Hampshire—I understand that both authorities will submit proposals to that effect to the Local Government Boundary Commission—the new magistrates court committee area that might result will no longer coincide with the area and boundaries of the police and
  150
  probation authorities. That would make liaison between them much more difficult. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that point as well.
  Finally, let me repeat a complaint that I have made in the House many times before—on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), other hon. Members representing party conference towns, and their police authorities. It concerns the continuing extra financial burden imposed on council tax payers by the cost of making our national leaders secure at their annual party conferences. The complaint was most recently made just a couple of weeks ago by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), in an attempt to amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Although she made her complaint to the right Ministers, I thought that she was seeking to amend the wrong Bill: this is the Bill that deals with police funding. Anyway, her amendment was negatived.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will allow our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State to receive a group representing all three of the county councils involved—Dorset, Sussex and Lancashire—as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West in his letter of 30 March.
  Our principal argument remains that the 1984 Brighton bomb tragedy made this a national issue whose costs should be borne entirely by the nation. As I said earlier, last summer the IRA targeted Bournemouth—my constituency
  —for the first time. Fortunately, there were no casualties, but the incident brought it home to us that we on the mainland are also on the front line in the war against terrorism.
  What thought has been given to supplementing police manpower with troops from our armed services to man the security zones that are now a feature of all major party conferences? That would reduce both the number of police required—which includes police from other counties, at overtime rates of pay—and the cost to the council tax payer. It is one of the proposals that I wish to put to my right hon. and noble Friend when we meet him.
  I warmly welcome a Bill that, together with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, has already done much to allay our constituents' fears that not enough is being done to combat crime. I look forward to safer communities, and a reduction in crime that will restore the confidence of those constituents.
  6.27 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: It did not occur to me that the Home Secretary possessed a touch of comic genius until I heard him in Home Office Questions the other day. When congratulated on the comprehensive nature of his retreat on the Bill, he said:
  "The changes that have been made to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill are changes of detail. The principles are intact, and they will deliver us the objectives that we have always sought to achieve."—[Official Report, 10 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 387.]
  Yet what is happening today? Every time that issues of principle are raised, we are told, "Ah, those have been resolved. They are no longer issues of principle; they have been taken care of. Some of the detail remains, but there is nothing to worry about." I prefer the remarks of the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers, who, when the Bill left the other place, said:

  151
  "Your Lordships were good enough to explain your anxieties … in a manner which even the most, shall I say, dim-witted Minister could not fail to understand."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 1994; Vol. 553, c. 796.]
  It is well to remember for a moment the sense of outrage that the Bill occasioned when it first surfaced. Other hon. Members have referred to the way in which other organisations responded to the Bill. They responded in that way because people who understood and were involved in this area sensed that something of major constitutional importance was taking place.
  A whole tradition of running the police and the local constabulary—enshrined in the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the Police Act 1964 and the Local Government Act 1888—was endangered by what the Government proposed and the way in which they proposed it.
  As has been said, in 1964 there was a royal commission and three years of the most detailed inquiry and discussion about the proper arrangements for policing. But none of that took place in this case; it was not thought necessary.
  In the Bill, we also have the quite illegitimate amalgamation of the police and the magistracy. Given the inappropriate amalgamations that are consequential to the Bill, perhaps that is a rather telling kind of amalgamation.
  There is something quite uncanny about the range and variety of opposition that this measure has called forth. Even a Government who managed, in the same week, to alienate both the Royal British Legion and Dame Vera Lynn still have to be admired for their ability to alienate at the same time every organisation concerned with policing and the magistracy.
  As we consider the Bill, it is well to remember what was said by those who understand these things when the Bill arrived in the other place. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor—it was quite exceptional for the Lord Chief Justice to talk in this way—said:
  "A cult seems to have developed and to be invading the whole of the public sector whereby fixed-term contracts and performance pay are seen as the panaceas which will give us managerial efficiency. They may indeed be useful tools in a purely managerial context, but in a judicial context, or where there exists a judicial element, they can have no place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 476.]
  Perhaps we might refer to the remarks of a couple of former Conservative Home Secretaries. Viscount Whitelaw talked about a "major change" in the "whole history" of policing in this country and called it a "very dangerous move indeed". Lord Carr said:
  "If I were still Home Secretary today, I would not accept the offer of powers of this kind. I would resign rather than accept them".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 1994; Vol. 551, c. 491.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I clarify for the hon. Gentleman that it is not in order to make direct quotations from Members of another place unless they are quotations from a Minister. That applies only to quotations in this Session. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman was making indirect or direct quotations, but I make that point.
  Dr. Wright: I am grateful to you for making that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fortunately, I have traversed so far in the wrong direction that it is now irremediable; but I understand and accept what you say.
  Against those words that were never spoken, I should like to celebrate—as we all should—the House of Lords. Perhaps it is most appropriate for someone on this side of
  152
  the House to say that. Let us be quite honest: if this monstrous Bill had started in this place and been driven through in the way that Bills are driven through the House, it would now be inflicted upon the police and the magistracy of this country.
  It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to celebrate the changes that have taken place. Having noted their behaviour in relation to everything that comes before the House, I am fairly certain that they would not be so robust if the original version of the Bill were before us now. So let us celebrate the House of Lords, because it certainly deserves to be celebrated.
  Upon the Bill leaving the House of Lords after Third Reading, the unanimous view of the noble Lords was—I shall not quote directly—that this Bill, which they had done something to save and insert some sanity into, was still unsatisfactory, and that measures still had to be taken to make it more workable. I refer particularly to the central unsatisfactory element of what remains: the proposals relating to the constitution of police authorities.
  I hope that it is quite inconceivable that the constitution of a police authority of such Byzantine complexity could ever leave the House in the way that it has entered it. That would do the most terrible damage to an efficient and effective police force and to its status in the local community.
  I will not quote him directly, but the noble Lord Harris of Greenwich—who was responsible for the amendment that saved us from the original horror of the Bill in relation to the constitution of police authorities, and landed us with the Byzantine mess that we have now—said of the Bill as it left the other place that that was the price we had to pay for damage limitation. But let us hope that we can still sort it out further down the road.
  Mr. David Trimble: In view of the horror that the hon. Gentleman expresses about the present proposals, what would he say if he were faced with a proposal to have a police authority whose members were all appointed by a Secretary of State?
  Dr. Wright: Although I do not want to be totally diverted by that intervention, the resentment and antipathy felt on this side of the water about the extension of appointed government in place of elected government is felt doubly in the north of Ireland.
  Let us think for a moment about why the complexity of these police authorities is so undesirable and unworkable. We have an extraordinarily elaborate and cumbersome procedure which is guaranteed to alienate at least 10 people —those who are the rejects from the Home Secretary's cull. We have no idea what will happen about casual vacancies. In every respect, the procedure is not sustainable. Whatever else the Committee stage of the Bill achieves, I hope that it brings forward a proposal which is at least workable, because the present proposal is not.
  There was a much more sensible way in which to proceed. I speak as someone who was, and is, very keen on trying to reconstitute police authorities in new and interesting ways. The germ of progress in this area is to be found in the White Paper itself, which says:
  "The membership will not be confined to those who have been able to go into local government or to sit on the bench."
  I agree with that sentiment. For a number of years, I have wanted to explore new ways of reconstituting police

  153
  authorities—rooted in their local authorities and anchored in their local communities, but bringing in far more people to represent the diverse strands of local communities.
  Starting with that germ of a good idea, all that the Government had to do was allow the local committees to become more genuinely representative of the community. The Government could even have had the option to specify the categories of people they wanted on the authorities, as they have done with every other kind of public body. That was the way forward, but the Government failed to take it, which is why we have this mess.
  We have this mess because we suffer from the disease of "ministerialitis"—ministerial fingerprints have to be put on everything that moves. That is the contemporary curse that afflicts the Bill, as it afflicts so many other pieces of legislation introduced by the Government. In fact, there are two curses, and perhaps I may spend a little time on each.
  Earlier today, someone said that the Bill was a microcosm, or perhaps a further extension, of the Government's public service reforms. In some ways it is, and in some ways it is not. Perhaps the two ways in which it is and the two ways in which it is particularly dangerous are due to the fact that it suffers from the curse of centralism and from the curse of managerialism, a managerialism that was born in the private sector, a philosophy which it was believed could simply and easily be translated into public services. Both approaches are misguided, and both are the source of error in the Bill.
  In this context, centralism means another instalment of the patronage state. There are about 20,000 or 25,000 elected councillors across the country, but already about 60,000 people have been appointed directly by Ministers to run public bodies and public services. Indeed, the new magistracy, as those people have been described, often have no local roots; they are certainly not elected; and they lack any organic connection with the local community in which they are appointed.
  The only way in which Ministers know how to respond to the organisation of public services is to wonder how they can appoint some of their own people to run them. We have seen how that works under the present Home Secretary. When he wanted to appoint a prison ombudsman, a number of distinguished candidates presented themselves. A short list was assembled—I shall not embarrass the people involved by naming them, but they were all very distinguished people. The problem was that none of them was politically acceptable to the Home Secretary, so we had to wait and wait, until, rather like waiting for the puff of smoke in the Vatican, a retired admiral was found last week.
  Of course, there is nothing wrong with retired admirals but the irony is that the choice took so long and many were rejected before the Home Secretary could find someone who was politically acceptable for that post. That is an example of centralism, amalgamation and "the Minister knows best", which is why he is alienating every constituency in sight.
  I could not even begin to recount the feelings of magistrates in Staffordshire, who are now being told that the Lord Chancellor has decided that they should be amalgamated with the magistrates in Warwickshire. When I asked the Lord Chancellor how that could happen, and suggested that it would be unhelpful to the magistracy in
  154
  Staffordshire, I received an extraordinary letter from his representative on earth, who said that the problem was that the Warwickshire magistracy was so inefficient that his Department wished to amalgamate it with the Staffordshire magistracy. That is profoundly insulting to Warwickshire and Staffordshire magistrates.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Would my hon. Friend let me have a copy of that letter, because I am sure that magistrates in Warwickshire, many of whom are Conservative councillors, would be interested to know what the Lord Chancellor and his representative on earth think of them?
  Mr. John M. Taylor: While he is about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could let me have a copy, too.
  Dr. Wright: I am rather alarmed to discover that the earthly representative does not even remember the exchange, because it was thought to be one of particular interest, significance and danger to the magistrates in my constituency and my county.
  Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that the Lord Chancellor, who spends more time north of the border than south of it, relies on Shakespeare's account of the magistrates of Warwickshire, and has in mind Justice Shallow?
  Dr. Wright: I am sure that that is an excellent intervention, if only I could understand it. I move quickly on.
  One of the curses of this wretched Bill is that of centralism and patronage. I should like to pass on to the House a sentence that I came across only the other day. It comes from what I think is the only detailed book to be written about ministerial patronage in Britain. It was written 30 years ago, by someone called Richards, and contains the following sentence:
  "At present the abuses are not grave due to adequate ethical standards in the conduct of public business … Perhaps the greatest danger for the future is the possibility that one party will exercise uninterrupted power for too long a period."
  That is a very prescient remark from a rather grey academic, who thought that, on the whole, the way in which patronage worked was acceptable, but that the danger would occur when Ministers thought that they were the state and began to appoint their own people in a partisan way to every public body they controlled. That is precisely what has happened; it is precisely what underpins the Bill; and it is precisely why people are so antagonistic towards it.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour, for giving way. Will he concede that patronage is sometimes confused with public service? He will know that, in Cannock as well as in Lichfield, it is the Conservative—not Labour—members of local associations who play an active role in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and in the Women's Royal Volunteer Service. They do so not because of patronage but for reasons of public service.
  Dr. Wright: I am grateful for that neighbourly intervention, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman makes my point rather than his. The tradition of disinterested public service, which was often not about political parties, has been corrupted by the partisan abuse of patronage. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that danger, because

  155
  it is a House of Commons matter; and it will still be a House of Commons matter when shadow Ministers become Ministers.
  The second curse underpinning the Bill is the translation of a managerial business philosophy to a service for which it is entirely inappropriate. It is a microcosm of a tendency towards public service "reform"; it is the move to a contract culture, the setting aside of traditions of professionalism, of trust and of local and political accountability and their replacement with short-term contracts, performance-related pay, performance indicators, audits, targets and chief executives. In a sense, all that is contained in the Bill, which is why it is a microcosm of the trend towards public service changes.
  I ask hon. Members to reflect on a statement that is all the more remarkable because it comes from an accountant. In The Independent last week, the Coopers and Lybrand fellow at the London School of Economics, who has just written an interesting pamphlet for the think tank Demos, wrote:
  "According to opinion poll evidence, politicians and accountants are distrusted far more than professionals. In practice, much of the audit explosion has involved a very distrusted group—politicians—using an only slightly less distrusted group—accountants—to tighten control over groups which still enjoy relatively high public esteem, such as doctors and police."
  I ask hon. Members to reflect on that wise remark, especially as it came from an accountant, and to reflect on whether the introduction of such measures enhances the standing and the legitimacy of public services or erodes them.
  One has only to ask whether the fact that the chief executive of the Child Support Agency earns performance-related pay enhances the legitimacy of the agency or erodes it. The answer is perfectly clear. In so far as we extend the same principles across the public services as a whole, the same results will follow. Those principles are wholly inappropriate for police and magistrates.
  I recently spent a Friday night on patrol with the Cannock sub-division of Staffordshire police, going from incident to incident. We went to a domestic violence dispute, which was intelligently sorted out, and then to a fracas at a public house, which was magnificently sorted out. We went to a car that had been broken into, and then dealt with the people who had suffered that fate. Possibly none of those incidents would have figured in any kind of performance tables or targeting that one could have devised for the police force, but they were all examples of intelligent, prudent and humane policing of the kind that sustains local people and local communities.
  My closing theme is the translation of a business ethic into public services, whose reductio ad absurdum is to be found in clause 23, headed:
  "Acceptance of gifts and loans",
  which says:
  "The terms on which gifts or loans are accepted … may include terms providing for the commercial sponsorship of any activity of the police authority or of the police force maintained by it."
  What an extraordinary statement. We have only to think what it might mean. Will there be police cars sponsored by Group 4, all the better to get away in?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of SPACE—Staffordshire Activity and Community Enterprise—which is designed to keep young people busy in the summer. I have been to Alton Towers with the young
  156
  people on the scheme, as doubtless he has, too. The Staffordshire police would certainly welcome sponsorship for that admirable scheme, which other police forces should also operate.
  Dr. Wright: Excellent community schemes such as the SPACE scheme are exactly the sort of activity that will suffer if we go down a certain route on reward and performance in the police service. That is not my view alone; the police themselves say that. Having spent a good deal of time with the Staffordshire police, and having discussed the Bill with them, I should be happy to relay in private some of the more robust sentiments that police officers expressed about it.
  We could have cars sponsored by Group 4, and uniforms by Kwik-Fit. After all, Kwik-Fit fitters are the quickest, and that would be consistent with performance-related pay and target hitting. And at the moment of arrest, there could be a new way of putting things: "This arrest comes with the sponsorship of Bloggs and Bloggs, your friendly local solicitors, who will be glad to do you a service any time you like."
  There we see the future—the translation of that philosophy to a core public service. Perhaps the best final comment comes from Sir John Smith, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who is also president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. He may also be the man who arrested me about 20 years ago, but I am not entirely sure about that. Writing for the Fabian Society, Sir John Smith recently said:
  "We must never lose sight of the fact that the police service is a public service, indeed a social service in the widest sense. It operates with the consent of the community it serves and can never be run or evaluated on purely commercial lines. There are qualitative aspects to public policing that can only be assessed subjectively and not by productivity measures alone. Its fate must never be left to be decided solely by market forces".
  I hope that the authority of that remark gives it some credence, even with Conservative Members.
  As I have said, there are considerable difficulties and dangers associated with the Bill. But there is a different model available—a model that builds on the old tripartite tradition but extends it into local communities; a model that treats the police as a local public service, and builds on all the considerable changes that the police service has achieved in the past 10 years or so.
  That model builds on the principles enunciated by Lord Scarman in his 1981 report—the
  "two well known principles of policing a free society"
  one of which he called "consent and balance" and the other "independence and accountability". The sad thing is that we—or rather the Government, in the Bill's approach to the organisation of policing—have lost sight of those principles.
  The community will be strong if the police are strong, but equally the police will be strong if the community is strong. If we are serious about dealing with the factors that lead to the erosion of communities and the disintegration of our society, we must be serious about doing all we can to re-establish some living, real, authentic meaning to that notion of community.
  It is interesting that, when the House passes legislation, at the end of each Bill we have to say how much it will cost, both in financial terms and in manpower terms. I suggest that we should have a third category. We should have to say how much each Bill will cost in community terms. Ultimately, it is our ability to renew our

  157
  communities that constitutes our ability to renew our society. The Bill forgets that. At best it is an irrelevance, and at worst a dangerous irrelevance.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I point out that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, and that speeches will have to be a little shorter if many of them are not to be disappointed.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and I wish to declare that interest.
  The Bill is the most significant police Bill since Parliament passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 10 years ago. I had always hoped that such a Bill would be the result of the deliberations of a royal commission. For some years, I have pressed Home Secretaries of the day to set up another royal commission. I think that the last one was the Willink Royal Commission of more than 30 years ago. Royal commissions have not been in vogue very much in the past few years, although we have had a splendid Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reflects great credit on those who served on it. However, the Bill is the result of the thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office and we must consider it as it stands.
  I am especially glad that the Bill was introduced in another place, because that is a revising Chamber. Those who serve with great distinction in another place have the opportunity to bring their considerable experience of such matters to bear on legislation. The House of Commons may reflect that no fewer than four previous Home Secretaries were able to offer their advice, as well as a number of other senior and distinguished Members of the House of Lords.
  The Bill contains proposals for far-reaching changes in the organisation of police forces, for the establishment of new, free-standing police authorities and for the composition of those authorities. I welcome the aspect of those free-standing police authorities which confers on chief constables and members of the police authorities much more local decision making on how public money is spent on the policing of the country. It will be for those chief constables, in consultation and co-operation with their police authorities, to decide how public money is spent, to determine priorities, to decide whether money is to be spent on computers or vehicles and where the priorities lie in manpower. All those powers are being delegated.
  I welcome that change, as do a large number of senior and junior police officers, because they feel—as I feel—that those decisions should be taken locally and not in the Home Office. Whatever the controversy surrounding that decision, it is basically right to delegate to the police authorities and to the chief constables the decisions for determining priorities. I want us to get away from the endless wrangling about police establishments. It should be decided locally. Having said that, we all know that
  158
  police authority budgets will not be open ended. They will be capped, but within that capping there will be considerable opportunities for flexibility in determining priorities.
  The new police authorities will not be elected police authorities of the kind which were talked of a few years ago and which, as we have heard today from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), are no longer the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  We are considering a new kind of free-standing police authority, which, it has been determined after much debate in another place, shall have a membership of 17. Nine of the members will be local councillors who will reflect the balance of the parties, for the time being, on the council or councils that appoint those councillors to the police authority. That means that the councillors appointed will not only be from one political party, but will reflect the membership of the council or councils concerned. So, even in local authority areas where one party or another dominates—as we all know, there are a number—there will be opportunities for local councillors representing minority parties to serve on their local police authority. That is absolutely right. There will be three magistrates and, as we also heard, five members who will be co-opted by the councillors and the magistrates from a list to be supplied by the Home Secretary.
  The hon. Member for Sedgefield had a good deal of fun in his speech while describing the rather convoluted manner in which those individuals are to be co-opted. Of course, that formula emerged from debates in another place. Although I must say that I agree that it is a little convoluted, I still do not think that it is too complex or that it will prevent local councillors and magistrates from having a good deal of choice about whom they co-opt. Above all, they will have the right to elect their own chairman, which is very important.
  What sort of people will the Home Secretary be looking for when he prepares his list? It would be interesting to hear a little about that from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his winding-up speech, if he has a moment or two, because there are many people in the community who would come forward to serve on police authorities. As I thought I heard one of my hon. Friends say a few moments ago, there will be a lot more admirals about in months to come. That may well be so. I have a close connection in my constituency with the Royal Air Force and I can think of one or two suitable senior RAF officers. They have valuable experience and would be able to contribute meaningfully towards the operation of the police authorities. However, I am not for a moment suggesting that membership should be confined to ex-service men or women.
  One aspect of the Bill which is of special interest to me as an hon. Member who represents a London constituency —as I look around the Chamber, I do not think that there are any other hon. Members here who represent London—
  Sir Anthony Durant: One has just left.
  Mr. Shersby: One of my hon. Friends has just left.
  May I say a word or two about the proposed Metropolitan Police Advisory Committee, which is not referred to in the Bill, but which, as has been made clear by the Home Secretary, will be set up? As I understand the position, it will not be a police authority of the kind referred to in the Bill, but it will be simply an advisory

  159
  committee of about 10 or 12 individuals who will advise the Home Secretary in his capacity as the police authority for the Metropolitan police area. They will, to a large extent, replace the advice that the Home Secretary receives from the civil servants in the Home Office.
  Bearing in mind the fact that the police advisory committee will be set up by administrative means rather than by legislation, it would be appropriate if the House knew something about it, about the kind of people to be appointed, about the extent to which it will be required, if at all, to set any local objectives and the extent to which it will be subject to any directives, performance targets or other directions of any kind by the Home Secretary.
  Londoners do not want a police authority of the kind proposed for other parts of the country, for several powerful reasons. The Metropolitan police are uniquely responsible for the area covering the seat of government; they are responsible for diplomatic and royalty protection and other unique aspects of policing that do not apply elsewhere in the country. Nevertheless, I think that the setting up of the committee is of interest to the House and is certainly of interest to every hon. Member representing a London constituency. I should like to know more about it.
  The Bill gives the police authorities the powers to set local policing objectives after consulting the chief constable. There has been a certain amount of misunderstanding about that proposal among officers in various parts of the country. In his speech this afternoon, the Home Secretary went some way towards trying to clear that up.
  I want to refer again to one or two aspects of this matter, as it is vital that they be crystal clear. Police authorities, in setting local policing objectives, must have regard to any objectives set by the Home Secretary of the day and to any code of practice that he may issue or any direction that he may make. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that this would not change the operational responsibilities of the chief police officers concerned. I was very glad to hear that. It is vital that chief officers should be operationally responsible for what their members do. We saw this during the miners' strike, and, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) pointed out, it occurred again during the poll tax disturbances in London not very long ago. The operational independence of chief constables must be maintained, and the relationship between a chief constable, his local police authority and the Home Secretary must be clear beyond any shadow of doubt.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. No doubt he welcomes the fact that clause 5 reproduces a provision of the Police Act, which states:
  'The police force … shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable".
  Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I welcome that very much indeed. In a sense, there is a slight contradiction between that provision and the current Bill, which requires the chief constable to take account of targets set by local police authorities. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will make it clear beyond peradventure that local police officers will have a powerful input to the published police plan. That plan will be the basis for policing of the area, and it must be clear that both the members of the police authority and the chief constable have agreed to it—that it is not being imposed.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Immediately after the words to which the Minister has referred there is the following provision:
  "In discharging his functions, every chief constable shall have regard to the local policing plan issued by the police authority".
  Mr. Shersby: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, like myself, is a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. That is the point that I am drawing to my hon. Friend's attention. I hope that it can be cleared up during the Committee stage.
  There is an aspect of this matter about which I was not going to speak, but which ought to be mentioned. I refer to the fact that, in future, chief police officers will be on short-term agreements. One can envisage a chief police officer on a short-term agreement—a person with perhaps quite a number of years to go before he or she might expect to retire—feeling under pressure from the local police authority to accept and adopt certain targets. As human beings, such people must be concerned about their careers. I hope very much that nothing in the Bill will put a chief police officer under pressure to accept or be party to local targets about which he or she might otherwise feel unenthusiastic.
  I turn now to a totally different subject—the proposal to change the arrangements for the amalgamation of police forces. These arrangements, which are contained in clause 12, will enable my right hon. and learned Friend to carry through a major reorganisation of the police service—something that would be of very considerable interest to the population of the area concerned. We have heard today that my right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to carry forward any such major reorganisation. However, legislators know that once a law is on the statute book it can be used at any time.
  Clause 12 will enable the Home Secretary of the day to alter police areas by order and to inform the police authorities and the local authorities of his intentions. I am sure that he will want to take account of their views, but that is all he will have to do. This proposal replaces the present arrangements under which a local public inquiry is held. As the change that my right hon. and learned Friend seeks is so substantial, it would be helpful to the House if he were to make clear his medium and long-term intentions with regard to any question concerning reorganisation of the police service.
  The next matter with which I want to deal is a happier one for me. I compliment my right hon. and learned Friend for demonstrating once again that he is a listening Home Secretary. In recent weeks, he has been subjected to a certain amount of unjustifiable media criticism for being prepared to change legislative proposals as they proceed through the House and through another place. I do not share that criticism. The mark of a good man or a good woman is that he or she is prepared to listen to expert advice and, if convinced by the arguments, to make changes. I welcome very much my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that police officers involved in discipline cases will continue to have the benefit of legal advice at hearings.
  There is a history to this proposition. In 1984, the House advised the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, that this benefit should be accorded to police officers. When its removal was proposed in the Bill, I took a few modest steps and asked my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the matter, as did the Police Federation and the other staff

  161
  associations. My right hon. and learned Friend has demonstrated his understanding of the unique nature of police disciplinary procedure by his announcement today that police officers will continue to have the benefit of a barrister at hearings.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted that police officers are exposed to a unique degree of hazard by way of allegations, many of them false, from the criminal fraternity. At such a hearing, the officer's whole livelihood is on the line. If he is found guilty he loses his job and will be unable to get another in virtually any occupation. In my judgment, it is absolutely right that he should have proper legal representation. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend deserves a large bouquet not just from the police but from the House for his wise, sensible and humane decision.
  I should like to mention one or two other matters of police discipline. The Police Federation accepts that it would be unreasonable for a tribunal to be convened for just any appeal. However, where a punishment as severe as, say, a fine amounting to a week's wages or more is involved, an aggrieved officer should be able to appeal outside the service. At present, fines are limited to 13 days' pay for each offence, but, even in the case of a constable, that can amount to approximately £700 in respect of each offence. The Bill as it stands does not provide for the appeals tribunal to include a former member of the appropriate police staff association. That is why I was so glad when, this afternoon, the Home Secretary again demonstrated that he has listened to the Police Federation and to the Superintendents' Association, as well as to my right hon. and hon. Friends, by announcing that the tribunal will have a fourth member who is a retired police officer, probably of senior rank. That is important. I suggest that someone who is not a retired police officer might be reluctant to overturn a decision of his serving colleagues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been extremely wise and has listened.
  It is proposed that a police appellant must pay the whole of his or her costs unless the police tribunal directs otherwise. That is a reversal of the present position. If the proposal is implemented, I believe that it will discourage officers who have been dismissed, or required to resign or reduced in rank, who have suffered a severe financial penalty, from appealing to the police appeals tribunal. I hope that during the passage of the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will again be in the excellent listening mode which I have described, and will be persuaded to accept the point of view that I have outlined. Many officers would be unable to afford the cost of an appeal. That could have a serious effect on the confidence of the police in the discipline system.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has announced that he intends to retain the rank of chief inspector. The Police Federation will want seriously to consider that. The decision is something of a disappointment to the federation. Its evidence to the Sheehy committee rather supported the abolition of the rank. Knowing the federation as I do, I am sure that it will consider my right hon. and learned Friend's view with its customary fortitude and will have regard to the arguments that he advanced in support of his view.
  I am sure that my concluding remarks will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Brent, South
  162
  (Mr. Boateng), who takes such an interest in all my speeches. I have always firmly believed that the police service is a fine public service. I believe also that it should remain a public service. I say that in all sincerity. That does not mean, however, that the service should not have the benefit of good management procedures. It should not be insulated from the developments in management techniques that occur throughout society in general. Some of the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend will be beneficial to the police service nationally.
  I return to my fundamental point: our police provide the best police service in the world. I want to see it stay that way. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, the Bill contains certain provisions that could lead to important changes being made, notably in the setting up of new free-standing police authorities, which, as they develop over the years, will be of benefit to the police and to the people that they serve—the men and women of this country.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the fact that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and deals with matters that would normally be covered by Orders in Council. My colleagues and I welcome the fact that there is to be proper legislation on an important subject. However, the Bill extends to Northern Ireland only in a couple of clauses which could be described as taking up Sheehy-type matters.
  The Bill does not deal in Northern Ireland terms with two important areas of the constitution—police authorities and police discipline. Indeed, those matters are still subject to consultation in Northern Ireland. A paper on police discipline was published last year and we are still awaiting a Government decision. As for police structures relating to police authorities, a consultation paper has been produced and the consultation period will expire at the end of May.
  Sir Anthony Durant: Consultation is still continuing on disciplinary matters in England.
  Mr. Trimble: Indeed. We in Northern Ireland, however, have not had the benefit of the provisions that are set out in the Bill and the benefit of the Home Secretary's statement today.
  I am especially concerned about consultation on police authorities because the period for consultation, as I have said, expires towards the end of May. That holds open the possibility—it is one that concerns me—that new clauses may be introduced towards the end of the Bill's Committee stage that relate to a Northern Ireland police authority.
  In principle, we welcome the approach that such matters should be the subject of a Bill and not of an Order in Council, but I must caution the Government against introducing new clauses at the tail end of consideration of the Bill in Committee in circumstances which would not give us the opportunity properly to debate them. It should be remembered that the Bill has already completed its passage through another place.
  I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will make a statement on the Government's approach to matters that are still the subject of consultation in Northern Ireland. Do the Government have any intention of introducing new clauses in Committee, or even on Report, to extend certain provisions to Northern Ireland?

  163
  It is rather paradoxical that there are provisions in the Bill to change police authorities in England and Wales, which will move them slightly in the direction to which we moved in Northern Ireland. That will be done by introducing appointed members where there is central Government influence bearing on the persons to be appointed. It will move the authorities in England and Wales a little towards the model in Northern Ireland, where the entire police authority is appointed by Government —by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  The move is paradoxical because in Northern Ireland the police—the Northern Ireland Police Federation, the police authority and other persons—would like to see the Northern Ireland model move towards the old English model. They would like to have a police authority that is representative of local government rather than one which is appointed. It is ironic that we wish to proceed towards the old English model when the English model is moving towards us.
  We used to have a position rather similar to the one that obtained in London, where there was no police authority. That situation was criticised heavily by the Hunt report in 1969, and changed by the ensuing Northern Ireland legislation.
  My colleagues and I support the existence of a tripartite system of the chief constable, the police authority and the Secretary of State. We recognise that accountability, policy and control over the police are complex matters. The police must first discharge their duties under the law. The operational requirements of any particular situation are for them to judge. There is, however, difficulty and uncertainty about where operational matters end and policy matters begin, in so far as the law allows scope for policy. As for policy, there is a national interest and a local interest. It is right that there is both.
  I am speaking of matters that come within what has been described as a grey area, one which has related to the pressures and personalities of any particular situation. For the first time, as far as I am aware, the Government are legislating in an area which in the past has not been the subject of legislation. There have been no express provisions. Instead, there has been an interplay of different forces and variations from one situation to another. The Bill reflects an attempt to legislate in that grey area, and that carries dangers with it. There is the danger of inflexibility, apart from anything else.
  We do not disagree with the general thrust of the policy that is set out in the Bill. It is right that there should be scope for a national policy input. We do not find it objectionable that some members of a police authority should be other than local councillors. Such persons can represent special areas of expertise or help to round out, as it were, the balance of a police authority. As I have said, we do not find that objectionable in principle. The detail is something that can be discussed. It is important that there is a tripartite system that enables there to be a balance and diffusion of power.
  Objectives and targets have been discussed at length, but we must wait and see how they work out in practice. They must be realistic and responsible, and set according to the responsibilities of those concerned. They should not interfere with operational matters, which chief constables or police authorities should decide, but should be contained in a policing plan. It is good that an opportunity exists to set such objectives.
  164
  The Secretary of State recently published a consultation paper entitled "Policing in the Community: Policing Structures in Northern Ireland" on the setting of objectives by the Secretary of State and the police authority. I was unhappy to find, in paragraph 5.10, that
  "any differences between … the Authority's objectives and those of the Secretary of State, will need to be resolved by the Secretary of State."
  The setting of objectives by the police authority is undermined if the Secretary of State can override those objectives. The consultation paper goes on to say:
  "If the Secretary of State is unable to accept any objective proposed by the Police Authority, he will be required by law to give the Police Authority reasons for his decisions."
  If those current proposals of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are put into effect, we shall have no police authority in Northern Ireland. Rather, we shall have a body like that to which the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred for the metropolitan area—a metropolitan area advisory committee. It is significant that the Northern Ireland Office consultation paper concludes that the police authority in Northern Ireland should be renamed the Police Commission. The title "Police Advisory Committee" may be more accurate if those proposals are carried out.
  A few months ago, the Northern Ireland Office proposed to abolish the police authority entirely. At least it has stepped back a little from that, although it is trying to neuter the police authority in other ways. We disagree with that. A substantial police authority should be assimilated as far as possible to the Great Britain model. We do not want to be left in the same position as another jurisdiction in the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, where there is no police authority whatever but extensive political control over policing. The Garda has called for years for the creation of a police authority, but that has been denied.
  The unfortunate consequences of that are brought to mind strongly by reading the communique issued yesterday by the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference. I shall quote a sentence that is interesting given that it comes from a diplomatic document of an intergovernmental conference. Referring to policing, it says:
  "Particular matters covered"—
  they are covered by two Governments discussing an internal affair within the United Kingdom—
  "included the building works at the combined RUC Station and army base at Crossmaglen; recent reports published by HM Inspector of Constabulary concerning the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, as well as the consultation paper on Policing in the Community issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; policy issues regarding use of lethal force, noting the recent judgment by Lord Chief Justice Hutton in the Clegg case; and forthcoming parades."
  It would hardly be considered appropriate for a police authority to consider such detail, yet an intergovernmental conference has discussed such detailed matters of policing. That gets dangerously close to political control. That would be dubious if it were done by a country's own Government, but the fact that a foreign Government is engaged in such an activity is deeply offensive.
  The Northern Ireland Office's arguments against a police authority for Northern Ireland being assimilated to the British model are invalid. First, it argues that we cannot operate on the general British model because, in real terms, there is no local government in Northern Ireland. The simple answer is to create some. In the meantime, persons appointed to the police authority could be nominated to a

  165
  more representative body in a more representative manner by outside interested parties. That should happen across the spectrum, including the political spectrum.
  Secondly, it argues that, unlike in England and Wales, finance in Northern Ireland is provided exclusively by the Northern Ireland Office rather than by local government. That argument does not hold water either because English local government finances come largely from central Government. Given that clause 15 provides for the Home Secretary to pay grants to police authorities, I see no reason why a similar clause should not provide for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to pay a grant to a Northern Ireland police authority. It is important that finance be routed through the police authority because power and control often follow finance.
  I agree entirely with the Home Secretary's announcement about discipline, particularly with regard to legal representation and the double jeopardy rule. Although that is not popular with policemen, there is more to being fit to be a policeman than being acquitted of criminal offences. A person may be acquitted yet still not be fit and proper or of sufficient character to be a member of the police force. Therefore, although I understand the police resentment, I understand the reasons for the provision.
  Clauses 59 and 60 relate to Northern Ireland and deal with Sheehy-type matters. We welcome, in clause 59, the deletion of Treasury concurrence in the making of regulations. I hope that that will lead to a more liberal approach to such matters. Clause 59(3) deals with the making of regulations with the consent of various persons. Who are the persons referred to in that clause?
  Clause 60 provides for regulations on full-time reservists of the RUC. We hope that that power will be used to rectify an injustice that has lasted for the past 25 years—that of the pension rights of full-time reserve constables in the RUC. It is a scandal that people who, in many cases, were asked 20 years ago to become full-time reservists and gave up other occupations to serve the community at considerable physical risk are now left without a pension. After years of service, they must draw unemployment benefit or income support while waiting for an inadequate state pension, and they have no opportunity to obtain other employment because, once they have left the RUC, they become unemployable.
  Two years ago, at the conference of the Northern Ireland Police Federation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland promised that that injustice would be rectified. Last year, he had to apologise to the conference that he had not yet managed to do so. I advise him to do so before going to the next conference, otherwise strong opinions may be expressed to him.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill provides an opportunity to table new clauses that will allow us to debate the Government's repugnant privatisation of the police at the Northern Ireland national airport? That discriminates against Northern Ireland because its airport will have the only privatised airport police in the United Kingdom. Privatisation of police at Gatwick or Heathrow would be unacceptable. Will the hon. Gentleman and his party explore the question whether we could debate in Committee a new clause that would restore the police at the Northern Ireland airport to public ownership and control?
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his keen interest in Northern Ireland matters generally and in this particular issue. One of the great advantages of proper legislation, as opposed to Orders in Council, is that it provides opportunities for further debate and for tabling new clauses as a way of exploring issues. I am delighted to have that opportunity on this occasion.
  I wish to end by reminding the Government that I want to know whether they have any intention of tabling new clauses to implement any of the provisions described in the consultation papers to which I have referred.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), especially in debates on law and order. He always poignantly reminds us of the law and order issues in Ulster which should be at the forefront of our minds, given all the tragedies that the people of Ulster have experienced for far too long.
  I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has temporarily left the Chamber to speak to his officials—[Interruption.]—but now that he has returned I should like to tell him what a joy it is to see him on the Front Bench for this debate. I thank him for responding so favourably to all the representations which I and many others have made to him about the magistrates courts parts of the Bill. I want, however, to ask him to keep an open mind on the subject of lords lieutenant. I should like them to remain as ex officio members of magistrates courts—but I shall write to my hon. Friend again about that.
  Hon. Members have rightly concentrated on the police aspects of the Bill, which, after all, can seldom have been so much in the news. Sad to say, much of today's press comment on our police is critical, focusing as it does on police involvement in miscarriages of justice, on possibly poor detection rates and on the fact that there may be too few police officers on our streets. There is also a suspicion that some of the retirements on grounds of ill health have taken place to avoid disciplinary action.
  As a result of these and other matters, public confidence in our police is not what it was; I dare say it is not what many right hon. and hon. Members and I would like it to be. The truth is, however, that the public has never had greater cause to be thankful to our police. The demands of policing a modern society are intense, and there is a continual threat of violence. I make no apology for raising the subject of violence again—indeed, I am rather surprised that no one has mentioned it thus far. It is a serious problem that we must bear in mind when we consider the subject of police resources and the number of officers there should be on our streets.
  Only yesterday Sergeant Gary Boughen had his face battered in a grave and tragic attack by young thugs outside a fish-and-chip shop in west Yorkshire. He was merely attempting to quieten down some rowdy behaviour. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in order to hold up this photograph—I am indebted to the Yorkshire Post for it —to show hon. Members the scene. Plenty of other copies are available in the Tea Room and in the Library; hon. Members may want to look at them just to remind themselves of what can happen to a police officer at any time of day or night in any town, city or village in this country.

  167
  What is the solution, and why is this issue so important to the Bill? The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill introduces tougher penalties for young thugs. This Bill underwent a great deal of change in the other place, but I hope that their Lordships will be more charitable to the proposals in the criminal justice Bill. They certainly command the support of Conservative Members and the general public alike.
  Those Bills in themselves do not represent the complete answer; nor does telling the parents of young thugs that they should have more responsibility for them. If a police sergeant is attacked in the way I have described while trying to deal with rowdy behaviour, only two conclusions are possible: either he will not go in on future occasions —hardly a realistic proposition—or there will have to be more than one police officer. If three or four had gone in, I do not believe that the youngsters would have reacted as they did. We just do not have enough police officers to deal with incidents of this kind in rural areas. Three or four at a time, in the mobiles that we sometimes see in town centres, may prove necessary.
  The crucial issue for the House is whether this Bill will deliver more police officers to patrol our streets. That is what the public want, and in the end it will be the acid test. I say, not grudgingly but with enthusiasm, that the Government deserve credit for the fact that, in the past 14 or 15 years, we have acquired the best-paid police force in Europe. But that has contributed to the problem that we do not have as many officers as we might like—
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for the gracious words at the beginning of his speech. May I point out to him that, in the first two months of this year alone, 452 more police constables joined the force?
  Mr. Greenway: I was coming to some of the improvements that have taken place even before this Bill is enacted. My hon. Friend anticipates me. I wanted first to refer to the fact that recruitment of special constables is playing an invaluable part in putting more police on our streets, especially late in the evening and at weekends. But that, too, is not the whole answer.
  We must also consider the equipment that our police have. Today my right hon. and learned Friend talked of serious structural problems in the funding of police capital expenditure. If I remember rightly, he referred to information technology. We need to co-ordinate and speed up its introduction throughout the police force.
  Police authorities have been reluctant to fund common police services. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember the inquiries that the Home Affairs Select Committee has undertaken over the years. National initiatives in this area do not happen as speedily—if they happen at all—as they should, because of this reluctance. The fact that the national criminal intelligence service arrangements are so far behind schedule proves my point.
  The Minister's intervention just now leads me to the point that there have been a considerable number of efficiency improvements in the force already, particularly since the Sheehy inquiry was launched. No one should say that Sheehy did not bring about some benefits. At least it made everyone sit up and ask what they should be doing. Many of us may have disagreed with many of its conclusions, but the atmosphere that it created—unhelpful in the sense that it affected morale—had the long-term
  168
  benefit of helping to ensure a better use of resources. That, as the Minister reminded us, is putting more police officers on the streets.
  This, too, is still not the complete answer. We have to face the fact that the present tripartite system is not delivering the resources required: it needs reform. This Bill introduces that much needed reform. None of the three parties to the present arrangements has overall responsibility. The mechanisms for funding provide no guarantees. For example, the Home Office and the Treasury control Government expenditure through the authorised establishments and, of course, through capital expenditure controls. Those controls have become increasingly nonsensical in the past two or three years, affecting the purchase of fairly inexpensive items, and they have caused havoc in the funding of police vehicle fleets. As the Home Secretary said, that is now acknowledged.
  The Government can also influence expenditure through the standard spending assessment and their capping powers, but there is no guarantee that the local authority will spend up to its SSA, and that has caused problems in some police forces. We heard in the debate how some local authorities have to be publicly shamed into making sure that they spend up to their SSA. This is one of the key points about the Bill's funding arrangements, and it has not been addressed in the debate. Clause 26(1) provides:
  "The power of the Secretary of State to give directions under section 28D of the 1964 Act to a police authority established under section 3 of that Act shall include power to direct the authority that the amount of its budget requirement for any financial year … shall not be less than an amount specified in the direction."
  That could be called a centralising power, but it provides the one guarantee that is essential to ensuring that the police know what their budget will be and that it will not be subject to the whim of local politicians. That is important.
  The cash limit of Government funding will require the Government to state clearly what they think the minimum budget should be. The Government percentage of the budget will be 51 per cent. of X. One does not have to be brilliant at algebra to know that, if 51 per cent. is £100 million, £198 million is needed to fund a police force's authorised expenditure. For the life of me I cannot understand why there has been such opposition to that proposal because it makes Government support for the police service extremely transparent, and that is what is required.
  Other matters need to be addressed. One problem that has not been solved, even post Sheehy, is the funding of pensions. In the North Yorkshire force alone, whose total yearly budget is about £50 million, in the 10 months from December 1992 to September 1993 no less than £4.4 million was paid in lump sums to retiring officers, most of whom were retiring on the ground of ill health. In the past couple of years such payments have rendered many police authorities unable to recruit up to their authorised establishments.
  North Yorkshire has a fine record of supporting the police through the local authority and making sure that there are as many policemen on the streets as the authorised establishment will allow, but such pay-outs have made a huge hole in the budget. According to today's issue of the Yorkshire Post, the chief constable of West Yorkshire has threatened officers who have retired on the ground of ill health that if they recover they will be asked to go back into

  169
  uniform on the streets or have their pension stopped. That may be a rather graphic description of precisely what the chief constable intends, but a Select Committee on Home Affairs inquiry into police sickness found that, sadly, too many officers who retired on the ground of ill health did so in circumstances that gave rise to some concern about the authenticity of the sickness. It will do no harm to ensure that the position of officers who recover is reconsidered.
  The Bill is about funding and the Government should be robust on the use of the precept. When the Government have established by an examination of their cash-limited grant what the budget ought to be, Ministers should not underestimate the public's willingness to pay a specific precept for the police. Those of us who ask our constituents at the weekend, "What would you be prepared to spend a bit more money on directly?" receive the reply, "More police officers." That is certainly the reply in my constituency, and the result of following it up could be quite dramatic.
  North Yorkshire has about 500,000 charge payers and a police establishment of 1,400 officers. If each charge payer contributed an additional £10 a year precept, it would raise £5 million. Police officers are paid about £25,000, so that money would provide another 200 policemen on our streets. I am highlighting, perhaps in an over-simplistic way, the fact that a little extra directed at employing more police constables and sergeants could have a dramatic effect on manpower and the ability of the police to fight crime.
  The Home Secretary made announcements on three matters that were overhangs from the other place. I agree with all three of his decisions. It is crucial that officers are represented throughout the disciplinary process, not least because police officers, more than anyone else in the public service, run the risk of mischievous and malicious allegations. Sadly, that happens all too often. The second issue is double jeopardy. When I was a police officer in the west end in the 1960s two officers were charged with living on immoral earnings. If my memory serves me correctly, they were found not guilty but the evidence adduced in court was so strong that I do not think that any other police officer would have wanted to serve with them ever again. Even if there is evidence to show that people are unfit to be police officers, it does not necessarily follow that the burden would be sufficient to meet the standard of criminal proof that would enable them to be convicted in court.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made the right decision on the issue of ranks by saying that the rank of chief inspector should be retained. Much has been said about the need to ensure that officers on the ground need to know who is the senior officer. In the great majority of cases the senior officer will be a chief inspector, not a chief superintendent, and that is the rank that can be disposed of.
  Another issue relates to the rank of deputy chief constable. It is fascinating that the Bill goes so much with the grain of what is happening in the police service. Almost two years ago North Yorkshire abolished the rank of deputy chief constable because it was felt that the money could be better spent on providing more policemen on the streets. Armageddon has not hit the administration of the North Yorkshire police force. I suspect that its chief constable and two assistants have to work more hours and
  170
  a bit harder than they did when the chief constable had a deputy, but the decision not to have a deputy chief constable is generally regarded as a great success.
  In conclusion, I want to refer to what has been said this afternoon and evening about police relations with local communities and the need for them to be strengthened. I do not accept that the police authority has anything to do with that. Police and local community relations are being strengthened through the liaison panels set up under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and through the divisional command structure that police forces are operating.
  The Metropolitan police—a huge police force covering an enormous area—has some of the best local policing schemes in the country, such as the domestic violence unit in Islington and the racial attacks unit in Plumstead, which are extremely effective.
  I do not believe that the police authority issue affects the relationship between the local community and its police force. In any event, that would not be possible in a huge county such as north Yorkshire.
  These days, the police are confronted by organised national and international crime syndicates which do not respect boundaries or the niceties of how we structure our police authorities. Our police forces can respond to such a threat only if they have a more focused and structured police service. The modernisation of the police service is overdue. There are many good measures in the Bill which will help to deliver it, and I shall certainly support the Bill in the House tonight.
  8 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I join the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in declaring an interest. I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
  My concern is not just for the Police Federation; it is also for my constituents. Crime in Warwickshire has trebled since 1979 and burglaries and car thefts have quadrupled. The number of police officers has increased by 16.4 per cent. in the same period. In the face of such crime, it is important, in my view and that of my constituents, that the Government are seen to support the police.
  Maintaining police morale among those who do an increasingly difficult and complex job, often putting their lives at risk, should be a Government priority. The Sheehy report, the White Paper on policing, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Home Office inquiry into the core functions of policing are not the way to maintain police morale. The effect has been the opposite. The police have had to fight off successive Government attempts to restrict and cut their salaries, cut out ranks and undermine their role.
  The Government have now, to some extent, disowned the Sheehy report, although some of its recommendations are in the Bill and others are likely to see the light of day in the Police Negotiating Board in the next few years.
  There is great concern among the police that there is still a Government agenda on policing. That agenda is evidenced by Sheehy, the White Paper, the Bill and the inquiry into the core functions of policing. Let me say something about that inquiry, which is important as it is part of the context of the Bill. Taken as a whole, it is part of a series of policies which cause considerable concern to the Police Federation.

  171
  The general secretary of the Police Federation, Mr. Lyn Williams, has said that he foresees Government policy reducing the number of fully trained professional police officers in England and Wales from 126,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade—a cut of 46,000 officers. He sees that as the way in which the Government will develop their policies. The Home Office has not maintained the number of authorised establishments in a number of forces and there is increasing sub-contracting of functions to the private sector.
  A recent paper presented to the Bolton conference on policing earlier this year written by Dr. Peter Moran and Mr. Alex Alexandrou stated:
  "There is little doubt that creeping privatisation of police functions is taking place with the tacit assent if not active encouragement of the Home Office. Attested police officers are a homogenous group with regard to training and vetting: private security guards are not".
  The concern is that there is a great temptation for the views about privatisation that have been all too apparent in a number of our public services to be moved into the area of policing. In some American cities, if someone phones the police because he is locked out, someone answers the 911 number and the caller says, "I am locked out, can someone assist?" The telephonist presses a button and the call goes to "Get You In Ltd.", or whatever company it is. If the caller has a cat up a tree or a problem with a licence, he gets put through to We Get Your Cat Down, We Assist You To Get Across the Road or We Provide a Licence For You. Private companies carry out many of those roles.
  It is tempting for the Government to say that the core function of policing should be defined, that the police should concentrate on that core function and that the other functions—obviously, if we define core function we shall also have non-core functions—should be hived off to the private sector.
  The effect of that, and the concern of the Police Federation at the erosion of police functions and the number of police officers, is to erode the many non-confrontational links that the police have with the community. The way in which we develop community policing in Britain is that the police are part of and integrated with the community, and, in order to fight crime, we are trying to encourage the public constantly to co-operate with the police.
  The effect of restricting the police to core functions would do two things. First, the public would deal with the police primarily if a serious offence had occurred and not in the non-confrontational cases where people needed help or a licence to be issued, for example. Secondly, the police deal with the public only when they have to go in hard, carrying out their core functions. In those circumstances, there is a danger that the police could develop the same attitudes as have been seen in places such as Los Angeles, where there have been problems in recent years. If we restrict the police to core functions, we shall, to some extent, change attitudes within the police. That is a considerable danger of which the Police Federation is aware.
  There is another developing problem that many people have experienced and that many hon. Members have seen in their constituencies. We are suffering increasing plagues of security guard company representatives knocking on doors saying, "For £1.50 a week we will watch your house because you have no policing in your area". That has occurred in several parts of my constituency.
  172
  At the moment there is little or no regulation of those private companies. I hope that during the passage of the Bill I will be able to persuade the Clerk to accept an amendment to address that problem. It is possible at the moment for someone to come out of prison, after having committed a series of burglaries and with a long criminal record, to buy himself a dog, knock on doors and say that he will protect people from burglaries. That is not the sort of person one wants to protect one's house.
  The chief constable of Avon and Somerset, David Shattock, said recently that he was powerless to stop a private security company run by a man with a long criminal record, including a prison sentence, from operating street patrols in his area. He was very concerned that the growth of untrained and regulated companies patrolling streets was an open invitation to criminals. He said:
  "What better way of committing a crime than buying a van, putting on a white peaked cap and patrolling people's houses? If you are caught shining a torch through the back of a building, it is the perfect answer".
  We need to ensure that we have proper regulation of those companies, but we also need to ensure that the build-up in the past century of a professional police force which has links with the community is not undermined by moving from community policing towards forcing the police into dealing only with their core functions.
  The Bill must be seen in the overall context of Government policy on policing. I accept that many of the Police Federation's key concerns have been dealt with in another place. The Bill that went into the other place was, humiliatingly for the Government, not the Bill that came out. The federation's main concern was that the Bill as it went into the other place would have politicised the police, putting them under effective Whitehall control.
  That fear was based on the fact that various proposals, justifiable to some extent in themselves, when put together were worrying—fixed-term contracts for senior officers; Home Office-appointed chairmen to police authorities; performance targets; policing plans; and amalgamations. To some extent, many of their Lordships shared those concerns and, to be fair to the Government, the Bill as now presented is somewhat emasculated. None the less, it is still worrying and dangerous.
  It must be remembered that the proposals come not from any royal commission, independent inquiry, Select Committee or any body outside the House which requested such changes. They come with the opposition of all the police staff associations and police authority members of all political parties as well as all the groups involved in policing and the magistracy.
  Why do we have the Bill? There does not seem to be any real explanation, other than an ideological one. Major constitutional changes seem to have been made at the service of a half-baked ideological nostrum. The Bill seems to have been concocted from the Sheehy report. That is not the way in which to run a law and order policy in Britain.
  The Police Federation's concerns about the Bill centre on five main areas—discipline; local police plans; amalgamations; the role of the police negotiating board; and the disqualification of certain police authority members with previous convictions abroad.
  Discipline is a major concern because it directly affects all serving police officers. The Government's concessions on the appeals tribunal and on legal representation are

  173
  welcome. I just wish that the proposals had never been put forward in the first place. But there is concern about the cost of appeals. Under section 37(5) of the Police Act 1964, the police fund meets the costs of police officers who mount appeals against dismissal, reduction in rank or required resignation. But under the Bill, the appellant will be liable for the whole of his or her costs unless the police appeal tribunal directs otherwise.
  The federation believes that that will have a markedly discouraging effect on appeals and that is to be regretted. It is right that officers should be able to undertake appeals that are open to them and costs should not be allowed to prohibit such a course.
  Double jeopardy is another concern which I am sure will be debated at some length in Committee. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but, to some extent, he missed the point. Tbe issue is not so much whether the policy is right in terms of the criteria of balance of proof or beyond reasonable doubt in court. I accept that there is a distinction there. But the police officer is in a unique position. Moreover, he will clearly be subjected to a number of allegations that are patently untrue. It is wrong that he should be forced repeatedly to go through what is in effect a trial for the same thing. Therefore, double jeopardy is the issue rather than the balance of proof in any one situation. It is wrong that an officer should be tried twice for the same thing. That is against most of our common law principles developed over many centuries.
  The federation is also concerned about the police plan, local policing objectives and performance indicators. The federation wishes to preserve the operational independence of chief constables in relation to the setting of local policing objectives and performance criteria. The responsibility for producing an annual report should belong to the chief constable. The federation argues that the chief constable, having overall responsibility for operational policing, is in a better position to handle information concerning his or her area and is free from political restraints. Consultation and co-operation between police authorities and the Home Office is essential, but not guidance in that sense.
  Amalgamations are an essential and important concern. As a Member of Parliament for a Warwickshire constituency, an area with one of the smallest police forces in the country, I know that it is important to clarify the amalgamations issue. When the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Home Secretary, he said that he wanted to cut the number of constabularies in England and Wales from 43 to about 20, the better to be able to manage chief constables. Ministers now deny that they have such plans, but the Home Secretary still refuses to drop the new process that he has instituted which prevents a proper public inquiry into any amalgamations. Why?
  The Home Secretary should be required to show at a public inquiry that any proposed amalgamation should enhance police efficiency. The present local inquiry procedure proposals to alter or amalgamate police forces should remain. The procedure allows the relevant police authorities and local constabularies to voice concerns and possible opposition to proposed alterations. The Home
  174
  Secretary's proposals, on consultation procedures and timetables, are clearly inadequate to allow that to happen properly.
  The Bill proposes a consultation period of approximately two months. That appears unrealistic and undemocratic as an announcement on proposed alterations could be made during a holiday period, making it virtually impossible for local authorities, police authorities and local communities to make a proper considered response. The proposed changes as outlined in the Bill will enable the Home Secretary to carry through a major reorganisation of police forces against the wishes of substantial sections of local opinion and the police and could well be against proper police efficiency. The Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to create super-forces, covering eight or 10 regions. Who knows? There would be no local inquiries and very little opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
  The federation has a number of other concerns. At the moment, the police negotiating board is restricted in its ability to deal with aspects of pensions. Given that a police officer contributes one third of the cost of his pension, it would seem right for police pensions to be fully negotiable. But the Government do not appear to be willing to allow that. That is illogical and I hope that we shall be able to discuss it in Committee and in due course to propose amendments.
  One minor point worrying the federation which caused problems when it was raised in another place, perhaps because of definition—I doubt whether the Government would be opposed to the federation's aim—relates to a person who has committed an offence abroad not being allowed to sit on police authorities. That is not dealt with in the Bill and I hope that in due course we shall be able to rectify it.
  Mr. Fabricant: How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Home Office or the Committee should handle a situation where an offence committed abroad is not an offence here? I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, but that would have to be taken into account.
  Mr. O'Brien: I accept that there may be circumstances in which an offence committed abroad would be regarded here as perfectly proper—for example, a political offence in another country such as a protest against a dictatorship or other such regime. That should not result in disqualification from membership. We would have to find a way to evaluate each case individually rather than simply saying that every person who had committed such an offence would be blocked. The principle is important. People who have committed abroad serious criminal offences, which we recognise as such, should not serve on police authorities.
  The Bill is not what is needed in the fight against crime. It creates uncertainty where continuity and certainty are needed. It undermines morale where morale needs to be enhanced. It fails to address the need for more resources and to put more police on the beat, when that need is crying out to be addressed in the face of rising crime. The Bill is flawed and, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I will vote against it tonight.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I point out that exactly one hour remains before the wind-up speeches.

  175
  Seven hon. Members hope to catch my eye, which leaves just under 10 minutes for each of them. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye.
  When my right hon. and learned Friend made his 27 announcements at our party conference, my constituents were overjoyed. [Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but I suspect that their constituents also were overjoyed because unfortunately they, like my constituents, will suffer from the rising tide of crime to which I shall refer later.
  I spent many a long hour on the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. That excellent Bill implemented 19 of my right hon. and learned Friend's measures. The other part of the double-barrelled approach to reforming our criminal justice system is the Bill before the House. It will implement a further six of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals—all those that require legislative change. [HoN MEMBERS: "Hallelujah."] I am grateful for that salutation from Opposition Members, who obviously approve of my remarks.
  The Bill deals with the overall structure of the police, which has not changed to any measurable extent for the last 30 years, and reforms the magistracy system, which has not changed to any measurable extent for the last 50 years. It is clear that both are long overdue for a long, hard look. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on the extent of their consultation and their ability to listen to sensible representations. I do not accept the criticism made this evening that the fact that they amended the Bill as it passed through the other place means that they are weak. In fact, that showed their statesmanlike character and willingness to make sensible changes to their proposals as they went along.
  My right hon. and learned Friend said that crime has increased throughout the western world over the past few decades. The number of notifiable offences in 1993 was 5.5 million, which is 119 per cent. up on the same period in 1977. The number of clear-ups increased by only 38 per cent. during that time. Worse still, the number of indictable offences proceeded with rose by only 3 per cent. and the number of cautions increased by 88 per cent. Clearly, not everything is perfect in this country's criminal justice system and I welcome a long, hard look at the nuts and bolts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the overall structure of the Police and Magistrates Courts' Bill.
  In common with the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), I spent a whole night out with the police, in Cheltenham. We arrested a person who was in possession of drugs—[HON. MEMBERS: "We?") The constable arrested the suspect, and he was still dealing with the paperwork at the police station four hours later. That cannot be sensible. The police on the beat were well overstretched that particular night. It is incumbent on us all to ensure use of the latest technology available to the police —video recordings, sound recordings, electrostatic document analysis techniques and DNA fingerprinting—so that the amount of paperwork and wasted time is reduced.
  176
  Anyone who has been involved in business knows that the best way to run a company is with the flattest, shortest command structure possible. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal to reduce the number of police ranks by two. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary intervened to say that that has already enabled another 450 extra constables to be put on the beat in the past two months alone. It is estimated that, in an entire year, that change will put an extra 3,000 police on the beat. That is precisely the improvement for which my constituents have been calling—more police in the front line, on the beat, to detect crime and to arrest potential criminals.
  I make a special plea to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. In Gloucestershire, a large number of police officers are deployed on royal protection duties. My constituency contains no fewer than three royal households. I have already written to my hon. Friend on the matter, but I ask him again to give my county police force a few extra supernumerary officers to perform those duties. Surrounding counties do not have such a responsibility.
  Royalty is considered a permanent risk, whereas any Minister of the Crown is considered a temporary risk for supernumerary purposes. My county is not considered for supernumerary officers, so I again ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that request. In fact, I will write to him again, to see whether something can be done. That issue causes great annoyance to my constituents.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary set out his overall policy for the new system of police authorities. Much of tonight's debate has centred on the way that the balance has shifted between local police and local authority responsibility and the Home Secretary and chief constables. Replying to the Second Reading debate in another place, my noble Friend Lord Ferrers said that
  "the Home Secretary must retain some powers in the event of things going wrong. After all, he is responsible for the £6,000 million of public money which goes to police authorities … but this is not a centralising measure … it gives powers, responsibilities and accountability to the local police authorities and local chief constables."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 1994; Vol. 553, c. 808.]
  Overall policing objectives will be set by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but under new section 28A of the 1964 Act, the objective of local policing will be set by the local police authority. Subject to any particular directive under new section 28A, the local police authority must set out its own objectives, which may be different from, and additional to, the foregoing, and then produce a local policing plan. In addition, it must produce an annual plan.
  That seems a wholly transparent, local procedure. To demonstrate that, clause 11 provides for one local police authority member to answer questions from any member of the local council. That wholly transparent and democratic local procedure is established by the Bill.
  The flexibility displayed by my right hon. and learned Friend and hon. Friends in listening to sensible proposals during earlier stages of the Bill means that there will be five Home Office appointees. I admit that the system is rather cumbersome, but we want somebody other than a magistrate or local councillor to sit on a police authority. There is a wealth of experience in our communities. All sorts of trades and professions are represented by people who are perfectly capable of sitting on police authorities. Mention was made earlier of admirals, but many business

  177
  and professional men, doctors, nurses and others would be perfectly well qualified to sit on a police authority and would considerably enhance its work.
  As has already been mentioned, the chief constable, who is appointed by the local police authority, still has complete operational independence. I cannot stress that too highly. It would be intolerable to do anything different. If a sudden emergency arises, who will make the decision? Of course, it must be the chief constable. He now has an additional new power in that, subject to sticking within the budget laid down within the standard spending assessment system, he is able to exercise his discretion as to how many police officers he employs. Hitherto, he would have had to obtain permission from the Home Office to do that.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a good example of decentralisation, not centralisation? Does he not think it an absolute irony that Labour Members keep saying that this is a centralising Bill?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation, but, as time is moving on and as Mr. Deputy Speaker will constrict me if I go on for too long, I shall simply say that I welcome the part of the Bill that deals with magistrates. Some 30,000 members of the lay magistracy give freely of their time to dispense an excellent system of summary justice in this country. I welcome the proposed reforms in that respect.
  I challenged the Labour party to tell us what its policy is. We learnt one thing from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair): the Labour party is no longer in favour of elected police authorities. But we did not find out what is to take their place. The Labour party has consistently opposed every single such Bill since 1984, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It opposed the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice Act 1988; the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993. And, almost at the very moment when the mortars were going off at Heathrow, Labour Members trooped into the Lobby, within moments of hearing that announcement, to oppose the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. That is disgraceful.
  There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats opposed many of those aspects as well. We have already heard this evening that the moment that they get into power in local councils, they reduce the budget for the local police authority—time after time. They are no friends of the police either.
  I welcome whole-heartedly the Government's bravery in taking a long and hard look at how our criminal justice system should be run, so that we can go forward together —the public, police and magistracy—and detect and convict more criminals and make our streets safe places on which to walk.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: It is fun to follow the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who praised the Home Secretary for being a listening Home Secretary. It seems to me that the Home Secretary is a listening Home Secretary much in the way that Evander Holyfield was a listening ex-heavyweight champion to Michael Moorer. The Home Secretary was mugged in the House of Lords. Anyone who
  178
  wants to read an account of a genteel mugging should read the report of the Bill's Second Reading in the House of Lords.
  The Bill has been very badly damaged, but I shall concentrate, after several hours of debate, on the Scottish section of the Bill, which no one has talked about. Unfortunately, that part of the Bill has not been mugged. It has not been talked about or touched on. It deals inadequately, as far as this House is concerned, with Scottish legislation. If one wants to see why the Tories do so badly in Scotland, one should look at the way in which the Bill is presented. One of the special pillars of Scottish society is its separate and distinctive legal system, which, in many areas, is demonstrably better than the English system.
  We see the arrogance of a Government who try to introduce changes to Scottish law simply by inserting them into English legislation. When the Home Secretary moved the Second Reading earlier, he made no reference whatever to its contents as far as Scotland is concerned, apart from something vague about bringing it into line with England. That is not adequate. There is no equivalent to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who can reply to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Office.
  I suspect that, any moment now—probably in 20 seconds—a Minister from the Scottish Office will come to the debate, and may or may not listen to this speech. We need some justification from the Government for why the Bill applies to Scotland. Which Scottish concerns does it meet? Who asked for it in Scotland? Nobody did. It has simply been put in the Bill. It does not meet any of the problems.
  There is a need for a Bill that deals with problems in the Scottish legal system, but this is not it. We are crying out for parliamentary time to deal with the problems and issues that arise with regard to the system on children's hearings. There is a need to consider whether there should be an equivalent in Scotland, or something especially Scottish, to the Police Complaints Authority, because Scotland does not have one. But we do not have such a Bill.
  What bothers me about this Bill is the depth of the contempt that the Scottish Office shows the people in Scotland in the way in which it has been introduced. They have not even attempted to make the case for the law change in Scotland. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) in his place. If he can point out to me where any Scottish Minister has attempted to make the case for the Scottish clauses, I will be pleased to give way to him now. I think that the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to speak demonstrates my point.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Having served on the Standing Committee on the local government Bill, I would have to say that those issues were mentioned on occasion, but not in depth. The detail of the Bill refers to the structure of the police force in Scotland. It aligns with the rankings in England. I am quite sure that my hon. Friends have had many discussions with the Home Office on that issue.
  Mr. Worthington: That just demonstrates to me that even though the hon. Gentleman is present, he does not know what the Bill is about. It says nothing about the structure of the police force in Scotland.

  179
  We have to find a better way of dealing with Scottish legislation. A fortnight ago, during the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill—
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Worthington: No, I will not.
  At 1 o'clock in the morning we had a debate on the concept of aggravated trespass. That subject has produced a considerable mail bag in Scotland, because of legitimate fears that the Government are acting on behalf of a large number of absentee landlords and simply incorporating into Scottish law something to deal with the problem in England of hunt saboteurs and new age travellers, and also because the Government are interfering with what is a traditional and very valued freedom in Scotland—the freedom to roam.
  One Scottish Member was able to talk about that in Committee—my good and hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Imagine the uproar if only one English Member of Parliament was able to speak on an issue affecting English law.
  Last week, at 1 am, the rest of us could say something. We had a 90–minute debate, which was pathetically inadequate. But then the Minister got up to reply—he has still not turned up tonight—and took only three minutes, under clear instructions to get up and shut up. The vote took place. The Secretary of State for Scotland did not even bother to turn up. That is how we deal with Scottish legislation.
  Today, we continue that charade. It is a contempt for democracy. It is a V-sign at the Scottish electorate. It is a major change to the law in Scotland with regard to the police, with no discernible reason put forward for it. There will be one, or even two, Scottish Members on the Committee. No Minister from the Scottish Office will speak today. No Scottish Minister has spoken on the issue in public and made the case. Big changes will be made to the constitutional position of the police in Scotland. There will be yet more centralisation of the controls of the Secretary of State for Scotland, on the basis of no argument whatever, and being done independently of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, referred to by the hon. Member for Ayr.
  Joint boards will be set up. That will mean more joint boards in many parts of Scotland. My area—Strathclyde —is to cover at least 10 separate unitary local authorities. There will be absolutely no sense of partnership: that is bound to lead to much more remoteness, and to yet another democratic deficit in Scotland.
  As a result of the Bill, we are even losing the requirement for a chief constable to consult the police authority when determining the number and ranks of men in the force. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ayr knew that. Furthermore, as clause 46 makes clear, in future the annual report will be made not to the police authority but to the Secretary of State: it requires such matters to be reported
  "as the Secretary of State may prescribe".
  It will not be a question of what the police authority thinks important, or even a question of what the chief constable thinks important.
  The relationship between police and state is one of the most difficult constitutional issues that any society must face. The police must be under the control of the state—they can never go their own undisciplined way—but they
  180
  must be free to feel the collars of the most powerful in the land. If the Secretary of State behaves in an inappropriate and illegal manner, he must be arrested without hesitation.
  To cope with that, we in Britain have invented a subtle tripartite system involving the control of operational matters by the chief constable: some powers for local authorities, some for the Secretary of State and some for Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. If we wish to change the relationship between those three powers, we should do so only in the most measured, calm and reasonable way.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Worthington: Certainly.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely where the Bill states that the chief constable, or the constabulary, cannot take the Secretary of State for Scotland into custody if he commits a misdemeanour?
  Mr. Worthington: I do not often alarm the hon. Gentleman this much. I did not say that; I said that there must be a three-way balance of power in the system that we have invented, so that the chief constable has operational responsibility and—within that responsibility—does not feel threatened by one of the other powers. What alarms me is that, with fixed-term contracts and with the Secretary of State determining what is to be in the report delivered to him, a picture is building up of too much control going in one direction. We are seeing a Secretary of State who acts as God, with contempt for both the police service and local authorities.
  When debating this issue, we must bear in mind both the fact that local government is being reorganised, and the Government's plans with regard to payment for results. Payment for results in itself constitutes a formidable centralisation of power: it means telling officers how they will be judged worthy of receiving extra money. I should be astonished if the Secretary of State said that they should be given extra money for investigating City fraud, for example; we are already seeing the Government's attitude in their relaxed attitude to tax evasion, as opposed to DSS fraud.
  The Government must spell out to us why the Bill applies to Scotland. The Home Secretary has not done so today. In particular, we must hear some reasoning about what is currently going wrong in terms of Scotland's police forces. Only last week, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary produced a periodic report on the forces in Scotland. It included a glowing report on Strathclyde, which pointed out that in 1993 there had been a 20 per cent. drop in violent crime. It has been claimed that crime has fallen in England and Wales, but that did not include violent crime. This is in spite of all that the Government can throw at us in terms of unemployment and growing inequality.
  The finding, however, does not result from any action taken by the Home Secretary. Today, we have heard reference to the underfunding of the police forces; the chief inspector points out that in Scotland the Home Secretary substantially underfunds the capital requirements of Strathclyde police force, in comparison with those of similar metropolitan police authorities elsewhere. However, the report states:
  "Despite the effects of the Sheehy Inquiry, morale within the force is high with a belief that real progress is being made at last on the crime front."

  181
  Crime is a real worry, in Scotland and elsewhere; but the level has remained static and fallen in Scotland, while it has soared in England. A huge amount of that development has been due to the partnership between local authorities and the police—a partnership which the Government will damage with this Bill and the Bill to reorganise local government.
  Although Second Reading is a bit late in the day, the Government must explain why the Home Secretary knows best. Just why does he, rather than the local authorities, know how much to spend on the police? Just what knowledge does he have? Ministers have taken no steps to meet local councillors directly, even after the publication of the Bill; they certainly took no such steps before its publication. We are seeing wrong-headed action by those who want to centralise control even further.
  Policing in Britain is one of the institutional miracles of which I think we should be proudest. Unlike most societies in the world, our police work on the basis of consent: typically, they do not carry arms, and they constitute a social service as well as a force. Everything in the Bill will weaken that trend—that central cultural feature of our policing. Payment will go not to the social service aspects —not to community policing—but to other, as yet unspecified, sectors.
  We send our police around the world. They are in South Africa and Somalia now, teaching the doctrine of policing by consent. What I find extraordinary, and what bothers me, is the weakening of the central relationship between police, local authorities and local people by this Home Secretary and his aide de camp the Secretary of State for Scotland—who has not even shown up today—with no reference to the Scottish people. They have not even had the common decency to make a case for the Bill. When will they do so?
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—together with other Conservative Members—pointed out forcefully, in his customary manner, that we are, indeed, the party of law and order. The Bill is designed to make it easier for the law enforcers, both police and magistrates, to clear up crime, streamline procedures—that seems logical enough to me—and modernise the organisation and management methods of the police and, indeed, magistrates courts.
  Having said that, I am mindful of those who have a number of reservations about the Bill. I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken into account some of the anxieties felt by some of our friends in the other place. Tonight, therefore, I wish to focus primarily on the reforms of the police—on why they are needed, and on why so many of the reforms will benefit both the police and the population at large. Too often our opponents, in their desire to oppose for opposition's sake, seem to forget that these reforms are designed to make it easier to tackle crime—to make it easier for our constituents to sleep safely in their beds at night or walk the streets without fear of mugging or sexual assault. Why do those on the Opposition Benches seem so ready to forget that fact?
  182
  The Government have made great strides in recent years to ensure that the police have a better deal. Not only has the number of police risen by close to 16,000 since 1979—to a record 129,000 but police pay has risen by nearly 40 per cent. during that period. The Conservative party has a record to be proud of in these matters.
  I very much welcome the Government's decision to enhance community policing. Thousands of police have been put back on the beat. The neighbourhood watch, safer cities and urban crime fund initiatives have been a tremendous success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) said earlier this evening, there are now more than 115,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, including many in Lichfield and Stone which I have the honour to represent.
  The purpose of the reforms is clear: to devolve power away from the centre—not to centralise—down to the local police authorities and the local chief constable. It is surprising that Opposition Members who so often spout the rhetoric of devolution seem to oppose it when it is introduced. Perhaps even more important, the Bill once enacted will unshackle the police from huge amounts of paperwork and bureaucracy, freeing police officers to combat crime.
  I have seen it myself at Lichfield police station. I am not the only hon. Member from Staffordshire—an Opposition Member spoke earlier—who has been on the beat with the police. I, too, have seen at Lichfield police station and elsewhere the huge sea of paperwork under which the police could drown. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Inspector Colin Bailey, who is based at Lichfield police station in Frog lane and who has taken me on a number of police patrols in the area.
  Paperwork can be damaging. As the writer Joe Orton once said, reading should not be an occupation that we encourage amongst police officers. I guess that the same goes for writing, too. Only three or four months ago, the Home Office provided guidelines to the police about how their paperwork could be reduced. That initiative is to be applauded.
  The strengthening of the police authorities is an important step, particularly as the original proposals have been refined still further. The deepening of local accountability is a key feature. Police authorities will have a legal obligation to consult the local community about matters of importance. Opposition Members who have said that local authorities will not be accountable to local people are wrong. I argue that the police authorities will be more accountable as a result of the Bill.
  Accountability is enhanced by the duty of the police authority to publish a local policing plan each year and to explain whether its objectives have been achieved. It is wrong that police objectives should be shrouded in secrecy as, to some extent, they have been in the past. This is not a centralising Bill just because the Home Secretary will have some say in local police authority affairs. I am sure that if Opposition Members were ever to get their hands on the police budget of £6 billion, even they would want to have some say in how the money was spent.
  There has been inconsistency on the Opposition Benches. Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that the Bill was centralising power, but almost in the same breath he criticised the fact that the magistrates courts would be

  183
  given the freedom to provide contracts of employment. It seems to me that there is some dichotomy in what Opposition Members believe.
  A further agreeable aspect of the proposed reform is the simplification of procedures for the amalgamation of police forces, with the appropriate checks and balances, so as to avoid wasting resources. I have seen for myself how neighbouring police forces use different vehicles and different telecommunications equipment which does not allow them to communicate with each other properly.
  There seems to be some concern among Opposition Members when they speak about a national police force. I emphasise—it is made absolutely clear—that there are no plans at present for the amalgamation of two or more police forces. In any event, speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the party, I do not see what is wrong with the idea of a national police force. Hon. Members will recall that the police force was begun by Robert Peel on a local basis. [Interruption.] I am very pleased that I have finally woken up those on the Opposition Front Bench. The local police forces were set up to show their difference from the Army which had formerly undertaken policing. We have moved a long way since then. [Interruption.] I am honoured that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), compares me with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. I take that as a great compliment.
  The amalgamation of police forces can be advantageous because buying in volume and having integrated systems must make for a major improvement. Nevertheless, we should take into account the views of the Police Federation on this point and ensure that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny and possibly local inquiries if any local amalgamation is to take place.
  The implementation of some important Sheehy proposals should do much to ease bureaucracy and streamline management. The abolition of the ranks of deputy chief constable and chief superintendent will allow chief constables to engage close to 3,000 extra police constables on the beat, if they so choose. I, for one, hope that they will choose to use their extra resources to put extra police on the beat.
  Although this is an important and worthy aspect of the Bill, I nevertheless think that it is important that we recognise that there are those who have some genuine anxieties about certain parts of the Bill.
  Mr. GallieMy hon. Friend is talking about restructuring within the police force and perhaps disposing of ranks. Given the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to the effect that there is no restructuring of the police force in Scotland, does he realise that that is contained in the Bill?
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It displays yet again how Opposition Members are aggressive but their aggression is based on fallacy. Chief police officers—including the chief constable of the Staffordshire police, Charles Kelly—are concerned that the abolition of ranks will enhance operational difficulties rather than diminish them. The Association of Chief Police Officers may have a point when it states:
  "Removal of the Chief Superintendent and Chief Inspector ranks—
  we now know that the chief inspector rank will not be removed—
  184
  "could lead to an informal rank structure which could give rise to the formation of 'Seniors' and 'Juniors' within the remaining ranks.
  It is feared the loss of clarity could seriously compromise efficiency in certain situations particularly in instances of spontaneous public disorder and major disasters which require instant response and do not allow for pre-planning."
  Nevertheless, I have worked in organisations where there were far too many chiefs and not enough Indians, and I remain to be convinced by the arguments presented by the Association of Chief Police Officers, especially now that the Home Secretary has made this major and important concession.
  Junior ranks, too, are concerned about the new disciplinary procedure. The Police Federation made the valid point, which has been mentioned by hon. Members of all parties, that safeguards are needed in relation to disciplinary procedures. It correctly said that police officers are in a "monopoly employment situation"—if they are dismissed, they lose the right to practise their profession.
  I therefore fully accept that it is important that, when police officers are accused of alleged misdemeanours, there are high procedural standards. They should include the right to cross-examine witnesses and have legal representation. The Police Federation states:
  "Policing in the United Kingdom is normally conducted by officers acting alone and if the burden of proof and the procedural standards required to prove disciplinary allegations are reduced to that of ordinary employment law, police officers will be reluctant to act knowing that a complaint, perhaps corroborated by some other ill-disposed person, could quite easily lead to a loss of livelihood."
  That point has also been taken on board, thus proving the flexibility of the Home Office and its ability to listen.
  The vast majority of our police offer a first-rate and excellent service and do not deserve to have the weight of the law unfairly balanced against them, in the form of disciplinary procedures.
  My near neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), made great play of clause 23, which deals with the acceptance of gifts and loans. He spoke at great length about companies such as McDonald's possibly sponsoring police cars and so on. SPACE—the Staffordshire Police Activity and Community Enterprise —is an excellent initiative introduced by the Staffordshire police. It helps to look after children during the summer recess. I would argue that it could well do with sponsorship, which would enable resources to be put back into policing on the streets.
  I have travelled and lived all over the world, but I believe that our police force is second to none. It carries out its duties admirably. In true Peelite spirit, the Bill will do much to modernise the force and equip it for the 21st century. As with any major reform, there are bound to be anxieties but, as he has shown with his alterations to the original Bill, I am sure that the Home Secretary will take any apprehensions on board. We would do well to remember Gilbert and Sullivan's warning:
  "When constabulary duty's to be done, A policeman's lot is not a happy one".
  That is sometimes the case even in Staffordshire.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I now know why this is called Second Reading. I thought that I had heard that speech before and then I realised that it resembled J.

  185
  Arthur Rank's "Look at Life" series from the 1960s—both offered an idealised version of what was happening in the world.
  I am deeply offended by the hon. Members who try to make political capital out of any divisions within the Labour party or of our supposedly being anti-police. Having watched at first hand the party that is supposed to be the party of defence and of law and order, I suggest that we should not be regarded with such disrespect. I say that because the police are in a critical period: the police, private security, the non-Home Department police forces, the military and all the organisations that have a responsibility for policing and security are uncertain about their future.
  In the past few years, we have had a royal commission, a White Paper, nonsensical speeches at party conferences and legislation, but I do not believe that the police are any nearer being able to resolve the problems that they need to resolve in order to tackle crime effectively. The Bill will not take them any further down that road.
  The Home Office and the Government need to demonstrate a degree of imagination in defining policing in the next five or six years, and in defining the relationship between the police and the private sector. The most important activity undertaken by the Home Office has nothing to do with the Bill. I should have liked the Bill to be postponed until the internal inquiry into core responsibilities has been published because that will determine the nature of policing in the years ahead, the size and functions of the police force, and what functions will be handed to or usurped by the private sector. Some serious analysis is required but the Bill does not provide it.
  We have heard some remarkable examples of Toryspeak. The climbdown in the House of Lords is described as a great piece of statesmanship, in the same way as I suppose a full-blooded and fast retreat could be described as a tactical regrouping.
  The other great piece of Toryspeak is, "We are the party of law and order." The Tories need not look far in their own constituencies to find out about the perception of crime, and regrettably the reality of crime is coming closer and closer to the perception. People are extremely anxious, and if the Bill is to reassure them, the Government will have to re-examine it much more closely.
  There may be a return to basics, but regrettably we are returning almost to the basics of the pre-1830s, before the modern police force and modern municipal government were established. As has already been said, in those days policing was the responsibility not of the police force but of the watches or of the military. Otherwise there was self-protection. Then the police and municipal government were established, and our system for 140 years or so has rested on them.
  Now we are reverting to a position in which the private sector will have a greater role than the official sector of policing. I am sorry to bore the Minister further on that subject, but if the private sector is to be expanded, as has happened exponentially over the past 10 years, the minimum that the Government must do is to bring it within the framework of regulation.
  The Bill, far from being a decentralising measure, is in some ways a piece of centralising legislation. It is not quite as bad as it was before it went to the House of Lords—I
  186
  congratulate the other place on having done a good job on it—and we should bear that fact in mind. But the Bill is still centralising.
  I do not like the idea of force amalgamations, or of the reform of the police boards; it will still be possible to pack a committee. I do not like the idea of what will happen to the town that I represent. Until 20 years ago it had a close and complete relationship with the police force and with the watch committee—in other words, with the "controlling element". Now we are not certain that we shall have even one member on the new police authority. I believe that in Manchester there will be more members available than there will be places, so we are going in the reverse direction, away from local accountability. That is greatly to be regretted.
  I should like to speak at greater length, but time does not permit. The Government have got it wrong. Some of the deficiencies in the Bill have been partially remedied, and I hope that in Committee the Government do not take the opportunity to reinsert some of the more obnoxious features that have received universal criticism. I can think of few Bills, even among those introduced by the Government, that have attracted so much criticism. I also have considerable criticisms of the sections dealing with magistrates courts, on which we have all been lobbied.
  We have heard much about the Government consisting of "listening Ministers". I have recently been reading about the rise of Chartism, and one of its demands—annually elected Parliaments—has still not been achieved. However, 120 years later we have annually appointed Home Secretaries. Perhaps some degree of stability could be introduced if the people who make the initial decisions were around to try to implement them.
  I hope that the Committee will do a good job of work, and that the Act that emerges from the House will strengthen the law. I repeat my request that the people in the Home Office should have a little vision, and should look further than the end of their noses, and further than what might happen next week or next month. I ask them to look at the future shape of policing and security. That is imperative, and I hope that the Home Office will meet the challenge.
  9.8 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: May I concentrate for a few moments on the part of the Bill that deals with the reorganisation of the administration of Her Majesty's magistrates courts? While I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the Lord Chancellor for the courteous way in which they have received representations from me and others, they will not be surprised to know that I view that part of the Bill with something less than enthusiasm.
  I must make it clear that, if there was evidence of great inefficiency in the system, or evidence of something fundamentally wrong, or evidence of wastage, I would certainly support fundamental reform of the magistrates court system. However, I do not believe that there is any such evidence at all. I must put on record the fact that this otherwise excellent Bill would be no worse, and would probably be much better, if the whole section on magistrates courts were to disappear altogether. It does not add very much to the sum total of the administration of justice.
  Of course, one is not saying that there is not some inefficiency and some wastage. Even allowing for the

  187
  possibility of that, one must balance any such costs against the enormous saving that our society makes from the remarkable system of voluntary justice that we enjoy in this country.
  It is a remarkable system in which so many thousands of people give service of the highest order freely and generously and handle—I forget the exact figures—90 or 95 per cent. of cases brought before our courts. Against minor inefficiencies, one must balance those enormous advantages to our society of the present voluntary system. When we seek to impose new criteria, cash limits, performance indicators, amalgamation and business plans, let us be careful that we are not discouraging those who have given—and we hope will give in future—service of that high order.
  What is clear to me, and what motivates my criticism, is that the closure of local magistrates courts in many towns and rural areas—it has certainly happened in Kent, and is likely to continue throughout the country—undermines what I believe to be, and what most people perceive as, truly local justice. It leads to the undermining of the magistracy. I am not saying that there is a hidden agenda for the closure of courts. It is a very open agenda, certainly in Kent, where plans have become widely known and a number of courts are lined up for closure, and I have no doubt that what is applying in Kent is likely to apply throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  If there should be any doubt, we were informed in a note from the Justices' Clerks Society that, in the briefing paper prepared by the Lord Chancellor's Department for the Select Committee, the suggestion was made that the Lord Chancellor could, under clause 66,
  "'specify a minimum level of courtroom use—.
  The clerks go on to say:
  "This could lead to the widespread closure of local courts and courts offices. One of the effects of smaller towns losing their magistrates courts will be, particularly in rural areas, a loss of the availability of fair justice to defendants who may have difficulty reaching a distant court. Witnesses also will be deterred from attending".
  What that means in plain English is the closure of smaller courthouses, not only through the effects of the Bill, but through the effects of the Bill coupled with the cash limits that the Lord Chancellor's Department has already been applying. If one combines those supposedly more efficient and businesslike structures with cash limits, the threat to the smaller courthouses arises.
  It is not only that the Bill will create new chief executives—the term applied to justices' chief clerks—of newly amalgamated committees that alarms me. Those chief executives can, and I hope will, be made fully answerable to the magistrates courts committees in their areas. What is alarming is that those committees will in practice—perhaps not in theory—be impotent in the face of a more professional chief executive, whose principal job is to administer the cash, which is provided under cash limits by the Government in conformity with performance indicators laid down by the Government.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long and strongly held views on those matters, but is it not trespassing slightly into an area which would demean our magistrates to suggest that they would be powerless in the face of a clerk? I hold a much higher opinion of magistrates than that.
  Sir Roger Moate: We all have a high opinion of magistrates, but this is a very serious point, to which I hope
  188
  we shall return in Committee and on Report. I believe that I am right and that my hon. Friend is wrong. We have been over this ground before.
  The difficulty is that, as a result of clerk and cash limits, the magistrates, however powerful and determined, will face the closure of some smaller courts. This is not hypothetical; it has already happened in my county, and I believe that it is likely to continue.
  I am not saying that the problem is insoluble; I am making the point that we shall have to face up to it. The result of the legislation will be the closure, over the years, of many courthouses throughout the country.
  Court closures often take place one at a time. When I want to object to a closure in my constituency, other people are not worried about closures in their areas. As the process is piecemeal, the House never gets to grips with what is a very significant change in society. Indeed, Members of Parliament often do not have the right to object as cases do not even reach the Lord Chancellor.
  This is a very serious problem. A courthouse in Faversham that had been going for many hundreds of years—it housed one of the oldest benches in the country: a small and very efficient and cost-effective court—was closed down. We could not object, as Kent county council —the local authority paying 20 per cent. of its costs—did not object.
  This is something for which I do not forgive the county council. Had the matter gone to the Minister, he might have reversed the decision. In my view, this will happen increasingly as we move into the whole new era of cash limits based on certain very rigid criteria, some of which I still think are rather peculiar, and the new structure.
  What will happen under local government reorganisation? Who will have the right to object to a closure? At present, we do not know. Who will then contribute the balance of the costs of the magistrates courts? Again, we do not know. Would it not be sensible to wait for local government reorganisation before embarking on this restructuring of the magistrates courts committees?
  We ought to require simply that every magistrates court closure is automatically referred to the Lord Chancellor. That would not be a very great change. I hope that there will not be many such proposals, and that we shall learn to resist those that are made. I should like to have it confirmed, preferably in the legislation, that there will not be high pressure for amalgamations. I cannot see great reason for amalgamation on the scale that is envisaged, resulting in a drop from 100 magistrates courts committees to 50 or 60.
  Most important of all, as we embark on this new era, is that we should get rid of the formula—which I think has been suspended—that imposes on magistrates courts committees throughout the country certain performance requirements that do not make sense. It does not make sense for central Government to say, "This is the total available cash, and we shall reallocate it county by county, taking from some areas and giving to others where there is probably no need or no crying need, and disregarding history and the number of small towns, as well as the number of small local courts."
  We have been in danger of centralising. No doubt the motive was good: the aim was to secure efficient justice and financial savings. However, I believe that we got it wrong. Thus, I hope that, in Committee and on Report, we shall have a chance of putting the situation right. I hope

  189
  that my hon. Friend will not resist those opportunities, but will respond to the many representations that he has received from hon. Members and from people outside.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: This unappealing and unacceptable Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary in his customary way—cynicism, complacency and calculation in large and equal measure. There was cynicism in the rationale which he applied in justification of the measure. There was complacency in the face of its manifest failure to deal with real concerns about crime and the administration of justice. There was calculation because at the heart of all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does is not the interests of justice, not the proper and real concerns that need to be addressed about crime, but a cynical calculation of his political future.
  Those of us who listened to all the speeches during the debate will have noted that the most striking feature was that only two Conservative Members could be found to give unequivocal support to the Bill. I refer to the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). That says that all that needs to be said about the merits of the Bill.
  Mr. David Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No.
  All that the Government could dredge up was, as I have said, the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and for Mid-Staffordshire.
  Mr. Atkinson rose—
  Mr. Boateng: There is another volunteer for the order of the brown nose.
  Mr. Fabricant: You can talk.
  Mr. Boateng: I am the last to say anything in response to the barracking about that order, but at least I know the origins of my nose.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It was a memorable speech in its way, but even in that there was a moment of concern or doubt—I am glad that he is now in his place—about the proposals for the special role of the lords lieutenant. Of all the things to find wrong with this measure and of all the agonies to be shared with the House, the hon. Gentleman was able to find one concern, which was the slight withdrawal of the importance and status of the role of lords lieutenant.
  Such is the world in which some Conservative Members live. It is one far removed from reality, from the real concerns about crime and crime prevention. There are real concerns about the deplorable morale in magistrates courts and in the administration of justice generally.
  Some important points were made by the hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Faversham (Sir R. Moate). There did not seem to be an unequivocal welcome from those hon. Members for the Bill. There seemed to be some concern.
  190
  I fear for the hon. Member for Faversham, who made an important and serious speech. He expressed the desire that certain matters would be raised in Committee. I saw the expression on the faces of the silent ones who sit on the Treasury Bench. Expressions of concern may well be made in Committee, but they will not, I fear, be made by the hon. Member for Faversham. The reality is—
  Sir Roger Moate: I referred to consideration on Report. I have no particular ambition to serve in Committee.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member has been a Member of this place for a long time—for much longer than I—and he clearly knows the way it works.
  The Home Secretary was only too anxious to share with us the anticipation of the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was only too anxious to palm off on him the difficult issues and the real concerns—
  Mr. Graham Allen: The poisoned chalice.
  Mr. Boateng: Indeed. The Parliamentary Secretary will drink deep of that draught. He has been anticipating the drop for some time. That is surprising, bearing in mind his experience and position. He knows that there is widespread concern throughout the country and on both sides of the House about the provisions on reorganising magistrates courts. That is not surprising, given the measures in the Bill.
  The Bill is a battered edifice. It was knocked about quite a bit in the course of its introduction in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary and his noble and learned Friend may rue the day that the measure was introduced there, because the robustness of mind in the other place has long since been quelled on the Conservative Benches.
  The octogenarian tendency in the other place shows remarkable signs of life, and great spirit. We owe Members of the House of Lords a debt of gratitude, and we do not intend to let them down. The Bill was assaulted on both sides of the House. Although some of its edges were knocked off, and it was made a little smoother in parts, it remains an obstacle to the proper administration of justice, which is why we shall oppose it.
  The Bill represents, in so obvious a form, the twin pinnacles of Toryism, on this and many other issues. The first pinnacle is the Tories' adulation of market forces and belief that the rules and disciplines of the market should be applied wherever possible. That is their approach to all issues. The second pinnacle is their obsession with centralisation, and loathing of local administration.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Quite right, too.
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady has only just manifested herself in the Chamber. Her comment accords neither with what Ministers have said in this debate so far nor with the lip service which the Home Secretary has paid to the notion of local accountability. I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary will rise to his feet and say how much the Lord Chancellor supports the input of local magistrates courts committees. The reality, however, is different.
  Let us see what is left now that the other place has had a go at this edifice. The power to remove directions to a

  191
  magistrates courts committee remains, as does the power to remove the chairman and members of a magistrates courts committee and replace them with appointees.
  We are discussing not just the two co-opted persons —the Lord Chancellor's placepersons—who will have all the necessary qualifications required to be the placepersons of any Minister in this House: they will be paid-up members of the Tory party, preferably the spouse of a Conservative Member. There will doubtless be plenty of willing nominees for that post.
  We are discussing not just the power to co-opt but the power, in certain circumstances, to replace the magistrates courts committees entirely by people who are not even justices of the peace. That is an incredible power, when one considers its constitutional implications.
  The Bill still contains the power not to approve candidates for the post of justices' chief executive and justices' clerk. Then there are the powers of the inspectorate, and the indirect monitoring of justices' clerks by the chief executive. All those aspects remain intact, despite the amendments in another place, which were eventually accepted—although initially opposed—by the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Mackinlay: What my hon. Friend describes must be seen against a backdrop of the growing concern, in this House and especially in another place, about the power of the Lord Chancellor and his office. Is there not widespread concern about the politicisation of his duties in administering justice, and is there not a case for a root-and-branch review of his roles, in respect both of the magistracy and of the administration of justice generally? Is my hon. Friend aware that their Lordships are holding a debate on that very point tomorrow evening?
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has tabled a number of important questions in the House, and I know that the Lord Chancellor has met him to discuss his concern about the latter's role in relation to the late president of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the real concerns among the judiciary and the public alike about the fact that the Lord Chancellor is being given powers that lie outside his proper judicial functions.
  It will therefore not be good enough if the Parliamentary Secretary dismisses as unworthy of consideration the idea that the Lord Chancellor might be tempted to misuse the considerable powers that this Bill will give him. Moreover, there are real anxieties about the extent to which the Treasury has its dead hand on the administration of justice. Increasingly, the Lord Chancellor is becoming the agent of the Treasury in matters of justice.
  These are not fanciful notions; they are a real reflection of the worries expressed by Lord Ackner, a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who has referred to the role of the Treasury and how it works against the interests of justice. He has also talked of the importance of the Lord Chancellor being a bulwark against this encroaching tendency.
  In the House of Commons, we suffer from the fact that we do not have the Lord Chancellor before us: we have only his Parliamentary Secretary. Fond though we are of him, the Lord Chancellor's valet is no substitute for his own presence. [HoN. MEMBERS: "His batman."] I did not use that word, because it would imply that there was a Robin—and he does not even have that. He does not even have someone to sit behind him—
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Boateng: No, we have heard more than enough from the hon. Lady. This is not the place for her strictures on the bomb or the family. We are concerned here with the administration of justice.
  Concerns have been expressed by no less a body than the Justices' Clerks Society, which has no political axe to grind. The Home Secretary cannot suggest that it is in the vanguard of revolution—a body subverted by the Labour party and used for our own political purposes. The society has a legitimate professional interest in the proper administration of justice.
  That body and the Magistrates Association, a body of the utmost respectability, say on behalf of their members that they are concerned about the powers on amalgamation, and we look forward to some assurances from the Minister on that issue.
  It is interesting to note the way in which the two parts of the Bill reflect the centralising and anti-democratic tendencies of the Conservative party. The Lord Chancellor will have power to amalgamate magistrates courts committees and petty sessional areas. Not only will there not be a local inquiry before that happens, but there will not even be an opportunity for magistrates courts committees to express a need or desire for amalgamation. It can be imposed willy-nilly.
  How many magistrates courts committees are for the chop? Concerns have been expressed on all sides by hon. Members who have a particular regard for the work carried out in their areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) all reflected the concerns that have been expressed by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, (Mr. Blair) about this power. How many committees do the Government have in mind to be left at the end of the day? Will there be 50 or 60, or fewer than that? What criteria will be applied in choosing?
  The Lord Chancellor will have power to issue directives. What criteria will he apply before issuing them? Will they relate to the quality of justice or will there be a cost-cutting exercise? Will there be a gradual and steady encroachment by the private sector on the administration of justice?
  The hon. Member for Faversham was wrong about that, because it is part of the hidden agenda. We are debating the privatisation of justice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) rightly expressed the concern of his constituents and the Police Federation about that.
  Those of us who have had anything to do with the administration of justice and policing appreciate the importance of the establishment of local priorities. I make no bones about declaring my interest as a practising barrister, and declaring that we need to preserve that local accountability. We must also preserve the judicial independence which ensures that the functions of the magistrates and the court clerks are not usurped by a centralising force that has the interests of the Treasury at heart. We want cast-iron guarantees on that.
  It would not be right to accept the palliative in clause 71, and it is not accepted by many of those who have good reason to know and to be concerned about the current state of morale among magistrates, their clerks and the communities they serve. They do not accept the assurances

  193
  that were given by the noble and learned Lord in the other place. We shall not accept them either when they are parroted tonight by the Parliamentary Secretary. We want an assurance in clear and unequivocal terms that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to accept a strengthening of that provision, so that judicial independence—the integrity of the system—is preserved.
  There is a favourite word—one of those buzz words or market words—that has been imported by the Tories into the administration of justice. It is the notion of a stakeholder. That is what they teach, and that is what will be peddled by the chief executive in his role envisaged by the Bill—the notion that they are stakeholders in the administration of justice.
  They believe that the main stakeholder is the Treasury, the people who pay the bill, the Government Department responsible for the money. We do not accept that. We do not believe that Treasury considerations should predominate over the interests of justice. There is one stakeholder in the administration of justice: the citizen—each and every one of us. The citizens, together as a community, demand that the administration of justice be protected; they demand that it be independent and secured.
  We intend, in the course of our opposition to the measure tonight and in the weeks that lie ahead in Committee, to make sure that the administration of justice is secured, its independence is maintained, and its integrity upheld.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), in an excellent speech, asked me two questions and I will answer him. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who has kept me so scrupulously posted regarding the anxieties of outer London magistrates, asked me a question and I will answer him. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was as robust and listenable as ever, as indeed was my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and I shall pass on what he said about policing in Gloucestershire.
  My hon. Friends representing police interests as well as their constituents did so most effectively and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) got the point entirely about devolved powers and the local plan. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I are grateful to all those and others, too.
  My hon Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) recorded his strongly held views about magistrates. I assure him that I am a keen student of the final Adjournment debate of the last Parliament when he discussed these issues in the context of his local magistrates court.
  My hon. Friend was right to say that 94 per cent. of criminal justice in Britain is dispensed by magistrates. Frankly, it is the jewel in the crown of the British judicial system. That we should have 94 per cent. of criminal justice dispensed by a peer group on a voluntary basis is a miracle. Nobody writing a written constitution would dream of presuming that, and we often forget to say thank you to our magistrates who provide that service.
  194
  The Bill confirms control of magistrates' administrative function where it should be: in the local magistrates courts committee. Any attempt to represent the proposals otherwise is fanciful. Anyone who does so cannot have read the Bill. In those terms, I reject the main drift of the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
  We have heard a wide range of views from all parts of the House about the Bill. I shall not attempt to respond to every point. We shall have further opportunity to consider the Bill in detail, but I want to reply to some of the most important points raised.
  I shall address first the points made on the parts of the Bill containing the provisions affecting the police. It has been suggested that the Bill will centralise control over the police. The opposite is true. The Bill gives greater responsibility to local police authorities and their local police forces. The Bill abolishes central Government controls over manpower numbers and all but the largest items of capital expenditure. It gives greater freedom to chief constables to manage the resources available to meet local needs.
  The Bill makes clear the way in which the chief constable will be held to account by the local police authority, and the way in which the local police authority must account to local people for the quality of the service that the force provides.
  It has also been suggested that the proposals in the Bill are unnecessary or irrelevant to fighting crime, or that they are damaging to the police service. That is also untrue. The Bill will ensure that we have the right statutory framework for effective and efficient policing.
  The key changes in the Bill are essential if we want to have the best possible police service in the 21st century. It will create strong, independent local police authorities; greater freedom for chief constables to manage their forces; a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance; a new funding system and a strong inspectorate; and it will pave the way for better personnel management and discipline procedures—for a start.
  Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister now do what the Home Secretary did not do and explain how the Bill applies to Scotland and justify it in the Scottish context, and do that now?
  Mr. Taylor: Gladly. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish part of the Bill. The Scottish provisions mainly cover issues that are dealt with on a Great Britain basis, such as rank structure and conditions of service. Therefore, it is appropriate for them to be included in a Great Britain Bill. [Interruption.] I must press on because time is limited, as I am sure hon. Members will understand.
  The changes proposed will result in a police service which is better able to respond to what the public want because it is better organised and better run. By making accountability clearer, local people will be better able to see how well their local police are performing and whether they are meeting the needs of local communities. The Bill will help police forces to focus their efforts more effectively on those things that are of greatest public

  195
  concern. Together with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Bill represents the most significant assault upon crime by any Government for many years.
  It has been claimed that there was no consultation before the Bill was introduced. That simply is not the case. There was a full and open public debate about the future of the police service for more than a year before the Bill was introduced. The issues that the Bill addresses go back several years before that.
  Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman, in a moment of sanity, tell me what the Bill does to improve the efficiency of the police force or to aid the prevention of crime?
  Mr. Taylor: I have been telling the hon. Gentleman all that. Furthermore, the Bill improves structures, the career of policemen and accountability, and it makes for greater clarification, more local contact and more transparency. That is just a few of the things that it does.
  Another suggestion tonight has been that national and local objectives together with local policing plans will interfere with operational independence. But let me reassure the House that nothing in the Bill compromises the operational independence of the chief constable. Clause 5 reproduces the provisions of the 1964 Act, which states that the force
  "shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable".
  The Bill increases his responsibility for running the farce. Central controls over manpower numbers are abolished and clause 10 makes it clear that all civilian staff who work in support of the force are also to be under his direction and control.
  Police authorities and the Home Secretary have always influenced policing. It is essential for the accountability of the police service that they should. It would be absurd to argue that a chief constable should not have regard to the publicly expressed opinions of his police authority and the Home Secretary. The Bill will make clear, open and public the way in which the chief constable will be held to account. The principles of greater openness and effective accountability are as important here as they are in any other part of the public sector.
  The procedures for the selection of independent members of police authorities have been ridiculed in some quarters. However, it is now widely accepted that there should be a substantial independent presence in local police authorities. That will ensure that there is an opportunity for people from all walks of life to make a contribution. It will allow people with relevant skills or expertise to serve, without first requiring them to be local councillors or to sit on the magistrates bench. We need a procedure that allows them to be appointed, while ensuring that they are independent and not subject to any form of political patronage, whether from central or local government. That is what the Bill's selection procedures will achieve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) asked what sort of people will be appointed to police authorities. We expect the authorities to appoint people from all walks of life who have valuable skills.
  The Home Secretary will remain the Metropolitan police authority, safeguarding the national interest in the Met's work, and fully accountable to Parliament. For the Met, as explained in the White Paper, we are establishing
  196
  a new and non-political body, outside the Home Office, to help the Home Secretary and Londoners to get the best from the reforms in London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also asked whether there should be a quota of councillors or other members on the Metropolitan police committee. It will be an advisory body, with 12 members selected for their individual skills and ability to help the Home Secretary to hold the commissioner to account—not as representatives of any particular organisation or group.
  On the subject of chief constables, we fully appreciate the need to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent any police authority from acting capriciously. Those safeguards are likely to include a requirement for it to be clear at the outset whether the expectation is renewal, non-renewal or open competition—and a requirement to make it clear at the outset on what grounds decisions about renewal will be taken. The details of the new arrangements are currently under discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers. In due course any regulations will be subject to consultation in the Police Advisory Board.
  It has been suggested that there is no need to change procedures if there are no plans for police force amalgamation. It is important to realise that the Bill will lay the basis of policing for many years to come. It is sensible to allow for the possibility that in future it may be in the interests of police efficiency or effectiveness to alter existing police force boundaries. That is the purpose of the new procedures in the Bill.
  The existing procedures are cumbersome and involve unnecessary delay and expense, which would be detrimental to the quality of policing. The experience of the 1960s shows that, under existing procedures, changes can take two or three years to implement. The new procedures in the Bill provide a full opportunity for any proposals for change to be considered, interested parties to raise objections and any proposals to be subject to approval by Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked what are the Government's intentions for the police authority in Northern Ireland. The Bill's Northern Ireland provisions make no change to the role of the police authority. In late March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland published a consultation paper that set out views on the improvements necessary to clarify roles, responsibilities and lines of accountability within the structure of policing within Northern Ireland. Responses are invited by 31 May. We would not expect to bring forward provisions on that issue in this Bill.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked why police discipline in Northern Ireland is not included in the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published a consultation paper on police discipline procedures and is considering the responses. Future legislation will be necessary to implement any changes and we would not expect to include such provisions in the Bill.
  Part IV contains provisions relating to the magistrates courts service in England and Wales.
  Mr. Maclennan: In respect of part II, which deals with Scotland, the Minister has sought to justify a United Kingdom Bill on the grounds that it deals with matters such as ranks on a United Kingdom basis. But the whole of part II amends Scottish legislation, the Police (Scotland) Act

  197
  1967. Does he realise that he is acting in a matter that will be widely regarded as unconstitutional and inappropriate in Scotland?
  Mr. Taylor: I have seldom been rebuked with that degree of vehemence. I referred to the Scottish issues earlier, by request.
  A number of hon. Members expressed concern at the provision in clause 62 which enables the Lord Chancellor to initiate the amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas. The White Paper, "A New Framework for Local Justice", announced the Government's intention of reducing the number of magistrates courts committees to achieve the right balance between operational needs and maintaining the local nature of the service. It was quickly apparent that many committees found it difficult to plan their future in the light of it, because they did not, and could not, know whether they were to remain as they were or be amalgamated.
  Later, in 1992, on the basis of criteria for the appropriate minimum size for a committee area—criteria on which negotiations took place—the Lord Chancellor invited committees to make proposals on how the reduction in the number of separate areas could be effected. On the basis of those recommendations, he reached a number of conclusions on where the amalgamations might take place.
  The Lord Chancellor has made it clear that amalgamation of magistrates courts committee areas would be contemplated only if it was in the best interests of the service. That is reflected on the face of the Bill in clause 62(4). However, he has made it equally clear that he would not require amalgamation if the improvement in service that would flow from it could be achieved in other ways. The magistrates courts in outer London have been keen to explore that option. Their representative—the outer London action group—has met my officials on a number of occasions and has developed proposals, which have not yet been seen or discussed.
  Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister anticipate any amalgamations and, if so, how many?
  Mr. Taylor: The White Paper, which the hon. Gentleman will have read, anticipated that the number of magistrates courts committees would come down from the present 105 to something in the order of 50 to 60—[Interruption.] It is in the White Paper. It has been out for two years. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read it.
  The progress of and approach to those discussions have attracted the approval of the outer London action group. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those discussions have been sensitive. I did not wish to debate them before the courts in outer London had knowledge of them. The Lord Chancellor and I are confident that we are well on course to provide for outer London a scheme that should deliver the benefits of a larger administrative base without the amalgamation of committee areas. I shall report further developments to the House as the Bill progresses, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will recall that I challenged the Home Secretary on the provisions of clause
  198
  66. Will he now tell the House whether the provisions in that clause make it more or less likely that rural magistrates courts will close?
  Mr. Taylor: Any decision about closure of a magistrates court—this may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman—is made locally by the magistrates courts committee. The Lord Chancellor has no locus in it.
  Part IV contains provisions to bring up to date the administrative structure of the magistrates courts service. Such reform is well overdue. The reforms will better enable the service to deal with the challenge that it faces now and in the future without losing its essential nature as a local service in which the key management decisions are taken locally by local magistrates themselves. In that way, I believe that the magistrates courts, which have a long and proud history of public service, will continue that service in a secure and well-managed way.
  The Bill—both the parts that deal with the police and those that deal with the magistrates courts—has a unified theme. Its purpose is to improve the management and organisation of the public services that play a key part in the fight against crime, so that they can provide the public with a better service. Together with the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, it represents the most significant assault on crime by any Government for many years. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 247.

  Division No. 219]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butler, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ancram, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Churchill, Mr

  Ashby, David

  Clappison, James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Congdon, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Conway, Derek

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Batiste, Spencer

  Couchman, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Booth, Hartley

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Dicks, Terry

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Graham

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Elletson, Harold

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  199

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  Madel, Sir David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Mans, Keith

  French, Douglas

  Marland, Paul

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gill, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hague, William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Norris, Steve

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hannam, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Harris, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sims, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  200

  Steen, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Stern, Michael

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Allan

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waller, Gary

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sykes, John

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

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

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Trimble, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Allen, Graham

  Dafis, Cynog

  Alton, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Darling, Alistair

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Dixon, Don

  Bell, Stuart

  Dobson, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blair, Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Blunkett, David

  Enright, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Boyes, Roland

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Garrett, John

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coffey, Ann

  Gordon, Mildred

  Cohen, Harry

  Graham, Thomas

  Connarty, Michael

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbett, Robin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Gunnell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hall, Mike

  Cousins, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Cox, Tom

  Hardy, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Harvey, Nick

  201

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Henderson, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Janner, Greville

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Keen, Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Simpson, Alan

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McKelvey, William

  Snape, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McLeish, Henry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Maclennan, Robert

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stevenson, George

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Straw, Jack

  Mahon, Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Michael, Alun

  Wareing, Robert N

  Milburn, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Wilson, Brian

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mudie, George

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Michael (N W"kshire)

  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Mr. John Cummings.

  Olner, William

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Chapman.]

10.15 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: The money resolution, on which we shall soon vote, is as flawed and inadequate as the Bill. It fails to allow for the full costs of that misguided experiment in centralisation. It fails to allow for the extra bureaucracy that is inevitable, and it does nothing to provide the cash needed to fight or to prevent crime. It does not deserve the support or even the tolerance of the House.
We are told:
"Present expenditure on the police in England and Wales is currently over £6 billion annually. The Bill is not expected to have a direct effect on the level of expenditure"—[Interruption.]
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to request the hon. Members who are so loud in conversation to let my hon. Friend address the House in relative silence?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman certainly may. I ask hon. Members who are leaving to do so quickly and quietly, and to hold their conversations quietly, so that we can hear the Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Michael: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The explanation of the financial effects of the Bill tells us that the Bill is not expected to have a direct effect on the level of expenditure. Translated, that means that the police will be expected to do more with less cash from this Government of promise breakers. Is that charge unfair? Not at all.
We must bear in mind the fact that in the 1992 election campaign the Conservatives pledged to provide an extra 1,000 police officers, but afterwards they delivered a cut of 224. Things will get worse. Other police forces should take warning from the crisis on the streets of south Wales this year. The Home Office is holding back £2.5 million, Earl Ferrers, the Home Office Minister, has had to admit that he does not understand local government finance in Wales, and the Secretary of State for Wales has confirmed that his capping criteria apply to police spending, as to everything else. The Government hang on to the cash, and the price will be paid by police officers and by the public in south Wales.
The Conservative record does not inspire confidence. Since 1979 the Government have presided over an increase of 120 per cent. in crime, during which time police numbers have increased by only 7 per cent. The burden of paperwork has increased, as has the time spent waiting for courts. The burden of non-crime duties has increased each year, as has the time taken to meet the demands of the Crown Prosecution Service, which is often followed by the

203
disappointment of charges being reduced or dropped. The police, like victims and witnesses, feel let down, neglected and ignored.
An inadequate £21 million is to be provided for the implementation of the needless and unproductive upheaval that the Bill will bring about. Used properly, £21 million could make a real contribution. It could pay for 1,000 extra officers. But it will not; it will be swallowed up in administration and bureaucracy. The £21 million could be used to cut crime. The cost of the 20 original safer cities projects, which have now been cut, was £17 million. Putting the £21 million into safer cities would more than double the funding of the original programme. Instead, the Government have cut the lifeline for the first group of projects, and cut the staff and the cash available for the second of safer cities projects.
Those are the economics of the madhouse. With drug-related crime and retail crime estimated to cost £2 billion a year each, and burglary and car crime now constituting more than 53 per cent. of crime, the Government face a stark choice, which the money resolution totally ignores. The Government must either accept the appalling level of crime and give the police the tools and the cash to cope with it, or they must join Labour in the battle to reduce and to prevent crime in the country.
Why do the Bill and the motion ignore those realities? The reality is that chief constables and local police superintendents throughout the country are showing commitment and good sense by joining with local authorities and local communities in local partnerships against crime which are at the heart of Labour's approach to being tough on crime and its causes. The Home Secretary now borrows some of our words, but does nothing in the Bill to help to build such local partnership. Indeed, he threatens to undermine it by taking strategic powers away from local police forces.
The motion makes no allowance for the cost of merging police forces into ever larger and more remote units. Has the Home Secretary noticed that Dyfed and Powys police force, the smallest in England and Wales, has the finest record on clear up of crime and of crime reduction? Its main competition comes from Gwent, which is the second smallest force by numbers and which covers urban and valleys areas with massive problems. I suspect that, if the Bill goes through, some Minister will soon be back before the House with news of using the powers to merge police forces into ones which are ever bigger and ever more remote from the communities which they exist to serve. The cost of inefficiency and bureaucracy will be immense, and it is not costed and not allowed for in the motion.
I offer the Minister the following test of his goodwill and integrity: if he does not intend to merge police forces, if he does not intend to waste cash on centralising control, if he agrees with me that police forces should be locally managed, let him prove so by promising to drop clause 12 from the Bill in Committee.
The Minister must admit that we have not been given a single good reason for merging police forces. The only two reasons of any sort came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his brief but disastrous time at the Home Office when he first said:
"big is bound to be better—isn't it?"
That flies in the face of all available evidence. The Chancellor also offered a bizarre explanation with an anecdote about meeting interior Ministers in Europe. He claimed, on reaching agreement on some police issue, that
204
each of them said that they would promise to go home and tell their chief of police to implement it, while our hapless Home Secretary could only promise to consult our 43 chief constables and ask them if they would follow it through.
That is good knock-about stuff, but it is not true. Everyone in our partner countries has laughed out loud at such an inaccurate picture. For instance, in Germany, Bonn has little power over police functions. The Länder runs the police service. It is a local and regional function, not a national function.
The Bill is based on the management style of "Dad's Army", backed by a money resolution designed in cloud-cuckoo-land. The Home Office cannot answer when asked to estimate the costs of computer hardware. Software is not mentioned in the motion. Neither Ministers nor civil servants can answer when asked from where the savings will come to make the revenue costs broadly neutral. They simply do not know. We all know that the police have been tightening their belts year on year for the past decade, as mounting crime has weighed them down.
What about extra costs in the Home Office? The Home Secretary is assuming the powers of a dictator over objectives and performance in every local area. If his orders conflict with the needs of the public, as they are likely to do, the chief constable will have to choose between obeying orders and protecting the public. As ever, the chief constables and elected representatives will seek to limit the damage, but will have extra burdens imposed on them by having to jump through hoops designed and chosen by the Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary will also have arbitrary powers to decide how Home Office cash is divided between police forces. There is nothing in the Bill to say that he has to do so against clear, published criteria, and that is certainly not spelt out in the money resolution. He does not have to be objective or to give reasons. The Government will have the power to cap on the one hand and the power to set the minimum budget on the other. The Home Secretary will sit at the top of a growing bureaucracy of central intervention and interference—a bureaucracy designed to measure the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
That is precisely what we see happening in the national health service. Doctors and nurses are strangled by red tape, and the number of accountants and managers is out of control. This is what the Bill offers our police service. Already the police department of the Home Office employs 2,232 staff. The Home Secretary should cut staff centrally and increase provision for personnel out on the streets. He should let local police forces get on with the job in partnership with local authorities and communities, including the business community, voluntary organisations and residents.
Is the figure of £21 million required under the money resolution accurate? Is £6 billion a year enough? The Conservative Government do not have a track record of getting these things right. In 1986 they estimated the initial running cost of the Crown Prosecution Service at £4 million; by 1992 the figure had reached £226 million. The Crown Prosecution Service is certainly not a success story.
Where in the money resolution is there any reference to provision for the police to receive donations and sponsorship? How much is estimated in relation to that power? Sponsorship of local crime prevention or of local work with the young and the old certainly makes sense, especially in the context of partnership. But many commercial organisations, such as Marks and Spencer and

205
the Co-operative movement, currently put money into crime prevention and youth projects. Youth Express targets young people on crime issues, thanks to support from Express Newspapers and others.
The provision in the Bill is not needed for such issues. Why is it there? There is no room for complacency under a Government whose neglect has necessitated fund raising for premature baby cots and who neglect the old, the sick and the homeless. On this element there is no costing in the money resolution.
Mr. Tim Devlin: If the hon. Gentleman were not reading such rubbish so quickly, and if he had reflected on the subject a little longer before starting, he might realise the stupidity of some of the things that he is saying. For instance, he said, in a gabble a couple of minutes ago, that the Crown Prosecution Service certainly was not a success story. If a service that secures a 97 per cent. conviction rate is not a success story, can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman has just wandered in off the streets. He would be better informed if he had listened to the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have condemned this measure. In fact, the Crown Prosecution Service has disappointed many people—victims, witnesses and the police—by downgrading or dropping so many cases. If that is a success story, and if it satisfies the hon. Gentleman, perhaps the Bill and its money resolution too will satisfy him. They do not satisfy the standards that the Opposition set, nor do they promise the standard of policing that we and the public expect. Those are the criteria against which the money resolution should be judged.
On law and order, the British public now recognise that it is Labour that sets the agenda and that we are determined to tackle the problems of crime. That must involve making the best use of resources, which, in turn, is best achieved by cutting bureaucracy, rewarding efficiency, supporting local partnership and recognising that the closer to the ground decisions are taken the more effective they will be. If the Prime Minister and his colleagues ever get round to studying language, they will realise that that is what the word "subsidiarity" means. It is not what the Bill offers. In fact, the Bill gives the Government power to go in precisely the opposite direction, both in relation to police powers and in relation to magistrates' powers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) referred earlier.
For the Bill as a whole, the message must be, "Hands off our police." The prime responsibility of a chief constable—indeed, of every constable—should be to the public and not to the Home Secretary, and certainly not to civil servants. The financial arrangements should reflect that reality, encouraging co-operation and good practice, but recognising that financial management, like leadership, must be local and transparent. We cannot afford the inefficiency and the bureaucratic time-wasting that the Bill will foist on our police. The money resolution is inadequate, vague and flawed and is an unsafe basis for legislation. That is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
10.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As you know, I was seeking to catch your eye earlier. Owing to Committee commitments, I missed some of the speeches in the Second Reading debate, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who I am told made an important speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the £21 million that is referred to indirectly in the money resolution is less than adequate and is directed to the wrong targets. If I refer to an issue in Cheshire, the House will understand precisely why the targeting is wrong.
As is well known from published statistics, crime is rising at an alarming rate within Cheshire. I am sure, however, that the House will condemn the irresponsible journalism of the past few days, which sought to denigrate the people of the Blacon area of Chester, which is immediately adjacent to my constituency. It was described as a no-go area. The divisional commander, Mr. Deryck Farmer—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We are debating the money resolution. If the hon. Member returns to it, he will be in order. [Interruption.] I am having great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Member has to say. Many private conversations are taking place. If hon. Members wish to pursue them, there are better places than the Chamber.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the hon. Member for Ellsmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). Is it appropriate for him to raise matters that relate to another Member's constituency without, I presume, giving him notice of his intention to do so? It is my understanding of this place that it is out of order to make such reference unless notice has been given.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is aware of the courtesies of the House. I do not know whether he informed the hon. Member in question.
Mr. Miller: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to relate my remarks to the money resolution. My remarks are directed specifically to the costs of policing. I should explain to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the relevant police division is part of my constituency.
It was clear from the reports in the media that the journalists had got things wrong. The published figures show that only 5 per cent. of assaults on the police within Chester occurred within Blacon. That must be compared with the alarmist reporting of the past few days. I am pleased to put on record on behalf of all parties in Chester our criticism of the media in this instance.
If we view more widely the statistics that relate to Cheshire, it is clear that the cost to the electorate is not referred to properly in the money resolution. None of the important statistics that have been published—they show a 188 per cent. increase in robberies in Cheshire since 1989 —has been incorporated. None of the huge increase in vehicle crime is reflected in the resolution.
There are enormous costs to society that the Government must take into account. People are paying

207
huge insurance premiums in the part of the north-west about which I am talking. They are penalised because of the high level of car crime.
Some responsible borough councils are spending their meagre resources in a positive attempt to reduce crime. My borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston is spending part of its resources on installing cameras to reduce crime. If the Government are serious about issues of technology, some of which were referred to earlier, they should take on those responsibilities and seek to assist borough councils such as mine and others in the Chester area with badly needed money.
Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I have spent time with my local police force, where morale is clearly low because resources are poor. The police are unable to work efficiently because vehicles are inadequate, investment in information technology is poor and management structures leave much to be desired. People are working under enormous strain because the Government are not prepared to put sufficient money into the equation. Hence my opening remarks on the money resolution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the £21 million referred to would help to recruit 1,000 new police officers. Had the hon. Member for Macclesfield remained in his place—this issue is clearly not relevant to his part of Cheshire—he would have agreed that Cheshire needs an increase in the number of police personnel on the beat. That has been shown clearly by the recently published statistics from a number of sources.
Although many issues will be subject to detailed debate in Committee, it is extraordinary that, given the problems that I have described, the Bill is the best that the Government can do. I suppose that clause 23 falls within the context of the money resolution. The notion of sponsored organisations within the police service is ironic. Policemen wearing the same shirts as Manchester United would be perverse and the wrong approach to policing.
The Committee that discussed the deregulation Bill has just dealt with some aspects of the courts. I foresee some interesting conflicts between the sponsorship relationships expected by this Bill and those expected in relation to the courts by the deregulation Bill. Important money issues are associated with those.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made an unusually incisive intervention in the speech of the Home Secretary in the Second Reading debate about the cost of cutting the number of rural courts. I know from the bench on which my wife sits that two courts have had to be closed. The Minister made it clear that that was the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee, but how can magistrates courts committees expect to run those courts properly, in the interests of the people whom they seek to serve, if the Government fail to give them the necessary resources? The money resolution fails to identify those important issues.
It is no good the Minister simply saying that the issues of amalgamation have been dealt with in a paper that was published some two years ago. Some hard issues are being dealt with today in relation to the cuts in court services, which the Government are underfunding through and through.
After 15 years of Conservative rule, the Government who promised to be the Government of law and order should have put enough money into the equation to reflect the needs of society. They have abysmally failed to do that.
208
The statistics for Cheshire police clearly show as much. Moreover, they have failed to do so in respect of our courts, particularly magistrates courts. I regret to say that the difficulties we face in Cheshire and across the nation will continue until the Government get their act together and give the right priority to policing and to the administration of magistrates courts. That, not the perverse approach adopted in this Bill, is what is needed.
10.40 pm
Mr. James Wallace: During the main debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) dealt with an important constitutional point about the fact that part II of the Bill contains important amendments to the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. It was a Scottish Act, no doubt certified by the Speaker of the time as such, and dealt with in a Scottish Standing Committee. Almost inevitably, the Standing Committee to which this Bill will be sent will comprise few Scottish Members, despite the constitutional issues that it raises.
The financial effects of the Bill for Scotland are important, too. The money resolution says nothing about what it will cost the Secretary of State for Scotland to implement the Bill. Such a lack of information shows how inadequately Scottish legislation is dealt with in the House.
The memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill tells us:
"The provisions of the Bill relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland will have no significant financial implications."
Yet we know that the Bill provides for grants to be made by the Secretary of State to a police authority in connection with "safeguarding national security", for instance. I accept that the money needed in that connection will vary enormously from year to year, but we must assume that the relevant clause was included for some reason.
Equally, the Bill refers to common services, and to the fact that the Secretary of State may require police forces to use facilities—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): If the hon. Gentleman will turn to page x of the explanatory and financial memorandum, he will read the following:
"The provisions of the Bill relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland will have no significant financial implications."
Mr. Wallace: I thank the Minister. Had he been listening, he would have heard me read that out a moment ago.
The Bill also allows for police forces to be charged by the Secretary of State for providing some services—yet we are told that it will have no significant financial implications.
Of equal importance to police forces in Scotland will be clause 43, the first clause relating to Scotland and to the constitution of its police forces, which removes certain ranks from their hierarchy. We have been told that that is designed to promote efficiency. Yet, I repeat, the memorandum claims that there are no significant financial implications. That means that there will be no savings of significance either—so why in all the world are the police forces of Scotland being forced to go through all these changes?
Sheehy's recommendation of the greater use of management structures failed to take into account the fact that the police make up a body that requires a chain of

209
command. My constituency is a good case in point: it is important, in such a remote area, to have a person—in this instance, a chief inspector—who has overall authority. Many of the police officers in Scotland do not want to embark on these massive changes, which, we are told, will ultimately in any event have "no significant financial implications". That is a measure of how irrelevant the provisions are for policing in Scotland. It is yet another example of Scottish legislation being treated in a second-rate way.
I have no doubt that what is being done is constitutionally correct, but it flies in the face of what the Government promised the Scottish people last year in their White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: a Partnership for Good". In that document, the Government said that they would find ways to try to improve the way in which Scottish Members could scrutinise legislation in the Chamber. The Bill shows a total lack of that, both irrterms of its detail on important constitutional matters relating to the police and in terms of its financial implications. It is a shabby way to treat Scotland.
Last week, in the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), responded to a 90-minute debate with a three-minute speech, which I am sure embarrassed him. That is the way we are being treated, and the people of Scotland will not put up with that for much longer.
10.45 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In his closing speech on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—a title which is a constitutionally unwelcome intrusion in the House—placed great emphasis on local justice. Time after time in relation to magistrates courts, the Minister correctly emphasised that, as did the White Paper, Cmnd.1829, "A new Framework for Local Justice" published by the Lord Chancellor and the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). In their introduction they mentioned a locally based service, but, just like Scotland, north-east London will not have a locally based service.
The money resolution seeks funds for the administration of justice. The administration of justice by the clerks and their assistants can be distinguished from the dispensing of justice by full-time magistrates or, as is the case in north-east London, by lay magistrates. In relation to London, paragraph 33 of the White Paper to which I have referred states:
"The present structure of a single service covering the inner London boroughs and ring of separate outer London borough services is not conducive to effective management and coordination with other criminal services. The Government intends to consult further about a new structure for London with a view to primary legislation when possible."
This is the primary legislation.
As I have said, the resolution seeks money for the administration of justice. The Government say that they will concentrate on justice services. The courts serve justice, and services should be organised around their needs and the needs of those who attend them: not the other way round.
210
The history of magistrates courts in London shows that they are based on two areas—the central area of stipendiary magistrates and the outer London area, of which Newham and north-east London are part, which has lay magistrates. There are currently 20 magistrates committees for the outer London area, of which the borough of Newham has one. I understand that the Government propose to reduce those to four under clause 62.
The London boroughs of Newham, Barking, Havering, Waltham Forest and Redbridge are to be administered using the money voted by the measure, if it is passed, as a single administration.
I emphasise that in my area, party politics and occupational background play no part whatever in the activities of a long-established and well-based magistrates service covering a tightly knit London borough consisting of two former county boroughs. Under the magistrates committee funded by the state, they administer their own services.
I understand that there will be about a dozen people in the magistrates committee. If it covers the five boroughs that are represented by 14 hon. Members, those boroughs will not have control of their own administrative back-up. In their view, and I should think in the view of common sense, the quality of justice, administration and the advice that they are able to give will be diminished.
We all know the importance of local knowledge and of building up a corpus of experience. The fact that the magistrates know the area, the industries, the people—some of whom have been there for many years—and the geography of the area is very important in conducing confidence in those who have to be the subject of justice as well as the administrators.
In voting the money for a change of administrative area by so-called consultation, the Government will be reducing the quality of justice not just in the London borough of Newham, but in the whole of north-east London and, by that token, the confidence of the public in the system of justice.
I suppose it is a constitutional phrase, but we have had errors of administration. The Crown Prosecution Service has been referred to and another great change in administration concerning allowances for children has caused a great deal of worry. If the Government go forward in administering the changes of area in their plans with the money voted in the resolution, they are reducing the standard of justice and, through the Lord Chancellor's Department, crossing the line of separation of powers which alone guarantees the liberty of the subject.
10.51 pm
Mr. John McFall: I shall make a few brief remarks about the money resolution, in particular the derisory reference on page 10 of the financial memorandum to the fact that
"The provisions of the Bill relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland will have no significant financial implications."
If the Minister of State at the Scottish Office had consulted police officers, chief constables and those involved in police authorities in Scotland, they would certainly tell him that the Bill will have serious financial implications for Scotland.
Scotland has been treated shabbily with regard to criminal justice. Simultaneously, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Local Government etc. (Scotland)

211
Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Court Bill, all taking a piecemeal approach to the criminal justice system in Scotland, are all going through the House.
Clauses 34 and 35 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to amalgamate forces without consulting the public. That provision is contained in a local government Bill. It should not be there; it should have a separate criminal justice Bill of its own. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill addressed the issues of prisons and privatisation. Again, that should have had a Bill all on its own.
In Scotland we are doing quite well with our criminal justice system. Our crime rates are down for the past two years in succession because of the distinctive Scottish approach. The message for the Government is, "If the system ain't broke, don't fix it".
The reorganisation of local government will almost certainly cost the police and criminal justice service dearly. For example, the Minister at the Scottish Office mentioned joint boards made up from elected members within the constituent authorities and said that costs would be apportioned among the constituent councils according to the costs of policing within the area.
That statement drew alarm from the chief constable of Strathclyde region because it is impossible for the police to detail in advance how much it will cost; all the facilities are demand led and the considerable central support services such as air support, police dogs, mounted branch and underwater search units cannot be programmed in advance, only afterwards. The Government have a lot to answer for in relation to that.
Scotland has its distinctive system, but what is currently happening in the Home Office is that the demand for centralisation and the buzz words—what is a core function?—will have serious financial implications.
The Government would do more justice to Scotland if they gave it more than a few misleading lines in this Bill claiming that there are no financial implications. I spoke to two chief constables in Scotland at the weekend. They said that the Government's approach in reorganising local government and the police forces in Scotland means that there will be severe financial implications. That is shameful.
Scotland has been treated badly with this piecemeal approach and the Government will get their just rewards at the polls. A system that is working well should not be tampered with and the message that is coming out of Scotland at the moment is that the Government are tampering with the system there at their peril.
10.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): The contributions in this brief debate have been entirely unsurprising. The contributions made by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) seemed to lack something as a result of their not having been present for the Second Reading debate. They seemed to be revisiting a Second Reading debate which they did not attend.
Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wardle: I will give way in a moment.
212
I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, South that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his closing comments, explained that the aim of the constructive discussions that the Lord Chancellor's Department is having with outer London courts representatives is to seek arrangements which release the benefits of a larger administrative area without amalgamation of the magistrates courts committees.
Because the hour is late and time is short, I shall not be tempted to discuss crime prevention as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) did, except to say that the Government spend some £200 million across Whitehall on crime prevention. I shall not dwell long, as he has tempted me to do, on the South Wales police authority to which he alluded. If anyone has a track record in getting things wrong it is the South Wales police authority and the three Glamorgan county councils, which comprise that police authority. It is their financial miscalculation and the low priority that they give to policing which have led to the inadequate funding of that force.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the broad principles of the Bill. I want to say a few words about the purpose of the Bill in the context of the money resolution. The Bill is intended to improve the organisation and management of the police so that they are better able to combat crime and to strengthen the administration of magistrates courts.
Changes in the management structure will allow police authorities and forces to make more efficient use—a point that the House will heed—of the more than £6,000 million already spent annually on policing. The Bill is concerned primarily with the way in which existing resources are used.
Establishing new police authorities and equipping forces to cope with their increased management responsibilities will necessarily involve some start-up costs. A one-off provision of £21 million will be made available to support that. To put that in perspective, it may be worth pointing out that that one-off provision is the equivalent of about one third of 1 per cent. of the current annual expenditure on the police. It is an investment in the future of the police service and is in line with the recommendations of the Audit Commission. Its report on financial management in police forces said:
"Only with adequate financial information and alignment of financial and operational management can forces rise to the challenge of increasing effectiveness".
The investment will help the police to rise to precisely that challenge.
We expect the new police authorities to assume responsibility for policing in their areas from April 1995. To prepare for that, the new authorities will need a period of parallel operation with current police authorities, to ensure a smooth transition. Similarly, forces may need to recruit and train staff in order to prepare for the management tasks that they will take on from April 1995. They may also need new equipment such as computer software.
We propose that £4 million will be available for the running of the new police authorities during that period of parallel operation. It will be divided between each of the 41 relevant authorities. The remaining money, up to a maximum of £17 million, has been earmarked for spending by shadow authorities on new staff and equipment for their force. As some forces are in a better position than others to

213
prepare for their new responsibilities, it is likely that money will be allocated against claims and according to need.
For those reasons, I commend the resolution to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 129.

Division No. 220]

[11 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Eggar, Tim

Amess, David

Elletson, Harold

Ancram, Michael

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)/

Ashby, David

Evennett, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Faber, David

Atkins, Robert

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour"mouth E)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Forman, Nigel

Batiste, Spencer

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bendall, Vivian

Forth, Eric

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Booth, Hartley

French, Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Fry, Sir Peter

Bowden, Andrew

Gallie, Phil

Bowis, John

Gardiner, Sir George

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Brandreth, Gyles

Garnier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Gill, Christopher

Bright, Graham

Gillan, Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorst, John

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butcher, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Butler, Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carrington, Matthew

Hague, William

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cash, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clappison, James

Hannam, Sir John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harris, David

Coe, Sebastian

Hawksley, Warren

Congdon, David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Hendry, Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hicks, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cormack, Patrick

Horam, John

Couchman, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cran, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Devlin, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Dicks, Terry

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Stephen

Jack, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jenkin, Bernard

Dover, Den

Jessel, Toby

Duncan, Alan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

214

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kilfedder, Sir James

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

Shersby, Michael

Knox, Sir David

Sims, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Soames, Nicholas

Legg, Barry

Speed, Sir Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lidington, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

Spring, Richard

Lord, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Luff, Peter

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, David

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stephen, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Stern, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Stewart, Allan

Malone, Gerald

Streeter, Gary

Mans, Keith

Sweeney, Walter

Marland, Paul

Sykes, John

Marlow, Tony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thomason, Roy

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Merchant, Piers

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mills, Iain

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Moate, Sir Roger

Thurnham, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Tracey, Richard

Neubert, Sir Michael

Trend, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Trotter, Neville

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Viggers, Peter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Norris, Steve

Walden, George

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Waller, Gary

Ottaway, Richard

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Watts, John

Patnick, Irvine

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Patten, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Ray

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Whittingdale, John

Pawsey, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Willetts, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f"ld)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wood, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Richards, Rod

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Mr. Andrew MacKay and

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Blair, Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Boateng, Paul

Allen, Graham

Boyes, Roland

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Bradley, Keith

Austin-Walker, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Caborn, Richard

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Bermingham, Gerald

Cann, Jamie

215

Chisholm, Malcolm

McMaster, Gordon

Clapham, Michael

McWilliam, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Madden, Max

Clelland, David

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Cohen, Harry

Mahon, Alice

Connarty, Michael

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Cox, Tom

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Cummings, John

Maxton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michael, Alun

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Milburn, Alan

Dafis, Cynog

Miller, Andrew

Dalyell, Tam

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Davidson, Ian

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Denham, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dixon, Don

Mudie, George

Dobson, Frank

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Donohoe, Brian H.

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Etherington, Bill

Olner, William

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Parry, Robert

Foster, Don (Bath)

Patchett, Terry

Foulkes, George

Pickthall, Colin

Fraser, John

Pike, Peter L.

Fyfe, Maria

Pope, Greg

Galbraith, Sam

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Galloway, George

Primarolo, Dawn

Gerrard, Neil

Quin, Ms Joyce

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Radice, Giles

Godsiff, Roger

Raynsford, Nick

Golding, Mrs Llin

Redmond, Martin

Graham, Thomas

Roche, Mrs. Barbara

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Short, Clare

Grocott, Bruce

Skinner, Dennis

Gunnell, John

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

Hall, Mike

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Hanson, David

Snape, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Spearing, Nigel

Heppell, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Hoey, Kate

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Hood, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Hoon, Geoffrey

Wallace, James

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Walley, Joan

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Watson, Mike

Illsley, Eric

Welsh, Andrew

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Wigley, Dafydd

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Lewis, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Worthington, Tony

Llwyd, Elfyn

Wray, Jimmy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Young, David (Bolton SE)

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

Tellers for the Noes:

McFall, John

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and

McKelvey, William

Mr. Dennis Turner.

Maclennan, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and

(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.

School Expenditure (Gordon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
11.11 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an issue that has caused my constituents and me considerable concern in recent months —indeed, for the past year or so.
Let me put the issue in perspective. Over the past 20 years, my constituency has become the youngest, fastest-growing constituency not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom, with the possible exception of Milton Keynes—and, as the Minister will realise, Milton Keynes has the advantage of being a new town with a development corporation.
When I won my seat in 1983, Gordon's electorate was 65,737; this year it is 84,074—an increase of 18,337, or 27.9 per cent. No other constituency in the country has recorded an increase of that scale. Even since the last election, the growth has been 2,973, or 3.37 per cent., in just over two years.
During that time, we have benefited from prosperity. In 1991, the census year, our per capita income was £11,430 —second only to London's. For a number of years, our unemployment has been the lowest in the United Kingdom. However, recent trends in the area are slightly disturbing: over the past three years, unemployment in Gordon has risen by 199 per cent., more than anywhere else in the UK. Rationalisation in the oil industry—and, I have to say, the Government's adverse tax changes—have clearly played a part in that.
In 1991, Grampian's gross domestic product was £5,893 million, representing 1.2 per cent. of the UK total. That means that by now—in the current year—the total Government tax take from the region must exceed £3 billion a year, and that figure excludes oil revenues. When she was Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher was very fond of fighting for the return of what she called "our money" from the European Community; I believe that we in the north-east of Scotland have a case for advancing a similar argument. We make a substantial contribution, and I am not at all sure that we get a fair return for it.
It is true that, in the early years of oil development, an additional infrastructure allowance was made available to the north-east; but that has long since ceased, while population growth continues unabated. Between 1989 and 1992, the Scottish population grew by 0.4 per cent., but Grampian's grew by 3.8 per cent. The number of pupils in local education authority schools in Scotland grew by 1.9 per cent. between September 1989 and 1993, compared with a growth of 4.2 per cent. in Grampian.
The 1991 census showed that, in Gordon district, which is part of my constituency, 23.6 per cent. of the population were aged under 15, compared with a Scottish average of 20.2 per cent. The figure for the whole constituency is not available, but it is probably higher. Added to that, the area continues to have a significant inward migration of families with school-age children.
Since 1976, 10 new primary schools have been opened in Gordon constituency, as well as four new academies —Westhill, Dyce, Kemnay and Oldmachar. The growth of the school population continues at the same rate, meaning

217
that we need to expand the capacity of existing schools, and that we will almost certainly need another new academy in the very near future.
Grampian regional council estimates that, to keep up with this demand in terms comparable with the past, it will require a capital investment programme for the whole region of about £12 million to £13 million per year, compared with the £6.5 million per annum allowed by the Scottish Office.
This year, four academies in my constituency have school rolls above their notional capacity. Alford academy has a roll of 552, which is forecast to rise to 564 in 1996, against a notional capacity of 532. Westhill academy has a roll of 887, which is forecast to rise to 934 by 1996, against a notional capacity of 686. Its promised extension has been postponed for a further two years.
Oldmachar academy in Bridge of Don has been roll-capped at 1,087 and it is forecast that the school population will rise to 1,245 by 1996. No permanent extension is planned, and the school provides no community education.
Under the greatest pressure is Ellon academy, whose school board meeting I attended last week. It is the largest school in the Grampian region, and the fourth largest in Scotland. The current roll is 1,626, which is forecast to rise to 1,678 by 1996, against a notional capacity of 1,645— and on a split site which brings special problems.
The education authority estimates that the requirements of the new curriculum effectively reduce the capacity of any school by between 10 per cent. and 14 per cent. In these four schools alone, that means 400 to 500 places, or a total shortfall of between 825 and 985 places in 1996. This pressure is immediate, and it requires action now. It does not take any account of the forecast requirement for 3,000 extra houses currently being discussed in the regional structure plan.
We need to commit further funds for extensions to existing schools now. We need the equivalent of one extra academy now, and the structure plan—whether it is based on a new settlement or the expansion of existing settlements—requires a further new academy.
In addition, with local government reorganisation around the corner, it should also be noted that 750 pupils currently resident in Gordon and scheduled to be in the new Aberdeenshire go to schools in Aberdeen city. If the city wishes to reserve those places for its own pupils in the future, clearly a third academy will be required for the pupils so displaced. Of course, no pupil will be required to move schools, but those currently in primary school may not end up at the academy to which they now expect to go.
One new academy is needed immediately, and probably two more will be needed in the next five years. Planning and budgeting for that should be taking place now. If a new academy costs about £11 million, as has been estimated, clearly a capital consent for the whole of Grampian of £6.5 million per year is inadequate.
As it is, four out of six secondary schools in the Gordon district have temporary classrooms housing 800 pupils at any one time. Temporary accommodation is in use at both Bridge of Don schools, raising the total number of pupils in temporary classrooms in the constituency at any one time to about 1,000. Temporary classrooms do nothing but
218
provide short-term relief. In fact, they increase the pressure on the common facilities which were not designed for the extra numbers.
The situation is most acute at Ellon, where the new academy, built for 1,000 pupils, provides the common facilities for 1,600, criss-crossing a busy road. This also squeezes out other community groups which are desperate for space.
So far, I have identified only the problems of secondary schools, but a number of primary schools have space problems, and there is also controversy about nursery education.
The most acute problems are at Ellon primary school, Westhill and Alford, for which plans have been finalised but for which the capital is not available. In addition, Rayne North, Tipperty, Kemnay and Oyne are all scheduled for investment but face some uncertainty about availability and timing. Forehill and Greenbrae in Bridge of Don also have space problems. Other schools such as Tarves, which has been promised improvements, have been dropped from the programme altogether, and there is also a campaign for a new primary school at Potterton.
Priorities for the allocation of nursery places have sparked a row which will come to a head this week when the council decides the priorities for new nursery classes to be provided this coming August. It is worth recording that, during the 12 years in which the Tories ran Grampian, nursery provision was frozen. They would not open even the units that had been built by Aberdeen county council before its demise.
Following the Conservatives' defeat eight years ago, the Liberal Democrats in administration pressed for a commitment to a rolling programme, which has led to the provision of six new nursery classes a year, providing more than 2,000 extra places, including two mobile units for rural areas—one in my constituency and one in that of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). From a starting point of only three nursery schools in the constituency in 1986, there are now 14.
On a wholly objective assessment this year, Insch was identified as the top priority for the next nursery class. However, on the ground that there were accommodation problems, it was dropped down the priority list in favour of other areas. In fact, some capital funding had been put aside especially for the purpose, but it was diverted to less urgent priorities.
Funding has been diverted to areas that were third, eighth, 11th and 28th in the council's priority listings, all areas of SNP or Labour representation. I am proud to say that at least the Liberal Democrats in administration have always supported the application of fair and objective criteria, and will do so again when, as I confidently predict, they take over the lead in the administration after next week's elections.
Currently, 740 children have places at nursery school, with 120 on waiting lists. Overall, that is substantially thanks to the Liberal Democrats, but, if we are to achieve fair provision for all children, more resources are needed.
At the moment, provision in Fraserburgh and Banff academies is 58 per cent. and 59 per cent. Forres academy has 40 per cent. provision, whereas Gordon schools have only 28 per cent. provision, and children in the Huntley area may be displaced by pressure from Insch. Therefore, in Gordon we currently face the gerrymandering of the

219
Labour and SNP administration on the council in respect of the allocation of the capital spending budget for which Grampian region has received Government consents.
However, the situation is made far worse by the total failure to date of the Scottish Office to grasp the pressures that arise from a fast-growing young population spread over a fairly extensive rural area. In recent years, the cost-cutting pressures in the oil industry have led to a rationalisation by a number of oil companies, which has, paradoxically, brought management jobs to Aberdeen while the offshore work force is being reduced.
Some companies have expressed concern about the pressure that such moves have placed on local schools. People are accommodated and welcomed, but more schools in and around Aberdeen are being brought up to their limit, and now face capping. The problems that I have described are most acute in Gordon, but they will increasingly affect the areas of Kincardine and Deeside closest to the city, and other schools within the city of Aberdeen.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is usually courteous and considerate when hon. Members express concern about problems in their constituencies and he usually wants to help. It is with some sadness, therefore, that I have to say that it has made me very angry that no fewer than five times in the past year he has refused to meet me to discuss what threatens to become a crisis in my constituency in the north-east.
I hope that I have now proved to the Minister that the situation needs his urgent attention and that of his officials. After last week's meeting, I can extend to him a personal invitation from Ellon school board to visit the school and see for himself the problems it faces, especially as pupils are switching between the two sites.
I should sincerely welcome the opportunity to show him around any or all of the schools that I have mentioned, so that he can see for himself why we have good standards, but also why we need an understanding of our future investment needs if we are to maintain them.
To date, the Scottish Office seems well content to take the benefit of what the north-east can contribute to the Scottish economy, but to stop giving back what we are entitled to expect to enable us to maintain that contribution, and to maintain the standards of our education service.
11.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on securing a debate on the important issue of school buildings. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is supporting the debate by his presence, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch); the hon. Member for Gordon will appreciate that there are similar problems, arising out of success and a swelling population, in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman has written to me expressing his concerns about the capital building programme for Grampian in general, and about the impact on particular schools in his constituency. In the course of that correspondence, he has asked me to meet him to discuss his concerns. I shall try to explain to him in a little more detail why such a meeting has not seemed appropriate so far.
220
I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Gordon is well informed about matters affecting his constituency. The point is, however, that responsibility for the allocation of capital resources for school buildings in Grampian is a matter for Grampian regional council. It is for the council, not for the Scottish Office, to determine how those resources are spent to meet local needs and circumstances.
It follows, therefore, as I have already told the hon. Gentleman, that for a meeting to be productive it would be important first to know the regional council's latest plans for school provision in Gordon district. As he knows, at the time of my most recent letter to him on the issue, in December 1993, the council had not provided the Scottish Office with detailed information about future provision in the Gordon area.
Before I focus on the individual schools referred to by the hon. Gentleman, it would be helpful if I were to explain the Government's role in local authority school building programmes in Scotland in more detail. Let me first make it clear what our role is not.
When we came to power in 1979, we took the decision substantially to disengage from detailed involvement in local authority decision-making. As a result, neither Ministers nor Scottish Office officials are generally now involved in the detailed consideration of individual school building projects.
The present role of the Scottish Office is twofold. First, it is to determine the broad overall level of capital consent resources that can be made available for school building by authorities in Scotland. Secondly, it is to take decisions on how that total is to be distributed to meet the competing claims of the 12 education authorities.
That process involves a general consideration of the financial plans submitted to us by authorities every year, each of which sets out an authority's proposals for school building over the next five years. Of course, all authorities know the Government's priorities for school building work.
Our first priority is the provision of additional school places where there is insufficient alternative accommodation within reasonable travelling distance—in short, roofs over heads. Our second priority is cost-effective rationalisation—that is, projects designed to reduce the number of surplus places within the existing school system.
In deciding what allocations should be made, we try to ensure that authorities have sufficient resources to make progress with projects that fall within those categories, especially for the provision of new school places where those are required. Account is also taken of the need for authorities to upgrade and refurbish existing buildings, although I acknowledge that there may not be not as much available for that purpose as authorities might wish.
However, as I have said, authorities are free to determine their own school building priorities within the total level of resources available to them. Those resources are not limited to the advisory allocation for educational building notified to them each year.
Authorities are free to add to their allocation in a number of ways. They can switch resources from other capital programmes; they can use receipts from the disposal of assets; they can transfer funding for capital projects from their current expenditure budgets; or they may be able to attract private finance. By those means,

221
authorities, including Grampian, have substantial resources at their disposal to enable them to proceed with projects to which they attach priority.
Of course, I appreciate—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I develop my argument a little further?
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about particular schools in his constituency. He has referred, for example, to Ellon academy and to Inverurie academy. He has suggested that those pressures could be relieved by building a new secondary school at Oldmeldrtun, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of that proposition, because Grampian regional council has not included it as a new project in its financial plan. Nor, so far as I am aware, has the council reached any conclusion on that matter.
Therefore, while I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, he must understand that it is the regional council's responsibility to consider the appropriate level of school provision in its own area. Only when that has been done can the Scottish Office consider the matter in the context of capital allocation levels.
I recognise that—
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way to the hon. Member, but may I develop the argument a little further?
I recognise that the council may be in something of a quandary on future settlement patterns in the region, and I know that it has been considering the possibility of a major new community in different parts of the region in the area around Aberdeen. I understand that various options have been put forward, including, at one time, the suggestion that it may take place to the south-west of Aberdeen.
On the other hand, I also understand that a developer has now suggested that a new development may be centred on Ellon. Running in tandem with all that is the council's review of its structure plan.
In all those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me or any other member of the Government to tell the council what it should or should not decide. Although I understand his frustration at the time being taken to reach a decision, it is, as I have said, a matter for the council.
Another point to consider in reaching a decision is the need fsor a new secondary school in Gordon. Given the current uncertainties, it would be seem prudent for the council to ensure that the decisions that it takes are properly informed. I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the past, a number of new schools have been built throughout Scotland which were never in the end occupied to their planned capacities. Such actions have simply served to aggravate the problems of surplus school places in some areas, and do not represent the best value for taxpayers' money.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: May I point out on that last point that four of the new schools built in Gordon to which the Minister refers are the four that are now over their capacity? Far from being under-utilised, they are under extreme pressure.
222
I accept his argument about the case for the Grampian region to get on with the job. I am sick to death of hearing about new settlements, and I wish that it would settle its structure plan. In the meantime, children and parents are under extreme pressure and need to know that those schools will receive the investment that they need so that the education may be carried out.
The regional council may be able to find some extra funding, but I am sure that the Minister will recognise that £13 million is all that it has consent for until it disappears. One academy would wipe all that out, and would leave nothing for anything else. There is simply not enough money in the pot.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are two points that I shall mention quickly. We shall take into account the kind of points that the hon. Gentleman has made, as well as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside and those made by hon. Members representing all the other constituencies in Scotland, before we decide the next overall allocation of educational capital investment funding for Scotland in the next public expenditure survey round.
If I may, I shall come in a moment to the allocation for Gordon. Also, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's request for a visit in due course, arising from the debate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties of running Ellon, partly because the school operates on a split site. In their report on the school, published in April 1992, the inspectors noted that the fact that the school was accommodated on a split site was far from ideal, and that there were other constraints on the accommodation. They also noted that both buildings were well maintained, and that overall accommodation was adequate for the role at that time.
I was pleased to read in the report of the good standards of attainment achieved by the pupils of Ellon academy. I pay tribute to the diligence of the pupils and to the efforts made by the head teacher and staff, which contributed to those achievements. I know that in 1993–94, some 35 per cent. of the school leavers went on to higher education. When compared to the national average of 25 per cent., that is an impressive achievement. Indeed, I am delighted to see that, overall, secondary schools throughout the hon. Gentleman's constituency have achieved above-average results in the school examinations in recent years.
On a rather less happy note, I record how sorry I was to hear of the damage recently caused to the art department by an accidental fire at Oldmachar academy.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of accommodation problems at Westhill academy. This school was built in recent times to accommodate pupils from major new housing developments to the west of Aberdeen, but the council identified a need for expansion. The council drew this to the attention of the Scottish Office, where it has been recognised for some years that this would qualify as a "roofs over heads" priority. But I understand that, in the interim, the council may have decided to defer the project. That would, of course, be a matter entirely for the council.
I should like to turn now to the overall level of resources available to Grampian regional council. The council's advisory allocation for educational building in 1994–95 is £6.7 million. That is a substantial figure, to which, as I have said, the council is free to add in various ways. As a

223
share of the total resources available for allocation to authorities, it is also close to its share of the Scottish population.
It is not, therefore, the case that Grampian is being treated unfairly, or less generously than other authorities, in the allocations that it receives. Indeed, in the past, the council received a higher proportion of the total resources available than its population share.
In each of the years from 1977–78 to 1985–86, the council was allocated up to twice the share it would have received if allocations had been made on the basis of population. That reflected the need for new school buildings, on a "roofs over heads" basis, arising from oil-related development in Grampian. Several new schools were built in Gordon district, including Westhill academy and the new part of Ellon academy. This underlines the responsiveness of the capital allocations system to identified school-building needs.
However, it also emphasises the uncertainties that can arise in predicting local population trends and long-term school building requirements. That is why it is important for the regional council to examine carefully the real needs for the future. If the authority were, in due course, to make a clear case for a new secondary school in Gordon district, I have no doubt that, as has been the case in the past, we should ensure that its capital consent allocations were at a level that could accommodate such "roofs over heads" needs.
I have already said that it is most certainly not the case that Grampian regional council has been unfairly treated in the distribution of capital consent resources for educational building. The hon. Gentleman may, however, take the view that the council pays insufficient attention to the needs in Gordon district compared with other parts of the region. It is not for me to comment on that, as capital allocations are not project-specific. As I have said, it is for the authority, with its detailed knowledge of local needs and circumstances, to determine its detailed spending priorities.
The hon. Gentleman has also asked whether the overall level of resources is adequate to meet all the council's demands for capital expenditure. Of course many people would wish for more resources to be made available for local authority school building work, as for many other programmes, but there are not unlimited resources. The Government have to balance competing demands right across the public sector.
Between 1988 and 1993, we were able to increase by some 35 per cent. the capital consent resources available for educational building. That is a substantial increase, particularly given our other spending priorities over the period. For the current financial year, we have also held the
224
allocation at the same level as was announced in March 1993 for the 1993–94 financial year. That means, for Scotland as a whole, that the capital allocation for school building stands at £71.5 million—a very substantial sum, by any standards.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I have said that I do understand the reasons for his concerns. I have already said that the Secretary of State and I will wish to consider with great care the allocation of capital resources for school building in general in the next public expenditure round. Nevertheless, I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. If he still wishes to meet me to discuss these matters I shall be happy to agree to a meeting. In the first instance, I strongly advise him to follow these matters up with the Grampian regional council, where certain points have to be resolved initially.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for the detail that he has gone into, and I accept much of what he is saying in principle. He talked about £71 million. If we take pro rata the contribution to the economy that is made by the Grampian region, a £6.5 million capital allocation is not comparable.
As for population, it is the youth population that matters, not the overall structure of the population. In my area, we have more school-age children than in other parts of the region.
As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister. I wish to meet him to discuss these matters in more detail. He said earlier that he might wish to take advantage of the opportunity to visit my constituency. I hope that he will do so, because I shall be delighted to show him what I and others are talking about—both the quality of what we have and the pressures we face.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his invitation. I shall, if I may, respond to it in due course.
I recognise that the area has problems that arise from a growing population. I must recognise also that, in the first instance, we must deal with local democracy. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that is his first port of call. When the region has made its plans and proposals clear, it is much easier for the Scottish Office to focus with great clarity on what is required.
As for the overall allocation of resources for school building, we shall examine it with the greatest possible care in the next round—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

TREASURY

  Shipping
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on measures to improve the competitive position of the United Kingdom shipping fleet; and what measures he plans to introduce.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 21 April at columns 597–98, and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) on 22 April at columns 691–92.

  Property Revaluation
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 424, what is his estimate of the number of households potentially affected by the decision regarding retrospective revaluation of property.

  Sir John Cope
  Details of the number of dwellings which are likely to have their original bandings altered as a consequence of a sale in their locality have not been collected. However, I would expect the number of such alterations to represent only a very small fraction of the total number of alterations made to valuation lists.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the average income, occupational pension and income tax liability of the top 1 per cent., top 5 per cent. and top 10 per cent. of people in receipt of occupational pensions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Latest available estimates using the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes are given in the table.

  People in receipt of an occupational pension ranged by amount of occupational pension

  Average amount of income (£)

  Average amount of occupational pension (£)

  Average income tax liability1 (£)

  Top 1 per cent.

  54,400

  30,000

  9,100

  Top 5 per cent.

  30,100

  17,600

  4,600

  Top 10 per cent.

  23,300

  13,600

  3,300

  1 The figures are the tax liability on occupational pensions assuming that they represent the top slice of taxable income.

  Farm Loss Offset
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farming enterprises have been allowed by Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes an extension 88
  of farm loss offset into the sixth and subsequent years in each of the last three tax years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available.

  Newcastle Tax Offices (Staff)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the staff of each Newcastle tax office on(a) 1 April 1993 and (b) 1 April 1994; and if he will explain the cause of changes since April 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numbers of staff-in-post at the relevant dates are shown in the table.

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  Newcastle 1

  153

  135

  Newcastle 2

  25

  22

  Newcastle 3

  65

  57

  Newcastle 4

  86

  79

  Total

  329

  293

  The comparable total staff-in-post for the four offices at 1 April 1992 was 341. Between 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1994 there has been a reduction of 48 staff-in-post.

  About half the reduction relates to typists and secretaries.

  The 1 April 1994 figures exclude almost all typing and secretarial staff included at 1 April 1993. Inland Revenue North has carried out an efficiency scrutiny of its typing and secretarial services. Of 24 typists and secretaries in post at 1 April 1993 in the four Newcastle tax offices, two remain, 13 have transferred to other locations—including the Tyneside pool which handles Newcastle work—seven were offered, and accepted voluntary severance terms and two left the department for other reasons.

  Reasons for the remaining staff reductions in Newcastle tax offices include a reduced workbase reflecting a decrease in the number of schedule E and schedule D taxpayers the offices deal with, the transfer of trust work to a new office in Nottingham which specialises in such work and other procedural changes including simplification of end of year work on PAYE.

  French Trade Surplus
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the relationship between the figures for the French trade surplus for the United Kingdom in the first half of 1993 as published in revised Intrastat figures in the Eurostat news letter "Edicom/Intrastat (1/94)" and the Central Statistical Office figures for the surplus and what assessment he has made of the effect of any discrepancy on the United Kingdom balance of payments deficit.

  Sir John Cope
  Figures in the Eurostat news letter are based on information supplied by member states, but they are, for many countries including the United Kingdom, incomplete. They include only data actually reported by traders without any estimates for the value of non-response or for traders operating below the Intrastat thresholds. As such, they are of limited usefulness. The Central Statistical Office publications include estimates for these amounts, and in its first release, the data are also shown on a consistent basis as used for the compilation of balance of payments estimates.
  89
  I have already announced that a full quality assurance programme on the United Kingdom's Intrastat figures is under way. One part of this involves detailed comparisons of the estimates from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands. However, results from this will not be available until later in the year.

  Areas used for monthly collection of prices for the retail prices index:

  Camden

  Dagenham

  Reading

  Hammersmith

  East Ham

  Southampton

  Westminster

  Ilford

  High Wycombe

  Chiswick

  Woolwich

  Milton Keynes

  Finchley

  Watford

  Brighton

  Hendon

  Newport, Isle of Wight

  Chichester

  Hounslow

  Oxford

  Crawley

  Wood Green

  Portsmouth

  Eastbourne

  Chelmsford

  Winchester

  Chatham

  Harlow

  Croydon

  Dover

  Basildon

  Kingston

  Harrow

  Southend

  Wimbledon

  Luton

  Bedford

  Denton

  Shrewsbury

  Bromley

  Lancaster

  Hanley

  Bexleyheath

  Leigh

  Leek

  Cromer

  Aintree

  Lichfield

  Spalding

  Oldham

  Stafford

  Derby

  St. Helens

  Birmingham

  Loughborough

  Preston

  Coventry

  Melton Morwbray

  Stretford

  Handsworth

  Leicester

  Diss

  Nuneaton

  Grimsby

  Norwich

  Rugby

  Hull

  Thetford

  Walsall

  Leeds

  Cambridge

  Hereford

  Sheffield

  Wisbech

  Dudley

  Barnsley

  Peterborough

  Halesowen

  Batley

  Bungay

  Kidderminster

  Bradford

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Worcester

  Goole

  Ipswich

  Daventry

  Halifax

  Leiston

  Northampton

  Huddersfield

  Bodmin

  Glossop

  Keighley

  Redruth

  Nottingham

  Selby

  St. Austell

  Worksop

  York

  Exeter

  Lincoln

  Northallerton

  Honiton

  Liverpool

  Scarborough

  Plymouth

  Carlisle

  Altrincham

  Bournemouth

  Maryport

  Birkenhead

  Burnham

  Penrith

  Ellesmere Port

  Taunton

  Darlington

  Northwick

  Yeovil

  Kendal

  Stockport

  Cheltenham

  Alnwick

  Buxton

  Bristol

  Berwick

  Manchester

  Stroud

  Blyth

  Blackburn

  Weymouth

  Barrow

  Blackpool

  Sailsbury

  Middlesborough

  Bolton

  Trowbridge

  Bishop Auckland

  Burnley

  Swindon

  Gateshead

  Chorley

  Kings Heath

  Sunderland

  Washington

  Pembroke Dock

  Glenrothes

  Newcastle

  Ayr

  Elgin

  Llanelli

  Dumfries

  Perth

  Portmadog

  Parkhead

  Galashiels

  Cardigan

  Maryhill

  Grangemouth

  Llangollen

  Leith

  Motherwell

  Wrexham

  Musselburgh

  Belfast

  Caerphilly

  Rothesay

  Omagh

  Cardiff

  Aberdeen

  Ballymena

  Maesteg

  Arbroath

  Bangor

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Dundee

  Portdown

  Swansea

  Wick

  Newport

  Building Societies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that building societies routinely inform savers when their accounts become obsolete.

  National Price Index
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the towns in which food prices are checked for information to compile the national price index.

  Sir John Cope
  Prices for the retail prices index are collected from the areas around the local employment service offices given below:

  Sir John Cope
  How building societies choose to communicate with their members is a matter for them. A number of societies routinely transfer customers from obsolete accounts to the nearest equivalent active one. Sections 6.1 to 6.3 of the revised voluntary code of banking
  91
  practice, published in March, set out standard practice for informing customers of the rates of interest paid on accounts. A copy of the code is in the Library.

  Employees (Criminal Charges)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past five years his Department has suspended employees from duty without pay when they have been charged with a criminal offence but are still awaiting trial.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: In the last five years there has been one case of an employee of the Treasury suspended without pay when charged with a criminal offence but still awaiting trial.

  Royal Palaces (Rating)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which grace-and-favour accommodation at the occupied and at the unoccupied royal palaces were liable to pay rates under the rates system of local government taxation; and on what basis it was assessed.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Under the rates system for domestic property in England and Wales which came to an end in March 1990 all grace and favour accommodation at the royal palaces which was occupied was liable to pay domestic rates. When accommodation, including grace and favour accommodation, was unoccupied no rates were payable. In Scotland the same position applied prior to the introduction of the community charge in April 1989. The basis of assessment was the same as for other domestic property, namely its annual rental value subject to deduction for assumed liability for repair.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to make feline spongiform encephalopathy a notifiable disease; and how many cases she is aware of in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in bovines, and scrapie in sheep and goats, are already compulsorily notifiable. We have consulted interested organisations on proposals that would mean that when a naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathy is suspected in any animal following laboratory examination of material, that suspicion should be notified to the Ministry. Legislation is being prepared on this.

  The number of cases of feline spongiform encephalopathy to date by year of onset of clinical signs is as follows:

  Year of Onset

  Number of cases

  1989

  1

  1990

  16

  1991

  9

  1992

  14

  1993

  8

  92
  Cases were not necessarily confirmed in the same year that clinical signs were first observed. The first case of FSE was confirmed in May 1990.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports she has received about spongiform encephalopathy in canines and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has received no reports of confirmed cases of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in canines.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Soames
  A further report on BSE in Great Britain is available today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The report details the continuing epidemiological evidence that the ruminant feed ban is effective in controlling the epidemic in the way which has been predicted. The number of reported cases up to 18 March 1994 is 19.9 per cent. below that of the same period in 1993–8,585 in 1994 compared with 10,718 in 1993—and 14.9 per cent. below 1992. The report also gives information about the wide-ranging research programme being undertaken by the Ministry, particularly relating to the transmission of the disease and tissue infectivity studies.

  Lamb and Sheep
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what tonnage of domestically reared lamb and sheep was produced in the United Kingdom for each year since 1979;

  (2) what quantity of domestically reared lamb and sheep exports were transported abroad (a) live and (b) dead in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of domestic lamb and sheep production, and exports, are shown in the table.

  United Kingdom production and export of mutton and lamb

  Units: Thousand tonnes (meat equivalent)

  Exports2

  Domestically reared lamb and sheep production1

  Carcase meat

  Live

  1979

  238·7

  40·9

  7·7

  1980

  289·6

  36·9

  12·9

  1981

  272·6

  37·5

  14·0

  1982

  276·1

  37·0

  11·9

  1983

  297·5

  43·3

  10·7

  1984

  298·4

  47·4

  10·5

  1985

  313·7

  48·8

  10·5

  1986

  300·9

  60·1

  11·5

  1987

  310·8

  71·2

  19·3

  1988

  342·2

  76·0

  20·4

  1989

  385·4

  89·4

  19·9

  1990

  393·2

  79·6

  23·5

  1991

  418·0

  79·9

  33·0

  1992

  392·4

  106·0

  39·8

  1993

  377·1

  129·1

  45·9

  1 Figures include an estimate for unrecorded exports from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic.

  2 Boneless items adjusted to carcase weight equivalent from 1985 (inclusive) onwards.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Arts Council Lottery Committee
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the qualifications and work experience of Mr. Gummer, recently appointed to head the Arts Council lottery committee.

  Mr. Brooke
  Mr. Gummer was first appointed as a member of the Arts Council of Great Britain in 1991 and in March I appointed him as one of the first members of the Arts Council of England. Mr. Gummer's wide-ranging interest in the arts and his business and financial experience admirably qualify him to be chairman of the Arts Council's national lottery advisory panel.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Diver Mist
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personnel from his Department were involved in Exercise Diver Mist; in what capacities they served; and what was the cost to his Department of this involvement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Work was undertaken by four Home Office staff as part of their normal duties and is not therefore costed. Two of those staff were involved in the planning of the exercise and three observed different aspects of the exercise.

  House of Lords
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward plans to abolish or reform the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Criminal Funds, Soviet Union
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to prevent any influx of funds into the United Kingdom generated by criminal activities in the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Maclean
  New legislation which came into force earlier this year requires banks and other financial institutions to report knowledge or suspicion of drug money laundering to the law enforcement agencies and ecourages them to report other suspicious transactions without fear of prosecution for breach of customer confidentiality. It also makes the laundering of the proceeds of any serious crime a criminal offence. The National Criminal Intelligence Service, which receives all reports of suspicious transactions, and HM Customs and Excise have established channels of communications which enable them to co-operate with their counterparts in Russia and other countries in the former Soviet Union.

  Mediation
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which mediation could be used as a more cost-effective means of resolving disputes than court proceedings;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of disputes which result in criminal cases where mediation would have resolved the dispute in a more cost-effective manner.

  Mr. Maclean
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 8 March,Official Report, column 174. No comprehensive assessment has been made of the number of cases where mediation might have proved more cost effective than criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 174, to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, if he will publish the report of the inter-departmental working group on mediation in the criminal justice system.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The report of the interdepartmental working group, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member's question on 8 March,Official Report, column 174, examined a wide range of criminal justice issues in addition to its consideration of the possible value of mediation. It is an internal document prepared as advice for Ministers.

  Dumper Truck Report
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the circumstances in which a dumper truck was driven on to the railway line at West Drayton on Sunday 10 April and the action which the police are taking to trace and arrest those responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that his officers made the initial response to this incident, but that the matter is now being investigated by the British Transport police. It appears that at about 8 pm on Sunday, 10 April 1994, some youths entered a plant-hire site next to West Drayton railway station. A number of vehicles were driven around the site, causing damage; one was driven through the perimeter fence onto the adjacent railway line. It was driven off the line by one of the youths before the next train passed. The British Transport police have identified a number of witnesses and have interviewed two youths. No charges have yet been brought.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an ethnic breakdown of police officers in each force in England and Wales in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d)

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information in the table is derived from the monthly strength returns provided to the Home Office by all police forces.
  95

  White and Ethnic minority officer strength in England and Wales for 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1993 As at 31 December

  Police Force

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1993

  White

  Ethnic

  White

  Ethnic

  White

  Ethnic

  White

  Ethnic

  Avon and Somerset

  2,958

  4

  2,956

  9

  3,037

  22

  3,010

  24

  Bedordshire

  953

  10

  963

  19

  1,028

  36

  1,135

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  1,086

  0

  1,130

  11

  1,163

  23

  1,238

  28

  Cheshire

  1,832

  1

  1,803

  0

  1,894

  4

  1,871

  2

  Cleveland

  1,453

  1

  1,457

  4

  1,476

  9

  1,400

  14

  Cumbria

  1,103

  1

  1,118

  2

  1,187

  2

  1,182

  3

  Derbyshire

  1,827

  5

  1,751

  14

  1,728

  23

  1,759

  31

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,721

  0

  2,745

  2

  2,865

  2

  2,904

  4

  Dorset

  1,167

  0

  1,201

  1

  1,269

  3

  1,289

  3

  Durham

  1,345

  0

  1,293

  0

  1,361

  3

  1,382

  7

  Dyfed Powys

  929

  0

  924

  0

  936

  0

  966

  0

  Essex

  2,600

  9

  2,670

  8

  2,866

  18

  2,920

  27

  Gloucestershire

  1,116

  3

  1,146

  5

  1,146

  12

  1,126

  14

  Greater Manchester

  6,906

  17

  6,729

  50

  6,893

  117

  6,916

  131

  Gwent

  971

  2

  970

  1

  996

  5

  981

  8

  Hampshire

  3,055

  3

  3,059

  9

  3,161

  9

  3,245

  25

  Hertfordshire

  1,512

  6

  1,571

  13

  1,642

  17

  1,659

  20

  Humberside

  1,950

  1

  1,933

  3

  1,986

  3

  2,019

  9

  Kent

  2,866

  5

  2,849

  10

  2,979

  9

  3,170

  12

  Lancashire

  3,120

  0

  2,999

  5

  3,177

  22

  3,108

  32

  Leicestershire

  1,706

  14

  1,723

  27

  1,738

  46

  1,772

  66

  Lincolnshire

  1,183

  0

  1,141

  0

  1,205

  0

  1,197

  6

  Merseyside

  4,585

  6

  4,533

  21

  4,633

  46

  4,592

  71

  Norfolk

  1,249

  0

  1,263

  0

  1,394

  0

  1,434

  0

  Northamptonshire

  967

  4

  1,036

  11

  1,127

  17

  1,159

  22

  Northumbria

  3,335

  5

  3,361

  7

  3,516

  12

  3,570

  19

  North Wales

  1,290

  0

  1,250

  1

  1,338

  1

  1,340

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1,352

  0

  1,352

  1

  1,377

  2

  1,327

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  2,201

  8

  2,188

  26

  2,291

  51

  2,282

  55

  South Wales

  3,067

  1

  3,055

  9

  3,108

  15

  3,117

  25

  South Yorkshire

  2,842

  0

  2,837

  13

  2,963

  21

  2,977

  38

  Staffordshire

  2,067

  4

  2,093

  9

  2,175

  18

  2,174

  28

  Suffolk

  1,121

  1

  1,130

  1

  1,189

  6

  1,207

  9

  Surrey

  1,589

  0

  1,624

  3

  1,646

  8

  1,648

  19

  Sussex

  2,822

  1

  2,790

  0

  2,975

  9

  2,959

  18

  Thames Valley

  3,037

  6

  3,251

  32

  3,657

  49

  3,832

  62

  Warwickshire

  913

  3

  934

  5

  1,005

  9

  1,009

  16

  West Mercia

  1,933

  6

  1,915

  9

  2,005

  17

  2,033

  23

  West Midlands

  6,497

  42

  6,462

  93

  6,716

  165

  6,740

  228

  West Yorkshire

  5,030

  10

  5,015

  34

  5,188

  88

  4,892

  96

  Wiltshire

  1,030

  2

  1,023

  5

  1,148

  9

  1,261

  12

  City of London

  841

  2

  781

  1

  789

  7

  873

  11

  Metropolitan

  23,501

  107

  26,418

  287

  27,669

  483

  26,955

  650

  TOTAL

  115,628

  290

  118,412

  761

  123,642

  1,418

  124,630

  1,908

  Winson Green Prison
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relieve the pressure on capacity at Winson Green prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 26 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about capacity at Winson Green prison.
  The certified normal accommodation for Birmingham prison is 562. On 20 April 1994, 733 prisoners were held at Birmingham, which was 64 less than the operational capacity of 797. Operational capacity is the total number of prisoners which an establishment can hold while sustaining good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime.
  96
  Some 150 additional places will be available at Birmingham later this year when current refurbishment work in G Wing is completed.

  Lorry Ban
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police will be deployed in residential roads in London to enforce the lorry ban following the end of the exemption permit system for lorries operated by the London borough transport scheme.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The deployment of police officers for the enforcement of the London lorry ban is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Caution-plus Schemes
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans to safeguard victims and offenders in caution-plus schemes by maintaining practice standards such as those developed by Mediation UK.
  97
  Mr. Maclean
  We have at present no plans to issue or comment particular practice standards. The relatively few caution-plus schemes now operating are diverse in character and their value is still being assessed.

  Criminal Cases
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number and proportion of criminal cases in which the victim and the defendant are known to each other.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not generally available centrally, except for the small number of offences such as incest where such a relationship can be assumed. In the case of offences of homicide, however, more extensive statistics are kept including details of known suspects and their relationship to victims.

  Voluntary Services Unit
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which voluntary organisations are currently funded by the voluntary services unit.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The voluntary services unit currently funds the following voluntary organisations:

  Action-Employees in the Community.

  Association for Research in the Voluntary and Community Sector.

  Association of Chief Executives of National Voluntary Organisations.

  Association of Community Trusts and Foundations.

  British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres.

  Bromley by Bow Centre.

  Charities Evaluation Services.

  Community Development Foundation.

  Community Matters.

  Community Radio Association.

  Community Service Volunteers.

  Federation of Community Work Training Groups.

  Festival Welfare Services.

  Homeless Network.

  Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers.

  Kent Committee for the Welfare of Migrants.

  Midland Refugee Council.

  National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service.

  National Association of Volunteer Bureaux.

  National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

  National Federation of City Farms.

  National Playbus Association.

  National Youth Agency.

  North East Refugee Service.

  Northern Refugee Centre.

  Refugee Action.

  Refugee Arrivals Project.

  Refugee Council.

  Resource Unit to promote Black Volunteering.

  Retired Executives Action Clearing House.

  Reunite.

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations.

  Scottish Refugee Council.

  SIA.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  England and Wales

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other

  Avon and Somerset

  175,946

  5,772

  894

  1,863

  40,655

  99,371

  5,011

  21,635

  745

  Bedfordshire

  58,847

  1,936

  417

  543

  15,596

  30,479

  2,308

  7,265

  303

  Cambridgeshire

  65,807

  2,821

  393

  308

  15,023

  37,726

  1,786

  7,326

  424

  Cheshire

  80,156

  2,975

  465

  345

  22,034

  38,653

  2,693

  11,913

  1,078

  Cleveland

  78,279

  2,227

  216

  336

  18,738

  41,246

  1,496

  13,694

  326

  98

  Standing Conference for Community Development.

  Student Community Action Development Unit.

  Volunteer Centre (UK).

  Volunteer Development Scotland.

  Welsh Refugee Council.

  West Indian Standing Conference.

  Womens Royal Voluntary Service.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance bonuses were awarded to the Director General of the Prison Service in 1993.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 1 December 1993,Official Report, column 626.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. Howard
  In keeping with Government policy, my Department contracts out a number of services such as security guarding at non-sensitive sites where it is cost-effective to do so. These contracts cover services to escort and detain—under the authority of the Immigration Service—persons held under the Immigration Act 1971, to safeguard cash in transit from banks to Home Office establishments at various locations and to safeguard some premises.

  The number of personnel employed by contractors varies according to demand. I regret that it is not possible to provide the value of contracts over the last 10 years as no central record of cost of the services is maintained.

  The available information is as follows:

  £

  Police Staff College

  286,800

  Fire Service College

  109,000

  Emergency Planning College

  98,000

  Police Scientific Development Branch (Sandridge)

  15,000

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in each category of crime by each police force in England and Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table.
  99

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other

  Cumbria

  43,744

  1,935

  246

  91

  10,733

  21,706

  1,013

  7,645

  375

  Derbyshire

  91,454

  4,097

  478

  357

  25,612

  42,739

  1,641

  15,837

  693

  Devon and Cornwall

  121,026

  4,114

  985

  423

  32,578

  62,082

  3,837

  15,847

  1,160

  Dorset

  51,091

  1,736

  319

  135

  9,625

  29,686

  3,771

  5,955

  864

  Durham

  67,180

  2,406

  495

  164

  13,677

  35,266

  2,894

  11,580

  698

  Essex

  114,435

  4,188

  709

  430

  27,149

  60,842

  3,007

  17,293

  817

  Gloucestershire

  60,985

  1,759

  314

  303

  17,294

  33,123

  2,368

  5,363

  461

  Greater Manchester

  364,858

  10,049

  1,357

  5,424

  97,850

  175,808

  10,268

  61,406

  2,696

  Hampshire

  147,074

  5,328

  1,406

  564

  33,066

  77,871

  5,280

  22,179

  1,380

  Hertfordshire

  56,868

  1,919

  275

  273

  13,419

  29,706

  1,525

  9,339

  412

  Humberside

  140,988

  4,955

  798

  526

  48,031

  63,057

  3,386

  19,784

  451

  Kent

  161,787

  6,185

  942

  631

  30,743

  90,245

  4,265

  27,305

  1,471

  Lancashire

  134,581

  3,134

  469

  540

  29,550

  70,615

  3,407

  25,881

  985

  Leicestershire

  99,863

  3,749

  471

  1,039

  25,210

  51,285

  3,526

  14,068

  515

  Lincolnshire

  52,664

  2,282

  313

  158

  13,008

  26,397

  1,288

  8,560

  658

  London, City of

  5,620

  238

  23

  51

  778

  3,703

  487

  258

  82

  Merseyside

  142,325

  7,359

  768

  2,204

  33,688

  68,217

  4,964

  23,481

  1,644

  Metropolitan police district

  914,312

  39,900

  6,496

  24,915

  175,184

  450,575

  34,580

  175,821

  6,841

  Norfolk

  64,319

  2,044

  366

  217

  18,178

  33,700

  1,633

  7,705

  476

  Northamptonshire

  59,850

  2,633

  291

  301

  15,944

  28,880

  1,813

  9,539

  449

  Northumbria

  213,936

  6,358

  713

  1,227

  63,007

  88,210

  3,074

  50,375

  972

  North Yorkshire

  57,967

  1,993

  266

  123

  16,275

  30,360

  1,218

  7,236

  496

  Nottinghamshire

  158,960

  7,690

  1,167

  1,202

  40,038

  78,287

  4,288

  25,578

  710

  South Yorkshire

  157,229

  4,815

  638

  943

  52,396

  71,895

  2,322

  23,162

  1,058

  Staffordshire

  98,421

  5,731

  520

  414

  30,091

  44,422

  2,220

  14,651

  372

  Suffolk

  43,138

  2,116

  380

  117

  9,147

  22,717

  1,790

  6,313

  558

  Surrey

  52,504

  2,175

  377

  213

  12,815

  27,468

  2,173

  6,837

  446

  Sussex

  111,876

  3,269

  693

  546

  26,672

  57,910

  3,181

  18,336

  1,269

  Thames Valley

  200,356

  4,702

  787

  911

  40,345

  113,307

  7,417

  31,551

  1,336

  Warwickshire

  45,522

  1,461

  332

  131

  12,554

  22,839

  1,386

  6,533

  286

  West Mercia

  82,832

  3,298

  420

  260

  17,980

  46,377

  1,530

  12,512

  455

  West Midlands

  330,091

  10,980

  1,504

  5,978

  100,002

  149,722

  9,455

  50,613

  1,837

  West Yorkshire

  301,838

  9,189

  1,465

  3,174

  94,294

  141,422

  6,143

  43,712

  2,439

  Wiltshire

  41,611

  2,621

  385

  147

  9,118

  21,420

  1,367

  6,072

  481

  Dyfed-Powys

  27,743

  2,031

  361

  31

  4,632

  11,550

  788

  4,986

  364

  Gwent

  40,008

  2,385

  313

  116

  7,091

  21,694

  1,142

  6,815

  452

  North Wales

  48,102

  2,857

  556

  117

  11,990

  23,287

  1,137

  7,758

  400

  South Wales

  166,165

  6,004

  597

  483

  38,188

  78,062

  4,254

  37,515

  1,062

  Total

  5,530,358

  205,416

  31,380

  58,274

  1,369,998

  2,753,927

  163,132

  907,234

  40,997

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the from a vehicle Home Department how many incidents of(a) theft or vehicle unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and (b) theft from a motor vhicle and (b) theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  Notifiable offences of theft of and from a vehicle recorded by the police England and Wales 1993

  Police force area

  Theft from a vehicle

  Theft of a vehicle

  Avon and Somerset

  36,839

  25,399

  Bedfordshire

  11,480

  8,801

  Cambridgeshire

  11,481

  6,939

  Cheshire

  13,438

  9,005

  Cleveland

  9,229

  13,206

  Cumbria

  8,086

  3,150

  Derbyshire

  16,647

  9,421

  Devon and Cornwall

  23,608

  8,349

  Dorset

  8,937

  3,671

  Durham

  9,401

  9,319

  Essex

  19,848

  10,648

  Gloucestershire

  14,702

  4,743

  Greater Manchester

  54,222

  56,135

  Hampshire

  28,359

  9,998

  Hertfordshire

  12,510

  6,001

  Humberside

  20,141

  13,465

  100

  Police force area

  Theft from a vehicle

  Theft of a vehicle

  Kent

  27,005

  18,933

  Lancashire

  23,760

  13,149

  Leicestershire

  17,440

  11,749

  Lincolnshire

  6,626

  3,644

  City of London

  655

  142

  Merseyside

  17,271

  16,287

  Metropolitan Police District

  153,576

  77,096

  Norfolk

  12,850

  4,445

  Northamptonshire

  9,804

  7,638

  Northumbria

  24,571

  28,559

  North Yorkshire

  9,268

  5,033

  Nottinghamshire

  22,250

  15,969

  South Yorkshire

  25,016

  22,471

  Staffordshire

  16,758

  10,853

  Suffolk

  5,993

  2,530

  Surrey

  10,196

  4,387

  Sussex

  20,703

  7,664

  Thames Valley

  43,252

  23,128

  Warwickshire

  8,918

  5,153

  West Mercia

  14,736

  8,653

  West Midlands

  54,741

  40,184

  West Yorkshire

  48,851

  38,240

  Wiltshire

  6,805

  2,822

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,823

  1,391

  Gwent

  6,683

  3,737

  North Wales

  8,481

  3,161

  South Wales

  28,126

  23,063

  England and Wales

  926,086

  598,331

  Police Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the(a) police establishment and (b) the number of supernumerary posts for (i) each police force area including the Metropolitan police and (ii) each part of the Metropolitan police, area divisions or headquarters establishments, for January 1994 and for January in each of the previous five years;

  (2) what was the (a) police establishment and (b) the number of supernumerary posts for (i) each police force area including the Metropolitan police and (ii) each part of the Metropolitan police, area divisions or headquarters establishments, for each month in 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Burglary
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of(a) burglary in a dwelling and (b) other burglary were recorded by each police force in England and Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police England and Wales 1993

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

  Avon and Somerset

  21,454

  19,201

  Bedfordshire

  7,287

  8,309

  Cambridgeshire

  6,845

  8,178

  Cheshire

  10,496

  11,538

  Cleveland

  11,882

  6,856

  Cumbria

  4,536

  6,197

  Derbyshire

  10,083

  15,529

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,837

  16,741

  Dorset

  5,789

  3,836

  Durham

  7,747

  5,930

  Essex

  9,582

  17,567

  Gloucestershire

  8,519

  8,775

  Greater Manchester

  61,240

  36,610

  Hampshire

  15,357

  17,709

  Hertfordshire

  5,224

  8,195

  Humberside

  20,067

  27,964

  Kent

  18,971

  11,772

  Lancashire

  18,725

  10,825

  Leicestershire

  14,175

  11,035

  Lincolnshire

  7,216

  5,792

  City of London

  30

  748

  Merseyside

  21,705

  11,983

  Metropolitan Police District

  114,778

  60,406

  Norfolk

  6,362

  11,816

  Northamptonshire

  7,334

  8,610

  Northumbria

  30,849

  32,158

  North Yorkshire

  7,196

  9,079

  Nottinghamshire

  23,453

  16,585

  South Yorkshire

  25,230

  27,166

  Staffordshire

  13,833

  16,258

  Suffolk

  3,755

  5,392

  Surrey

  5,867

  6,948

  Sussex

  13,403

  13,269

  Thames Valley

  22,061

  18,284

  Warwickshire

  4,520

  8,034

  West Mercia

  8,421

  9,559

  West Midlands

  51,815

  48,187

  West Yorkshire

  58,157

  36,137

  Wiltshire

  4,489

  4,629

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,567

  3,065

  Gwent

  3,315

  3,776

  North Wales

  3,917

  8,073

  102

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

  South Wales

  14,478

  23,710

  England and Wales

  727,567

  642,431

  Intimidation of Witnesses
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the incidence of intimidation of witnesses in criminal cases.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Although attempts are made from time to time to intimidate both potential and actual witnesses in criminal trials, there is no reliable evidence about the extent of this problem. In different ways, both the Government and the police service have taken, and will continue to take, steps to minimise its incidence and effect.

PRIME MINISTER

  Labour-controlled Local Authorities
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 370, if he will list the district auditor's reports referred to; what were the dates and places of the criminal proceedings referred to; and which councils were involved.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Criminal proceedings are a matter of public record. Various district auditors' reports, for example, which are publicly available, confirm my earlier answers.

  Sir Tim Bell
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts the Government have awarded since 1987 to Sir Tim Bell for public relations work; and if he will list their nature and value.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on Government contracts is not held centrally and would involve disproportionate cost to obtain.]

  The Department of National Heritage let a contract to Lowe Bell Communications on 24 January to help with its programme of civilian events to commemorate the 50th anniversay of the D-day landings. The value of the contract is £50,000 plus a maximum of £12,500 for expenses, net of VAT. The Department has not let any other contracts to Lowe Bell Communications.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26 April.

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

DEFENCE

  British Service Men
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average monthly cost of the British service men on active duty in the former Yugoslavia and the Adriatic.

  Mr. Hanley
  The additional monthly cost of the United Kingdom's contribution to operations in the former Yugoslavia and the Adriatic is approximately £8,750,000. This includes such things as accommodation—allowances —shipping—carriage of stores—vehicle spares and repair and medical supplies. There are currently some 6,360 United Kingdom personnel deployed on these operations.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the linkage between atomic testing on Christmas Island and reported cases of chronic sickness, including aneurism, among ex-service men involved in the tests.

  Mr. Hanley
  The recent report published by the National Radiological Protection Board concluded that participation in the nuclear weapon testing programme has not had a detectable effect on the participants expectation of life nor their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. The condition known as aneurism, although potentially fatal, is not accepted as being a radiation-related illness.

  Air Training Exercises
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which air forces have carried out air training exercises over Wales during 1993 and 1994; how many sorties have taken place for the last three available years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Military Training
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993 on providing military training in overseas countries; and if he will list the countries involved.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure on providing resident and short-term military training assistance in overseas countries was £10.9 million in financial year 1991–92, £9.2 million in 1992–93 and £7.6 million, estimated, in 1993–94. Countries involved are Angola, Antigua, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Chile, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Indonesia, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Philippines, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for a total of over 850 public appointments. The readily available information about the public appointments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible is published regularly in "Public Bodies". A full list of the public appointments made by this Department has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Regulatory Authorities
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what liaison occurs between his Department and regulatory authorities on the making and termination of appointments;

  (2) under what circumstances he has the power to veto an appointment made by regulatory authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for the appointments of the Director Generals of Electricity, Gas Supply and Telecommunications. The Director Generals are responsible for the appointment of their own staff.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines are issued to regulatory authorities on how to(a) make and (b) terminate appointments.

  Mr. Eggar
  OFFER, Ofgas and Oftel operate under the terms of the civil service management code in relation to staff appointments in the same way as any Government Department.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions on which the National Audit Office has been asked by his Department to look into the circumstances surrounding appointments or dismissals made by a regulatory authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has made no such requests to the National Audit Office.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he takes to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in appointments made by regulatory bodies.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the respective Director Generals.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he received the report of the construction industry deregulation task force; and when he expects to publish it.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 766.

  Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of coal were imported by the National Coal Board in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Insurance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce a new regulatory body for the insurance industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Those matters are kept under periodic review, but I have at present no plans to change the arrangements for regulating the insurance industry.

  Debt
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to respond to the submissions on his consultative document on the statutory right to interest on late payment of debt.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The consultation on measures to address late payment of commercial debt concluded on 31 March 1994. All the responses are currently being considered and a decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Motor Industry Research Unit
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the motor industry research unit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I understand that, following the request of the chief executive and director of the motor industry research unit, an official receiver has been appointed to the company. Its future is therefore in the hands of that receiver.

  Privatised Companies
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to remove the limit in shareholding by foreign investors in privatised companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The question of the shareholding limits for foreign investors in certain privatised companies is under review.

  European Funds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the schemes under which funds from Europe are available to local authorities.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 10 March,Official Report, column 372.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Departments are able to claim European Community funds to undertake redevelopment of urban areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office, the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Plugs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that all electrical appliances are fitted with a plug before sale.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The European Commission has sought clarification on a number of points which has delayed the progress of the proposed regulations. I am hopeful that the regulations will be introduced shortly.

  Monitoring Committee, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the objective 1 monitoring committee for Merseyside will be drawn directly from small and medium-sized enterprises in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The monitoring committee will include local partners, including the private sector, on an equitable basis.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regional Funding (Merseyside)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what request was made to the Merseyside task force by officials of the European Commission at the recent meeting in respect of the post of head of the objective 1 executive for Merseyside.

  Mr. Baldry
  Negotiation on various aspects of the Merseyside objective 1 decision document are continuing. However, the regulations deal only with the establishment of the monitoring committee. Arrangements below that are for the member state to determine.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures are in place to prevent waste water from purification procedures which is discharged into fresh water rivers being used for drinking supplies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for setting standards for discharges into rivers, including those from waste water or sewage treatment works. In doing so, the NRA has to have regard to downstream uses of the river, including any cases where water is abstracted for treatment as drinking water.

  Special Protection Area Status
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which sites for special protection area and special area of conservation status are currently under consultation with English Nature; and which of the proposals are being objected to.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following proposed special protection areas are currently under consideration by English Nature, who are consulting relevant owners and occupiers:

  Breydon Water

  Blackwater Estuary

  Debden Estuary

  Duddon Estuary

  Wealden Heaths

  107
  Any unresolved objections to designation will be referred to my Department in due course. The Government and the statutory nature conservation agencies are still in discussion about possible candidate SACs. Public consultation on these will start in due course.

  Port Orfod Cedar
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if it is the policy of the Government to support the inclusion of Port Orfod cedar among the species list in appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species.

  Mr. Atkins
  Parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora will be considering proposals to amend appendices I and II of the convention at the ninth conference of the parties in November this year.

  I understand that the United States may submit a proposal to include Port Orford cedar on appendix II. If such a proposal were put forward, we would consider it on its merits in consultation with our scientific advisers at the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Tenants' Rights Leaflets
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the additional cost of producing leaflets on new rights for council tenants and compulsory competitive tendering of housing management in Welsh, Urdu, Hindi, Bengali, Vietnamese and Greek.

  Sir George Young
  About £46,000.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the implications of local government reorganisation for the Government's care in the community policies.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend frequently discusses with ministerial colleagues a wide range of issues, including the local government review. In addition, officials in my Department are in regular contact with the Department of Health on matters concerning the review.

  Housing Repair
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures available for the percentage of work carried out by the building industry on housing repair and maintenance; what percentage of the industry's income is created through this; and how much that amounts to.

  Sir George Young
  The latest available information shows that housing repair and maintenance output in 1993 was £12,796 million at current prices, which is 28 per cent. of all work undertaken by the construction industry. More details are available in the press notice dated 11 March 1994 entitled "Output and Employment in the Construction Industry: Fourth Quarter 1993" lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  Domestic Refuse Collection
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will initiate an inquiry into the extent of, and reasons for, differences in cost of refuse collection for households.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The Audit Commission's current study of performance indicators for local authority services covers the costs of refuse collection and disposal per head of population. The commission expects to publish its study results early next year.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average net cost per domestic refuse collection per household unit for(a) the three highest London boroughs, (b) the three lowest London boroughs, (c) the London borough of Harrow and (d) the overall average for all London boroughs.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost per household of collecting domestic refuse; and if he will publish a table showing the average cost per household in the local authority areas of(a) Brentwood, (b) Brighton, (c) Greenwich, (d) Hackney, (e) Lambeth, (f) Southend on Sea, (g) Westminster and (h) Windsor and Maidenhead.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The Department does not collect information in the form requested, although local authorities are required to provide information to the Department on income and expenditure on waste collection as a whole, not broken down by domestic and commercial. Information on the number of households in a local authority area is collected by the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys.

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy collates returns from local authorities on different aspects of waste collection. The results of the survey are published in a CIPFA report "Waste Collection Statistics 1991–92 Actuals".

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the percentage of hedgerows existing in(a) 1978 and (b) 1979 that has been lost.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The only reliable figures we have relate to the period 1984–90. In 1984, our estimated total hedgerow stock in Great Britain was 549,000 km. By 1990, a net loss of around 23 per cent. had been incurred, mainly as a result of neglect.

  "Our Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the third year report on the "Our Common Inheritance" White Paper will be published.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 20 April 1994, Official Report, column 867.

  Skypark Planning Application
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he took, under which specific powers, and on what date, in respect of the Skypark planning application after it had been approved by Wrekin district council; and with what result.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Wrekin district council approved the planning application for the Telford Skypark on 29 July 1992 subject to reference to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a departure under the Town and Country Planning Development Plans (England) Direction 1992. The application was called in for decision on 2 December 1992 under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and, following a public inquiry, planning permission was refused on 24 February 1994.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he replied to the letter from Mr. Paleokrassas, the Member of the European Commission for the Environment, sent to him on 21 January in relation to the legality issue and the proposal for a barrage at Cardiff bay; if he has received any further communication from Mr. Paleokrasses; and on what date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1 March, Official Report, column 643.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the European Union in relation to the provision of alternative wetland habitats for birds displaced from the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest by the proposed Cardiff bay barrage.

  Mr. Atkins
  As the hon. Member knows, such negotiations are confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission jointly with the Environment Directorate of the European Commission an independent research study evaluating the socio-economic arguments for the Cardiff bay barrage proposal; and if he will seek an independent assessment of the definition of overwhelming as applied to the socio-economic argument under the habitats directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  No.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what agreements have been made with the European Commission, consistent with article 6(4) of the habitats directive, regarding measures to be implemented to compensate for the loss of mud-flat habitat at Cardiff bay.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 1 March,Official Report, column 643.

  Smoke Control Areas
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from industry that regulations to ban the sale of high-sulphur 110
  fuels and unauthorised fuels in smoke control areas would result in a significant increase in regulatory burdens and costs.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: I have received a number of such representations from industry and in view of the decline in annual average concentrations and emissions of smoke and sulphur dioxide from domestic sources, further regulations are not proposed at present.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on(a) stationery, (b) paper clips and (c) staples by his Department in each year since 1979 at current prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has spent the following sums on stationery, including paper clips and staples:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  668,071

  1992–93

  555,909

  1991–92

  431,233

  1990–91

  11,121,625

  1989–90

  11,180,690

  1988–89

  626,825

  1987–88

  335,326

  1986–87

  364,076

  1985–86

  385,291

  1 Combined with printing.

  More detailed information is not available, nor are separate figures for expenditure on stationery before 1985–86.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 239, if he will list the regional distribution of unallocated funds available under the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Baldry
  The regional distribution of unallocated single regeneration budget funds in 1995–96, which will support new bids, will not be known until the bidding round has been completed and the successful schemes are announced. The timetable is set out in the bidding guidance published by my Department on 14 April. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the regional directors of the single regeneration budget are black people or Asian.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Migratory Birds
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect he expects the proposed amendment to article 7 of directive 79/409/EEC to have on the protection of migratory birds in mainland Europe, particularly France.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposed amendment clarifies the arrangements for protecting migratory birds and avoids unnecessary interference with traditional hunting seasons
  111
  in some member states. In France, the amendment would not mean that migratory birds were more at risk than in earlier years. The dates for the close of the hunting seasons would, in future, be fixed in accordance with the criteria specified in the proposed amendment to the directive.

  Archives
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the archive services and the reorganisation of local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  This year my right hon. Friend has received some 50 written representations from organisations and individuals who wish to see the existing level of local authority archive services maintained following reorganisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) met the chairman and secretary of the Royal Commission for Historical Manuscripts on 24 February.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statutory safeguards he proposes to introduce to ensure that archive services are not adversely affected by the reorganisation of local government.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission's recommendations must enable adequate provision to be made for all existing local government functions, including archives. Collaborative arrangements between unitary authorities may be desirable in some cases. The Government's preference is for such arrangements to be on a voluntary basis, but section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 gives my right hon. Friend powers to establish a joint authority for any local government function if he considers that satisfactory voluntary arrangements have not been made or have broken down.

  Mobile Phones and Pagers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each individual in his Department who is provided with a mobile phone or pager, their position in the Department and the cost to the public funds of this provision.

  Mr. Baldry
  The mobile phones and pagers used within my Department are allocated to business units and not specifically to individual officers. There are 154 mobile phones currently in use. Their book value is estimated as £35,000 and the line rental costs are some £49,000 per annum. Some 428 pagers are rented at a cost of £20,000 per annum.

  Lower Severn Estuary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Countryside Council for Wales and English Nature in relation to the(a) registration and (b) plan for management of the lower Severn estuary draft special protection area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Consultations and discussions with both bodies are continuing.

  European Structural Fund
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will present to the European Commission the Government's proposals for directing future European structural fund assistance towards the economic development of rural areas in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have arranged for the regional conversion plans for the six regions in England designated by the Commission for assistance under structural funds objective 5b to be presented to the European Commission today. Funding under objective 5b contributes towards the development and structural readjustment of rural areas. The plans cover the period 1994–99, for which £381 million has been allocated to England.

  The six regions, with 1994–99 allocations, are East Anglia, £46 million—south west, £170 million—northern uplands, £84 million—the marches, £31 million—Lincolnshire, £41 million—and midlands uplandsDerbyshire/Staffordshire, £9 million. The plans have been lodged in time to ensure that the eligible date for expenditure on objective 5b programmes is 1 January 1994. Under the structural funds regulations, the Commission is required to reach a decision on the plans within six months of receipt.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Expenditure
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much he intends to spend on each of(a) bilateral aid and (b) multilateral aid for each of the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Current planning figures for expenditure are as follows. Figures for 1997–98 are not available as these are beyond the current public expenditure survey period.

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Bilateral expenditure

  1,189

  1,097

  1,020

  Multilateral expenditure

  1,073

  1,115

  1,142

  These planning figures include an allowance, additional to the overall figure agreed in the public expenditure survey, to compensate for expected slippage of expenditure. For this reason, and because of the many detailed changes that take place over a period at country and programme level in the rate of spending, actual spending will vary from the figures shown.

  Multilateral Agencies (Aid)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the multilateral aid budget he intends to allocate to each of(a) the European bank for reconstruction and development, (b) the European Union, (c) the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and (d) the World bank for each of the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98.
  113
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Current planning figures for expenditure is given below. Estimates for 1997–98 are not available as this is beyond the current public expenditure survey period.

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

  40

  40

  40

  European Community

  569

  696

  745

  World Bank/IMF

  315

  232

  204

  In some cases actual spending may vary from those figures because of factors such as exchange rate movements and changes in the rate of expenditure of the multilateral institutions concerned.

  The Food and Agriculture Organisation sets a biennial programme of work and budget of which the United Kingdom contribution is based on the United Nations scale of assessments. The United Kingdom contribution in 1994 is £12.1 million. The 1995 contribution will be similar.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part of the bilateral aid budget will be allocated to each of(a) Africa, (b) Asia, South, (c) Asia, south-east, (d) Latin America/Caribbean/Atlantic and (e) central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union for each of the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Current planning figures for bilateral country programmes are as follows. Figures for 1997–98 are not available as these are beyond the current public expenditure survey period.

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Africa

  344

  315

  284

  Asia/Pacific

  248

  227

  217

  Eastern Europe/FSU

  78

  79

  75

  Western Hemisphere

  88

  79

  72

  These planning figures include an allowance, additional to the overall figure agreed in the public expenditure survey, to compensate for expected slippage of expenditure. For this reason, and because of the many detailed changes that take place over a period at country level in the rate of spending, actual spending will vary from the figures shown.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the resettlement of refugees in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is co-ordinating the repatriation and resettlement programme for some 1.5 million Mozambican refugees from the six neighbouring countries of asylum. We have contributed £4.5 million to this programme. Latest reports are that over 700,000 have returned with a further 500,000 expected to be resettled before the October elections.

EMPLOYMENT

  Older Trainees
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of trainees(a) between the ages of 30 and 40 years and (b) between the ages of 40 and 50 years find work on completion of a training course.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1992–93, of those 30 to 40-year-olds who completed their agreed course of training on employment training, 38 per cent. went on to find work. The corresponding figure for 40 to 50-year-olds was 40 per cent.

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by travel-to-work area the numbers of unemployed(a) men and (b) women who graduated in (i) 1992 and (ii) 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many students who graduated in(a) 1992 and (b) 1993 are currently registered as unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not available in the form requested. Estimates from the labour force survey for Great Britain show that there were 46,000 International Labour Organisation unemployed people aged under 25 educated to degree level or higher in autumn 1993; the equivalent figure for autumn 1992 was 47,000.

  Training Schemes
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people of all ages are on training schemes in(a) each of the London boroughs and (b) England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available centrally for individual London boroughs. Information by training and enterprise council area and for London and England is given in the following table:

  Number of participants in January 1994

  TEC

  Youth Training1

  Training for Work

  Aztec

  1,300

  1,290

  Central London

  1,980

  2,430

  Cilntec

  2,250

  2,100

  East London

  4,430

  3,600

  North London

  1,140

  2,540

  North West London

  970

  1,650

  Solotec

  2,320

  1,460

  South Thames

  2,980

  4,660

  West London

  2,430

  1,330

  London Region

  19,800

  21,000

  England

  244,800

  125,800

  Source: TEC Operating Agreement.

  1 Youth Training includes Youth Credits.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the numbers of individuals petitioning and (b) the number of cases heard by the industrial tribunals for each of the last 10 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures are as follows:

  Applications registered

  Cases heard

  1984–85

  39,191

  19,690

  1985–86

  38,593

  13,357

  1986–87

  38,385

  13,124

  1987–88

  30,543

  10,464

  1988–89

  29,304

  9,023

  1989–90

  34,697

  10,229

  1990–91

  43,243

  11,430

  1991–92

  67,448

  13,778

  1992–93

  71,821

  17,836

  1993–94

  71,661

  n/a

  1 Figure for January 1984 to March 1985.

  Some two thirds of all applications do not come to hearing, being either withdrawn or settled by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service in conciliation. I regret that figures are not yet available for the numbers of cases heard in the year 1993–94.

  Unemployment, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) men and (b) women living in the Tooting parliamentary constituency who were in receipt of unemployment benefit and who have been unemployed for (i) longer than six months, (ii) longer than 12 months, (iii) longer than two years and (iv) three years and over as of the last most convenient date for which figures can be given.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The unadjusted figures for the number of people claiming unemployment related benefits in January 1994 are given in the table:

  Duration of claim

  Male

  Female

  Over six months

  3,116

  933

  Over twelve months

  2,160

  562

  Over two years

  1,143

  256

  Over three years

  547

  106

  Claimant unemployment information by duration is available quarterly from the NOMIS database in the Library for the months of January, April, July and October and only on the unadjusted basis.

  Labour Statistics, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies at jobcentres covering the London borough of Wandsworth at the last most convenient date for which figures can be given.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Unfilled Vacancies (not seasonally adjusted) in Jobcentres covering the Borough of Wandsworth (March 1994)

  Jobcentre

  Number of Vacancies

  Battersea

  11

  Clapham Junction

  99

  Balham

  1—

  116

  Jobcentre

  Number of Vacancies

  Putney

  53

  Tooting

  176

  1 Not all jobcentres record their own vacancies. Vacancies dealt with by Balham are included under figures for other jobcentres in the borough.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of job vacancies for young people under the age of 21 years in the London borough of Wandsworth as of 14 April.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of jobcentre vacancies specifically for young people are not available from the monthly vacancy count. Vacancy figures for 8 April will be available from 9.30 am Wednesday 18 May. On 4 March the total number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the London borough of Wandsworth was 339.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of youth unemployment in the London borough of Wandsworth at 14 April.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Statistics from the 14 April claimant unemployment count will be available from 9.30 am on Wednesday 18 May and will include a quarterly analysis of claimant unemployment by age.

  In January 1994, the most recent figure available, the number of unemployed claimants under 25 years of age was 4,310 in the Wandsworth local authority district.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of work permits given to foreign nationals to work in the United Kingdom in 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of work permits issued for overseas nationals to work in Great Britain during 1993 was 37,761.

  Earnings, Scotland
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table setting out the numbers of wage and salary earners in Scotland in the income bands(a) over £100,000, (b) between £50,000 and £100,000, (c) between £25,000 and £50,000, (d) between £10,000 and £25,000, (e) between £5,000 and £10,000 and (f) less than £5,000 or such other bands as his Department has available covering the same breadth of income.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table, derived from the new earnings survey, shows average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Scotland on all rates of pay, whose pay was unaffected by absence. The survey data relate to April 1993; the approximate equivalent annual pay bands are also shown in the table. The figures are for full-time employees only as many part-time employees are excluded from the sample. However, it is estimated that approximately two thirds of part-time employees earn below £100 per week.

  117

  Pay ranges of full-time employees in Scotland; April 1993

  Gross weekly pay range

  Approximate equivalent annual pay range

  Percentage of full-time employees in pay range (per cent.)

  Estimated1 number of full-time employees in pay range

  £1,923 or more

  £100,000 or more

  —

  —

  £962–£1,923

  £50,000–£100,000

  0·7

  10,100

  £481–£962

  £25,000–£50,000

  9·1

  130,800

  £192–£481

  £10,000–£25,000

  62·3

  895,400

  £96–£192

  £5,000–£10,000

  26·2

  376,500

  less than £96

  less than £5,000

  1·6

  23,000

  1 Derived by multiplying New Earnings Survey data on percentages in each pay range by estimated numbers of full-time employees in employment at March 1993.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of average male earnings is earned by(a) women manual workers and (b) women non-manual workers in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information from the new earnings survey, at April 1993, shows that the average weekly earnings of full-time non-manual women is equivalent to 65 per cent. of the average for non-manual men. The average weekly earnings of full-time manual women is equivalent to 64 per cent. of the average for manual men. These estimates are based on average gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland whose pay was unaffected by absence—source: Employment Department.

  Employees, Scotland
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in Scotland are in the service sector; and what percentage this forms of the total work force.

  Mr. Stewart
  I have been asked to reply.

  For December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that 1,436,900 employees in employment in Scotland worked in the service sector. This represents 73 per cent. of all employees in employment.

  Constituency

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  Blackpool, South

  8 October 1993

  Visit to Roseacre and Hawes Side Primary Schools

  Milton Keynes, North-East

  13 October 1993

  Officially open the new BT Training Centre in Milton Keynes and visit to the Open University

  Harrogate

  16 November 1993

  Speak at the CBI Conference in Harrogate

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  25 November 1993

  Speak at the Girls' Schools Association Conference in Stratford-upon-Avon

  Daventry

  26 November 1993

  Present prizes at Sponne School Prize Giving in Towcester, Northamptonshire

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  5 January 1994

  Speak at the Oxford Teachers' Conference at St. Catherine's College, Oxford

  City of Chester

  7 January 1994

  Speak at the North of England Annual Education Conference in Chester

  Bristol, North-West

  28 January 1994

  Visit to Pen Park School and Filton FE College

  Derbyshire, West

  9 February 1994

  Visit to Ecclesbourne Grant-Maintained School

  Derby, North

  9 February 1994

  Visit to Landau Forte CTC

  Wirral, West

  11 February 1994

  Visit to Plessington Catholic High School, The Wirral

  Bournemouth, West

  18 March 1994

  Speak at the Secondary Heads Association Conference

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  21 March 1994

  Speak at the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre's Annual Conference

  Erith and Crayford

  22 March 1994

  Visit to Bexley and Erith Technical High School for Boys

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  12 April 1994

  Speak at the Higher Education Funding Council for England's Conference

  Croydon, South

  19 April 1994

  Visit to School Curriculum and Assessment Authority's Residential Meeting in Sanderstead

  Higher Education Quality Council
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what information he has on the costs of quality audit procedures conducted by the Higher Education Quality Council;

EDUCATION

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish for each year since 1987 the number in England of(a) pupils in assisted places schemes in secondary schools, (b) pupils in secondary schools in total and (c) the number in (a) as a percentage of (b).

  Mr. Forth
  The assisted places scheme is run at 295 independent schools in England. The number of pupils holding assisted places and the total number of pupils of secondary school age in all schools is given in the following table:

  Academic Year

  (a) Number of pupils holding assisted places

  (b) Total number of pupils in secondary school1

  (c) (a) as a percentage of (b)

  1987–88

  26,899

  3,335,194

  ·81

  1988–89

  27,083

  3,205,617

  ·84

  1989–90

  27,008

  3,114,602

  ·87

  1990–91

  26,740

  3,108,159

  ·86

  1991–92

  27,641

  3,161,692

  ·87

  1992–93

  28,674

  3,224,611

  ·89

  1 Includes middle deemed secondary schools, self-governing (GM) schools, special schools, CTCs and independent schools.

  Ministerial Visits
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which constituencies he has visited in his capacity as Secretary of State in the last six months; and for what purpose those visits were made.

  Mr. Patten
  The details requested are as follows:

  (2) what information he has on the running costs of the Higher Education Quality Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Higher Education Quality Council is a body wholly independent of Government, set up by the universities and colleges and funded by them. I understand that the council's annual expenditure is currently of the
  119
  order of £3.2 million, excluding some self-financing activities. Within this, expenditure on quality audit is of the order of £1.5 million.

  Teachers' Pension Agency
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what key performance targets he has set for the Teachers' Pension Agency in 1994–95.

  Mr. Forth
  For 1994–95, the key performance targets for the Teachers' Pension Agency are:

  a. to achieve an improvement in efficiency of 5 per cent. in the use of running costs resources within the Agency's control;

  b. to process 96 per cent. of the applications for retirement awards by the payable date, or if later, then within 30 days of receipt of the application;

  c. to meet agreed accuracy targets for pensions-related calculations;

  d. to provide a substantive answer to 95 per cent. of written enquiries within 15 working days of their receipt;

  e. to manage the programme agreed with the Agency's clients for the collection and processing of service and salary data relating to teachers and to seek timely submission of that data.

  Annual Capital Guidelines
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimates there are of the cost of additional demands placed on annual capital guidelines for local education authorities since the introduction of the national curriculum; what plans there are to alleviate this extra demand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for LEAs and schools to make the best use of the resources available so that schools are equipped to deliver the national curriculum effectively. The substantial capital sums made available by Government in recent years will help them to do so, in particular the 33 per cent. real terms increase in total capital support in the five years to 1993–94.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received from local education authorities regarding their ACGs for 1994–95.

  Mr. Forth
  Twenty-one.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations he has received from local education authorities regarding their provisional indicators for ACG for the year 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Three.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provisions are made in allocating ACG for basic needs provision; what account is taken of the age of educational establishments and consequent renovation and repairs needed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Cover for basic need in annual capital guidelines is provided through cost-multipliers for each place assessed as required. Such an assessment compares projected demand with the number of local places. Although the age of buildings is not a factor in considering basic need bids, where a surveyor's report indicates that the condition of a building is such that replacement is urgently needed and is cheaper than repair cover will be provided within ACGs in the exceptional basic need category.

  Educational Establishments, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many educational establishments in Lancashire date back to the 19th century; how many were built pre-1960s; and how many were built in the 1960s and 70s.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures available for primary and secondary schools with temporary classrooms and HORSA—hutting operation for raising of school leaving age—buildings in each local education authority; how many have had these for five years or more; what percentage of teaching space these comprise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by(a) university of graduation and (b) subject of graduation the number of (i) men and (ii) women who graduated in (1) 1992 and (2) 1993 who are currently registered as unemployed.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not available centrally. Tables 9 and 9a of "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK" published by the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals—a copy of the 1993 edition has been placed in the Library—show the proportion of first-degree graduates from the former Universities Funding Council—funded institutions whose destination on leaving was reported as unemployed or short-term employment, and the proportion from each institution adjusted for the national distributions of graduate subject mix.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for the public release by the United Nations of the full independent investigation chaired by the Chief Justice of Zambia into the conduct of the United Nations operation in Somalia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Members of the Security Council are now studying the contents of the report and a decision on its public release is expected shortly. We do not oppose its release but recognise that Security Council members who contributed troops to the operation need time to consider the report carefully before reaching a decision.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Somalia peace meeting scheduled for Mogadishu on 15 April between General Aideed, Ali Mandi and others took place; and if he will make a statement on the prospects for further such meetings.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that the meeting of the 15 factions scheduled for 15 April in Mogadishu has
  121
  now been postponed until 25 April. A national reconciliation conference is due to take place on 15 May to elect a President, Vice-Presidents and a Prime Minister. We continue to support all efforts by the Somalis to take forward the political reconciliation process.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about current military activity in Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received reports of recent fighting between Somalia clans in Merca, south of Mogadishu. Reports also indicate that in the last few days there have been serious clashes between the Habr Gedr and Hawadle sub-clans in Mogadishu.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the strength and national background of the ONUMOZ—the United Nations Operation in Mozambique—force in Mozambique.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At 31 March 1994, ONUMOZ had a strength of 6,108 troops, 370 military observers and 274 civilian policemen. The force was made up of the following contingents:

  Argentina

  Hungary

  40 troops

  10 civpol

  8 UNMOs

  23 UNMOs

  Australia

  India

  16 civpol

  916 troops

  18 UNMOs

  Bangladesh

  Ireland

  25 civpol

  20 civpol

  1,459 troops

  30 UNMOs

  Botswana

  Italy

  767 troops

  971 troops

  13 UNMOs

  Brazil

  Japan

  35 civpol

  53 troops

  27 UNMOs

  Canada

  Jordan

  15 UNMOs

  45 civpol

  Cape Verde

  Malaysia

  18 UNMOs

  35 civpol

  24 UNMOs

  China

  Netherlands

  10 UNMOs

  11 troops

  Czech Republic

  New Zealand

  19 UNMOs

  2 troops

  Egypt

  Norway

  21 civpol

  10 civpol

  20 UNMOs

  Guinea Bissau

  Portugal

  25 civpol

  7 civpol

  43 UNMOs

  277 troops

  1 UNMO

  Russian Federation

  Sweden

  19 UNMOs

  10 civpol

  20 UNMOs

  Spain

  Switzerland

  14 civpol

  1 civpol

  20 UNMOs

  United States

  5 troops

  122

  Uruguay

  Zambia

  842 troops

  865 troops

  34 UNMOs

  8 UNMOs

  1 Italian troop contribution is currently being wound down, as the deployment of an additional 1,144 Civpol (all nations) authorised in SCR 898 gets underway.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current timetable for elections in Mozambique; what are the major obstacles to be overcome; and what assistance the British Government and the European Union are giving to the successful implementation of these elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The elections are scheduled to take place from 27 to 28 October 1994. Major obstacles to be overcome include: the completion of the assembly and demobilisation of Government and RENAMO forces; the establishment of a new unified army—FADM; the translation of RENAMO into a political party; and the registration of the new electorate. A British Army training team is in Mozambique to assist the training of the FADM. Under our aid programme, we are contributing £600,000 to the United Nations Development Programme project to provide technical assistance to the electoral authorities and £500,000 to the United Nations trust fund for the implementation of the peace process. We are paying our share of the costs of maintaining ONUMOZ in Mozambique. The EU has pledged nearly $13 million for electoral assistance.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with disarmament and demobilisation in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Of the force totals notified to the UN, over 55 per cent. of Government and 80 per cent. of RENAMO soldiers are in the UN monitored assembly areas where they have handed in their weapons. Over 10,000 troops have either been demobilised or earmarked to join the new unified Mozambican army.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 17, which countries apart from the United Kingdom, France, China and the Russian Federation are thought to have mastered the technology to become nuclear weapon states; and which other states are thought to be pursuing that technological expertise.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the honourable Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on 12 April,Official Report, column 17.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which nations other than North Korea have had their nuclear capabilities inspected in the past five years by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  More than 110 states have concluded safeguards agreements with the IAEA. Such agreements provide for regular inspection of a state's particular nuclear facilities.

  Belize
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 375, what reason was given by the Presidency for the exclusion of Belize from the San Jose meeting.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Presidency explained that Belize did not attend San José X because central American delegations to the meeting could not agree to the presence of Belize as an official observer.

  UN Organisations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to monitor the performance of specialist UN organisations in emergency situations; and what access hon. Members have to the content of those reports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We monitor the performance of the UN specialised agencies involved in emergency situations through representation on their governing bodies—including frequent evaluation of specific projects and overall programmes—attendance at briefing meetings and contacts with UN officials at headquarters and in the field. The availability of UN agencies' evaluations of their own performance in specific emergencies is a matter for the agencies concerned.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on implementation of the code of public access to proceedings of the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have strongly supported moves to increase openness in the Community. The code of conduct on access to information held by the Council and Commission came into effect at the beginning of the year, and provides for the widest possible access, subject to certain safeguards.

  Sweden
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the declaration attached to Sweden's treaty of accession to open government and the policy of the Council of Ministers on access by newspapers to minutes and documents relating to meetings in Brussels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sweden made a declaration in the Final Act attached to the accession treaty welcoming the development now taking place in the European Union towards greater openness and transparency. The declaration noted that open government is a fundamental part of Sweden's constitutional, political and cultural heritage. The Union made a declaration in response adding that the member states of the European Union take it for granted that as a member, Sweden will fully comply with Community law in this respect.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the size of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus on 20 April:; and what nationalities were represented.
  124
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest figures available from the United Nations give the strength of UNFICYP on 31 March 1994 as 1,194 troops, 12 military observers and 36 civilian policemen. The force was made up of the following contingents:

  Argentina

  375 troops

  Australia

  20 civpol

  Austria

  360 troops

  4 UNMOs

  Canada

  10 troops

  Denmark

  1 soldier

  Finland

  1 soldier

  Hungary

  4 UNMOs

  Ireland

  16 civpol

  26 troops

  4 UNMOs

  United Kingdom

  421 troops

  Landmines
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure the implementation of protocol 2 on the prohibition of the use of landmines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom already adheres strictly to the terms of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention, of which the second protocol covers prohibitions on the use of mines.

  We are taking an active part in the work of the preparatory meetings leading to the review conference of the convention in 1995. One of our principal objectives in this exercise is to secure the wider implementation of the convention by encouraging more states to accede to it.

  Western European Union
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the British embassy to NATO and the WEU have so far visited the WEU planning cell in Brussels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are regular and extensive contacts involving all members of the United Kingdom delegations to NATO and WEU and members of the WEU planning cell. Such contacts have occurred at WEU headquarters in Brussels, which houses both the WEU secretariat and the planning cell, and at the United Kingdom delegation and elsewhere.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make available in single document form the treaty of Rome as amended by the Maastricht treaty.
  125
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The consolidated text of the treaty establishing the EC, as amended by the treaty on European Union, has already been published by the office for official publications of the European Communities. It is available in the Library of the House and through HMSO.

  European Commission
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out his objectives with regard to changing the powers of the European Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom favours a more efficient and accountable Commission committed to the overall goals set by successive European Councils. We welcome the fall in the volume of proposed legislation and the Commission's commitment to implement subsidiarity.

  Mr. Van den Broek
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 548, if he will ask Mr. Van den Broek to make it clear when he is expressing his personal opinions and when he is expressing official opinions in areas in which he has responsibility and competence.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Aid Agencies
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has initiated to safeguard the locally recruited staff of British aid agencies in Rwanda and Burundi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations mission in Rwanda—UNAMIR—is working for a ceasefire. It has also been tasked by the Security Council to assist in the resumption of humanitarian relief operations and monitor and report on developments. In Burundi the OAU has a vital role to play in restoring confidence within the country. We have given support to all international and regional efforts to halt the inter-ethnic disputes in both countries.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the crash of two Red Cross planes in Angola on 17 April.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no information on the alleged incident.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the future of the United Nations Mission in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 21 April the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 912. This authorises a reduction in the size of UNAMIR and gives it a mandate to act as an intermediary in an attempt 126
  to secure a ceasefire as well as assist in the resumption of humanitarian relief operations and monitor and report on developments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases where a maintenance assessment has been completed by the Child Support Agency the parent with care was in receipt of family credit, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 26 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of cases in which a child maintenance assessment has been completed where the parent with care was in receipt of family credit.
  The Agency does not collect information that identifies maintenance assessments according to the benefit status of the parent with care. At 28 February 1994, however, 26 per cent. of the maintenance application forms issued involved parents with in care who had claimed family credit.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average interval between the reception and issue of a substantive response to letters sent to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency from hon. Members dated(a) November 1993, (b) December 1993 and (c) January 1994.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Ms Joyce Quin, dated 26 April 1994.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the average interval between the receipt of, and response to, letters sent to me by Members of Parliament.
  I am sorry but the information is not available in the form you request. The first year of the Agency's operations has stimulated a great deal of correspondence, and I have received over 5,000 letters from Members of Parliament. All such letters are acknowledged within 24 hours of receipt and by 15 April I had personally replied to over 3,000. Set out in the table below are the average clearance times between 1 November 1993 and 31 January 1994 for such correspondence:

  Cleared 1–15 days per cent.

  Cleared 16–20 days per cent.

  Cleared 21 to 15 days per cent.

  Cleared over 40 days per cent.

  10.52

  5.21

  36.35

  47.92

  I am afraid that the targets for answering letters are not currently being met, but necessary steps have been taken to ensure that letters from Members are answered as promptly as possible.

  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but I would like to assure you that the Agency is determined to improve its performance in this regard.
  127
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions exist for the Child Support Agency to pay compensation; what criteria apply to compensation payments; and how many compensation payments, of what value, have been made to date.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security operates non-statutory special payment arrangements under which compensation may be considered where, as a result of clear and unambiguous departmental error or unreasonable delay, actual financial loss has been suffered. Requests for special payments will be considered within these broad guidelines, taking account of the particular circumstances of each individual case. Two ex-gratia payments have been made by the agency to date, one of £100—relating to liable relative work before the inception of the agency—and one for £115.60.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland are on housing benefit; and what is the total annual cost.

  Mr. Hague
  At the end of November 1993 there were approximately 550,000 live claims to housing benefit in Scotland. The estimated total annual cost for 1993–94 was £706 million.

  Data Sources: The Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload count November 1993 and the 1994 Departmental Report.

  Notes:

  Caseload

  1. The figures are for benefit units, which may be a couple or a single person, and have been rounded to the nearest one thousand. Estimates for non-responding local authorities are included.

  2. The information is recorded at one particular point and does not take account of claims which start and end between the quarterly reporting periods.

  War Disablement Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are waiting to be heard for war disablement pension; and in how many such cases the appeal was lodged before 1 May 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 22 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of War Pensions appeals awaiting hearing.
  On 20 April 1994 there was 4,474 appeals waiting to be heard for War Disablement Pension. Of these 4,343 were lodged with the War Pensions Agency before 1 May 1993.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Claimants, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of claimant families in each of the London boroughs in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Burt
  The information cannot be provided in the precise form requested. Information on claims by families 128
  with dependent children is available only for family credit and for London Benefits Agency office areas. Details are in the table.

  Further information on the numbers of individuals claiming social security benefits for Great Britain as a whole can be found in the Social Security departmental report, Cm 2513, a copy of which is in the Library.

  London offices of the Benefits Agency—family credit claims at a given time

  November 1992

  November 1993

  March 1994

  Acton

  103

  324

  281

  Balham

  487

  391

  443

  Battersea

  530

  345

  373

  Bloomsbury

  118

  90

  90

  Brixton

  535

  728

  736

  Camberwell

  46

  21

  19

  Canning Town

  225

  273

  262

  Chelsea

  120

  71

  76

  Cricklewood

  91

  181

  166

  Crystal Palace

  286

  491

  495

  Ealing

  435

  744

  725

  Edmonton

  943

  1,194

  1,225

  Eltham

  44

  32

  24

  Euston

  139

  133

  117

  Finsbury Park

  157

  353

  322

  Greenwich Park

  345

  407

  402

  Hackney

  530

  788

  798

  Harlesden

  200

  360

  351

  Hendon

  484

  623

  632

  Highgate

  224

  388

  339

  Hither Green

  16

  2

  2

  Hoxton

  382

  497

  519

  Kennington Park

  351

  404

  420

  Kensington

  103

  61

  56

  Lewisham

  268

  553

  561

  Leytonstone

  919

  1,267

  1,355

  Neasden

  421

  513

  519

  Notting Hill

  85

  105

  97

  Oval

  35

  14

  17

  Paddington

  276

  208

  181

  Peckham

  598

  848

  828

  Plaistow

  594

  758

  812

  Poplar

  687

  861

  889

  Shoreditch

  358

  302

  353

  Southwark

  472

  573

  589

  Stepney

  1,130

  1,241

  1,194

  Stoke Newington

  770

  1,020

  1,009

  Streatham

  288

  432

  452

  Thames North

  3

  3

  4

  Tottenham

  545

  722

  749

  Walthamstow

  632

  808

  844

  Wandsworth

  387

  472

  462

  Westminster

  474

  383

  386

  Wimbledon

  472

  585

  519

  Wood Green

  418

  497

  512

  Woodgrange Park

  868

  1,197

  1,203

  Woolwich

  841

  1,101

  1,104

  Income Support
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of families in Scotland living on income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The number is 146,000.

  Notes

  1. Sources: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993.

  2. The figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. A "family" is defined as an Income Support recipient with one or more dependants under 19 years of age.
  129
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support were in (i) residential and (ii) nursing homes in May 1991, May 1992 and May 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  The information for Great Britain is in the table:

  Residential Care People receiving Income Support (thousands)

  Nursing Homes people receiving Income Support (thousands)

  May 1991

  139

  94

  May 1992

  152

  116

  May 1993

  159

  124

  April 1990

  August 1990

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 19941

  Cash £ per week

  Per cent. of 1985 real value

  Cash £ per week

  Per cent. of 1985 real value

  Cash £ per week

  Per cent. of 1985 real value

  Cash £ per week

  Per cent. of 1985 real value

  Cash £ per week

  Per cent. of 1985 real value

  Cash £ per week

  RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES

  Elderly

  150

  103

  155

  104

  160

  104

  175

  109

  185

  113

  194

  Very dependent elderly2

  165

  114

  170

  114

  185

  120

  205

  127

  215

  132

  224

  Mentally ill

  150

  95

  155

  96

  170

  101

  185

  105

  195

  110

  202

  Drug/alcohol dependent

  150

  95

  155

  96

  170

  101

  185

  105

  195

  110

  202

  Mentally handicapped

  175

  95

  180

  95

  195

  99

  215

  105

  225

  108

  232

  Physically disabled under pension age

  210

  94

  215

  94

  230

  96

  245

  98

  255

  101

  262

  Others

  150

  103

  155

  104

  160

  104

  175

  109

  185

  113

  194

  NURSING HOMES

  Elderly and others

  200

  109

  210

  112

  255

  131

  270

  133

  280

  136

  290

  Mentally ill

  200

  102

  210

  105

  255

  122

  270

  124

  280

  127

  290

  Drug/alcohol dependent

  200

  102

  210

  105

  255

  122

  270

  124

  280

  127

  290

  Mentally handicapped

  215

  97

  225

  99

  260

  110

  275

  111

  285

  114

  295

  Physically disabled under pension age

  245

  93

  255

  95

  290

  104

  305

  105

  315

  107

  325

  Terminally ill

  245

  93

  260

  97

  275

  99

  280

  96

  280

  95

  290

  GREATER LONDON EXTENSION

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Residential care homes

  23

  102

  23

  100

  23

  96

  25

  100

  25

  99

  30

  Nursing homes

  23

  102

  23

  100

  33

  138

  35

  141

  35

  139

  35

  Notes:

  1 Real value comparisons with April 1985 limits are based on the all-items RPI in the month in which the uprating occurred.

  2 The higher limit for the very dependent elderly was not introduced until July 1986. Comparisons are with the limit for the elderly in April 1985, which would have applied to these claimants.

  3 Additions for claimants in Greater London were not introduced until July 1986. Comparisons are therefore with the July 1986 real values, not April 1985.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants had unemployment benefit disallowed due to non-availability for work in each year since 1979; and if he will provide a breakdown on these figures identifying the numbers whose unemployment benefit was disallowed(a) due to premature termination of training, (b) for the refusal of suitable employment and (c) because they voluntarily made themselves redundant.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is available only from 1984 and not in the form requested. Numbers of disallowances on grounds of non-availability are shown in the tables together with the numbers of disqualifications under(a), (b) and (c).
  130
  Note:

  All data rounded to nearest thousand.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1991 and 1992.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry 1993.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the cash limit values of each category of income support in residential and nursing care in each year since 1990; and what percentage they represent in real terms of the limit values in April 1985.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Totals of adjudication officers opinions1 and decisions and numbers of disallowances on cases of availability

  Availability

  All decisions

  Disallowances

  1984

  83,112

  46,439

  1985

  92,628

  52,825

  1986

  120,043

  67,127

  1987

  179,213

  91,181

  1988

  163,899

  86,806

  1989

  96,153

  53,237

  1990

  57,811

  33,499

  Quarter March 19912

  10,848

  6,165

  Year ending March 1992

  86,336

  50,183

  Year ending March 1993

  87,328

  49,463

  Half-year September 1993

  36,459

  23,241

  Quarter-year December 1993

  24,565

  15,217

  1 Opinions on availability are given by Adjudication Officers in the Employment Service on claims for Income Support.

  2 At the end of 1990 statistics ceased to be collected by calendar year and changed to a financial year, the quarter ending March 1991 is therefore shown as a separate quarter.

  131

  Totals of adjudication officers opinions and decisions and numbers of disqualifications on cases of refusal of employment, leaving employment voluntarily and premature termination of training

  Refusal of employment

  Leaving voluntarily

  Premature termination of training1

  All decisions

  Disqualification

  All decisions

  Disqualification

  All decisions

  Disqualification

  1984

  6,021

  1,150

  480,679

  288,120

  38,341

  25,591

  1985

  6,128

  2,039

  499,084

  306,588

  42,428

  29,389

  1986

  7,795

  2,677

  521,097

  323,001

  41,490

  29,057

  1987

  8,907

  2,906

  553,086

  342,761

  46,228

  28,421

  1988

  8,436

  3,035

  456,222

  278,019

  28,083

  18,004

  1989

  10,081

  3,786

  413,928

  235,890

  4,931

  3,132

  1990

  7,500

  3,415

  403,428

  231,053

  3,741

  2,243

  19912

  923

  415

  98,465

  53,495

  —

  —

  19923

  2,788

  1,143

  396,339

  203,168

  —

  —

  19933

  1,824

  685

  338,161

  168,567

  —

  —

  19934

  573

  191

  165,269

  81,059

  —

  —

  19935

  949

  476

  97,177

  48,339

  —

  —

  1 At the end of 1990 statistics for disqualifications of benefit due to premature termination of training, ceased to be collected separately and cannot therefore be shown.

  2 Quarter year March. At the end of 1990 statistics ceased to be collected by calendar year and changed to a financial year the quarter ending March 1991 is therefore shown as a separate quarter.

  3 Year ending March.

  4 Half year September.

  5 Quarter year December.

  SERPS
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population of working age in Britain is(a) currently contributing to the state earnings-related pension scheme or (b) currently opted-out of SERFS and is earning above the national insurance minimum contributions level.

  Mr. Hague
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1993, c. 517]: During 1991–92—the latest date for which information is available—of the population of working age in Great Britain:

  a. 15.4 per cent. had earnings above the National Insurance Lower Earnings Level (LEL) and paid National Insurance Contributions to count towards the State Earnings Related Scheme (SERPS);

  b. 34.2 per cent. had earnings above the LEL and were contracted out of SERPS (including those who are members of an Appropriate Personal Pension Scheme);

  c. 3.0 per cent. had earnings above the LEL and had worked in both contracted in and contracted out employments.

  Source: 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid 1992 population estimates.

WALES

  Tirfounder Fields Development Site, Aberdare
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will exercise his powers under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to direct the Cynon Valley borough council and the Mid Glamorgan county council to dispose of their interest in land required for access to the development site at Tirfounder Fields, Aberdare, owned by Landare Investments, subject to conditions that any purchaser shall provide appropriate means of public access to that development site;

  (2) if he will exercise his powers under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to direct the Cynon Valley borough council and the Mid Glamorgan county council to dispose of their interest in land required by Landare Investments for access to their development site at Tirfounder Fields, Aberdare, to Landare Investments.
  132
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's policy is to use the powers of direction under part X of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 in circumstances where land is being held by public bodies without good cause. I understand that both Mid Glamorgan county council and Cynon Valley borough council have agreed to dispose of the relevant land. In those circumstances, a direction would not be appropriate.

  Coastal Pollution (Genetic Abnormalities)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received during the past two months alleging that there is a danger of genetic abnormalities to babies associated with pollution of the coastline; what investigations the Welsh Office is making of this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fourteen representations have been received during the past two months. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys has completed its analysis of the geographical pattern of limb reduction defects in England and Wales, the results of which were announced in the House on 20 April. Separately the steering committee of the small area health statistics unit, which is partially funded by the Welsh Office, is considering the feasibility of conducting a more detailed study into the geographical distribution of these defects.

  Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently engaged in publicly funded training in Wales(a) in total and (b) by training subject area; and if he will provide similar figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total numbers engaged in publicly funded training since 31 March 1989 and in subsequent years are shown in table A. Comparable figures for years prior to 1989 are not available.

  An analysis of those in training by subject area for September 1992 and September 1993 is shown in table B. Comparable figures for years prior to 1992 are not available. Courses are available to meet training demand for 16 to 19-year-olds under the policy set out to Parliament.
  133

  Table A Wales in training

  Total

  March 1989

  37,340

  March 1990

  38,594

  March 1991

  26,604

  March 1992

  26,629

  Table B
  Wales in training by subject area

  September 1992

  September 1993

  Youth training Per cent.

  Employment training Per cent.

  Youth training Per cent.

  Training for work Per cent.

  Initial training

  2

  5

  13

  14

  Managers and Administrators

  >1

  1

  >1

  3

  Professional occupations

  >1

  >1

  >1

  2

  Assoc. Professional and Technical

  4

  6

  4

  4

  Clerical and Secretarial

  14

  29

  15

  25

  Craft and related occupations

  39

  31

  29

  30

  Personal and Protective Service OCCS

  13

  9

  13

  6

  Sales occupations

  7

  3

  9

  3

  Plant and Machine Operatives

  10

  6

  10

  8

  Other occupations

  10

  9

  6

  5

  Economic Inactivity
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information he has on levels of economic inactivity in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the autumn 1993 labour force survey the number of economically inactive persons in Wales was 969,000. This represents 42 per cent. of all persons aged 16 and over in private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation. Individuals are classified as economically inactive if they are neither in employment nor unemployed on the International Labour Office measure. This includes people staying at home to run the household.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning progress made in environmental protection, listing advances in each of the counties in Wales in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A wide range of action has been taken since 1992 to protect the Welsh environment, including the expansion of designated areas, the implementation of new pollution controls on industry and vehicles, improved energy efficiency, enhanced protection for the built heritage, major investment to improve bathing water quality and, as recently announced, a refocusing of the trunk road programme. Further details are provided in the "Environment in Wales" series of reports published by the Welsh Office.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the outstanding planning applications for the opencasting of coal in Wales, county by county; and if he will make a statement.
  134

  Total

  March 1993

  25,883

  February 1994

  25,544

  Note: Figures for March 1994 are not yet available.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Asthma
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to limit the occurrence of asthma related to car exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is concerned about the rise in the incidence of asthma and is working with the other Health Departments to find the causes. This includes investigating the possibility that road traffic emissions are an important contributory cause. A sub-group of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants is to undertake a major review of asthma and air pollution and will report later this year. A range of measures is being taken to reduce car exhaust emissions in Wales. In addition the air quality help line provides a public information service enabling asthmatics to take steps to reduce their exposure, should air pollution levels become high.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each education authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, the number of(a) pupils in assisted places schemes in secondary schools, (b) pupils in secondary schools in total for each year since 1987, and (c) the number in (a) as a percentage of (b).

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The assisted places scheme provides assistance to parents to enable their children to attend certain independent schools. The information requested is as follows:
  135

  Number of pupils on the Assisted Places Scheme (a)

  Number of pupils aged 11 and over in independent schools (b)

  Assisted pupils as a percentage of pupils aged 11 and over in independent schools

  Number of pupils in maintained secondary schools (c)

  Pupils on the Assisted Places Scheme as a percentage of all pupils

  1987–88

  Clwyd

  158

  1,712

  9·2

  29,160

  0·5

  Dyfed

  21

  489

  4·3

  24,173

  0·1

  Gwent

  209

  1,370

  15·3

  30,855

  0·6

  Gwynedd

  0

  734

  0·0

  17,486

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  357

  0·0

  39,940

  0·0

  Powys

  46

  502

  9·2

  8,314

  0·5

  South Glamorgan

  188

  1,611

  11·7

  27,777

  0·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  484

  0·0

  24,274

  0·0

  WALES

  622

  7,259

  8·6

  201,979

  0·3

  1988–89

  Clwyd

  156

  1,681

  9·3

  27,875

  0·5

  Dyfed

  28

  523

  5·4

  23,940

  0·1

  Gwent

  204

  1,389

  14·7

  29,566

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0

  763

  0·0

  16,581

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  359

  0·0

  38,017

  0·0

  Powys

  52

  518

  10·0

  8,079

  0·6

  South Glamorgan

  193

  1,601

  12·1

  27,063

  0·7

  West Glamorgan

  0

  421

  0·0

  23,434

  0·0

  WALES

  633

  7,255

  8·7

  194,555

  0·3

  1989–90

  Clwyd

  145

  1,691

  8·6

  26,963

  0·5

  Dyfed

  32

  540

  5·9

  23,422

  0·1

  Gwent

  206

  1,391

  14·8

  28,543

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0

  723

  0·0

  15,743

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  342

  0·0

  36,670

  0·0

  Powys

  58

  543

  10·7

  7,909

  0·7

  South Glamorgan

  190

  1,713

  11·1

  26,142

  0·7

  West Glamorgan

  0

  366

  0·0

  22,766

  0·0

  WALES

  631

  7,309

  8·6

  188,158

  0·3

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  149

  1,656

  9·0

  26,759

  0·5

  Dyfed

  39

  554

  7·0

  23,527

  0·2

  Gwent

  201

  1,356

  14·8

  28,445

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0

  683

  0·0

  15,474

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  346

  0·0

  36,368

  0·0

  Powys

  70

  530

  13·2

  7,829

  0·8

  South Glamorgan

  175

  1,687

  10·4

  26,244

  0·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  343

  0·0

  22,846

  0·0

  WALES

  634

  7,155

  8·9

  187,492

  0·3

  1991–92

  Clwyd

  158

  1,595

  9·9

  27,212

  0·5

  Dyfed

  48

  509

  9·4

  24,225

  0·2

  Gwent

  221

  1,337

  16·5

  29,116

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0

  680

  0·0

  15,532

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  358

  0·0

  37,263

  0·0

  Powys

  76

  532

  14·3

  7,889

  0·9

  South Glamorgan

  159

  1,700

  9·4

  26,919

  0·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  317

  0·0

  23,104

  0·0

  WALES

  662

  7,028

  9·4

  191,260

  0·3

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  177

  1,349

  13·1

  27,711

  0·6

  Dyfed

  52

  551

  9·4

  24,463

  0·2

  Gwent

  219

  1,315

  16·7

  29,734

  0·7

  Gwynedd

  0

  713

  0·0

  15,620

  0·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  306

  0·0

  38,198

  0·0

  Powys

  81

  509

  15·9

  7,979

  1·0

  South Glamorgan

  171

  1,617

  10·6

  27,601

  0·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  280

  0·0

  23,449

  0·0

  WALES

  700

  6,640

  10·5

  194,755

  0·3

  (a) At September each year.

  (b) At January each year.

  (c) Includes number of pupils in LEA and Grant maintained secondary schools, and pupils aged 11 and over in special schools.
  136 137

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local education authority in Wales, and for Wales as a whole,(a) the number of grant-maintained secondary schools, the total public spending associated with them, and the average public spending per school, (b) the number of non-grantmaintained secondary schools, the total public spending

  Total public spending on secondary schools for 1992–93

  LEA area

  Status

  Total public spending

  Number of schools

  Spending per school

  Clwyd

  LEA maintained

  75,312,000

  32

  2,353,500

  Grant maintained1

  715,144

  1

  715,144

  All maintained

  76,027,144

  33

  2,303,853

  Dyfed

  LEA maintained

  63,592,000

  31

  2,051,355

  Grant maintained

  0

  0

  n/a

  All maintained

  63,592,000

  31

  2,051,355

  Gwent

  LEA maintained

  75,282,000

  31

  2,428,452

  Grant maintained2

  1,861,639

  2

  930,820

  All maintained

  77,143,639

  33

  2,337,686

  Gwynedd

  LEA maintained

  43,111,000

  23

  1,874,391

  Grant maintained

  0

  0

  n/a

  All maintained

  43,111,000

  23

  1,874,391

  Mid Glamorgan

  LEA maintained

  102,402,000

  42

  2,438,143

  Grant maintained

  0

  0

  n/a

  All maintained

  102,402,000

  42

  2,438,143

  Powys

  LEA maintained

  21,390,000

  13

  1,645,385

  Grant maintained

  0

  0

  n/a

  All maintained

  21,390,000

  13

  1,645,385

  South Glamorgan

  LEA maintained

  63,470,000

  27

  2,350,741

  Grant maintained

  0

  0

  n/a

  All maintained

  63,470,000

  27

  2,350,741

  West Glamorgan

  LEA maintained

  62,438,000

  26

  2,401,462

  Grant maintained

  2,652,015

  1

  2,652,015

  All maintained

  65,090,015

  27

  2,410,741

  Wales

  LEA maintained

  506,997,000

  225

  2,253,320

  Grant maintained1 2

  5,228,798

  4

  1,307,200

  All maintained

  512,225,798

  229

  2,236,794

  1 Includes a school that opted out on 1 January 1993. The funding for this school only relates to the period 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993.

  2 Includes a school that opted out on 1 September 1992. The funding for this school only relates to the period 1 September 1992 to 31 March 1993.

  n/a=Not available.

  Notes

  The number of schools is taken from the January 1993 STATS 1.

  LEA expenditure comprises:

  Net current expenditure on secondary education.

  Gross capital expenditure on secondary education.

  Spending on schools under budget heads other than education is excluded.

  Expenditure on pupils at Grant Maintained schools is excluded.

  Grant Maintained school expenditure comprises:

  Annual maintenance grant.

  Special purposes grant.

  Transitional grant.

  Capital grant

  LEA expenditure on pupils at Grant Maintained schools.

  Revenue the school raises itself is excluded.

  The use of school reserves is excluded.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each health authority in Wales and for Wales as a whole(a) the total number of people who have received hospital treatment requiring at least one
  138
  associated with them, and the average public spending per school and (c) the total number of secondary schools, the total public spending associated with them, and the average public spending per school.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The most recent financial year for which data are available for both local education authority-maintained and grant-maintained schools is 1992–93. The information is given in the table:

  night's stay for the latest available 12-month period and (b) the total number of people awaiting hospital treatment for more than one year; and if he will express (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information which relates to in-patient cases and numbers waiting for treatment in Welsh hospitals is given in the following table.
  139

  Health authority area1

  (a) In-patient cases2

  (b) People waiting more than 1 year3

  (c) (b) as a percentage of (a)

  Clwyd

  73,272

  660

  0.9

  East Dyfed

  41,697

  334

  0.8

  Gwent

  74,742

  1,157

  1.5

  Gwynedd

  41,004

  367

  0.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  98,629

  1,030

  1.0

  Pembrokeshire

  17,446

  535

  3.1

  Powys

  9,070

  0

  0.0

  South Glamorgan

  82,741

  1,396

  1.7

  West Glamorgan

  70,023

  351

  0.5

  Wales

  508,624

  5,830

  1.1

  1 Figures are given according to the district health authority area in which hospitals are situated. NHS Trusts are included.

  2 In the year ending 30 September 1993.

  3 People who, at 30 September 1993, were on an in-patient waiting list in Wales and had been waiting for more than one year.

  Wheelchair Repairs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the award of a contract to SERCO for wheelchair repairs within the NHS in Wales; and what representations he has received in relation to the award of this contract and its conformity with the tender advertised in relation to facilities management and the direct provision of the repair services.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Health Commons Services Authority is responsible for the management of the artificial limbs and appliance service in Wales and has awarded the contract for the repair of wheelchairs to SERCO.

  I have received no representations about the award of the contract.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Balfour Beatty Costain construction consortium and the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning a starting date for the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage and guarantees and indemnities relating thereto.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Company Liquidations
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much public money Deeside Colour Direct received by way of grant before it went into receivership; how much public money the successor company Patina Press Ltd. received before it went into receivership; and if he will list the individuals who were known to be directors of both companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: I have written to the hon. Member and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Crown Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, columns 577–80, how many of the Crown servants applying to become consultants were (a) to join existing consultants firms and (b) to become independent consultants; and what were the civil service grades involved.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All applications were for permission to accept independent consultancy commissions. Applications to undertake consultancy work on behalf of an existing firm are not separately identified in central statistics and could be isolated only at disproportionate cost. The statistics cover civil service grades from grade 1 to higher executive officer, together with equivalent diplomatic service grades and armed forces ranks.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 April,Official Report, columns 577–80, what were the civil service grades involved of those Crown servants applying through the business appointments system.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  All grades from grade 1 to executive officer in the civil service and their diplomatic service equivalents. In addition, the statistics included members of ranks in the Royal Navy from admiral to lieutenant commander, in the Army from field marshal to major, and in the Royal Air Force from marshal of the Royal Air Force to flight lieutenant. The numbers of applications by each grade or rank could be obtained only at disproportionate expense.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which public services, or parts of public services, are not appropriate for market testing and contracting out; and what criteria are used in establishing these.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's approach is to consider each candidate activity carefully on its merits to determine whether market testing or contracting out would be appropriate at any given time. Criteria include likely improvement in value for money, ease of avoiding potential conflicts of interest, protection of national security, safeguards for confidentiality, strategic control over resource allocation and the need for effective policy formulation.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the provisions of the code of practice on access to government information regarding referral of refusal of information to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will apply to hon. Members in respect of failure to provide information in response to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to the disproportionate cost rule, there is no question of withholding from Parliament information which would be available under the code of
  141
  practice on access to government information. However, neither the code nor the powers of investigation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration apply to proceedings of Parliament and hon. Members have more direct means than the code of seeking information from Ministers.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what circumstances a member of the public will be able to obtain information under the code of practice on access to government information which has been refused in response to a question for written answer put down by an hon. Member.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am aware of only one set of circumstances. By long-standing convention, a Minister may decline to answer a parliamentary question if to do so would involve disproportionate cost. A member of the public might be able to obtain information refused on these grounds, provided that they were prepared to pay an appropriate charge, meeting the request did not involve an unreasonable diversion of resources and the material was not otherwise exempt from disclosure under part II of the code of practice.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Mr. David Davis
  During the past 10 years the Cabinet Office—including agencies, HMSO and the Central Office of Information—has employed private security firms as follows:

  Year

  Number of firms

  Annual cost (£)

  1984–85

  7

  215,954

  1985–86

  10

  311,040

  1986–87

  11

  388,829

  1987–88

  11

  395,098

  1988–89

  11

  460,082

  1989–90

  12

  484,816

  1990–91

  12

  632,433

  1991–92

  13

  722,195

  1992–93

  14

  847,528

  1993–94

  14

  875,873

  It is not possible to estimate how many guards have been employed for each of these years.

TRANSPORT

  Mr. Peter Gerosa
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates Mr. Peter Gerosa joined and left his Department; what position he held; and what were the circumstances of his departure.

  Mr. Norris
  Mr. Gerosa joined the civil service on 13 August 1945 as a clerk in the Foreign Office. He worked in various Departments, joining the Ministry of Transport as an assistant secretary on 16 May 1966. He worked in the Departments of Transport and of the Environment until he retired early on 31 October 1982.

  A66
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department last undertook a traffic study on the A66 between Scotch Corner and Penrith; and what were the conclusions.

  Mr. Key
  Traffic studies were undertaken on the A66 as part of the trans-Pennine study published on 23 September 1992. Scheme specific figures were collated for the now completed scheme at Bowes to county boundary, the Stainmore to Banksgate scheme currently under construction and the Temple Sowerby to Winderwarth improvement now in preparation.

  Commercial Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce new regulations on the time commercial drivers may work and the use of tachographs.

  Mr. Key
  The European Commission is preparing proposals for an improved tachograph system to strengthen the control and enforcement of the EC drivers hours regulation. In the light of responses earlier this year to our letter of consultation, we are considering whether any changes are desirable in the domestic rules on driving hours and duty limits which apply to many passenger and goods vehicles exempted from the EC regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs.

  Railways
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers he has to direct the Director of Franchising to include specific services within a shadow franchise or, subsequently, franchise contract.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State has powers under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993 to give objectives, instructions and guidance to the Franchising Director with respect to the provision of passenger railway services in Great Britain. The Franchising Director is under a duty to exercise his functions under the Act, including those of designating services for franchising and of drawing up the terms of franchise agreements, in a manner which he considers best calculated to fulfil those objectives in accordance with the instructions and guidance.

  In the objectives, instructions and guidance he issued on 22 March, the Secretry of State instructed the Franchising Director that, for the initial letting of franchises, his specificaiton of minimum service levels for railway passenger services is to be based on that being provided by BR immediately before franchising, taking into account the existence of, and justification for, seasonal variations in service schedule.

SCOTLAND

  Radioactive Clothing (Dounreay)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement as to how the clothing of a German visitor to the nuclear power station in Dounreay in March became radioactive; what was the cause of this incident; what was the cost of supplying alternative clothing; and on how many other occasions this has occurred.
  143
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 15 Apri11994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Employment gave him on 13 April 1994, Official Report, column 190.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by district, hectarage and location the Forestry Commission land sold in Scotland in each of the past five financial years where(a) access agreements have been concluded and (b) access agreements have not been concluded and the price of each piece per hectare.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: Lists giving details of the areas of forest land sold in Scotland by calendar year to December 1993 are held in the Library of the House. The lists show the price paid where the purchaser has agreed that such information can be made public. Access agreements had not been concluded for any areas of land sold by the end of 1993. However, agreements had been concluded or were being negotiated in respect of 19 woodlands which were in the process of being sold and local authorities had expressed interest in negotiating agreements in 22 other areas.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of employees of Greater Glasgow health board, broken down by categories and grades, at the end of each of the last five financial years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The latest available information is shown in a table which has been placed in the Library. Figures for 1989 for staff other than doctors and dentists are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish Homes regarding stock transfers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend has issued guidance to Scottish Homes regarding the disposal of its stock. The arrangements in particular cases are for Scottish Homes to consider in terms of its published procedures. Transfers of stock require my right hon. Friend's approval and he will require to be satisfied that they represent value for money and that tenants' interests have been fully considered.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to ensure that the transfer of Scottish Homes housing stock within the Wyndford area of Glasgow to Cube Housing Association will be completed by 12 May; and if he will also ensure that the tenants affected by the transfer will not be subjected to any additional increase in rents imposed by Scottish Homes on 15 May if such transfer is further delayed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Final proposals relating to the transfer of Scottish Homes' stock in Glasgow to Cube housing association were sent to the Scottish Office Environrnent Department on 6 April 1994. My right hon. Friend has
  144
  made it clear that he will not approve a transfer of Scottish Homes' stock unless he is satisfied that it represents value for money and that tenants rights and interests have been fully considered. A decision will be taken when those aspects have been considered fully and it would not be appropriate to constrain this consideration by prescribing a firm date by which the transfer should be completed. Decisions relating to the rent payable by the tenants concerned are entirely a matter for Scottish Homes.

  Coastal and Flood Defences
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances local authorities may undertake work to protect private land or property from coastal erosion or flooding; and how such work is funded.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Regional and islands councils have wide powers under the Coast Protection Act 1949 to take such measures as they consider necessary to protect any land in their areas against erosion and encroachment by the sea. The councils also have powers to prevent or mitigate flooding of non-agricultural land under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. Those powers make no distinction as to ownership of the land concerned and it is for councils to consider each scheme on its merits. Grants are available to councils towards the eligible costs of coast protection or flood prevention schemes approved or confirmed by the Secretary of State.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the establishment of a Police Complaints Authority or similar body in Scotland; and what are his conclusions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following a review of the existing complaints procedures by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, published on 11 February 1993, my right hon. Friend concluded that a Police Complaints Authority would not be established for Scotland.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which representatives of the local authorities in Scotland he has met to discuss the Sheehy report; and when.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State has met representatives of the three Scottish police associations collectively and separately to hear their views on the Sheehy report. Individual meetings took place on 19 August, 30 August and 9 September 1993. The associations also made their views known at meetings of the Police Advisory Board for Scotland, chaired by my noble and learned Friend, on 12 March, 9 July and 20 December 1993, and also at a meeting on 20 September 1993 between the United Kingdom police associations and Home Department Ministers. Later meetings have considered the legislative implementation of the Government's conclusions on the report.
  145
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many visits to Scotland and of what duration were made by each member of the Sheehy inquiry into the police.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is included in appendix I to the "Report of the Inquiry into Police Responsibility and Rewards" (In Cm 2280.11, June 1993).

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which members of the Sheehy inquiry into the police have had experience or knowledge of life in Scotland or policing in Scotland; and what is that experience and knowledge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government considered it important for the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards to be conducted by a fully independent team with expertise in a number of disciplines. The team included Professor Sir Colin Campbell, Vice-Chancellor of the university of Nottingham, who was educated in Scotland, graduated in law and then lectured in law at Scottish universities.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds he decided that the Sheehy inquiry should extend to Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Because the terms of reference of the inquiry were to examine the rank structure, remuneration and conditions of service of the police and these are issues which are treated on a United Kingdom basis.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which representatives of the police he has met in Scotland to discuss the Sheehy report; and when.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 11 August 1993. Members of the convention also attended meetings of the Police Advisory Board for Scotland, chaired by my noble and learned Friend, on 12 March, 9 July and on 20 December 1993, when the Sheehy report was discussed.

  Police
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the major ways in which police practices, control and discipline are specific to Scotland and the reasons for this.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  What matters is that arrangements in Scotland are right for Scottish circumstances; in some areas the resemblance to arrangements south of the border is closer than in others.

  Highlands (Tourism)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many submissions he has received about the future structure of the tourist industry in the highlands; and what percentages favoured(a) a single highland area toursit board or (b) more than one highland area tourist board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 April 1994]: All the options recommended to me by the
  146
  Scottish tourist board favoured a single ATB for the highlands. I received 16 unsolicited representations from organisations suggesting various alternative structures. I also received 86 similar representations from members of ATBs at the request of their boards. Two representations supported the STB advice.

  Dewe Rogerson
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will define the role of Dewe Rogerson on behalf of his Department in relation to rail privatisation; and how much it has been paid to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has had no contact with Dewe Rogerson in relation to rail privatisation.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs have been created by each local enterprise company in(a) manufacturing and (b) services industry in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The local enterprise companies have not been in existence for five years. Information on the jobs that they have created during the period since they were established is not held centrally in the form requested. I have therefore asked the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to respond direct to the hon. Member about this matter.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether mink are currently present at Dundurn mink farm, St. Fillans, Perthshire.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether mink are currently present at Deeside mink farm, Burnside, Maryculter, Aberdeen; and if he will give details of the last licence issued for this establishment.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No mink are present. A licence issued with effect from 1 January 1993 expired on 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Dundurn mink farm, St. Fillans was last licensed to keep mink.

  Sir Hector Monro
  April 1990.

  Homeless Households
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households have applied to local authorities as homeless each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest complete information on the number of households who have applied to local authorities as homeless is published in table 2 of the statistical bulletin HSG/1994/3, "Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland 1982–83 to 1992–93: District Analyses". Information for the previous years was published in table 1 of the statistical
  147
  bulletin HSG/1992/1, "Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland 1979–80 to 1990–91". These bulletins are available in the Library.

  Health Boards Budgets
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the HIV and (b) drugs budget for each health board in Scotland.

  HIV-Care and Treatment

  HIV and AIDS Prevention

  HIV-Drugs-related

  Drug misuse

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  110,900

  284,384

  117,319

  107,800

  620,403

  Ayrshire and Arran

  61,600

  224,970

  245,900

  210,345

  742,815

  Borders

  64,400

  87,800

  7,600

  25,800

  185,600

  Dumfries and Galloway

  72,600

  116,300

  46,100

  39,000

  274,000

  Fife

  70,900

  236,260

  104,750

  77,250

  489,160

  Forth Valley

  151,600

  189,400

  139,000

  65,500

  545,500

  Grampian

  550,000

  404,000

  332,000

  111,000

  1,397,000

  Greater Glasgow

  2,388,000

  805,000

  1,412,000

  807,000

  5,412,000

  Highland

  81,700

  257,700

  0

  42,300

  381,700

  Lanark

  196,000

  404,000

  36,000

  118,000

  754,000

  Lothian

  4,253,865

  1,422,561

  1,589,568

  674,904

  27,940,898

  Orkney

  0

  28,000

  0

  5,500

  33,500

  Shetland

  2,500

  34,559

  4,500

  6,695

  48,254

  Tayside

  943,000

  824,000

  527,000

  273,000

  22,567,000

  Western Isles

  500

  52,500

  0

  10,000

  63,000

  State Hospital

  2,700

  27,100

  0

  0

  29,800

  8,950,265

  5,398,534

  4,561,737

  2,574,094

  21,484,630

  1600,000

  122,084,630

  1 The amounts shown may be supplemented in-year if required in the light of monitoring or emerging needs. A reserve of £600,000 will be available for this purpose.

  2 In the cases of Lothian and Tayside Health Boards action is being taken in the first six months of the financial year to specify clearly a number of services to be provided in respect of HIV/AIDS requirements. Initial agreements covering these services relate to the first six months; the notional annual figure shown is therefore subject to review within that period. Initial amounts of £5,857,000 for Lothian Health Board and £2,225,000 for Tayside Health Board have been allocated.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentages of ambulances in each service in Scotland responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in 1993–94.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 April 19941: There is only one ambulance service for the whole of Scotland. The information is as follows:

  Responses

  Year

  0 to 8 minutes Per cent.

  14 to 20minutes Per cent.

  1993–94

  51

  96

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all staff currently employed by new town development corporations will be included in the ring-fencing arrangements which will apply to the staff of local authorities at the time of the proposed reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: No decision has been taken on whether there will be any ring-fencing arrangements for staff when local government is reorganised in Scotland.
  148
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: The resources available to Scottish health boards and the state hospital for HIV/AIDS and drug misuse services in 1994–95 are set out in the table.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers and percentages of students in higher education undertaking two-year diploma courses and three and four-year degree courses in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The information readily available is in respect of 1992–93. The number and percentage of students in higher education in Scotland undertaking three and four-year degree courses, higher national diploma courses and other higher education is given in the table.

  Full-time undergraduate students

  Number

  Percentage

  Three-year degree

  16,499

  15

  Four-year degree

  57,604

  54

  Other degree (length not known)

  10,893

  10

  HND (two-year courses)

  12,244

  11

  Other qualification

  10,148

  9

  Total students in higher education

  107,388

  100

HEALTH

  Nursing Staff Deployment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the redeployment of nursing staff from the acute to the community sector.
  149
  Mr. Sackville
  Changing patterns of health care are leading to the development of new roles and opportunities for nurses in the community. Government policy is that employers determine the work force they require and the training staff need.

  NHS Capital Programme
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the NHS capital programme for the financial year 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The value of the national health service capital programme for the financial year 1993–94 amounted to over £1.8 billion.

  This was the largest provision for capital in the history of the NHS.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the change in the number of patients treated in NHS trusts since 1991; and what was the change in other hospitals over the same period.

  Mr. Sackville
  All hospitals are showing improved performance and trusts are at the leading edge. The growth in finished consultant episodes for general and acute specialties in national health service trusts for the latest year available, 1992–93 was 5.3 per cent. and the comparable figure for directly managed units was 3.6 per cent.

  Drugs Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she plans to take to reduce expenditure on drugs in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have introduced a number of initiatives to encourage effective prescribing. Our aim is to reduce the rate of growth in the national health service drugs bill, while ensuring that people get the medicines they need.

  Mother and Child Health
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how levels of maternal, perinatal and infant mortality, and of child health protection, have changed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Infant, perinatal and maternal mortality rates are now the lowest levels ever recorded. We have placed a copy of tables showing the rates for the last 10 years for these definitions, and maternal mortality, in the Library.

  Incidences of childhood diseases are also at record low levels. Over 90 per cent. of all children are now immunised against the major childhood diseases.

  Junior Doctors (Hours of Duty)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made to reduce the hours of duty of junior doctors in the north west region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Progress in implementing the new deal to reduce junior doctors' hours has been very encouraging in the north-west.
  150
  In the North West regional health authority area, posts contracted for more than 83 hours a week were eliminated by September 1993. By that date the number of hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for between 72 and 83 hours a week had fallen by 23 per cent. over the previous year. Our priority this year is to tackle these hard-pressed posts.

  Consumer Complaints
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the procedures for dealing with consumer complaints since the reorganisation of the health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will shortly publish for consultation the report of the independent committee we commissioned to review national health service complaints procedures within the United Kingdom.

  GP Fundholders, Suffolk
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner practices are now participating in the fundholding initiative in Suffolk; and what proportion of those eligible this represents in the county.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are 21 fundholding practices in Suffolk covering 36 per cent. of the population.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of savings she estimates to have been made as a result of competitive tendering of services in the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is estimated that since the introduction of competitive tendering in 1983 the cumulative saving to the national health service has amounted to something in the order of £1 billion.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the incidence of restrictions of hospital admissions to emergency cases only.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patients continue to receive high-quality treatment promptly. In the few instances when there have been restrictions alternative arrangements are made to ensure patients are treated appropriately.

  NHS Trusts, South Thames
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of hospital and community health services in the South Thames region is now carried out by NHS trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  From 1 April 1994 there are 61 national health service trusts providing hospital and community health services within the South Thames area, representing more than 90 per cent. of units.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to improve early diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
  151
  Mr. Sackville
  The Government fully recognise the need to find a proven method of diagnosing ovarian cancer early to offer the greatest chance of a cure. However, any screening method must demonstrate its acceptability and effectiveness in reducing mortality before introduction nationally. A number of research projects are seeking currently to find a method sensitive enough to detect ovarian cancer without the need for investigative surgery, but will require full evaluation before they can be considered for a national based screening programme.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the requirement to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant within the private or voluntary sector.

  Mr. Bowis
  The requirement is for at least 85 per cent. of the social security transfer element of the special transitional grant to be used on community care services provided by the independent sector. One hundred per cent. of this social security money was previously spent in the independent sector. We have received a number of representations from the independent sector, local authorities and others.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney transplants were carried out(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of kidney transplants performed in 1979 was 842; in 1993 the number had almost doubled to 1,576—provisional.

  (Figures provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority UKTSSA).

  Tobacco Advertising
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had on banning all tobacco advertising from hoardings within 1 or 3 miles of schools; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today.

  Guy's Hospital
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notice she is taking of representations arguing against the reduction of beds or the closure of the accident and emergency department at Guy's hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All representations are given serious consideration. Proposals for changes in the disposition of services at the Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital Trust will, in any case, be the subject of full public consultation.

  Morning-after Pill
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received on making the morning-after pill available on request from a pharmacist; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None specifically about pharmacy provision. There have been 16 letters from the public about wider availability generally; two letters were in support and 14 opposed.

  Paramedics, London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics are currently employed by the London ambulance service; and what the figure was five years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London Ambulance Service currently has over 400 trained paramedics compared to only seven in 1989. This reflects the excellent progress which is being made on paramedic training.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether premises in which radiotherapy machines have been situated can be immediately re-used after the machinery has been removed; and what agency is responsible for the safety of sites and buildings during and after such removal.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no reason why premises in which radiotherapy equipment has been situated should not be re-used immediately after its removal. There is no residual emission following decommissioning. National Health Service Estates, an executive agency of the Department of Health, has issued comprehensive building guidance covering most Departments. Regulatory aspects of building design and construction are enforced by the local building control authority; safety of sites during use is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average percentage savings in purchasing costs were assessed by the firms retained by the National Health Service Supplies Authority or its divisions to benchmark prices as being achievable by the authority on the basis of the best available market price for a representative basket of items in comparison with prices paid or negotiated for the same items during the most recent period for which divisional data are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  For an annualised sample basket of 392 goods taken at March 1994 National Health Service Supplies' purchasing performance was 0.4 per cent. better than that achieved in the same period covered by the PI (UK) Ltd. analysis.

  Purchasing Authorities (Buildings)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent(a) buying, (b) building, (c) leasing and (d) equipping buildings for purchasing authorities in each district health authority in each of the last two financial years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not separately identifiable in the financial accounts of health authorities.

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by her Department on the number of children infected by tuberculosis in(a) each of the London boroughs and (b) England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information is shown in the table.
  153

  Notified cases of tuberculosis for children (aged 0–16) in England and each London Borough, 1992.

  1992

  England

  855

  City of London

  —

  Batting and Dagenham

  1

  Barnet

  40

  Bexley

  3

  Brent

  19

  Bromley

  3

  Camden

  8

  Croydon

  6

  Ealing

  46

  Enfield

  2

  Greenwich

  4

  Hackney

  7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  Haringey

  8

  Harrow

  6

  Havering

  1

  Hillingdon

  6

  Hounslow

  10

  Islington

  5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  Lambeth

  8

  Lewisham

  1

  Merton

  —

  Newham

  9

  Redbridge

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  Southwark

  9

  Sutton

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  27

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  City of Westminster

  19

  There are no cost improvement targets as such for RHAs, but in 1994–95, all RHAs are expected to produce a purchaser efficiency gain of 2.25 per cent.

  Region

  1993–94 Actual Allocations (at 1993–94 prices) (£,000's)

  1993–94 Revised Baseline (at 1993–94 prices) (£,000's)

  1994–95 Allocation (at 1993–94 prices) (£,000's)

  1994–95 Actual Allocations (at 1994–95 prices) (£,000's)

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  Northern

  1,159,723

  1,160,008

  1,172,223

  1,219,112

  Yorkshire

  1,334,886

  1,335,240

  1,352,246

  1,406,336

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2,494,609

  2,495,248

  2,524,469

  2,625,448

  Trent

  1,672,751

  1,673,336

  1,699,928

  1,767,925

  East Anglia

  704,794

  704,955

  719,684

  748,471

  Oxford

  794,779

  794,974

  810,645

  843,071

  Anglia and Oxford

  1,499,573

  1,499,929

  1,530,329

  1,591,542

  North West Thames

  1,320,749

  1,290,993

  1,300,159

  1,352,165

  North East Thames

  1,490,187

  1,490,742

  1,501,326

  1,561,379

  North Thames

  2,810,936

  2,781,735

  2,801,485

  2,913,544

  South East Thames

  1,439,276

  1,439,540

  1,461,366

  1,519,821

  South West Thames

  1,116,107

  1,110,509

  1,118,394

  1,163,130

  South Thames

  2,555,383

  2,550,049

  2,579,760

  2,682,951

  Wessex

  1,033,656

  1,067,848

  1,092,774

  1,136,485

  South Western

  1,185,708

  1,185,957

  1,204,946

  1,253,144

  South and West

  2,219,364

  2,253,805

  2,297,720

  2,389,629

  West Midlands

  1,855,142

  1,855,472

  1,884,765

  1,960,156

  Mersey

  890,032

  889,486

  896,948

  932,826

  North Western

  1,505,427

  1,505,798

  1,522,269

  1,583,160

  North West

  2,395,459

  2,395,284

  2,419,217

  2,515,986

  ENGLAND

  17,503,217

  17,504,858

  17,737,673

  18,447,181

  Notes:

  1. Column 2 is the initial 1993–94 recurrent allocation for resident population.
  154
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in(a) each of the London boroughs and (b) England leave school without having been vaccinated against tuberculosis.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the allocations to each regional health authority for 1994–95; what assumptions in each case have been made about(a) cost uprating, (b) growth, (c) changes in capitation formulae and (d) cost improvement targets; and what were the allocations for 1993–94 on cash and standard price basis, making allowance for boundary changes where necessary.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table gives the information for the former 14 regional health authorities.

  With effect from 1 April 1994, the number of regional health authorities has been reduced to eight. For regions which have been merged without boundary changes, the 1994–95 allocations for the new regions are as indicated in the table.

  Adjustments for boundary changes are required between: Northern and Yorkshire and North West, for the transfer of South Cumbria health authority to North West; and North Thames and Anglian and Oxford, for the transfer of Bedfordshire health authority and Bedfordshire family health services authority to Anglia and Oxford. The required adjustments are being evaluated by the regions concerned and are not reflected in the table.

  No changes were made between 1993–94 and 1994–95 to the capitation formula used to inform allocations to RHAs.
  155
  2. Column 3 is the revised 1993–94 recurrent allocation used as the baseline for calculating 1994–95 allocations. It includes the effects of inter-authority transfers.

  3. Column 4 is the initial 1994–95 recurrent allocation for resident population after distribution between regions of the 1.33 per cent. real terms growth for England as a whole.

  4. Column 5 is the initial 1994–95 recurrent allocation for resident population after a 4 per cent. cash uplift reflecting the forecast increase in the GDP deflator.

  5. The table reflects the initial recurrent allocations for resident population. Other sums for specific purposes are added during the year.

  Patient Data
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to take over ownership of data on patients in general practice; and who currently owns the written data held on patients in general practice.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ownership of records on patients, maintained by general practitioners in accordance with their terms of service, is vested in family health services authorities and we have no plans to change that.

  Safe Sex Guide
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish a guide to safe sexual practices for 16-year-olds and above.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is already a wide range of material available throughout the statutory and voluntary sectors containing information about safer sexual practices for 16-year-olds and above.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give estimates of the likely prevalence of(a) child sex abuse and (b) child physical abuse; and if she will make a statement about such estimates.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not collect information from which the prevalence of these activities can be estimated. Information available centrally relates to the number of children placed on a child protection register because of a concern about harm or likelihood of harm. Of those on a register at 31 March 1993, concern about sexual abuse was recorded for 8,300 children and physical injury for 11,900.

  Home Helps
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the levels of charges imposed by local authorities in England and Wales on persons not in receipt of income-related benefits for home helps.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no requirement on local authorities to inform the Department of such charges.

  GP Computer Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to reimburse computer costs to general practitioners for provision of data for public health purposes.

  Mr. Sackville
  General practitioners are currently eligible to claim reimbursement of computer costs irrespective of whether they provide such data.

  "Pocket Guide to Sex"
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to publish those sections of the "Pocket Guide to Sex" containing information on 156
  contraception, avoiding unwanted pregnancies, safer sexual practices and avoiding AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases;

  (2) what is her policy on allowing the publication of the "Pocket Guide to Sex" by another publisher.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  These are matters for the Health Education Authority.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many regular publications she was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurses
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate race and sex discrimination in the selection of people applying for basic nurse training or in the promotion of nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for selection of candidates for basic nurse training rests with the institutions where nurse training is undertaken.

  National health service trusts and health authorities have been set specific goals in the Opportunity 2000 programme and the programme of action for ethnic minority staff in the NHS to promote equality of opportunity for women and ethnic minority staff in the NHS.

  Consultant Medical Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of consultant medical staff on paid suspension in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Such costs are for employing authorities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS consultant medical staff have been on paid suspension from duty for more than 12 months as at 1 January.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Decisions on disciplinary action for consultant medical staff rest with the employing authority or trust. This includes whether to suspend a practitioner.

  Interception of Communication Devices
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of the use of interception of communication devices on NHS premises there have been in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has now taken as a result of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' report on genetic engineering.

  Mr. Sackville
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 25 February 1994 concerning this matter and assured him that the Department of Health will keep in touch with patients' organisations and other Government Departments as genetic screening develops. A copy of my letter is available in the Library.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish for each health authority in England and for England as a whole(a) the total number of people who have received hospital treatment requiring at least one night's stay for the latest available 12-month period and (b) the total number of people awaiting hospital treatment for more than one year; and if she will express (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest information on the number of finished consultant episodes for each health authority is

  Number of GPs at 1 October 1992

  Number of patients at 1 October 1992

  Total General Medical Service expenditure 1992–93

  General Medical Service expenditure per GP 1992–93

  Inner London

  2,037

  4,197,519

  £209,142,060

  £101,672

  Outer London

  1,429

  2,967,746

  £138,060,429

  £96,613

  Rest of England

  22,502

  42,737,046

  £2,076,257,152

  £92,270

  GP numbers have been increasing steadily over the last three years. Extra resources for primary care are an important part of the "Making London Better" initiative to improve health care in the Capital.

  Laundry Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the policy of the Midlands Laundry Group on selling off the Birmingham and Coventry NHS laundry service;

  (2) what consultations she has had with the West Midlands health authority regarding the Coopers and Lybrand report; and if she will make a statement on its recommendations;

  (3) if she will make a statement regarding the future of the west midlands laundry service, with particular regard to the effects on the needs of the patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  No consultations have taken place regarding the Coopers and Lybrand report. These are matters for South Birmingham, North Birmingham and Coventry district health authorities. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Brian Stoten, Dr. M. D. Skillicorn and Mr. Gary Reay, the chairmen of the authorities, for details.

  West Midlands Health Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the West Midlands health authority regarding proposals for a management buy-out;
  158
  shown in "Ordinary and day case admissions for England 1992–93". Information on the total number of people waiting more than one year for hospital in-patient or day case treatment at 30 September 1993 is shown in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP doctors there are per patient in(a) inner London, (b) outer London and (c) the rest of the country and at what cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 October 1993, there were:

  2,018 patients for every unrestricted general practitioner in Inner London;

  2,065 patients for every unrestricted general practitioner in outer London;

  1,881 patients for every unrestricted general practitioner in the rest of the country.

  The latest information available on costs is drawn from the 1992–93 family health services authority accounts, and cost per GP has therefore been calculated using numbers of GPs at 1 October 1992.

  (2) what representations she has received from the employees of the west midlands health authority, members of the public, or other organisations regarding the proposals for privatisation of the laundry service.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  First Aid Training
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the provision of first aid training for staff employed in residential care or nursing homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  None, other than one from the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what basic first aid training is required for care staff employed in residential care homes.

  Mr. Bowis
  Persons registered in respect of residential care homes for four or more residents are required to take adequate precautions against the risk of accidents, including the training of staff in first aid.

  Nursing Homes (Deaths)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she takes to monitor and act upon recommendations of coroner inquests into the circumstances of deaths of people in residential care or nursing homes;

  (2) what steps she takes to monitor the number of accidental deaths of residents of residential care or nursing homes.
  159
  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of local authorities or health authorities to carry out any monitoring of deaths of residents in residential care or nursing homes. They should ensure that the appropriate lessons are learnt and action is taken, including responding to any recommendations by coroners.

  AIDS
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each local authority has bid for AIDS support grant for 1994–95; and how much they were awarded.

  Mr. Sackville
  For 1994–95, local authorities were invited to submit expenditure plans against indicative allocations of AIDS support grant. These allocations were based on confidential information supplied to the Department by the Public Health Laboratory Service on the distribution of AIDS cases by local authority area, and were issued in circular LAC(94)3, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Where this formula would mean a reduction in grant in 1994–95, local authorities were advised that there might, in exceptional circumstances, be some scope to adjust allocations on a transitional basis and that applications for additional grant could be made. Decisions on these additional allocations have not yet been made.

  Registered Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 899, what use is made of the information provided in the regular returns from registration and inspection units under the Registered Homes Act 1984; if she will place this information in the Library; and if she will place in the Library the national list of cancelled registrations.

  Mr. Bowis
  The statistical returns on registration under part II of the Registered Homes Act 1984 are the only source of official information on the numbers of beds in private nursing homes and hospitals. They are used widely both inside and outside the Departments to inform policy and planning. They are published annually as "Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics Registered Under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1984". Copies are placed in the Library annually.

  The national list of cancelled regisrations is a confidential document made available only to health authorities and local authority social services departments. The Department's registration under the Data Protection Act precludes placing this document in the Library.

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

PSBR: Method of Calculation
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the method of calculating the public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, no. The public sector borrowing requirement is a measure of the difference between the public sector cash outlays and its cash receipts, and there are no plans to change this.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, that is a rather disappointing reply. I had hoped that the Minister would be more helpful because I was trying to help him. Clearly, it would be helpful and sensible to distinguish between capital expenditure, with a clear economic return, and current expenditure on a regular rather than on an annual basis. I do not make that suggestion in order artificially to lower the borrowing requirement. In any case, whatever the borrowing it must be financed. Would it not be more sensible to know clearly that some of the expenditure relates to a well-defined capital cost? Would that not be helpful to any government?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; we distinguish between the two on an annual basis. Perhaps I may refer him to page 138 of the Red Book. I see that the noble Lord nods; he knows the Red Book as well as any of us. It distinguishes between capital receipts and revenue receipts and vice versa. Whether that would be possible on a monthly basis is another matter. We believe that the PSBR as it stands provides a timely and accurate measure that is of considerable use to the Government.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the reduction in the projected public sector borrowing requirement for last year is down, that is no reason for any relaxation on public expenditure? Does he further agree that with the recession now behind us the public sector borrowing requirement must of necessity decrease and that only in that way can we have tax reductions rather than an increase in public expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct; the PSBR is some £4 billion lower than originally forecast. However, at over 7 per cent. of GDP it is still much too high. It was only ever higher as a percentage of GDP in the mid-1970s. Like my noble friend, I do not believe that now is the time to relax the
512
various initiatives which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in last year's Budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will not take his own Treasury officials too seriously when they present the figures to him? Will he give the House a further assurance that the methods used at present are substantially in conformity with those used during my noble friend's tenure of office and that the figures were done at lunchtime in the Reform Club on the backs of envelopes and could be guaranteed plus or minus £4 billion one way or the other?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot answer for the noble Lord's noble friend and his tenure as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I can assure the noble Lord that I shall continue to take very seriously the advice of the Treasury officials. I can also assure him that although we originally forecast £50 billion as the PSBR, and it was somewhat lower at £46 billion, that was still within the margin of error as forecast in the previous two Budgets.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, may I make it clear that it was done at the Athenaeum?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, as the forecast for the PSBR was wildly overestimated, will the Minister assure us that as the decline in the PSBR continues the Government will not make the same mistake this time? Will he ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce tax cuts without increasing expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to the answers I gave to my noble friend Lord Clark and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The PSBR was lower than forecast but not vastly lower, as the noble Lord appears to suggest. As I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it was well within the average of forecast errors of the past 10 years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while the distinction between public revenue and capital expenditure in the recent unified Budget is much to be welcomed, does the Minister agree that that is only one part of the story? The other part of the story is doing something about the figures that are thus revealed. Is it not disturbing that the figures show that the prospective capital expenditure is likely to diminish and that it will be lower in the next three years than in the previous three years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the important figures are the overall figures. We remain committed to our medium-term fiscal objective of bringing the PSBR back towards balance over the medium term.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the PSBR as measured has always been regarded as a deeply flawed statistic because current revenues are padded with capital receipts in a way which would be illegal in private sector accounting? Dos the noble Lord

513
recall telling me on 21st March at col. 497 of Hansard that when the deficit is correctly measured, the Government have been in deficit in every single year except one since 1979? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he expects to balance the budget in four years' time, was he referring to that true measure or to the bogus PSBR?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that the figures are bogus. We have always made clear that the PSBR is and always has been a cash measure. It is not a national accounts measure, such as may be used in some private companies, as the noble Lord seems to suggest. It records in a timely and accurate manner—the virtue of the PSBR is the fact that it is both timely and accurate—the majority of cash transactions, as and when they take place, privatisation proceeds and other financial transactions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while we shall never agree about the economy, is it not possible to get both sides of Parliament to agree a measuring rod which really tells the true story instead of skirting round all the verges, producing results which do not mean much?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not know whether we can get both sides of the House to agree. I seem to remember that back in the early 1980s, some 360-something economists all agreed. They all agreed, and they were all wrong.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, long ago we kept our accounts above and below the line. Is there anything to prevent our returning to that excellent system of accountancy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that was a very different system. We have been using the PSBR now for some 20 years and, as I made clear, we believe that it is both a timely and accurate measure of what we are trying to record.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has been so defensive. As I indicated, I am not being offensive. I am trying to help him, as is everyone, by seeking a clearer definition of public expenditure. If the noble Lord is not able to give me a reply today, will he consider the matter and then let me know whether or not he agrees with that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear in my first supplementary answer to the noble Lord, we distinguish on an annual basis between capital and revenue receipts. The noble Lord accepted that. I said that I doubted whether it was possible to do that on a monthly basis. If the noble Lord wishes me to take that matter away and consult those who advise me, I shall do so and come back to the noble Lord by means of correspondence.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, as one of the 364 economists who signed the letter in The Times, may I remind the noble Lord that we argued that maintenance of the Government's policies would lead to a sustained higher level of unemployment? That is exactly what has happened under this Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will accept that he was wrong about many other parts of the letter.

South African Elections: Observers
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What security measures have been taken to protect the 20 United Kingdom parliamentarians observing the South African elections on 27th April.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary I briefed the parliamentarians concerned on 20th April. They were also thoroughly briefed on security on arrival. They are observing the elections with South Africans familiar with the local situation. Security forces are present at all polling stations. Certain areas may be tense but British parliamentarians are unlikely to be at greater risk than other observers.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat reassuring reply. Is she aware that the 20 observers under the CPA umbrella were obliged to sign disclaimers? Can my noble friend reassure me that as under English law it is not possible to exclude liability by negligence for personal injury, the observers will be fully protected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in what she says; but I believe that she knows that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is responsible for all the arrangements for the British group of parliamentarians. I understand that certain insurance arrangements have been made and that the parliamentarians were given details of an insurer whom they should contact if they wanted further cover. I suggest to my noble friend that she should contact the CPA office for further information; but I believe that the British observers have been properly looked after.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether any Members of your Lordships' House are among those observers and, if so, whether they are also insured? If they are, that will be the first time that that has applied because Members of this House are not insured here when travelling on government or opposition business, even though all the Members of another place are so insured.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, who is travelling with the group, will be treated in any way differently from the other observers with the CPA/IPU delegation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I was referring to a noble Baroness.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lady Flather are also there. They will all be covered in a similar manner by the CPA.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, despite the recent bombing in Johannesburg, Germiston and Pretoria and despite the on-going violence in several of the townships, more specifically in the mid-Rand and Natal, the peace accord of 1992 and the peace committees have to a large degree quelled the major unrest spots in South Africa? Does the Minister not further agree that the government, in particular President de Klerk, Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosothu Buthelezi, have all committed themselves to ensuring that the international observers are safe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can agree with everything that the noble Lord has just said. I should point out also to your Lordships that Britain has made a very great contribution to the whole conduct of the elections; in particular to training those people who were looking after the rallies, helping with the new national peacekeeping force, helping too with the independent electoral commission and, above all, providing training and communication equipment for the peace monitors as well as training for the local election officials. Our contributions and those of President de Klerk, Mr. Mandela and, indeed, Chief Buthelezi in working for peace are much to be welcomed. I believe that the IFP' s decision to contest the election will lead to reduced levels of violence across the country as a whole.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister send the good will of the entire House to those who are witnessing the elections on our behalf, underlining the fact that we see it as a demonstration of our determination that the courageous leadership from people of all races in South Africa which has made the election possible will not be diverted by extremists and their terrorist techniques?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. There are some 6,000 observers, about 3,000 of them official and 3,000 from other groups. I believe that they are doing a fine job, based on the plans laid by all parties in South Africa. We wish them well. We hope to see a peaceful outcome. We look forward to working with the government of national unity elected in these first historic elections.
Lord Pender: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, while there is an element of tension prior to the elections, I have just returned from a quick visit to South Africa which took in the three cities of Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town and I can assure the House that, although there are isolated areas of unrest, in the main the British parliamentarians would be just as safe walking the streets of those cities as they would Brixton on a Saturday afternoon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. Given the number of people who are watching the elections
516
and the supporting system, I believe that they will be even safer than they would in the contrasting parts of this country that he mentioned. Many people are working for these peaceful elections, none more so than the happy South Africans who are voting for the first time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has the Minister been in Trafalgar Square today? Does she, agree with me that it is a most wonderful sight to see the queues around South Africa House, mainly white but also black and Indian, all voting together?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that I have not had the time to go to Trafalgar Square today, but throughout the morning I have heard reports of the growing numbers going to cast their votes in this first fully democratic election in South Africa. That is much to be welcomed. We hope that it is happening in all capitals around the world where votes are being so cast.

South Africa: Support
2.53 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for future bilateral and multilateral overseas development co-operation with South Africa.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we plan to increase our bilateral support for a new South African Government pursuing sound policies. We are encouraging the relevant multilateral agencies to provide substantial and effective programmes there.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Has she seen the recent statistics produced by the Overseas Development Institute which estimate that apartheid has left one in four black people living in squatter camps or crude temporary housing; only 5 per cent. with electricity; 40 per cent. with no access to clean water; 50 per cent. illiterate; and one in four black children still not at school? Does she agree that that represents a gigantic challenge to us all if the democracy that we have advocated is to succeed? Will it not require a massive co-ordinated international effort involving aid, investment, trade and technical assistance, together with enlightened IMF and World Bank policies? Will the Minister tell the House what she is doing in that respect? Does she understand that she will have the fullest possible support from this side of the House as the brave people of South Africa go into the next chapter of their struggle for freedom and the future of their nation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, since my first visit to South Africa some eight years ago, it is the conditions of so many that have caused people to worry whether there could be a peaceful conclusion to this great step forward towards non-racial democratic elections. We know that there is much to do. We hope that CDC will soon begin investing in South Africa. We hope that the World Bank will quickly begin lending in

517
South Africa. We have helped it to prepare the ground for urban sector loans which will cope with some of those problems. But above all South Africa must look to the private sector, the international financial institutions and development finance organisations. We shall be giving technical co-operation. That will be continuing and growing over the next three years, but there is a great deal that can and should be done by the private sector in South Africa.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on all sides of the House have the utmost confidence in the personal efforts that she will make in her ministerial office? Can she give the House an assurance that in the multilateral efforts which will involve liaison with the World Bank, the OECD, and so on, she will take steps to ensure that the European Commission clears up its own mess first and does not get involved in this?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, knows that I am very much at one with him in wanting to see development by all bodies properly targeted and co-ordinated. I thank him for the kind things that he said at the beginning of his remarks. The European Community has a programme involving about £80 million per year. We are working with it on this to increase its poverty focus and to improve the quality of the programme. I shall be discussing it at the Development Council on 6th May.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will not one of the major challenges facing the new South Africa be to meet the needs and, for that matter, the expectations of the so-called emancipated peoples? Will not one of the greatest challenges be to raise the level of education in South Africa? Will the Minister comment upon initiatives which the Government are taking as well as the other initiatives of which I have heard recently, such as Education Africa, which are fulfilling that objective?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, without notice, I cannot give your Lordships the details of South African Government initiatives, but over the past eight years we have been involved in something called the Molteno Project which has been training the trainers of teachers and sending them out into schools all over the country. We hope that that kind of project will multiply still further, and that the basic school buildings and equipment which are needed so urgently will be provided, as I believe all believers in South Africa have pledged to do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the provision of housing may be the most visible improvement that could be shown to the expectant people? Will she give full backing, financial and otherwise, to efforts in that direction?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that housing, education, basic health, clean water and power are all important. There will obviously be enormous challenges to be faced, particularly in the densely populated areas. I can assure the noble Lord that
518
we are doing all that we can, but we must accept that there are many technically able people in South Africa, and that while they may need a bit of technical co-operation from us, many of the things that need to be done will be done by South Africans of all backgrounds themselves.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all that she has said in response to these questions. Will she recall with us all that in the difficult years after the Second World War a vital factor in the rebuilding of democracy in Europe was the United States imaginative Marshall Aid programme? Is not the challenge presented by South Africa now, if democracy is to succeed, every bit as real as the challenge presented by Europe in 1945?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the challenge is as great, but we are better equipped today than ever before to rise to it. I hope that the private sector, not just from this country but from all countries, will involve itself, together with governments, in helping the new South African Government of national unity to meet that challenge.

Government Office for London
2.59 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Department of National Heritage is not represented on the new Government Office for London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Government Office for London brings together the regional offices of the Departments of the Environment, Employment, Trade and Industry and Transport. These are the principal departments concerned with economic development and regeneration in the English regions. We are considering with other government departments, including the Department of National Heritage, whether they might also have a role to play in the new offices.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that the sectors coming under the Department of National Heritage—namely tourism, media, arts, sport and heritage—are among the largest employers and sources of revenue for London? Therefore, is it not inexplicably bizarre that they have been excluded? Does that not demonstrate that the Government undervalue both the Department of National Heritage and London? Is it not time, not for some inter-departmental bureaucracy which excludes a key department, but for a properly elected strategic authority for London?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in no way do the Government underestimate the huge importance and significance of the contribution that culture and leisure services can make to regional development, not only in London but across all the regional offices. I can say that

519
a regional unit which has recently been formed will liaise with the team steering the new government offices to ensure that this is brought very much to the fore.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not merely a question of leisure services? The range of responsibilities which the heritage department itself has created, quite rightly, is very wide and is of vital economic consequence, in addition to having its artistic and other aspects. Is my noble friend not right to say that the Government should make sure that the department has a role in this new development, and that in the longer term there should be co-operation with this side of the House in re-creating properly elected government for London?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. This is being taken seriously. These four new departments, presently located in the 10 different regions, are being properly constituted, and other departments, including the Department of National Heritage, will be examined very closely to see whether they have an important role to play in those particular components.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in any event is it not inevitable that such an important departure as a new Government Office for London will be the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, of which the Secretary of State for National Heritage is a member?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly the collective responsibility will be taken by all the Secretaries of State, to whom the regional directors in the 10 regions will report.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, have the Government taken note of recent proposals for removing parked cars from important and historic public places such as Horse Guards Parade and the courtyard of Somerset House, and will they take action on them?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I hear, however, the point the noble Lord makes. I am sure that it is close to many of your Lordships' hearts. I shall take that into careful consideration.
Lord Howell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Department of National Heritage has been excluded so far from similar governmental organisations throughout the country; for example, in Birmingham? If the Department of National Heritage is to be brought into this economic framework, will he ensure that civil servants in that department at all times protect the integrity and independence of the regional councils for arts and for sport, all of which rely heavily upon co-operation with local authorities which must be maintained if we are to provide leisure services for young people in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I quite understand the point that the noble Lord makes concerning the Department of National Heritage. It has great
520
responsibility not only in London but throughout the whole of the country, both on a cultural and leisure basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is good that he should be responding for the Department of National Heritage? I understood that there was a spokesman for national heritage in this House, but, of course, the noble Earl speaks for the Government, as do all Ministers from the Dispatch Box. Can the noble Earl say what the Department of National Heritage would do for London if it was represented in the new government office? For instance, we have heard about spam fritter parties and walling up the Albert Memorial. Would it really be encouraging the economy of London or the heritage of London? What can the DNH do for London that the Department of the Environment cannot? I am interested in the noble Earl's reply because there may be supplementaries to that question.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have tried to intimate that at the moment we are taking the whole matter carefully forward. As regards what the Department of National Heritage can do for London, I should have thought that it would have had a very great part to play, possibly in the future from the point of view of representation and certainly on a cultural, artistic and leisure basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand that the Government are taking the matter "carefully forward". Indeed, they are doing nothing. That is a euphemism which I think is generally accepted. Which aspects are they taking carefully forward? What are they proposing to do about, for instance, the cultural heritage of London which, as my noble friend explained, is in a shambles as a result of government policies? Is that something that they are taking carefully forward?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is trying to suggest that the Government are inactive he is totally incorrect. They are active across all departments. As regards what they might do in London from the point of view of the Department of National Heritage, that will have to be carefully considered, taking into account the most workable, logical, sensible and practical way forward for the Department of National Heritage in London.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it not important that this should be taken into account in view of the millennium celebrations at the end of this decade?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, of course that is being taken into account very carefully, together with other considerations.

Commons Registration (East Sussex) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Coal Industry Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde). My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment of the Coal Authority]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:

("( ) taking over the liabilities of the Corporation where they are not transferred to other persons or where such transfer ceases to have effect, and in particular liabilities in respect of compensation for industrial injury or industrial disease or arising out of the environmental responsibilities attaching to previous mining activities").

The noble Lord said:
"Huge liabilities for industrial diseases, site pollution and water leakage threaten to derail government plans to privatise the coal industry.
Lawyers of the Mining and Mineral Law Group, who individually represent many of the most likely bidders for British Coal assets, have told government advisers that unquantified costs threaten to deter potential purchasers".
That was what I read in The Times—not a newspaper given to sensationalism—as I worked my way through my humble breakfast this morning.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 25 and 28. This first group of amendments deals with the issue of liabilities in the future. The Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that the liabilities of British Coal will pass to the Coal Authority. If I may announce one such utterance as a text, in Standing Committee D on 3rd February 1994 at col. 33 of the official record he said:
"The historic liabilities that are associated with mining and which rest currently with British Coal will be transferred to the Coal Authority".
That is what the Secretary of State said. That is not what the Bill states. We propose that it should be amended to reflect the Minister's assurance.
The Coal Authority is responsible in Clause 1(1) (a) only for matters relating to interests or rights in unworked coal and other property transferred to it or acquired by it. The Bill does not say that all property rights and liabilities will be transferred to the authority. To assume the residual liability for all coal mining activities up to the date on which the industry is reorganised—the restructuring date—there should be specific and clear provision in the Bill.
In practice, as we have all become aware, the Coal Authority is likely to be bypassed by the transfer of all
522
existing mines and quarries intended to be worked in the future direct to the private sector or, more probably, to what are to be known as the successor companies. We shall probably return to that matter with a later amendment. If the best prognostications are to be believed, that will probably be at about 10.30 this evening. That will be done through Clause 12 under which the Secretary of State has power to prescribe a restructuring scheme. The shares of those successor companies, each covering one or perhaps more of the five regions, are intended for sale to the private sector. That will be the approach taken for the majority of the industry. Whether there will be separate purchasers for each company is not at all clear. Nor is there any indication as to precisely what property will be transferred to each successor company.
However, unless those transfers are made to the Coal Authority with a direction from the Secretary of State on the terms of the subsequent transfer, the Coal Authority will, so far as I can see, have no interest and no liability in those mines. These will represent the majority of all sites and will expose to risk innocent third parties affected by the consequences of mining. If a contractor goes bust, there is no money to pay the bills and the Coal Authority will have no residual liability except for subsidence.
The Coal Authority will have an important interest in the industry as the licensing body and probably in the leasing of coal, although the freehold of that can be disposed of by the Secretary of State at the restructuring date, or by the authority at any time thereafter. But that does not imply any interest in the property rights or liabilities that are not transferred to it. Specific provision is made for subsidence, but there is none in relation to other liabilities.
There is a further uncertainty in the Bill. Clause 12 refers in subsections (2), (4) and (5) to property rights or liabilities. Where Clauses 1 and 3 address property issues, however, the references are to interests and rights only. There is no reference to liabilities in that context. So strict construction of the Bill suggests that there is an intention to distinguish the issue of liabilities under the restructuring scheme from the residual obligations of the Coal Authority.
Does that mean that the Secretary of State wishes to offload the maximum responsibility for liabilities on to the successor companies? That will probably represent best value for the taxpayer but it might very well frighten off potential bidders as The Times and most other national newspapers have warned us this morning. That would be bad news for the Secretary of State. Alternatively, is this strange confusion just a matter of keeping us guessing and his options open?
But let it be granted that the liabilities that we talk about are not easy to quantify. We can, however, indicate an order of magnitude. Over the past five years British Coal's liabilities for insurance and subsidence costs were over £700 million, the largest liability area being compensation payments to employees for a single category of claim—industrial deafness.
At the onset, British Coal did not consider that any real liability existed. Within months of preparing claims, the National Association of Colliery Overmen,

523
Deputies and Shotfirers (hereinafter referred to as NACODS) found that their legal advisers estimated that some £500 million of claims existed. The reason for the scale of the related liabilities was the potential number of claimants. There are in excess of 500,000 coal miners and ex-coal miners. The past 20 years of increased mechanisation, concentrated production systems and greater productivity have yet to feed through as a reason for pneumoconiosis claims. In the past 10 years further increases in production, diesel equipment, use of chemicals and abuses in safety dust checks are indicators of what will be increased liabilities. And to date, British Coal has refused to give estimates of liability costs to the DTI as it considers it inappropriate to estimate the liabilities. So in consultation with solicitors involved in the known cases, using the industrial deafness claims as a database, and a detailed knowledge of each type of category, NACODS has attempted to estimate some of those liabilities. It is impossible to quantify the claims relating to pneumoconiosis accurately. There are now 72,000 claiming benefit. The size of the workforce is over 500,000. Only one thing is clear: the claims will be very extensive.
Secondly, on industrial deafness, the claims procedure is well advanced and solicitors consider that more than half of the claims have been processed. The total cost to British Coal over seven years is in excess of £500 million. Liability outstanding is estimated at a further £400 million.
Thirdly, with regard to chronic bronchitis and emphysema, claims are now being processed through the courts. The DSS anticipates something like 100,000 claims. Many people consider that an underestimate. The estimate of liability is between £1 billion and £2 billion. With regard to vibration white finger, a case is soon to be heard in Newcastle Crown Court. The liability estimate for that category is something between £300 million and £400 million. Similarly with nitrous fumes poisoning, the figure is £300 million to £500 million. With regard to the harmful effects of nitroglycerine, the figure is £200 million. With regard to cancer from diesel fumes and particulates, the liabilities are at an early stage and cannot be estimated but they will be considerable. If we are not careful, industrial asthma is likely to be one of the biggest liabilities of the lot.
It is possible that NACODS' figures are wrong although I think that with its skill and experience they will be of the right order of magnitude. For industrial illness alone, the liabilities at a conservative estimate must be somewhere close to £3 billion, and the journalists this morning were estimating £5 billion.
Let me turn briefly to another category of liability of which we shall hear very much more: land drainage. Let us consider first some of the existing works. Engineers for five drainage boards in Yorkshire are very concerned about the future cost of pumping water from land where subsidence has occurred. Owners of land and houses have settled compensation for subsidence on the basis that such pumping will be maintained.
In the year to 31st March 1993, the cost of running the 31 pumping stations and other costs for the drainage
524
system in those same five boards was met by British Coal and amounted to £173,000. For the year to 31st March 1994, the cost will be much higher because of the amount of rainfall. Those costs include nothing for the replacement or refurbishment of the pumps. Those boards can cover 26,908 hectares. Other boards cover an additional 37,120 hectares. In addition, the Ouse and Derwent Board covers 19,801 hectares. One pumping station was built there about two years ago at the cost of £800,000, and the running costs which British Coal currently pays amounted in the same year, to 31st March 1994, to £26,638. British Coal also paid other costs of the board in the same year, mainly for supervising its remedial works. That came to approximately £31,600.
There is a continuing and perpetual liability for the protection of homes and farmland to maintain these pumps. Who is the rightful inheritor of these liabilities, the successor company or the Coal Authority; and why?
The issue of subsidence is too large to consider at this point. There is plenty in the Bill about it and we shall return to it. It is clear from the Bill that the Government are prepared to offer some protection to those with subsidence claims in the event of the insolvency of the operator responsible. There is no such protection for the employees of these companies. For example, a serving worker with 20 years' service could transfer to a private operator. On retirement, he would have a life entitlement to coal. However, if the operator becomes insolvent it would be lost. There must surely be provision to ensure that the Government, through the Coal Authority, will underwrite such liabilities.
This goes far further than the emotive issue of concessionary fuel. Much more important is the area of common law damages for industrial injury and sickness. Who will take on those liabilities? Many of them come. to the fore only after the passage of time, like. pneumoconiosis, vibration white finger, bronchitis, emphysema and industrial deafness. It is almost impossible to say when those industrial illnesses were contracted.
There must be some guarantee that these liabilities, which are potentially huge, will be met in lull. The amendment would clarify what is at present a dubious and inchoate area of the Bill. It would assist potential bidders to know who pays for what and it would relieve the anxieties of a large number of very worried people. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. He has introduced an amendment at the start of this important Committee stage which strikes at the root of the Bill. It is the question of liability and how it is to be apportioned. Under the regime which still obtains for the time being under the former National Coal Board, and now British Coal, there was not the slightest doubt where those liabilities lay. We now have a situation of uncertainty.
I wish to start from the assumption that, in putting forward the Bill for consideration by Parliament, the Government have every intention that it should introduce a regime which would enable what remains of the coal industry to be operated effectively. It is from

525
that point of view that we must look at the various clauses before us. I very much regret that I feel that the uncertainty over liabilities overshadows that assumption.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the items widespread in the press this morning. I happened to see an item in the Financial Times, and it must have been in all the papers, which dealt with the anxieties which the intending purchasers of the mines as now offered under the Bill are experiencing. They are worried. They are uncertain about the extent of the liabilities they would have to carry. They are uncertain about how they would get the acquiescence of their shareholders where they are quoted companies—and most of them are—and how they would get the approval of the Stock Exchange. The simple operation of a transfer of ownership, to which the Government are evidently dedicated, could be impeded by the uncertainty over the apportionment of liabilities.
However, it goes further than that. There is the human aspect to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred, that the people who have served in the industry over many years and those who are still serving will now have grave uncertainties as to how their personal problems will be dealt with. Under the existing regime they have no doubt at all. They might be arguing through the courts possibly as to quantum, but the ultimate liability is clearly stated. We must therefore have something like Amendment No. 1 which clarifies the position.
I believe that the Government are bound to agree to that in the light of what Mr. Eggar said in another place on 3rd February 1994. He referred to all the environmental obligations and liabilities currently falling on British Coal which would be transferred to the Coal Authority. I assume that that means that all liabilities which are currently on British Coal will be transferred to the Coal Authority, with the exception of those specified to go with the sale of the on-going mines.
I ask the Government seriously to consider clarifying this fundamental issue. Until that is done, I very much fear that the process of privatising the mines could be in doubt and the livelihood of the people still working in the industry could be in doubt. I am sure that the Government will agree that that is not the objective of the Bill.
Lord Haslam: I am speaking essentially to Amendment No. 1 and I support what my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, have said so far. There will be a little repetition, for which I apologise, but nevertheless I think that I shall put a slightly different slant on the situation.
The Government's intention is that the restructuring schemes under Part I of the Bill will provide for the transfer to the new private sector employers of liabilities for industrial diseases such as pneumoconiosis, noise-induced hearing loss, vibration white finger and so on suffered by the mine workers transferred to them. That would include liability for damage to those employees caused by exposure to dust, noise and other environmental factors long before the date of transfer.
526
That means that the new owners will have to meet the cost of claims by such employees after privatisation but based in whole or in part on pre-privatisation exposures.
The number of industrial employees transferring to the new owners will probably be about 10,000. I think that we should keep that in perspective because it does not involve the high figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. They relate to the present employment in British Coal. Nevertheless, the cost in relative terms is likely to be substantial for the new owners and totally unpredictable to quantify in advance. Also, they may eventually be hit with new diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, both now scheduled as coal mining industrial diseases.
As I indicated in my speech on Second Reading, I am as keen as anyone to see the rump of British Coal privatised, and we hope in a unitary state. Incidentally, that would dramatically have simplified the drafting and content of the Bill. We are in the process of making the best of a bad job, but we are rendering it even more difficult by trying to pass on these unpredictable historical liabilities to the potential new owners. I do not believe that this will be an easy privatisation in any way, and there is no doubt that some interested quality bidders—and I emphasise "quality", as we shall be looking for people who will sustain the industry and not just be in and out—may be frightened off by the liabilities. In any case, any bidders will have to incorporate substantial contingencies in their quote, thus markedly depressing the price at which the business will eventually be sold.
Another concern is that the Government have already decided to lease certain pits which were on a care and maintenance basis following recent closure by British Coal. In such cases all the ex-British Coal miners who are recruited will have had their full redundancy terms and other liabilities settled by British Coal. Hence they will be regarded as new employees in every sense and will have no claims for such historical liabilities on their new employers. The liabilities attached to the pits still to be privatised would therefore be much more onerous. That is hardly the best formula for establishing a level playing field of competition between the two future categories of pits. It is the second good reason why the historical liabilities should become the responsibility of the Coal Authority, or alternatively of the DTI, which I understand may handle common law claims after privatisation.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness White: I am glad to support this amendment, proposed as it is by such experienced sponsors. There are difficulties, to which reference has been made. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation. For example, there is one small but awkward health liability which is disturbing. What is the position of those miners who have worked in the industry and who contract one of the serious illnesses? Such illnesses take several years to develop. How does one deal with that problem, particularly if their own pits have been closed? Those miners simply do not know where they will stand under privatisation.

527
There is a brief reference in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill to the fact that the liability for outstanding industrial diseases, sickness and injury claims will be met by the Secretary of State. But what happens if British Coal is timed to go out of existence before the necessary case hearings have been concluded? Does the Secretary of State foot the bill, or is it to be passed on to the new authority? There are real problems here. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by going into them in detail. They affect a relatively small number of people, but they are causing a great deal of personal anxiety. We should like to hear clearly from the Minister as to what is the position of people in such situations.
Lord Renton: It may surprise the Committee that I have any reason for intervening at all in this matter. It is many years since I, like other Members of the Committee, had some responsibility for health and safety in coal mines. There were a great many coal mines then. We must be very careful. I am very strongly in favour of the Bill; but I am very anxious that there should not be any legislative vacuum created. The matters mentioned in this group of amendments are very important. We must ensure continuity of policy with regard to them, even though the changes are about to take place. I give as examples the environmental responsibilities mentioned in Amendment No. 1, and the more specialised issues in Amendment No. 8. We shall also have to consider most carefully Amendment No. 9, which talks of meeting,
"all obligations in respect of such damage".
From the legal point of view, I hope that there would be no doubt about that, but I shall be glad to have an assurance.
When we come to Amendment No. 25 I am not quite so certain as to whether all the obligations that are mentioned there can feasibly be carried forward. But it is an expert matter on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has no doubt received advice.
As to Amendment No. 28, the last of the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 1, it is highly desirable that the authority should have power to recover the cost of discharging its various liabilities. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Turner of Camden: These amendments deal with liabilities for the future. It has been stated by the Secretary of State that the liabilities of British Coal will pass to the Coal Authority. But, as some of my noble friends have said, that is by no means clear in the Bill. Obviously, we must get the matter clarified before the Bill leaves this House.
My objective in supporting these amendments is to try to pin down responsibilities in connection with social matters. My colleagues have dealt with issues such as subsidence costs, and so on. I have always had a particular interest in industrial disease and injuries. It is those aspects that I want to address.
We all know that mining is a hazardous business. Whatever is done—a great deal has been done during the period of public ownership and done, I may say, in conjunction with the workforce and their unions—the industry remains a hazardous one. Every so often an
528
accident makes the headlines, but the health and safety of mineworkers are continuously at risk. The industry is incredibly noisy and dirty, not to mention the other hazards. That being so, it is not surprising, as my noble friend Lord Morris said, that the largest area of liability is compensation for industrial deafness. My noble friend said that there are 500,000 coal miners and ex-miners. All of them are at risk of developing deafness due to their working environment, and many have already done so.
Then, of course, there is pneumoconiosis—a miners' disease if ever there was one. Foundry workers suffer from it too, but the greatest number of cases arise in the mining industry. Typically, it affects older miners and former miners, as the dust takes time to build up in the lungs. And build up it does, often to devastating effect.
I understand that a national agreement covers British Coal and licensed mines and extends to coal handling facilities on the surface, including ports. The future of that agreement is unknown. However, there are 72,000 benefit claims outstanding. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema have been mentioned, along with vibration white finger. What is a matter for concern is the levels of those conditions among older miners, many of whom are no longer working in the industry.
Who will take over responsibility for those liabilities? It is not clear that it will be vested in the new Coal Authority. It seems unlikely that the new owners will want to accept responsibility. It is not surprising that the unions are worried. It is not as though the Government's record when it comes to industrial injuries is a very good one. They have already undermined the industrial injuries scheme in a series of Bills, including the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill, which was debated in this House last week. The Government have shown considerable hostility to the legislation that was designed to give support to those who suffer from industrial injury, saying that they see no reason why they should have preferential treatment. Clearly, there is every reason why employees who risk their health and their very lives in an important industry, one that has played an overwhelmingly important role in improving living standards for all of us, should have their right to compensation adequately protected. Their common law rights must be protected as well. Someone will have to pay. It must not be the injured or sick miners and their families. I support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I value the opportunity at this stage of the debate of playing a part and responding on behalf of the Government. Perhaps I can say a word or two at the beginning about this Committee stage and the many amendments with which we are faced. Naturally, some of them provide a very welcome opportunity for the Government to explain and clarify the provisions of the Bill and to explain what it is that we mean by certain clauses. But the purpose of the Bill, as I explained at Second Reading, is to give the very best possible opportunity for the British coal industry to prosper and find new opportunities and to provide a long-term basis for a viable coal industry. Sadly, many of the amendments that we shall discuss over tine course of the next few days do just the opposite. They do not give the

529
Coal Authority or the successor companies the necessary freedoms. They tie them up in obligations and regulations which will only lead to the fossilisation of the industry.
In the debate this afternoon I recognise some very real concerns about those who have been working in the industry and those who will remain working in the industry for the successor companies. It is absolutely right that we should have those concerns. I shall explain what it is the Government's intention to do with those liabilities.
Let me begin by explaining how the Government intend to handle each of the liabilities that have been referred to. I shall then comment on the amendments which relate to the responsibilities of the authority. At this stage I apologise for the fact that my words may be lengthy. They will certainly be relatively complicated because we are dealing with technical issues.
First of all, there is the problem of industrial injuries and diseases. I fully recognise that questions about industrial injury and diseases are sensitive and important. We must ensure that claims in respect of industrial health continue to be treated fairly and properly. I believe that the approach that the Government have taken achieves just that.
The essence of that is that the Government would assume responsibility for British Coal's liabilities in respect of former employees. Liabilities in respect of continuing employees will be transferred to successor companies, including liabilities in respect of their period with British Coal. So, former employees would see very little change. Although the Government would assume overall responsibility, we propose that claims administration should carry on as now at British Coal's Pensions and Insurance Centre. I am sure that that is welcomed by many of those who will be affected.
The proposal that liabilities in respect of continuing employees' past service with British Coal should be transferred to successor companies follows normal commercial practice. There is nothing strange in what we suggest. British Coal workers who transfer to private sector firms would be entitled to claim against that employer. However, there has been mention of some of the very serious occupational diseases that occur as a result of a life spent in coal mining. Where a transferred employee would develop pneumoconiosis but was unable to claim damages from the new employer because, for instance, the company has ceased to exist, he would still be able to claim under the Pneumoconiosis, etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. As many Members of the Committee will know, that is a no fault scheme administered by the Department of Employment to provide compensation in circumstances where the employer responsible has ceased to exist. That also covers many of the other industrial diseases which affect those who work in mines.
Therefore I fully share the concern of Members opposite and indeed of some of my noble friends that we get right the treatment in these areas of legitimate
530
concern. But I do not believe that involving the Coal Authority in the way proposed in the amendment is the right way to go about it.
I shall touch briefly on the question of concessionary fuel. We are committed to safeguarding the entitlements of current and former British Coal employees and their dependants. On 17th January, the Minister for Energy announced how we proposed to fulfil that commitment. At privatisation, British Coal's responsibility for meeting the concessionary fuel entitlements of former employees and their dependants will be transferred to the Government. Responsibility for meeting the entitlements of continuing employees will be transferred to successor companies. I think that it is fair and reasonable that successor employers should become responsible for meeting the concessionary fuel entitlements of those transferred to their employ from British Coal.
Likewise, we attach great importance to the protection of the environment. We are determined to ensure that all British Coal's current environmental responsibilities continue to be discharged. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned a very important word. That word was "continuity". So much of what the Bill is about is to pass on the liabilities that are currently shared by British Coal and to put them either onto the Coal Authority or onto the successor companies. There is no loophole. There are no gaps to plug.
My noble friend Lord Renton specifically mentioned Amendment No. 28. The amendment was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It would give the Coal Authority explicit power to recover any costs that it had incurred in discharging another person's liabilities. That is a very strange concept. We should not involve ourselves in giving the Coal Authority those sorts of powers. I suggest to my noble friend that it is positively undesirable. The authority does not and should not have a locus to discharge another person's liabilities. To give it such a sweeping power would enable it to discharge other persons' liabilities regardless of whether they were relevant to its functions or role. In consequence, the authority should not have the power to recover costs as proposed.
At the beginning of my reply I explained what I felt about many of the amendments with which we are dealing today. Perhaps I should finish with a look at the philosophy behind the way that we created this Bill. It is a very simple Bill, dealing with the transfer of assets of British Coal to the private sector, putting the Coal Authority as the main body looking after that privatisation. We do not attach any new liabilities; we do not extinguish any old liabilities. We very much want to preserve the integrity of the schemes that have helped miners over the course of the past few decades to overcome some of the very real problems that occur in the coal mining industry. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the Committee.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: At the outset I should like to comment briefly on the difficult position in which I find myself on this Bill, as on previous occasions, in trying to interpret the Addington rules. The rules are fairly

531
clear: one can use one's general experience to speak about a debate of this kind. But again, I felt it wrong to table any amendments or perhaps even vote on amendments because they might be thought to be NRA amendments. The job of the NRA is to make its advice clear to the Government, the Chamber and the public at large. But having given its advice, it is then the responsibility of the Government to act. I try to draw that dividing line.
Therefore, I hope that it is not thought to be out of order for me to speak to some of the amendments. As I said, I have not tabled them on behalf of the NRA. It would have been rather absurd not to speak, bearing in mind that the NRA has given evidence to a number of Select Committees, has given advice to government and has recently published a study on the whole subject and commented about it outside the Chamber. I, of course, spoke at Second Reading.
I deliberately waited for my noble friend to speak from the Front Bench because I hoped that he would give some useful guidance to help remove some of the anxieties that I feel. Indeed, he certainly offered me comfort on some of the matters about which he spoke. I shall want to study what he said, but so far as concerns industrial injuries, pneumoconiosis and so on, I feel that what he said was helpful.
I am bound to say that I was surprised that his remarks about the environment were so brief. He told us that he would speak at length and that his explanation would be rather complicated. What he said was that there was no loophole because the liabilities would pass to either the Coal Authority or the licensees. But he failed to address the legitimate points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, when he opened the debate, about the scale of the liabilities and the possibility that the licensees would be unable to meet them.
There can be no doubt at all that the liabilities could be very large indeed. We heard about the subsidence liabilities. I spoke about them at Second Reading. I received a letter from the regional Flood Defence Committee of the National Rivers Authority in Yorkshire expressing its grave concern about this very issue. That advisory committee—I should not say advisory committee; the Flood Defence Committee plays an executive role—has perhaps as much knowledge as any organisation of the scale of subsidence, its effects and costs. I pointed out at Second Reading that as the land sinks the National Rivers Authority must continue to build up the flood defence banks and that will go on for many years.
There are all kinds of other subsidence liabilities about which I am not qualified to speak; the trouble is that they are unquantifiable. But when we turn to other liabilities they are equally difficult to quantify and may be very large. We have before us, painfully, the example in another industry of the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall, where a number of interconnected mines finally burst out when pumping was switched off by the final operators. A major pollution incident occurred of which so far, simply on research and development and setting up a pilot plant, the NRA is spending around£8
532
million of public money. That is only the start. We are looking for a long-term solution and no doubt expenditure will run on in that one case for many years.
There is no doubt also that the potential costs of pollution arising in the Durham coalfield, to give just one example, are very great because of the geological conditions that exist there and the likelihood that there will be pollution in the weir. I do not know how great those liabilities may be. I am concerned about whether any organisation that is licensed will possess the ongoing resources to meet such unquantifiable liabilities. I can speak with some experience because for a time—a relatively brief time—I was a director of a mining company which is likely to be seeking licences when the bidding begins. I know that any company of that kind would find it difficult to create the capital base that would provide us with the assurance that we require.
I am equally dubious whether it will be possible to obtain insurance cover or bonding protection in the market. As a loss-making underwriting member of Lloyd's I hope that the insurance market will approach the problem with a greater degree of prudence than it did environmental liabilities on the other side of the Atlantic. I hope, too, that those who are applying for licences will approach the matter with equal prudence. The reports that we read about in the press today suggest that they will. Therefore, I am raising this issue not only because I am concerned about the environment and the responsibilities of the organisation of which I am chairman, but also because, like my noble friend Lord Renton, I want the Bill to succeed. I am an unashamed advocate of privatisation and I have grave doubts that, if there is no clarity about the matter, we shall be able to have a successful privatisation.
Of course we will have the opportunity to explore some of the complexities later on in other amendments. But the more I look at the documents published—for example, the details published by N.M. Rothschild and Her Majesty's Government entitled Sale of the Coalmining Activities of British Coal Corporation— and read the guidance issued about the interaction agreements, the more concerned and confused I become. Regional coal companies will be possibly bidding for or taking over the regions, but within those regions will be individual collieries—perhaps those on care and maintenance at the moment. There is a need therefore to set up licensing arrangements to deal with the potentially horrendously complex questions of liabilities between different mines in the same area. They may be mines that have operated over hundreds of years; mines at different levels, one on top of the other; mines in which there will be flows from one to the other with potential for substantial damages.
Ministers have spoken outside this House of the possibility of seeking to clarify the position by drawing clear lines on the ground and carrying the liabilities down a kind of cylinder below, but that does not help me much either. We all know that a mine face may he miles from the shaft. Is the line on the surface to extend right out to where the shaft may be? As I observed earlier, there may have been successive mining operations at successive levels in that shaft. There may already be

533
damage taking place at one level from which, in due course, liabilities will flow, caused by the actions of British Coal or earlier miners. Can it be right that, as a consequence of a privatisation Bill, the liabilities incurred by British Coal and therefore underwritten effectively by the state, should be passed on to companies that may not possess the resources to meet them, particularly when those liabilities may have been incurred a long time ago and be no fault of the companies taking on the task in the future?
I am bound to say that I am extremely unhappy about that prospect. I have probably said enough. I hope that it will be possible to clarify those issues. At the end of the day it must be possible for us to look to the coal authority to underwrite any gap. I am concerned that we shall fall into a void, through no fault of individual organisations but because they simply will not be in a position to provide the cover that may be required.
I understand when my noble friend is hesitant about trying to underwrite the liabilities of successive companies. He criticised some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Renton on this particular issue—I should say that he commented on some remarks; he would not dare to criticise my noble friend Lord Renton. He commented adversely on a suggestion made about the liabilities being passed back to British Coal or the costs being recovered. I understand that we do not want to be in a position where we cause future operating companies to think that they can disclaim their liabilities and therefore act irresponsibly. We therefore need a clear line drawn between the future activities and any past activities. It is because I am not yet convinced that that line exists and because I am not certain that we can leave it entirely to the operating agreements to settle it without some further reassurance before Parliament, that I am speaking this afternoon. I hope that as the Bill proceeds the Government will be able to give me the assurance that I need.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I rise to ask a question but in doing so perhaps I may say that in an odd way, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I caught some echoes of the debates that we had in 1945 when we were using those arguments in favour of nationalisation of the coal mines. But that is not my purpose in rising. I ask the question for information.
I understood the Minister to say that it is the Government's wish that those employees who will work in private mining companies, but who then incur injuries that arise out of their employment while under British Coal, or those employees who work in private companies outside the coal industry but who then incur injuries which arise as a result of their role in British Coal, should be treated in exactly the same way as those who are now with British Coal and will remain with it. If that is so, is it not highly doubtful that they will be able to secure the same level of compensation? If I am right, and it will be difficult, how do the Government propose to ensure that the two types of employee are treated in exactly the same way?
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: Following up what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would be good enough to say something about past and indeed existing liabilities and those which may be incurred in the future. The best illustration of what could happen is in Clause 1(1) (c), where we find a reference to,
"carrying out functions with respect to coal-mining subsidence and in connection with other matters incidental to the carrying on of any opencast or other coal-mining operations".
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde—and I was very grateful for the clarification he gave—was anxious to stress that the Government do not intend to extinguish old liabilities. Can he therefore please confirm that this responsibility for carrying out functions with respect to coal mining subsidence relates to the hundreds of examples, some of which have not yet been noticed, of coal mining subsidence which have taken place over many generations as well as coal mining subsidence that may occur in future?
It is vitally important that we should know that the Bill covers both, but I am not at all sure, looking at the drafting of it. It may be that there is a provision in the Bill which has escaped me, or the significance of which I have not understood, which makes it quite plain that, for example, the reference in Clause 1(1) to coal mining subsidence is a reference to liabilities that have already arisen with regard to coal mining subsidence which has already taken place, liabilities which could arise in relation to coal mining subsidence which has already taken place but has not yet come to light, and any future subsidence that might arise from future coal mining operations.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I did not intend to intervene on this amendment, but on the general point that I raised at Second Reading, insurance will be a key to the success or failure of this privatisation. I do not want to see the fossilisation of the fossil fuel industry by any means, but I have to say—I declared an interest at Second Reading so I will not do so again—that I am very concerned that the price that is offered by those who wish to take the licences for the various areas of the coal industry in the United Kingdom could be seriously jeopardised unless some of these matters are cleared up, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, at an early stage. The whole question of how to quantify that insurance risk is very real, given the fact that the Government never insure anything. One reads in the Financial Times today that certain people who wish the success of the privatised coal industry are extremely worried as to what price they can put on that industry.
Lord Strathclyde: As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has made what I thought was a very useful and interesting speech, perhaps I may have the opportunity to respond to it. We are in Committee, which means that we can get up and down as many times as we like. Because some of these issues are quite complicated it may be easier to deal with them as they arise rather than losing the thread of them. I very much welcome the words that have just been said. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord

535
Callaghan, has spoken. It shows the great beauty of this House that we can have the historical perspective from those who were involved in 1945 and can raise with us the arguments that were brought forward at that time.
What my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Sanderson said about the private sector taking on these liabilities is very important. There are two ways of looking at this. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson announced, he is a potential bidder. The reports in the newspapers that we read this morning indicate that many private bidders will not be seeking to bid if they think that the liabilities will be too great. That is entirely a correct decision for them to make as members of the private sector who will decide the risk which they are willing to take before they make a bid and will presumably adjust the price in relation to the bids that they will make.
When I responded adversely to my noble friend Lord Renton, what I did not want to see was a situation whereby the Coal Authority had a power to put right certain things which it believed had gone wrong with the private sector and then to charge the private sector for doing so. I cannot see any private sector bidder taking on the remnants of the coal industry on that basis. That is what I was dealing with then.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell charged me with not going far enough in my opening words. I stand guilty of that. He is absolutely right. I did not. I had much more to say but I felt that the debate needed to be taken forward before I did so.
Perhaps I may turn to the question of subsidence. Clause 2(1) (c) imposes a strong duty on the Coal Authority to secure so far as practicable that licensees make proper provision for subsidence liabilities. The Government recognise that the right to withdraw support which will be conferred on mining companies is altogether exceptional and the regime for protecting those affected by subsidence must be strong. The duty will lead to rigorous supervision and licensees will have to supply regular and detailed estimates of their subsidence liabilities in a form satisfactory to the Coal Authority. This regular monitoring is necessary because subsidence liabilities can generally be. predicted. Indeed, no business would conduct its mining except on the basis of confidence about its ability to meet future liabilities. It is not possible to achieve absolute certainty.
Where necessary the authority will require operators to make special financial security arrangements and the Bill provides that these arrangements can be set up so as to ensure that this security is effectively ring-fenced for the protection of subsidence claimants. The monitoring arrangements will mean that the Coal Authority is well placed to adjust the security requirement or impose one as soon as it appears necessary. Amendment No. 9 would strengthen the duty so that the Coal Authority must seek to ensure that all conceivable claims, however unlikely, are met. It seems to me that this may lead the authority to require financial security well in excess of any reasonable estimate of the liabilities. The requirement for security would be an onerous burden. In my view we should need the strongest justification to add to this burden by requiring security well beyond any
536
reasonable estimate of the liabilities. The coal industry faces enough challenges already without being put under that additional strain.
When my noble friend Lord Crickhowell talked about the cylinder approach to privatisation, he was absolutely right. Lines will be drawn on the ground and the liability will be accepted in a cylindrical approach to that. My noble friend asked about the shaft that goes beyond the cylinder. My noble friend will not be allowed to mine beyond the cylinder because he will not have bought the right to mine coal beyond the line, and therefore that situation will not arise.
Perhaps I may now turn to the very important question of water pollution responsibilities. Before I do so I shall answer the substantive point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I may not have explained it sufficiently well. Perhaps I may now do so briefly. For former employees of British Coal, their liability will fall to the Government. For current employees of British Coal who are then taken on by the private sector, the whole of the liabilities will be taken on by the successor companies. That is normal commercial practice, as understand it, when one company takes over the employees of another. I hope that that deals with the point.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. May I have another go? Can the Minister assure me that those employees whose disease arises after they have left the authority of British Coal will be treated as well as those whose injuries arose during the course of their employment with British Coal and which have already been dealt with?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, that is undoubtedly the case. Where an employee has left the employment of British Coal and is perfectly healthy but years later discovers that he has a disease which was caused during his time at British Coal, that liability will be taken up by the Government.
Lord Barnett: I am sorry to intervene, but I am not sure that the Minister is right. He says that in certain circumstances the responsibility goes to the successor company. If that is the case and the successor company has miscalculated its bid and eventually goes bust, perhaps in a very short space of time, who is then responsible?
Lord Strathclyde: Where an employee was formerly employed by British Coal and ends up working for no one or is retired, the liability will fall entirely on the Government. Where an employee has worked for British Coal and is taken on by a new private sector company, then all the liability will fall on the successor company. Where that company has gone bankrupt and the injury has been caused by mining, pneumoconiosis and so on, it will fall under the terms of that particular Act, as I explained in my initial reply.
Lord Richard: It is Committee stage and therefore all sorts of strange people can intervene. I hope the Minister will forgive me. Does that situation apply even if the causes of the disease were incurred—as pneumoconiosis may well have been—during his

537
employment with British Coal when he was underground? If he then joins a successor company and is given a surface job where he will not be subject to the perils of pneumoconiosis, does the successor company have to take responsibility for the exposure even when the employee was employed by British Coal?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes. When a successor company takes on an employee from British Coal it accepts all the liabilities that go with it.
Lord Haslam: We are back on my second point. The Minister for Energy has said that he anticipates that 32 pits will survive, but that I very much doubt. Sixteen of those pits are in British Coal at the present time and the other 16, if they arise, will be leased. Those leased pits will take on former British Coal employees who have been totally discharged. Is the Minister saying that if they join these companies they will be treated precisely the same way as the employees who have been transferred? I do not believe that that is the world's understanding of the situation. In fact, people like Malcolm Edwards have said that they will not take on pits in a privatised form because the terms are too onerous compared with the ones which they already have. I do not understand my noble friend's statement against that background.
Lord Strathclyde: I am not entirely certain of the situation as regards workers on a care and maintenance contract. I thought that I was being absolutely clear on this point, but I may have inadvertently muddied the waters. It is a very simple concept that a new private sector company taking on a former British Coal employee will take on all the liabilities. As to any former employee of British Coal who does not go into a successor company, his liability will be taken up by the Government. I think I am now clear on that point.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I thank the Minister very much. As far as I am concerned he has cleared the point. I do not believe that he has muddied the issue at all. There will be the same equal treatment for employees who have left British Coal and who are taken on by a private mining company and for those who have already incurred their injury or pneumoconiosis, which was particularly bad in South Wales. So the compensation will be the same. The fact of the transfer to a private company will not affect the man's compensation. That is as I understood the position. I am very grateful to the Minister for giving me that assurance.
Lord Haslam: It is not a question of compensation but who pays it. The fact is that a person who has left British Coal and who is re-employed, particularly by pits which have been leased, will have no call thereafter. That person has left British Coal having been compensated and having received his redundancy payments. Therefore he has no call on the new employer. That is the point I was making about competition. There could theoretically be 16 pits in this country leased to new employers with no accountability for historical liabilities whereas the other 16 pits which
538
have been sold as part of privatisation will have those liabilities attached to them. That is the point I am making. I am saying that that sets up immediately a false competitive situation. People like Malcolm Edwards have already realised that factor.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: It is not a question of false competition. If a successor company wishes to take on working miners from British Coal—and presumably that company wishes to do so because they are the people with the skills, experience and knowledge—then it takes on the liabilities as well. I do not believe that there is anything unfair about it. One of the points raised earlier was the supposition that the successor company goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Then the liability will fall under the new pneumoconiosis Act.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: If the successor company becomes bankrupt by mischance, who then takes the responsibility?
Lord Strathclyde: I had hoped that that was the point I have just mentioned. Because in the mining industry there are problems of long-term illnesses, particularly as regards the chest, skin diseases and so forth, then under the terms of the pneumoconiosis Act liability is picked up by the Government. What that means in practice is that no working miner can end up with no cover because ultimately the Government will pick up that liability.
Lord Ezra: There is still the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam; namely; whether there is a difference in the terms as regards liability for pits which have been leased by British Coal compared with those which are likely to be licensed by the Coal Authority. That is a very important issue and we need to know the answer to it.
Lord Strathclyde: It depends who employs an employee. If it is British Coal then it will ultimately be responsible whether the pit is leased or licensed. Where it is a successor company then it will be the successor company. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point, but I do not believe I am. In my mind the matter is relatively clear, but I feel that the more we discuss it it becomes increasingly more difficult to understand. I have done my best to make the situation clear.
Perhaps the most helpful way in which I can take the matter forward is to write a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who raised the matter in his amendment in the first place. I shall put a copy of that letter in the Library. Perhaps the noble Lord and myself can bring it to the attention of those Members of the Committee who have an interest in the matter. I shall lay out the liabilities vis-à-vis the workers' allowances in the event of illness. I shall make it clear so there is no confusion in order that we can go on to future stages of the Bill without any confusion. I hope that that will be helpful.
Lord Crickhowell: Before my noble friend was diverted to pneumoconiosis he said that he was going to talk about water pollution. What I have to say follows

539
very neatly on that. I wish to make a point which I hope my noble friend will think about even after he has replied because I am sure we shall have to return to it. My noble friend made an extremely interesting statement. He said that in the event of bankruptcy or the failure of a company, as regards pneumoconiosis there is a fallback on the Government under the 1979 Act. It is precisely because there is no such fallback at present for water pollution or any other form of pollution, that some of us are so very concerned.
The fact is that someone seeking to license a pit may be seeking to do so for only a relatively short time. There may be only a limited amount of coal and he will bid accordingly. He may get landed with a pollution liability that arose, without his being fully aware of it, long before. It is exactly the problem that we had at Wheal Jane, the tin mine, where the last operator, in difficult financial circumstances—indeed, about to go bust because the DTI had withdrawn its grant—stopped pumping. The pollution that occurred was largely because that pit was connected with over 40 other pits, some of which had been mined hundreds of years previously, in an area where mining dates back to the Phoenicians. That is the complexity with which we are dealing.
At the moment we have the protection that British Coal is responsible for its own liabilities and for any actions that it may have taken. As I understand it, some of those British Coal liabilities are now being passed off to future licensees who may not have the resources. Unlike the pneumoconiosis situation, as the Bill is drafted we have no comeback on the Coal Authority and the Government. I think that that is what the amendment seeks to provide. Other amendments that we shall debate later have the same objective.
Lord Strathclyde: Although my noble friend puts his case extremely well, I think that there is a difference between the point that he raises and the subject we were considering earlier. Parliament has already decided the pneumoconiosis case. We are still in discussion on the question of water pollution liabilities. It is no less important an issue—in fact, it is a very important issue —but I do not want Members of the Committee to go away with the feeling that somehow the taxpayer should underwrite the ability of the private sector to take over British Coal's assets. I do not think that in the long term that will suit anybody.
I said a few moments ago that I would deal with the very important matter of water pollution responsibilities and, with the leave of the Committee, I should now like to do so because it is an issue which has given rise to a great deal of concern, and I hope that it will be helpful at this stage for me to explain our latest thinking on how these responsibilities will be handled after privatisation. We do, of course, understand the concerns about the threat of pollution related to mine closures and the related concerns about the legal framework applicable to abandoned mines. I think there is something I can say this afternoon which should be of material reassurance on the actual problems of pollution and the potential risks of future pollution. Before doing so, however, perhaps I should set out the existing legal framework.
540
As many of your Lordships will be aware, it is an offence under the Water Resources Act 1991 (or in Scotland under the Control of Pollution Act 1974) to cause any polluting substance to be discharged into any watercourse—strictly into controlled waters—or knowingly to permit any such discharge. But there is an exemption in respect of discharges which are permitted to occur from any abandoned mine. Even if such a discharge results in pollution of a watercourse, no statutory offence has been committed; and if the NRA in England and Wales, or any river purification authority in Scotland, should act to put right any such pollution, they cannot recover their costs from any person. For completeness, I should mention that, even for abandoned mines, there is no exemption in circumstances in which the discharge is "caused" rather than "permitted"; and that, if any pollution results from a discharge from an abandoned mine, the owner or, if there is one, the operator, may also have a civil liability to any person whose interests are thereby harmed. Nevertheless, there is an exemption from the statutory pollution offence defined by the Water Resources Act in respect of discharges from abandoned mines where these are "permitted" rather than "caused".
The Government indicated in the White Paper This Common Inheritance, The Second Year Report that they were considering the framework of legal responsibility for pollution relating to abandoned mines; and a consultation paper on the review of contaminated land and liabilities published in March of this year, Paying for Our Past, outlines the exemptions and invites views on what should be done about them. A similar consultation is in hand in Scotland. As foreshadowed in this House by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, the National Rivers Authority published on 14th April a report on abandoned mines and the water environment. I should add that I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend is taking part in this debate because as chairman of the NRA he brings a useful knowledge and focus to our deliberations.
That important and useful report covers the nature of minewater discharges and the scale of the problems related to abandoned mines, both as regards coal mines and metal mines. It puts the problems in perspective and sets out the NRA's views on the way ahead. It will clearly be studied with great interest by all who are involved in these issues. I am sure that it will provide an important contribution to the Government's review of the legal framework. My honourable friend Mr. Robert Atkins has indicated that he expects the overall review on all the issues related to contaminated land and liabilities to be concluded later this year. I think that this represents good progress given the complexity of the issues. I am sure that it will be followed with interest by many of your Lordships.
There are many difficult issues which arise in connection with these exemptions. In particular, careful consideration has to be given to the possible impact, if the exemptions were to be removed or amended, on landowners who may happen to have long-abandoned mines on their land and to the issue of retrospection generally. The same issues, of course, are also of concern in the broader context of contaminated land and

541
liabilities. I have no doubt that it is right that these issues should be very carefully considered and that it would not be sensible to seek to consider the exemptions in isolation from the broader issues. I do not think, therefore, that it would be right to deal with the substantial parts of the exemptions through this Bill.
However, I recognise the concerns which arise about the threat of water pollution from coal mines and about the effects of privatisation. What I think I can do at this point is to provide, on an interim basis pending the outcome of the review of the legal framework, some further assurance on how the Government intend that these matters should be dealt with after the restructuring and privatisation. I emphasise that this is strictly an interim step and that it will not prejudice the review. It will not prevent new responsibilities being imposed later if we conclude that it is right to do so. But it should provide an important measure of reassurance in the meantime for those affected by the threat of potential pollution related to mine closures.
The Coal Authority will, of course, be the owner of abandoned coal mines throughout Great Britain, irrespective of when these may have been worked. The Government have set out in the Coal Authority explanatory note that they envisage that the authority would set itself certain broad policy aims in respect of the management of property, including all the mines which are not licensed to the private sector. These include the aim, where reasonably practicable, of protecting and enhancing the environment. I should like there to be no doubt that so far as water pollution or potential water pollution is concerned the Government will not be content for the authority to rest on the present effect of the exemptions. On the contrary, we will expect it to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties in these areas and to seek the best environmental result which can be secured from the use of the resources available to it for these purposes.
The authority will naturally have to set priorities for its activities in these areas. We will expect it to do this in consultation with the NRA and the appropriate river purification boards. Further discussions are going on between the relevant departments on the right framework and on the resources which can be made available. For the moment, I should like to make just two points.
As to priorities, I think that there must be widespread agreement that the first priority should be to prevent serious new problems from arising. I note that this is, for example, the approach adopted by the NRA in the proposals set out in its report. A high priority should attach to tackling situations such as that in Durham. There, on the best advice at present available, it seems that continued pumping is required to prevent a serious pollution incident; or at all events to give assurance that such an incident can be avoided. Whatever else might come out of the consideration of priorities, I am certain that it must include a commitment to maintain pumping there for so long as it is needed in order to prevent the
542
risk of serious pollution; and there may be other cases elsewhere where pumping should likewise be maintained.
We do of course expect that the Coal Authority should seek to meet its commitments in the most cost-effective way. Often, the most cost-effective approach to a threat of water pollution will be by passive treatment. Where the Coal Authority can convince the regulatory body that such techniques are acceptable, it will be freeing resources which can be applied to dealing with the inheritance of the past—that is, pollution which has already occurred—and it will be able to take positive steps to address such environmental problems. That leads me to the second point, the resources which can be made available. The authority will of course discharge all its legal obligations, and its funding will have to provide for that. But, in so far as it has any discretion as to its spending, noble Lords on all sides will recognise that its resources will necessarily be limited. However, I can assure the Committee that it will in due course have a specific budget earmarked for these purposes and that this will enable it to carry forward in full the role and activities of British Coal in this area.
To complete the picture, I should say a word about private sector operators under Coal Authority licences. Operational mines will, of course, be subject to the normal statutory requirements. In particular, all discharges to watercourses will require the consent of the relevant regulatory body, either the NRA or a river purification board. The freehold of the underground mine will remain with the Coal Authority, but the lease will make clear that all costs of meeting regulatory requirements, including requirements for the protection of the water environment, will fall on the operators and not the authority. In time, however, some mines will reach the end of their economic lives and the operators will wish to terminate their leases. It will clearly be necessary for the operator to consult the appropriate regulatory body about the possible consequences for the water environment of abandoning the mine. Before agreeing to termination of the lease, the authority will expect him to institute any reasonable treatment measures and to make an appropriate payment for any continuing costs. Once the lease has come to an end the authority will be responsible for the mine as for any other abandoned coal mine.
I hope that my statement provides a positive assurance that, at the least, what British Coal already does in these areas will be maintained. To the extent that the higher-priority objectives relating to prevention of new pollution can in time be met more economically, there will be scope to seek actual environmental improvements. I repeat that these interim measures will not prejudice any new legal responsibilities which may fall on the Coal Authority as a result of the current review. What they will do in the meantime is ensure that privatisation does not exacerbate the situation in any way. I hope that this information has been helpful.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: I intervene largely with a view to trying to be as helpful as I can to the Minister. We seem to have ranged over almost every single topic that could be debated on the Bill already. There are quite a few other amendments which cover topics already dealt with; I hope that Members of the Committee—I shall try to do so myself—will refrain from putting up similar speeches for a second or a third time.
Unlike noble Lords opposite, I do not care for the Bill. What we have in common, however, is the desire, given that we are going to have the Bill, that it should be a workable Bill rather than an unworkable one. That is really what we are about in this Chamber. The Minister, I know, has done the best he can. The text I would start from is the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: that is, the remarks made by the Minister for Energy, Mr. Eggar, on 3rd February at col. 30 in Standing Committee D when he said that all British Coal's obligations will be those of the Coal Authority. That is what he said. I ask: where in the Bill does that appear? As Mr. Eggar tells it, the Bill makes it absolutely clear. I invite the Committee to look at the precise words in Clause 7 (3). He goes on to talk about the environment, which is not quite the same. The key word in Mr. Eggar's statement is that "all" British Coal's obligations will be those of the Coal Authority.
I think it would satisfy the Committee in the first instance if the noble Lord the Minister were to respond by agreeing that that is the Government's policy. Then, although it may be absolutely clear to brilliant people like Mr. Eggar but does not seem to be absolutely clear to the rest of us, I hope the Government would come back with an amendment that simply amends Clause 7(3) so as to include the statement that all British Coal's obligations will be those of the Coal Authority. One could then proceed to discover whether any of those obligations get passed over to the licensee, depending on how the licence is drawn up and things of that sort. I hope that the Minister—I do not say this with any lack of generosity of spirit, because he has dealt with all sorts of detailed matters which perhaps he would have preferred to deal with later—will agree to think about it. It cannot be absolutely clear if a number of Members of the Committee do not see it as being clear. Therefore there is the danger that the Bill will fail in terms of its objectives because people will not want to buy the leases. I believe it would help us, and certainly it would help me, if the Minister would simply get up and say that he realises there is a good point being made here which is not dealt with simply by making statements but could be dealt with by amending the Bill.
I take it that the Minister has no objection in principle to amending the Bill, because he has one or two amendments of his own to put forward. Therefore I would ask him whether he is willing to say now, without any commitment, that he has listened to what we have said; that he appreciates there are certain difficulties here:, that it is not absolutely clear what Clause 7(3), or any other part of the Bill, says; and that he is willing to
544
go away and at least consider whether a more definite statement on obligations can be incorporated in the Bill. That is my attempt to help the Minister.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I can briefly deal with that point. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is very seductive in these matters. He starts off by saying that he does not wish the Bill well but that he wants to make it work. I dispute that, with respect, because I do not think that the noble Lord wants to make the Bill work. He wants to make it unmanageable because he does not wish to see the coal industry privatised. He wants to see it remain very much under the control of civil servants and indeed government Ministers and, hopefully, under British Coal. Anything that the noble Lord can do to make that more likely to happen, the noble Lord will do.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to intervene. The noble Lord says that I do not like the Bill. I find it a rather peculiar Bill in some ways. But if the Government say something which they also say is government policy, and if noble Lords cannot see that in the Bill, there is a minimal requirement here. The noble Lord has got me worried. I had not thought for a moment that incorporating what Mr. Eggar said was policy would sabotage the Bill. The Minister cheers me up a bit if it will undermine the Bill. I had not seen that at all. I had seen it more or less in the terms of his noble friends. If something like that is not in the Bill, then no one but an idiot will bid for a coal lease, because they would be buying a pig in a poke. I have other amendments which will undermine the Bill, I can tell the noble Lord. This one simply says that the Government should take seriously what Mr. Eggar has put forward.
Lord Strathclyde: I knew I should not have given way. The noble Lord seeks to create a difference between the Minister for Energy and myself; and there is absolutely none. I have nothing against amending the Bill and clarifying it where necessary. but I do not believe in amendments for the sake of amendments or in seeking clarification where none is necessary. Clause 7(3) makes it absolutely clear that all British Coal's interests in coal and coal mines, including all historic and disused mines, will pass to the Coal Authority. This means that obligations falling on the owner of the mines will pass automatically—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Will the noble Lord give way? Do the coal and coal mines referred to in subsection (3) also include coal miners?
Lord Strathclyde: Not coal miners, because, of course, British Coal does not own coal miners. All these assets will pass automatically to the authority on the restructuring date. So far as disused mines are concerned, no matter how long ago they may have been worked, the obligations will stay with the authority. The obligations that relate to working mines will generally be passed to the mining companies. The detailed arrangements for achieving that are spelt out in the draft leases which are available in the Printed Paper Office. Noble Lords can look at them and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has already done so.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The Coal Authority or British Coal have responsibilities and potential liabilities in respect of coal miners. Does this clause include those liabilities and those responsibilities?
Lord Strathclyde: The whole clause deals with exploitation rights. It does not deal with people; they are dealt with in other parts of the Bill. I explained the position earlier but I cannot point to the relevant parts at the moment. The point is that the liabilities of individuals, which are currently British Coal's, will be taken up by the Coal Authority, the successor companies or, indeed, by the Government.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: We have had a brisk and breezy debate. No one can say that it was not wide-ranging. I listened most carefully to what the Minister said. At the beginning he said that what he would have to say would be lengthy. It was not—at first. He said that it would be complicated, and in the beginning it was not complicated at all. I was following him quite well and easily, but once he sat down that was the end of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his experienced wisdom, pointed straight away to the absolute heart of this matter: uncertainty. Uncertainty in this area of the Bill surely endangers the entire privatisation procedure. I join with my noble friend Lord Peston in saying that I wish that this Bill was not here; I wish that the privatisation was not to happen. But as I said on Second Reading, this wretched Bill will not go away. What we must do at this stage is to try to make it at least a better Bill and a clearer Bill than it is at present. No bidder will appreciate being asked to put in a price for a pig in a poke. Surely it is as much in the Government's interest as in everyone else's to try to clarify the position once and for all.
The uncertainty and the lack of clarity are facts. Many of us have struggled with the language of this Bill for week after week. We cannot give the answers, which is why we ask the questions. Lawyers who have been retained and are advising many of the most likely bidders, as we learnt from the newspaper this morning, are no further forward than we are. Public companies, they warn us, will be unable to bid unless they can make any offer conditional upon shareholder approval. Uncertainties over these liabilities may make it either impossible or very expensive indeed for a purchaser to obtain insurance. Questions keep on coming to me from all sides, even while the Minister is on his feet. How will companies treat all these contingent liabilities in their accounts? Can they remain viable or will the allocations to reserves drain their reserves and weaken their capital base and so destroy them?
Will the Minister not realise that many of us are quite seriously concerned about these uncertainties? Will he not agree to take away what he has heard from all sides of the Committee about what we would like assurances on? A letter setting out a child's guide to the liabilities in this Bill might be a very good start. But will he not accept our continued and deep bafflement about many of these issues? Will he, and I plead with him, agree to read carefully what we have all said—perhaps some of us at too great a speed properly to be understood—and when
546
he has read it come back at a later stage with clearer explanations and perhaps, without commitment, some amendments of his own which will deal with some of our concerns? We should indeed be most grateful if he would.
At this early stage I do not want to divide the Committee on an issue as wide-ranging and as deep as this. If the Minister can assure us that he will take these issues away, consider them and come back with some answers and suggestions at a later stage I shall be most grateful to him.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted that the noble Lord is not minded to divide on the amendment. It is a long amendment which deals with all the important issues that we have discussed today. As far as concerns the Government, the question of where the liabilities lie is absolutely clear. Noble Lords opposite may disagree on where the liabilities should lie. Indeed, one or two of my noble friends may disagree on where they lie. However, there should not be any disagreement on where they lie.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked me a question about where the people end up in all of this and I did not answer him. I refer him to pages 76 and 77, which deal with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, otherwise known as TUPE, which govern the issue. I should have had that to hand earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, then made another kind offer and asked whether I would read carefully all that has been said. Of course I shall. I make him an offer at the same time to read carefully what I have said, in particular my statement on water undertakings and my explanation of industrial disease and subsidence. I believe that I covered a great deal of the ground.
There may be room for improvement or clarification and I do not set my face against that. However, I have no commitment to bringing forward any amendments and I have not been convinced by the case that I have heard so far. Naturally, I shall continue to look carefully at where we can improve the Bill.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Lord sits down, I take it that in his reply to me he was certainly accepting what his honourable friend Mr. Eggar said: that all British Coal's liabilities pass to the Coal Authority. Will he reiterate that that is absolutely the Government's view?
Lord Strathclyde: I explained carefully what was clearly meant in Clause 7(3), which I reiterated a few moments ago. I see no reason to do so again. The point that I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was that if he were trying to create a disagreement between myself and the Minister for Energy I can confirm that I agree with what my right honourable friend said.
Lord Crickhowell: I wish to make only one comment but it needs to be said because I raised some difficult issues. My noble friend made an extremely important interim statement. It was most helpful and we all wish to study it carefully before we return to these issues.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I too wish to pay tribute to the way the Minister handled that one. He was stormed at from all sides by shot and shell and many of the comments that he made have been extremely helpful and have produced some clarification. Nevertheless, a great deal remains unclear.
I am grateful for the assurance that he will take the matter away and have another look at it without commitment of any kind. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert:

("( ) securing the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in the coal industry").

The noble Lord said: I shall seek to be briefer in dealing with this amendment, which affects an issue as important as the one that we have just debated. I refer to the issue of safety. Anyone who has worked in the industry or been connected with it will know that safety in mining is absolutely paramount. I suggest that one of the great achievements, among many, of publicly-owned coal has been the very high standard of safety in the mines that has evolved during the years. In tabling the amendment, we seek to ensure that those high standards are not only recognised but also maintained.
It is clear that the Government have been reluctant to specify safety responsibilities in the Bill because they are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission and its executive; and, indeed, that is the case at present in relation to British Coal. British Coal is the operator and the Coal Authority will not be the operator. Nevertheless, we feel that because of the paramount importance of safety, a more positive reference to safety should be made in the Bill than the somewhat tortuous phrasing in Clause 4. Therefore, we indicate as a suggestion the wording in Amendment No. 2 which is similar to that in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
My experience in dealing with safety in the mines tells me that it is an issue on which it is impossible to say or do too much. It is paramount; it is vital. As the Bill sets a new framework for the conduct of the coal industry, that vital importance should be emphasised more effectively than at present. I beg to move.
Lord Haslam: As my noble friend Lord Ezra has already said, the Government constantly stress that they regard safety as paramount, but the Bill is very light on how this will be achieved. It deals essentially with regulation but does not address the issues of organisation and culture needed to ensure compliance.
The importance attached to safety in British Coal far exceeds anything that I have experienced in other industries. It is sometimes implied that British Coal has been sacrificing safety on the altars of productivity and profitability. That is not justified. For example, since 1985 British Coal's productivity has improved by over 400 per cent., while over the same period the accident and fatality rate has markedly improved. I believe, incidentally, that that performance reflects great credit
548
on management and mineworkers alike, which has led to British Coal standing at the top of the world deep-mine safety league.
Privatisation must not threaten those standards. If the industry is fragmented, it will end the central direction of technical and safety policy. Some mechanism will be required to circulate safety information which will have to overcome the natural reluctance of the new owners to disclose commercially valuable information, which relates equally to technical and safety developments. Prior to nationalisation that problem was never solved. The proposals for an industry advisory committee seem weak by comparison with the current role of British Coal.
The Health and Safety Commission will obviously have the key role in determining and policing statutory safety requirements. I pay tribute to the thoroughness and dedication of the mines inspectorate in overviewing all aspects of safety. Its task in the future will be even more challenging. At present the Mines Inspectorate also enforces British Coal safety instructions. Those have been introduced by British Coal to set standards of safe practice when new technology has been introduced or an accident investigation has identified deficiencies in existing practice. Those procedures have obviated the need for further legislation. I understand, however, that on privatisation only 10 of those safety instructions are to be given legal status, but that is a tiny fraction of those that currently exist. How is the remaining void to be filled?
However, safety is not solely a matter of regulation. Indeed, safety performance is in all probability more a matter of sound management systems and the safety culture of the industry rather than regulation. After all, it is not the lack of policemen that gives rise to increased crime so much as cultural behaviour and cohesion which outlaw criminal activities.
The final element, therefore, is the behaviour of the mineworkers themselves. One has to recognise that because of the arduous nature of underground jobs, there is always a temptation to cut corners—and in my career I have seen that many times—which can often lead to accidents. British Coal has commendably developed a safety culture which permeates the whole workforce. This is not a once and for all effort but requires a constant and creative approach to sustain it. This safety momentum will obviously carry over into the private sector, but it will prove fragile if the new owners are not prepared to devote the time, effort and investment to maintain it.
I believe, therefore, that the Coal Authority's procedure for licensing must give very serious consideration to the potential licensee's safety record and its ability and willingness to maintain the existing systems and culture.
Baroness White: I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment without any difficulty whatever because it merely indicates that there is at least a minimal concern for the safety of the small but important group of people who will continue to work in the industry. After all, this Bill is relevant to the future.

549
The amendment will at least register our regard for the well-being of those people. As we have said before, coal mining remains a dangerous industry, notwithstanding the good safety records to which the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, has just referred. But there is considerable anxiety, as he also indicated, about how those standards are to be achieved. I have received information from the British Association of Colliery Management which has recently emphasised its sharp dissatisfaction about the way in which the Government have handled this whole matter. The association contends that a significant number of today's legal safety requirements will become ineffective when a mine is taken over by a private owner. It tells me that it is discussing the matter with the Health and Safety Executive. Frankly, I do not know how far it has been able to go.
Surely it is unacceptable that we in this Chamber should be expected to approve a Bill when such important considerations are precluded because they are health and safety matters. I presume that those matters will be determined more fully only when the new authority has been appointed and has agreed to the document referred to in the miserable Clause 4. Why should we have to wait? Why are we put in the position that we cannot have assurances on matters which are of primary concern merely because they are health and safety matters and, therefore, do not come under the direct control of the authority?
I hope very much that the Minister will clarify that situation because there is a great deal of anxiety about it. There has been very great respect for the arrangements made in recent years. If they are to be ineffective in the future, we must know to what degree they will be ineffective and we should be able to debate the matter before we accept the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us clarification on this point.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. On Second Reading this was an area about which I was particularly concerned. As I recall, on that occasion the Minister said that the Health and Safety Executive would deal with that whole area and that that was sufficient protection for the people within the industry.
When the coal industry was nationalised, there were about 1,000 deaths each year. The Health and Safety Executive did not even exist at that time. It may be said that that is an argument for transferring all safety matters to the executive; but I would say that that is not so. Only by having hands-on responsibility for health and safety at the core of the organisation have we seen a reduction in the fatalities in the industry.
A few moments ago we had a detailed debate about pneumoconiosis. As we tackle one industrial disease, other diseases emerge. One of the new emerging industrial diseases in the industry is industrial deafness. The 1993 accounts show that British Coal paid something like £70 million in compensation. That will continue.
Companies have a responsibility for health and safety. Here we are writing legislation, and it is only
550
right that that protection should be in it. The Minister said earlier that we do not want to impose upon commercial enterprises requirements that are too onerous, but of course the responsibilities about which we are talking already lie with British Coal. It is not a case of introducing new provisions but merely of continuing the present ones in the new set-up. I do not see that they would be onerous. They would be some kind of assurance for people who work in a dangerous industry. It is an industry unlike any other in the UK. It is a dangerous industry in which to work. It is one in which industrial disease creeps up over the years and in which the whole area of health and safety has to be at the forefront of the day-to-day activities of the companies which will own the industry in the future. It should not be effected by working to the policemen of the HSE, important though that is and important though its role will be. There is no conflict. The two go hand in hand, and very closely.
5 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will clarify one or two points when he answers this debate. There will be no one in this place who is not extremely concerned about health and safety. Everyone is aware of the dangers that miners face in their daily work. So none of us would wish to see any measures taken which would dilute in any way the authority of those responsible for safety.
After privatisation, will not the companies which take over the coal industry be subject to exactly the same law as presently exists and to which the Coal Board has had to give credence? From reading the Bill, in particular Clause 4, which has been maligned to a certain extent by some of those who have participated in the debate, the point seems clear. Clause 4 states clearly:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority—
(a) in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive, to prepare and from time to time revise a document setting out such means as may, with the approval of the Health and Safety Commission, be agreed between the Authority and that Executive".
I understand that at present everything suggested by the commission has been accepted. Is that the case, or do I misunderstand the Bill? I do not want to make any political point; I merely seek clarification as to whether the law is being changed in any way or whether it remains exactly as it has been for some years.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I have only one small point to make. British Coal has sustained for several years a group of colliery workers who have been trained especially to deal with mine accidents and disasters. That team is naturally being run down because there are fewer mines. My correspondence shows that there is concern among those who have been specially trained about the extent of the rundown.
I am speaking to the amendment, but I really want to ask the Minister to do me a favour. Perhaps he will be good enough to look into this matter which has caused concern to those men who have been specially trained. They feel that it will be a little difficult to know what will be their dealings with the new mining companies even though they will come under the aegis of the new

551
authority. Will he please let me know in some way—I do not press him now because I do not expect him to know—what are his observations and views about the extent of the rundown, and whether the organisation of colliery workers which is now under the authority of British Coal will be maintained at a sufficient level to enable the service to be provided properly in the event —we hope that it will not take place—of a further disaster?
Lord Peston: I intervene, first, to draw to the attention of the Committee that there are three amendments in the group: Amendments Nos. 2, 16 and 22. Amendment No. 22 of course refers to the possible relevance of European directives. I tabled that amendment partly to remind the Committee that we sometimes debate matters such as health and safety in too insular a fashion. We now live in a world in which broader considerations are brought to bear on these matters by Brussels. That relates to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. To anticipate the Minister, clearly the Bill does not get rid of all previous legislation to do with such matters. That legislation is still there. The new companies will obviously be obliged to obey the law.
But I do not believe, and here I follow my noble friend Lady Dean, that the amendment undermines the view that the law is there and has to be obeyed; what the amendment does is supplementary to that, or is congruent with it. It is essentially to do with two matters. One is that matters of safety, health and welfare are not achieved merely by following the letter of the law. To use the current parlance, they are achieved by having an appropriate culture in which such things occur. One's concern is that that culture will not necessarily be transferred to the new companies. I hasten to add that if the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is successful in his bid, I am certain that in his case it will, but that does not mean that we can make that assumption about other companies. That is the reason why we have put down the amendment.
Perhaps I may go further. This relates to a matter raised on the previous group of amendments by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. He said that we were discussing all this, and he asked, "What about the human beings? What about the miners?" He asked where in the Bill was there any concern for the miners. My judgment is that in the case of the mines safety, health and welfare are of the essence. If we were discussing a Bill to regulate professors of economics, I doubt whether anyone would be raising issues of safety, health and welfare.
I recall the speech of my noble friend Lord Mason on Second Reading, which, I must admit, upset me terribly. He reminded me of what life must have been like going down a mine. My view was, "Thank goodness, I didn't have to do anything of that sort". That is why the amendment is important.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I do not claim for one moment that the amendment suggests that there is something deficient. It merely says that in a Bill of this sort which the Government are seeking to justify to the world to have something specific about the purposes
552
or duties of the Coal Authority right at the beginning would make the legislation, to say the least, look slightly more attractive than a piece of legislation where the human beings seem to come in very late indeed. The point of the amendment is to emphasise that matter.
As I know now that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde —he has upset me—does not trust me at all, this is also not my undermining of the Bill. That comes later. The amendment is put forward sincerely as something which would benefit the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: It is always nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston, differentiate between his sincere amendments and his insincere amendments. Long may that continue because it makes it easier to spot the difference. I entirely agree with him about health and safety. My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin put it extremely well: this is not the time to make political points but to deal with the issue as it stands. I can confirm that what my noble friend assumes is correct. He put it in a way that I shall probably copy.
First, I deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about trained colliery workers and safety. I shall follow up that point with a note to him. We are working closely with British Coal to ensure that the safety culture will be transferred, first, to the Coal Authority; and, secondly, of course to the successor bodies, because British Coal can be rightly proud of the high standards that have been established by the Mines Rescue Service. That service is second to none. We fully understand the importance of mines rescue. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that there will continue to be a service with a national capability.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: Will the Mines Rescue Service remain as it is, full-time and experienced, and under the responsibility of the Coal Authority ?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not wish to go too much into the question of the Mines Rescue Service because I know that later there is a specific amendment under which we shall deal with the issue and I do not wish to have another wide debate. Suffice it to say that it is an important issue. I do not want to go further than what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I hope that the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will accept that. We shall return to the issue, when we shall deal with it in some detail.
I turn now to the important central question of the role of health and safety. The Committee may be aware that in the comprehensive advice to the Minister for Energy about the post-privatisation safety regime, which has been made available, the Health and Safety Commission made clear that the prime responsibility for safety should remain with the employers in the industry while the regulation of health and safety should be the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The Government have simply accepted the commission 's advice in full.
The commission argues for the retention of a clear separation of licensing and health and safety regulation. Its advice is that the use of the licensing system to

553
enforce compliance with health and safety law or to impose penalties on offenders is neither necessary nor desirable. It has made it clear that the two processes must remain separate and distinct. To do otherwise would risk confusion, which can only jeopardise safety.
Health and safety legislation contains very clear duties on mine owners to make financial and other provision to secure, so far as practicable, that the mine is managed and worked in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and is so planned and laid out as to enable that purpose to be readily secured. There are also specific duties to appoint a qualified and competent manager and substitute a qualified and competent surveyor, as well as to have a suitable management structure composed of sufficient qualified and competent people. There are already legal duties in place to achieve the objective of the amendment and to ensure that mine operators have the necessary expertise available to them to ensure that mines are worked safely. HSE's Mines Inspectorate already has the power to enforce them, including the power to shut down a mine if there is not a duly appointed qualified and competent manager. I might add that that mirrors the approach taken in relation to the offshore oil and gas industry since the recommendations of the Cullen report were accepted by the Government.
The commission has also advised that there will need to be continuing liaison between the authority and the HSE. In line with the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill, a draft memorandum of agreement governing the relationship between the Coal Authority and the HSE has been made available as part of the Coal Authority explanatory note. One of the basic undertakings proposed is that the authority and the HSE should co-operate with one another in order to secure the exchange of information necessary to enable both parties to carry out their functions effectively and efficiently.
That brings me to Amendment No. 22, which proposes that that memorandum should be made without prejudice to European directives. That is an important issue to have raised, but the amendment is a vague and unnecessary one because European directives relevant to health and safety are implemented through regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the implementing regulations become relevant statutory provisions. I have to refute absolutely the implication that the protection offered by our health and safety law falls short of the protection offered by the European directives. I do not believe that that is the case.
My noble friend Lord Haslam asked a question about the industry advisory committee. The Health and Safety Commission has proposed the establishment of an IAC for deep mines. The proposal was set out in the HSC's report. I understand that the establishment of such a committee would be along the lines of IACs successfully established by the commission for other industries.
My noble friend also referred to the need for the transfer of owners' rules into regulations. Those of British Coal's operating instructions which are
554
necessary to ensure that the Mines Inspectorate has all the necessary powers following privatisation have been given legal status by regulation. In the interests of maintaining the existing safety culture in the industry, British Coal and the HSC are working to codify the great majority of remaining British Coal safety codes, rules and instructions in order to ensure that they can be made available to the privatised industry. That work is now nearing completion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said that in 1948, when the coal industry was set up, there was no health and safety at work Act. There is now such an Act, which was enacted in 1974. If we had taken the advice of the Opposition when we were drafting the Bill and had included the amendment, I wonder whether, when the advice of the HSC became apparent, noble Lords opposite would have tried to remove that power from the Coal Authority and would have accepted the advice of the HSC. Perhaps I tease the Opposition on this question. On page 51 of the report produced by the HSC it is stated that the commission's view is that it should remain as the sole regulatory body for health and safety in the coal industry and the Health and Safety Executive should remain the enforcement body. I believe that that is a very powerful voice.
It is worth having this debate because central to so many people's anxiety is the record on health and safety in an industry which, over generations, has shown itself not to be overly concerned about the effects on the people who work in that industry. I believe that that is no longer the case. I believe that we have given the Health and Safety Commission the powers to deal with the private sector. We now have substantial experience of many difficult private sector industries which affect the health of individuals.
I hope that in the light of that very full explanation and the clear advice of the Health and Safety Commission the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanations. Those of us who have prepared carefully for the debate have read the document of the Health and Safety Commission and realise that there must be no confusion on the ultimate responsibility for ensuring safety throughout the length and breadth of industry. Coal is no exception, although at the time there was great reluctance on the part of the coal industry to give up its own inspectorate. However, that is in the past.
We are asking that, without changing that in any way, some recognition of the importance of safety in the industry should figure in the Bill. Could it not be mentioned parenthetically in regard, for example, to Clause 4? All we ask is for that to be done. We would be quite satisfied. We are not asking for any fundamental constitutional or legal changes.
I do not propose to suggest that the Committee should divide on this issue. We all agree—on both sides of the Chamber —that safety is important. However, I should like to leave the noble Lord with the thought that perhaps he could come back to us and, having reflected on the matter, without altering the fundamental situation

555
there could be some wording which represents a recognition of the importance of health and safety in this unique industry.
With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield The Lord Bishop of Sheffield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:

("( ) taking responsibility for the functions of British Coal Enterprise;").

The right reverend Prelate said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 21 are grouped together. I propose to speak only to Amendment No. 3 and I hope to have an opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 21 later in the day.
I note what the Minister says about continuity and his concern that the Coal Authority should not be encumbered with too many duties to distract it from its main duty of running the privatised coal industry. I also note what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says about a legislative vacuum. There is a danger of British Coal Enterprise falling into such a vacuum or a black hole. If that were to happen it would be a great misfortune for those who live and try to work in the former coal mining areas and for the nation as a whole.
British Coal Enterprise was founded in a dark period for the industry in 1984. But in what has proved again a difficult decade for the industry—"dark" may be the right word—it has proved to be a burning and shining light, to use a biblical phrase. Sometimes that light has not been as bright as some of us would have hoped. But when one looks back at what it has achieved over the years, the result is remarkable for an expenditure funded by the Government, and supervised by British Coal. We need to be grateful for British Coal Enterprise.
As noble Lords will know, its areas of activity are manifold. In conjunction with both private enterprise and local authorities, it has funded a considerable number of small, and sometimes now not so small, businesses creating a large number of jobs. It is hoped that by now 46,000 jobs have been created in that way. Through the conversion of existing mine buildings, and later by construction of new buildings—managed work spaces—a considerable number of people have been enabled to set up their own places of work. It is worth noting that British Coal Enterprise has never felt committed to providing work only for ex-miners. It recognised that the life of a community is an economic unity and all work is good work; one aspect helps another. Therefore British Coal Enterprise does not only help ex-miners; it helps the community as a whole.
However, it is the ex-miners who in particular have been helped with finding work. It has set up job shops which have an astonishing record of finding work for people and helping people to present themselves in a way that is most effective. The skills training places also have taken many highly skilled miners and enabled them to become highly skilled at activities which range from rugby coaching, mountain climbing, selling of vegetables—I could keep going a long time describing a wide range of work. We need to be grateful for what British Coal Enterprise has done.
Its work covers six sections of the country. I am most familiar with its work in South Yorkshire. My diocese of Sheffield covers an area far beyond Sheffield—now, alas, almost entirely an ex-mining area. In the past 15 years I have seen 50 pits and 50,000 miners become one pit, perhaps two half-pits, and a few hundred miners. In the past 10 years 41 pits have become one, or perhaps one-and-a-half, and 41,000 miners have become a few hundred. The same tale has been repeated throughout the country.
We have to be grateful for what has been done to rehabilitate, to regenerate and to bring new industry to those neighbourhoods. But we should be deceiving ourselves if we were to think that the work was now complete, that there was nothing more to be done, and that we can allow British Coal Enterprise to pack its bags and to say goodbye with a sense of a job well done with nothing further needing to be done. The situation is not like that.
One of the more esoteric duties of a diocesan Bishop is to conduct a formal visitation to his diocese from time to time. I am in the midst of conducting just such a formal visitation at present. It involves my visiting each of the 12 dioceses in turn and haranguing, encouraging or whatever, churchwardens, counsellors and clergy. Last night I was in one of the areas affected by the closure and therefore the total disappearance of Kiverton Park and its collieries. After those people had survived my hour long discourse, it was moving to listen to the ex-miners who told me of their experiences. Some were doing very fragile private enterprise work; they were not at all sure that they would survive. Alas, quite a few had still not found work and were beginning to despair whether they ever would.
It is a matter of considerable importance that the work of British Coal Enterprise is not only affirmed but secured for the foreseeable future. The most appropriate way to do that is for British. Coal Enterprise to continue to be one of the continuing responsibilities of British Coal which is handed on to the Coal Authority. I see it —perhaps it is a rather naive image—as sitting firmly on a branch of the British Coal tree. I worry that when that tree is felled, that enterprise will collapse with it. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that that will not be the case and that one way or another, preferably by incorporation in the Bill, the future of British Coal. Enterprise can be secured. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I support the amendment. I am very pleased indeed to follow the right reverend Prelate. He has worked hard on behalf of the miners and their families in South Yorkshire. We all know that well; and I am sure that they are all grateful to him.
What surprised me was that British Coal Enterprise was not mentioned in the Bill. Why was that? That factor immediately aroused suspicion. What is our future? In the coalfields we know that we need British Coal Enterprise more than ever. It had a difficult start. There were many criticisms. Many people said that it would never find jobs. But it has overcome those criticisms and has done remarkably well. British Coal Enterprise created tens of thousands of jobs in all the mining districts in the country.

557
Its main objective has been to help provide alternative employment in the areas affected by all those pit closures. In 1985 when it was put forward that this enterprise should seek to solve some of our problems in the coalfields, no one ever visualised the task that lay before it. The rapid rate of pit closures has tended to swamp its endeavours. But it has been a major saviour in our coalfield communities. It has been most helpful in placing redundant miners in new employment or on training courses. It has found factory space for new businesses usually on pit sites and using former pit buildings. It has assisted with small loans on favourable terms to launch small and medium-sized businesses.
So far British Coal Enterprise has been funded by British Coal, Government grants and European Regional Development Fund allocations. Consequently British Coal Enterprise is now a major business with 180 full-time staff, 400 counsellors in mining districts and 60 financial consultants, giving advice to the many distressed men and their families when plunged into unemployment in areas of little hope. Yet it has managed to find or create directly 105,000 jobs. Another 4,300 projects have been established which employ a further 46,000, and with the establishment of business parks through partnerships with the ERDA another 13,000 jobs have been found. One can just imagine the impact that that enterprise is having on our rundown mining communities, giving them hope for the future as the activities of British Coal Enterprise expand.
What is to happen to British Coal Enterprise? There is a great deal of anxiety in the coalfields about it. First, will it continue to be a Coal Authority responsibility, as it should be? Will European regional development money still be forthcoming if it is hived off? Will the DTI still be actively and financially interested? There is a fear that it will be privatised—another hived-off venture. But really, in the light of the recent run of further pit closures, should not the BCE be given a more enhanced status to tackle what will be the ever growing problems in our old coalfields, and should it not be the Coal Authority's responsibility?
Two small issues arise from my own personal experience of working alongside British Coal Enterprise. I happen to be the chairman of the Prince's Youth Business Trust covering South Yorkshire—Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley—where the unemployment levels are extremely high. We launch between 12 and 14 new businesses every month, mostly with unemployed persons between 18 and 29 years of age. British Coal Enterprise has been invaluable to us —the PYBT—as regards allocating buildings, office equipment, expert advice that it has at its fingertips and liaison with our PYBT managers. It has been invaluable not just as regards creating individual jobs, but as regards helping us to create new businesses which in themselves are creating more employment.
Likewise, but a bit more so, I happen to be the chairman of a business and innovation centre: the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre. There are not many in the country—I guess about 20—and British Coal Enterprise has been a major investor in that enterprise. So far, it is a development of over two dozen
558
different units within a complex which is developing high technological and innovative products. Over 120 persons are involved. New hi-tech industries sprouting in a dying coalfield, aided by BCE investment: it is a classic example of British Coal Enterprise's use of a coalfield and its impact on a coalfield community.
So there is a need for its continuation at least at its present financing level. Our coalfield communities are struggling to combat the ever-rising levels of unemployment and this will be true for some years to come. It would be a double tragedy on top of all the recent pit closures if British Coal Enterprise's activities were also to be curtailed.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I wish to put a straightforward question to the Minister which I hope he will deal with when he replies. In doing so perhaps I may say how much we all share the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate about the splendid work which is being done by BCE in the coal mining or former coal mining areas. The money is provided by various grants and loans, but BCE may not continue after privatisation. As my noble friend Lord Mason said, nothing has been said about it, but one would have thought it obvious that something would be said, even at this stage. If I were a betting man I might say to the Minister, "I bet it will not continue". In those circumstances, if those factories or workplace units, as they are usually called, are sold, there will be substantial capital receipts.
My question is: what will happen to the capital receipts? Is there a likelihood of them going straight back to the Treasury so that the coalfield areas will never see that money again? I see a smile from the Minister, he may think that is a silly question, but I bet he will give me a silly reply. This is a serious matter; we do not pretend that it is not. That money should remain in the coalfield areas. It would be terrible if such a well-established scheme, which has brought help to the coal mining areas, were to be discontinued.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may first say a word or two on the amendment so eloquently proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield, my diocesan Bishop. I pay tribute as well to what everyone in the area says about the extraordinary way in which he has looked after and backed up the miners and the mining industry in that area.
On the question of BCE, like all Members of the Committee, I have read every word of what was said about the Bill in Standing Committee D in another place, to which my attention was drawn. On 8th February at col. 73 of the Official Report, the Minister said about British Coal Enterprise:
"No decision has been taken about the long-term future of BCE. British Coal is considering the matter at present. However, I anticipate that BCE will retain its present role up to and immediately after privatisation. After that, it will be appropriate to examine how the BCE approach might function in co-operation with other local and national agencies".
"No decision … about the long term"; it is being examined—"up to and immediately after privatisation"; then it will be appropriate to examine it. Who will examine it? How will it be appropriate? You either

559
examine it or you do not; it is not particularly appropriate. Appropriate to what? "How the BCE approach": does that mean that the underlying philosophy, the theological commitment, the social ideology of BCE, its message, its mission will somehow be transmitted through other local and national agencies or what? What does it mean? I hope that the right reverend Prelate is more full of hope after he has heard the Minister's words than I was on that occasion.
I wish to turn to Amendment No. 21. The Bill is about privatising the British Coal corporation.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. I heard the right reverend Prelate say that he would deal with Amendment No. 21 later on. I regret that because it would have been good to have the debate now but it is the right reverend Prelate's amendment and if he wishes to deal with it later on then that is right.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I thank the Minister for that. If I heard the right reverend Prelate correctly, he did not say that he wished to ungroup the amendment. If he wishes to ungroup it—and I shall give him a moment or two to think about it and continue speaking while he does so—I do not know whether he will be in order in doing so at this late stage. It probably requires the consent of the Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I am an innocent in the jungle of the Committee stage. I have no idea whether or not I should do so. I just felt that I did not want to run my two speeches into one.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I believe that the two amendments are grouped together. I was seeking to make sure that the case which I imagine the right reverend Prelate would be likely to make did not go by default. I welcome guidance from the Minister as to whether the right reverend Prelate should make the case or whether I may do so.
Lord Strathclyde: The right reverend Prelate has moved Amendment No. 3. He can keep the amendments grouped, he can unbundle them, he can speak to Amendment No. 21 now or later. Whether or not he moves it formally is entirely up to him.
It was my feeling that it was absolutely right to group the amendments together because the issues are linked. Although the right reverend Prelate recently said that he did not wish to run both speeches together, I hoped that he would, because I felt that they fitted together well. I suspect that the noble Lord on the other side also felt that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister. If the right reverend Prelate would like to speak to Amendment No. 21, I should be delighted. I should be happy to hear what he has to say and if any little crumbs fall from his table which I could pick up afterwards, I should be happy to do so. I give way to him.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I shall speak more briefly than I had intended on Amendment No. 21. Occasionally I feel that I am jinxed as regards the effect that I have on the diocese which I have the privilege to
560
serve, because in the 15 years that have been there disaster has followed disaster. First, steel and now coal. As I drive around the diocese—as I do diligently and constantly—it has become a familiar sight: the former coal mine, sometimes with a rather pathetic wheel marking the spot where once so many people worked. Sometimes it is rather smart and tidy, with marks of new life around it. But very often it is an area of quite considerable desolation. It seems to me that the desolation of the area is in itself a powerful dissuasive to people who might have felt that they wanted to bring their industry and workplace to the neighbourhood.
It bothers me a little that in this Bill the responsibility for dealing with that area is simply left to the Coal Authority, with the command that it gets the best terms possible for the land that is sold. This is indeed continuity with what has gone before with British Coal. I have to say that British Coal's record of developing some of those sites, which seem to be very capable of development, has not been an entirely happy one. There has been delay upon delay. Sometimes I think that the delay has been caused by the desire to get the best price, when selling at a slightly lower price would have made possible a quicker development and therefore a more rapid creation of new job opportunities in the neighbourhood.
It is my view that we might do better if such sites could be transferred to bodies which, unlike British Coal or the new Coal Authority, have as their top priority employment creation and economic renewal. The bodies that I have in mind are the Government's own development agencies: English Partnership, Scottish Enterprise and the Welsh Development Agency. Ail three are set up specifically to assist the recovery of regions that are affected by industrial decline.
I must emphasise that I do not speak here of the great bulk of British Coal's land. People tell me that only the Church of England owns more land than British Coal. I rather hope that that is true and that we do; but we may not. I am speaking of a relatively small number of key sites which, because of their location, are ideally suited for redevelopment, for new factories, offices and other commercial uses. There are numerous examples of extraordinary delays—I am not talking about months but about years of delay—arising from British Coal's abortive attempts to maximise financial return from the sale of sites.
At Easington, in County Durham, proposals have been put forward by the local council to provide on former colliery land a much needed car park to serve a local shopping centre and to alleviate congestion. The British Coal Corporation has vacillated over selling that part of the land that is required, in the hope that a better price could be obtained for the larger parcel of land. The decision has been put off from year to year and leaves the community with a melancholy spectacle of derelict land.
Some of the unreclaimed sites that are owned by British Coal are even more significant. They are sites capable of the development that can bring some hope of a reasonable economic future to devastated communities. They are sites where communications are good, and where the infrastructure already exists or can

561
be readily installed. They are capable of attracting industry in areas suffering unemployment caused by colliery closures.
One such site is Glass Houghton colliery, just outside the diocese of Sheffield and Wakefield. That colliery closed as long ago as March 1986. It is a site of considerable potential, with excellent communications, close to Junction 32 of the M.62 motorway and within half a mile of the stretch of the A.1 that is scheduled to be upgraded to motorway standard. Half of the 300-acre site where ground conditions are suitable has been designated in the development plan for industrial use. The presence of two town centre shopping areas within a few miles makes any change of use for retail purposes inappropriate and unlikely to receive planning approval. But that is the road down which British Coal has steadily gone; it is determined that that is the sort of development it should be. That has not happened; it is not likely to happen. After eight years the people of Pontefract and Castleford are still waiting for the work of reclamation and reconstruction to begin.
A site like Glass Houghton, properly developed, can provide a focus to attract new industry and investment into an area. But left as a derelict eyesore it positively discourages enterprise anywhere in its vicinity. It is sites such as that with which this amendment is concerned —key sites with the potential to unlock the economic development of their surrounding areas.
Transfer of sites like the one I have mentioned to the appropriate development agency may well be disposals on the best available terms—best for the communities thrown out of work by the mine closures. But there is a strong argument that such disposals would also be for the best in financial terms. This is a suggestion with which the Minister might sympathise, in that the real job of the Coal Authority is not development of this sort of land. If it could be given to those whose job it really is, there would be a focus, a concentration, on the immediate development and the immediate success of new industry and commerce coming to those areas and on new jobs being created. I do not believe that it would result in significant financial loss. It could result in significant financial gain. I believe that it would be an important sign that job creation arising out of the closure of the mines is something that we as a House, a nation and a government believe to be a very high priority indeed.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, will he kindly tell me why in the amendment he does not include the words "local authority"? The organisations that he does include are extremely important. We have all had dealings with them. But the amendment mentions "local Development Plan". It also mentions the "local economy". It seems to me that the local authority in many cases—perhaps not in every case, but in many cases—would be the most appropriate body to deal with this matter.
The right reverend Prelate pleased me very much when he mentioned Easington District Council. I had the honour to represent that area in another place. The
562
council has written a very long letter to me asking me to raise these matters. I had intended to do so anyway. Easington District Council—this is not simply publicity for the council; it is one of the most dynamic local authorities—has suffered greatly from the closure of pits. There is not a single pit in the constituency now. There were 16 when I was Member of Parliament there. That is the measure of the destruction, if I can use that word, that has taken place. In some circumstances the local authority could be the most appropriate body to deal with the particular matter that the right reverend Prelate raised.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I note with sympathy what the noble Lord says. I share his respect for the magnificent work that is done by local authorities. I am under the impression that the bodies that I have mentioned are very ready to work with local authorities. I also believed that this amendment was more likely to be accepted by the Government if it put emphasis on the government development agencies, which I hope they support, rather than the local authorities, which (if I am not being tactless) they seem to view with such suspicion.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am sure that my noble friend will have a great deal of understanding and sympathy for what the right reverend Prelate said. It is surely one of the responsibilities that the DTI accepts very strongly that positive action should be taken by government so that, as one industry dies, every encouragement is given to use the resources in manpower, energy and finance to develop new industries for the future. The DTI and the Government have a number of schemes throughout the country that make those activities possible.
I support those who have said what a splendid job British Coal Enterprise has done. I endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said about the work that it has done in his area; and it has done equal work in the North West, from where I come. But the one point that was perhaps not made relates to the way that the functions of British Coal Enterprise make it a very flexible organisation: it can put money quickly into companies and respond very quickly to changing circumstances; it will also not be so hidebound by the financial restrictions that apply to many other bodies that provide money.
What is important in this issue is that, as the coal industry changes—as it will change, dramatically—there are operations in place that continue to make money available for small businesses which, it is to be hoped, will be generated. There must be a willingness on the part of government and local authorities, which are often the planning authorities in these matters, to take heed of what the right reverend Prelate said about the need to adapt quickly and to redevelop land for other purposes. That is particularly important as coal mines are often in rural areas, where sometimes it is difficult to get the development that one wants. But whether that is a matter for this Bill is another issue. If the Bill were to cover all the ramifications and changes that will take place in society as a result of the mines moving into private hands, that would be another matter altogether.

563
I should be grateful to have from my noble friend an understanding of how the Government see these changes being brought about and what they intend to do if British Coal Enterprise is no longer to be the functioning body. I should like to know what other bodies they see as being able to take over its responsibility and having the power and flexibility of British Coal Enterprise. I should like to hear how the Government view the importance of local authorities and government bodies responding to what the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord Haslam: British Coal Enterprise and its counterpart, British Steel Industries, continue to be, I believe, the most successful industrially based job creators in the UK. The latter—British Steel Industries —continues to operate under the umbrella of British Steel. Having had its debt written off, it is now self-financing, except when an exceptional sudden demand arises, such as, for example, the closure of Ravenscraig.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, and, more recently, my noble friend Lord Wade, have already very effectively described the role of BCE and its achievements. Perhaps I could just add a little more flesh to their statements.
First of all, there is what is called business funding. That involves providing loans to job creating projects in the UK coalfields. Those projects are part funded up to 25 per cent. of the cost or £5,000 per job created. A sum of £86 million has been committed since 1984 into 4,300 projects, which have led to 46,000 jobs being generated. Looking to the future, to continue annually to make £10 million of loans available to 500 projects, thereby creating 5,000 jobs, is an achievable and desirable objective. As these are revolving funds, the total cost of the operation, including all overheads and provision for bad debts, is about £8 million per annum.
I turn to managed workshops. That has involved both the conversion of former British Coal buildings and newly built business park ventures. There are currently 34 operational sites, which are soon to be increased to 43. Those managed workshops have housed an astonishing range of small burgeoning businesses started by miners and their families.
I have been amazed at the diversity of the entrepreneurial things that happen. There is one extraordinary story of a miner who read the Board of Trade journal and saw that £300,000 worth of pythons was imported every year into this country for museums, schools and universities. He decided that in one of those managed workshops—and it is not too much liked by some of his near neighbours—he would breed pythons. He built a business in that particular area. It was quite unimaginable.
About £30 million of capital has been expended and over 13,000 job opportunities have been created in those managed workshops. On a revenue basis, that activity is breaking even and will make a growing positive contribution as sites mature to higher occupancy. However, if British Coal Enterprise is to expand its
564
workspace, there will be a modest demand for capital. A net expenditure, after European grants, of £3 million per annum would allow five new sites to be built each year.
On the outplacement front, BCE has a service contract with British Coal to deliver a comprehensive outplacement package. That facility is also made available to other selected companies and that activity is profitable. Over 44,000 former British Coal personnel have been resettled since 1987. That is an 80 per cent. success rate of those who registered at BCE jobshops and who actively sought work. Thus, in total, British Coal Enterprise has participated in the creation of about 105,000 jobs since its inception in 1984. The corresponding loss of jobs in the mines during that period was about 180,000.
To sum up, I strongly support the view of those who have already spoken that British Coal Enterprise should be preserved in the public sector. I believe that its present debt of £30 million should be written off. A single cash injection of £50 million would then be: sufficient to ensure its future for all time, as British Coal Enterprise's profitable activities continue to grow. It is very interesting now that, particularly in the eastern European countries, its advice has been sought to establish similar organisations in places such as Poland, Hungary and so on.
An alternative would be for the Government to agree to continue funding at, say, £2,000 per job created. That cost is considerably less expensive than other government comparable enterprise agencies and I believe would stand any market test.
The Minister for Energy recognised in another place the positive achievements of BCE and indicated that it would be retained in its present form for the immediate post-privatisation period. I understand that discussions are taking place with British Coal about longer term plans. I look forward to hearing the outcome. It is to be hoped that the emphasis will be to build on the success and achievements of British Coal Enterprise. Accordingly, I support Amendment No. 3.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I should just like to put the position of those of us on these Benches briefly and quite clearly on the main amendment, Amendment No. 3. Since 1984, 180,000 miners have lost their jobs. Since 1984, BCE has created thousands of new jobs around the country. We support it strongly.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign recently undertook some research into BCE. Its preliminary findings show that BCE has been cost-effective as a job creation agency by comparison with other job creation agencies and has made a most creditable contribution to job creation in coalfield areas. It can be justly proud of that.
BCE, as the only economic regeneration body specifically working within British coalfields, will be needed more and more over the next few years, not less and less. Given its prudent track record and given its cost-effectiveness, BCE's existence ought to be assured for the foreseeable future and the resources available to it should be increased.
In that way, the process of regeneration in the coalfields can be accelerated to try to match the rapidly

565
growing need for assistance to coalfield local economies, a priority not only for those communities themselves but for the national economy as a whole.
Lord Strathclyde: I am very grateful for the contributions that have been made on BCE. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate for his words and for speaking to both amendments. I feel that the amendments hang together extremely well. It is on that basis that I shall reply.
It was interesting that the right reverend Prelate mentioned the steel industry. It will not have escaped the Chamber's notice that the steel industry in this country is one of the most efficient and productive steel industries within the European Community. It is a testament to those who work in the industry. This Bill is about producing the same result for the coal industry, so that the mineworkers in the privatised coal industry will also share in that success.
I shall not follow the example of other noble Lords in eulogising BCE. The very great importance and the tremendous contribution that BCE has made to the regeneration of the coalfield areas are clearly recognised by the Government. What is more, the regeneration of the coalfield areas is an avowed objective of government regional policy in order to help the situation in those areas. In 10 years BCE helped to create 100,000 job opportunities through job placement and training of former British Coal employees, managed workspace developments and business funding for small firms. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton is absolutely correct when he says that it is a flexible organisation with few financial restrictions and one which can move quickly.
But I understand the concerns of the Committee. What I am wary of in the amendment is that we are simply putting the responsibility of British Coal Enterprise into the hands of the Coal Authority. I am by no means certain that that is the right thing to do. The Coal Authority will be looking after the privatising of the industry and is not therefore the appropriate body to look after British Coal Enterprise.
What is to happen to BCE? I must tell the Committee that we do not know what is its long-term future; that remains to be decided. But in the medium term we envisage that BCE will be retained in its current form throughout the transitional and immediate post-privatisation period. The longer term future of BCE needs to be carefully considered. The mini debate we have just had goes some way to furthering that consideration and the Government will take note of what Members of the Committee said. I could not resist a smile when the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, asked a specific question in relation to capital receipts. On one side because I do not know the answer; but on the other because I suspect that the heavy hand of the Treasury will do its work in this respect and it may be difficult to ring-fence or earmark specific receipts for specific areas.
What is important is our overall policy towards the regeneration of coalfield and other areas around the country. It will not have escaped the notice of the
566
Committee that under the single regeneration budget, under the Urban Regeneration Agency which is run by my noble friend Lord Walker, we have a clearly focused policy to help exactly the kind of areas that have been helped so successfully in the past by BCE. For instance, it is important that English Partnership and the other relevant agencies mentioned in the second amendment of the right reverend Prelate, should be able to contribute to the regeneration programmes in the areas affected by colliery closures. Members will be aware of the work that has already been carried out by those agencies.
Coming to the matter of disposal of British Coal's land, the Government have in mind the possibility that, as part of the process of allocating the property and land of the corporation itself, those properties which should be beneficial to the regeneration process in coalfield areas should go direct to the local authorities or development agencies rather than to the coal authorities. That seems to me to be the best way of dealing with the issue.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the authority's duties are designed to lead it to take a constructive and flexible approach to the disposal of land and property which will be vested in it after the due date. First, Clause 3(2) places a duty on the Coal Authority to dispose of such of its land and property as, broadly, is not required for coal mining. That means that there is no question of the authority simply hoarding land. It can therefore be freed up to deal with the kind of regeneration which the right reverend Prelate wishes to see. The clear intention is that land and property should be released for beneficial use. That will be helpful to regeneration as the authority makes land available for new housing, industrial or leisure developments.
Secondly, there is no need for the land to be transferred before it is developed. The authority has the power to develop land under Clause 5(3). Thirdly, there is no need to transfer the land to develop it in partnership. The authority has the power to do that without the private or public sector. Lastly, planning permission is required for any new use of land or new development. There is now a presumption that planning applications will be determined in accordance with any relevant provisions of the local development plans and that applies just as much to any development on or use of Coal Authority land. The authority itself has no privileged position.
In short, the authority has a basic duty to dispose of land not needed for coal mining purposes. It has flexibility as to how it does so. It will be governed by the planning law like anyone else and will need to take account of local development plans in formulating proposals or collaborating with others. The role of BCE in the short term is assured; in the longer term we shall need to look at it in the light of our overall objectives. But I join with other Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate to congratulate and welcome the work that has been done over many years.
6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: It is encouraging to hear from the Minister the support that the Government give to BCE. They have said that in the short term it will continue as it is until the process of privatisation develops; in the longer term it is still open for debate as to how it will operate.
I am a little disturbed by that. From past experience the discussions take a long time and I hardly think that it will be one of the Government's urgent priorities in the months ahead. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that we who support BCE—I include the Minister as a supporter of BCE —would be happier if it were proposed that after the interim period, unless by then some other arrangement is arrived at, the Coal Authority will retain responsibility for this important endeavour.
Lord Strathclyde: It is an interesting suggestion. However, I do not believe that the Coal Authority should be responsible for BCE. Ultimately the Coal Authority will be dealing with other matters that are laid out in the Bill. We need to find a solution as to what is to happen to BCE, particularly in respect of overall government objectives for regeneration in the coalfield. But it is an interesting suggestion and one that I am happy to look at. I do not want to throw a bucket of water on it because I have not considered it in detail. However, I want the Committee to be absolutely certain about what is our general policy.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: I welcome the greater part of what the Minister said. I must admit that I remain puzzled that so large and important an enterprise as the British Coal Enterprise should be left hanging in space in this way. It seems puzzling that the problem of what is to be done was not addressed much earlier. I welcome the Minister's later comments about the land, which I find encouraging. I therefore seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("two nor more than").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is grouped with Amendment No. 5 and perhaps therefore I may start with Amendment No. 5. It simply asks a question. In the sort of legislation we have had before us in recent years on quangos, there has tended to be a clause of this sort saying that XYZ will be consulted. I am somewhat taken aback that the Bill chose not to have such a clause and perhaps the Minister can tell us what it is about this specific quango that the Secretary of State is not constrained to consult in an explicit way. Is there some reason for that?
Amendment No. 4 is rather stronger. The subject was raised by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris at Second Reading. I find it inconceivable that in the real world—by which I mean the world outside—we would set up a Coal Authority with only two members. I take it that the draftsmen do not put in a number like "two" unless it is meant to have some significance. As I say, I find it difficult to believe that we can set up the Coal
568
Authority with as few members as that. Amendment No. 4 therefore asks the Minister to give a rational argument as to why two can ever be the right number.
Baroness Nicol: I support my noble friend, particularly on Amendment No. 4. The idea of two people making up an authority with one of them being appointed chairman seems to me to be ludicrous. It appears to me that we are appointing a dictator and not the chairman of an authority. As an old committee hand, therefore, I ask the Government to accept my noble friend's amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 5 it is important that all the different expertise that is available should be tapped. That is another reason for appointing more than two members. To find two people who embody all that degree of expertise is frankly impossible. To cut my comments short, I wish to support my noble friend in both his amendments. I hope the Minister will give him a serious answer.
Viscount Torrington: I cannot support Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am not sure whether it is one of his helpful amendments or one of his wrecking ones. I take it that it: is one of his helpful ones. However, it raises the question of the composition of the Coal Authority. The Committee may be aware that in the United States there is a whole new industry for the extraction of coal bed methane. It has been going on for a number of years and is a big and valuable industry. Essentially, it is rather similar to drilling oil and gas wells except one is deliberately drilling into coal seams to extract the methane. So far British Coal has been pretty unhelpful in the development of that kind of industry in this country. There is little reason to suppose that future private miners will be any more helpful. I hope therefore that my noble friend might consider that the Coal Authority, as a kind of regulator, should be even-handed in this matter and assist in all forms of economic development of coal assets. Accordingly, I hope that there will be some expertise either represented on the authority or available to the authority to make sure that the industry is fostered.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I do not believe that the Government are likely to concede Amendment No. 5, nor do I think that they should. No, probably they should, because it is important that all these various organisations should be consulted before the body is made up and that it should consist of people who have real expertise.
This is the first opportunity I have had to plug an interest which is dear to my heart and to which we shall be coming back in Part V of the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is also interested in the matter. I refer to the whole question of the environment. I know that we shall be dealing with opencast mining in a big way but there is something much greater than that. As we have heard, a great deal of land has been in mining over a period of time. Everyone in the Chamber wishes to make sure that when all the controversy has died down and we have either a thriving, small, dynamic coal industry, as the Government tell us they expect to

569
have, or probably no coal mining left anywhere in the country, which I think is much more likely, we should have a situation where the land which has been used for, and exposed to, coal mining over a long period of time is in a state which is available and which can be enjoyed by the community as a whole.
We all know what happened as a result of tin mines closing in the South West. Anyone who has travelled by rail in that area will have seen the great devastation left by the clay workings around St. Austell. We must seek to ensure that that is put right as we move from this chapter of our history. It is likely that the environment will be almost pushed out by the very important matters we are discussing —I am not under-rating them at all —concerning safety, the future of the communities and their livelihood. However, it is important that we do not omit the whole consideration of the countryside. We must ensure that very important environmental organisations are among those consulted in the setting up of this body.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I disagree with the two amendments. I do not believe that they are particularly helpful. My noble friend Lord Torrington asked about coal bed methane. My noble friend is absolutely right. It is an important subject. He will know that the position is dealt with in Clause 9. However, that does not deal with appointments, which are dealt with by these amendments.
Amendment No. 4 increases the minimum number of members of the Coal Authority from two to eight and removes the upper limit so there could be no fewer than eight. The clause as drafted provides for the Coal Authority to have a minimum of two members and a maximum of eight. In practice this must mean that there have to be more than two on the basis that there may be a sudden loss of one or two members—for example, through illness or resignation—bringing numbers below the statutory minimum. So we would always have to appoint more than two.
The present numbers allow for a sufficiently broad range of experience and expertise for the Coal Authority to carry out its duties effectively now and in the future. They also permit a prudent degree of flexibility. If we had a minimum of eight people we could well end up with a Coal Authority that was insufficiently flexible and had too many people on it. Anyone who has sat on a committee knows that very often the most effective committees are those with fewer people on them. There is no magic in two or eight. It is simply the figure which we believe right to make sure that the Coal Authority carries out its functions.
Amendment No. 5 requires the Secretary of State to consult coal industry employers, trade unions, local authorities in coal mining areas and environmental organisations before he appoints a member of the authority. If the Secretary of State had to consult all those people it would take an awfully long time to get round to appointing anyone. Then, even after having consulted them, he does not have to take their advice. Therefore, the provision is meaningless. When the
570
Secretary of State makes his decisions about people to put on the Coal Authority he will consult widely with a whole variety of people, some of whom are not mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment. It is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should do so because it will be his responsibility to make sure that the Coal Authority does its job and does it properly.
I note in passing that there is not a consultation requirement in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 for appointments to what is now British Coal. I make no great point about that but the requirement was not in before and I do not think it should be in now. The process of making appointments is thorough and exacting. I know that because in my capacity as a Minister I have occasion to make appointments. It takes a great deal of time.
I hope that all the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was doing was seeking to probe our views. I trust he has the answer. I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I am afraid not. On Amendment No. 5 I was probing to some extent but I hoped at least to receive a proper answer. The noble Lord did not explain why such clauses appear in so many other Bills that the Government put forward and which the noble Lord has supported. My direct question to him on Amendment No. 4 has not been answered. I asked the noble Lord point-blank: is it conceivable that the Government would appoint two? Before deciding what to do, I should like to know whether the answer to that question is that it is conceivable because otherwise two would not be there.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Before the Minister answers, I must say that I did not understand the logic of his reply. He said that it would be far too great a burden and far too dilatory a process to consult all these people, but of course the Minister would consult them anyway. What on earth is the logic of that? If they are to be consulted anyway, why should it not be put in the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that it must be conceivable. But it is extremely unlikely. That is the point I tried to make in my original answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raises a greater point. I come from the school of legislation that believes that we should have less, not more. We have to depend on the common sense of Ministers either to do a good job or to make a mess of it. If they make a mess of it, sooner or later they will leave. Following that, it must be incumbent on Ministers to do what they want when they are appointing people. I simply said that if it were me I would consult as widely as possible. But I do not believe that it should be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with all these people, particularly if at the end of the day he can tear up that advice and throw it in the waste-paper basket.
Lord Peston: Unlike the noble Lord's earlier replies to all the other amendments which were satisfactory although not always convincing, I have to say to him that these answers are unsatisfactory. If his argument held on Amendment No. 5 then it would hold for all

571
kinds of other legislation, but clearly other departments do not agree with that. What really appalled me was his view that "two" means "two". It would be "four" if he meant "four", but the Minister says "two". I believe that we could do with a bit of exercise at twenty minutes past six. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L,

Blackstone, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

[Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L.

Parry, L.

Glenamara, L.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

[Teller.]

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rochester, L.

Gregson, L.

Rodgeis of Quarry Bank, L.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Annaly, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Donegall, M.

Arran, E.

Dormer, L.

Astor, V.

Downshire, M.

Balfour, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Barnard, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bathurst, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Beloff, L.

Faithfull, B.

Blatch, B.

Forester, L.

Blyth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Boardman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Borthwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goschen, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Gridley, L.

Cadman, L.

Hacking, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Chesham, L.

Harrowby, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Haslam, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Henley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hertford, M.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hives, L.

Courtown, E.

Holderness, L.

Craigavon, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hood, V.

Cranborne, V.

Hothfield, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Howe, E.

Cross, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Kinnoull, E.

572

Liverpool, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Chancellor.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strange, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mountevans, L.

[Teller.]

Munster, E.

Sudeley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Swinfen, L.

Northbourne, L.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Tebbit, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Teynham, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Torrington, V.

Pender, L.

Trumpington, B.

Prentice, L.

Tugendhat, L

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Vivian, L.

Rennell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Waverley, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Westbury, L.

Rodney, L.

Wharton, B.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.29 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Coal Authority]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 6.
Page 67, line 26, at end insert:
("(5A) In addition, service as an officer or employee of the Authority shall be included in the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply; and, accordingly, in Schedule 1 to that Act (which lists the kinds of employment to which a scheme can apply), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in the list of "Other Bodies", that is to say—
"Coal Authority."
(5B) The Authority shall pay to the Treasury, at such times as the Treasury may direct, such sums as the Treasury may determine in respect of the increase attributable to sub-paragraph (5A) above in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under the Superannuation Act 1972.
(5C) Where any person is both a member of the Authority and a participant by reference to his service as an officer or employee of the Authority in a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, the Treasury may determine that his service as such a member (including service before he became an officer or employee) shall be treated for the purposes of the scheme as service as an employee of the Authority; and any such determination shall be without prejudice to paragraph 2 above.")
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment which makes it possible for Coal Authority staff to be members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The amendment is a common-form provision, precedented in other legislation; for example, the Education Reform Act 1988. It was inadvertently omitted from the original draft for which I apologise. I hope that this amendment meets with the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for that brief explanation and for his letter to me on this subject dated 26th April. Because of that date, he will understand—I hope that the Committee will also understand—that I saw the letter only 15 minutes before coming into the Chamber, so I have not been able to give it the mature consideration which it so richly deserves.
At first sight, without much consideration, and reserving our right to revisit this provision at any one or more of the later stages of the Bill, the amendment looks harmless enough. However, one question emerges and I should be grateful if the Minister could help me. The third paragraph of his letter states:
"The amendment also provides for the Authority to pay appropriate contributions to the Treasury's Civil Superannuation Vote, and gives the Treasury the discretion to allow".
Can the Minister explain why the Treasury has only "discretion" in this matter? Does it mean that the Treasury could in certain circumstances—and if so, what would they be?—refuse consent, and is an appeal possible? I do not understand the point of the word "discretion".
My only other point is to express mild surprise at the poignant irony that the Government have introduced this additional benefit in favour of the pensioners of the Coal Authority, a body which does not yet exist, when they have not fully and properly settled the pension rights of the thousands of miners and ex-miners in the MPS and Salaried Staffs' Pension Scheme.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry if the noble Lord received that letter only a few moments before we began. I shall have to ensure that he receives letters from me rather earlier in the future. It was designed to be helpful.
The reason why there is discretion in the third paragraph—(5C)—is that the situation may vary from time to time. Rather than make it an absolute definite, we took the view —as I said, this is well precedented in other legislation —that it was easier to give the Treasury discretion, because it would need it in order to adapt the scheme in the ways mentioned. If any further explanation is required, perhaps I can follow it up by a further letter to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duties of the Authority with respect to licensing]:
Lord Morris of Castle Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("so far as practicable").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak to a lot of other amendments also —to wit, Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 18, 26 and 27—although not at great length on all of them.
Amendment No. 7, to leave out the words "so far as practicable", is one to which we attach some importance. The duties and powers of the Coal
574
Authority are set out in the Bill as drafted in the very vaguest of terms. The authority must carry out its functions,
"in the manner that it considers is best calculated to secure, so far as practicable".
Those are not exactly bold terms. Further, it has,
"to have regard to the desirability of securing".
It does not secure anything. It does not do anything; it has to have regard to the "desirability of securing" certain things. I suggest that that is language more fitted to a university department of philosophy than to a piece of legislation which is going to get someone to do something about the coal industry of this country.
The Government's draft paper on the role of the Coal Authority states that the authority will focus primarily on facilitating coal mining operations. That is a duty. That does not imply a neutral position. Its response to any matter which comes before it is bound to be coloured by the need to promote mining which is placed upon it. However, it is the authority which, as the licensing authority, must check the financial standing of prospective licensees, must protect third parties from loss arising from the problems caused by mining operations and must have regard to the need to secure the safety of the public, and it is the authority which has the power to make a compulsory rights order. We shall be returning to that with some power and ferocity at a later stage of the Committee proceedings.
There are many phrases in the Bill which would lead any mining company to expect the authority to assist and accept its proposals even when the authority should be expressing reservations. There is no fixed point on which any member of the public or any person with an interest in property who is adversely affected by the activities of a mining company can take issue with the Coal Authority.
We believe that the Bill should be amended to give the Coal Authority an explicit remit to balance the interests of those involved in coal mining against the interests of those who are affected by it. To achieve that balance, the authority should have clear duties laid down on the face of the Bill without escape clauses of this sort, and should be liable in damages for the performance of them.
In large parts of the Bill, the term "so far as practicable" is used, undoubtedly to try to give the Government, the Coal Authority and the private operators as much discretion as possible when it comes to compliance with parts of the legislation. They have fulfilled their duty if they have secured or given consideration to securing something "so far as practicable". They may then not do anything about it, but they have fulfilled the requirement. In our view, the use of the term "so far as practicable" serves no purpose whatever in the Bill except to provide an escape route from more onerous decisions, such as those contained in Clause 2(1) (a), which has far-reaching policy implications.
Similarly, turning to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 18, but in particular to Amendment No. 15, it is essential in our view that anyone embarking on a coal mining operation must have adequate experience and expertise available to them. There can be no question of the

575
authority considering the "desirability of securing" such an ability to perform. A phrase like that radically weakens the ability of the authority to reject an application for a licence. It takes away its teeth. It takes away its power. Any lack of expertise would imperil others who might be affected by the works.
Despite the decision of the Committee when we divided just now, the two people who might conceivably be the sole arbiters of these decisions need to have access to a high level of expertise and experience which, even between them, they might not have. We know that,
"where two or three are gathered together [there art Thou] in the midst of them",
but I wish that we could be quite sure that spiritual grace would descend upon the members of the Coal Authority, so few in number. We are dealing with law, not with grace, and as somebody once said, "First tether your camel and then trust in God". I think that this amendment is designed to tether the camel.
The amendments have been tabled in an attempt to put some backbone into and to give some strength to the Coal Authority. We did not want it in the first place, but since we have to have it, it might just as well be a decent Coal Authority as a bad one. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support these amendments on the grounds which have just been put forward. I feel that these words are far too qualified and I am particularly puzzled in Clause 2(2) and 2(2) (a) to read that there should be any qualification of the duty of the authority in carrying out its functions under Part II of this Act so that persons authorised by virtue of that part should have the necessary expertise. For them to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that they have the necessary expertise strikes me as being extremely odd. Surely it should be possible to determine whether or not people have the expertise. It seems to weaken what is required of the Coal Authority to a considerable degree. It is already left to its discretion to decide these matters. I do not think that words such as "so far as is practicable" and "to have regard to and the desirability of are necessary. Indeed, they minimise the apparent intent of the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 7 to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has just spoken—and incidentally, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 18, 26 and 27—would delete the words "so far as practicable" from Clause 2(1). This would place absolute duties on the authority which I suggest it would not be in a position to meet. While clearly it is important that the duties in Clause 2 are strong obligations, they also have to be meaningful and workable. Putting it in another way, could we expect the authority to do what is not practicable?
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has just said that it puts an absolute duty on the authority. It does not, because the way it reads is:
"carry out its functions under Part II of this Act in the manner that it considers is best calculated … "
I do not consider that to be an absolute duty. It is left to its discretion to decide what it should or should not do. I do not see that any further qualification is necessary.
Lord Strathclyde: I take the point the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, makes, but I am advised that these words are important. They are important because "so far as practicable" is not a let-out phrase. It imposes a strong obligation. In law it means "so far as can be achieved in practice". That is why we believe that "so far as practicable" should be maintained.
Interestingly enough, my officials in the department, who were very concerned about this amendment, pressed a button on the computer to find out where and how often the phrase "so far as practicable" has been used in the past. It is interesting to know that in the post-war Labour administrations the words "so far as practicable" and "so far as reasonably practicable" appear in 49 different sections. So if it was good enough for them, I hope it is good enough now. I have a list of them; but I am merely trying to make a general point on that.
Let me take a little time now to go through each of the subsections in Clause 2(1) in turn. Starting with Clause 2(1) (a), it is not within the authority's power to guarantee that an economically viable coal mining industry is maintained and developed by licensees. That depends more on the action of licensees and developments in the market. What the authority can do is to provide information, make available the coal resource and property within its ownership; and establish a competitive licensing regime to facilitate development of the coal industry by licensees.
Similarly, with Clause 2(1) (b), there is no such thing as absolute certainty about the financial affairs of a private company. To have pretended otherwise would have been dishonest and would have placed on the authority responsibilities which no organisation could discharge. The authority can look carefully at the resources available to applicants for licences in relation to the proposed venture and the obligations that go with it and its commercial prospects. It will then have to make a judgment as to whether the licensees will be able to finance their operations and the discharge of associated liabilities, whether from revenue or by raising external funding.
It will have to look at the impact of the way in which it discharges its licensing functions on the ability of the applicant to finance the venture and the associated obligations. This might, for example, lead the authority to make its licences transferable, to help licensees to borrow money on the security of a lease of coal. The authority's duty cannot provide absolute certainty. No duty could ever do that. But it does provide reasonable assurances for third parties, particularly those to whom obligations may be owed by the private mining companies who will be licensed by the authority, but those companies will be of appropriate financial standing.
Clause 2(1) (c) reflects the exceptional nature of subsidence liabilities. The Government recognise that: the right to under-mine, which will be conferred on mining companies, is altogether exceptional and that the regime for protecting those affected by subsidence must be strong. That is why there is a separate obligation placed on the authority specifically to address the financial provision for subsidence.

577
It requires the authority to look beyond the overall financial position of a proposed licensee and consider whether there is adequate financial provision for meeting both present and future subsidence obligations. This then is a very strong duty on the authority. As the licence documents which I have made available to noble Lords illustrate, we expect it to lead to the imposition of a rigorous subsidence regime on the mining companies. No such regime can provide complete certainty. The authority will be operating in the real world. That is why the words "so far as practicable" are included. But the authority can do a great deal to provide effective protection for those affected by subsidence damage.
Perhaps I should add just one further point, which I do not think was mentioned by the noble Lord. It is important. The phrase "so far as practicable" certainly does not imply that the authority is free to pick and choose which of its duties to carry out in a certain case. Specifically, the authority is not free to license a company which does not meet the requirements relating to financial standing and provision for subsidence simply because it judges it to be in the interests of the coal mining industry to do so. I simply mention that point in passing. I hope that what I have done has been to justify why the wording is as it is. I totally understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked the question, but I hope that the explanation that I have given will suffice.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Harrowby: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I wonder if he is aware that the Coal Liaison Group is composed of a number of eminent organisations which take exactly the opposite view. The Coal Liaison Group comprises the following organisations: the CLA, the National Farmers Union, the CBI, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Association of County Councils, the Coalfield Communities Campaign, the British Property Federation, the Law Society, the Association of British Insurers and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. All, or most of, those organisations are hoping that this amendment will be passed, and I think that my noble friend the Minister ought to take cognizance of such a wide spread of views which are quite different from his own. They regard the words complained of in this Bill as not only undesirable but damaging, and they would like to see them eliminated.
Lord Crickhowell: Having been a little "difficult" earlier in the afternoon, perhaps I may now say that I support the Minister on this occasion. I remember once taking a civil service examination and being asked by the examiners to define in a single sentence what an educated man was. I said, "Well, it is somebody who knows that you cannot define an educated man in one sentence." I do not think that reply advanced my cause very greatly. I think the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, would, even in an institution of which he is the head, accept the advice of the university department of philosophy if it advanced the argument that it was wholly unreasonable to suggest that you could guarantee the economic viability of any industry
578
in a world that depends upon markets, or even that you can guarantee the financial viability of an institution. Indeed, earlier this afternoon he and I spent some considerable time saying that there could be no absolute certainty about the financial affairs of the licensees; and indeed that was why we were pressing the Government to provide a guarantee, by ensuring that those liabilities were provided by the Coal Authority.
Clearly I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who I know from time to time has had to select people to do jobs, that with the best will in the world and having carried out every check one can one sometimes gets it wrong. I do not see that it is reasonable to impose an absolute duty and I believe that we must be realistic. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, knows, I would like to provide greater assurances in part of the Bill but I think that he is up the wrong track on this one.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to my noble friend. I only wish that he was on my side for all occasions that I have to defend it.
My noble friend Lord Harrowby made an interesting statement and read out a long list of organisations. I hope that all of them will be able to write to me explaining why they believe the Government are wrong.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Perhaps I may first take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. If for many years he has been a most distinguished president of what was University College, Cardiff, and is now the University of Wales, Cardiff, and believes that a department of philosophy in any university ever gets anything done, he is much more of a politician than a philosopher.
I am grateful to the Minister for some parts of his reply. However, I found the majority of his argument unconvincing. It added no touch of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. He said, for example, that all the acts of the Coal Authority must be "meaningful" and "practicable". Of course they are; all our acts ought to be meaningful and practicable. However, if we were to go through life with the phrases that occurred in these amendments hung round our necks then in the course of a year we would do no more work than a department of philosophy.
The Minister says that he is advised that the words are important and that they impose a strong legal obligation. I suggest that they do not impose a particularly strong legal obligation. In fact, the legal obligation would exist firmly and strongly even if the words were not there. However, I am glad that he has gone into the matter in such detail that he has caused officials in the department to press some computer buttons and find out what the Labour Government long ago thought was right and proper. If only there had been computers for the postwar Labour Government, he might not be sitting there today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved. ]
Lord Haslam Lord Haslam moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert:

579

("( ) that sufficient investment in research and development is provided to develop and maintain the British coal industry's strength in the fields of clean coal technology, mining methods and health and safety.").

The noble Lord said: My anxieties are focused on the lack of reference in the Coal Industry Bill concerning research and development activities and in particular clean coal technology.
British Coal has had two research establishments. Much of the world's most advanced deep-mining techniques were developed at the mining research and development establishment at Bretby. It has now closed and its functions are being fulfilled by its much smaller successor, the Technical Services and Research Executive. I believe that plans are being discussed for the future of the highly effective international mining consultants, and it is to be hoped that a worthwhile relationship will be developed between these two bodies.
This, however, is a limited response to the needs of the industry in relation to developing new mining technology and health and safety improvements. The bulk of the cost of the work at Bretby has been carried for decades on British Coal's profit and loss account. Contrast this with the US, where the private sector coal industry has virtually had a cheap ride, as this type of research is provided for it by the US Bureau of Mines, which is a government agency. It has just announced a new programme, which includes such topics as environmental research designed to clean up mine waste and health and safety research focused on developing accident prevention technologies and processes which significantly reduce mineworkers' risks.
The second unit is the coal research establishment at Cheltenham. This is regarded as a world centre of excellence in its activities on coal utilisation and more recently on clean coal technology. Its help and advice is currently being sought in 17 countries, including China and the Ukraine. Clean coal technology is the key to the future of the coal industry, as it will markedly improve the efficiency of coal power generation and will greatly improve the environmental characteristics of coal burning. Although coal burn is declining in western Europe, worldwide it continues to expand and currently stands at 3.5 billion tonnes per annum, of which the UK now contributes only a meagre 70 million tonnes. If the greenhouse effect is eventually proved to exist, UK coal burn will account for less than 0.5 per cent. of the resources and the whole European Union for only 2.5 per cent. China, on the other hand, now burns a billion tonnes of coal per annum and plans to raise consumption by the end of the decade to 1.5 billion. There is no hope of persuading the Chinese to use gas or nuclear energy as an alternative on any significant scale. Thus, CO2 emissions worldwide will continue to grow unless clean coal technologies are quickly introduced, particularly in those developing countries such as China and India. However, the technologies will have to be developed and proven in the West.
In another place the Government have claimed that they have already established a firm foundation for coal research in the UK. They have increased funding from £3 million to £7 million a year until 1995–96. But even that will be less than 5 per cent. of the cost of nuclear
580
research in this country. I doubt whether the nuclear industry has a happier future than the coal industry. The Government are also establishing the almost mandatory advisory committee. These I believe rather cynically tend to be a recipe for inaction. The Government also expressed every confidence that the privatised coal companies will be able to find the most appropriate mechanisms for co-ordinating their activities where there is benefit to be derived from doing so. All experience points to this being a highly optimistic assumption.
Compare all this with Japan, which relies primarily on imported coal but is spending 50 times as much on clean coal technology as the UK. The US provides an even more dramatic contrast. Since the US Department of Energy announced its clean coal programme in 1990 there have been five rounds of clean coal projects funded by it, which in toto have received 7 billion dollars in federal funding. The basic formula for these projects has been a 50–50 cost-sharing between the US Government and the private sector participants. In practice, government funding has amounted to about 40 per cent. on average. Most of the companies participating have been power utilities, construction companies and equipment manufacturers, with the coal companies playing a relatively minor role.
Clearly this US programme is much more than one could reasonably expect from the UK alone. But, recognising the international importance of this issue, I am disappointed that the European Union and the member governments' energy departments have not worked out a cohesive policy on these lines. This disappointment also extends to the lack of interest shown by comparable European companies in developing clean coal technologies for use both at home and in their growing international involvements. This would obviously be a long-term initiative should it be undertaken. Meanwhile, it underlines the need to sustain and enhance the outstanding role of the Cheltenham establishment.
To sum up, my contribution is more in the nature of a probing amendment focused on how the Government plan to rectify the virtual omission of plans and procedures to deal with the research topics listed in this amendment. I commend Amendment No. 10 to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment so effectively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. I too was personally involved in building the research capability of the National Coal Board, as it was known in my time. On the basis of limited resources, we established a worldwide reputation. As regards Bretby, the mining research establishment, we devised ways in which long-haul mining was totally revolutionised throughout the world. In the case of the Cheltenham coal research establishment, I need hardly remind Members of the Committee old enough to remember: the famous Bronowski briquette was developed there. It was our response to the clean air legislation of the mid-1950s. Ways in which coal could be burned smokelessly and with minimum noxious emissions also gained a worldwide reputation.

581
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, explained that there is a vast amount of work still to be done as regards the development of both mining and coal technology. It seems most unfortunate if, as a result of the Bill, yet another great achievement of the British mining industry in the past 50 years should be threatened, because I cannot see how that capability can be maintained if no reference to it is made in the Bill and if it is left entirely to the new owners. They will have a great deal more on their hands than concerning themselves with long-term research. They will have limited resources to devote to that end and they may not agree among themselves. In fact, that is most unlikely to happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, said, countries which have private mining enterprise, nevertheless have a system for maintaining, through statutory arrangements, central coal laboratories of one kind or another. They expend vastly more than we have ever done and certainly much more than we are likely to in view of the lack of new arrangements.
I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort in this area, which worries a number of us.
7 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I rise to support the amendment to provide:
"that sufficient investment in research and development is provided to develop and maintain the British coal industry's strength in the fields of clean technology".
I am particularly interested in fluidised bed technology. I was Minister of Power in 1968 and the research establishment at Leatherhead received my first tranche of money in order to begin research into that technology. Indeed, I had to get half a million dollars from the Americans in order that we could start the research into and development of fluidised bed technology.
I remember in particular how difficult it was at the time, but foreign interests were involved right from the outset. With coal technology based on a fluidised bed of coal, we visualised cleaner, more efficient power stations based on coal. That has been a long, painstaking development. Eventually a prototype was built at Grimethorpe, near Barnsley. A number of foreign countries became financially and technologically involved, especially Germany and the United States of America.
I received the impression that the Government's interest appeared to wane as that fluidised bed technology was developing at Grimethorpe. I put down a Written Question in 1988:
"What is the estimated cost of the research and development of the fluidised bed combustion technology by the British Government and each of the foreign contributors to this development".
The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, replied:
"Department expenditure for British Coal's participation in the pressurised fluidised bed combustion work at Grimethorpe under International Energy Agency auspices amounted to £17 million during the period of 1976 to 1984. The National Coal Board contributed £3 million. The Governments of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany each contributed £20 million during this period".—[Official Report, 22/2/88; col. 1042.]
582
It did not appear that the necessary finance was forthcoming from the British Government.
I notice that the Select Committee on energy deplored the fact that the United Kingdom was giving away the development of pressurised fluidised bed technology. The Coal Research Establishment was described by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology as a world centre of excellence. Indeed, POST feels that it would be a tragedy for the nation if the technology developed at that establishment were lost to overseas research and development establishments which, while recognising its worldwide potential, are putting huge sums of money into its development, especially the Germans, Americans and now the Japanese.
Perhaps I may ask, following from the developments in relation to fluidised bed technology, what is happening about British Coal's Topping cycle clean coal technology, which is a development from the fluidised bed work. Is not the coal task force, set up by the Department of Energy to deal with the future of coal research, concerned that we may be slipping behind our overseas competitors as regards clean coal technology and the further development of fluidised bed technology?
In The Times on Wednesday, 13th January, there was an article which had the headline:
"Britain gets another chance to embrace clean coal technology".
The article went on to say:
"A Swedish manufacturer has achieved commercial success with an idea for clean coal technology that was developed, but then abandoned, by British Coal. If British Coal is to have a long-term future, the use of such a technology to supply Britain's power needs is critical.
The technology has suffered from a lack of interest and piecemeal funding. ABB Carbon, a Swedish company owned by Asea Brown Boveri, of Switzerland, has three plants running, in Sweden, America and Spain, and further orders from Japan and the Czech Republic. It is now looking for partners to sell its pressurised fluidised bed combined-cycle technology back to British electricity generators".
We do not have one working power station. It appears that that is a sad reflection on our own initial efforts and I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance along the lines of the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the Government to underwrite the future of the Coal Research Establishment and the Technical Services and Research Executive and other industry research bodies. We put forward the amendment because, so far as I can see, there is absolutely no direct mention of R&D in the course of the Coal Industry Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would cause his officials to press buttons all over their computers and bring forward a list of the occasions that I have overlooked. If he can find one or two such occasions, my point will remain about that vitally important subject. If we are to have a viable and economic coal industry in this country, developed in this country—and not just run down in this country—as the Bill requires, R&D is absolutely essential. No commercial company cuts R&D unless it is on the very edge of bankruptcy because it is the shortest way to receivership.

583
We are concerned that as British Coal disappears, so will the Coal Research Establishment at Cheltenham and the TSRE, currently located at Bretby. Private owners, successor companies, whose major motive is profit—and rightly so—will simply not have the capital or the rates of return to make the kind of commitment which is vital to proper R&D.
What is more, in competitor countries it is accepted that the state must underwrite R&D in its coal industries due to the fact that the market simply does not provide. That shows that it regards it as necessary and is prepared to devote resources to it. For example, in Australia, which is no mean exporter of coal, especially to this country, 150 per cent. tax rebates are offered for R&D. In the United States, 700 million dollars per year from Federal Government are spent on R&D. In South Africa, very much in our thoughts today, there is a levy on coal production for safety-related research. In comparison, UK clean coal R&D funding over the next two years will be just £33 million, of which only £6 million will come from government. Now, British Coal has an excellent record in coal R&D both in the area of coal utilisation and coal mining technology and in mining safety—second to none. Coal utilisation R&D has grown in importance as preoccupations with the impact of fossil fuel use on the environment have grown in public estimation over the past 20 to 25 years.
British Coal's research establishment in Cheltenham has centred on three main aspects of coal R&D: fuel efficiency —how to get more usable energy while burning less coal; emissions reduction—how to burn coal more cleanly at higher efficiency in order to eliminate wherever possible acid rain emissions and reduce the emission of global-warming carbon dioxide; and the fuel handling and waste disposal aspects of coal use. That area of research covers fuel storage and dust emissions control as well as the environmentally acceptable methods of ash and other waste product disposal. Its record again is second to none. Other countries come to it, send people to it to learn what we have discovered.
Coal mining R&D has been carried out at BC's technical support research establishment at Bretby in Staffordshire, and this work has centred largely on improving coal mining efficiency and safety, for the most part by the development of automated long haul mining systems, and we all know how successful they have been.
The TSRE has undoubtedly contributed to international improvements in mining safety while at the same time helping BC massively to reduce costs and improve extraction efficiency through its new mining technology developments. Why throw this away? We are in the lead. Let us stay there. We are not talking about vast amounts of money. There are all manner of ways—we can go into them at a later stage if the Minister wishes us to—in which this small amount of money could be found. What I beg him to do is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, not to get rid of R&D as a cheap means of effecting quick savings; not to refuse to saddle successor companies with some responsibility for this. It is an urgent and vital matter.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Haslam, but to ensure R&D expenditure in the coal industry it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to R&D development. Most of the R&D in this country is carried out by private companies. About half the total expenditure on R&D in the UK is provided by government (about £3.5 billion) and the rest is provided by industry. The pharmaceutical industry is probably the most technologically advanced industry in this country. Most of its R&D comes from investment within the industry itself.
Surely it does not follow that because we have not written into the Bill that it is the responsibility of the Coal Authority to carry out R&D it will not happen. To make sure that R&D is carried out within the industry, it is much more important to ensure that the Government transfer the industry to companies which are, as my noble friend Lord Haslam said when introducing the first amendment, top quality companies which will be able to take a large part of the industry and run it as a major world industry, as was said on Second Reading. R&D investment by the companies involved will have much more to do with the quality of the companies that will run the industry than with the Government deciding now that they will make a contribution.
The other point is that the Government already invest about £3.5 billion a year in R&D development throughout industry. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to £6 million. That is peanuts as compared with the total amount of money now spent by government on R&D developments across the whole range of manufacturing. It is essential that government see the. importance of coal technology in the development of the whole of their R&D investment, which I am sure will continue. No doubt my noble friend will be able to give assurances on that point. R&D in such sectors is already something that the Government support and encourage.
I say with great trepidation that I disagree with some of the proposals contained in the Bill, but at the same time I believe that, once an industry is transferred into the private sector—which is what the Bill is about—it should be treated like any other part of the private sector. We have not passed a resolution in this place which says that we should provide R&D for agriculture, the pharmaceutical industry or the engineering industry. Companies in those sectors make large contributions to R&D. The Government also make large contributions to R&D development in those sectors. I am sure that once the Bill has been passed the same will happen here.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: The Government recognise fully the importance to the UK coal industry of ensuring that full advantage is taken of advances in coal research and mining technology. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, mentioned the important issue of fluidised bed technology which is now commercially available. It must be primarily for the industry to decide what research will need to develop, where appropriate,

585
in partnership with the Government through bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Coal Research and the programme conducted by the European Commission.
The Government have already established a firm foundation for coal research in the UK by, first, increasing government funding, as my noble friend Lord Haslam said, from under £3 million to £7 million a year up to 1995–96. In fact, in the year 1993–94, funding amounted to £7.8 million, more than 10 per cent. up even on what we stated in the coal review White Paper. Our Advisory Committee on Coal Research will be undertaking a review of the programme and future funding requirements in 1995; industry will be involved fully in that process through its membership of the committee.
We have also established a new advisory committee on coal research to replace the Coal Task Force to advise on UK coal research needs across the board. UK industry and universities are playing a leading part in the work of that new committee. We have also established collaborative research links between UK industry and universities and other EC countries and the US.
Like my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton, we do not believe that there is a need for the authority to take on a role of co-ordination, which is already being fulfilled adequately. The Department of Trade and Industry's coal research and development programme is increasing and is contributing to some 115 projects with a total value of over £170 million. The department's contribution amounts to some £35 million over the life of the project and is instrumental in enabling it to attract the necessary external funds to go ahead.
Since the coal review White Paper, we have initiated over 60 coal research projects, covering coal utilisation and mining issues. Many more are at the planning stage, involving the CRE as well as UK industry, universities and overseas agencies. We intend to publish later this year a detailed strategy paper setting out our future plans for coal research and describing the work under way in the present programme.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned the Coal Research Establishment. The future of the CRE is a matter for British Coal, which I understand has taken no decisions on its future. However, the Government believe that the best way of widening the opportunities available for the CRE in the world market is for it to become an independent organisation. The increased support the Government are offering over the next two years will ensure that the CRE's senior management has sufficient time to develop further the CRE's business and attract funds from elsewhere. I might mention in particular that the CRE is already being highly successful in obtaining overseas business, and some 26 contracts worth over £1.5 million are now under way. Only last week a major new contract was announced for technical assistance to the Ukraine.
Turning to the important issue of health and safety research and development, which again was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the Health and Safety Commission's report on the post-privatisation safety regime pointed out its executive's work in this
586
important area and noted that the commission will continue to encourage health and safety related research by British Coal's successors. However, the commission was very clear that it must be for the new employers to decide what research is required to meet their obligations under health and safety law.
Nevertheless, the commission highlighted the expertise in certain areas that is contained in British Coal's Technical Service Research Executive relevant to the issue of health and safety, and drew attention to the desirability that that expertise should continue to be available after privatisation. In the light of that advice the Minister for Energy announced in another place on 21st March that the Government have approved expenditure of £2.1 million between 1995 and 1998 to ensure the completion of British Coal's current health and safety research and development programme. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a major commitment which will ensure that the expertise necessary to carry out important health and safety research will continue to be available to the new owners for a considerable period after privatisation.
The Coal Authority is intended to be a non-interventionist body and should not support research and development work which is more appropriately co-ordinated by the industry itself. We have every confidence that future coal companies will be able to find the most appropriate mechanism for co-ordinating their activities where there is benefit in doing so.
In the light of those assurances and that explanation, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Lord sits down will he say a little more about the review? I understood him to say that there will be a review. For example, is it to relate only to the coal industry? After all, we are debating the coal industry tonight. Is he talking about research and development across the whole range of industry, including the public sector? It would be very helpful if he could clarify that point. Finally, can he say when the review is likely to start and when it is likely to finish, in broad terms?
Viscount Goschen: To clarify the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, the strategy paper that I mentioned was intended to set out our future plans for coal research specifically. It will describe the work under way in the present programme. I believe that the strategy paper will be published later this year, but I am afraid that I cannot be more specific about the noble Lord's inquiry tonight.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Before the noble Viscount sits down again, could I ask him whether he can help me? I may have overlooked something. He mentioned in his reply that universities are involved in coal R&D. I would be most obliged if he could let me know which universities and to what extent. I do not expect him to do this necessarily off the top of his head standing at the Dispatch Box, but it is a genuine inquiry. So many departments of mining and mining research have been closed down in British universities over the

587
past. 15 to 20 years that I should be very interested to know who is left and what they are doing. If the noble Viscount could write to me I should be most grateful.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, is right that I cannot answer him specifically without notice of that question. I shall, of course, find the information that he requires and write to him on the point.
Lord Haslam: This is my maiden amendment so I am not too sure about the etiquette for dealing with the situation.
I believe that in any industry, whether it is manufacturing or extracting, there are three basic elements. There are production, selling and research and development. The Bill does not refer at all to research and development: that does not give it credibility. It is important that something is incorporated in the Bill in that regard.
The other point that has come home to me today on a broader front is the fact that, if we were dealing here with a unitary privatisation, it would be very much easier to accept what some Ministers are saying. If at the end of the day the industry is fragmented, as I said at Second Reading, that will be very destructive. Every mine that gets into trouble will do three things: first, it will stop development; secondly, it will stop investing in safety, which is very important; and, thirdly, it will stop investing or collaborating in any kind of research. Therefore the situation is very different if the industry is fragmented as opposed to a unitary privatisation. We must remember that at all times.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert:

("( ) that energy efficiency and fuel cost savings are promoted in both the domestic and industrial coal market sectors.").

The noble Lord said: This is a substantive amendment intended to ensure that the coal industry as a whole retains its responsibilities in the areas of environmental improvement, energy efficiency and customer support.
I may say, without fear of successful contradiction, that when this amendment was originally suggested to us it was a great deal more emphatic and a great deal more extensive than it now is. People were quite cross. In its original form it adjured the Secretary of State to require the coal industry to promote energy efficiency and fuel cost savings in the domestic and industrial fuel market sectors, to encourage best environmental practice in the design and operation of solid fuel domestic appliances and industrial boilers, and to administer a levy raised on all customers of less than 5,000 tonnes per site per annum outside the electricity and steel sectors for the purpose of achieving the above objectives, the size of the levy to be determined by the Secretary of State on an annual basis. We thought that that was coming on a bit heavy.
We have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment to stress the vital importance of energy efficiency. I attack Her Majesty's Government, I am afraid, in that I do not believe that over the past four or five years they have given the high priority to energy efficiency which they might have done. I shall be grateful if the Minister will refute that in his strongest way. I should be quite pleased to have it refuted, but I am not convinced at the moment that it has been a very high priority, or a successful one, for Her Majesty's Government.
British Coal presently provides a range of customer support services which over the years have resulted in higher fuel efficiency and improved design, both in plant and equipment, and in better environmental performance. With the passing —the burial—of British Coal, there is again no indication from the Bill that these essential functions will be retained. I would have been a much happier noble Lord tonight had I found on the face of the Bill that the Government were concerned to do something about retaining British Coal's achievements in energy efficiency. Without such a service there is every likelihood that coal will sustain further contraction in the domestic and industrial markets, losing out to other fuels which benefit from energy saving trust incentives to customers to invest in new and refurbished equipment which saves energy and reduces running costs.
The energy saving trust for coal would assist in—I shall not use the tired cliché "levelling the playing field", let us say evening up the odds, balancing the seesaw or putting things a bit more on a flat level—allowing coal to compete with other fuels on a fair basis while making an important contribution to increased energy efficiency and sustainable development.
Would the Government consider, say, a modest levy of 1 or 2 per cent. of the cost of each tonne of coal sold into the domestic industrial market? That could generate sufficient revenue to ensure that a major service to both consumer and the environment would be provided; and, if not why not? Such a scheme would be aimed at the small and medium end user and individual households where a shortage of capital to invest in energy efficient methods of energy use may well hinder investment in energy saving. The cost to the customer would be more than offset by energy savings and the potential for reduced fuel costs, given the steady reduction of coal production costs, and such a service would benefit the more elderly beneficiaries of the concessionary fuel scheme who, given the cost base rather than the tonnage base nature of the scheme, face very real fuel hardship when required to convert to higher cost smokeless fuel.
I am suggesting only one possible way of increasing energy efficiency. I shall be quite happy if the Minister could produce a few more. I offer it only as an example. Our amendment seeks to persuade the Government of the general desirability of and the high priority which should be given to improving energy efficiency in the Bill. In that spirit, I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment. In doing so, I remind the Minister that such a clause has been inserted in both the Gas Act and the Electricity Act. When they were being debated in this House a great deal of attention was attached to those clauses. I believe that the Bill would be much weaker if no reference were made to energy efficiency. The Government have recently shown their commitment to the Rio proposals. They have brought out a number of documents which have stated in terms how this country will be able to reduce its CO*2 emissions and to increase its fuel efficiency. A figure of something like 20 per cent. has been mentioned as fuel savings that can be made.
Over the years the coal industry has contributed substantially to savings in its sector. Had the industry been privatised in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, and myself preferred—that is, on a unitary basis, in order to enable it to compete more effectively against other fuels—I would not have pressed so strongly for the amendment. However, in view of the way in which the industry is now being privatised, with a number of individually operated mines, and five groups of mines if buyers for them can be found, I fear that the impetus towards energy efficiency which had been developed under the National Coal Board and British Coal successively could diminish.
There is an extremely strong case for introducing the amendment to the clause setting up the duty of the Coal Authority. I hope that the noble Lord is convinced that we should not leave the coal Bill without that obligation, whereas we have it in both the Gas Act and the Electricity Act.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may briefly reply. The amendment would give the Coal Authority a duty in carrying out its licensing functions in relation to the promotion of energy efficiency and fuel cost savings in the domestic and industrial coal market sectors. Important though energy efficiency and fuel cost savings are, they are not matters in which it would be appropriate for the authority to have a role. That is what we are dealing with. I believe that it is vital to the success of the Coal Authority and therefore relevant to the future success of the coal mining industry in this country that the Coal Authority is focused on functions directly linked to coal mining.
I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did not come forward with his initial amendment and that he saw at least some sense in coming forward with an amendment which makes some sense although I do not agree with it.
I do not agree also that there is any doubt about the Government's commitment to energy efficiency. Unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, picked the wrong Minister with whom to have an argument about energy efficiency. Immediately after the election I became Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency when the Energy Efficiency Office came over from the Department of Energy to the Department of the Environment. I was delighted to launch a variety of campaigns. "Helping the earth begins at home" was a memorable campaign, I hope
590
firmly implanted in the Opposition's mind. "Making a corporate commitment" campaign was very important. I have lost count of the number of receptions that I have attended hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, dealing with the question of energy efficiency. I am delighted to tell the Committee that the annual budget of the Energy Efficiency Office is currently more than £100 million. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned our commitment vis-à-vis the Rio conference and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked: why not a levy? It will not have escaped his notice that recently the gas regulator said that there should not be a levy for the gas industry. Obviously Government will have to have another look at that. But I am not convinced that a levy approach is the right one for the coal industry. Increasingly consumers are well aware of the advantages of energy efficiency. They are making informed decisions on the best advice available on what kind of industry is most energy efficient. It will be up to the sellers of coal, the domestic market, and to the commercial market to demonstrate just how efficient coal can be when compared with its competitors.
No doubt the noble Lord sees an analogy between the Coal Authority and the utility regulators such as Offer who have roles in relation to energy efficiency. But it is important to recognise that the utility regulators have a direct relationship with and responsibility to consumers which the Coal Authority will not. That is not an invitation to the noble Lord to put forward an amendment to that effect when we reach Report stage.
I hope that I have demonstrated, first, that the Government have a clear commitment to energy efficiency; secondly, we do not believe it is necessary to put those words in the Bill; and, thirdly, why the Coal Authority is different from the regulators of the other power utilities.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am delighted that he has enjoyed the receptions to which he went. I was very interested in energy efficiency in the days before it was transferred with the rump of the Department of Energy into the bowels of the DTI. It was not at the very highest point of the then Minister's list of priorities. I am delighted that the noble Lord facing me across the Dispatch Box is so well informed and so deeply personally concerned in matters of energy efficiency. I leave with him the question to which I invite him to come back with an answer at a later stage: if not the Coal Authority, as the prime mover in energy efficiency, then who? Leaving that question in the air before we go for our dinner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.
Lord Hylton: Is not the noble Lord cutting five minutes off this one-hour limited debate?
Viscount Goschen: No, because I said "not before".
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Turkey: Kurdish Minority
7.39 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is now their policy on the Kurdish minority in Turkey.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, six months ago we had a debate about the situation of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. It was thought appropriate that we should return to the subject today in the light of the considerable deterioration of the human rights situation in the region, as evidenced by many witnesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I spent nine days there recently. We also had the opportunity of discussing the situation with the Turkish ambassador, with senior officials in the Foreign Office to whom we are most grateful, with experts from SOAS and Chatham House and with many individual Kurds.
There is no time to review the findings of our mission in detail this evening, but we have sent the Minister a preliminary and incomplete draft of our forthcoming report which I hope will be helpful. I simply wish to list the headlines in the short time available.
We spent seven days travelling around the region, closely escorted by armed security men who said they were there for our protection. In fact, they were there to make notes of everything that was said to us and in some cases even to video the witnesses who came to speak to us. So one can imagine that very few people wanted to take the risk of having their words put down by the security forces and used against them later. The security forces also prevented us from going into villages or travelling off the main roads; in short, they frightened off people who wanted to tell us about what life was like under an occupation force.
The Turks pretend that they are dealing with a few terrorists. But they have at least a quarter of a million men under arms in the region and some estimates show the number as high as 500,000. It was stated semi-officially in March that an extra 150,000 men had been deployed for an operation that was due to continue until June on the authority of a committee made up in part of senior security personnel. The armed forces of the Turkish state deployed jet bombers, artillery, helicopter gunships, tanks and armoured cars. They have road blocks every few kilometres where they stop vehicles, check passengers' identity and sometimes minutely search their luggage, as happened to us on one occasion.
What the Serbs have done to Gorazde, the Turks have done to many Kurdish towns and villages. Among the towns that have been bombarded by artillery and tanks are, Sirnak, Cizre, Kulp, Altinova, Yuksekova, Silvan and Cukurca. Estimates of the number of villages destroyed and evacuated range from 874, according to the Turkish Daily News, up to 1,800. There is abundant eyewitness testimony to the killing of civilians and the devastation of houses and businesses.
The conflict between the armed forces and the Kurdish rebels of the PKK is subject to common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits attacks on civilians and extra-judicial killings and obliges the combatants to care for each others' sick and wounded. It also allows the Red Cross to offer its services to the parties to the conflict, and the ICRC has repeatedly done so since 1983. The president of the ICRC tried yet again when he met President Demirel on 27th January but was rebuffed. Cannot the European Union try to persuade the Turkish authorities to accept the services of the ICRC? That would have no implication for the status of the parties to the conflict but could help to alleviate the mass of civilian suffering.
It seems anomalous to me that in every other conflict in the CSCE region the parties are ready to accept help from the international community to stop the fighting and to arrive at political solutions but in this war the Turks are determined to reach a purely military solution. There are no UN observers, no CSCE mediators, no NATO planes watching the fighting, not a squeak of protest from the European Union. Yet the Turkish authorities are engaged in a major operation of demographic engineering, rivalling the ethnic cleansing which has aroused so much condemnation in Bosnia. Hundreds of thousands of non-combatants have been forcibly uprooted from their homes, ending up as internal refugees in the West or as shanty town dwellers on the outskirts of the capital of the region, Diyarbakir. Surely this demands the attention of the CSCE, which has the power to intervene if enough member states want to act.
The Turkish authorities maintain that they use military power only to counter the attacks of the PKK which they call terrorism. We condemn the attacks on civilians by the PKK and we have called on it, as we do on the Turkish state, to observe the laws of war. But we have to point out that, with few exceptions, the PKK's operations are against the Turkish military and their auxiliaries, the village guards, whereas nearly all the operations conducted by the Turkish armed forces are against non-combatants. The disparity between the military forces employed on both sides is enormous.
The open attacks on the civilian population of the Kurdish region have been accompanied by a striking increase in the rate of disappearances, according to Amnesty International. I have heard from Ankara of two more cases in the past few days. Mr. Serif Avsar was abducted at gunpoint from a shop in Diyarbakir at 11.30 on 22nd April by seven armed men and taken to police headquarters. Yet the authorities denied that he was ever detained. Mr. Hasan Demir, a 28 year-old lawyer, disappeared on Tuesday last week after being taken to the notorious Gayrettepe political police headquarters in Istanbul. There are many similar cases where the victims are known to have been in custody and yet later are found dead. I hope that as a result of mentioning those two cases this evening some action may be taken to find out what their fate is and perhaps even to save their lives. Many others have been shot or knifed in broad daylight on the streets, including one MP, Mr. Mehmet Sincar.
Kurdish opponents of the state who are taken into custody and who survive are almost invariably tortured, according to the US State Department's country reports on human rights. Turkey has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to have been reported on by the UN Committee against Torture under Article 20 of the convention, and in his latest report the UN rapporteur on torture, Dr. Nigel Rodley, devotes more space to Turkey than any other country in the world. A person detained under the anti-terror law or detained in the emergency region for offences that are dealt with before the state security courts can spend up to 30 days in custody before appearing before the court. That gives the police carte blanche to do what they like. There is almost total impunity for any act of violence, including murder, committed against detainees.
Among the victims of the death squads have been eight journalists from the pro-Kurdish newspaper 2zgur Gündem. Fifty-three journalists from the same paper have been detained and subjected to varying degrees of ill-treatment and torture. The chief editor, Ms. Gurbetelli Ersoz, was arrested on 10th December and has been in custody since then, and now the paper has been closed down. The Writers in Prison Committee lists 200 cases of persecuted writers and journalists between August 1993 and January 1994 and, again, in that report, Turkey has by far the largest entry of any country in the world.
The pro-Kurdish Democracy Party has borne the brunt of sustained attacks. Those attacks forced it to withdraw from the local elections and it is about to be closed down, as its predecessor was. By using physical and legal violence against the party, the Government have sent a signal to the Kurds that political solutions to their grievances are not available. When the PKK offered a ceasefire in March and said that it was ready to discuss federalism or other constitutional settlements falling short of total independence, its initiative was dismissed out of hand, again emphasising to the Kurdish people that unconditional surrender is their only option.
In the name of humanity, to end a devastating conflict which is bringing Turkey to its knees economically and which has given a boost to fundamentalists who may be poised to end Turkey's era of secularism, Britain and the European Union must take initiatives to stop the violence and persuade Turkey to listen to the voices of the Kurds.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps I may open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate, which he generally seems to do every quarter. It is almost becoming a regular quarterly debate. He did not make much of the point and therefore I wish to ask the Minister whether she is able to report to us the situation of the six Kurdish Members of Parliament in Turkey who seem still to be in gaol. What is their situation and are they able to have access to lawyers and to Amnesty International, in order that their cases may be heard in a civilised way?
Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, addresses this House on the matter of the PKK, you are left with
594
the impression that they are all saints and the Turks are all sinners. Most of us know that there are very few organisations in which that is absolutely true. Therefore I should like to place on record, with the Minister present, in the hope that she might pass it on to the Turkish Government, my delight from the viewpoint of the Iraqi Kurds at the fact that the electricity in Darhuk, which Saddam Hussein had turned off, is now working. Indeed, perhaps I may pay a personal tribute to Mr. Jalal Talabani, who negotiated that particular piece of work, and congratulate him on that achievement, and on yet another feather in his cap in putting Saddam Hussein in his place.
While I have the Minister's attention perhaps I might also mention the distress that we all felt at the terrible tragedy of the helicopters being shot down. Could she convey that feeling to those British families who are involved? When I last went to Iraqi Kurdistan, I had the privilege of meeting the lieutenant-colonel and the major and of being told of the work that they were doing. It is worth reminding the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the politest possible way, that those planes are stationed in Turkey and fly over and protect Kurds in Iraq. It is because of the goodwill of the Turkish Government that we are able every six months to renew the contract and allow that work to continue.
I also remind the Minister that the plight of the Kurds is no different today from what it was six months ago, a year ago or two years ago. Arbil is a mere 20 minutes from the border; and Sulaymaniyah is a mere 10 minutes from the border. When I say 10 minutes, I mean 10 minutes in one of Saddam Hussein's tanks. Saddam Hussein can come over whenever he likes and flatten that city in a matter of moments.
One of the most frightening sights that I have ever seen in my life was that of packed bags in corridors while people waited in the fear that they would have to go to the hills. I hope that when the Minister replies she will remember the Kurds in Iraq as well as the Kurds in Turkey.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My recent visit to Turkey with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, left me with the profound impression that the Kurdish question can only be solved by political, and not military, means; by dialogue and not by bloodshed. I hope that all Members of this House will take the opportunity to read the report that we are to produce with a great deal of care.
No one can deny that the Turkish Government face a serious problem of political violence in the south-east province, and no one could give support to terrorist action. But the solution will not be achieved by widespread and systematic human rights violations. It will not be achieved by a repression of civil liberties or by the suppression of free speech, using the law to silence dissent by parliamentarians, journalists, writers, trade unionists and academics, or by the many hundreds of ordinary people who have been caught in the crossfire. I refer particularly to those in the Kurdish

595
villages, where their crops and houses have been destroyed and who have in their thousands been driven from their homes by cruel and barbaric actions.
Nor is the solution to be found in an intensification of military or police activity against the civilian population, who have been imprisoned, tortured and killed, or who have disappeared for expressing non-violent opinions. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Amnesty International, alarmed by the sharp increase in the number of disappearances, fears that unless decisive action is taken now, the practice of "disappearance" will become an established tool of intimidation and elimination.
Other aspects of concerted action by the state have been the physical and legal assault on the Democracy Party, that effectively caused its demise a month before the local elections—an assault based on the belief that DEP is the political arm of the PKK, even though no such charge has been laid before the constitutional court —and the removal of the immunities of the six DEP deputies under Article 125 of the Penal Code, which carries with it the death penalty. Only one of the deputies has been charged with having links with the PKK. The others have been charged on the basis of speeches that they have made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Archer, I hope that the Minister can indicate their current position.
It is for that reason, and the possible threat to the very essence of democracy, that those actions have been criticised by both the Assembly of the Council of Europe and the IPU's Committee on the Rights of Parliamentarians.
Not only were the recent local elections affected by the removal of the one political party that could speak on behalf of the Kurds, but there were also substantial amendments to election law which severely restricted the democratic rights of many among the Kurdish population from the villages, who had been forcibly displaced and as a consequence lost their residential qualification to vote—a qualification that was waived for officers and police, who, together with increased administrative personnel from other parts of Turkey, had a real effect on the outcome of the elections.
In conclusion, I ask your Lordships' House to take note of the final recommendations of the resolution that was carried by the Council of Europe which called on the Turkish authorities,
"to take initiatives for a peaceful and political solution to 'the Kurdish question' within its frontiers, including the repeal of all legislation which makes normal political discourse and free speech about specific changes in the Constitution … a treasonable offence".
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is that I am a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which, nearly two weeks ago, debated the issue of the six MPs who had been imprisoned. I thought that it was a very well balanced debate, with clear, though conflicting, contributions from both sides of the argument. The decision that was ultimately reached was that Turkey, as a member of the Council of Europe, had signed up to the Convention on Human Rights; that
596
proper procedures exist through the Commission and the Court of Human Rights; and that it was not therefore for the Parliamentary Assembly to interfere. That is the point in today's debate. Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and is committed to its obligations in that institution, and indeed in the other international institutions to which it belongs, including the United Nations.
I have not myself been to Turkey recently, nor am a great expert on Turkey or on the Kurdish plight, as are other speakers in this debate. In particular, I refer to my noble friend Lord Archer. But I wish it to be recognised that there are many Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin who have lived long and peaceful lives in Turkey and who have contributed to a full, and in some cases public, life there.
It should also be remembered—it is a fact that I came across unexpectedly two years ago—that as long ago as 1492, when the Jews were expelled from Spain as a result of the Spanish Inquisition, the only place to offer them a safe haven was Constantinople. To this day, there is a strong community of Sephardic Jews living in Turkey. Similarly, as I understand it, Turkey provided a safe haven for Kurds who were escaping from Saddam Hussein during and after the Iraqi war. Therefore I hope that there is—I feel sure that there must be—a sensible explanation of, or answer to, the issues that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this evening, and that we shall hear that explanation from my noble friend the Minister when she winds up.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to protest about the limitations on this debate, which has arisen from strong concerns on all sides of the House. Because of those limitations, I shall confine myself to putting questions to Her Majesty's Government of which I have given notice. I am sure that the noble Baroness, with her usual courtesy, will manage to reply to them all.
To avoid over-dependence on Turkish facilities at Incirlik air base which are essential for the protection of northern Iraq, as the noble Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned, will the Government examine the possibility of alternative bases; for example, in Cyprus? Will the Government insist that Turkey complies fully with its obligations under the CSCE? I ask the noble Baroness whether Turkey has signed and ratified all the security and co-operation agreements? Is not Turkey already in violation by stationing troops in Northern Cyprus and by recognising that breakaway republic? If so, what action is envisaged to secure compliance?
There is a further point concerning the so-called "trickle down supplies" to both Turkey and Greece under the European disarmament agreements. Has Germany recently refused to make further transfers to Turkey, and if so, why? Will the Government urge NATO to reconsider these dangerous and destabilising supplies, some of which appear to be used in the armed conflict in south east Turkey? In particular, will the Government insist on the full application of the CSCE guidelines dated 23rd November 1993?
It is well known that that conflict was started and has been continued by the PKK. I ask the Government what

597
is their present assessment of that organisation, which has certainly conducted some indefensible terrorism, such as murdering school teachers and other non-combatants? How do they evaluate the ceasefire of March 1993, which in fact lasted nearly three months and the ceasefire offers of March 1994, which, alas, the Turkish Government rejected out of hand?
Do the Government consider that the PKK has evolved in its thinking and have our Government studied the remarkable interview given by Mr. Ocalan on 27th March 1993? Do they believe in offers by a PKK representative to abide by common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions? Those offers were in fact made to me in London in response to questions that I put forward. Do the Government believe that the PKK is sincere when it says that it does not wish to divide Turkey and would be content to accept recognition of Kurdish identity, accompanied by devolution, Kurdish language and education, and full access to the media?
Those are important questions. If the answers are positive, I trust that our Government will use their good offices to achieve a cease-fire and real negotiation for the resolution of a savage conflict, which requires above all problem-solving approaches by all concerned.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is debates such as this that make me realise just how fortunate we are in this country. We are the main nation in a small archipelago at a short distance from the mainland. We have had a thousand years to develop the democratic institutions that we all accept today as the proper way for a nation to govern its affairs. Civil war and rebellion are at a sufficient historical distance to cause little concern. Our neighbours across the Channel are peaceable and intent on co-operation and development. Yet, even with all those advantages, we have across our one relatively short land frontier strife which we have great difficulty in resolving, although the principles of a solution are at least now clear and agreed.
Let us consider Turkey. It is an ancient nation at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. It is a nation that has only been developing its democratic institutions for 50 years. It is a nation which has facing it just across a long land frontier some of the most tendentious countries in the world: Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is a nation that bordered the USSR when that empire was most inclined to export rebellion. It is a nation that has feuded with its final neighbour, Greece, from time immemorial.
With that background and above all because Turkey needs the recognition and assistance of the developed world, is it likely that Turkey would gratuitously offend all the standards by which the developed world lives and works? It is in that context that we need to consider the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Given its location, Turkey is inevitably a multicultural society with significant minorities from many races within its community. The Kurds are probably the largest identifiable minority group. They are dispersed throughout the land and a significant number are already Members of the Turkish parliament. We have heard about some of them in particular tonight. Already the
598
future of Turkey and the future of the Kurds are inextricably intertwined. In those circumstances it seems to me tragic that there is a Kurdish equivalent of the IRA. It should be offered similar terms to the IRA. Surely that is the principle that should guide our policy in relation to the Kurds. We, with a mote in our own eye, can hardly pull one out of the eye of others.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I listened with great surprise to the sincere speech of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was of the most one-sided speeches that I have heard. The noble Lord could hardly bring himself to condemn the PKK, although he knows its stated terrorist aims and the murders and assassinations that it has committed over the past years.
Turkey is not anti-Kurdish. In my 10 years in the Council of Europe I have met over 200 Turkish Members of Parliament. In the present parliament there are some 100 Kurdish MPs, who are not just from the democratic party but from all over. They include ministers in the present and previous governments. Nobody can say that the Turkish Government are anti-Kurdish. As my noble friend Lord Archer said, Turkey has given sanctuary to thousands fleeing from Saddam Hussein. I believe that sufficient tribute has not been paid to Turkey for that. The Turks are finding great difficulty in looking after those refugees in their difficult economic circumstances.
Some Turkish MPs have had their immunity removed. Parliamentary immunity differs all over the world. Those MPs are now appearing before the Turkish courts. Like the South African courts, nobody has said that the Turkish courts are politically biased. Over the years nobody has ever said that. From what I have seen of Turkish judges, I have enough confidence to believe that those particular people will get a fair and reasonable trial.
I am quite certain that the Turkish Government would not deny that some of their troops have committed excesses which are too horrible to speak about. But one must realise that they are in a part of Turkey where perhaps their family or friends have been brutally murdered—it has not just been school teachers but many other people. Human nature occasionally does not understand the Geneva Convention. In fact it was not the Turkish Government who started the trouble; it was the PKK. It could stop tomorrow the murders and excesses. Then we would see a change in the attitude of the Turkish Government.
I truly wish that for once more people would try to understand Turkey. It is a staunch ally and a strong member of NATO which offered immense help during the Gulf War and again in Bosnia. One should realise that the Turkish parliamentarians are doing their best to try to bring Turkey further into a democratic state. It is a problem of secularism and fundamentalism; it is the gap between Europe and Asia.
The government in Turkey and their predecessor—and particularly Mrs. Ciller—are doing their best to try to solve the problem. Mrs. Ciller is certainly doing her

599
best, quite rightly, to put pressure on Mr. Denktash to accept the confidence building measures in Cyprus as quickly as possible.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, it is difficult to ask what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Kurdish minority without asking what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Turkey as an independent state. There is no doubt that at some time or other the PKK wanted no less and no more than secession, which would have meant the end of Turkey as an independent state. Turkey consists of people of different origins. It would be the same as asking the British Government to allow the Welsh and the Scots to secede.
One thing is certain. Next to the will, the wish and the aim to survive as a state, the most ardent wish of the Turkish people and their government is to become a member of the European Community. They know full well what they must do. We must therefore assume that if they have not yet aligned everything to our standards, it is because it is not possible and not because they do not want to do so. We are not dealing in Turkey with prime ministers like Saddam Hussein. We are dealing with logical, competent people. We should not assume, therefore, that whatever is wrong is wrong because they want it to be so.
We must judge Turkey by its behaviour in the Korean and the Gulf wars. It stood on the side of the western powers and aspired to link with them. If one selectively wants to look at actions where there is a conflict, one will inevitably find a great deal that is wrong. The Almighty does not always give us an option between good and bad; sometimes the option is between bad, worse and terrible. Because of certain abuses, the picture can be portrayed in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I am sure that the IRA could conceive a similar picture of England when lecturing in New York to the Irish community. It is extremely dangerous to be one-sided.
8.12 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity to spend a short time on this subject. One hopes the issue may be placed firmly in context with the winding-up speech of my noble friend the Minister.
My interest in the subject is driven to some extent by my own experience of being closely involved in the exporting of British manufactured goods to many countries for over 30 years. The cloak of human rights is a multi-coloured one and it is not difficult to choose the wrong colour, resulting in a garish and unhappy combination of conflicting interests. There are those, particularly in these changing times, who do not have our democratic privileges. It is therefore most important that we respect the will of their people and take care that we do not rush in where the angels fear to tread.
The good relationship that exists between this country and Turkey goes back to the establishment of regular diplomatic relations in 1793. Relations between this country and Turkey are close, based as they are on
600
centuries of trading. Britain's visible exports have grown from £224 million in 1983 to £629 million in 1992. Turkey is now Britain's third largest market in the Middle East and north Africa. In 1992 we were seventh in Turkey's list of suppliers and the fifth largest market for Turkish exports, which increased from £185 million in 1983 to £466 million in 1992.
When we consider the work done by British firms in Turkey it represents a very senior involvement in their economy—such companies as Freeman Fox & Partners, who constructed the bridge over the Bosporus, AMEC and British Gas, who undertook the first phase of the conversion of the city of Ankara to natural gas. British firms are also involved in the construction of the Ankara Metro and many water and sewerage projects. Trade between Britain and Turkey has grown to such a size that the Minister for Trade in another place recently opened a British investment office in Ankara to seek out further joint venture and investment opportunities.
Turkey is aware of her human rights problems. As her ambassador stated at a recent meeting,
"I am not interested in presenting Government propaganda and recognise that to do so would simply alienate the attention that their Lordships might pay to the views of the Turkish Government in the future".
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will advise the House as to the progress being made by the Turkish Government on the subject of human rights.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I am happy to say that I shall be able to shorten my speech enormously by virtue of the quality of the speeches from this side of your Lordships' House. I have some sympathy with the Turkish Government in its relations with the PKK, and also a sense of déjà vu when we consider our own problems with the IRA. However, the problem with the PKK is on a considerably different scale to that with the IRA when we consider that there are 9 million Turkish Armenians in Anatolia alone, all of Kurdish origin, busy squabbling among themselves. On top of that problem we impose 150,000 well-armed PKK enthusiasts in the art of terror, assassination and border raids.
Bearing those numbers in mind, it is hardly a problem that we can reasonably discuss in terms of the IRA. It is a much bigger problem for the Turks. As allies of Turkey we should offer our support and not our retribution. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has gone entirely over the top in promoting today's debate. I thank your Lordships for listening, and I am sure everyone will be grateful if I stop talking.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the debate and do not believe for one moment that he has gone "over the top" in deciding to do so. There can be little doubt that the Kurdish people have suffered brutal repression, not only in Turkey but also in Iraq and at certain times in Iran. Some noble Lords taking part in the debate have much more direct experience than I of the problems facing the Kurds, particularly in Turkey. As we heard, some recently visited south-east Turkey

601
and undertook an investigation into their plight. I am grateful to them for bringing those matters to the world's attention.
I shall not explore in any detail what has been said about various instances of repression of the Kurds in Turkey in recent months. Sadly, it is clear that there has been little improvement since the last debate in this House on the subject in November. In summary, in spite of what some noble Lords opposite said—the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Finsberg and the noble Viscount—there is well documented evidence of every kind of human rights abuse in Turkey, ranging from holding people incommunicado for up to a month merely on suspicion of committing political offences; the torturing of suspects; deaths in custody, suggesting that detainees have been murdered; the disappearance of political activists; the burning by the security forces of villages thought to be sympathetic to Kurdish nationalists, on very little evidence; and the intimidation and arrest of journalists investigating those abuses.
One recent outrage was the arrest of the seven Kurdish MPs from the moderate nationalist DEP party, which it is now rumoured is likely to be outlawed. This can only result in driving politically active Kurds into the extremist PKK and lead to further terrorist action, which of course is to be deplored. We on these Benches condemn terrorism on the part of the PKK. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, as a number of noble Lords opposite have mentioned, and aspires to be a member of the European Union—indeed, it applied for full membership as long ago as 1987—it has a responsibility to accept the standards of civilised behaviour in the treatment of minorities which we regard as vitally important. In this case it is a very large minority of 10 million people.
I therefore ask the Minister what actions the Government are taking to try to get the Turkish Government to act more responsibly. Specifically, taking the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a little further, can she comment on the recent decision by the German Government to stop selling arms to Turkey? Can she tell the House whether the Government intend to follow the example of Germany in halting arms sales to Turkey? The Germans believe that the arms have been used against the Kurds in the deteriorating situation in south-east Turkey. Can she indicate what action the UK Government have taken with respect to common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, to which Turkey is a party ? In the debate in November she promised that this would be followed up.
Following what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, can the Minister also say what steps have been taken to deal with the shortcomings in the CSCE; namely, that its provisions are not legally enforceable? Again, she said in November that steps needed to be taken to rectify that. She stated earlier too that Turkey is not a state party to the covenants on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights but that the Government believe that it should be. What have the Government done to put pressure on Turkey to act? Finally, since Turkey is a member of the
602
Council of Europe, as already mentioned, can she tell the House what progress has been made in implementing the Council's decisions at its meetings in October last year, to which she also referred in her response to the debate last November?
While we can all condemn the Turkish Government's treatment of the Kurds, we need to do rather more than condemn. We need, within the appropriate international organisations, to take action to try to secure an improvement in the situation. I agree strongly with my noble friend Lady Gould that the solution must be a political one and that it cannot be secured by armed repression and intimidation within Turkey. We owe it to the Kurds to support them in their struggle to be allowed to maintain their unique culture and to be allowed some autonomy in how they run their affairs.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I want to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for sharing their experiences and their views as a result of their visit to south-east Turkey to monitor the recent municipal elections. While I would not agree with all they have said tonight, they have brought forward some very valuable points which have been picked up in the debate. This important topic is rightly being debated in your Lordships' House. I believe that there is true concern about the issue on a far wider basis than simply in your Lordships' House and another place. I receive letters and questions about the situation in Turkey. The area of south-east Turkey is a particularly difficult one for the Turkish Government but they do not always seem to be handling it as well as we believe and know they might.
I was glad to hear many noble Lords unreservedly condemning the deplorable violence of the PKK, as we condemn all forms of terrorism. But there is a difference between the PKK and a large number of Kurds in Turkey. We are firm in our view that the freedom to express non-violent political opinion and full respect for human rights must be upheld by the authorities in any country which wishes its government to be respected. Here we are concerned with whether the Turkish authorities have full respect for human rights and whether there is the freedom to express non-violent political opinion, which clearly there is not at the present time in Turkey.
The intended prosecution of the Democratic Party deputies, which I must accept is consistent with Turkey's existing laws and constitution, severely damages her international reputation and her democratic credentials. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in a speech in Ankara in January, such credentials are increasingly important as Turkey draws ever closer to the European Union.
Respect for international human rights values must be maintained by any democratic government even when that government are required to combat a terrorist group such as the PKK which has no respect for democracy or for the lives of innocent people. The Foreign Secretary, together with the German Foreign Minister, stressed this at their meeting in Ankara with

603
the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs put the point plainly to the Turkish Minister for Human Rights in London last month. Such debates as this, and a similar debate in another place on 18th March, will, I hope, send a clear message about the concern felt by Turkey's friends for the treatment both of those who are innocently caught up in this conflict in the south-east and those who are trying to find a peaceful and democratic solution to the many problems that Turkey faces.
My noble friend Lady Hooper gave us a valuable reminder of how many Kurds live peacefully. But of course there is no Kurd more prominent in the Turkish Government than the current Foreign Minister, who I believe is trying very hard to bring about change.
I have made it clear that we raise human rights issue with the Turks whenever there is an opportunity to do so. I did so again with the Turkish ambassador only this morning. All 12 European Union Ministers expressed their concern about human rights in Turkey to the Turkish Foreign Minister when they met last November. In March this year the European Union presidency made a statement on human rights in various countries to the Commission on Human Rights. The statement included an expression of our concern at torture in Turkey, the constraints on freedom of expression and our conviction that terrorism must be combatted within the rule of law. On 31st March the European Union issued a statement in Brussels and Athens on human rights in Turkey. We and our European Union partners pointed out that, while we repeatedly condemned the terrorist acts in Turkey, we believe that the fight against terrorism has to be conducted within the rule of law, a point on which so many of your Lordships spoke tonight. We also underlined that freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom for all. That is something the Turkish Government must really tackle.
So much for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—I wrote down what he said—that the European Union had done nothing. It has kept up the pressure. It has at every opportunity, either singly or collectively, been putting these points to the Turkish Government. Despite all of that, there are some within the Turkish forces who do not seem to understand what is going on and what the Turkish Government are striving for.
We were very concerned by the forced evacuation of the villages. I know that the excuses were that the villages were supplying food to the PKK and that they were emptied for military reasons. But we were sufficiently concerned to ensure that our ambassador in Ankara raised those anxieties about that practice with the Turkish authorities.
We have sought to get the Turkish Government to improve their law. We recognise that there was a new law passed over a year ago to improve human rights provision under domestic law, but the task remains to ensure that the Turkish police and the troops abide by the code and that the fight against terrorism is conducted within the framework of international human rights obligations. Moreover, officials who commit abuses must be, and must be seen to be, brought to book for
604
their actions. Therefore, when I say that I understand the Turkish Government's need to deal firmly with PKK terrorism, I also say, as did my noble friend Lord Finsberg, that that does not excuse the Turkish Government from striving for the highest protection of human rights for its citizens.
We are all aware that the Turkish constitution's penal code is in need of real amendment to permit non-violent expression of political beliefs. I am hopeful that there may shortly be a move to improve the penal code. But we have made it quite clear in your Lordships' House tonight that we are all watching for that reform. It is true that legally Turkish Kurds have full access to all democratic forms of expression open to other Turkish citizens. But separatism has been a punishable offence under all Turkish constitutions. The 1982 Turkish constitution is widely recognised as in need of amendment on this score as on others.
I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Finsberg for all his work in the Council of Europe on this issue of human rights and south-east Turkey. I know that he has been involved in the preparation by the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture of its public statement on Turkey in December 1992. I do not need to quote from that statement, but I believe that when the Council of Europe passed the resolution on 13th April, as described by my noble friend Lady Hooper, expressing its anxieties about the arrest and detention of the DEP deputies, it was giving notice to Turkey that it must take action.
The assembly also noted that the DEP deputies did not go beyond using their rights to freedom of expression guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Turkish constitution. That is why it called on the Turkish authorities to withdraw the existing charges against the deputies and also to withdraw their request before the constitutional court to close the DEP party on the grounds of treasonable aims. The assembly also encouraged the Turks to release the DEP deputies on bail pending the preparation of their cases. The European Parliament passed a similar resolution last month.
There have been many questions raised in this debate tonight. My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare asked about the Kurdish Democratic Party deputies. I cannot tell him what access the deputies have to lawyers, but we are taking up this matter. He will know that there has been a reaction of concern throughout Europe at what happened. How right my noble friend Lord Finsberg was when he said that Turkey has been a sanctuary to thousands of Kurds from Iraq. I would say that it was tens of thousands. I remember meeting so many of them when I went to the hills between Iraq and Turkey. Turkey has done a great deal to try to help her neighbours. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Archer said when he paid tribute to Turkey for helping, as a result of the campaigning by Mr. Talabani, so that the electricity should be restored in northern Iraq.
The Turks are trying to do three very difficult things at the same time. They are trying to help the Kurdish people in northern Iraq. They are trying to help their

605
own Kurdish people, but they are not yet able to do so. And they are trying to divide by the action of their security forces those who are would-be terrorists from those who are peaceable Kurds.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about the alternative bases compared with the Turkish base at Incirlik. We find that that base continues to offer very considerable advantages. I believe that allied aircraft will want to continue to use it. We are certainly very grateful to the Turkish Government for that.
I must bring my remarks to a close, but I cannot do so without sharing the condolences of my noble friend Lord Archer to the families of the two British officers killed in the helicopter crash and to the families of the Turkish, French and US military personnel killed in that terrible shooting-down incident a little while ago.
As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said, Turkey is a valued trading partner for Britain. We want to go on having good relations. But we do beg of Turkey to abide by the Geneva conventions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, and to work to find a peaceful and democratic solution to solve the problems of Turkey. The Kurds have a right to live in peace in Turkey. That is why we beg of the Turkish Government real action, because what is happening in that country today is hurting Turkey and dismaying Turkey's European friends a very great deal.
I hope that the fight against terrorism will be pursued with rigour, but that it will be pursued with respect for human rights. Freedom of expression for non-violent Kurdish opinion is an important component in the fight against terrorism, isolating extremists and reassuring the moderate majority. Restrictions on such opinion are likely, by contrast, to give the terrorists a valuable propaganda weapon. That is why I believe that the Turkish Government would do well to amend their penal code, to look at their constitution and to make sure that their armed forces and their police forces abide by the standards which have been so long upheld by the Council of Europe and all European and international bodies who believe in human rights.
On those issues to which I have been unable to respond tonight I shall write to noble Lords. It has been a valuable debate, even though at times it had its excesses too. I believe that we must take the sensible middle path to achieve the right result for all the people of Turkey.

Coal Industry Bill
8.38 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) In the exercise of its duty under subsection (1) above to secure an economically viable coal industry in Great Britain, the Authority shall have regard to the availability in Great Britain of reserves of coal in relation to reserves of other fossil fuels.").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, opened the debate by saying,
"our continuing programme of privatisation … will enable the coal industry to find its rightful place as a competitive supplier in the energy market".
606
It is a great pity that the Bill does not deal with the energy market completely. The noble Lord went on to say that the powers of,
"the Coal Authority [are] to own, and grant access to, coal reserves".—[Official Report, 11/4/94; cols. 1292–3.]
I was glad to see that because of its relationship to my own belief as regards fossil fuels either here or anywhere else in the world.
I have sat in the Chamber time after time listening to environmentalists talk about nature and the environment and about how important it is that we should regard them as a trust; that we should not consider that they are ours to use as we wish, but should hold them in trust for future generations. I think that it is more apposite to take that view of fossil fuels than of any other part of the environment. We are all familiar with the graph that depicts the generation and use of fossil fuels. The long straight line represents the millions of years that it takes to form fossil fuels, but there is suddenly a peak up and down, representing the period in which we use those fossil fuels.
The Bill refers to the coal industry having to be competitive. I suppose that the coal industry could be competitive provided that, to use a cliché, it is on a level coalfield. However, we all recognise that when the question of the coal mines being closed in considerable numbers arose, there was no level playing field. In fact, coal was being driven out by another form of energy. I do not believe that that form of energy was being used in the correct fashion, but I am not prepared to try to prove that. I heard a noted professor say on television the other night that using oil and gas to generate power was the wrong way to use those fuels. He may be right; he may be wrong; I do not know.
I tabled this amendment to ascertain what the Government believe should happen to fossil fuels. The Minister looks puzzled that I should use the phrase "fossil fuels", but he should read the amendment because it deals with fossil fuels. When I first attempted to table such an amendment, I was told that I could not use the phrase in a Bill relating to coal, because "fossil fuels" are not coal. In the end, however, I managed to table an amendment mentioning "fossil fuels".
I turn now to the question of competition. If we were talking about something in continuous supply and which was easy to obtain—and if all forms of fuel were equally easily obtainable—I think that there could be competition. However, when one tries to put natural gas (which simply bubbles to the surface) into a fair and competitive market alongside coal (which in some cases has to be brought up 1,000 feet) one sees that it is nonsense to talk about competition.
We should be very careful. We should never lapse into thinking that things will continue smoothly and that nothing will happen. We should think back. It seems to me that we need a crisis to outline the necessity of doing something about scarce resources. It did not take long in the Suez crisis to impose a limit of 50 miles per hour on all vehicles on the motorways or to ban neon lighting. It did not take long for the country, when threatened with such a crisis, to realise how it should treat scarce fossil fuels.
When I attended the Second Reading debate, somebody asked me, "Are you interested in coal?". I said, "Not particularly. I do not come from a coal mining area; I am not an ex-miner and the nearest that I have got to coal mining is a coal miner's lamp that was presented to me by the late Lord Gormley, so I am not an expert in that field, but I think I have always been interested in the energy question because the whole of the modern society in which we live depends on energy".
I make the point again. I believe that fossil fuels, having existed for so long, are not ours to treat as we want and for the moment. We are the trustees of that energy for future generations. Let us not kid ourselves. Their supply will come to an end. It will not be long before fossil fuels have gone. I do not know whether the country is in such a state that it will take lightly to nuclear power. I sometimes doubt it although it seems to me to be the only thing that could possibly take the place of our present energy system. On the other hand, some other system of energy might be developed.
We need a breathing space. We need the time in which to develop alternative sources of energy because if we do not, we shall really be in trouble. We must find some way to give ourselves that time. How long will it be before we make up our minds that at the moment our only alternative power source is nuclear energy? It seems to me that waves and windmills are simply not on as power providers and that we must go somewhere else. Indeed, it does not seem as though the Government are very keen on wave energy.
Above all, however, what we need before talking about energy is information about resources. The Minister and the Government are saying, "Let us have competition". Does that mean that the Government can find out what this country's reserves of oil are and their rate of depletion or will they be faced with a competitive organisation saying, "We cannot disclose that because it is of commercial value. You cannot ask us that"? I have been told such things even here in London when I asked why a building was built and occupied for only 21 years and it was then decided to pull it down. When I asked about the cost of that, I was told that I could not have that information because it was of commercial value. I was told, "It's a commercial secret", so I do not know what the oil industry will say if the Government start to ask it, "What reserves do you think you've got? What is the rate of depletion? What money are you making out of it?". The industry will say that that is a question of commercial confidentiality. If the licensees are asked the same questions in regard to their plans for mining coal, would not they say exactly the same?
This is a simple amendment. It does not ask for a lot. It merely asks that an authority,
"shall have regard to the availability in Great Britain of reserves of coal in relation to reserves of other fossil fuels".
I selected the Coal Authority to be that body because I believe—I think that this information is correct—that our largest reserve of fuel is coal. I thought that the Coal Authority would be the suitable body to give us an overall picture of fossil fuels because all such fuels are related. They were all created in the same way. They all lie in the earth. According to some people, they are
608
God-sent and, according to others, they are sent naturally. It depends on one's beliefs. However, they are there; we are their trustees, and we have a duty to find out what is there.
In my opinion, we also have a solemn duty to find out the extent to which we use fossil fuels. We have to find out the depletion. I do not believe that we can have a really sound energy policy unless we begin to get that information and unless we begin to make real comparisons, long term. The Minister is smiling. That means he does not believe it: I do not expect him to. Nevertheless, in my opinion that is the real way in which we should consider this.
The Government may—I give them the credit because I have not been told otherwise—have in mind a simple procedure for examining the energy and the fossil reserves that are in existence. If so, I should like to know. I do not intend to say much more: in this situation we are very lucky because I can have another go when I reply. I do not know what the Government are going to say but it seems to me that they must say something if they are going to reply at all. Either they must say they believe in examining the fuel reserves. they believe in a proper energy policy and they believe in finding out what is happening to it and what is going to happen to it in the future, or they must fall back on their time-honoured answer "Leave it to the market". I do not think that leaving it to the market is good enough for this country, or in fact for the world. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I support whole-heartedly the amendment proposed by my noble friend. The problem of coal reserves is an immediate problem, caused particularly when larger firms start to enter the market. In some of the British Coal collieries there are reserves ready developed which can be extracted at comparatively little cost because all the necessary investment has already been undertaken. We are concerned that many of those pits will have private owners coming in, taking all the easy coal and then closing the pit, sterilising large amounts of coal which in the event of future need would be very expensive to extract.
However, behind that, the issue raised by my noble friend lies quite close to the heart of the opposition from these Benches to the whole idea of the privatisation of the coal industry. We oppose it because of the lack of strategic planning for the industry itself. This amendment raises some even deeper issues, such as the whole problem of fossil fuel and time—what runs out when and what the economic cost of extraction is in each case, balanced against the national need. It highlights the need for a national energy strategy, but perhaps it is a little much to ask the noble Lord the Minister to produce that at this hour of the evening. We shall be interested to see how long and how deeply the Government have thought about that issue.
Lord Strathclyde: I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply and to say that much of what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has said I am not sure was within the compass of his amendment, to which I shall reply. This amendment seems intended to require the Coal Authority to manage the rate of exploitation of coal

609
reserves in the context of the availability of other fossil fuels. I think he misunderstands the role of the authority. The authority is not to be responsible for managing the coal or any other fossil fuel industry. Clause 2(1) (a) places a duty on the Coal Authority to secure, so far as practicable, that its licensees maintain and develop an economically viable coal industry. It is to those licensees that we are looking to develop a viable coal industry: one that is economically capable of standing on its own feet and able to compete with other energy sources. The role of—
Lord Sefton of Garston: The noble Lord doubts whether the amendment covers the matters I was referring to: I am seeking information about the reserves of fuel. If the noble Lord will read the amendment again, he will see that it states:
"In the exercise of its duty under subsection (1) above to secure an economically viable coal industry in Great Britain, the Authority shall have regard to the availability in Great Britain of reserves of coal in relation to reserves of other fossil fuels."
I could have gone on and amended other parts of the Bill to say they should have the power to demand that information from the other energy suppliers, but I did not. I should have thought that anybody reading that amendment would realise that those powers would be necessary and that can be the subject of a further amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Lord for continuing to explain his amendment. The point is: what is the role of the authority? It is on that that the noble Lord and I disagree. I believe that the role of the authority is facilitatory: in other words, it can provide information. It can make available the coal resources and property within its ownership and establish a competitive licensing regime to facilitate the development of the coal industry by licensees.
It is clear that the Government should not attempt to impose all-embracing plans about how much energy of what kind should be produced or consumed by whom. Such plans are doomed to failure. The noble Lord says the market does not work. I have to tell him that the market has worked considerably longer than any other system. The Government's policy has been, and remains, to encourage effective markets and to make them work efficiently. That will facilitate the Government's objective to secure the development in the longer term of the largest economic coal industry possible.
Both noble Lords who spoke asked how much coal there is left and how much longer the reserves will last. Of course it all depends on how quickly you use them up—and you never know that because, as the lessons of the last few years have demonstrated, increased fuel efficiency naturally increases the length of time that known reserves will last. Add to that the fact that the known reserves are continually increasing because of the work done by exploration groups and it strikes me that the question which both noble Lords asked me is unanswerable.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister has made exactly the same point that I made in moving the
610
amendment, except that he missed the point of what was implied in it. The Minister says that the market has worked. That depends on how long you give the market. Did the market work up to the last war? Did it meet the needs of the nation? I know the Minister was not born then, but he can read; he does know what happened. The coal market was free of all restrictions—and what happened? At a time when this country was in crisis in 1940, private coal owners closed down the mines because they could not find a market in France. Did the market work then? It is all right saying that the market is working but the market only works for a period. I am talking about the accumulation of reserves over thousands of years and about passing on those reserves. Would it not be a tragedy if, because of the competition between the different fuel suppliers, the coal industry were faced with the situation of abandoning tremendous amounts of coal because it could not meet the immediate competition with petrol, oil and gas? That is a very immediate likelihood. If it happens it could happen within 20 years. We could reach a situation where coal is being left in the earth without any possibility of regaining it, and what will the future generation say then, when gas runs out?
I want to conclude on this note. Coal is a fairly solid substance. Oil is very volatile, and I do not believe that the figures we are getting for the reserves of oil are right. If I am right, the Government are wrong and, if the Government are wrong, then future generations will tell them so.
Lord Dean of Beswick: May I just very briefly take up a point that the Minister made in his reply, which I think was a little bit casual? The Minister will recall that only a few weeks ago I raised a point with him through a Question about the reserves, known or unknown, of worldwide energy. The Answer was rather flippant. In a jovial way, it was aided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said that no one knew the answer when he was a boy and no one knows it now.
People have more knowledge about identifiable reserves of energy fuels. It is on record that this country has 300 years' worth of coal reserves below the surface. The action that is now taking place may lock them up for time immemorial.
Only yesterday I had lunch with an accountant who is working for British Coal during the winding down period. He put it to me quite clearly that the cost of re-opening some of the coalfields after they have been closed down as a result of this operation will be so large that it will not be viable under any circumstances.
I must take the Minister to task. I do not have figures and therefore I can give none. But neither can the Minister; he has given no figures of known reserves of oil but has said that the Government know that there are more. How do they know? They are assuming that there are. The world in general is so eager and hungry for energy that the depletion will increase at an enormous rate. The Chinese are hell bent on an enormous increase in the provision of energy, most of which will come from coal reserves. A noble Lord on the Liberal Benches said that at some time we may have to opt largely or entirely for nuclear power.

611
I put it to the Minister again that to go down this present road is an act of unbridled vandalism. The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Sefton asks us to take another look at the situation. The Minister says that I have no figures to prove my argument about the reserves of coal, oil and gas. However, in trying to debunk my argument, the Minister does not have one iota of evidence to prove his own argument. No one can say that at this point in time the reserves are finished. We cannot find them for time immemorial, so that moment will come. My noble friend Lord Sefton has done the Committee a service by raising this matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Perhaps I may follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Dean. The Government are undertaking a review of nuclear energy. Why are they not undertaking a review in respect of coal or oil ? The Minister told the House recently that the review is behind schedule. The report was due at the end of last year but they do not yet have the terms of reference. The Minister smiles, so perhaps the Government have received them during the past week or two. Why the difference? Perhaps we can have an explanation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: The information has just come to me. The Government's own coal task force of June 1990 put the UK coal reserves above 1,200 metres at 140 billion tonnes, 90 billion tonnes of which are classified as economic. Reserves below 1,200 metres were estimated to be considerably greater, lying in thicker seams but requiring technological investment for access. Therefore, at present, or at recent rates of extraction, the presently accessible reserve will last for 900 years. Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Dean, made his point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has forgotten that only last year we published the White Paper on coal. I suppose that there is a similarity between that and the nuclear review. However, as the noble Lord knows, we have not yet decided how the nuclear review will be carried out but we hope to make an announcement soon.
I too have received inspiration about the figures. I understand that British Coal told the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place that currently economically viable reserves at continuing mines of British Coal would have a life of between 20 and 40 years. Those are somewhat different figures but the explanation is plain to see. In its report to the coal review, Boyds put at about 700 million tonnes the immediately accessible coal reserve base at the 17 pits that British Coal is continuing to operate, plus Maltby and Ashfordby. However, Britain has less than 1 per cent. of the world's coal reserves. As the White Paper indicated, plentiful supplies of coal are available on the international market from a wide range of sources, including the USA, South Africa, Colombia, Indonesia and Australia. There seems therefore little likelihood of a major disruption to supplies.
612
But there is a fundamental point. Members of the Committee opposite believe that it should be the Government's responsibility to extract this coal. We believe that it should be the private sector's responsibility to extract the coal and to weigh up the various merits of using different fuels. If that is what the debate is about, that is the fundamental divide which exists between us and which I believe is unbridgeable.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, knows that I always enjoy listening to his speeches. I hope that I have given him the right kind of information and that at least he likes the information, if not the conclusion.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The Minister cannot get away with that. Does he agree that nuclear power, gas and, I think, oil are more expensive than coal?
Lord Strathclyde: It depends from where one starts. As the noble Lord knows, it is a fact that during the past 15 years some £20 billion has been spent by the British taxpayer on the British coal industry. That is a considerable investment, which was unsustainable in the long term.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am sorry to pursue the matter. But will the Minister tell the Committee how much has been spent by the taxpayer on nuclear energy? The figure normally quoted is £1 billion per year.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not have the figures to hand without notice. I am not sure what point the noble Lord is making. We are not discussing a competition between coal and nuclear; we are trying to privatise the coal industry. That is what the essence of the Bill is all about, because we believe that the future of the coal industry is best served by its being in the private sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I wish to take up one point which the Minister made. He referred to the amount of coal not being economically viable at present. However, what may not be viable today may very well be viable in the future. For example, I believe that the price of oil per barrel has almost dropped through the floor. According to the last figures I saw, oil was down to 13 dollars per barrel from about 20 dollars. if oil is at such a low price, we may find that it is guzzled and that we run out of supplies much more quickly than anyone has foreseen.
Therefore, we may find that our present reserves of coal, which are not economically viable, become viable. The Government should be careful when drawing up their programme for the future of the coal industry because present non-viable reserves of coal may become viable in the not-too-distant future. They may become economically more viable than oil. In fact, there may no longer be any oil.
Lord Sefton of Garston: The Minister said that he believes in the privatisation of coal. I am not going to receive answers to the questions I asked. I have a heavy responsibility because I could detain the Committee for 10 minutes on the matter; but I am not going to. I shall withdraw the amendment.
The Minister spoke about giving information. I have tabled two Questions for Written Answer on the subject

613
of reserves. Will he see to it that I am given the Answers to those Questions and any other information that he may have about reserves of coal?
I accept what the Minister says about his belief and my belief. As I said, we are considering God-given or natural assets which are in our trust. We are trustees. This is a fundamentally important matter and not merely an economic question. Moral issues are involved in the question of who should own the resources which nature has given to us. That is why I believe that no one has any right, merely because of the depth of his pocket, to own the ability to mine coal. I accept that there is a fundamental division between the Minister and myself; I am proud of that division. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Coal Authority in carrying out any of its functions under Part II of this Act to further the objective of environmentally sustainable development.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment seeks to strengthen the environmental duty which will guide the new Coal Authority, requiring it to further the objective of environmentally sustainable development.
I am concerned that the full importance of the environmental aspects of the Coal Authority's future operations are not adequately reflected in the Bill. Its responsibilities for licensing opencast extraction and for managing the legacy of dereliction and pollution of past mineworking are just two examples of the environmental responsibilities that it will have.
The Bill states that the Coal Authority's prime focus will be on facilitating coal mining operations. However, in licensing new coal mining operations or in managing the use and disposal of land, the new authority will clearly have a significant impact on the environment.
The effect of my amendment would be to ensure better integration between environmental and economic considerations in the Coal Authority's operations and so help to avoid unnecessary conflict. It would also be an important step towards implementing the Government's commitment to sustainable development. This House now has a Select Committee on sustainable development.
I recognise that the Bill sets out already an environmental duty for the Coal Authority in Clause 3(7). However, the scope is too narrow and the wording has changed little from similar duties introduced in the 1950s. I believe that there is a need to bring the environmental duties governing the activities of the new Coal Authority up to a modern-day environmental standard by requiring it to further, rather than simply have regard to, environmental objectives. That would be in line with the environmental duties placed on organisations such as the National Rivers Authority or the Office of Water Services which have been shown to operate very successfully. We are all very well aware of the importance of protecting and improving the environment. I hope that we shall not miss this
614
opportunity to place modern environmental responsibilities on the new body to ensure that its regulation of the coal industry avoids unacceptable damage to our environment. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I give my warm support to the amendment. It is entirely right, and it is important that the Coal Authority should operate under a clear environmental duty covering the full range of its actions and responsibilities. The arguments which the noble Viscount so ably put forward are important, and I hope that we shall agree to them.
I should like to take the opportunity to introduce my amendment, Amendment No. 29, which has been grouped with this amendment. The aim of my amendment is to clarify the Coal Authority's power to carry out emergency operations to prevent any serious pollution of the environment. Clause 5 deals with the Coal Authority's general powers and subsection (1) provides:
"the Authority shall have the power to do anything which"
facilitates or is conducive to its functions. Although there are duties on the authority to have regard to the desirability of things such as natural beauty and conservation under Clause 3(7), as the noble Viscount told us, the authority does not have any function relating specifically to preventing pollution of the environment. Clause 5(6) and (7) place certain limits on the authority's powers, and my amendment is intended to put beyond doubt that the Coal Authority will have power itself to carry out preventive work or to arrange for others to do so in cases where there is an imminent risk of serious harm to the environment as a result of coal-mining operations.
There need be no conflict between the role of the Coal Authority and that of the NRA or any other environmental regulator. The amendment seeks to give the authority which will, as the Minister has made clear, retain the freehold of the nation's coal reserves after privatisation, some operational responsibility so that it can act in the way that any responsible landowner, industrialist or farmer would act in an emergency, irrespective of the powers of the regulator. The definition of "coal-mining operations" in Clause 63 includes at paragraph (e):
"depositing spoil from any activities carried on in the course of coal-mining operations and draining coal mines".
In cases of immediate risk to the environment, particularly the water environment, it should be put beyond doubt that the Coal Authority will have the power to carry out such work, and any other works which are necessary, and to do that at once and without delay. My amendment would provide for just that. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: I, too, support the amendment, and wish to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 37, which has been grouped with these amendments. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State, in effecting transfers of property, should provide for the transferring of liability for water pollution to transferees. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, what seems hours ago, the concern about mine water pollution has been well and

615
truly emphasised over a period of time. Speeches have been made in another place as well as here, and answers have, to some degree, been given.
During proceedings in another place and here, a catalogue of assurances have been given about mine water pollution and its effect on the environment, and the extraction of water from rivers which may be damaged by pollution. Those assurances were greatly added to today in the able and excellent speech which my noble friend the Minister made in answer to the first debate. I congratulate him upon it, and with, I am sure others, shall study it carefully tomorrow. Perhaps I may immediately assure him that his assurance that in County Durham pumping will continue in disused mines will be well received. There has been great concern. Indeed, the Northern Echo, one of the North's principal newspapers, had as its headline this morning:
"D-Day for the River Wear".
I believe that that referred to the amendment that I had tabled, in that there was a hope in County Durham that the Government would at last include in the Bill an assurance that liability for any pollution that occurs would be placed fairly and squarely on the new authority.
Again, my noble friend gave an assurance—which we greatly appreciate—that the Coal Authority will be responsible for those aspects for which British Coal is now responsible. There is still no satisfactory answer to the question as to where in the Bill is there a guarantee on liability of the proposed new authority in relation to water pollution. That is what we very much wish to see. As in the Water Resources Act 1991 when for some reason which I have never understood the discharge of polluted water from an abandoned mine was exempted from being an offence, so also in this Bill mine water is excluded from liability should its discharge cause river pollution.
In his wind-up speech at the Second Reading of the Bill in this Chamber my noble friend said that there were many difficulties in this regard. I agree. I very much hope that British Coal's contention that polluted water from mines will find its way to the sea is correct. In County Durham there is an enormous number of workings. In pits close to the coast which have been closed that is already happening. However, we need an assurance. The National Rivers Authority and British Coal are involved in experimentation in relation to the effect of a reduction in pumping. We hope that there will be some satisfactory answers in future.
I assure my noble friend that water undertakers—and I was until recently chairman of North East Water—continue to be most concerned about the situation and would greatly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of something on the lines of the amendment that I have put down.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 13. I am not entirely certain what our response should be to Amendment No. 29. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say on that matter. Amendment No. 37—on which my noble friend Lord Ezra may speak—carries widespread
616
support in this Chamber. The first amendment, which carries the rest of the amendments on its back, is that in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison.
The objective of that amendment is one which we ought to support and which we ought to write into the Bill. Before we go that far and before the Government reply I should add that I have some queries about it. do not know what is meant by "environmentally sustainable development". I am a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which deals with sustainable development. I am totally committed to the idea of sustainable development, as indeed, following Rio, are the Government of this country. But sustainable development on the whole can be defined as being ecologically sustainable; namely, development which can carry the population and the nature of a country forward to future generations without loss. To say that development should be environmentally sustainable seems to me to produce another slightly different objective.
It is quite clear what the noble Viscount means because he said in his speech that he wanted to see a duty to preserve the environment. To a large extent. I agree with him. Not everyone would want to sustain all the environment that surrounds the coalfields of this country. In many places we want to improve it. There should certainly be a duty that it should be either sustained or improved.
In so far as this is an environmental amendment I should very much like to support it. But environment and ecological sustainability are by no means always the same. Ecological sustainability will demand a use of fuels which will need extremely hard headed accountancy of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has just been talking about. If you are talking about ecological sustainability you have to work out how you can get the power that you need from the various sources available and in such a way that it is sustainable into the distant future. But that may well go right against the environment. It may mean that one has to undertake opencast mining or have fields of windmills covering the hillside. I do not say that the equation does mean that; I certainly hope that it does not. But it is all too easy to make a simple equation between environment and ecological sustainability which does not stand up to examination. I am not sure that the terminology of the amendment is right even if its heart is in entirely the right place.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I support the amendments, in particular the thrust of the new clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. As I have explained to noble Lords previously, I am the chairman of the Anglers Co-operative Association for England and Wales. It is an organisation dedicated to fighting pollution. It has been established for over 40 years. Having taken polluters to court, we have lost only two cases in that time. We have a team of legal experts who are unrivalled in experience, With regard to experience and knowledge in court cases, we can even rival the National Rivers Authority.
A particular matter of concern is pollution caused by minewater discharges resulting from the cessation of

617
pumping underground with the closure of mines. In particular, anglers in South Wales and Durham are, or will be, affected by those problems. The discharges invariably cause a deposition of rust sludge on the bed of the receiving water course. Apart from being unsightly, that deposit covers gravel in which fish might spawn and prevents plant growth. It consequently reduces insect life on which fish depend for food. In the case of a river such as the Wear in Durham—it is a most serious problem which confronts us—discharges may cause permanent damage to the salmon and sea trout populations.
In November of last year, the Anglers Co-operative Association—it has now changed its title to the Anglers Conservation Association—brought a private prosecution, to its knowledge the first ever prosecution, in respect of minewater discharges against British Coal Corporation alleging that it had caused or knowingly permitted polluting matter to enter the River Rhymney in Caerphilly in South Wales. After a two-week trial, the judge directed the jury to acquit. The basis of the reasoning was that British Coal had not caused the pollution.
Briefly, the prosecution case was that when controlled pumping (the resultant minewater being put into the river under discharge consents from the NRA) was stopped, the underground water table rose naturally. When it recovered its natural level, it moved laterally under pressure of gravity passing through old mineworkings and discharged through an old mine adit into the river. While passing through those old mineworkings, the water reacted with pyrites in those workings which caused the chemical reaction that results in the rust deposits in the river.
While the judge accepted that turning off the pumps was a cause, he found that the main cause was that the recovered groundwater was recharged by rainwater percolating through the upper soil which then reacted with the old mineworkings. Thus he concluded that the cause was a natural one and not British Coal's responsibility. He found that British Coal had no responsibility for or ownership of the old workings. My view is that the decision was wrong and I hope that we shall be taking it further.
The Anglers Conservation Association, the Salmon and Trout Association and all anglers are aware of the current privatisation legislation and see this as an ideal opportunity to deal with the environmental issue by way of legislation rather than litigation.
Clause 12 deals with schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the transferees of the corporation. That has implications since a liability obviously includes abandoned mines. Yet no specific provision is made in respect of abandoned mines. I believe that it is clear that the Government do not intend to impose any duty to prevent polluting discharges from abandoned mines on either the Coal Authority or the new private operators.
I have before me a letter which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, at the Department of the Environment, sent to a parliamentary colleague in January this year. It stated:
618
"As you probably know, under the Water Resources Act 1991, discharges permitted to flow from abandoned mines are exempt from the National Rivers Authority's statutory controls".
I know very well that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of the NRA would like to see the legislation strengthened in some way to give him reason to be able to take the polluters to court. The letter continued:
"The recent court case brought by the Anglers Co-operative Association against British Coal failed, I understand, not because of the exemptions in the Water Resources Act, but because the judge was persuaded that the pollution in the River Rhymney had not come from British Coal's workings.
The Government recognises that the existing legislation may need to be reassessed and undertook, in This Common Inheritance: The Second Year Report, to consider the framework of legal responsibility for pollution in abandoned mines. A review of this subject is now under way, in tandem with an inter-departmental review of contaminated land and liabilities, which is addressing the broader issues of allocation of responsibility for the costs of pollution".
That is clear. It will not be in this Bill and the Government intend not to recognise pollution from abandoned mines. There is no urgency on the part of the Government, as is clearly indicated.
In relation to the current pollution by minewater discharges and in relation to future pollution by cessation of pumping in the short term and the long term, I think we have no possibility of it being recognised by the Government in the Bill. I think it is all wrong and I hope that we can make some progress. But as indicated in that letter, I do not think we shall.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I did not interrupt the noble Lord as he was winding up, but he gave an impression on one important point. I cannot remember exactly what he said, but the impression was that the Coal Authority did not accept any liability. Once a mine has been abandoned—any mine, anywhere—it then becomes the responsibility of the Coal Authority. That is quite important. There is then a question about the Water Resources Act 1991 with which I shall deal in my more substantive reply later.
Lord Crickhowell: First, I wish to take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. After many other distinguished services, he rendered distinguished service as a member of the board of the National Rivers Authority for some time.
Perhaps it is worth recording that he was not aware of any occasion on which there had been a successful prosecution for pollution of the water environment by a mine. However, there was one such case in 1981 in Scotland where it was possible to establish that the National Coal Board had caused pollution when it closed a Scottish mine which it had opened, operated and then closed. So the cause was the total operation; it did not depend simply on the act of turning off the pumps.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that he was a little unfair to my noble friend the Minister in saying that he was not addressing the problem adequately or with sufficient urgency. I believe the noble Lord ignored the important statement made by my noble friend earlier in the day when he said: "Yes, we are carrying out a major review of this complicated question, but in the interim we are making arrangements for the pumping in

619
Durham and elsewhere to continue". That was an extremely important concession and was very welcome to the National Rivers Authority. I should not like the debate to move on without acknowledging it.
At Second Reading I said that it might well be that the wider problem would have to wait for a future environment Bill for a full solution. I am not sure that we can adequately deal with it in this Bill, if only for the reason that it is a coal Bill; and there are other mines that need to be covered in future legislation.
I do not want to repeat the debates that took place earlier today, and I shall try to avoid doing so. Perhaps I may just say that in principle I welcome my noble friend' s amendment about sustainability. It is desirable that we should always seek to write into any legislation, or indeed almost any business plan, the principle of sustainability. I am not quite sure that we have got the wording precisely right. But the idea that sustainability should be set down as one of the duties that an organisation should pursue is desirable.
I also agreed with my noble friend when he cast some doubt on the adequacy of the environmental clauses, Clause 3(7) and Clause 53(2). Indeed, I expressed exactly that anxiety in my Second Reading speech. I explained earlier today why I did not intend to put down any amendments myself. But I am rather disappointed that amendments have not been put down. There will of course be later opportunities. I should at least like to see the words "the environment" and perhaps "the environment and controlled waters" added to the relevant sections of those clauses. It is rather curious that we have this list which includes "natural beauty", "flora and fauna", "geological or physiographical features", "sites, buildings, structures", and so on; yet we do not cover the environment and the water environment quite clearly in that same clause. We ought to look at that point again.
I particularly welcome the amendment that was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who again is someone who has given distinguished service in the past to the National Rivers Authority as chairman of one of our fisheries advisory committees. Perhaps I may take this opportunity, as he has ended his duties there, to thank him for that work. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that he has addressed this particular issue. Perhaps I might call it the Wheal Jane clause, referring yet again to that incident. The noble Lord said that he did not think that there was any conflict between the duties of the NRA and those of the Coal Authority. Indeed, that is absolutely right, and it helps to avoid a conflict. The NRA does not believe that it should be an operational organisation. It believes that it should be a regulatory organisation. In my view it should be the responsibility of the owner of land to make sure that adequate measures are taken to protect the environment if something goes wrong.
My particular anxiety about the Bill as it stands at the moment is that the authority,
"shall not have power … for commercial purposes or with a view to itself using any coal or product of coal, to carry on any coal-mining operations",
and so on. What I am afraid of is that that clause might be deemed to prevent the Coal Authority from taking
620
emergency measures, which might include the need to dispose of coal as part of the operation in order to safeguard the environment. That is the point that we need to have clarified.
On my noble friend's Amendment No. 37, I do not intend to repeat the arguments that we had in relation to Amendment No. 1 earlier today. I do not think that my noble friend's amendment fully covers the anxieties that we then raised. I have one other difficulty with it. It talks about the responsibilities that arise from Clause 161 of the Water Resources Act. I feel that it probably ought to refer to Clause 85 of that Act, which is the clause which imposes the liabilities and the duties.
Clause 161, interestingly enough, takes us back to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It is Clause 161 which enables the National Rivers Authority to carry out certain duties to prevent pollution and then recover the costs of doing so. The National Rivers Authority does not want to be put in the position in which it was put in the case of Wheal Jane of carrying out the duties and then having to recover the costs. It would much prefer to see the duties carried out under its regulatory control by another body—on this occasion by the Coal Authority. That is why I so much welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Baroness Nicol: I want very briefly to support Amendment No. 13 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. As my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris said at Second Reading, the potential for damage to the environment, particularly from opencast coal mining, is very great indeed. No doubt the Minister will tell us that planning controls will take care of that matter. But planning controls can only take care of future proposals. They cannot take care of existing operations; for example, the abandoning of mining operations that are going on at this moment and which could cause potential damage. Therefore we need to have a general duty placed on the authority.
The Government claim to support sustainable development. Most of us have seen the very impressive document which came out just a few weeks ago. Some of us are working on it in the committee dealing with sustainable development. We can expect to believe that everything that the Government do from now on will show their dedication to the cause of sustainable development. But it is not obvious in this Bill. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will be able to reassure us about that. It seems to me that an industry such as the coal industry should be the last to be excluded from the Government's strictures on this matter.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, could be very valuable in certain circumstances, such as flooding, as we heard, possible river pollution and where action is needed in a hurry. I ask the Minister to tell us—if he is not minded to accept the amendment —how such a crisis will be dealt with in its absence. Does he feel that the existing powers in the Bill are sufficient? I support both the amendments very strongly. I hope that they will be accepted.
Viscount Torrington: I recognise the good intentions behind the amendment of my noble friend

621
Lord Addison. I realise that it concerns primarily matters such as water. However, taken at face value, I have a feeling that it would have one rather undesirable side-effect; namely, to prevent coal mining. Frankly, I do not believe that coal mining is environmentally sustainable in the long term under any circumstances. It took something like 300 million years for the atmosphere of this planet to become breathable as we fixed the coal in the coal measures. We are now digging it all up and chucking it back into the atmosphere and doing it within a couple of hundred years. So coal mining in the long term is not sustainable. But I suspect that, until we have something more effective, we shall have to continue with it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I strongly support the amendment. I hope that we shall not hear too much criticism about the terms of the amendment. It seems to me that the very nature of coal mining requires the kind of control—I believe that that is the right word —that is contained in this amendment.
I understand what the last speaker said. I speak as one who has lived all his life in a coal mining area. But it is possible to improve the environment, even if one lives on a coalfield. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount agrees. There has been substantial improvement in what can be done in and around a coal mine. It would be quite wrong of society to ignore that fact.
I shall speak briefly and do so only because the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley both referred to County Durham, about which I have already spoken. However, I have to say again that this amendment pinpoints the problem of mine-working pollution. Here we are, on the first day of Committee, and the issue has already been talked about for a number of hours. As we know, the National Rivers Authority is the agency responsible for dealing with pollution of controlled waters. The authority is spending millions of pounds in that regard in relation to the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The noble Lord, who I am glad to see in his place, has already made some notable contributions to the debate as chairman of the authority. On Second Reading, at col. 1346, he said that,
"in the Durham coalfield [and other cases] the resultant economic and social effects would be even worse than those associated with the Wheal Jane Tin Mine".
It cannot get much worse than that. He said today, I believe—and I have read about it—that the costs so far at that mine are in the region of £8 million, and I assume that they are ongoing.
We must congratulate the noble Lord and his authority on the report entitled, Abandoned Mines and Water Environment. It is dated March 1994 which means that it is not only authoritative, but also that it is smack up to date. I hope that it will form the basis of any discussion that takes place on minewater pollution during the remaining stages of the Bill.
The report describes both the potential and actual damage resulting from abandoned mines and the legal and practical difficulties the authority faces in its efforts to prevent and clean up associated pollution. In the north-east of England the NRA is faced with 15
622
significant discharges and some 100 discharges in total. That is a measure of the problem facing my part of the country and, I have no doubt, other parts of the country unless the Government consider seriously this extremely important problem.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: I have met since Second Reading a wide variety of people connected with the coal mining industry. The representations made to me on behalf of those with environmental concerns have been far and away the most impressive. I want to emphasise to my noble friend therefore that whatever disagreement there may be between the various parties who are for or against privatisation, one item common to all those interested in the legislation is the question of the environment.
I attended a meeting where suggested amendments were put forward. I offered the view to those consulting us—it was quite a representative meeting—that it was the environmental issues that were likely to receive the most serious consideration in your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, much of today's discussion has been on environmental issues. I venture to suggest that those issues will form a significant part of the remainder of the discussions in Committee and indeed on Report. I say that purely to emphasise to my noble friend that as one who is a strong supporter of the Bill and of the privatisation of the coal industry I feel that it is one issue to which we must pay special attention.
The Earl of Lindsay: I wish to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Torrington and also anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in the definition attaching to sustainable development, especially the definition implied by the wording of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Addison. The phrase "environmentally sustainable development" implies that it is not sustainable development in the normal sense. My noble friend Lord Torrington is therefore correct that, on face value, the way that the amendment has been tabled suggests that coal mining should cease forthwith.
The international definition which has found some consensus is that sustainable development should allow the needs of the current generation to be met without compromising the needs of future generations. Therefore, it is not involved with arresting all ecological loss, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out. The entire way in which we live our lives has some form of environmental impact. Sustainable development is about options. It is about analysing those options and choosing the better and more sustainable options.
I would encourage my noble friend to take this amendment forward in principle. This is an excellent opportunity to write into primary legislation the words "sustainable development". I back other Members who have lamented the lack of a general environmental duty. Clause 3(7) is rather quaint but in 1994 it is very old-fashioned. It does not have the general environmental duty which the Government have vested in other

623
recently created agencies and authorities. The amendment would not only cover that duty but would also write in sustainable development where it belongs. Sustainable development is about integrating economic and environmental needs. Legislation about the future of the coal industry is probably an ideal opportunity for this.
Lord Ezra: I was at the meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, referred. His remarks then made a considerable impact, as I am sure they have in the Committee today. The question of the environment is a wide-ranging one which will certainly keep recurring as we go through the Bill. At the moment the main issue has turned out to be the problem of minewater pollution, which is specifically dealt with in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. There is a very serious problem, as we have heard from both sides of the Committee, and it is important that a message should go from here in consideration of this issue which will give some measure of alleviation to the very real concern that exists. This is an immediate issue. There are also longer term issues, to which the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell, has referred, which are implicit in the discussion we are having at the present time.
Earl Bathurst: I rise only with great deference after noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who are great experts. Has not my noble friend the Minister given a most valuable and interesting answer in saying that the new Coal Authority will in fact take on all the obligations of the old Coal Board? If that could be put into the Bill in some way or another, would it not meet all the troubles and fears expressed by noble Lords opposite and other noble Lords who know something about the subject? Perhaps my noble friend could expand on that answer. It was a most interesting one to all who have problems with the Bill.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may have the opportunity to reply to what has again been an interesting debate on the whole question of environmental liabilities and on the statutory duty on the environment which we may put on to the Coal Authority. It is probably a rather better opportunity to have the debate in the quietness of the evening than in the heat of the afternoon when I replied to the debate on Amendment No. 1.
The three amendments would, respectively, give the Coal Authority a broad statutory duty to promote environmentally sustainable development; deal with the detailed issue of whether the authority can carry out mining operations where the aim is the avoidance of pollution; and provide for the transfer to the authority of British Coal's liabilities under the Water Resources Act. I join entirely with what my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin said about the importance of environmental liabilities. He said that the greatest consideration should be accorded to it. I agree with him on that point, as I do on so many others.
Amendment No. 13, moved by my noble friend Lord Addison, would place a duty on the Coal Authority, in carrying out its licensing functions, to further the objective of environmentally sustainable development.
624
In a very useful contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, explained some matters which I did not know about the difference between environmentally sustainable and ecologically sustainable development. That has helped the debate on. Clearly there is some doubt about the meaning of the words and therefore they are not acceptable. I believe that the terminology used is important. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, suggested that I should not use terminology as an excuse for not accepting the amendment. It is important that we stick to the terms. If the noble Lord did not say that I apologise to him.
I described in some detail earlier the role that the authority will play in dealing with water pollution from coal mines. I shall return to that in a moment. The Coal Authority explanatory note sets out more broadly the role of the authority in respect of works carried out on its land. That goes much further than the duty in Clause 3(7) which has been mentioned. But the responsibilities that it will discharge will be those of the owner of these mines. To give the authority a specific statutory role relating to environmentally sustainable development would cut across the existing detailed and well-developed framework of legislation dealing with environmental issues relating to mining. The planning authorities, the local authorities, the environmental regulatory bodies such as the NRA, the bodies in Scotland and the nature conservation bodies which exist in England already have carefully defined roles. During the course of the debate I have not understood what is the new role of the Coal Authority and how it will fit in to the environmental duties which are already imposed on so many other bodies.
I began by saying that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. I do, but I do not see how the provision is going to mesh. I believe that it could create, confusion, particularly given the fact that this House has, a Select Committee specifically dealing with the issue of sustainable development. Its report may well give us the kind of guidance that would be useful on how to apply legislation to these kinds of statutory bodies in order to allow the kind of sustainable development which my noble friend mentioned. Where appropriate, we have taken steps to strengthen the planning mechanisms. I refer my noble friend not just to Clauses No. 53 and 54, which broadly place obligations on the Coal Authority and the operators under the planning system.
I now turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who addressed the detailed question of prohibition in coal mining operations by the authority which is set out in subsection (6) of this clause. I understand the anxiety that this prohibition should not prevent the authority from acting where necessary to secure that any operations which are necessary to prevent an imminent risk of serious pollution to the environment are maintained.
I understand entirely the point of this amendment and the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, with his responsibilities for the angling fraternity, and those of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. However, I am advised that the amendment is not necessary. It adds nothing to the Bill because the situation is already beyond doubt. If that is the case, then I do not believe

625
that we need take the debate any further. If it is not the case, I shall seek further advice, because the matter should be put beyond doubt. I believe that it is beyond doubt because the prohibition on coal mining operations by the authority, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell noted, is solely a prohibition on the carrying out of certain operations for commercial purposes. There is no such prohibition in respect of other purposes. Since the purposes which the amendment addresses—namely, the prevention of pollution—are clearly not commercial purposes, they will not be caught by the prohibition in Clause 5(6) of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned a situation in which the authority might need to move coal. I do not believe that the prohibition would apply as regards that example. Moreover, minewater pumping on its own is not an activity which falls within the category of coal mining operations that would be prohibited if commercial.
10 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said and am to some extent reassured. However, I should be glad if he could look at this again to make quite certain. It might, for example, be highly desirable for the Coal Authority, having had to shift coal and incur a lot of expenditure, to be able to sell the coal in order to reduce its costs, but as part of the operation and not for commercial purposes. I want to make quite certain that such contradictions do not exist.
Lord Strathclyde: There is no intention on the part of the Government to create any contradiction. However, I shall look at this matter again. As I said, I am advised that the noble Lord's amendment is unnecessary because the provisions are already in the Bill. Obviously we have to make sure that that is the case and I shall ask my officials to look at the question carefully.
I turn now to the third amendment, Amendment No. 37. This is a very important amendment—not just in specific terms but because of the issues with which it deals which would impact on any restructuring scheme made under Clause 12. The Secretary of State will be obliged to transfer all criminal and civil liabilities of British Coal under Section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to the successor company in whose favour the scheme has been made. The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the position with regard to the responsibilities for water pollution following the privatisation of British Coal.
As has been noted, I made a statement this afternoon on this question. I do not want to overstate the importance of that statement, but it was specific and important because of its acceptance of two things: first, that there is a problem with water pollution and, secondly, that the Government are going to do something about it in practical terms, although it is only an interim step. I explained why it had to be an interim step because of the review. However much we may think that we are qualified to legislate, we are not qualified to legislate on this issue until we have had the
626
full review with the help of the NRA's excellent report. The assurance that I gave this afternoon was designed to allay fears about the possibility of minewater pollution and the role of the Coal Authority during the run-up to privatisation, post-privatisation and before we have the new regime in place after the review. In that respect, it is an important issue.
The other reason why I felt that it was important to come to the Committee this afternoon with a prepared statement was to avoid noble Lords having to write further amendments for the next stage of our consideration of the Bill when we would simply get ourselves further into a muddle. I hope that the statement that I made earlier is clear enough to alleviate the majority of the problems raised by my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the Committee.
I hope that what I have said in this debate is helpful and reinforces my earlier statement. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that we shall look again at the issue to try to get it right. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Addison. It could well be that we need to discuss this further, but I am not convinced that a case has been made or of the way in which the proposals would work in practice. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to my amendment and for the support of noble Lords. I am glad that my noble friend recognises the serious nature of the environmental aspects of the Coal Authority's operations, but it is disappointing not to see that more clearly stated on the face of the Bill. However, at this stage, I shall not press the matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): I have to say that if Amendment No. 17 were to be agreed to I could not call Amendment No. 18.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 47, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:

("( ) a viable and sustainable coal industry in Britain that over a long-term will achieve and retain a competitive position in relation to other fuels.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the authority is established in a way that ensures that the United Kingdom coal industry as a whole achieves competitiveness with other fuels. That is the form of competitiveness that we are interested in. Subsection (2) (b) is not satisfactory to us because it sees competitiveness solely within coal mining operations. There are several factors which will influence the competitiveness and the viability of the coal industry in the future. First, the structure of coal's biggest market: electricity generation, where the contracts are for three years only. Secondly, the structure of the industry when it is sold off: for example, how many mining operators will there be? According to the Bill it can be anything from one to five regionally, plus some other smaller fish around the edges of the

627
pool. Thirdly, the ability of the Coal Authority to improve the viability of the industry, though it would be difficult to raise productivity greatly.
The fact that the market against coal has been rigged over the past few years is one which we have not ceased to preach and the Government have not actually conceded to us, but we still believe it. As we have often said, the nuclear subsidy, the dash for gas and the electricity imports via the link from France, have made it difficult for coal to be anything other than squeezed out of its largest market, electricity generation in England and Wales. The result of that has been the wholesale pit closures of the last 18 months. A further contraction of coal's market share seems to us to be almost inevitable over the next three to four years, as more gas-fired stations come on stream.
In many respects then, the process of privatisation will not really be the key determinant of coal's future. The overall scale of the industry is constrained very tightly by the unfair structure of its principal market. In fact, whether the pits are publicly or privately owned, little can be done to increase the total size of the market for coal. However, in other respects the structure of the mining industry after privatisation and the current wording of Clause 2(2)(b) could have a significant impact on the future survival of deep mining.
I noted very carefully the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, former chairman of British Coal, in the debate in your Lordships' House on Second Reading of this Bill, which were very relevant to this matter. He talked of a minimum of 35 pits being necessary to provide a critical mass, to allow continued access to a high proportion of the nation's coal reserves and to compete on the world market. Those remarks appeared on 11th April in the Official Report, at col. 1329.
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, argued particularly strongly against fragmenting the industry which the Government are encouraging with the five regional packages recently announced as the basic structure of the sell-off and the inclusion of this clause which encourages the Coal Authority to promote competition. Referring to British Coal's tremendous recent record of productivity increases, he said —and I quote—
"This performance hardly reflects a lack of competition and indeed I do not know any other major UK industry which can match these dramatic productivity figures over the past decade. I have been involved in many industries in my career and without reservation the competition I experienced in coal was much the toughest. To sum up, British Coal needs more competition like a 'hole in the head'."—[Official Report, 11/4/94; col. 1330.]
He added a little later in the same column:
"If British Coal is broken up into five units we really will have a "rag-bag" of an industry… If this fragmentation policy is pursued, I predict that only a minimal coal industry will be left at the end of the decade".
The Government should heed the words of the noble Lord—or is that what the Government want to happen?
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, echoed fears expressed by many other commentators that the break-up into small units will be strategically destructive. The nature of coal mining is such that constant capital investment is needed for development. Additionally, in Britain geological conditions are particularly unpredictable. Geological problems can potentially halt production at any time in any area. If
628
individual pits or small mining companies are competing with each other, the incentive will be to minimise development expenditure, leading to pits being operated on what has been dramatically, but I think accurately, described as a "rape and pillage basis", in which collieries are kept open only until the reserves requiring the bare minimum of development are exhausted.
The requirement in Clause 2(2)(b) that the Coal Authority promotes competition is therefore, in our view, likely to result in a deep mine industry which shrinks to virtually nothing within a decade. That is clearly contrary to the requirement in Clause 2(1)(a) that it maintains and develops an economically viable coal industry.
What then can the Coal Authority do to protect the future of the industry? One practical area in which the authority could exercise some influence would be to encourage the drawing up of long-term contracts between new operators and the electricity generators when the present contracts expire in 1998. There is plenty of example for that. Many US coal operators have contracts of 15 or even 30 years with electricity companies. This would have two positive effects. First, mining companies would have sufficiently long-term horizons to encourage proper capital investment in development. That would result in the better utilisation of the nation's most abundant energy resource. Secondly, longer-term contracts with the generators would put coal on a more equal footing with nuclear power, which has a guaranteed market share, and gas-fired stations, which typically have 15-year contracts with the RECs.
In our view, the Coal Authority should encourage co-operation between mining operators in areas which would be beneficial to the future of the industry as a whole; notably research and development in mining techniques, in clean coal technology and in marketing, as we mentioned earlier.
In summary, most of the damage to Britain's mining industry has already been done. By the end of the year when leasing and privatisation processes are complete there will be perhaps 20 operating pits compared with 170 at the end of the miners' strike in 1985. The likelihood is that still more collieries will close if the present structure of the electricity generating market in England and Wales is not altered. Access to most of Britain's plentiful coal reserves has already been lost and the nation will pay the price for this in the early years of the next century when our gas reserves are undone and we become dependent on imported fuels. There are, nevertheless, steps which the Coal Authority could take to maximise the size of the coal industry into the future if it is allowed to take a pro-active approach. As it stands, the Bill suggests that the authority should promote competition between the new mining operators when the industry as a whole already faces intense and unfair competition from its competitors in the electricity generation market.
This amendment seeks to replace this needless requirement with one which will encourage and enable the authority to promote the interests of the nation as a whole, which lie, I suggest, in sustaining the largest

629
possible deep-mine industry well into the next century. That will be done not by internal competition but by a united and competitive coal industry. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: What an extraordinary speech made by the noble Lord. It shows that the politics of central planning and socialism live on in the noble Lord's brain. I suppose that I should be grateful for that, because it makes my job and the Government's job much easier.
Clause 2(2) (b) imposes a duty on the Coal Authority to have regard to the desirability of promoting competition. This amendment seeks to remove that duty and require the authority to have regard to the desirability of securing a viable and sustainable industry over the long term and to retain a competitive position. The Government's objective is to facilitate the development of the largest economic industry in the longer term.
We believe unashamedly that that is best achieved through the mechanisms of the market place, which provides the most effective and efficient means of meeting energy needs. It is within competitive markets that prices are best determined and costs can be exposed to rigorous test. That is why Clause (2) (1) (a) places a duty on the authority to secure, so far as practicable, that its licensees maintain and develop an economically viable coal industry.
Attempts to impose all-embracing plans about how much energy of what kind should be produced or consumed by whom are doomed to failure. I am sure that in his heart of hearts, the noble Lord recognises that. It is not within the Coal Authority's power to guarantee that an economically viable or sustainable coal-mining industry is maintained and developed by licensees, or that the industry will retain a competitive position. That depends more on the action of licensees and developments in the market.
What the authority can do is to provide information. It can make available the coal resource and property within its ownership. It can establish a competitive licensing regime to facilitate development of the coal industry by licensees.
The Government firmly believe that the workings of the market are the best way of securing an efficient and effective industry for the future. The Bill as drafted provides the right balance of duties on the authority and the noble Lord's amendment is unhelpful.
Perhaps I may take up one point which the noble Lord made. He used the words of my noble friend Lord Haslam to support him. He said that we are splitting the industry into five parts, and that that is bad. We are not splitting the industry into five. We are giving the private sector the opportunity to decide for itself what kind of industry it wants. As the noble Lord knows, it is perfectly possible that one buyer will come forward to buy all five separate areas. Therefore, it is not the noble Lord who is making the decision about the future make-up of the industry; it is the private sector.
The noble Lord may say that the private sector is wrong. That leads us back to the unbridgeable gulf
630
which exists between us, because I believe that, ultimately, the private sector will make the right decision. The worst way of going forward would be by accepting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Ezra: In spite of what the noble Lord has just said, I believe that there is a strong point in the main issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris; that is, that the competitive threat facing coal is really from other energy sectors, and that that should be the object of the whole exercise. A thriving, revived coal industry, under this new regime, will be possible only if it can fight other forms of energy. An internecine battle between small coal companies will do the reverse. It would set us right back, as I said on Second Reading, to the situation which existed between the wars, when a former Conservative Government, under Mr. Baldwin, had to intervene to bring together the warring companies and to put some sense into the marketplace.
Therefore, I am entirely at one, as I was on Second Reading, with the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, that the real competition is between coal and other forms of energy and the emphasis in this clause that the competition should be between the different coal companies seems to me to be misplaced.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course we want a competitive industry. As I have always said, that is the essence of the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has not answered the point which I made; namely, that it is neither I nor the Government who are making the decisions about the future shape of the industry. It is the private sector which will make those decisions. If what the noble Lord says is so true and self evident to everybody apart from the Government and myself, then surely the private sector will come forward with one bid.
Lord Ezra: That is not how the private sector reacted between the wars. It went flat out for internecine competition. Can the Minister assure me that it has now grown up and taken advantage of that experience, and that we will not return to that situation?
Lord Strathclyde: What is so essentially different in the energy market in the last decade of the 20th century compared to what it was between the wars is that we already have a much more diverse energy market than we have ever had. There are already so many choices that the coal industry does not need to compete with itself. Its position will be to compete with the other energy industries. The noble Lord and I can probably agree on that.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: On one matter I think that the Minister and I can agree. On the question of competition, between you and me there is, in the words of the Holy Writ, "a great gulf fixed". There are various forms of competition. It is not one single concept. Some are destructive and mean; others are stimulating and good.
I am grateful to the Minister for the exegesis which he has given of his position. I shall read it with great care tomorrow. It has all the virtues of clarity. This issue, of course, will not go away, and, like General

631
MacArthur—was it not?—during the Second World War, I say, "I shall return". Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duties of the Authority with respect to property]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Authority to retain freehold ownership of the coal and coalmines transferred to it in accordance with section 7(3) below.").
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Peston. I am sure that he would want me to say that it is a helpful amendment. One might even describe it as sincere. It is also a probing amendment. As will be seen, Clause 7(3), to which the amendment refers, states:
"On the restructuring date the Corporation's interests in unworked coal and coal mines, including its interests in any coal that, notwithstanding having been worked at some time, is so attached…shall vest without further assurance in the Authority.".
The amendment seeks to ensure that the freehold of the coal, and the liabilities that attach to it, rest ultimately with the Coal Authority. Of course, leasehold interests and other rights can be granted, but on the termination of such interests ownership and the accompanying responsibilities should revert to the Coal Authority. That seems a reasonable proposition given what is set out in Clause 7(3). After all, someone has to hold the freehold. It seems to me in the circumstances that the appropriate body is the new Coal Authority. I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment is intended to be helpful and to fill what we see as a slight vacuum in the Bill. I hope that he is prepared to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she moved her noble friend's amendment. In my opinion she probably moved it rather more speedily and effectively than he would have done. I hope that perhaps she can move some more of her noble friend's amendments in like manner. It is an important issue. It is certainly envisaged that the Coal Authority will normally retain the freehold of coal and coal mines. But we cannot rule out the possibility that there will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the authority to dispose of the freehold. It is just possible that a purchaser might, for one reason or another, having earned out, say, opencast operations, attach substantially greater value to associated freehold surface land in the authority's possession if he also had the freehold of the coal. If it were in an isolated area of open grass it is not obvious that there would be disadvantages in selling the freehold. However, there is no suggestion—and I would not like the noble Baroness to understand it in that way—that that would be a likely or frequent occurrence. However, it would not be prudent to rule it out altogether.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that we recognise that freehold disposal on a large scale would be undesirable. In the past fragmentation of ownership
632
has made exploitation more difficult. We shall therefore want to minimise the extent to which that happens, especially because there is always a possibility of new methods of exploitation.
I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness. I hope that it also explains what is at the root of government thinking on this issue and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down can he confirm that there is a significant number of pits which are not owned freehold by British Coal at present but are owned by third parties?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend answers that question perhaps I may make this point. He has properly made a distinction between freehold ownership of the surface and freehold ownership of the coal and coal mines. Here we get into a slight state of confusion because coal mines necessarily have to have works on the surface. It would be impossible to work the coal mines and to use the freehold rights in the coal without having access to and in certain circumstances ownership of the surface. Perhaps that is a matter which my noble friend would like to clarify or confirm.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I see no reason why the Minister cannot accept the amendment. In the Second Reading debate (at col. 1293 of Hansard for 11th April) the Minister described the powers being given to the Coal Authority as being to license coal mining, to own and to grant access to coal reserves. That does not mean freehold ownership.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, misunderstood either what I said or the Bill. The idea is that the licensee is given exactly that—a licence on the coal and a lease on the coal which gives him the ability to dig it out and then to sell it. I explained to the noble Baroness the thinking behind that.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked me a perfectly valid question. I do not know what the proportions are, but it is true that British Coal owns some mines which are leased, sometimes on very long leases.
As regards the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton, British Coal owns the freehold of the underground mines but does not necessarily own the freehold of the land itself.. I am not sure whether my noble friend made some neat legal point. I do not pretend to be an expert on this issue. It had not been raised in my mind as being a particularly awkward issue. I am sorry if I have misunderstood my noble friend.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may attempt to elucidate. The original surface belongs to the owner of the freehold, whether it be a landowner or some other legal person. But when the freehold in the coal—what used to be called the mining royalties —comes to be exploited that can only be exploited if there are surface works. As I understand it, under the present law, which has existed since the days more than 60 years ago when mining royalties were unified—which was the euphemism which was used at the time—those surface works ceased

633
to be in the ownership of the original owner and came into the ownership of the people who were working the coal —in other words the coal mine. That was my point.
Lord Strathclyde: My noble friend is absolutely right. I am sorry that I did not understand him the first time around. I believe that he has clarified the situation. I agree with him.
Viscount Torrington: Perhaps I may ask a point of clarification. Am I right in believing that the ownership of the freehold of the coal is what is vested in the authority under the Bill? Therefore surely it cannot demise that in any way. The amendment seeks to make the authority retain the freehold, but it is duty bound to do so. It cannot demise coal rights.
Lord Strathclyde: The Bill allows in exceptional circumstances—I explained what the circumstances would be—the sale of the freehold of the coal. Otherwise what my noble friend has said is right, and in general circumstances the Coal Authority will not sell the freehold but simply give a lease.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I welcome the assurances which the Minister has given in response to the amendment. I welcome that he states that the Government recognise that it would be undesirable to fragment ownership and that one would wish to minimise the extent to which the possibility of disposal of the freeholds could occur. In view of the concern that has been expressed in various parts of the Chamber this evening, will the Minister reconsider the matter to see whether at Report stage, if they do not like the wording of our amendment, the Government would be prepared to introduce their own amendment to make the situation clear?
Lord Strathclyde: I am happy to have a look at the provision. I certainly thought that I was very clear in my initial answer. However, I shall consider whether the provision should be clarified.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 33, after ("Authority") insert
("—

(a) before it disposes of any interest in any agreement which permits the temporary occupation of the surface land or other rights in land for the purpose of undertaking coal mining operations, to insert such additional obligations in the agreement as are necessary to provide adequate protection to each person with an interest in the land to ensure that there are appropriate guarantees, bonds, deposits or other terms to secure—

(i) the payments due during the term of the agreement,

(ii) the terminal payment due at the end of the agreement, and

(iii) other payments that may be due during or after the occupation of the land as a result of the coal mining operations, and

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above,").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and myself. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35. I have already declared an interest at Committee stage which I hope will be satisfactory to noble Lords.
Throughout the afternoon I have sought the origin of a quotation which I heard the other day. It was this: "Don't talk to me about a man's assets. Show me his liabilities". The amendments relate to liabilities—the liabilities which have been incurred by British Coal over the years in the prosecution of its operations. They relate to any current or future agreements between the authority or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) with third parties which permit those third parties temporarily to occupy the surface of the land in association with mining operations. I am assured that the mining operations in this context include the closing down of pits and the exploitation of the land surface on which they stood. I should be grateful if the Minister would give me guidance as to whether I have been correctly informed.
The amendments seek to ensure that third parties to whom assets and liabilities of British Coal are transferred have protection against liability at the same or comparable level to that which they would have had had British Coal retained the operating licence. Is it a big problem? How many pits in the country are held freehold other than by British Coal? How many are held under licence or lease? Perhaps the Minister will give a written answer; I shall therefore not trouble him for an answer now.
I cannot tell the Committee the number regarding land ownership of the freehold. But a number of other parties may be involved in liability, such as neighbours, householders, smallholders on the fringe of the site or owners of land under which mining is taking place. The liabilities about which I speak exclude subsidence. I believe that that is largely satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill. They exclude the escape of polluted minewater which has been admirably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the liability for industrial disease. I am told that that is covered by the industrial diseases legislation of 1978.
There are significant other liabilities and, still worse, potential liabilities: the possibility of the escape of methane gas, surface flood water, the collapse of tips, slipping on to neighbouring land, as happened at Aberfan, and blown dust. I know a case of that in the Kent coalfield where I live and where an adjoining farmer had a successful claim against the Coal Board for over £1 million. Above all, there is contamination and pollution. That is an uncertain liability. The Government have accepted the principle that the polluter pays; the European Community is fighting for the principle that strict liability should be involved in certain situations relating to contamination. The Green movement and the Community itself keep moving the goal posts, they keep inventing new forms of pollution and setting stricter control levels, so that none of us can ever know when we will be hit.
Are the Government asking Parliament to give carte blanche to the Secretary of State or the Coal Authority

635
to transfer those liabilities to operators with much less broad shoulders than British Coal and who could, either intentionally or by accident, turn out to be men of straw? Thus the landowner or the neighbour would have to shoulder the liability. We are talking of liabilities which can run into millions of pounds.
In commercial practice, the owner of a piece of land which is leased to an operator normally does not have to transfer that lease except to another acceptable operator. However, in this case the Government are waving a magic wand and saying, "It has got to be transferred to whomever we tell you to transfer it". That may be a totally unacceptable operator.
There are two questions that I wish to ask the noble Lord. First, he said earlier in the debate that the Coal Authority would be the owner of the mine. I have not been able to find that in the Bill, I have not found a clause which says that. In fact, Clause 12(2) provides for the Secretary of State to dispose of British Coal operations to persons other than the Coal Authority, prior to the restructuring date.
My second question is this. The noble Lord said that any mine anywhere, if abandoned, becomes the responsibility of the Coal Authority. I should be more than grateful if he could tell me how the Bill provides for that. To me, Clause 3 seems to say exactly the opposite. It says that the Coal Authority must sell land not used for mining operations.
Finally, I have a question for the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley: if a bill demanding money comes to him for pollution on or under his land, and if the successor body which holds the licence to operate that land turns out to be a man of straw, to whom should he send the bill?
Lord Renton: I am enthusiastically in favour of de-nationalisation, but one must concede that when we had one coal board, the entire legal situation was simplified over the country as a whole. When we have the possibility of a number of new companies coming in, sometimes on land below which the coal has not been exploited before or has been only partly exploited, we have a new situation which should, from the legal point of view, be properly covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne said, with justice to the owners of the land. Undoubtedly, unless we are careful, problems could arise. The noble Lord mentioned some of them. Perhaps I may say in passing that I have no interest to declare. I am a native of west Kent, under which, so far as is known, there is no coal. But we realise that in east Kent, where the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, owns and farms land, the situation is one which requires careful thought.
The problems of subsidence, contamination and pollution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, and the potential liabilities of third parties—it may be two third parties—that could arise are matters that we should not leave to chance. They are matters that we should try to anticipate. Any legal problems that might arise should be treated in such a way as to avoid unnecessary resort to the courts and without taking the risk of hardship to the landowner or anyone else. It is a
636
very good thing, if I may say so, that the noble Lord has raised these matters even at this late hour and with so few noble Lords present in Committee.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: As I understand it, fleetingly and tangentially, this amendment has as its purpose to highlight the duty to insert clauses to provide adequate financial protection for those who may be disadvantaged by the operation of private sector mining companies on land with inadequate provision in existing working right agreements.
The Minister said that there are about 200 WRAs, some of which are near the end of the periods for which British Coal will retain responsibility. Others are in active use or awaiting the start of operations.
Without making specific provision in the agreements, which were signed with British Coal as a government-backed company, the owners of that land will be exposed to the risks of severe financial loss and dereliction as a result of the working. Without express provisions in the agreement, the owners, so far as I can make it out, will have inadequate, if indeed any, legal redress. In transferring the rights, the Government surely must protect the interests of those who are affected.
That raises a linked point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, drew attention. If I am correct—and the Minister will correct me if I am not—in his first speech the Minister stressed the role of Clause 7(3), which is to ensure that all the coal and coal mines pass to the Coal Authority on the restructuring date. In his reply to Amendment No. 37, the Minister said that where a mine is abandoned the responsibility automatically reverts to the Coal Authority. Surely these assurances are only true if Clause 12(2) does not allow the Secretary of State to transfer interests in coal or other interests in property from the corporation to other companies before the restructuring date. If, as drafted, he can transfer coal, mines or other assets, then surely the Coal Authority has no role.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not looked very closely at these clauses almost until I came into the House. But a number of issues have been raised which need clarification. It is again a question of whether the liabilities are to be transferred to less broad shoulders than those of British Coal. In that sense they are the same issues that we discussed earlier in the day.
Under Clause 3, it is,
"the duty of the Authority, so far as practicable, to make available for acquisition by others such of its land and other property as does not consist in an interest in any unworked coal or coal mine [and] is not being put to a use which justifies its retention by the Authority"
and so on. In other words, as I understand the matter, it is a duty to get rid of land which is no longer required for coal mining.
The trouble about land that is no longer required for coal mining is that it may have become heavily contaminated and polluted in the past. I have some knowledge of the work of derelict land clearance because, as Secretary of State for Wales, I was. responsible for what I suppose was the largest programme of its kind carried on anywhere in Europe. I know that the original intention was to remove the tips

637
which might, as at Aberfan, cause a tragic loss of life and to clean up the land to make it more suitable for development. In those early stages not a great deal of attention was paid to making sure that no contamination was left. Very often the sites were extremely complicated.
After I ceased to be a Minister, it happened that I found myself for a time a director of a company which was responsible for preparing the site at Ebbw Vale where the garden festival was held. It was a steelworks site and not a coal mine. The usual investigatory drilling was done. But it was only when people got to work that it was discovered that in fact there were about three or four (it may even have been five) successive steelworks, one on top of the other, which had just been flattened and sorted out, and that what was there was an unknown mess of unbelievable complexity.
To give another example, I could take Members of this Committee to contaminated land sites where refuse has been disposed of which contained material such as PCBs. Ownership has passed on, perhaps several times, to someone who was not responsible for putting the contamination there in the first place and who may be without any resources that would enable him to remove it, clear up the site or pay for any damage that might arise.
In replying to the debate my noble friend may say that it is the problem of contaminated land that is also being addressed in the great review that the Government are undertaking; it goes beyond coal mining. I shall understand that, because these are complicated and difficult issues. But we want to be clear that there are many sites where there is or may be contamination and where there may be risks to third parties of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and where the shoulders of those who acquire them may not be anything like as broad as those of British Coal. Therefore, again we need some clarification of exactly how the Government intend to protect third parties from the consequences that may arise.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, introduced his amendments very clearly. Certainly, the speeches of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Renton were very helpful. My noble friend Lord Renton said that we had to be clear about where the liabilities are. I think that he said that we must not leave it to chance. I entirely agree with him.
I believe that all the concerns that have been raised are dealt with either in the Bill or by the assurances that I gave earlier this afternoon vis-à-vis the water liabilities. What is not dealt with perhaps quite so easily, but if we are in favour of the Bill what I believe we have to accept, is the concept of the broad shoulders of British Coal. Because British Coal is owned by the Government, ultimately the taxpayer is a long stop. Where the operator is a private company, the long stop is not quite so obvious. But within the terms of the Bill the Coal Authority has to be absolutely certain that the
638
operators who will take over are financially viable and that they have the necessary finances to be able to deal with the problems.
Rather than ramble on, perhaps I may deal with the issues specifically. The Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers to transfer the property, rights and liabilities of British Coal to other persons by the restructuring scheme. Such powers are common in privatisation legislation. My noble friend mentioned the steel works. Of course, we privatised steel successfully, the private sector experiencing no problems in taking over substantial potential environmental liabilities and the arguments in relation to contaminated land are as serious and relevant to the steel industry as they are to the coal industry.
One of the uses which will be made of those powers will be to transfer British Coal's interests in contracts of various sorts to successor companies. It is inherent in this, as in any privatisation, that some obligations which were obligations of the public sector, and therefore ultimately the taxpayer, become obligations of the private sector.
The agreements, known as "working rights agreements", between landowners and British Coal, under which British Coal could come onto the land to extract coal for a period, come into that category. The amendments are all concerned with the transfer of working rights agreements. Their theme is that those agreements are a special class and should have a special treatment rather than that of the general transfer provisions of the Bill as proposed.
The amendments seek to ensure that where British Coal's working rights agreements with landowners are transferred by the scheme to successors, security provisions should be inserted into the agreements to guarantee the various payments due to the landowner under the agreements. However, I do not believe that the amendment would achieve the intended result because the Coal Authority has no general power to dispose of its rights and liabilities by means of a scheme. If an agreement had been transferred to the Coal Authority the liabilities under the agreement could not be transferred on by the authority save by agreement.
I do not accept that working rights agreements should be afforded special treatment. British Coal has all kinds of agreements which will be transferred. As I have said, that is the nature of privatisation. Of course there will be many cases where the other party may feel that he would prefer to be dealing with a public sector body. That is not unnatural. But it does not follow from that, that the agreements should be revised or excluded from transfer altogether. However, the Government recognise the concern of landowners and others about the persons to whom agreements will be transferred. I assure the Committee that we shall take that into account in exercising the restructuring powers in the Bill.
I appreciate that those to whom obligations may be owed by the operators will have understandable concerns about their financial standing. That is one reason why the Bill places a duty on the Coal Authority at Clause 2(1) (b) to secure, so far as practicable, that operators are able to finance the liabilities arising from their operations. That provides reasonable assurance for

639
third parties that the private mining companies licensed by the Coal Authority will be of appropriate financial standing.
There is no reason to think that private sector coal companies will not honour their obligations under those agreements. They will be contractually bound in exactly the same way as British Coal. Moreover, since operators will be rightly concerned that failure to honour obligations of this sort could affect their future licence applications, not to mention their success in negotiating agreements with other landowners in future, they will have every incentive to perform.
There is every reason to expect that the private sector will wish to maintain existing high standards. Since the future of any opencast mining business depends on being able to persuade local mineral planning authorities and public inquiries of the high standards to which opencast sites will be restored, there is every reason to expect continuing improvements in restoration quality. Furthermore, operators will be rightly concerned that failure to restore could work against the success of future licence applications.
I hope that that is helpful and provides some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In reply to the various questions he asked, I must say that in relation to licence and freehold I will write to the noble Lord. I am afraid that we do not have that information to hand. In reply to my noble friend. Lord Stanley through the noble Lord., Lord Northbourne, who asked whether site restoration constituted coal mining operations for the purposes of the Bill, I can say that coal mining operations as defined in Clause 63 do not include site restoration; for example, that can be seen in Clause 53(1) (a) and (b) of the Bill. That is not to say that the Bill does not regulate site restoration. It does, and it does so in Clause 54.
The noble Lord asked two other important questions. What happens to abandoned mines? Are they owned by the Coal Authority? Underlying the whole essence of the Bill is this premise. Clause 7(3) explains quite clearly and categorically—I suspect my noble friend Lord Renton will tell me that it does not do what I think it does, but I am assured that it does—that the mines are transferred to the Coal Authority. That covers all mines whether abandoned or otherwise. Under the licensing arrangements the Coal Authority does not give up ownership of the mines. They still belong to the Coal Authority and ultimately their whole use falls back within it.
I know that the hour is late. Like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I think it is very worth while exploring these issues. My intention this evening was to give comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that I have done so.
Lord Northbourne: While I am very grateful to the noble Lord, I cannot say that he has given me much comfort. Of course we are asking for these agreements to be treated as a special class because they are a special class. When Parliament uses its authority to make transfers of commercial agreements and to force them through against the will of one of the parties, that is a special situation. However, I should like to have the
640
opportunity—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would also like to—perhaps to meet and talk about this between now and the next stage of the Bill. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of the Authority with respect to safety]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:

("( ) to ensure that training programmes are maintained and training records kept.").

The noble Baroness said: As far as I can see, there is no mention of training requirements in the Bill. My amendment is intended to place on the Coal Authority the responsibility of ensuring that the current training programmes are maintained and that training records continue to be kept.
Earlier in the debate the Minister talked about the need to retain the health and safety culture in the mining industry. Training is an essential element of health and safety. If we are to maintain health and safety standards, we need also to maintain the training standards and the training culture of the industry. We were reminded earlier in the debate of the situation pre-nationalisation when safety was not such a high priority in the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, claimed for the nationalised coal industry the fact that it had given a very high priority to safety issues. He might also have claimed that the nationalised coal industry gave a very high priority and a high profile to training, too. We must not allow the situation to deteriorate when the mines are privatised.
The present training schemes under British Coal are carefully constructed and, among other standards, they conform to health and safety requirements. They cover a wide range of areas in all disciplines and take account of new legislation, where appropriate, new government initiatives and national standards, including achieving economies of scale, which I should have thought would appeal to the Government. The training schemes are responsible for ensuring accreditation with external bodies such as the Mining Qualifications Board, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the Health and Safety Executive. They provide advice and direction and, where necessary, train the trainers. They maintain a close relationship with the universities and colleges of higher education which set the academic qualifications required for statutory certificates of competency at all levels. They provide a cost effective centre for the administration of assessments for national vocational qualifications, the City and Guilds mine environment certificates and the engineering craft apprenticeship scheme.
These programmes are far too valuable to be allowed to disappear. At present I understand that the private mining companies rely on British Coal for their supply of trained personnel. Under this Bill each company will be responsible for its own training provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, said in an earlier debate, when

641
speaking of his own experience of industry, that it was easy to cut corners. Regrettably, training has been one of the areas where British industry has cut corners. In the past our training record has not compared favourably with that of other countries. But there have been honourable exceptions and the coal industry has been one of them.
As I see the situation at present under the Bill, there are two dangers. The first is that the present training schemes could easily become fragmented if each company had to be responsible for its own provisions and standards. Secondly, the trainers themselves could be dispersed and less easily available for training purposes.
Under Clause 4 of the Bill we are concerned with the responsibilities of the Coal Authority in respect of health and safety. Under this clause we need also to place specifically on the Coal Authority the responsibility for ensuring that a comprehensive and adequate national training scheme continues to be in place. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. She is absolutely right. This is also a health and safety issue. As we all know, in the coal industry there is continuous hazardous operation. Quite obviously, if properly trained personnel are lacking, the hazards will be that much greater. I am advised that there have been accidents, including fatal ones, where training, or lack of training, has been involved. As my noble friend rightly says, there are already training programmes operated within the United Kingdom coal mining industry of consistent quality and very high standards. I have in my hand here the British Coal scheme of training for working in long wall faces and narrow workings. It is very comprehensive. It is a scheme which has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive. It is standards-based training. There is training, supervision and assessment, selection, operative training, foundation training and the scheme provides for certification as well. It is obviously a very comprehensive scheme. One has to ask: will the new operators, the successor companies, be capable of operating such arrangements unless overall responsibility is vested in the Coal Authority?
As I said earlier, this is a health and safety question. In other industries in which there is a high level of hazard, the Government have been willing to accept that special arrangements have to be made. I am thinking particularly of the construction industry, which also has a high accident rate because hazardous operations are involved, and in which the Construction Industry Training Board has been permitted to continue despite the Government's attitude to industry training boards in other sectors.
I therefore hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister. As my noble friend rightly says, there is no reference in the Bill, so far as we can see, to the necessity of maintaining training programmes. Of course, it is important that training records are
642
kept, otherwise there could be cases of untrained personnel operating in mines, particularly on private contracts. This is a very important issue and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically. I support the amendment.
Earl Bathurst: I beg my noble friend, if he will be so kind, to consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I am involved in a dangerous industry, forestry, and I know that mining is much more dangerous but it has, I believe, an unparalleled safety record, given the number of people involved. It will be a tragedy if, whatever else the Bill does, it denigrates the safety arrangements that have been made by the Coal Board over a number of years. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that the Bill will not damage that record.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course I can give that assurance. My noble friend is absolutely right in saying how important this issue is. Perhaps I may draw a parallel with the industry in which he is a great expert, the forestry industry, which deals with complicated and dangerous machinery and in which he personally has a responsibility to his workers under law. If the law is broken and if he does not provide the right training or qualifications, he can be prosecuted. It is under exactly the same regime that we want the coal industry to perform. As I said on Second Reading, there are no concessions on the issue of safety or the importance of training. What is important is where it is done and who is responsible for it, and it is with that that I wish to deal.
In its report to the Government, the Health and Safety Commission stressed the importance of training and recognised the value of British Coal's computerised database of contractors and of the training records of employees of contractors. The commission has also suggested that the safety-related training material produced by British Coal's Learning Resource Unit should continue to be available to new owners.
Having said that, it is important to note that the commission also stressed that there is already an extensive framework of legislation relating to training and instruction. On this basis, the commission advised that it is for employers to decide on the precise methods, in their particular circumstances, of identifying and meeting their particular training requirements.
British Coal is managing the arrangements for the sale of the ancillary parts of its current business and is considering the options for the future of, among others, the management of training records and material. The corporation is fully aware of the advice which the Health and Safety Commission has given to the Government and shares the Government's determination that safety should be the first priority.
The corporation has assured my department that its proposals will be fully consistent with the commission's advice. That provides substantial reassurance on the concerns underlying this amendment. I welcome the opportunity to give those reassurances and hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lockwood: I thank my noble friend and the noble Earl for their support. I also thank the Minister for stating that he regards this issue as a very important

643
one and that the advice of the Health and Safety Commission has been sought. However, I was not very reassured when the Minister said that, although he hoped that there will be extensive provisions, it will be for each employer to decide on the precise methods of training. That is one of the difficulties that we face under the Bill. If it is for each employer to determine what methods of training he will follow, then there will be no national standards, and that is something that has been an essential part of the training of British Coal.
I am not terribly satisfied with what the Minister said, although I must say that he spoke at such great speed that it was sometimes difficult to keep pace with him. I shall look at what he has said, but I must warn him that I do not feel particularly satisfied and I am sure that we shall be back on this issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of the Authority with respect to other functions of the Corporation
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to ensure the continuation of functions previously carried out by the Corporation but not conferred on any other person.
(2) In particular, the Authority shall ensure the continuation of—

(a) a Mines Medical Service including an occupational health service;

(b) consultation on and drafting of codes of practice; and

(c) educational bursaries.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place an obligation on the Government to maintain existing medical and other services currently provided by British Coal. Medicine, medical services and medical research do not stand still. New methods of treatment constantly emerge, and the mining industry deserves richly in this respect not to be left behind. So this amendment recognises the need for specialised research and on-going specialised medical services for the mining industry.
The service currently provided covers a wide area, from a network of area medical officers, through consultations with employees on occupational health, right through to X-ray schemes. That medical service is part of British Coal's operations. It has played a major part in reducing levels of occupational disease and injury, particularly in the field of pneumoconiosis. It provides advice to miners and to management, and it conducts at the same time on-going specialist research. The special hazards faced by miners require a specialist service. This will not be provided by private operators unless they are forced to do so - it is not necessarily in their interests to do so—or it could be provided by Government. In this instance, if perhaps in few others, we on these Benches would prefer to trust the Government.
If the Government are serious about their intentions to retain the longest possible deep-mined coal industry, then an industrial medical service with dedicated skills and a service record that has served the greater social good surely must be retained. Due to the technical complexities of coal mining and the extent of the
644
statutory conditions which have regulated the industry throughout this century, the coal industry in the United Kingdom has developed considerable proficiency in consultation and in the drafting of codes of practice; and that too should not be abandoned.
With nationalisation, the National Coal Board, as it then was, and since 1986 British. Coal, was the custodian of such procedures. With its passing, the Coal Industry Bill does not inform us where any such duties will lie, and we should like to know. If the industry is to avoid the market anarchy and the deep-rooted social bitterness of the pre-nationalisation era, civilised procedures to obtain mutual agreement through consultative procedures must be preserved. So we regard it as essential that the proposed Coal Authority should be given the statutory means by which private coal operators are required jointly to undertake consultative duties and contribute to codes of practice that ensure the continuation of the highest standards.
On the question of educational bursaries and in-service scholarships, until now British Coal has been able to replicate its managerial and technical expertise through the funding of bursaries and in-service scholarships. The result, I think I can say, has been the most technically concentrated and safest coal industry in the world. It has also contributed to Britain having the most economic and the only unsubsidised deep-mine industry in Europe.
Another outcome until recently was an extremely high standard of union branch officials who, through attending part-time courses in economic industrial relations and safety, have also been able to make a major contribution to the professionalism of the industry's managerial environment. So it is important that for the future of the industry, if it is to survive, a climate of trust based on the continued pursuit of technical, managerial and operational excellence is actively encouraged. This amendment would provide for it. Nothing else in the Bill would. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I wish in particular to refer to the Mines Medical Service, which was established over many years. As the noble Lord rightly said, it made remarkable and indeed world shattering progress in particular with regard to the dreaded disease, pneumoconiosis. It led the way. I remember visits from our American mining colleagues who were most concerned about what they called "black lung disease". They came to us to find out how we dealt with it. It could only have been dealt with on the basis of a concerted, integrated Mines Medical Service, supported by an occupational medical centre.
It is of great social importance to the industry that an integrated medical service, with its accumulated knowledge of dealing with mining diseases and problems, should be preserved one way or another. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Earl Bathurst: We have a thin Committee this evening. After listening to an expert such as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I rise to support what was said by the

645
noble Lord, Lord Morris, who is also an expert. I am not an expert but I know that many people in the mining counties have suffered terribly from mining subsidence and other troubles as a result of mining operations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will see to it that the Bill will ensure that they will not be disadvantaged by its progress. I hope that the Government will take into consideration all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. We are a thin Committee, but many people throughout the country, not only in mining areas, are most interested in this difficult problem which arose long ago.
Viscount Goschen: The intention of the Bill is that the Coal Authority's prime focus should be on facilitating coal mining operations. The Coal Authority would take over British Coal's interests in unworked coal and coal mines as well as other land and property. The authority would therefore also take over British Coal's responsibility for dealing with landslips, water discharges, gas emissions and the like arising out of ownership of that property. We believe that it would therefore be inappropriate to pass on other functions of British Coal to the Coal Authority other than those that I have mentioned.
The amendment draws attention to three particular areas where British Coal currently plays a role. The Health and Safety Commission has advised that there is already a sufficient framework of law requiring employers to carry out all necessary health surveillance and to maintain the necessary medical records. The commission's advice was that it must be for employers to determine how they meet established standards and who they choose to carry out medical examinations.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and my noble friend that the Government have nevertheless noted the commission's view that British Coal's medical service provides a valuable centre of expertise and that employers in the privatised industry may well wish to continue to have the opportunity to purchase its services.
British Coal is managing the arrangements for the sale of the ancillary parts of its current business and is considering the options for the future of, among others, the medical service. The corporation is fully aware of the advice which the Health and Safety Commission has given to the Government and shares the Government's determination that safety should be the first priority. The corporation has assured my department that its proposals will be fully consistent with the commission's advice.
On codes of practice, British Coal and the Health and Safety Executive are working to codify the great majority of existing British Coal safety codes, rules and instructions which will not otherwise be given legal status. That work is almost complete, and when it is, the material will be issued to the privatised industry by the Health and Safety Executive as formal industry guidance.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about educational bursaries, British Coal has provided funds to enable selected school leavers and
646
employees to attend college and university courses which have a bearing on the coal industry; for example, mining engineering and business management. In the past, that has ensured that sufficient numbers of suitably qualified people were available for employment by British Coal.
In future it will be the responsibility of the successor companies to gauge the numbers of those within the labour market who are suitably qualified or are likely to become so. It will then be for them to determine the further education needs of their prospective and existing employees and to fund them accordingly.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I have heard what the noble Viscount has said and I do not much like it. I do not believe that it would be inappropriate to maintain the standards of the Mines Medical Service. I believe that it would be extremely appropriate for the Government to do just that, and not to kick it into the air and hope that there will be somebody underneath to catch it.
I am not reassured that the Government have taken note of the excellence of the service. I have taken note of the time, but that will not stop or accelerate the clock. The Government's response to this amendment is, in my view, distinctly unhelpful. We shall return to it at a later stage when I hope that they may be in a more giving mood. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 5 [General powers of the Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exploitation rights: general]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 42, leave out (" and (c)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. The object of the amendments is to defer the lifting of the 250,000 tonne opencast ceiling until the restructuring date. I say again that it is to postpone the lifting of that ceiling and not to do away with it altogether.
In our view, it is important to defer until the restructuring date in order to avoid an unholy rush of opencast licence applications which would have to be dealt with by British Coal. British Coal remains the licensing authority until the restructuring date, when the Coal Authority takes on that role.
British Coal has already made substantial cuts in its staff and cannot really be expected to be in a position to deal with a flood of applications so close to its own winding-up time. There is also the question of whether British Coal would be able to maintain its standards of scrutiny, given the likely number of applications and the much-reduced workforce near the end of its employment.
That anxiety was put forward with some force and power in Committee in another place and, if I have read the record correctly, it was not then addressed in the Minister' s response.
From recent statements it appears that the Minister plans to have the coal industry under private operation "more or less", "give or take a few days here or there" and "taking one thing with another" by the end of the year. That suggests that the transfer of responsibilities from British Coal to the Coal Authority will take place very quickly. At the most, we are looking at a few months. Therefore, there is no threat that the amendments will hold up the issuing of licences to opencast operators by any substantial time.
The thrust of the Minister's response in Committee in another place was that Article 4(b) of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty forbids measures that discriminate against producers, and that these amendments would prejudice opencast operators. Well, we were not convinced about that. Article 4(b) refers to,
"measures or practices which discriminate between producers, between purchasers or between consumers, especially in prices and delivery terms or the purchaser's free choice of supplier".
I do not see that the proposed 250,000-tonne limit falls within the special terms highlighted by Article 4(b), and so it cannot be regarded as an issue of particular concern within the treaty.
Using the Minister's argument regarding the ECSC, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 propose to bring the UK into line with its treaty obligations. Since 1973, when it joined the European Community, the UK has been discriminating against its private operators by imposing limits on production and the numbers of men working in private pits. Bearing in mind the pressures on British Coal and the likely rush of applications, the amendments would serve only to,
"promote the orderly expansion and modernisation of production"
as specified in Article 3(g) of the ECSC Treaty. I am trying to be helpful and, at the same time, a good European. It seems unnecessary to push ahead lifting this ceiling when the licensing authority may not be able to deal with the applications thoroughly and when there is much more to be gained by having the new conditions applying from the restructuring date under the control of the Coal Authority. It is much tidier. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I must say that I find myself increasing surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, because what Clause 7(1) does is to reflect the commitment made in the Government's coal review White Paper to bring an end to British Coal's effective monopoly. At present, British Coal is able to license private sector coal producers only at collieries which employ fewer than 150 men underground or at opencast sites where the total output of the site will be less than 250,000 tonnes.
British Coal has over the past year adopted a policy of offering to the private sector those pits it no longer wishes to operate. Five collieries have already passed to new owners in the private sector. Detailed negotiations continue over the lease and licence of four more collieries.
648
With the rapidly changing structure of the coal mining industry in the run-up to privatisation, it is important that private sector mining operators are given the same opportunities as British Coal. That should include allowing the private sector to benefit from economies of scale. The purpose behind the amendment is to postpone opencast mining but all it achieves is to prolong British Coal's effective monopoly in large-scale opencast coal mining until the Coal Authority can be established.
The Government support a competitive market for fuel in the UK. Competition between deep-mined and opencast coal must, to some extent at any rate, be good for the industry. Competition between producers within those sectors is also potentially beneficial. It is for that reason that the Government made the commitment in the coal review to remove the restrictions on British Coal powers to license private sector producers under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
What the noble Lord proposes is a blatantly discriminatory measure which would allow private sector deep-mine operators to compete on an equal footing with British Coal and yet deny private sector opencast operators such opportunities. It is blatantly discriminatory. I do not believe that the noble Lord has made a case for it. I hope therefore that he will withdraw the amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I find myself less and less surprised by the Minister's replies to our amendments. He seems wedded indissolubly to the grinding processes of this Bill, even when we point out the disadvantages to him. I thought that we were being helpful with this amendment. We were not causing difficulties. We were trying to ease the progress through time of this wretched process that he is concerned to bring about. What we were suggesting would have eased the considerable problems which will accrue to British Coal in this particular period. If he wants British Coal to have it the hard way, then so be it.
We shall read what the Minister had to say and may very well come back to the issue in defence of British Coal, not all of whose activities we have been the highest praisers of. In this case we felt that there was something that could be done for it usefully. I am only sorry that the Minister does not agree. At this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Exploitation rights: oil and gas]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 32, at end insert ("except that the Authority shall not have power to require any fee to be paid in addition to the sums payable under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934.").
The noble Lord said: I wonder how the Minister and the Government feel about coal bed methane, because that is what this amendment is really about. Coal bed methane may very well become a very significant

649
energy source. It was referred to earlier today. It is not a subject which the nation as a whole knows very much about because the whole industry is new.
The coal bed methane industry is currently licensed by the oil and gas division of the DTI, to which the industry pays a significant fee. Due to the low profit margins in the industry, the operators will find it very difficult indeed to sustain any additional fees. As I said, the industry is new; it is speculative. So, to secure long-term investment in coal bed methane extraction, the Government must assure the industry that it will not be subject to any additional potentially prohibitive expenses in the form of additional licence fees required by the Coal Authority.
It is in the interests of the Government, surely, to ensure that they do not cause the premature death of an emerging industry through what I could only describe as over-regulation and excessive financial levies. The right climate must be established to ensure the development of this additional means of exploiting the nation's coal reserves, which incidentally can be done without endangering the lives of anything like so many people as the old deep-mining business used to do. I beg to move.
Viscount Torrington: I should have thought that the amendment belongs more appropriately at the end of line 9 on page 9. I have sympathy with the amendment. I have already spoken on the subject of coal bed methane. My noble friend made it clear that the operator of any well drilled to extract gas from a coal seam, whether it is one inch thick and wherever it is, would have to deal with the authority.
The Bill states that the authority shall be entitled to grant such rights. That has the negative consequence that it need not necessarily grant rights. I seek from my noble friend an assurance that that entitlement will be used more from a safety point of view, because it is important that there should be liaison between the gas industry and the coal industry to make sure that someone does not drill into an existing coal working or, equally, that someone does not try to mine through a gas well underground. There is concern on the part of the industry that, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, this will be used as a revenue-raising tool. I should like an assurance that that will not be the case.
Viscount Goschen: The Government attach great importance to the successful development of the coal bed methane industry. That is why Clause 9 of the Bill makes the position clear about the ownership of the methane in coal seams and Clause 3 gives the Coal Authority specific duties in respect of the development of the coal bed methane industry.
The purpose of the amendment appears to be to prevent the Coal Authority from charging coal bed methane companies holding petroleum licences any fees for granting access to the coal seams. However, Clause 9 is concerned with the ownership of the methane, which it makes clear will not vest in the Coal Authority.
I believe that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the reassurance that he seeks from the Government. The Government accept the concern of the coal bed methane companies on this issue. We, too, believe that the
650
industry should be subject to only one rental charge by the public sector for extracting coal bed methane and that the charge should be made under the petroleum licensing regime.
We have therefore made the Coal Authority's general duty to obtain the best value for its assets under Clause 3(4) subject to its duty in respect of the coal bed methane industry in Clause 3(6) of the Bill. Under that subsection the arrangements and principles adopted by the Coal Authority towards holders of petroleum licences must be approved by the Secretary of State.
In line with this approach, I can assure the Committee that the Government do not intend to approve any arrangements which involve the Coal Authority charging a rental for access to the coal.
I hope that the Committee will nevertheless agree that it would be wrong for the Coal Authority not to be able to charge any fees for dealing with the coal bed methane industry. As is common practice for non-departmental public bodies, the Coal Authority will seek to recover the full administrative costs of its licensing functions, including the granting of rights of access to coal bed methane operators. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this cost, which should by its nature be modest, should be met by the industry rather than by the taxpayer.
Under the framework provided by the Bill, we intend that the authority should work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure the effective development of the coal bed methane industry. We fully recognise the importance to that industry of not being asked to pay twice for the same activity. In the light of the reassurance that I have given on that point, I hope that the noble Lord will be happier and will feel able to withdraw his amendment in a contented fashion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: Is the noble Viscount aware that he has made my day? I am grateful to him for his reply. There is light at the end of the tunnel. The Government's heart is not made totally and utterly of stone. They are prepared to move just occasionally in tiny movements in forward directions. I thank the noble Viscount for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Restructuring of the Corporation's functions]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 38, leave out from ("as") to ("is") in line 39.
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief because I shall be unable to be terribly brief about a later amendment.
In the amendment I ask the Government to delete the words,
"having regard to what is economically viable, it considers".
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude the notion of economic viability. I wish to do so with a probing amendment to find out whose definition of economically viable the Government are accepting, how long term it is and what consultation they have gone through in order to arrive at it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord was quick in his introduction; I understand why. I hope that I can give him some satisfaction.
Following the enactment of the Bill, British Coal's main objective must be the transfer of its undertaking and property out of its ownership and control. The Bill must give British Coal the powers necessary to bring this about, but it must also put in place certain safeguards to ensure that the corporation runs its affairs in an economically responsible way.
Subsection (1) of Clause 11 amends the functions of British Coal on and after the restructuring date. It provides for British Coal to carry on its undertaking and to manage and deal with its property in the way that it considers is best calculated to further certain specific purposes. These purposes are consistent with privatisation and relate to the use and transfer of the corporation's property.
I have already explained at length the Government's objectives, so I shall not go over that again. But it is worth remembering that there are important public finance questions here. Since 1979 the Government have put nearly £20 billion into the coal industry. While it remains in the public sector, it will continue to be a drain on the public purse. I think that the taxpayer has a right to expect British Coal to run its affairs in an economically viable way.
British Coal will continue to operate at arm's length from the Government, but Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the conduct and success of privatisation. The Secretary of State needs to be in a position to ensure that he can discharge this responsibility properly. To do so, he needs to be able to exercise control over those aspects of the corporation's affairs which affect the proceeds arising from privatisation and the use of public funds.
The second amendment removes the obligation on British Coal to accept the opinion of the Secretary of State as to the economic viability of any matter relating to the conduct of the continuing business. Of course, this would hinder the Secretary of State in discharging his responsibilities for the use of public funds and could hinder his wish to secure value for money.
The coal industry's best hope of a successful future lies in the private sector. The noble Lord and I disagree on that point, but I hope that at least I have given him some satisfaction in answering his amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I disagree entirely and profoundly. I am grateful to the Minister for putting his side of the argument so clearly and concisely. He will not expect me to agree with it, but he has laid out his stall in an extremely helpful way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Restructuring schemes in relation to property etc.]
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
11.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 18, at end insert:
("() In making any scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to those matters which constitute the purposes and duties of the Authority under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will take a little longer because it is about justice. Its aim is to ensure that any scheme made by the Secretary of State conforms with the purposes and safeguards contained in the Act and ensures uniform and fair treatment of all persons involved in such transactions under the Act.
The Bill is careful to set out in great detail the duties of the proposed Coal Authority—even if it is only two people —the matters about which it must consider carefully what it is to do and the procedures that it must follow in granting a licence to mine coal. The authority has objectives to secure a viable coal mining industry, to see that its licensees are financially sound and to consider the interests of those who might suffer subsidence as a result of its licensees' actions. It is to ensure that its licensees are experienced and expert and that competition is promoted. The terms on which it shall dispose of its property are prescribed and it must pay regard to the environmental effects of any proposals for after-use of former mining land. All those are matters which we would wish to be considered in connection with mining licences and with disposal of substantial parcels of land which have been in public sector ownership.
It would be amusing and interesting, not to say informative if someone could inform us at some point exactly how much land the Coal Authority owns. A quarter of a million acres has been suggested; someone has likened the area to the isle of Anglesey in its extent, though not in its location nor in its beauty. But no one seems to be absolutely certain as to the extent of its land, though it can be well imaged as a parcel of land in various parts of the United Kingdom which happens to have a few holes in it. Those holes are, or were, coal mines; and part of the Coal Authority's duty is to act as a purveyor of land for a wide variety of possible purposes so long as they be consistent with planning permissions. That fact is perhaps one that has not really gone home to many of the readers of the Bill, and perhaps to many of your Lordships here tonight. But the question has to be asked: how many of these licences will be granted and how much of this land will be disposed of before the Coal Authority even sees the light of day, before it comes into existence—or at any rate, before the restructuring date?
From my reading of the Bill, Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State powers to transfer anything he likes to whomsoever he likes without paying the slightest regard to these matters.
The Government have said that they plan to offer the industry for sale in five lots, which may be bidden for jointly. One scheme put forward by the Secretary of State could, it seems to me, dispose of the entire industry without any of those duties or obligations which have been the subject of so much detailed scrutiny ever becoming relevant. The Secretary of State

653
does not have to advertise any sale or disposal. The only person to whom he must give notice under Schedule 2 is someone to whom it seems likely to the Secretary of State that compensation may be payable. Although Schedule 2 sets out in considerable detail what may be included in a scheme, it is, apart from the notice provision, entirely permissive. It places no limitation on the Secretary of State's powers.
The Coal Authority can dispose only of assets not required for the mining of coal. As I see it, no such limitation is placed on the Secretary of State who can, if he wishes, dispose of the freehold ownership of coal to private interests despite the underlying philosophy of the Bill, which is to retain the freehold ownership of coal in public ownership. All this the Secretary of State may do with no scrutiny by either House of Parliament. We have become used over the years to ever more sweeping powers being acquired by the Executive. But the powers given in this clause seem to us unusually excessive by any standard.
Our amendment is probing. It is modest in its aims. It seeks only to secure that the Secretary of State shall have regard to the same objectives, the same considerations and abide by the same duties as are prescribed for the authority in the carrying out of its functions. Will that, or will that not, be the case? I beg to move.
Earl Bathurst: The noble Lord, Lord Morris, perhaps to the surprise of a very thin Chamber, mentioned the amount of land that is involved, and therefore, I presume, landowners.
I should like to make a plea to the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill. Will he think of the numbers of people, either in respect of the land concerned, or its many other facets, who are affected by the Bill? I hope that he will see some way in which the points that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and his friends have put forward can be met or at least not be adversely affected, as I fear they will be, by the Bill. I support the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is delighted to have the support of my noble friend. I can, however, assure my noble friend that there is nothing untoward proposed, and indeed I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morris, of the same thing. The noble Lord has probably got it wrong. I shall explain the matter and then we shall see whether we can agree.
Clause 26(6) is drafted in terms of the Secretary of State issuing licences in exercise of the Coal Authority's powers to grant a licence. It follows that the Secretary of State in so doing will be subject to the authority's licensing duties. That is the key aspect and it means that he cannot act in any other way.
The actions of the Coal Authority and the Secretary of State will also be equally open to challenge in the courts. When making any scheme to transfer British Coal property, rights and liabilities to the authority, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to the duties and functions of the Coal Authority. However, the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which has to give its
654
consent to the making of any scheme, also have responsibility for much wider matters which will be relevant at the time that this scheme is made. Such matters include the responsibility for the use of public funds and for competition law and policy.
I am sure that the Committee will recognise that the duties of the authority have been carefully framed to address the functions which it is intended to perform. However, we should not forget that British Coal is a large organisation with a wide range of business and other interests. Restructuring schemes may, therefore, be concerned in whole or in part with matters outside the scope of the Coal Authority's functions. For example, a number of British Coal's responsibilities in relation to its past employees, such as the provision of concessionary fuel, will transfer to government by means of a restructuring scheme. The duties of the authority could not appropriately be applied in such cases.
In other cases, applying the authority's duties could, in addition, be unnecessarily restrictive. In a number of contexts my colleagues and I have indicated that we fully understand the need to take proper account of the current use of the land when disposing of the property of British Coal which would not be relevant to future coal mining operations. That included land currently used for recreational purposes by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation (CISWO) and tenanted agricultural land. The restriction which could be imposed by this amendment would require the Secretary of State, when disposing of the property, to secure the best terms reasonably available.
In short, while I understand the concern to ensure that the Secretary of State acts in a manner which reflects the duties of the Coal Authority when making a restructuring scheme, the amendment is inappropriate. It would narrow the range of factors which the Secretary of State can and must take into account in reaching decisions on the transfer of British Coal's assets and liabilities.
There is nothing untoward in this provision. There is no abuse of power. I understand very well why the noble Lord should raise the issue, but I hope that I have offered him some comfort.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I do not feel particularly comforted. I do not feel especially reassured. I do not feel that the questions that I raised have been answered to my complete satisfaction. I do not feel that inward glow of certainty that a complete defence has been given to what we see as a very unexplained and murky area of the Bill even yet.
However, the noble Lord and I have gone at each other fairly fast. Our responses to each other have been carefully taken down and no doubt will appear tomorrow morning at our breakfast tables, when we can read them at greater leisure and slower speed. Having aired the situation across the Dispatch Boxes tonight, we have gone so far as we can go on this point. Each of us must read what the other has said, and perhaps we may be able to settle this matter outside, as it were. If not, we

655
can come back into the ring and do a further three rounds. Until then I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [concessionary coal]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) The Secretary of State shall, out of money provided by Parliament, ensure—

(a) that supplies of concessionary coal and payments in lieu of concessionary coal are made on and after the restructuring date in accordance with existing relevant arrangements to those persons who would have received such supplies from the Corporation if those arrangements had not been affected by steps taken in connection with the restructuring of the coal industry;

(b) that any person employed at any deep mine after the restructuring date receives concessionary fuel and cash in lieu on the same terms as under existing relevant arrangements;

(c) that the administration of concessionary coal and cash in lieu should be undertaken under the auspices of the Coal Authority; and

(d) that existing procedures for conciliation in respect of concessionary coal and cash in lieu should be retained and should include arrangements covering continuing employees and beneficiaries.")

The noble Baroness said: I rise to move, in the absence of my noble friend and with the leave of the Committee, Amendment No. 38 and also to speak to Amendment No. 39. The Government have said that all employees are entitled to concessionary coal and that payments in lieu thereof will continue. They will continue to benefit from those arrangements. But the Bill does not guarantee the continuation of those provisions. There is a belief on the part of the unions that the Government have in any event underestimated the cost, which they believe to be around £70 million. Indeed, it is said that the DTI's consultation document puts the cost at around £150 million.
The Government may claim that the existence of the TUPE '81 regulations guarantee the continuation of that entitlement. TUPE makes its appearance yet again in the context of a privatisation Bill, as it did in the recent railway legislation. However, it is by no means certain that TUPE provides the necessary guarantee. Employers will be able to get round TUPE by giving notice to alter existing contracts. Employees who transfer into private ownership, having built up an entitlement, can be protected only by forcing employers to provide fuel under the same terms as the existing agreement. Indeed, our amendment goes a hit further and says that the administration of concessionary coal and cash in lieu should be undertaken under the auspices of the Coal Authority.
The Government appear also to be planning to privatise administration of the National Concessionary Fuel Office. It is believed that that could well have an adverse effect on the level of service. The intention of
656
Amendment No. 39 is to take the Treasury's sticky fingers off the allocation of funds. The whole idea is to remove Treasury control over the allocation.
I suggest to the Committee and to the Minister that these are reasonable amendments in the context of the assurances that the Government have already given in regard to concessionary coal. Certainly if something of this order were to be written on the face of the Bill it would set at rest a number of the fears expressed to us by past and present employees in the industry. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: Amendment No. 38 contains a number of elements and I should like to deal with those in turn and then deal with Amendment No. 39, whose effect is to remove the requirement for Treasury consent to the making of payments in respect of concessionary fuel.
The first point is that Clause 19 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to make payments in respect of concessionary fuel out of money provided by Parliament. It does not deal with transfers of responsibility. As the Committee will be aware, we propose that responsibility for the entitlement of ex-employees and their dependants, or "beneficiaries", will be transferred to the Secretary of State. Responsibility for the entitlements of continuing employees will be transferred to successor companies.
The amendment to Clause 19(1) (a) essentially seems to be keeping the terms of existing entitlements. But that is unnecessary. The reference to "such supplies" in the clause as drafted already achieves that. Moreover, the entitlements of most beneficiaries and all current employees are derived from the concessionary fuel agreements and have been incorporated in contracts of employment. As such they are considered legally enforceable by or on behalf of the employee, ex-employee or dependant. Paragraph (b) of the amendment is therefore also unnecessary. It purports to transfer responsibility in respect of continuing employees to the Secretary of State. As I explained, that responsibility will pass to successor companies with the contracts of employment of continuing employees.
The next element of the amendment looks to involve the Coal Authority in the administration of concessionary fuel. We propose that the National Concessionary Fuel Office should continue its current work within the Pensions and Insurance Centre on the day-to-day administration of the entitlements of beneficiaries, and it will be open to successor companies to use the NCFO to administer the entitlements of British Coal employees who transfer to its employ. It is not entirely clear to me what involvement is in mind in the term "under the auspices". But I am clear that involving the Coal Authority would be at a tangent to its main role and responsibilities and would not improve anything.
The final element relates to conciliation arrangements. Again I do not think the amendment is necessary. As noted in the consultation paper, we propose, so far as beneficiaries are concerned, arrangements similar to the existing joint working parties with the trade unions as the vehicle for dealing with concessionary fuel issues. As far as continuing employees are concerned, the

657
concessionary fuel agreements will remain conciliable as between the employer and employee. The precise procedures will be a matter for the employers and employees concerned.
I can understand why the noble Baroness has raised the issue. It is an important one to explain and to clarify. I hope I have done that.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response and for the number of assurances he has given. He says that it is unnecessary to write this into the Bill. It may perhaps be unnecessary to write into the Bill an amendment of this length and possible complexity. However, I should like to read very carefully what he has said because he said it at a considerable speed. I understand why, because we are really rather late in the evening's proceedings. In fact, it is nearly the next day. However, it means that we shall have to take a little time to consider what he said and it may possibly be that, if we are not satisfied, we shall come back with a different form of wording at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Midnight
Clause 20 [Extinguishment of loans to the Corporation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: It has gone midnight and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peston I wish to present his case, which is that this opposition to Clause 20 is essentially a question about the writing off of British Coal's debts to the nation in preparation for privatisation.
The Government's privatisation programme has already cost the nation more than £13 billion in written-off debts since 1979. This sorry story was fully related by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Written Answer of 3rd March 1992 which set out the debts written off prior to privatisation as follows: British Aerospace, £60 million; National Freight Corporation, £100 million; British Transport Docks
658
Board, £81,293,616; British Telecommunications, £2,789,865,772; British Airways, £160 million; BAA, £43,503,340; British Steel, £500 million; British Steel again, for borrowing under the Iron and Steel Act 1982, £3,480 million; water holding companies, £4,973,332,672; water holding companies again, £55,013,916; Scottish electricity companies, £1,043,573,600. That is his count. It adds up to—a very large amount indeed. In my noble friend's view, it would be unfortunate therefore if the public were to incur further losses by the writing off of British Coal's debts. How much do the Government propose to write off this time?
Lord Strathclyde: I suspect that this is one of the insincere Motions of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may, subject to the consent of the Treasury, extinguish outstanding loans to the corporation out of money provided by Parliament. It also provides that British Coal's tax losses are not altered by the extinguishment of loans.
As the noble Lord realises, there is nothing extraordinary about this. In most privatisations we have tidied up the financial provisions. As regards debt extinguishment, at the end of British Coal's 1992–93 financial year its total debt was £1,071 million. That comprised borrowings as follows: Exchequer borrowings, £711 million; loans from the National Loans Fund, £180 million; from the European Coal and Steel Community, £110 million; and commercial borrowings, £70 million. As no doubt will be very well known by the noble Lord, it is impractical to transfer outstanding Exchequer loans to successors, so provision is made in this clause to extinguish the Exchequer debt privatisation.
As regards the specific question which the noble Lord asked me, it is too early at this stage to give him a final figure, but I certainly hope that that does not stop him agreeing that the clause should go forward.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes past midnight.

  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
  ALBANIA
  ALBANIA
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 18 AND 19 APRIL
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 18 AND 19 APRIL
  PRISONERS AND BENEFIT CLAIMS
  PRISONERS AND BENEFIT CLAIMS
  CHILD SUPPORT ASSESSMENTS AND ARMED FORCES MEMBERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE
  CHILD SUPPORT ASSESSMENTS AND ARMED FORCES MEMBERS ON ACTIVE SERVICE
  EC COHESION FUND ALLOCATIONS
  EC COHESION FUND ALLOCATIONS
  EC STRUCTURAL FUNDS ALLOCATIONS
  EC STRUCTURAL FUNDS ALLOCATIONS
  EC STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS: UK CONTRIBUTION
  EC STRUCTURAL AND COHESION FUNDS: UK CONTRIBUTION
  SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND: PRISONER RECORD SYSTEMS
  SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND: PRISONER RECORD SYSTEMS
  NHS SUPPLIES AUTHORITY AND NATIONAL BLOOD AUTHORITY: CHAIRMAN'S APPOINTMENTS
  NHS SUPPLIES AUTHORITY AND NATIONAL BLOOD AUTHORITY: CHAIRMAN'S APPOINTMENTS