Sitting of 13 June 1994

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

Personal Injury Claims
Baroness of Turner of Camden Baroness of Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposals in the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in regard to small personal injury claims could be disadvantageous to employees suffering injuries at work and what steps can be taken to protect their interests.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I do not believe that these proposals would be disadvantageous to employees suffering injuries at work. On the contrary, I believe that the advantages of speed, simplicity and low cost offered by the small claims forum can benefit all those with small, straightforward claims. It may be worth noting that the Court of Appeal, in its recent judgment in the case of Afzal v. Ford Motor Company, expressed its view that the procedure was suitable for claims of this type.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that response. However, is he aware that industrial injury claims are not of the same order as the kinds of claim normally dealt with in the small claims court? They are much more complex; specialist advice and evidence may be required; health and safety regulations are involved and the employers' insurers will almost certainly be represented. In those circumstances, does the noble and learned Lord believe that the small claims court procedure will result in justice for people who suffer industrial injuries?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, like many other types of claim, such claims vary in their complexity from case to case. The Court of Appeal, in the judgment to which I referred, clearly expressed the view that claims regarding employers' liability were not unsuited to small claims arbitration as it is presently constituted although, in exceptional cases, the court has power to order the case to proceed to trial. I take it from that that the Court of Appeal thought that, in the ordinary run of case, the small claims court was a suitable way of dealing with the matter. However, there may be an exceptional case within that category which should have a full trial.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is it not a feature of the small claims court that the winning party cannot recover costs? That is no doubt perfectly satisfactory in the simple case, but it may be a source of potential injustice where the plaintiff needs an accident expert, an engineer and possibly medical reports and evidence. If the matter
1428
is contested, it is extremely expensive. If costs cannot be recovered from the insurance company, will not that create an imbalance which can lead to injustice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at the present time the general situation with regard to small claims is that the amount recoverable by way of costs from the other side is limited. The Court of Appeal was dealing with that regime in its judgment. My proposals, published before the Court of Appeal judgment was issued, endeavoured to deal with the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner by allowing a degree of cost recovery suitable to the situation. It. is a feature of the small claims regime that the risk of having costs awarded against one is removed. It is that risk which is often a disincentive to making claims in the ordinary court. It is a question of trying to balance those various factors and produce a reasonable result.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend explain the proposals for access at an early stage to sound legal advice and how it is to be paid for? That is important not only at the initial stage, but also at the stage of settlement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is possible to obtain legal advice outwith legal representation. One must consider whether or not the proposals are suitable for the simpler types of claim. As I said earlier, there is a great variety in this type of claim as there is in many other types. I am trying to see whether, for the simpler types, a simpler form of litigation is appropriate and whether a degree of legal advice, apart from representation, may be appropriate.

Post Office: Green Paper
2.41 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they are likely to publish a Green Paper on the Post Office.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Green Paper will be published shortly.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. Can he confirm that the Government will leave open all options, as stated in the Green Paper, until they have been fully considered by the public and interested parties? Bearing in mind that the Government have already expressed certain preferences, will the Green Paper, in regard to Post Office Counters, indicate how the Government's preference for retaining public ownership with greater commercial freedom can effectively be achieved? Secondly, if that is the solution proposed for Post Office Counters, why cannot that solution be proposed also by the Government in the case of the Royal Mail?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we dealt with these issues in great detail in the Statement made on the Post Office a few weeks ago. The Green Paper will consider a range of options and the Government will express a range of views on them. Beyond that I cannot comment

1429
before the Green Paper is published. However, I confirm again what I said in the initial Statement. The uniform rate, the universal service and the nationwide network of service are all non-negotiable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is not the Government's preference for some form of privatisation of the Post Office yet a further syndrome of the discredited ideology for which they now stand, represented by poll tax, rail privatisation and now the privatisation of the Post Office? But is it not also gratifying that the Government seem to be paying a very high price at the polls for these acts of political lunacy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government's preference is for a Post Office that will serve the best interests of the people of this country. That aim has been achieved in successive privatisations: it has been proved time and time again. The policies of the noble Lord's party would have provided no benefit and substantial costs.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that there will be a secure future for village post offices, which play such a vital part in rural communities?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, in the same way as we protected rural telephone boxes when it came to the privatisation of British Telecom. There is absolutely no reason why we should not do the same for rural post offices.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Green Paper also consider the question of employment? Will the document say exactly how the employment of those people already working for the Post Office, who have given such marvellous service over so many years, will be protected against the mass redundancies which have taken place in other denationalised industries?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no point at this stage in further predicting what the Green Paper may or may not contain. But one important aspect will be the care with which we deal with those currently employed by the Post Office.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in answer to his noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, the noble Lord said that there was no reason why the Government should not preserve local post offices. Will he confirm in a more positive way that the Government will in fact maintain local post offices?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when the Green Paper is published, the noble Baroness will, I believe, find a great deal of comfort in this area. It would be wrong to give a firm commitment at this stage, but British Telecom does not keep rural telephone boxes open for profit. It is obliged to because of the regulatory framework. The point I was making to my noble friend is that there is absolutely no reason why we should not replicate a similar kind of regulatory framework.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there any possibility that the Government may be diminishing in their Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill the safety that is provided by the present regulatory environment?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when the Green Paper is published—and if, as a result of that Green Paper, we come to legislation—that will be the proper time to discuss the kind of regulatory framework that should exist.

Westminster Council: "Panorama" Programme
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday 16th May relating to allegations of corruption by elected members and officers of Westminster City Council, and the alleged involvement of a succession of Secretaries of State for the Environment in these matters, whether they will consider taking action against these former Ministers, if, following court action, the allegations concerning the councillors and officers are proved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Government do not respond to unsubstantiated allegations made by the media. As I have said to the noble Lord on previous occasions, it would be quite wrong for the Government to be drawn into prejudging the outcome of the auditor's current inquiry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the Minister saw the programme he will understand the seriousness of the charges that were made. My question is: if the local authority people—the councillors and the officers —are brought before the courts on a charge of corruption, what will be the position of the four former Secretaries of State for the Environment clearly shown in the programme to have aided and abetted these people in their corrupt practices? Can those former Secretaries of State be prosecuted if there is a prima facie case; and if so will it be by the Government themselves through the Attorney-General or will it fall to the responsibility of the electorate in the City of Westminster?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I did not see the programme but I have read the transcript carefully. The noble Lord refers to aiding and abetting. These are entirely speculative and hypothetical media allegations. This is the fourth time that this Question has appeared in as many months in your Lordships' House. These are serious and grave allegations. We feel that they should be given proper consideration in the proper form. The Government at all times, as I have made known in your Lordships' House, must remain totally independent and impartial. In the meantime, the law is in the hands of a qualified and able professional. The law must take its course.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Question is based on a flawed assumption; namely, allegations of corruption by an advocate retained by one political party? The opposite political party was not given a hearing.
The Earl of Arrant: My Lords, the circumstances of this case are entirely proper. They are as laid down in the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and they persist at the moment.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as it appears that £7 million was given by the Treasury to Westminster City Council, ostensibly for flood relief—although really in order to keep the poll tax down —and only a small proportion of that sum was used, will the Government co-operate with the Public Accounts Committee when, as I hope, that committee of another place decides to investigate this use of public funds?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a difficult question. I can assure the noble Lord that the formula for the distribution of central government grants to local authorities was applied objectively to all authorities.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is it not the case that that particular flood grant was made to several riverine authorities in about equal measure?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is not going to serve the purpose of the Question on the Order Paper this afternoon.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend was asked whether Mr. Attorney would intervene. Is he aware, with due respect, that he is in no position to answer for Mr. Attorney in your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I give way to my noble friend's better information and greater knowledge on this matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to media allegations. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to someone retained by outside parties. Has the noble Earl read the comment in the transcript—which the Minister says he has read—by Mr. Andrew Arden QC, who is an expert in local authority law? Perhaps I may quote from the transcript. Mr. Arden says:
"I would describe the picture which has emerged as the greatest act of corruption in the history of local government. Not financial corruption in the conventional sense, but corruption of the machinery of the authority itself, given over to party political gain in a way and to an extent that is absolutely without precedent".
He continues:
"Nothing prepared me for such a naked abuse of power, people and resources. I would have said it was unthinkable".
Does the noble Earl agree with Mr. Arden?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I cannot and will not be drawn down these particular channels. It is highly improper, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows so well. The case rests, and will rest until the outcome is known, in the hands of the District Auditor.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the strength of language embodied in the quotation just made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, illustrate the very great importance of seeing that trials in this country are conducted by the courts and not by the media?
The Earl of Arran: Nor by your Lordships' House, my Lords, while the case is under the District Auditor.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is an injustice that persons are named and given much publicity in the media, and unfortunately also through Questions asked in this House, at a time when the evidence against them is not known and they have had no opportunity to answer it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a very responsible answer from my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it may be a responsible answer from the noble Earl; it may also be a responsible question from the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Can the noble Earl explain to what extent I have been improper in raising the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, at the moment this matter is entirely in the hands of the District Auditor. I have read the transcript, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has. It is entirely for the District Auditor to do as he thinks appropriate and fit in the circumstances surrounding these individuals.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider the answer which he gave a moment ago? He made an allegation that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel had acted improperly in some manner or other. That was the word he used. Will he now withdraw it? If not, will he please say specifically in what manner my noble friend is supposed to have acted improperly?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I did not mean improper in that particular sense. I am saying that I do not believe it proper that this case should continue to be conducted in your Lordships' House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his reply to my supplementary question, the Minister indicated that this is the fourth time that the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I have to correct him. This is the first time that the allegations have reached the level of Secretaries of State being involved. That was the main point I raised. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to the fact that the Attorney-General is not in this House and therefore cannot give an opinion. But the Government have a very senior Law Lord in this House—that is to say, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Perhaps he may like to comment on behalf of the Government; he is the top legal man in this House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go further than what I have already said. At the Dispatch Box the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. I believe that I have given the proper answers as regards the circumstances surrounding this case.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl understand that what he has said causes a great deal of concern to some of us, perhaps extending to all sides of the House? He implied that since the matter is being investigated by the District Auditor it should not be raised in this House. Does that mean that any matter being investigated by the District Auditor should not be raised in this House or perhaps the other place?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is entirely for your Lordships' House to discuss the Question on the Order Paper and to say what is regarded as necessary in your Lordships' House. I was merely making the comment that this is the fourth occasion that the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I am not really certain that it helps the circumstances as they exist.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there a limit to the number of Questions which may be put down by any person on any subject?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is very strictly laid down by the BBC—I have just been reading its producers' guidelines—that in the approach to local elections meticulous care must be taken not to raise matters which are highly political? This is a highly political matter.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is entirely the responsibility of the BBC.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is that not precisely why the Government put pressure on the BBC not to broadcast the programme before the local elections?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is total speculation by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He knows it, and I know it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if this matter were simple and straightfor-ward, as those on the opposite Benches would wish to pretend, by now the District Auditor would have completed his inquiry? The fact that he has not surely indicates the complexity of the issues which are under investigation. I would have thought that a little discretion would have become the Opposition.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this is a long and complicated case. The law must take its course.

Armed Forces: Performance Pay
2.58 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with some regret I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
1434
Who appoints the Royal Air Force Pay Review Board, what is their definition of "performance pay", and what consultants they have hired to help them in considering it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My
Lords, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body are appointed by the Prime Minister. In asking whether performance pay could be applied to the armed forces, we have in mind a concept in which the remuneration of individuals or groups is linked to an assessment of their performance. The choice of management consultants to assist the review bodies with their work is a matter for them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that helpful beginning of an Answer. I have two supplementary questions. I know that it is wrong, but I hope the House will forgive me. How do the Government relate the concept of performance pay to the ancient and highly efficient practice of promotion from rank to rank? The second question is this: are these pay boards themselves subject to performance pay reviews and, if so, how is their performance judged and by whom?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall take the noble Lord's second supplementary question first; it is always a difficult question to answer: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Appointment to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is, as I am sure the noble Lord well knows, an extremely carefully considered matter in which the remit is clear and in which a broad range of experience is sought for the appointees.
As far as the question of promotion and rank is concerned, I have no wish in any way to be unhelpful to your Lordships, but the way in which the review bodies approach their work is a matter entirely for them. The noble Lord may raise his eyebrows at me, but I have to advise your Lordships that one of the virtues of having an independent pay review body is that the Ministry of Defence has very little influence on what its deliberations may take into account.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the practice of performance pay began in industry —did it not?—and it was at the instigation of government that it moved to the Civil Service, the police and now to the armed services. So may I assume that by natural progression the next step will be performance-related pay for Ministers?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, among many other things, the noble Lord was a most distinguished Home Secretary, and he will know as well as I do whether or not such a thing will be desirable. As far as the armed forces are concerned, the jury is well and truly out on performance-related pay, and far be it from me to speculate, even in your Lordships' House, on what the review body will recommend. As I said to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, some weeks ago, that body suggested that the matter should be examined in its last annual report, and therefore, it is doing so.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most important personal qualities

1435
in the armed forces is leadership? Does he also agree that in the chiefs of staff and the senior commanders in the armed forces the Minister and the Government have available to them, at no extra cost to the taxpayer, the very best possible advice on leadership? Is it true that the Minister believes that promotion is not the best way of rewarding performance in the armed forces?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I always answer probing questions from the noble and gallant Lord with due diffidence in view of his extraordinary experience in these matters, which is infinitely greater than mine will ever be. My clear impression is that a number of jobs are held by people of equivalent rank, some of which are more onerous than others. It is within that rank that perhaps we have to consider whether there are other ways of recognising that additional responsibility. I take no position on the question of whether performance-related pay is the right way to go about it, but I look forward to the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on this subject with as much keen anticipation as the noble and gallant Lord.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Viscount at least assure the House that the pay of front-line troops will not: be related to performance? Does he agree that the motivation of servicemen differs from that of civilians and owes a lot more to things like tradition, morale, discipline and loyalty? The Government do not seem to acknowledge that difference or to understand the reasons why our armed forces are so well respected at home and abroad.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, particularly when one considers the works of such major writers on the subject that he has just addressed as, for instance, John Keegan, who in a number of books has tried to address the question of why people fight. I wholly agree with the noble Lord that ethos is very important and is probably the determining factor. I must reiterate that the Government's position is that they have an open mind on this question.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, following my noble friend's replies, should not the term "performance pay" be changed to something more appropriate where the armed forces are concerned, otherwise it will become a target for levity and for such light-hearted questions as whether sergeant-majors should be assessed by the volume and ripeness of their utterances on the parade ground or whether women who get pregnant should be given double compensation if they produce twins?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me strangely in trying to draw comparisons between the performance of sergeant-majors and women in their production of, on the one side, volume and, on the other, children. Clear reservations have been expressed in your Lordships' House both today and on a previous occasion as well as in parts of the armed forces and, indeed, outside, as to how performance pay might be applied. I can only reiterate to your Lordships —I am sorry to repeat myself—that, if noble Lords
1436
would care to look at paragraph 40 of the last report by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, they will see that this is a subject which the body would like to address. We look forward to its report with keen anticipation, being well aware of the difficulties to which your Lordships allude.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, why is the Minister being so coy about this? All your Lordships know that performance-related pay for front-line troops, which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned, is rubbish. We all know, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, that performance-related pay for the chiefs of staff is rubbish. Why does not the noble Viscount come clean and say, "This is something that we shall shelve quietly"? Furthermore, I have now asked the Minister once in a Written Question and I ask him again whether it is not the case that public money is being spent on consultants by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Are we not entitled, as a House of Parliament, to know whether that public money is being spent and how much?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not appear to have been listening to what I have been saying. If that is so, I clearly have not made myself as clear as I would have wished. I say to the noble Lord exactly the same as I said to him not only in your Lordships' House, but also in a letter that I wrote to him pursuing his last foray on this question. The hire of consultants is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence; it is a matter for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body which is an independent body. It is that very independence which we must value and which the armed forces themselves value for one very good reason. It is a body the deliberations and conclusions of which they have come to trust and which we throw away at our peril.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th June
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Judd set down for 15th June shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of the Lord Jay set down for the same day to 2 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 56).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

1437
Following is the report referred to:
1. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee has been informed of progress in implementing the accommodation strategy approved by the House in July 1993 (Sixth report, session 1992–93). Detailed plans have been made to provide in the South East Return a committee room, a grill room and private dining facilities for peers, Counsel's robing and luncheon rooms and Library intake and cataloguing rooms. The work will take place mainly in the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97.
A computer training room for peers and staff will be provided on the First Floor, West Front.
Additional office accommodation in the South Front has now been occupied by peers.
2.OLD PALACE YARD
The Committee has endorsed proposals for the development of a new car parking regime for Old Palace Yard to meet the requirements of security and traffic safety.
3.RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ALLOWANCE
The Committee has approved the application to the House of Lords of a Recruitment and Retention Allowance to replace the Inner London Weighting Allowance which has been abolished.
4.PAY OF INDUSTRIAL GRADES
The Committee has approved arrangements for the pay of industrial staff after centralised pay bargaining arrangements end on 30 June 1994.
5.PAY OF GRADES 1 TO 3
The Committee has agreed to the application of new Civil Service pay arrangements for Grades 1 to 3 (Treasury Circular, Pay(94)7).
6.DOORKEEPERS' PAY
The Committee has been informed of the restoration of Lords Doorkeepers' pay relatively with the Commons Doorkeepers with effect from 1 April 1993, on the basis of the relativities in pay of the respective grades in April 1990.
7.POLICE
A Special Service Agreement has been agreed between the Metropolitan Police and the two Houses of Parliament which sets out the services to be provided by the police and their cost. This should result in greater accountability and efficiency in the policing of the Palace of Westminster.
8.JUDICIAL FEES
The Committee has agreed that the following fees be charged on appeals to the House of Lords with effect from the first sitting day after Easter 1994—

Petition of Appeal

68.00

Notice of Appearance

8.00

Waiver of Security

17.00

Petition not referred to Appeal Committee (including incidental petition to conjoin or consolidate)

34.00

Petition referred to Appeal Committee (including report thereon)

40.00

Joint Petition (from each party thereto)

17.00

Application to set down for hearing

363.00

Final Judgment

40.00

The sum required to be lodged as security for costs is raised to £18,000 with effect from the same date.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees two questions. The first arises from paragraph 1, which states:
"A computer training room for peers and staff will be provided on the First Floor, West Front".
My question is: when? On a more practical aspect, in order to get value for money will the training include access to the European Commission's database?
My second question relates to the last paragraph which deals with judicial fees. I would not wish to trespass where angels fear to tread on a matter of this kind, but purely as a lay person I should like to ask why an application to set down for hearing costs £363. That
1438
seems rather a lot for a mere application to set down for hearing. Perhaps it is a purely technical question which can be disposed of instantly.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too should like to ask a question about paragraph 1 on accommodation, which states:
"Detailed plans have been made to provide in the South East Return"—
various facilities including—
"Counsel's robing and luncheon rooms".
Having asked to be shown the prospective Counsel's robing and luncheon rooms, I was taken down and shown the suggested accommodation. I then asked what offer had been made by the Parliamentary Bar to contribute towards the costs of all that work; and the answer was nothing. I then asked what contribution had been asked for from the Parliamentary Bar towards all that work; and the answer again was nothing. I suggest that that is an unsatisfactory situation.
That arrangement has gone on for a very long time and it may be asked why we should disturb it and ask for its revision. But we should look again at that matter in view of the grotesque escalation in the fees charged by counsel over the past few years. I have wearied the House before with the example of Regina v. Reid in which counsel and his junior put in a claim for £107,000 for four days' work in your Lordships' House. That was reduced to £34,000 by the taxing master. They appealed against that decision and when it was refused, they said that their clients wanted legal aid towards the costs of the appeal.
My view is that some of our leading lawyers are abusing the system and are treating their position as a licence to print money. That should be looked at again by the committee. We may even ask why that provision is made for counsel when an ordinary litigant appearing in this House has absolutely no provision made for him in terms of refreshment, rest facilities or anything of that nature.
The other point that I wish to make is as regards paragraph 8 which deals with judicial fees. It is a great tribulation for me, but I must differ from my noble friend Lord Bruce in this regard. If one looks at the fees which are charged for those various services, it looks, so I am told, rather like a wine list in a good quality restaurant. They are absolutely peppercorn in this day and age. The fees were introduced in the last century and have been increased only occasionally and gradually. They now bear absolutely no relation to the cost of the services which this House is providing for people.
I am one of the unfortunate Members of your Lordships' House who has to use lift HOP13 which goes to the Crown Offices suite. That lift must be out of order and defective more often than any other lift in the entire Palace. But that being so, it gives me plenty of time to study the list of cases coming up for hearing before your Lordships. I have noticed that often major multi-national companies are involved in those cases and yet they are being asked to pay those absolutely farcical peppercorn fees. I suggest that the committee should look at that and should perhaps increase the fees on a graduated basis. The committee may perhaps consider charging people according to the nature of the

1439
case and the resources available to them. We are trying to make this place more cost-effective and that is one way in which we could recoup a great deal of money.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask why it is necessary for counsel to have a separate dining room. The first proposal was that half the Writing Room on the first floor should be used, and I am glad to say that that came to nothing. Since then, counsel have been using your Lordships' Guest's Dining Room and I am sure that they are very welcome there. That seems to be working very well. Why do they have to have a separate dining room at great expense to the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may try to adjudicate between the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I am sad that there should be a disparity of views between the two noble Lords. I fear that I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that I come down somewhat on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Haitcliffe, in this matter. The fees seem to me to be extraordinarily low and I have made that point at meetings of the Finance Committee. I shall invite the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee to have a further look at those matters.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the fees for application to set down for hearing seem rather large compared with some of the other, much more modest sums. But if it satisfies both noble Lords, I shall see that that matter is on the agenda for discussion at the next Finance and Staff Sub-Committee meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked about the room to be set aside for training both Peers and Officers of the House in the mysterious arts of the computer. As the report says, that room is to be on the first floor West Front. I fear that it will not be available until next summer. The whole process requires decanting those people who presently occupy the territory. Work cannot begin until the major move, which will take place during the course of this summer, is made to re-accommodate the police from the south-east corner of Royal Court to the south-west corner of Royal Court; and until the Sports and Social Club is reinstalled in the room presently used as counsels' Robing Room. Your Lordships will know all too well that there is no vacant space in the House and all those changes take place slowly. One must follow upon the other. However, the plan is that that room will be available by next summer. I hope that it will be of great use to noble Lords who wish to master the art of the computer.
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, asked also whether we might invite the Bar to contribute to the costs of the works. I cannot go along with him in that regard. The noble Lord expressed the view—and I gather that it was rather shared by noble Lords—that counsel are well rewarded for their efforts here, but so they are in other courts. I am not aware that it has ever been suggested that the Bar should make a contribution towards the cost of facilities at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Crown Courts or any other court. I believe that this House would wish to continue to provide those facilities.
1440
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked whether a separate dining room is necessary for counsel. I believe that it is. They have a very brief period in which to eat, as do noble and learned Lords before whom they are appearing, and, indeed, noble Lords who are good enough to serve on Select Committees on Private Bills. Those people have to be fed and looked after properly and this House would not wish to fail in that regard.
Also, at certain times of the year the dining room becomes very full at luncheon time. I understand from the Chairman of the Refreshment Department that occasionally Peers have had to be turned away because counsel are using the temporary facilities available for them which are in the Peers' Dining Room. There is the additional benefit that the room becomes available for Peers in the evenings.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I raised the question about access to the European Commission database.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is an excellent question, to which I do not know the answer. I shall make certain that I find out and write to the noble Lord. I shall place a copy of what I have to say to him in the Library.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.18 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clauses 6 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 and 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 12 to 16, Schedule 6, Clause 17, Schedule 7, Clauses 18 to 21, Schedule 8, Clauses 22 to 25, Schedule 9, Clauses 26 to 28, Schedule 10, Clauses 29 to 39, Schedule 11, Clauses 40 to 46, Schedule 1.2, Clauses 47 to 57, Schedule 13, Clauses 58 to 65, Schedule 14, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 15, Clause 71. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the enactments relating to the code which provides for the making of "confiscation orders" to deprive persons convicted of drug trafficking offences of the financial proceeds of their offences. The code was introduced by the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which has been amended by several subsequent Acts. Consolidation is particularly desirable because the Criminal Justice Act 1993 has made very extensive amendments to the 1986 Act, and few of those amendments have yet been brought into force. By

1441
incorporating their effect, the Bill represents an opportunity to state the amended law in a form that is, from the outset, readily accessible.
I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our appreciation to the draftsmen for continuing their important consolidation work. If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Value Added Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Coal Industry Bill
3.20 p.m.
Report received.
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:
("( ) subject to the specific provisions of this Act, taking over the liabilities of the Corporation;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, never far from my thoughts, from my bedside or from my briefcase is the invaluable little compendium, the Companion to the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. It is replete with good advice; it is a perpetual fountain of fine phraseology; and it is a guide, comforter and friend to those of us charged with the conduct of business in this Chamber. Indeed, here is,
"infinite riches in a little room".
If noble Lords care to consult it on the question of procedure on Report stage of a public Bill, they will receive useful prompting in courteous language. We are advised and adjured at Report stage that,
"arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report".
The reason is obvious: if we did repeat them we should be here all night. However, it must be confessed that it does occasionally happen. Indeed, some might say, with Shakespeare's Hamlet, that it is,
"a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance".
I hope that it will not happen today. So, in conformity with the spirit of the Companion advice, I beg leave to move the group of amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List, an unusually large group perhaps
1442
with which to begin but one which, I suggest, coheres in that all the amendments relate to the vexed and as yet unresolved question of liabilities.
Your Lordships may now expect that I shall make a long and boring speech on liabilities. Not so. I shall make a short and boring speech on liabilities, attempting no more than to renew your Lordships' acquaintance with issues we debated lengthily in Committee. The first amendment makes it clear that liabilities are dealt with in the Bill. Heretofore, that has not been placed in the very forehead of the Bill; it has emerged as we have gone along. We on these Benches believe that it should be explicit and not merely implied. Those affected by such matters should know where they stand. In particular it is not enough to deal with liability issues in draft licensing documents; there is no guarantee that the draft will survive the negotiating process, and, in any event, it is probable that the final licences will be subject to commercial confidentiality. Therefore, we wish to see this simple, unambiguous provision right at the beginning of the Bill.
The remaining amendments seek to ensure that the liabilities should be dealt with on the face of the Bill. They suggest a method which ensures that no one is in danger of being left uncompensated and also that a viable mining industry survives privatisation. Together the amendments propose a scheme for apportioning liability and ensuring continuing viability.
Amendment No. 4. is required to ensure that licences issued by the Secretary of State should be issued only after consideration by the Secretary of State of the same matters as are required to be taken into account by the authority. The Government have now published a revised explanatory note on the Coal Authority. On pages 10 and 11 it sets out the Secretary of State's power to grant licences and says:
"First, British Coal will require licences to continue its coal mining operations immediately the Authority begins to carry out its functions. It would not be practical for the Authority to grant those licences".
Well, that is clear and it conforms to what the Minister said in his kind letter to me of 24th May. The explanatory note continues:
"Second, those taking over British Coal's coal-mining operations on privatisation will likewise require licences: the grant of such licences would be an integral part of the privatisation process being undertaken by the Secretary of State".
I find nothing in the Minister's reassuring letter about that. The letter clearly implies that the Secretary of State will allow British Coal to continue operating and that the Coal Authority will deal with the rest. How can coal and coal mines vest in the Coal Authority under Clause 7(3), given the fact that the Secretary of State is intended to have the power to transfer anything he chooses at any time?
Amendment No. 5 places a duty on the authority to ensure that operators can cover liabilities or obtain insurance. It does not mean that the authority would pick up the tab but that it should ensure that there is no need for it to do so except in the most exceptional circumstances. Amendment No. 6 would ensure that consideration of financial viability is not a one-off action. Theologians among your Lordships—there are

1443
not many professional ones sitting in the Chamber at present—may recall that the Christian doctrine of atonement describes it as,
"once, only once, and once for all".
That may be good enough for God: but it is not good enough for the successor companies in the Bill. They must be monitored. Allied to that, Amendment No. 7 tries to ensure that the authority does not end up paying except where a risk is uninsurable. Amendment No. 9 should be considered with Amendment No. 22 as, taken together, they restrict the further passing on of both interests and pre-existing liabilities.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the non-financial aspect of the vexed subject of minewater pollution. Amendment No. 7 limits the responsibility for minewater pumping to the period when the operator is in occupation and, by making that liability more manageable, makes it more likely that the continuity of pumping will be maintained. In a most welcome change of heart, the Government have acknowledged the seriousness of the problem; that is, the problem that the amendments seek to address. I have already welcomed the statement on the subject made by the Minister of 26th April. However, on 3rd May he went even further. In the case of abandoned mines, which constitute the biggest worry, the Coal Authority will take over responsibility from British Coal. The Minister assured us:
"If continued pumping of rninewaters is necessary in order to prevent serious pollution, then pumping will continue".— [Official Report, 3/5/94; col. 1051.]
All that is extremely good news. However, I would be even happier if we saw some reflection of that brave new world in documentation; for example, in the Bill, in the leases and in the licences. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who, I see with great pleasure, is sitting in his place, when he said on that same date, at col. 1040, that,
"long experience has taught us to be cautious. One would like to see such assurances, if not written into the Bill, at the very least in the department's licensing documents. I cannot find that this is so at present".
Amendment No. 17 makes clear that the interests would include liabilities, and that is no more than the Government have been saying all along. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 try to express the position as set out in the Minister's letter of 24th May. Obviously, they are related to Amendment No. 4.I should be grateful if the Minister could sort out for us what appears to be a conflict between the position described in his letter to me and the revised explanatory note on the Coal Authority.
Amendment No. 25 suggests the addition to Schedule 2 of a mechanism for dealing with the pre-existing liabilities in respect of industrial diseases. It looks long and complicated, but it would offer a light in the darkness, and it is intended (like all the other amendments in the group) to be helpful and to improve the Bill. We are glad that the Government conceded the principle in a Written Answer last week. However, we would still prefer to see it on the face of the Bill.
Let there be no misunderstanding. We are wholly opposed to the Bill. But the stark fact appears to be that we have a choice between a privatised mining industry
1444
or no industry at all—such is the Government's lack of commitment to what many people regard as a key part of any energy strategy. As the Bill and the draft licences stand with regard to liabilities for environment pollution, minewater and subsidence, the industry cannot possibly compete on an equal footing with other coal producing countries.
There is also the danger that many liabilities will remain uncompensated if operators find them too onerous and simply walk away from then. This is especially true of minewater. In addition, bidding is at present bound to favour only operators backed by multi-national companies, given the requirements for financial viability combined with the size of the potential liabilities. Reducing the liabilities to be passed on would open the bidding much more widely and place management and employee buy-outs—that is, the people with a real stake in keeping this industry alive —on a much more equal footing.
My speech was made in just over nine minutes. I hope everyone else will attempt to be so brief. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendments proposed so ably and in such a short time by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. There is not the slightest doubt that among the many important amendments that we shall be considering today this could well be the most important. The question of liabilities has bedevilled this Bill so far.
When, in normal business practice, a company is purchased by another company the indemnification on liabilities that could arise subsequent to purchase as a result of the operations of the vendor are clearly and easily dealt with. I have been involved in such negotiations and therefore I find it difficult to understand why hitherto there has been such a lack of clarity on the whole question of the treatment of liabilities.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, since Committee the Government have moved their position and have been most helpful in many regards. In so far as they have moved, we should like to see that stated on the face of the Bill. Some of the amendments on today's Marshalled List address that very point. However, there are still areas of obscurity. I believe that it would be in the interests of the Government to seize this opportunity so that, once and for all, the issue of liabilities on the transfer of these businesses can be set out very clearly.
I regard this not only of importance as between the vendors and the purchasers of the businesses—and, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, many of the purchasers who belong to multi-national firms can no doubt look after themselves—but to other people employed in the businesses who will wish to feel secure. Nothing could be less secure than a business in which liabilities could impose unforeseen charges which could make the operations unviable.
Finally, all of us, in particular Members on this side of the House, are most keen that these transactions— which we do not particularly support in principle—

1445
having been engaged upon will be successful and that the remainder of the coal industry will thrive and increase in the years ahead.
In order to achieve all that, we must have the issue of liabilities clarified. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has been through the various detailed amendments and therefore I shall not seek to do so. I say merely that I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity to clarify a vitally important aspect of this proposed legislation.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I support the amendments, in particular those which deal with minewater pollution and liability.
Minewater pollution of rivers and reservoirs is the most worrying aspect of this rapid run-down of pit closures, allied to the privatisation of the remainder of British Coal's pits. If there is not a satisfactory pledge in this legislation covering the control of minewater overflows, escapes, seepages and guarantees against pollution caused through the cessation of pumping, not only shall we have a whole series of pollution incidents —for instance, poisoned waters and the killing off of fish life—but environmental damage will be spread to low-lying land, meadows and valleys, seriously damaging the flora and fauna of those areas.
Incidents have already been highlighted in Committee concerning the threatened pollution of the River Wear in County Durham, which is home to the migratory salmon and sea trout, with the closure of Easington, the area's last big colliery. It is feared that the eventual ending of pumping could result in the river becoming virtually lifeless. In view of the seriousness of this threat, the National Rivers Authority has reached an agreement with British Coal whereby it will receive at least 14 days' notice of any intention to suspend pumping. If the threat is still real, the NRA could seek legal action to prevent the pollution occurring. It should be prevention rather than prosecution in this case, otherwise it would mean bringing a prosecution case of pollution; that is, making the polluter pay, but after massive damage has been done.
Another case, which was brought to the court by the Anglers Co-operative Association, concerned the pollution of the River Rhymney following the cessation of pumping at Britannia colliery in South Wales. That case has not yet concluded. Meanwhile, emergency moves by the NRA are under way to protect thousands of pollution-threatened fish in Worsbrough Reservoir, near Barnsley.
The 1,000 members of the Barnsley & District Amalgamated Anglers Society say that the reservoir, which is a major tourist attraction and centre of Worsbrough Park, is in danger of becoming an open sewer. The problems are being caused by effluent from the Yorkshire Water sewage treatment works and especially the loss of pumped minewater from British Coal. This would keep the water clear, stop the growth of algal bloom and eventually the death of the reservoir.
The Anglers Co-operative Association has an interest in all three examples. We have 17,000 individual members and 1,100 clubs representing nearly 250,000
1446
anglers in England and Wales. It is no mean organisation. We have lost only two cases in the past 40 years. Those three examples illustrate the extent and complexity of the environmental problems that cessation of minewater pumping can cause. The last of those examples—that is, Worsbrough Reservoir—also shows the vacuum of responsibility which exists in the current uncertain state of the law. British Coal denies any responsibility for the consequences of turning off the pumps. The sewerage undertaker in this case complains at the cost of upgrading its works in response to the reduced flow over which it has no control. The NRA shies away from incurring costs of pumping and other remedial measures in the fear that it may not be able to recover the cost of these works. The upshot of this impasse may be an environmental catastrophe.
The criminal prosecution of British Coal by the Anglers Co-operative Association last December highlighted the present uncertainty of the law. The judge's ruling in that particular case concluded that British Coal was not responsible for polluting discharges which emanated from old mineworkings. He did, however, state that the position might have been different if there had been evidence that British Coal could have foreseen the consequences of its actions.
There is, therefore, a strong argument that in the current state of affairs legal liability, both civil and criminal, may rest with British Coal for polluting discharges following the cessation of minewater pumping. It follows that if nothing is done to alter the position, under the new legislation liability may also rest with the Coal Authority and licence holders.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that the issue of liability should be left to future litigation. This will create a climate of uncertainty for those who wish to operate mines in the future, for those who regulate the water environment and for those who own rights in, or otherwise enjoy, that environment.
It is quite wrong that an issue of such importance should be left to the vagaries of litigation. While the courts can decide who is liable, they cannot state how any remedial measures can be paid for, nor how that remedial work will be undertaken. That is a matter for legislation.
I therefore support all the amendments to the Bill but particularly the ones on minewater pollution which impose on the Coal Authority responsibility for pollution and associated problems caused by discharges from mines where pumping has already ceased, or that may emerge as a result of future cessations from mines which vest in the authority under this Bill. Finally, new licence holders must of course be responsible for all pollution caused as a result of their own exploitation of mine workings vested in them.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, this group of amendments is, I believe, of absolutely central importance. It is of importance to anyone concerned with the protection of the environment; it is of importance for third parties who may be affected if inadequate arrangements are put in place, and it is, I believe, of central importance if we wish this privatisation Bill to be the success that I hope it will

1447
prove to be. I start therefore by emphasising that I am entirely in favour of privatisation. One of my central anxieties is that because, in my view, the Bill is not yet drafted in an appropriate manner, the success of that privatisation will be prejudiced.
When I spoke in Committee I did so largely on environmental grounds. I expressed anxieties about the possible effects, just described by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, of minewater pollution, and I raised a number of other issues which we will come to under other groupings. I greatly welcomed the important undertakings given by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde during the Committee stage, particularly as regards the continuation of pumping in mines that have been closed. There is no doubt that that is of very great importance. However, we still have a central lacuna in this Bill. Perhaps because of the otherwise welcome brevity with which these amendments were moved, the nature of that lacuna may not be understood by everyone.
The Government's intention, as I understand it, is that if you apply for a licence—I am talking about deep mines, not opencast mines; there is no significant problem with opencast mines—you take responsibility for an area of land around your mine or mines and you take responsibility for a cylinder going down into the earth underneath that area of land. You are responsible, within that cylinder, for all liabilities. That is not unfair if we are talking about the liabilities that arise from your own operations—indeed it seems to me entirely appropriate that anyone applying for a licence should be responsible for his own actions. However, you are also obliged to take on the liabilities that may have been incurred by the predecessor mining organisations, and that will primarily be British Coal. You may therefore find yourself involved in the cost of pumping, into infinity, from mines—not only the mine that you are operating but other mines connected to it.
We have a case in South Wales at the moment down on the Neath Canal, where there is heavy pollution which, I am told, comes primarily from a mine that was closed before the war. But that has become a significant problem only recently because the pumping from other connected mines has ceased. The Government have argued that it is difficult to separate old from new liabilities, and they have given this as one reason that the unfortunate licensee should be expected to take over these unquantifiable, perhaps very substantial and very old liabilities.
In Committee I argued that those difficulties had been exaggerated and the courts had considerable skills in dealing with such matters. However, I do not have to press that argument any further because at the present time a number of mines are being operated under licence. I understand that Mr. Malcolm Edwards, who is likely to apply for licences under these arrangements, is already, with his associates, responsible for two mines which are licensed under the powers granted by Clause 36(2) of the 1946 Act. I am informed that the prior liabilities are excluded in that case. They are excluded under the arrangements approved by British Coal at the present time as the licensing authority. I am quite unable to understand why, if that is the position under existing legislation which has operated, apparently quite
1448
successfully, since 1946, the Government think it is totally impossible to do it under the Bill that we are considering at the present time.
I have pressed this argument with Ministers. I suppose if I had not been around for a long time and now have a thick skin, I might be a trifle offended by the explanation that has been given to me in response to my representations; namely, that I should not take too much notice because after all these are arguments that are being advanced by potential licensees who have an interest in reducing the possible liabilities. I think I might be able to make a judgment about that point myself, but as it happens I advanced those arguments in Committee before I had had any communication with the potential bidders and I did so because I happened to form that view myself. It does seem—
3.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend at length, but he raised an important issue of detail with which I wish to deal. The only reason that we should not accept his view is that of course this would be in the interests of those successor companies—the potential purchasers—and we do not want to do them any favours. That, of course, is one aspect of the argument bur. the real reason that the licensing regime is different from the one that will be created post-privatisation is that licensing was an experiment. It was started when British Coal started to license and had no idea whether there was a market willing to take on the job that had been carried out by British Coal. Therefore the licensing regime was introduced. Post-privatisation of course there will be no need for a licensing regime and that is why we believe that as many of the liabilities as possible should be acquired by the successor companies.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my noble friend has not dealt with the point I made; that the separation of liabilities—which is what I was arguing about—is possible under the present arrangements and would be possible if this Bill was correctly drafted. I think it is a mistake to give way half way through an argument because I was just going on to say that we should perhaps take a certain amount of notice of the arguments put by potential bidders as it is upon those bidders that the success of this privatisation depends.
I now want to discuss the issue that concerns me almost more than the environmental concerns which I raised in Committee. I am still worried about those because if the licensees do not have adequate resources, they may not be able to take the necessary measures to protect the environment and third parties. But the point I wish to make is that there is a danger that the privatisation will fail, or at least will go through only with a bad deal for the taxpayer. I shall explain my reasons for saying that.
The Treasury, dealing with public bodies such as the one of which I am chairman, quite sensibly takes the view that one should not carry insurance because this is a risk sensibly taken by the Treasury as this is the lowest cost way of doing it. But here we appear to be in a situation where that argument will be entirely reversed.

1449
If we take the potential pumping liabilities which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, they are impossible to quantify as we do not know when water will come out, where it will come out, and we do not know how much pumping may be necessary. However, as it costs something over £½million per annum to pump from a deep mine, clearly the costs, going on into infinity, can be very great indeed.
We have heard that in mines which are closed that liability will be accepted by the Coal Authority and therefore by the Government and the Treasury. However, if one is bidding one has to accept the fact that one may be responsible for those liabilities and will have to provide the necessary financial resources.
The Treasury can work on the assumption that the liability may never arise. Furthermore, it may arise many years into the future. The Treasury has to pay the bills only if they arise and when they arise. That must be the way to deal with the matter at the lowest possible cost. However, if one is bidding one has to provide the capital resources to enable one to meet any possible liabilities, however great. I do not believe that that would normally be a practical proposition for such companies, which will be putting together a capital structure in order to operate mines, often for a relatively short period of time. They will raise their money in the market with the need to concentrate their resources in that way.
Alternatively, it is argued that one can insure the risk or take out bonds with financial institutions. I argued at Committee stage that it was unlikely that one would be able to do so, and as a loss-making Lloyd's underwriter I hoped that it would be difficult to do so. However, letters have now been received from some of the largest insurance brokers in the world—indeed, one can claim to be the largest in the world—indicating that it may be possible but it will be extremely expensive. It will have to be based on a thorough examination of the risks and the environmental situation so far as that can be assessed.
Therefore, one's insurer will examine the possibility that substantial liabilities may arise. He will provide ample cover. He will provide for profit margins. He will also provide for the possibility that those liabilities will arise in a very short timescale. The costs will be very great indeed.
The costs will be deducted from the bid. If one bids for one of the licences one will deduct from the bid the cost of providing for such liabilities. That means that the taxpayer will receive less than would otherwise have been the case if the Treasury had borne the risk. That is on the understanding that the bids are made at all in a sensible form when the realities are faced up to.
It seems to me that while this House does not have direct responsibility for taxation matters, it has at least a duty to seek to give the other place an opportunity to think again about such matters. I am not encouraged by the fact that a leading Member of the other House of whom I inquired why the matter had not been pressed very hard in the other place said that, apart from the procedural difficulties and timetable, "We thought that you would do that rather better in the other place. You
1450
are rather good at that and will bring the issue out and refer it back to us". The person who said that to me is a former chairman of the 1992 Committee and is therefore not a rebel seeking to do the Government down. He is acutely anxious about the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I am acutely anxious about them.
It is very sad that the Government have not been prepared to listen on this point, as they have listened on a number of other points. In relation to some of the liabilities regarding employment matters the Government have listened and responded. That is a step forward. I am unable to understand why they have not done so in this case. I hope that my noble friend is able to give me an assurance that the Government will come back at Third Reading with suitable amendments to remove this extraordinary anomaly.
It is also a question of principle. Is it right that the considerable liabilities of the state in the form of British Coal should be passed on in this way to potential bidders? Those are not liabilities arising from their own actions but unquantifiable past liabilities which go back perhaps hundreds of years. That is not a mythical situation. The Wheal Jane tin mine, which I now have to deal with, gives rise to pollution which originated over many hundreds of years. There is a network of inter-connecting mines which causes damage.
I believe that I am right to support the amendments. In particular, I favour Amendments Nos. 17 and 22. However, such is the way of the world that I suspect that it will be important to support Amendment No. 1 at the outset. I intend to do so and I hope that a great many of my noble friends will do so for no other reason, if they do not agree with my other arguments, than if they do not we shall make a nonsense of the privatisation and we shall not have the successful privatisation that many of us on these Benches want.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendments. I fully support the argument so ably put by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris in speaking to the 13 amendments. It seems to me that the failure of a private mine owner can be so powerful in its effect in relation to employment, the environment and the householder that the responsibilities, the correlative rights and duties, ought to be spelt out clearly in the Bill.
I want to speak in particular on an issue on which I spoke in Committee and which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Mason and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, namely the pollution of rivers caused by drainage from abandoned mines. In South Wales, and indeed in South Yorkshire and Durham, miles of rivers are affected by pollution.
I have a little knowledge of the prosecution brought against the Coal Board in respect of the pollution of the River Rhymney. It is my understanding that after the closure of a mine and the cessation of the pumping operation the water level will rise and will fill the mine workings. If there is iron or pyrites in the mine workings that will be picked up and deposited in the rivers, which become polluted. I understand that currently there is only one way of guaranteeing the prevention of

1451
pollution and that is to allow the pumping operation to continue after closure of the mine. That may continue for a very long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned.
Reference has been made to the prosecution brought against the NCB which failed in the Cardiff Crown Court last December. I appreciate that other proceedings are in train. However, it is worth pointing out that in that case British Coal had constructed a duct, which had been approved by the NRA, for the purpose of draining the water from the mine into the River Rhymney. But the water did not go where it was intended to go and ought to have gone. That gives an indication of the difficulty of predicting how water will flow when the pumping operations cease. In that particular case pyrites were picked up from old workings which had never been the responsibility of the National Coal Board. In my view the NCB was not negligent because it acted on the basis that water would be discharged into the duct and carried by the duct to the river when the mine was closed and the pumping operations were switched off.
I am advised by those who are knowledgeable in this field that currently there is only one effective preventive remedy, and that is to continue pumping. I therefore trust that Amendment No. 13 will be acceptable to the Government. I believe that that would bring reassurance to many communities. I also note that that is the sensible proposal of Durham County Council.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have slight difficulties with the amendments which were so eloquently spoken to from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I do not think that he could be boring even if he tried. However, I believe that he would have had to face this difficulty: had his amendments already been in the Bill, we would have been travelling, in good company with him, further down the road which leads to longer and longer measures without achieving the clarity or certainty which is the aim. I have heard it said repeatedly that one must not leave too much for the courts to decide. But every time Parliament takes such a view the result is exactly contrary to what the proposers hope: the Bill becomes longer and raises more questions on which, in the end, the courts are invited to decide.
I wish to declare one interest. I still have some tenuous involvement with British Alcan Aluminium plc which is anxious to secure for its smelter in the North East a reliable and economic supply of coal. The company faces an important question which I had thought was fairly clearly defined in the Bill: will those who run, manage or are responsible for an on-going business—the successor companies—be liable for their own fault; for what goes wrong as a result of the way in which they conduct their operation, or for any failure to perform what was clearly their duty? I shall be grateful if my noble friend will make that point absolutely clear today from the Dispatch Box.
While referring to my noble friend, I should like to say that during the course of the proceedings I, like many others, have had a number of contacts with him. I am grateful to him for his accessibility and for the
1452
readiness and patience with which he has listened to our arguments, whether or not he has been able to accept them.
My second point is that the Government have travelled a long way in setting up the Coal Authority to take over all those liabilities, which cannot be described as current, arising from the operations of the successor companies. If the amendments are accepted, what specific difference will they make in practice to those liabilities which are already placed on the Coal Authority? I shall be grateful for my noble friend's guidance on those two points.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I, too, wish to say a word of comfort to the Minister. Since the Committee stage of the Bill he has undoubtedly taken on one important aspect of the privatisation process. I declare an interest, as I have on several occasions during the course of the Bill. He has dealt effectively with on-going injury and disease liabilities. I speak only for myself and others involved with the Scottish scene. However, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already said, it will be difficult to imagine bids of any consequence being submitted if that aspect of this privatisation has not been addressed. As I understand it, clearly the on-going responsibilities on claims by employees who are now to be employed by the successor companies will remain, so far as concerns previous employment, with the Government.
However, I wish to put one question to my noble friend who has been helpful in answering points raised by myself and others during the course of the Bill. I am not quite certain why it is unnecessary to have an amendment to the Bill to deal with that important aspect of the privatisation process. I leave that question with my noble friend. I hope that I shall receive: comfort from his answer.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, listening to the debate today I find myself in agreement with much of what my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said. However, we must pay tribute to the speech from the Opposition Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on moving the amendment. As he stated, it is a rather large group with which to start our proceedings today, but his nimble mind managed to weave the thread of liability through all the amendments. We have to take that factor very seriously indeed.
I believe that my noble friend has some difficulties in this regard. The Bill sought to ensure that all the liabilities of British Coal were passed on to an appropriate recipient. Whether that be the authority or the new applicants who operate the industry is a matter on which he has to make some choice. However, I believe that it would be quite wrong for the Government to place upon the new participants liabilities which are the responsibility of the authority. Conversely, there are many liabilities which it would be quite wrong to place upon the authority. No one will participate in this new type of business without thinking very hard about doing so. If the bodies themselves do not think hard about it, no doubt their financial advisers will do so. All the points raised from various parts of the Chamber will form part of that consideration and discussion. It is

1453
therefore not unduly pessimistic to say that there will be many who will have considered participation but who, because of the liabilities which they will inherit, may tend to think again.
I suggest that my noble friend has to steer a careful course. He must not make it too difficult for those who participate for the first time, even if that means imposing some liabilities upon the authority which we might prefer not to be included.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment. As noble Lords may have noted, I have put forward a series of amendments which, to some extent, cover similar ground. However, if the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, are agreed by the House, I shall be happy to withdraw all or most of my amendments.
My specific interest relates to the freeholders of land held on lease by the corporation. There are a substantial number of such leases, including working collieries and collieries which have been abandoned, and land held with coal mining. My family holds one such piece of land. I declare that interest. My concern is with liabilities under the lease. They fall under several heads: the question of pumping, which has been discussed and is to some extent dealt with in the Bill; the question of subsidence, which is fairly fully dealt with in the Bill; the terms of the lease; and, most importantly, contamination. Unfortunately, contamination is an unknown liability. We all know that the European Community is working on a directive about contamination. We all know from experience with the health and safety regulations that the European Community has an extraordinary talent for inventing new problems and dangers. We have to suppose that at some time in the next 20 years it will decide upon a new substance, substance x, which is a contaminant. Then everyone would be required to cleanse their sites of that substance and the cost could run into millions of pounds.
The question is: will the Treasury be tempted to see the Bill as a way in which it can avoid the obligations which have been incurred by the corporation during the period when it was exploiting the nation's coal? Will the successor companies have broad enough shoulders to carry the liabilities which may be imposed upon them when the lease is transferred? That raises the important question which was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell: who should take the risk? I think that he argued the case clearly and I need not enlarge upon it.
We must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate offloading—offloading to a new owner who does not have broad enough shoulders to bear whatever liabilities may arise at some future date is illegitimate offloading.
Under the Bill there are three areas where freeholders might be in danger from Clause 12: from the Secretary of State's power to make transfers prior to assets being transferred to the new authority; then after the restructuring from the rather loose wording in relation to the transfer of liabilities in regard to property liabilities; and finally —a point which no one seems to have mentioned so I can only assume that I am wrong—it
1454
seems to me that there is a potential for liabilities which do not run with the land such as liabilities for negligence or under contracts, which I have covered in my Amendment No. 39. I shall not say any more at this stage.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I join all those who have already done so in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the way in which he has explained this substantial group of amendments. I am grateful for it but I am sorry that he did not continue quoting the Companion after the part which he read out. It states that at Report stage, each noble Lord has the opportunity of speaking only once, apart from the noble Lord who moves the amendments. Sadly, therefore, we shall not have the joy of listening to many noble Lords again.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that this was a vexed and as yet unresolved issue of liabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that liabilities were the most important question. Naturally, I join in the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, for those who enjoy angling so much. I appreciated the care with which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put forward his arguments. He has great experience in the whole area as Chairman of the National Rivers Authority. I very much want to satisfy him because I do not believe that there is a lacuna in the Bill. The policy which the Government have had towards the whole matter of liabilities is absolutely correct. I also believe, with respect to my noble friend, that he is wrong in his conclusions and I hope in the course of the next few minutes to prove that he is wrong.
I was also grateful for the support from my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Sanderson, necessarily qualified. But I hope to give them comfort and I take to heart the advice of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, who said that I should steer a most careful course.
During Committee stage time and time again noble Lords expressed their concerns about British Coal's liabilities and how they were to be discharged after privatisation. I believe that I was able to go a long way towards dealing with those anxieties, but I have been told during the course of the past few weeks and again this afternoon that there are those who are nevertheless left with a lingering anxiety that the proposition is not as clear as it should be or that it is not spelt out clearly on the face of the Bill.
I have reflected on that and my department has had further discussions with legal advisers. It has also made further progress in its preparations for privatisation and I am now able to make a number of points which I think noble Lords will find helpful.
In general terms, the approach in the Bill is this. First, all liabilities that can be properly regarded as a part of the ongoing businesses which are to be privatised will go to the mining companies. That point was raised by my noble friend Lord Peyton. He was absolutely right and I believe that there should be no quarrel in the House about the correctness of that procedure. Generally speaking, the liabilities will be transferred using the scheme-making powers in Clause 12 and

1455
Schedule 2 to the Bill through the subsidence provisions that are in Part III of the Bill and through conditions that the Coal Authority will attach to coal leases or under general employment law.
Secondly, the Coal Authority will become the owner of the freehold of underground mines from whatever period they date and whether or not they have been abandoned and will automatically acquire the respon-sibilities running with that ownership. That is achieved by Clause 7(3) of the Bill.
Thirdly, liabilities of British Coal to its employees and ex-employees which are not passed on to successor companies will then be taken on directly by the Government. That will be achieved through Schedule 5 as regards pensions and through the scheme-making powers in Clause 12 and Schedule 2 for other liabilities.
I must stress that that is a very general account of the principles. The detailed arrangements are necessarily complex. That is inevitable because British Coal has a wide range of liabilities and responsibilities and many of them are subject to different statutory frameworks. Any attempt to produce a simple answer dealing with liabilities across the board would inevitably be unfair to the third parties affected, to the successor companies or to the taxpayer, or to all of us. That is why one has to consider each type of liability individually and it is also why there is no one clause that I can point to as dealing with the issue of liabilities as a whole. I believe that that is an entirely appropriate way of dealing with those kinds of liabilities.
Let me explain in more detail the position with regard to the liabilities that will be passed on to the mining companies because I know that that is the main anxiety. I have the impression from some noble Lords opposite that every single liability of British Coal should remain with the taxpayer or should be guaranteed by the taxpayer. That is as good as saying that there should be no privatisation; the operators are not really assuming the responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, nods, but I hope that noble Lords on this side of the House will not be beguiled by siren voices in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, produced a new—at least new to me —and rather interesting argument that obliging operators to accept their responsibilities would mean that small operators—perhaps management buy-outs and so on—would be unable to take part in the privatisation process. I understand from reading newspapers that many organisations, the trade unions and various mining unions all hope to play a part in privatisation. Clearly at this stage they do not feel excluded.
The approach in the Bill is to place on successor companies those liabilities that belong to the businesses that they are taking on. It includes important safeguards for those affected, particularly in relation to subsidence, where there is a strong regime. It places a statutory obligation on the Coal Authority, or the Secretary of State if he issues the licences, to vet the financial standing of the mining companies and their ability to bear the liabilities concerned.
I am sure that that is the right approach. It would never be right to sell the assets and the earning capacity
1456
of the industry without asking the purchaser to take on any of its liabilities. In fact, I think it would be negligent for us to do anything else.
Some have suggested that the successor companies should only bear liabilities that arise exclusively from mining activity that takes place after privatisation, leaving everything else to the Government. As practical matter, it is often difficult to split liabilities up in that way. But even if that were not the case, we have to face the fact that all businesses have liabilities as well as assets on their books and that, as a general rule, you cannot expect to take on one without the other.
There is, of course, always room for argument as to precisely which liabilities should be regarded as part of the ongoing business. Noble Lords should not be surprised if, as I said to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, they have been lobbied by some prospective purchasers who incline to a minimalist approach.
However, I am now able to tell the House of two important policy developments which I believe will do much to reassure noble Lords that the Government an not intending to over-burden successor companies with liabilities.
First, as I announced in a parliamentary Answer on 6th June to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, the Government have decided that a privatisation responsibility for all health and injury claims with respect to past service with British Coal will be retained in the public sector and accepted by the Government. That includes responsibility for claims with respect to past service by employees who transfer to successor companies. Responsibility for health and injury claims with respect to future service after privatisation will, of course, rest with successor companies. I believe that that provides an important safeguard for the employees concerned and is in the best interests of all concerned, including employees, successor companies and the taxpayer. I am very glad about that after the consultations that I had, not just with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, but also with my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Wade and my noble friend Lord Haslam, who had a great concern on this matter and indeed told me that this was a major stumbling block on his support for the Bill. I hope that he will be very pleased with that announcement.
Secondly, I am now able to explain in rather more detail than previously precisely how it is intended to define the areas within which successor companies will be responsible for making good subsidence damage. As I explained previously, the principle involved will be a very simple one. A line will be drawn around the area of the mine. If your property is inside the line the mining company will be liable. If it is outside the Coal Authority is liable. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell explained this as the cylindrical approach, and he was right. The Government have now decided that the lines will be drawn so as to include only those areas that are likely to be affected by mining carried out from March 1994—the end of the last full financial year in the public sector—and, furthermore, that the successor companies will be indemnified for the costs of meeting any claims relating to damage within this area where liability had

1457
been admitted by British Coal before the sale was agreed. The effect of these two measures will be to reduce to the minimum the liability of successor companies for claims arising from previous workings by British Coal. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this further measure of assurance.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. It seemed to me that what he said was significant. Will that be in the Bill at some point, or will it be just in the leases?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord says that it is significant. Of course it is significant. These are two very important announcements by the Government to allay the concerns of this House and also to make sure that privatisation is more successful. The question—
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene on a similar point. He referred to subsidence but made no reference to contamination.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the whole question of contamination is fraught with difficulty. That has nothing to do with the Bill, but has to do with the uncertainties that exist in the world outside about what liabilities should exist for different kinds of contamination. These questions are subject to consultations by the Government and proposals are being put forward by the European Community. They will be dealt with that way rather than in this particular Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asks whether these matters will be put on the face of the Bill. In regard to the first announcement on industrial injury and disease, that is of course subject to general employment law. I understand that there is absolutely no requirement for it to be put on the face of the Bill. It is on that basis that the industry will be sold to the private sector. It will be made absolutely clear through the contractual arrangement as to where liabilities will lie. That is also true in relation to subsidence.
But there is a more general question. Many noble Lords have suggested that we should spell out how each liability is to be treated. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked for a simple and unambiguous provision. That point was echoed by my noble friend: what difference would it make if we accepted some of these amendments, which are quite clearly in line with government policy? One day in the dim and distant future perhaps noble Lords opposite may well be sitting here. They will find that sometimes it is not quite so easy to make things as unambiguous and as clear as they would like.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I hope it will be a very long time indeed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I likewise hope that it will be a very long time indeed.
I might explain that to do what noble Lords opposite would have wished would have resulted in a document so long that it would never have been possible to digest.
1458
During the Committee stage there were a number of comments about the fact that the Bill ran to some 164 pages. It would be abnormal for legislation to be used to deal with such matters in such specific detail. It is for that reason that this Bill follows the precedent of other major privatisation Bills and provides general scheme-making powers (in Clause 12 and Schedule 2).
Also to have singled out just a few obligations, liabilities, properties and so on for inclusion on the face of the Bill, while excluding others—the approach which from time to time it has been suggested should have been adopted—would in my view have served to confuse and cause doubt in cases where there was no specific reference to a liability or property. There is also the difficulty if, for example, there is an obligation which attaches directly, by virtue of another piece of legislation, to the ownership of property. By making specific reference to one obligation, could it be construed as implying that another obligation was therefore excluded, or might it imply in some way a different obligation to that which is laid down elsewhere in law? No doubt such difficulties could have been resolved by our draftsmen, but probably only by adding further to the complexity of the provisions. I am one who believes that the simpler the legislation that we deal with in this House, the better it is for all concerned.
Lord Ezra: There is one simple solution to this matter. That would be if the noble Lord were to accept the proposition from his noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who recommended that the present system of licensing by British Coal should be adopted. The noble Lord said that this was experimental. It is not experimental. The National Coal Board and British Coal have licensed small mines and small opencast operations for nearly 50 years.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, licensing is of course not privatisation. We are trying to provide for the long-term viable future of the coal industry. We know from painful experience that the public sector is not the place where such industries prosper. That is why licensing is not the appropriate model. The private sector, I am glad to say, is showing a remarkable and indeed an exciting amount of anticipation at the proposed privatisation. That is why we have chosen wholesale privatisation as opposed to further licensing.
Perhaps I may go on to deal with liabilities attaching to abandoned mines. On the date when the industry is restructured under the Bill, the Coal Authority will automatically become the freehold owner of all British Coal's underground mines, including mines that have been abandoned, and regardless of how old they may be. That is clearly set out in Clause 7(3) of the Bill. That preserves the status quo in the sense that these mines will continue to belong to a responsible public body. That is an important part of the overall arrangements for ensuring that existing responsibilities do not, as it were, fall into the crack between British Coal and the privatised industry.
In the Coal Authority explanatory note the Government have set out the environmental policy aims that they envisage that the authority will set itself with regard to the management of all its property, including

1459
all mines that are not licensed to the private sector. I have given noble Lords important assurances about the responsible way in which the authority will be expected to behave, particularly with regard to mine water pumping.
The Bill also implies a new duty on the Coal Authority in Clause 3(7) to have regard to environmental factors in any works that it carries out on former coalmining land, and that is reflected in the statement of environmental policy aims, as I have explained. Where mines continue to operate, the lease will make it clear that all costs of meeting regulatory requirements, including requirements for the protection of the water environment, will fall on the operators and not on the authority. But the Coal Authority will continue to own the freehold. In the longer term, after mining has ceased and appropriate steps have been taken by the mining company, those mines will have the same status as any other abandoned mine that had never been privatised.
It is important to add that that does not mean that the Government are entirely satisfied with the existing state of the law with regard to the environmental obligations of mine owners.
As I think your Lordships are aware, the key question of the exemption which mine owners currently enjoy with regard to pollution from minewaters that are "permitted" to flow is under review by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The results of that review are due later this year. We believe that the proper place to address this issue is through the review and that it is not appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle for hasty decisions. In Committee, I was glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I think I still have his support on that issue but I hope he now accepts that there is no gap between the Coal Authority and the coal company.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am afraid I do not accept that. I do not think my noble friend has said anything new. He has helpfully said what I believed anyway was going to be the position; namely, that subsidence within the area directly relates to the mine's activities within that area. He made helpful remarks about health and safety. But we now have the situation where you could have, say, a dozen coal mines closed in the immediate vicinity of an operating mine. The Coal Authority will be responsible for pumping those mines if water starts appearing but if you happen to be the unfortunate licensee who is continuing to operate and water comes up your mine from all the surrounding ones, the Coal Authority avoids its responsibilities. The taxpayer avoids responsibilities. All responsibilities fall on the unfortunate licensee. That licensee will have to prepare a special Clause 1 document under the yellow book rules of the Stock Exchange and will have to explain to shareholders and potential shareholders what those potential liabilities may be. They will be unquantifiable and potentially huge.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I really do not think so. There is a problem between my noble friend and myself which I regret. Under the 1991 Act mine owners
1460
are excluded from liability. So there is very little liability attaching to the owners of mines. It is easily quantifiable. It is a liability where water pollution is actually caused and not where pollution, as it is called, is permitted. It is that liability which is under review by the Secretary of State. If water that is permitted to flow were a legal liability currently, then I think I would agree with my noble friend, but because it is excluded at the moment the liability is entirely quantifiable. All the mine owner has to do is to make sure that he keeps pumping the water out of his own mine. Therefore there can be no confusion between water coming from his mine and water coming from abandoned mines, which are rightly the responsibility of the Coal Authority.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my noble friend makes my point for me almost in his concluding sentence. The unfortunate licensee may be obliged to go on pumping for ever, incurring costs of perhaps £1 million or half a million pounds a year per pump in order to pump out water which may be coming from mines which are now the property of the Coal Board outside the area in which he is mining. I happen to think that that is unfair. I happen to think that it will prejudice successful privatisation and the amount of money that will come to the taxpayer. I continue to be as concerned as I was when I made my opening remarks.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may correct one small point made by my noble friend. The liability does not continue for ever. At the end of the coal mining process or when the mining company wishes to give up mining it enters into discussions with the authority and there is consultation with the NRA as to what appropriate and reasonable steps need to be taken in order to cap the liabilities. But in the end the liabilities will fall, because it becomes an abandoned mine under the control of the Coal Authority. At that stage it will be treated in the same way as any other abandoned mine.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for intervening yet again, but he has just made a profoundly important statement. Again it leaves a very big question. He is saying that there will be a capping arrangement negotiated at the moment when one decides to close the mine and, after negotiation and with a bit of luck, one will get it capped. However, the licensee, when he applies at the outset, has no idea apparently of the terms on which that eventual capping will come. Therefore, we are still in the position that at the moment he makes his bid he has a large unquantifiable liability until a possible discussion about capping many years later when he proposes to finish his mining activities.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I started with the intention of explaining why I thought my noble friend was wrong and I have conspicuously failed to do so. At least I have not explained myself to my noble friend's satisfaction. I believe it is absolutely right for the private sector mining companies to accept the liability of doing their work. I think it is absolutely right that they should be asked to continue pumping. It is also absolutely right that when they give up coal mining they should enter into arrangements to look after their liabilities, and only

1461
at the end should those liabilities fall back on to the taxpayers. I am sorry that I could not get my noble friend to agree that.
Amendment No. 1 is a very wide amendment. It has provoked a very full and useful debate. I shall touch upon one or two of the linked amendments if that would be helpful. Amendment No. 4 seeks to impose the Coal Authority's duty under Clause 2(1) (b) on the Secretary of State in respect of any licences granted in accordance with the provisions of Clause 26(6). That clause is drafted in terms of the Secretary of State issuing licences in exercise of the Coal Authority's power 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 Clause 2(1) (b)—and the other duties imposed by Clause 2. The actions of the Coal Authority and the Secretary of State will be equally open to challenge in the courts.
Amendment No. 5 would require the Coal Authority to look at the licensees' health-related liabilities. I believe that my parliamentary Answer to the noble Lord should meet those concerns.
Amendment No. 6 is concerned with the Coal Authority's important duty in Clause 2(1) (b) of the Bill to secure, so far as practicable, that licensees are able to finance their liabilities. I think noble Lords may find it helpful if I explain how we see this duty working. What we have in mind is to conduct a careful assessment of would-be licensees and the liabilities as part of the licensing process. No purchaser will obtain a licence until the Secretary of State is properly satisfied about these matters from the perspective of Clause 2(1) (b).
The Bill leaves the Coal Authority and, where he grants licences, the Secretary of State free to decide how to discharge the duty, which it will do in the light of its other duties as well. But this is not freedom not to discharge the duty. It is freedom to decide in the circumstances what is the best way to achieve the objective. Of course, particular circumstances, operators and mines may vary enormously and so may the appropriate discharge of the duty.
On the other hand, the amendment seeks to give the authority a duty to assess the financial strength of licensees both before granting a licence and as often as it thinks necessary during the term of the licence, but at least every two years. In other words, the authority would be obliged to take a course which might not lead to what it considers the best discharge of the duty at Clause 2(1) (b), and other duties. In some circumstances it could simply lead to a needless bureaucratic interference with operators.
This is an amendment for pulling the industry up by the roots every two years to see if it is growing. It would create a situation of continuing uncertainty which would be bound to deter mining companies with a long-term future from entering the industry. The amendment is misconceived because it would not alter the authority's duty but would constrain its freedom to select the best means of performing it. It is therefore neither necessary nor desirable.
Turning to Amendment No. 7, I appreciate that potential purchasers would very much like the
1462
Government to retain or underwrite every liability. But, just as the proposition that mining companies should have to provide security for or otherwise insure all their environmental liabilities would be extraordinarily onerous, so this would be of extraordinary assistance. Many other industries have environmental impacts. We have only to look at the oil and gas industries, the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and other mining and quarrying industries and their liabilities to see that they are perfectly acceptable either for pooling arrangements, commercial arrangements or other kinds of arrangements.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to prevent the Coal Authority from disposing of coal and coal mines freehold unless it is satisfied that to do so would not increase the risk of loss to any person as a result of coal-mining operations, and the Secretary of State has approved that means of disposal. I made very clear in previous debates that we envisage that the Coal Authority will only dispose of the coal and the mine freehold in exceptional circumstances. Both the revised explanatory note, which I recently sent to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the preliminary memorandum issued on 13th April in relation to the proposed privatisation of British Coal make clear that the authority will normally retain ownership of coal and coal mines. That is because we want to minimise the risk of the coal resource becoming fragmented over the longer term. But it would not be prudent totally to rule out the possibility of freehold sale; for instance, if the coal concerned were in an isolated area of opencast there could be advantage (and it is not obvious that there would be disadvantage) in so doing.
Amendment No. 13 would place a very specific statutory duty on the Coal Authority to maintain pumping in all circumstances for so long as the National Rivers Authority deems it necessary. I deem that the amendment is unnecessary. In the short term, I have set out proposals which will lead to a working relationship between the Coal Authority and the relevant water regulatory authorities with which all sides are happy. I see nothing to be gained by placing this in a statutory framework. In the longer term we will have completed the review and concluded, in the light of all relevant considerations, whether additional obligations with regard to water pollution should be placed on owners of abandoned mines. I fear that the amendment is seeking a hasty legal solution to a problem that needs more careful consideration.
Amendment No. 14 relates to the authority's arrangements for dealing with water pollution from abandoned mines, as set out in my statement of 26th April. The argument behind the amendment is that, when mining ceases, the responsibilities of the operator with regard to preventing water pollution should also cease. As I set out in my statement, we do not envisage that an operator should have a continuing operational responsibility for dealing with any water discharges. That will fall to the Coal Authority as the owner of the mine. But we will expect the operator to leave the mine in a satisfactory condition, just as any lessee would be

1463
expected to leave property in a satisfactory condition when it reverts to the freeholder. That may include an appropriate payment in respect of any continuing costs.
Amendment No. 17 would add reference to liabilities in Clause 7(3). Clause 7 does not, and is not in any way intended to, change the existing position with regard to the legal responsibilities falling on underground mine owners. It is simply about the transfer of ownership and in that respect it is, I believe, very clear and comprehensive and to extend it would create unfortunate confusion.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, as drafted, would be to prevent the privatisation of British Coal.
Amendment No. 22 is aimed at limiting the liabilities that may be transferred to British Coal's successors. For the reasons which I have already stated, I think that we have got the balance right.
Finally, Amendment No. 25 would require the Secretary of State to indemnify an operator against any liabilities in respect of the health and safety of his workers. I believe that I have adequately dealt with that point.
I bow again to the advice of my noble friend Lord Gray, who suggested that I should steer a careful course. I sense that I have not satisfied my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I sincerely hope that I have satisfied the rest of my noble friends and perhaps even some noble Lords opposite that we understand the anxieties expressed. I apologise for speaking at some length. As the House recognises, this is an extremely important issue.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may refer back to his remarks regarding the liabilities of other industries, such as the chemical industry. Does my noble friend accept that the analogy is entirely false? The other industries started de novo and had to accept the liabilities. This is a swap of liabilities; it is a swap from the public to the private sector. I want the Bill to succeed but fear that the substance and potential size of the liabilities will put off applicants for licences and purchase. I trust that that will not be the case. Lastly, has the Minister forgotten what happened in this field in the long-tail liability at Lloyd's?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, by leave of the House perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I would not have made the analogy if I had felt it was a false one. There are an enormous number of industries in the United Kingdom which accept substantial potential liabilities. Already there are private mining companies which accept large liabilities and they have not made this point to us. There is no reason, therefore, why they should not also accept these liabilities.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the silver-tongued eloquence with which he attempted to persuade your Lordships on all sides of the House that all is well and that nothing needs to be done. I listened with consummate care and infinite attention to his necessarily extensive speech. I
1464
have been with him on the question of what we could call the "Crickhowell cylinder", which I take to be rather like the device that one uses in the kitchen for removing the core from an apple. I understand better than I did before.
Unfortunately, the small concessions offered by Minister come too little and too late. I deeply regret I must tell him that I and my noble friends, despite strenuous efforts to do so, are unable to accept persuasive reassurances and I must ask the House to express an opinion.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not- Contents, 115.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Barnard, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leigh, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nelson, E.

Eatwell, L.

Nicol, B.

Ezra, L. [Teller]

Northbourne, L.

Falkender, B.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Feversham, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Rea, L.

Forester, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Savile, L.

[Teller.]

Scarbrough, E.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halifax, E.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Sheffield, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hanworth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Harrowby, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haslam, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Healey, L.

Tenby, V.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Arran, E.

Lucas, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Astor, V.

Chancellor.]

Balfour, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Manton, L.

Boardman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Caithness, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Campbell of Cray, L.[Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Reay, L.

Colwyn, L.

Renton, L.

Courtown, E.

Renwick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

St. Davids, V.

Donegall, M.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Downshire, M.

Strange, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Elles, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Flather, B.

[Teller]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Terrington, L.

Goschen, V.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Torrington, V.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Vivian, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hesketh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Howe, E.

Wynford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

4.55 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause: ("Establishment of Authority: effect on health and safety law
. The establishment of the Authority shall not, except as explicitly stated otherwise in this Act, have any effect upon the existing law with regard to health and safety in coal-mines.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 raises the question of safety. As your Lordships will recall, this issue gave rise to a substantial amount of discussion at the Committee stage. It has been made clear by the Government that they wish the standards of safety so far obtained in the mining industry to be continued and that they consider that the proper way for
1466
that to be done is through the Health and Safety Executive. We have no objection to the Health and Safety Executive taking on that responsibility. Where we are concerned, however, is that this attention to safety—the culture of safety to which the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, so emphatically referred at the Committee stage —is not sufficiently recognised on the face of the Bill.
During the course of the debate at the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady White, among others from our ranks, raised this issue and received an assurance from the Minister that he would reflect on the matter and try to come up with a form of words which would satisfy us; namely, which would put on the face of the Bill the commitment to safety. However, he has since written to the noble Baroness —he was kind enough to send copies of letters to others who participated—saying that he has, in spite of the exertion of all his undoubted drafting skills, been unable to come forward with a proposition. No doubt the noble Baroness will in due course give her opinion of the response. However, as the noble Lord has not been able to come up with a form of words, we thought we would try to help. We have put forward a form of words which I very much hope he will be prepared to accept. We do not see that the words suggested in the amendment would in any way detract from the role which we agree should be exercised by the Health and Safety Commission and Executive but it would achieve the objective we have in mind; namely, that on the face of the Bill this major issue of safety should be referred to. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on these Benches naturally wish to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which arises from, and relates to, a concern expressed by my noble friend Lady White at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Minister was so kind as to write to her on 20th May setting out his concerns very clearly. He said that he, with his officials, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, had to bear in mind the very clear advice of the Health and Safety Commission that there should be no duplication of the role of the Coal Authority as a licensing body and that of the commission as regulator of the health and safety regime in the coal industry. I have looked very carefully at the wording of the amendment and it does not seem to me to create any duplication of any roles.
The letter from the Minister went on to say that he had looked carefully at all the options for meeting our concerns by adding a reference in the Bill. However, "the insurmountable problem with that approach is that it points towards a provision which would have no real effect in law".
But the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, announces that the Act will change the existing law by the very use of that word, "except". The second page of the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lady White lists the changes and explains them, so the amendment does have a real effect in law. If the authority acted improperly, it could be sued and the new clause could be cited. The letter points out,
"the need to ensure the greatest possible clarity in the drafting so that the legislation is not misunderstood".

1467
The amendment makes the position as clear as crystal, a phrase we shall hear again this evening I do not doubt. The legislation will not be misunderstood; it will be better understood. The Minister with his officials, in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, was unable to come up with a solution. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been able to do so. The Government should be extremely grateful to him, thank him warmly and accept his amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is exceedingly important that Parliament should make sure that at least as good standards of health and safety are maintained in coal mines as before. Like several other noble Lords, I speak with experience. As a junior Minister I was responsible for two most interesting years for health and safety in coal mines. We have to remember that no two coal mines are quite the same. They vary tremendously in the incidence of poisonous gases, explosive gases, the way in which coal dust can be formed, and they are endlessly variable insofar as the danger from falling overheads are concerned.
Therefore, it is very important that we should get this right. I am not in any way departing from the validity of the amendments. It is as well that we include them. However, I am bound to make this comment. At first sight and if one is not a little shrewd, Amendment No. 2 might be considered unnecessary from a strictly drafting point of view. It is better that we make sure, especially if we are going to do what Amendment No. 43 attempts to do—that is, to ensure that perhaps even higher standards are maintained than exist under the present law and practice. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will give a sympathetic reception to these two amendments.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the Minister replies, he should listen to his very experienced noble friend on the Back Bench here. I should like to say how grateful I am to the two noble Lords on this side of the House who have taken up the point which has been made. They quoted from correspondence so adequately that I shall refrain from reading out further passages from the very courteous letter, unsatisfactory though it was in every other possible respect.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I particularly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra; namely,
"that every licence shall include an obligation to maintain standards of safety to at least the same level as that maintained by the Corporation immediately before the restructuring date".
I refer specifically to the Mines Rescue Service. They have not yet received full assurances from the Minister that the safety standards prior to privatisation will be maintained thereafter.
In 1936 I was 12 years of age. One of the two pits in my village blew up. It happened during the night shift. There were no survivors. Seventy-four bodies (or their remains) had to be brought to the surface. My school was nearby; it was closed and the main hall used as a morgue. There were no monies in those days for the relatives of the deceased. We are talking about
1468
privatised coal mining, of course. I remember that George Formby came to Barnsley and performed free at the Alhambra Theatre to raise monies for the bereaved.
I was at the pit head that morning, as was almost the whole village, including pit men in pit togs, flat caps and clogs; they had been preparing to go down for the day shift. There were many women present, their heads covered in shawls. They were huddled in groups and anxiously waiting and watching every stretcher coming up the shaft. The rescuers were volunteers. Some were pit ambulancemen from the service. They were brave men descending into the unknown—a blasted mine full of gas and blasted bodies. In those days, due to secondary explosions and inadequate breathing apparatus, some of those volunteers were killed in those acts of bravery.
Since 1947 and nationalisation, we have developed a highly trained and well-equipped, full-time professional Mines Rescue Service—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is talking about the Mines Rescue Service. I understand that it is a very valuable concern and a health and safety matter. However, I understand that Amendment No. 67 deals with that matter later. The noble Lord may wish to hold back his comments until then. I did not want him to think that he was perhaps speaking to the wrong amendment. I may have interrupted him unduly.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, every licence shall include an obligation to maintain standards of safety at least as good as those prior to privatisation. I particularly refer to the Mines Rescue Service, which is covered by this.
Since 1947 and nationalisation, we have developed a highly-trained, well-equipped, full-time professional Mines Rescue Service, with British Coal having a statutory duty to maintain this specialised mine rescue facility. We really should have a positive assurance that this service will be funded by the Coal Authority and that it will maintain an adequate full-time rescue service. The Mines Rescue Service has a number of central rescue stations manned by full-time rescue brigadesmen. They provide 24-hours-a-day cover. These full-time brigadesmen are highly skilled and trained in underground mines rescue. They have to combat gas-filled mines, overcome rock falls in a blasted mine; contact and rescue injured men; and bring out broken bodies from underground explosions. It takes not only highly-trained, well-equipped men, but men taught and prepared to combat the horrors of gas and fire and be able to face the task of bringing out the shattered remains of colleagues. They are a special breed. They are full-time, on standby, fit and ready for all underground emergencies.
The service fears a privatised part-time service, and the Government have not removed those fears. The Government have said that there will be a service, either full-time or part-time. The full-timers should be the core of the service. Under the proposed regulations contributions will be expected from the small mine owners. In the meantime, British Coal will provide a service for 12 months after the new regulations have

1469
been approved. I do not believe that that is good enough. There is a 12-months only guarantee for some service; there is no mention of what size and then it is only for one year.
In its report on the safety consequences of privatisation the Health and Safety Executive stated that rescue at coal mines is a specialist function requiring workers who are specifically trained and equipped for this work. The HSE would like to have arrangements that maintain existing standards of provision and ensure the preservation of a national rescue capability. The Mines Rescue Service asks that there be a guarantee that the level of funding necessary to maintain existing levels of rescue cover be assured by the Government and British Coal should not withdraw from responsibility after 12 months. It still fears an underfunded, part-time rescue service. If that happens the Government and the Coal Authority will be placing miners' lives at risk. Despite the fact that the Minister intervened, thinking that I was speaking to the wrong amendment, I hope that I explained that I am speaking to the correct amendment. I hope that I shall receive a reply.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, the Government constantly stress that they regard safety as paramount, but as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said, that may still not be adequately reflected in the Bill. The whole emphasis is on regulation, but regulation, is only part of the story. Those of us who have worked in the coal industry know that excellent safety performance is more a matter of sound management systems and the safety culture within the industry, than regulation itself.
Drawing an analogy with the crime problem in the UK, it is not the lack of regulation or policemen that give rise to increased crime so much as the loss of an overall cultural cohesion which itself outlaws criminal activities. I believe therefore that the successors of British Coal will need to recognise and continue to pursue the following disciplines, and the Coal Authority must ensure that potential licensees are willing to do so.
First, British Coal has always established its own safety instructions, which often go well beyond the demands of legal regulations. Those instructions frequently set standards of safe practice when new technology has been introduced or an accident investigation has identified shortcomings in existing practices. Those procedures have obviated the need for further legislation. I understand, however, that on privatisation only a tiny fraction of those current safety instructions are to be given legal status.
Secondly, British Coal has commendably developed a safety culture which permeates both management and the whole workforce. This safety momentum will obviously carry over into the private sector, but it will prove fragile if the successor companies are not prepared to devote the time and effort to maintain it.
Finally, to enhance safety standards often involves significant capital investment which has no immediate benefits or impact in relation to improving operational costs. This is always a difficult discipline to live with but it will have to be recognised and pursued.
1470
British Coal is currently standing at the top of the deep-mine world safety league, and the foregoing factors will need to be sustained if this position is not to be gradually eroded. I strongly support Amendment No. 43, and if the Government's clarion call about safety is not a hollow one, it is difficult to see how this amendment can lightly be rejected as that would imply an uncertainty about maintaining current standards.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In Committee we were repeatedly told by the Minister that safety was a matter for the regulatory body, the Health and Safety Commission. We appreciate that it is the primary job of the Health and Safety Commission and of the executive to enforce the health and safety regulations which are contained in delegated legislation, but the implementation of the regulations is the primary job of the mining companies. When we are dealing with the question of safety in the mining industry, we would prefer the importance of safety in the industry to be enshrined in this Coal Industry Bill. It seems to me that the amendment does precisely that. If its provisions were to be enshrined in the Bill, we believe that it would inform the Bill and all those who are responsible for the management of the industry. It would be a valuable supplement to the many pieces of delegated legislation that are in place.
Since Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been good enough to send me—and, I am sure, other noble Lords —a copy of the report The Framework for Health and Safety in Britain's Coal Mines. He also sent a summary of the correspondence between the Minister and the chairman of the commission. Can the Minister tell the House whether the robust legal framework which the chairman thought ought to be in place before the new mining operators commence operations will be in place?
I now refer to paragraph 8.30 and to a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. The paragraph states:
'The Commission intends to submit draft regulations on rescue to the Secretary of State as soon as possible, bearing in mind that the task of producing such regulations will require careful formulation and involve extensive and extended consultation".
That was written in October of last year. Have those regulations been agreed? When will they be issued? Will the Minister also confirm that all of the recommendations from the chairman of the commission as set out in the report have been accepted by the department?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it seems to me that when there are privatisations, particularly of an industry as complex as the coal industry which has been in public ownership for more than 40 years, it is inevitable that we must give considerable consideration to where the dividing line should be drawn when we talk about liabilities for health.
I should like to say a word or two about health, as opposed to mining safety, with which other noble Lords have dealt. My understanding is that related claims will

1471
be accepted as the responsibility of the Government and that after privatisation they will be the responsibility of the successor companies. That being the case, I cannot see why it is necessary to amend the Bill. Various suggestions have been put forward and reasons given, but I am not convinced that amending the Bill is necessary for that purpose.
However, in this case my understanding is that, on privatisation, the responsibility for health and injury claims with respect to past service with British Coal will be retained in the public sector and accepted by the Government, and that that includes responsibility for claims by employees who transfer to successor companies. Responsibility for future claims will rest with the successor companies and normal procedures will apply to the settlement of claims for apportionment where there have been periods of service with both British Coal and successor companies. As far as health is concerned, that seems a reasonable arrangement, and for that reason I am afraid that I am not convinced that it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend, who has clearly understood the regime that we are trying to impose on the privatised coal mining industry. He also understands —I hope that the rest of the House understands—that we entirely share the concern behind the two amendments. The Government fully share the view that has been expressed on all sides of the House about the vital importance of safety in the coal-mining industry. It is entirely appropriate that we debated the issue at some length and on several occasions in Committee and that we do so again now. I hope that we shall come to the same conclusion as in Committee, which was that we should not amend the Bill. I believe that it is important that we get the regime absolutely right.
Amendment No. 2 would put a provision on the face of the Bill which apparently would have no effect. This is one of the problems which my noble friend Lord Renton drew out about the drafting of such amendments. In Committee I said why I believed that there would be little point in pursuing this particular course. It was on that basis that I wrote a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady White, on 20th May outlining the Government's position on this matter in full and explaining why nothing more should be added to the Bill on health and safety matters and, indeed, that nothing more could be added to the Bill that would improve the health and safety of people who work down the mines. That is our intention. I placed a copy of that letter in the Library.
I think it would be helpful if I recount the reasons as to why I do not feel it is appropriate to place such a provision on the face of the Bill. I can assure noble Lords that I have considered the matter very carefully and have consulted the Health and Safety Executive in my deliberations. In doing so I had to bear in mind the very clear advice of the HSC that there should be no duplication of the role of the Coal Authority as licensing body and that of the commission as regulator of the health and safety regime in the coal industry.
As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made plain, it
1472
appears that the House does not dispute the commission's advice on this important point, and the thrust of noble Lords' concern was that there should be something on the face of the Bill to flag up the importance of safety but which did not contradict the commission's advice.
I have looked at all the options for meeting the House's concern in this area. However, the insurmountable problem with this approach is that it points towards a provision which will have no real effect in law. I hope that in this I shall be supported by my noble friend Lord Renton, who is better at these issues than I.I am advised that it is undesirable to attempt to include such provisions on the face of legislation, not least because it is not practicable to draft provisions which, in fact, have no practical effect, and also because of the need to ensure the greatest possible clarity in the drafting so that the legislation is not misunderstood. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that that would make for unsatisfactory legislation and would be wrong coming from this Chamber, which is full of specialists in legislation.
I fully understand the anxieties voiced in this matter. However, I believe that there is a very important point here which should not be overlooked; that is, that there are already in the Bill several important references to safety. Indeed, in recognition of the importance of health and safety in the industry, Clause 4 of the Bill is solely concerned with a duty placed on the Coal Authority to ensure that it agrees a document in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive, which sets out the arrangements for securing co-operation and the exchange of information between them. This clause is designed to ensure that both bodies can carry out their respective roles most effectively. This is a very important clause.
A draft of the proposed memorandum of agreement to be drawn up under Clause 4 has been made available as part of the Coal Authority Explanatory Note. The draft memorandum has been approved by the Health and Safety Commission. It is worth stressing that both the Health and Safety Executive and the Coal Authority would be obliged to conduct themselves in accordance with the contents of the memorandum.
This and other provisions have all been made in the light of the Health and Safety Commission's advice. The commission's report to the Government makes clear that the powers of the Health and Safety Commission and its executive to regulate and to enforce the health and safety regime in the coal mining industry are comprehensive. The commission's report has been, and continues to be, made widely and freely available by the Government. The Government have made very clear the value that they place on the commission's advice, which they have accepted in full.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me a number of questions. I can assure him that most of the new regulations that the HSC regards as necessary for the privatisation are already in place and that the remainder will be in place in good time before privatisation. The new rescue regulation will be in place

1473
as soon as possible following the forthcoming consultation and in any case before British Coal ceases to have an operational responsibility.
Without pre-empting the possibility of a debate on Amendment No. 67, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, that Clause 55, together with the existing powers of the HSC, will ensure that existing standards of rescue, including a national rescue capability, must be maintained.
I turn to Amendment No. 43. The problem is that it flies directly in the face of a key element of the considered advice that we have received from the Health and Safety Commission. The effect of the amendment would be that the authority would have to oversee the safety performance of its licensees through the licensing process. That is exactly what the commission does not want. On page 5 of the commission's report, it states that the processes of licensing by the authority, and the compliance by licensees with health and safety law, must not be muddled. It states:
"It is important that these processes should remain separate and distinct".
It further states:
"That principle must not be blurred in any way—to do so would be to risk confusion which can only jeopardise safety".
That spells it out in some detail.
I apologise if I weary the House by repeating this point in so much detail. However, I find it hard to believe that noble Lords really intend to challenge the commission's advice. This is a valuable opportunity for the Government yet again to confirm the fact that health and safety is central to the process of privatisation. If noble Lords look carefully at the advice that we have received from the HSC I am sure they will conclude, as I and the Government have done, that it makes good sense and that it would be wrong to depart from it. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am sorry that we have not found a drafting solution to the problem that worries many of us. I listened with great care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. While he did not believe that the wording of the amendments was adequate, he felt that there might be room for an amendment which was adequately and properly drafted.
We are still most concerned about this issue. We would like the legislation to contain more than it does, explicitly about the issue of health and safety. If it be necessary to mention the role of the Health and Safety Commission therein, so be it. We should be perfectly content with that; it would set our fears at rest.
As there is some doubt about the wording of these two amendments, I shall beg leave to withdraw them. However, I believe that we should return to the matter on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 (Duties of the Authority with respect to licensing):
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 33, after ("damage") insert (", contamination and other liabilities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 3. The Minister did not convince me that there is such a substantial difference between subsidence and contamination. Of course, I agree that we are all waiting to see what we can negotiate in Brussels, but at the end of the day the liability must fall somewhere. It will fall either on the current operator or on the perpetrator of the contamination. I envisage that we are talking about contamination which arises from acts which have already taken place. In that case, it will be British Coal. Failing that, the liability might fall on the landowner and it is that which I am most anxious to avoid.
This matter is no joke. I am informed that all pits which have had on them a coking operation or a gas works are deemed to be contaminated. I am also told that Brussels is trying to persuade itself that coal is a contaminant. Therefore, we are faced with the possibility that, if Brussels has a mind, someone will be faced with a liability for a clean-up job which will cost £2 million or £3 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, drew attention to the problems which will arise out of uncertainty if the new operators do not know what they are bidding for. Furthermore, how will the authority assess its liability under Clause 2(1)(b) if an uncertain amount—£2 million or £3 million—might fall as a liability on the new operator?
If when the information comes out of Brussels the liability falls on the current licensee under the arrangements that he has with the authority and he cannot pay, or if Brussels lays the liability strictly on the landowner, the landowner in a few years time will not be able to claim against the Coal Board because the Coal Board will no longer exist. Under those circumstances, the landowner would have to pick up the bill and that would be extraordinarily unjust on him.
My amendment simply requires the authority, in considering how to carry out its functions, to include contamination and other liabilities as well as subsidence. Under the terms of the Bill, it is required to do so only "as far as practicable". I suggest that this is a modest amendment and I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish to inquire whether the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was speaking to the whole group of amendments or just to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I was speaking to one amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that does not count as my speech for the Report stage!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He need not stick to the list of groupings, but it includes Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 10, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24 and 39, which are interconnected. If the noble Lord speaks to all of them I shall be able to reply to them and so no doubt will the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to all the amendments in the grouping at this time because it seems to me that it is extremely complex to talk about different issues which we then have to return to when we move the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 10 relate to situations which would arise when licences had been granted and the way in which the authority should behave in granting those licences so as to protect the interests of third parties and particularly the owners of land from whom parts of the operation may be leased.
Similarly, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 relate to the passing of interests and liabilities to the authority. Amendments Nos. 21, 23 and 24 are rather different. They relate to Clause 12 and the Secretary of State's power to make schemes and to transfer property prior to restructuring date. I believe that I heard the noble Lord say that in some way the Secretary of State would be under the same obligations as the authority in respect of the way in which he behaves before restructuring date. I shall read Hansard, but I should be grateful for some clarification on that point. Clearly, if that is the case, we need not be alarmed by the prospect of the Secretary of State putting a fast one across before the authority comes into being.
Finally, Amendment No. 39 relates to non-property liabilities. For example, I am concerned that if liability for clearing up contamination were to fall on a landowner, he would, as matters stand at present, probably have a claim in damages against the coal board. If the coal board no longer exists, he does not have any claim in damages and it is not a claim which passes with the land. Therefore, his claim evaporates. That must be manifestly unfair.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an important group of amendments. I wish to support them and underline three or four points. First, we should be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for Amendment No. 3. Essentially, he is adding the point that, at this stage of the Bill, liabilities should be about contamination and other liabilities and not simply about subsidence. In my judgment it is important that that should be written on to the face of the Bill.
The main contribution of such amendments is to take us on from the position that we were at when we debated the first group of amendments. In the end, we have to agree to differ with regard to those amendments. At long last, I believe that I have a glimmering of what the Government think that they are doing. In the end I suppose that one should take a completely ruthless view and say that if those who are willing to bid for leases are willing to bid for them on the terms outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which your Lordships, albeit by a small majority, supported, then so be it. If they wish to throw away tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, that is up to them. If any of them wish to hire me as a consultant, for quite a small fee I am quite willing to advise them not to do it. But in the end, the whole point of a free market system is that if you wish to throw away a few hundred million pounds, by all means go and do it.
1476
However, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, makes with these amendments is different. They are to do with the innocent bystander. Let us assume that those entrepreneurs incur liabilities which, in the end, they will not be able to meet. The innocent bystander may be a large landowner, but the word "landowner" includes also ordinary owners of properties, including owners of gardens and so on. If those people who have taken on the leases have not made proper provision, then at best the innocent bystander can try to pursue the coal authority but at worst, he will suffer damage to his property for which he will receive no compensation.
Therefore, I support the amendments warmly because I do not believe that that should be allowed to happen. It should not be allowed to happen a priori; in other words, it should be written onto the Bill that leases should not be granted to people who are not able to meet all possible liabilities to the innocent bystander.
I do not believe that your Lordships have yet addressed that in the Bill either in detail or with the responsibility to those people which they deserve. That is quite separate from the earlier discussion. I simply do not believe that the innocent bystander should, as a result of the Bill, end up incurring any risks The point of the amendments is to see that they do not do so. My reading of the many useful contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this Bill is that in the end, those people will end up by incurring those risks., and I do not believe that they should do so. Therefore, I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I hope that other noble Lords will also support him.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I too am worried about the anxieties behind the amendment and I support it unless my noble friend on the Front Bench can give me some assurances in relation to it. Contamination certainly worries me. Perhaps, as a farmer, I may give a very simple example of something that has happened in the past. I believe that on the last amendment my noble friend said that we have had contamination and that we have always seemed to sort it out. We have done so but at a price.
I give the simple example of silage contamination. Until 15 years ago, none of us thought that we were doing any harm by contaminating the water with silage. We now know that it is extremely polluting, in particular to fish. That was put right, but it was put right at great expense. I am pleased that my industry has put that right, but that was done at vast expense and we did not know that that would happen. The point which the noble Lord makes is that something similar could happen with regard to mining, particularly if the European Community takes the line which it may well do.
I am sure that my noble friend will refer again, when he replies, to that little red book, the revised Coal Authority Explanatory Note. Will he explain what statutory power that book has? For example, in connection with liabilities, it contains the phrases:
"to secure as far as is practicable",

1477
and, "it is envisaged". I fear that they have no statutory power and I wonder what weight the courts would give to such phrases. I am worried about contamination and I support the amendment.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am rather confused by the speeches on this aspect of privatisation. As I understood our earlier discussions, we talked about the Coal Authority being the freehold owner of the mine or area concerned. Surely if you are the freehold owner, environmental liabilities go along with that ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked to whom he should apply. I should have thought it obvious that he should apply to the Coal Authority.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he did not hear me say that a substantial number of coal operations operate partially on leased land.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as we are not allowed to speak after my noble friend has replied to the debate, perhaps I may say a few words now.
I am rather surprised at the grouping of the amendments because, to my mind, they raise four quite distinct issues. They overlap a bit but they are distinct issues: first, the very important issue of contamination, and I shall return to that in a moment; secondly, the continuity of present liabilities; thirdly, provision for meeting fresh liabilities which may arise and would arise; and, fourthly, the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority as mentioned in Amendment No. 13. Those are quite separate matters, although the amendments are all grouped together.
Incidentally, there are one or two fairly subsidiary points which arise within the grouping. However, perhaps I may return to the question of contamination. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, it really is quite separate from subsidence damage as mentioned in Clause 2. It is something which must be specifically dealt with. I believe that Amendment No. 3 is worthy of very serious consideration by the Government.
As to the continuity of present obligations, in Committee and when discussing the first group of amendments today my noble friend the Minister made it quite clear that the Bill does deal specifically and widely with present obligations and their continuance. He also hopes that we are making provision for meeting fresh obligations, but the omission of contamination from the clause makes we wonder.
Then there is the question of the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority, which is really quite separate from the matters with which we are mainly concerned in this grouping. I should have been interested to hear the view of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on the matter. When we are placing a definite obligation upon the Coal Authority, and people who are licensed by it to operate mines, I rather doubt whether it is right to place an overlapping authority on the NRA.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but the amendment to which my noble friend is speaking is not in fact included in the group that we are now debating.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's correction. I apologise to the House for getting it wrong. Noble Lords can therefore ignore what I said in that respect. However, my other three points remain unchanged. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are somewhat inclined to have thrust upon us the discussion of too many amendments at once. In those circumstances, we do not give them enough attention.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we should not be confused at this point with the debate that took place earlier. The amendments deal with somewhat different issues. However, they are no less important. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that it was no joking matter. I entirely agree with him.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley accused me, in any case by implication, of being slightly flippant with my remarks on contamination. I believe that contamination is very important, but, where a legal liability exists, there is no doubt as to where the liability should lie. It is a principle of law—and, indeed, of government policy—that the polluter should pay. In all cases, the polluter must pay. I believe that the fact that land has been used consistently by British Coal should give some comfort to future owners because, presumably, the liability will fall upon those who produced the pollution in the first place; namely, British Coal.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the protection of the interests of third parties by placing on the Coal Authority a duty to ensure that no person suffers loss as a result of the failure of a licensed operator to make appropriate provision for financial security in respect of all of the liabilities attaching to his operations. That, as I believe my noble friend Lord Renton rightly pointed out—although, if he did not, I apologise—is potentially a very onerous duty. When drafting the legislation, we concluded that it was necessary in respect of subsidence liabilities to provide for a very firm duty, but not for other liabilities. That is because subsidence liabilities are unique; they are created due to the unique nature of the right to withdraw support which coal mining provides.
However, the statutory right to withdraw support is an exceptional right which justifies special measures to protect third parties. Withdrawal of support, and subsidence damage to private property, is a more or less unavoidable consequence of modern mining. It is because lawful mining will result in damage to people's homes that we have proposed the strongly worded duty in Clause 2(1) (c). That is why the Coal Authority has a duty to ensure that the person bidding has the necessary finance. The clause means that security will have to be provided by the operator if required by the Coal Authority. I am not at all sure—indeed, I believe it to be wrong—that that duty should be continued for potential liabilities which may or may not occur.
In the draft licensing documentation, the duty in the clause will entail continuing close monitoring of the licensee's subsidence liabilities by the authority. That, in itself, unavoidably involves some cost both in resourcing the authority and for operators in complying

1479
with regulatory requirements. Amendment No. 8 would require other liabilities to be treated in similar fashion. I believe that I have explained why that is unnecessary. Further, the amendment would give the Coal Authority detailed involvement of a quite unnecessary and unhelpful sort in monitoring all kinds of matters from payment of suppliers to the payment of corporation tax, and a whole range of other liabilities.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to avoid a situation where the Coal Authority disposes of land or property for non-coal-mining use simply because that will secure a higher price. That is not how the Bill works. The Coal Authority will need to take decisions on the disposal of land and property in the context of all its relevant duties. For example, if it has to choose whether to make land available for coal mining operations or to sell it for other use, it must do so in the light of its duty in relation to the industry under Clause 2(1) (a).
That raises the question of why Clause 3(4) is made subject to Clause 3(6). We have taken the view that when making coal-bed methane and coal strata available to coal-bed methane operators for exploitation, the state should secure value through payment for licences granted under Section 2 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. Because that consideration falls outside the Bill and, therefore, outside the Coal Authority's duties, it is necessary to make clear in the Bill that qualification to the authority's duties in that context. In other words, that is an area in which we envisage overriding the general operation of the authority's duties. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will see that his concern is unfounded since it is met by the general structure of the Bill.
In response to the earlier debate, I discussed the reference to liabilities in Clause 7(3) which the noble Lord raises in Amendment No. 15. We consulted legal advisers on the matter. I cannot accept it because Clause 7 does not—and, indeed, is not in any way intended to —change the existing position with regard to the legal responsibilities falling on underground mine owners. It is simply about the transfer of ownership. In that respect, I believe that it is very clear and comprehensive. Responsibilities running with the ownership of coal mines will automatically transfer with them by reason of Clause 7(3). As regards any changes in the obligations that go with ownership, I have explained that the key issue of minewaters "permitted" is currently under consultation.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to vest in the Coal Authority on the restructuring date all of the corporation's land which is or has been occupied for the purposes of coal-mining operations. Clause 7(3) already provides for British Coal's interests in unworked coal and coal mines to be vested in the Coal Authority. There is general agreement that the freehold interest should remain in the public sector. But I see no compelling reason to seek to retain in the public sector the freehold of land that is, or has been, associated with coal mining. I also see no reason why mine operators should not own the freehold of the surface land and, in due course, dispose of it as they judge best. If that is so, there is no merit in transferring title from British Coal to the Coal Authority, the authority leasing that land back to British
1480
Coal for the period that it continues to operate the mine and then transferring the lease and the freehold interests to the successor operators at the time of sale.
Much of the land associated with past coal mining is unlikely to be of use for future coal mining. If that passed to the Coal Authority, it would then be under a duty to dispose of it. Again, it may be possible to short-circuit that process: if so, that would clearly be preferable. This is a complicated situation with a number of options. That is why it is appropriate to deal with it, as the Bill envisages, through the flexible instrument of restructuring schemes under Clause 12.
Turning to Amendment No. 21, the Bill contains a general provision for a restructuring scheme under Clause 12(2) to be made before the Coal Authority is established. It is not intended that this power will be used to transfer coal or coal mines before the Coal Authority comes properly into being. Until that time British Coal will continue to be the statutory owner of coal and coal mines in Great Britain by virtue of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. So the only scope for the ownership of coal mines to pass to the private sector would be by way of a lease granted by British Coal, just as is the case today. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied as to the Government's intention.
In responding to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 I hope I may briefly make a general point. When the Secretary of State issues operating licences to British Coal's successors, the Bill provides that he will be issuing the licences on behalf of the Coal Authority. As such, my advice is that he will be bound by all of the duties contained in Clause 2 of the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment deals specifically with the duties relating to safety and the financial soundness of licensed operators.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord who seems to have fallen below his usual standard of clarity. Amendment No. 24—as does Amendment No. 8—deals with what I call the innocent bystander question, in this case the landowner. Is the noble Lord saying that the innocent bystander problem cannot arise, or is he saying that it can arise, that that is too bad and one has to take the risk? If it is the former, I cannot see remotely that he has yet cogently argued that the problem cannot arise.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry if I have not been able to do that. It is my understanding that the innocent bystander is exactly that—an innocent bystander. If a liability has been created by someone else, then it is on the other person that the liability falls, whether that is British Coal, the National Coal Board or anyone else.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I probably should have asked this question earlier when he said in discussing Amendment No. 3—I think the point applies here also —that in the case of land which has been occupied by British Coal and where British Coal has caused contamination, the liability will fall on British Coal. However, British Coal will not be there any more. So on whom will the liability fall?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Clause 7(3) deals with these problems. It states:
"On the restructuring date the Corporation's interests in unworked coal and coal mines, including its interests in any coal … shall vest without further assurance in the Authority".
Before the noble Lord rises again, I should say that I understand that that covers everything that is of concern to the noble Lord.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does that cover coal tips and other land held with a pit which might be, and in many cases is, polluted or contaminated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, any pollution or other negligence created by British Coal will then vest in the Coal Authority and the Coal Authority should be liable and ultimately the taxpayer will pay. Other liabilities are of course transferred to the private sector through the leasing arrangement but anything that has been created by British Coal will fall to be paid for by British Coal. That is absolutely right. When the noble Lord spoke to these amendments he said that if that was not the case it would be a manifest injustice. I entirely agree. That is why I believe that these issues have been dealt with.
I was replying briefly to the noble Lord on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.I believe that I have dealt with those issues in replying to Amendment No. 15. I turn briefly to Amendment No. 39. The amendment to Clause 23 seeks to ensure that British Coal's liabilities are managed properly both before and after the dissolution of the corporation. I entirely share the aims of the noble Lord. The business of coal mining gives rise to a considerable number of liabilities and it is important that these are properly handled and managed on privatisation.
All British Coal's liabilities—this is the point which, I think, goes to the heart of the noble Lord's concern —will be transferred to another person or body before the dissolution of the corporation. No liabilities, either present or future, will be left with the corporation to wither on dissolution. That is an important commitment. I believe that it deals with the question of the innocent bystander raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Before making the order dissolving British Coal, the Secretary of State will be required under Clause 23(4) of the Bill to consult the corporation. This will compel him to ascertain whether, at that stage, the corporation still has liabilities which will need to be discharged. I can assure the House that the Government's intention is that provision will be made for any such liabilities before the corporation is dissolved. I hope that is the kind of assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is looking for. If the noble Lord did not perhaps listen to those final sentences, I hope he will be able to read them in Hansard.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise for my inattention. I am totally confused. While I naturally accept what the noble Lord says —the assurance he has given us on the face of the Bill is extremely satisfactory —I believe we are all agreed that the wording of the Bill is so abstruse and complex that it will not be clear, certainly not to the innocent bystander and possibly not
1482
even to the courts, as to what is intended. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment No. 3.
5.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 110.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Annaly, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Arran, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Astor, V.

Colwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Courtown, E.

Blyth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Boardman, L.

Cranbome, V.

Borthwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Davidson, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Cadman, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Caithness, E.

Donegall, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Downshire, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elles, B.

Carnock, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Ferrers, E.

Charteris of Amisneld, L.

Rather, B.

1483

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mottistone, L.

Gilrnour of Craigmillar, L.

Munster, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norrie, L.

Gridley, L.

Orkney, E.

Hanson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Haslam, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Hertford, M.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Romney, E.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Keyes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Davids, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Liverpool, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghome, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

[Teller.]

Lucas, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Trumpington, B.

Chancellor]

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wakeham, L. (Lord Privy Seal]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Milverton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield The Lord Bishop of Sheffield moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("except where the land or other property is capable of development in accordance with the local Development Plan for the regeneration of the local economy, in which case it shall be transferred to an appropriate local authority or to English Partnership, Scottish Enterprise or the Welsh Development Agency for disposal or use.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the amendment has the rare distinction of being simple, easily understood by all and adding nothing to the burdens on the new Coal Authority but rather reducing them. I even dare to hope that it may be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who spoke encouragingly on a similar amendment at the Committee stage. I am a little disappointed that his words of encouragement are not reflected on the face of the Bill. I remain anxious about the words in the Bill: "to secure the best terms reasonable", which may prove a stumbling block to the regeneration and renewal of those communities which have been most affected by the recent dramatic changes in the coal industry.
In the communities which have been so deeply affected I notice a marked distinction between those which seem to be surviving the changes and preparing with a certain determination for a new life, and those which, alas, seem to be sinking into a somewhat melancholic past, unable to cope with the future. I find myself wondering why there is that marked distinction
1484
between communities. The answer has everything to do with development and in particular with the speed of development.
I share with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the Book of Common Prayer a dislike of vain repetition, so I shall not weary the House again with the hardship caused to those communities by the loss of the coal industry. However, I shall stress the significance of speedy development. Not only does that bring jobs and a vision of hope; it attracts other developments.
The Moynihan agreement seemed to undertake that when a mine closed there would be speedy regeneration of the site. Sometimes there is. However, as I drive around the diocese of Sheffield I find that often there is not. There is something curiously depressing about a derelict site and a community, with its boarded up shops, out of which the life has gone.
It is fairly clear to me, and I suspect to others, that just as British Coal has not proved to be the best organisation for dealing with the situation—the delays can appear to be endless and are sometimes caused by British Coal's desire to obtain the best price and sometimes by its focus on other issues, not least perhaps the measure which is before us today—it seems unlikely that the Coal Authority, with so much to do, will be the right body.
There is evidence that where the local authority has a plan for the development of such communities and there is land which can be used for such developments, astonishing, almost miraculous, changes can occur. I note with interest that when the Government set up the English Partnership for the promotion and regeneration of areas of need through the reclamation, development or redevelopment of land and buildings, the defined areas of need sum up almost precisely the circumstances of some of these mining communities:
"Areas of urban deprivation or areas of localised high unemployment where bringing vacant, unused or derelict land into use can contribute significantly to regeneration;" and:
"Derelict land in both urban and rural areas which should be reclaimed for health and safety reasons or because it is blighting the area".
In his earlier response at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, told us that the Government were considering allocating properties which would be beneficial to the regeneration process to local authorities or the development agents directly. That would be an excellent way to deal with the matter.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it easy and quick for that to happen. I ask for a fast-track response to the need of those communities. I believe that the amendment makes that possible. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment moved so effectively by the right reverend Prelate. I believe that it is an amendment which the Government should have no difficulty in accepting. As I understand it, it follows precisely the wording used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at col. 566 of the Official Report of 26th April. He stated:
"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

1485
regeneration process in coalfield areas should go direct to the local authorities or development agencies rather than to the coal authorities".
The wording of the amendment appears almost precisely identical with what the noble Lord stated. That is why I surmised that he would have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
The amendment is thoroughly justified because of the circumstances in which the mining industry finds itself after this massive contraction. The right reverend Prelate was quite right to point out that attempting to dispose of land not required for mining purposes at the best possible price has led in many cases to long delay. I have instances of delays which have lasted almost 10 years before a purchaser could be found and a deal done. But if those lands were passed in appropriate cases to the local authority or the development agencies, they could be made use of much more quickly.
I very much hope that in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said to us on 26th April, he will now be prepared to accept the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate has chosen to bring back the subject on Report. We were all rather taken aback by the Minister's response to the amendment at Committee stage. We needed time to absorb it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted from col. 566 of the Official Report of 26th April. The Minister's words appear to be exactly what was required and what is now put forward in the amendment, with the added bonus that local authorities are now included with the development agencies as ideal recipients to which sites with job creation potential should be transferred.
The Minister must now be totally satisfied. I await with great interest his endorsement of the amendment. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I question some of the points made by the Minister about the role of the authority in disposing of this land and property.
The Minister is correct that the Coal Authority's duty in disposing of British Coal's surplus land and property is flexible. There is really only one proviso, but it is a proviso that is at the root of the problem as we see it, and I suspect that it is the motive behind the right reverend Prelate's amendment too. That proviso is that in disposing of land and property, Clause 3(4) provides that the authority must "secure the best terms". So in effect in all its actions, however flexibly carried out, it will be tied by that basic rule to obtain the best financial return. As he said, the land will be released for beneficial use. That is no generous gesture because, let us face it, anything would be more beneficial than a derelict site. He said that there is no question of the authority simply hoarding land. But where in the Bill is there any time limit on the disposal of this land or any guarantee that the authority will not hang on to a prime site in the hope of a better deal five or 10 years down the line?
"Hope value" is a common term and one all too familiar to British Coal Property, that arm of British
1486
Coal which currently deals with the disposal of surplus land. In its nice glossy handbook BCP states quite clearly:
"We are keen to encourage the redevelopment of part or totally derelict areas, very often in prime locations. This policy is energetically pursued with various local authorities, to have land zoned for development in emerging Development Plans. In this way value is added to British Coal's portfolio".
That is exactly the ploy which British Coal Property adopts —I shall hereafter refer to it as BCP; I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not confuse it with what he and I normally think of BCP as standing for, videlicet, The Book of Common Prayer—but more often than not when the development plan is already in place and BCP tries to add value to its portfolio by seeking departures from it. That is what causes the inordinate delay in developing those sites. BCP, in its drive to maximise site value, usually wants to sell the site for shops or some other lucrative use. If that is contrary to the development plan, there will follow lengthy haggling with the planners, the appeal to the Secretary of State, then the wait for his decision, and, if he turns down the appeal, which is often the case, everything is back to square one. Meanwhile the months and years pass by, the site in question remains derelict and the unemployed stay unemployed.
To illustrate this point, I have come across a most amazing coincidence. In that same glossy brochure to which I have just referred, prime place is given to a piece entitled the "Rebirth of Babbington". The beginnings of the redevelopment of that pit site in Nottinghamshire is referred to,
"as living proof of the determination of the coal industry to bring inward investment to coalfield communities".
That is irony at its most delicious, for Babbington is that self-same pit that was referred to at Second Reading in another place by Mr. Paddy Tipping MP and Mr. Richard Alexander MP to illustrate the exact opposite and the reason why it is essential to remove sites with job creation potential away from British Coal to the development agencies. Those Members from both sides of another place agreed that, since Babbington closed nearly 10 years ago, it has been the victim of British Coal's mishandled, over-ambitious development schemes that have repeatedly failed for the very reasons that I have just described.
It is a prime site, in a prime location, which could and should have been developed in the boom of the eighties and could have been up and running for many years, providing the source of hundreds of much needed jobs. If the Minister is in any doubt and would welcome a second opinion on the woes and miseries of Babbington, he need go no further than Nottinghamshire County Council or Broxtowe District Council which have faced years of frustration as a result of BCP's obduracy and desire to maximise the land value at a high cost to the economic well-being of the local community.
The purpose of the right reverend Prelate's amendment—and my pleasure in supporting it—is to make sure that the Babbingtons of the past (because there are other examples) do not continue into the future. As the Bill stands, if the Coal Authority is to fulfil its duty to "secure the best terms", it must adopt similar tactics. This is perfectly acceptable for the vast

1487
bulk of British Coal's 250,000-acre land holding, but not for the handful of sites that would make a real and lasting contribution to the economic recovery of coalfield communities—and that is what I care about.
That is why it was so pleasing to hear the Minister agree that British Coal's land and property that would be beneficial to the regeneration process should go direct to the local authorities and development agencies rather than the Coal Authority. So I trust that the Minister will back this amendment, will immediately direct British Coal to get together with the local authorities and the development agencies to identify these sites, and make the appropriate transfer arrangements so that the sites will be on—as the right reverend Prelate said—the fast track to providing the jobs which are so desperately needed in those areas.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yet again I can well understand the noble Lord's concern on the matter of the regeneration of coalfield areas, the purpose behind the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate, and the failure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, explained has been British Coal's over the course of the past few years. That is why we are in the business of changing the culture in the course of this Bill. It is important that local authorities and the development agencies should be able to contribute to the regeneration programmes in the areas affected by colliery closures.
The House will be aware of the work which is already being carried out by these development agencies. They have put a co-ordinated framework of regeneration measures in place in all areas and have major projects under way. My noble friend Lord Walker has played a crucial role in co-ordinating this effort.
Coming to the matter of disposing of British Coal's land, the Government have very much in mind the possibility that as part of the process of allocating the property and land of the corporation, there should be the option of transferring those properties which would be beneficial to the regeneration process in coalfield areas direct to the local authorities or development agencies, rather than to the Coal Authority. That was explained most ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It seems to be the best way to approach the issue.
However, great care needs to be taken when considering which assets fall into the category of those which should be transferred to local authorities or development agencies. For example, I am not sure that they would be greatly interested in land that is capable of development but only at inordinate cost. We must, of course, ensure that we pay proper regard at all times to the interests of the taxpayer.
On that note about the interests of the taxpayer, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that the Coal Authority must secure the best terms. That is in the Bill. However, what it does not mean is that the authority must go for an immediate profit, if a better one can be found which might arise in the future.
"The best terms reasonably available", is a fairly broad expression. There is no time limit but there is a duty in Clause 3(2) that would make land available for sale when it is not needed for mining. I
1488
think that that is quite consistent. Of course it must be right that the interests of the taxpayer should be considered.
Baroness White: My Lords, will the Minister consider the interests of the taxpayer? Where there can be a rapid and viable development of the land, the taxpayer will avoid having to sustain people who would otherwise be unemployed. The Minister seems to be taking a narrow view of the interests of the taxpayer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was making the broad point. I believe that in general the noble Baroness is absolutely right. To the Coal Authority, in these difficult times an honest offer made at this stage is better than waiting for a few years to see whether a better offer will be made. I expect that a reasonable offer would be accepted.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister in order to ask a question which may help to clarify the noble Baroness's question. What intrigues me about Clause 3(4) is the appearance of the word "reasonably". I have heard no explanation of why it is there and why the clause does not simply say: "to secure the best terms available for the disposal". The word "reasonably" must have a meaning. Am I right, after listening to the Minister, that: its meaning has to do with timing rather than anything else? The Minister said that it would take the best offer now rather than wait until later. Does "reasonably" have a specific meaning? Presumably, it must have, otherwise it would not be there.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, "reasonably" means "reasonably". In this context and in many others, we desire the Coal Authority to have the ability to sell off its land for development or other purposes, as appropriately as possible. We do not want it to be bound up merely with obtaining the best terms, but it should do it in a reasonable time scale, as the noble Lord said and as I explained earlier on, and accept a reasonable price to be paid for the property.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may put my question a little more clearly. Believe it or not, the noble Lord should know that I was trying to be helpful to him. What intrigued me was whether "reasonably" meant what the right reverend Prelate included in his amendment. In other words, one could reasonably argue that what the right reverend Prelate has brought before us could be a reasonable consideration in deciding how to dispose of the land. I asked my question in the hope that the Minister would say something like, "Yes, that is so". Therefore, "reasonably" encompasses what the right reverend Prelate wishes anyway. I put it to the Minister in case he did not quite understand what I was asking.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always nice when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, rises to be helpful. Naturally, I did not think he was being anything other than helpful. I must say that it passed me by that the right reverend Prelate was talking about a different meaning of "reasonably" from the one I had envisaged. Perhaps the best way of dealing with the issue —

1489
because I do not believe I shall be able to offer any comfort in terms of an explanation of the word "reasonably" at this stage—is to return to it in a few moments.
More generally, the Coal Authority's duties are designed to lead it to take a constructive and flexible approach to the disposal of such land and property as is vested in it. 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. The clear intention is that land and property should be released for beneficial use. This will in itself 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 Coal Authority itself 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 Coal Authority again has the power to do that with either the private or the public sector. I think that that is absolutely right.
Lastly, planning permission is of course 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. That applies just as much to any development on or using Coal Authority land; the authority has no privileged position. Again, that is entirely appropriate, it should not have a privileged position.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate, the Coal 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.
When it comes to the definition of "reasonably", I am advised that in this context it means that the authority must not go to inordinate lengths to obtain the best price. In other words, if an offer is reasonably made, then that is the one that should be accepted and no other. I hope that I have cleared up that important detail.
Again, I hope that I have given some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to the right reverend Prelate. I have not gone as far as their amendment. The amendment says,
"shall be transferred to an appropriate local authority",
and so on. I do not believe that the duty should be so great. But I join with the noble Lords entirely in the idea that the land that is available for development should be developed.
6.30 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's encouraging response. I would have been happier if there were more evidence as to exactly how it will all happen. I have a slight vision of the matter drifting on into the future and of nothing very much happening. Nonetheless, I should like permission to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert ("and
(c) to have regard to the desirability of protecting the environment and controlled waters and to take into account the effect of the proposals on the environment and controlled waters.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65.
I think that the amendments are largely self-explanatory. Under subsection (7) of Clause 3 the Coal Authority has specific conservation duties in relation to former mining land. No mention is made, however, of the need for the authority to have proper regard to problems associated with minewater and the great potential that it can have for polluting water courses once mining operations and the associated pumping have ceased. The Clause 3 amendment, we think, puts that right.
The amendments to Clause 53 are designed to build in similar "have regard" duties for planning authorities and mining operators. So under subsection (3) mining operators would be obliged to formulate proposals for mitigating any adverse effects of the development on environment and controlled waters, and the amendment to subsection (2) would ensure that planning authorities would have to take specific account of that aspect in considering applications. I can see no respectable government argument against those propositions.
To take the matter a little further, it is widely acknowledged that opencast coal-mining can have a very severe negative impact on the environment and on local communities. Following privatisation, opencast coal-mining appears likely to take an increasing slice of that diminishing market for coal. That would have serious environmental implications. So we are concerned that the Bill will not now bring the environmental safeguards governing mining activities up to standards which are now required by modern environmental policy. We should like to see the Coal Authority operate under a clear environmental duty covering the full range of its actions and responsibilities and consistent with current policy commitments to sustainable development. That is why we liked and supported the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, at Committee stage which sought to place a duty on the Coal Authority to further the objective of environmentally sustainable development. It is a pity that they were withdrawn after the debate.
We believe that the environmental duties governing the activities of the Coal Authority need to be brought up to modern day environmental standards. That is the whole purpose and thrust of these rather simple and modest amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I made remarks at Committee stage that were very similar to those just made by the noble Lord in moving his amendment. It struck me then, as it does now, that the present definition of "the environment" contained in this Bill is extraordinarily narrow and curiously defined. It is narrower and more curiously defined than it is in other

1491
legislation. It seems to me that there is everything to be gained by widening those environmental responsibilities. I certainly welcome the fact that the amendment would make clear that they are extended to cover controlled waters, which are defined in the Water Resources Act 1991; and I therefore firmly support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this group of amendments takes us back to the issue of water pollution that we discussed at Committee stage and again today. I shall not detain the House by going over in detail the assurances that I gave on 26th April during the Committee stage. But some of the points are worth restating.
The Coal Authority will become the owner of all abandoned mines and will take on the responsibilities that go with the ownership of that property. That is not, as has been suggested, a vague assurance that needs to be written into the Bill if it is to have any effect. It is a factual statement of what will happen by means of Clause 7(3) of the Bill.
The Government accept that these responsibilities may not go far enough, and have set in train a comprehensive review looking at the specific question of abandoned mines and also at the broader issues of contaminated land and liabilities. In the interim I have set out a comprehensive set of proposals on how the Coal Authority, as a responsible public body, will act. We will expect to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its legal duties in these areas and seek the best environmental result which can be secured from the use of the resources that are available to it. It will have to set priorities for the use of those resources, and we expect it to do so in discussion with the regulatory authorities. We expect it to give a high priority to preventing serious new pollution problems—arising, not least, in Durham. It will have a sufficient budget to enable it to carry forward the role that is currently played by British Coal.
Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 deal with environmental duties on operators and planning authorities. This group of amendments deals with the environmental duties in Clause 53 of the Bill. Perhaps I may explain briefly the origins of that duty. An environmental duty in respect of opencast operations covering such matters as the preservation of natural beauty and the protection of flora and fauna was first placed on the National Coal Board in 1958. That duty evolved over the years. It can be seen in its latest form in the version of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 which was supplied to your Lordships. As we undertook to do some time ago, in this Bill the Government extend the duty to cover proposals for new deep mining operations. The effect of Amendment No. 63 would be to add to that duty an obligation on the planning authority to have regard when considering a planning application to the desirability of protecting the environment and controlled waters.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 would place a further obligation on the operator to propose any measure that is reasonably practicable for mitigating any adverse effect of his proposed development on the environment or controlled waters.
1492
These amendments are unnecessary I am confident that the protection of the environment in general, and controlled waters in particular, is already covered in the process that coal operators must go through to secure planning permission. We dealt with that area in some considerable detail when we debated these issues in Committee.
Planning authorities must take account of all material considerations when determining whether to give approval for a new development. The acceptability of the development in environmental terms is central to that. The Government's Policy and Planning Guidance Note 1, which lays down guidelines for all planning authorities in dealing with all applications, states clearly that the sum total of today's planning decisions should not deprive future generations of the benefits of their environment. I have mentioned that passage because it shows the importance of environmental considerations within the planning system and why I believe that the amendments about which we are talking are unnecessary. The principle can be seen in more detail in the draft planning guidelines on coal-mining and colliery spoil disposal, known as Mineral Policy Guidance Note 3 (MPG 3), that were issued recently by the Department of the Environment.
The proposed planning guidelines impose a strong test of environmental acceptability on planning applications. They provide that a mineral planning authority must take into account the full range of economic and environmental factors when considering an opencast planning application. The guidelines also state that there will be cases where the impact of a particular site on the environment would be so great that planning permission should not be given unless overriding benefits result from the development.
Furthermore, under regulations introduced by the Government in 1988, all but the smallest opencast sites require an environmental impact assessment before they can proceed. Within the overall framework of environmental issues, the protection of the water environment is dealt with specifically by MPG 3. Annex D of MPG 3 stresses the need for mineral planning authorities to consult the NRA and to consider imposing relevant planning conditions. Such planning conditions might, for example, relate to the protection of aquifers, the siting of reservoirs and lagoons, or the provision of monitoring.
The main point of Amendment No. 12 is that the Coal Authority already has a wide-ranging environmental duty in Clause 3(7), which must be read in conjunction with the environmental code set out in the explanatory note that I have made available. Perhaps I can read out parts of it.
"In its management of its property the Authority would take over British Coal's environmental and other responsibilities relating to that property, including those relating to land that is no longer used for mining. It is envisaged that the Authority will set itself the following broad policy aims: in respect of land for which it is responsible, to seek where reasonably practicable to protect and enhance the environment; in respect of any works which it may conduct, to seek to minimise the environmental impact; to minimise its consumption of scarce resources through programmes of waste minimisation and, where appropriate, the reuse and recycling of materials; and to work with suppliers, contractors and local communities in pursuing these goals. It is

1493
envisaged that, in respect of mines operating under 'Section 36' licences granted since the Coal Review White Paper, mines where there is an outstanding commitment by British Coal to restore the site and 'General Development Order' mines which close with no obligation on the operator to restore the site, the Authority will put into practice the principles of the agreement reached between British Coal and the Department of the Environment in 1990 relating to the restoration of colliery sites. It is envisaged that the Authority will nominate one of its members as having overall responsibility for its environmental policies. All employees of the Authority will need to have regard to these policy aims, and to follow them to the best of their ability while carrying out their day-to-day tasks. More specifically, it is envisaged that the Authority will comply with all statutory obligations relating to the protection of the environment and the use of land, establish a system for managing its land according to the best principles of estate management, establish, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority and the Scottish river purification boards, priorities for action by the Authority to prevent or treat outbreaks of water pollution from abandoned coal mines".
There are a number of other duties. The point is that the environmental duties and how they should be carried out are clearly stated. I believe that this group of amendments, important though those amendments may be, adds nothing of substance to the Government's proposals.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, he has made a very compelling case as to why we should not have Clause 3(7) in the Bill at all. However, as we have Clause 3(7) in the Bill I wonder if he can explain why on earth there is any problem about adding the helpful and innocuous words proposed in the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point about Clause 3(7) is that its genesis is in previous legislation. I explained why I believe that we do not need to go further, and in fact I am hugely gratified —I think for the first time—because my noble friend has actually said that we have got something right this afternoon and that I have made a compelling case. If I have been able to convince my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, there is absolutely no reason why I should not be able to convince noble Lords opposite either.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the words of the well-known East Ender, "Not a hope, sunshine!" The noble Lord once again seems to be almost congenially unable or unwilling to put things on to the face of the Bill no matter how much he likes them or does not like them. We are told once more that everything hangs on this review that is going to take place. It is a case of, "Don't worry. When the review takes place everything will be all right. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and then everything will be added unto you. Hope deferred maketh the heart sad."
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, we must decide what the sense of environment means. We must press these concerns because, once the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, we lose all control over these vital environmental matters and it sails along with only the department to be responsible to. It is not enough to rely on planning permission or MPG 3, or "son of MPG 3" as the revised version may now be. Ask the farmers of this land whether they are happy to rely on such things.
1494
They want it in the law, on the face of the Bill. If there were enough of my noble friends sitting behind and around me I would ask the House to express an opinion on this matter, so strongly do I feel. I would, but there are not, and so I will not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 not moved.]
Lord Elliott of Morpeth Lord Elliott of Morpeth moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause: ("Transfer of property

.—(1) Any scheme transferring property under section 12(2) above shall provide for imposing and transferring to the person or persons to whom the transfer is made, and his or their successors in title ("the transferee") of civil, criminal and statutory liability under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 for any polluting matter which enters any ground waters or inland fresh waters from that property.

(2) Civil and statutory liability under subsection (1) above shall extend to damage arising from such pollution occurring at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act), and to such damage caused or which occurred before or after the time when the transferee became liable for the pollution under the scheme.

(3) When the transferee consists of more than one person, the liability of those persons shall be joint and several.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill, the amendment I then proposed sought to place liability for the possible pollution of rivers and water courses firmly and rightly upon the new proposed authority. At that time the statement of my noble friend, which indicated first of all a full inquiry between British Coal and the NRA, was very welcome indeed. In particular, the continuation of pumping from disused mines all over the country but particularly in the area with which I am concerned, County Durham, was also much welcomed and especially by undertakings such as North East Water. That is a company with which I have had a long association. The threat to this company, which extracts water from the Wear in County Durham was and, I am afraid, remains a matter of maximum concern. The further guarantees given today by my noble friend will again be very well received in the north east of England.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, talked of my noble friend's "silver tongue". My noble friend certainly speaks with a silver tongue, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Morris. However, I do find the further assurances that have been given today most pleasing, and I am very grateful to my noble friend for the most helpful letter he wrote to me.
The purpose of my new clause has already been emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Mason—the need for a strong expression of liability. The purpose therefore is that any liability for pollution should immediately—and I stress immediately—rest upon the new authority and should not be a continual worry and a financial threat to a water company currently extracting and purifying water from rivers such as the Wear. I know that the Coal Board's responsibilities will be taken over by the authority—we have been given that assurance—but will the authority's responsibilities under the 1991 Act be enough? As I know the situation at the moment, a mine owner does not commit an offence if he knowingly permits water to

1495
flow from an abandoned mine. That is not a very satisfactory situation and it is one which I hope my noble friend will address either during the course of this Report stage or at a later stage of the Bill. The review is important and its recommendations are anxiously awaited.
I seek the opportunity in moving this amendment to stress to my noble friend the concern felt by water authorities and, in particular, North East Water, with whom I am constantly in touch. At the Lumley works on the River Wear—a very modern works which I should like my noble friend to visit whenever he is in the area —North East Water treats 5 million gallons per day. But Lumley is of the utmost importance and is central to the future strategy of the company. The plan is for 10 million gallons of water to be treated every day at Lumley. Unfortunately, at the moment the central plan of North East Water is frozen because of the uncertainty of what could happen to the River Wear. Immediate liability is also important in that research being undertaken at the present time by British Coal and the National Rivers Authority is inclusive of an experimental reduction in pumping associated with the sinking of bore holes. The company is concerned that the experimentation could in itself lead to pollution of the river.
There are other minor worries. British Coal originally suggested—the rivers authority did not agree—that water would find its way from the disused mines of West Durham through natural workings of previous mines to the sea. One hopes that the eventual report will not make that suggestion again, but it is possible and is a further worry to the company.
Another minor concern is that the company understands at this time that pumping has been subcontracted. Experts who are in charge of it have been, in the natural interim reorganisation of British Coal, moved to other parts of the country. There is a certain anxiety in that regard. The main argument to my new clause arises in the second section, that the new authority shall have subsequent responsibility which shall include polluted water and that that responsibility shall begin before and continue after the passing of the Act. That is extremely important. With others who have spoken in the debates today I stress to my noble friend that we need a strong assurance on liability. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak on the amendment. I argued earlier in the evening against transferring old liabilities to future operators and feel that I am bound therefore to voice my unhappiness about an amendment that appears to impose historic liability on future operators. I share with my noble friend the desire to obtain future clarification of the law. I hope that the review taking place at the present time will lead to that clarification later in the year. However, I am not sure that in the interim it is helpful to impose these unquantifiable liabilities—as they are at present —on to future operators for the reasons I expressed when debating the first group of amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an extremely interesting amendment. Perhaps I can begin with one
1496
request for clarification which may indicate my lack of legislative skills. In the first line the amendment refers, to "section 12(2) above". As the clause is after Clause 9 it should presumably say, "section 12(2) below", unless "above" and "below ' are interchangeable words in Acts of Parliament. Subject to assuming that the amendment means Clause 12(2) below, then we are discussing the nature of restructuring schemes.
The noble Lord indicates that that is right. To go on from that, my immediate reaction to the concerns of the clause was that the problem was impossible. If there is a restructuring scheme the liabilities referred to must clearly be dealt with under that scheme. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and then the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I end up extremely worried. It looks as though in principle there could be a restructuring scheme that did not transfer the liabilities and so forth under the Water Resources Act 1991. The question that intrigues me is: if that is legally possible, where do the liabilities end up. Do they end up with the Secretary of State who had not transferred them, or something like that? I am therefore greatly intrigued by the amendment.
Perhaps I may comment on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I argued all along that old liabilities should stay where they are and should not be transferred. But if your Lordships will forgive the unintended pun, that is now water under the bridge. Your Lordships pronounced on that on several occasions and those of us who have taken that view must accept that we have been beaten. I accept that I am currently on a hiding to nothing on this one and can now speak on the basis of what your Lordships decided.
It seems to me that what must follow, given the nature of the Bill, is that the liability under the Water Resources Act 1991 certainly must exist somewhere; it must be placed somewhere. We require the Minister to tell us a little about the scheme for transferring property. The simplest thing would be to take for granted that what the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, wants, would definitely happen; in other words, the amendment is not needed. That is one answer the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may give in order to satisfy us. But if there is any danger that the question could remain in an obscure form then an amendment such as Amendment No. 18 will be required either in this form or in a form chosen by the Government's lawyers. Something like this cannot hang in mid-air to be decided later by courts of law. Apart from anything else—to go back to earlier arguments—various of my favourite innocent bys-tanders will be suffering in the meantime while courts of law decide at great length and very expensively where such a liability lies. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can give us some assurance on that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course I always want to be as helpful as possible. From the way in which my noble friend moved his amendment I took it that he was seeking that kind of assurance and was probing the Government's view of these issues. I entirely agree with him about the real anxieties that exist in the North East in relation to pollution on the Wear and so forth. I am

1497
a regular visitor to the North East and perhaps at some point I shall visit the waterworks to which my noble friend referred to see how it is done there.
The amendment places an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that all criminal, civil and statutory liabilities under the Water Resources Act 1991 are transferred under any restructuring scheme. I studied carefully the points made by my noble friend at Committee stage and I hope that the comments I made earlier on the previous group of amendments reassured him, particularly the point in regard to what I meant about the assurances I gave on 26th April, that the Coal Authority will become the owner of all abandoned mines.
The Government accept that those responsibilities do not go far enough, which is why we have set in train a comprehensive review. As an aside, that is one of the problems we encountered in discussing the whole issue of liabilities. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for one at least, accepts that the House pronounced on that issue, rightly or wrongly—perhaps wrongly in the view of noble Lords opposite but rightly in my view. There is also the problem of how we shall deal with the situation in the interim. We set out a comprehensive set of proposals on how the Coal Authority as a responsible public authority will act. We expect it to go well beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility.
The responsibilities of British Coal on which my noble friend's anxieties focus will transfer to the Coal Authority automatically as a result of the transfer of property under Clause 7(3). In so far as there may be any need to address liabilities already incurred by British Coal, that can be done under the restructuring schemes and therefore there is no black hole into which liabilities can fall. I understand that there is one exception to that. It would not be appropriate in any case to transfer criminal liabilities in respect of acts committed by British Coal in the past to another body; they would have to be dealt with by British Coal before a restructuring scheme took place. I hope that that gives my noble friend the assurance that he desires. I understand his concerns and I trust that he can withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will have taken full note of the current concerns of water companies in this interim period. Following the assurances he has given in answer to this and to previous debates, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Restructuring schemes in relation to property etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 24 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Restructuring schemes]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield The Lord Bishop of Sheffield moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
1498
("British Coal Enterprise
.—The Secretary of State shall, out of money provided by Parliament, make arrangements to maintain until 31st December 2004 financial support to British Coal Enterprise to an amount equivalent to that provided by the Corporation before restructuring.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this new clause is intended to give some security, some permanence, at least for the next decade, to the work of British Coal Enterprise. Despite your Lordships' hunger, I hope you will forgive me a slight detour which will explain a little why I see this matter as so important.
I am struck by the curious parallels between this legislation and that which was before your Lordships' House in 1539. That was the measure for the dissolution of the greater monasteries. The curious thing about that measure was that there were no greater monasteries left to dissolve. They had already been quietly done away with and the measure that was then before the House was to tighten up the matter. I recognise that there is a future for the coal industry and I recognise the significance of the Bill for providing a framework for that future. In my more optimistic moments I hope that it is a growing and strong future. But, none the less, for those of us who belong to Northumberland, were born in County Durham and who now live in South Yorkshire and can look over the frontiers to Scotland and Wales, there is no getting away from the fact that there is a valedictory quality to this Bill. It feels a little like the last act of a rather long and sad drama.
The parallels are surprisingly close to those events of 1539. If one had gone back to 1529, or at least 20 years before, that the monasteries which had been so integral a part of the life of the country for 400 years should ever vanish would have seemed unthinkable. And to many of us of my age and older, and even some younger, that there would be an British Isles in which the coal industry was a very minor player in the industrial league would have seemed unthinkable. But circumstances have brought it about. We have to recognise the fact that just as the accession to the throne of Queen Mary with a new religion and a new faith brought nothing at all of significance in the restoration of the monasteries, so there is not going to be a restoration of the coal industry to the part it once played in the life of our nation. So we must be concerned by the consequences of what has happened.
It was a recognition of that which led a decade ago to the foundation of British Coal Enterprise, and we have come to see that it has played a very important part in helping our communities to adapt to the new circumstances, to help individuals to find new work and to train for new work, and to bring new industry and to make possible new life where to our individuals and our communities the future still seems very dark.
One of the astonishing things about the turnout of events in the British Isles has been the suddenness with which the industry has been closed down. We remember —some of us only too well—that many were given only 72 hours' notice of the closure of their pits. There is a contrast here with what has happened on the continent of Europe where, faced with the same problems, there has been a much longer period of planning and a much longer commitment to the process of regeneration to

1499
bring some healing, some renewal, to those communities—those parts of Holland, Belgium and France —which were once coal communities. The existence of British Coal Enterprise recognises the need for such but the silence of the Bill on the subject of British Coal Enterprise makes one wonder what the future will bring.
We have had an undertaking from the Government to finance it until the end of this year. We are assured by the Minister that there is a continuation for British Coal Enterprise in the transitional period, but there is no guarantee as to how it will be financed. It was made clear in Committee that it will not be part of the Coal Authority's responsibilities and we must accept that. This amendment asks that the Government set aside money—no great sum is needed—to ensure that the work of British Coal Enterprise can continue for at least the next decade. If the splendid work that is being done at present is to go forward, we need some assurance about how it will be financed. British Coal Enterprise cannot plan without that. I very much hope that either this or some similar way of ensuring that the needs of the communities to be helped in the way they are being helped—so modestly and, alas, almost uniquely at present by British Coal Enterprise—can continue. I beg to move.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I believe that the Coal Authority and the Government should accept full responsibility for the continuation of British Coal Enterprise in its present form and size, recognising the tremendous amount of work that has been done in the British coalfields and the communities, its creation of thousands of jobs and of numerous enterprises and business parks and its partnerships in business and innovation centres.
The regeneration of our dying coalfield communities is possible with the continuing aid, enterprise and specialist knowledge of the British Coal Enterprise coalfield teams, but the Government are stalling on its future role. They have said that British Coal is at present considering the matter. The Government have indicated that after privatisation it will be appropriate to examine how BCE might function in co-operation with other local and national agencies. The Minister said on 26th
April:
"we do not know what is its long-term future".
He went on to say:
"I do not believe that the Coal Authority should be responsible
for BCE".—[Official Report, 26/4/94; cols. 565-67.]
He might look at it, he said, but his words were not very promising.
British Coal Enterprise is too big and experienced as a national organisation to be kept in suspense about its future. It has established a well-known role. It has worked with local authorities, it has co-operated with the Coalfields Community Campaign and it has gained the respect of all those organisations which are desperately working hard to bring new life and hope to our mining areas. It has also worked with the European Development Fund for ERDF schemes in our regions. There is no doubt that Europe is committed to assisting our regions and in assigning money as part of its structural programme to the end of the century. It seems
1500
to be entering into a greater commitment than the Government. In the meantime, British Coal Enterprise is in suspense, while the ERDF is committed.
I should like to see that strength of commitment from the Government to the future of British Coal Enterprise and our run-down coalfields. Our concern is that if British Coal Enterprise is not around to carry the flag for the coalfields, assisting the local authorities and the coalfield campaign committee, the heart will be knocked out of all their endeavours.
British Coal Enterprise is now a bulwark in creating new enterprises and jobs. I guess that that concern goes for others such as English Partnership and the Rural Development Commission. So will not the Government give consideration to the development of a partnership between Europe and British Coal Enterprise, matching pound for pound moneys from Europe, establishing British Coal Enterprise as a major partner in the regeneration of the coalfields, working with and alongside the local authorities where cooperation and good relations have been established? If that can be considered it would certainly be a great encouragement to our objectives in our mining communities and a stabilising boost to British Coal Enterprise.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too would like to support this amendment so ably moved by the right reverend Prelate and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. In the 10 years of its existence British Coal Enterprise has created no fewer than 105,000 jobs and job opportunities; and this is at a time when all the countries of Western Europe, as evidenced in recent reports produced by the OECD and others, are grappling with unemployment. Here is a body which is creating new jobs out of what might be termed "old" jobs and doing it very successfully.
Its counterpart in the steel industry is still operating very successfully after 20 years. The reason why the steel industry counterpart has been able to operate is that it was privatised as a single entity and therefore could carry on doing what it was doing before. It has chosen to continue to support this way in which ex-steel workers can be found other jobs. Because the coal industry is being privatised in a way in which some of us feel is not correct, that method is not possible in this case and therefore some other way has to be found for funding this very important contribution to new employment after the end of this year, which I gather is the date to which the Government have guaranteed that there will be financial provision.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, referred to Europe. I understand that the European Union has offered a very substantial fund over a long period, as long as it can be matched. The European Union is impressed with the work of British Coal Enterprise. I wish I could feel that the Government were equally impressed. There is now an opportunity for long-term funding, partly based here and partly based on European Union sources, which can make a substantial contribution to job creation.
Therefore, I very much hope that in response to this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will say that the Government have thought beyond the end of

1501
this year for this important organisation. It will not be good enough for them to say that they will look at it in due course. A large number of people are employed and they have to know where they stand. They will start drifting away at a rate of knots if the position is not clarified. Therefore, I hope that we shall get positive guidance this evening.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, British Coal Enterprise, I believe, has been the most successful industrially-based job creator in the UK. I can now update the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It has participated in the creation of 107,000 jobs since its inception in 1984. The corresponding loss of mining jobs during that period has been about 180,000.
If BCE were to be merged with other agencies, it would quickly lose its focus and momentum. I have no doubt, too, the morale of the staff would plummet. There is great pride in that organisation, and understandably so. Moreover, BCE is operating at a level of funding of £2,000 per job created. That I believe is considerably less expensive than other comparable government agencies. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, its counterpart in steel areas, British Steel Industries, is still effectively operating nearly 20 years after its formation and more than a decade after the major run-down of the industry.
I strongly support the view of those who have already spoken that BCE should be preserved in its present form. I would, however, propose an alternative route for the way ahead which is a modification of the one I outlined at the Committee stage. This would involve maintaining BCE in its present form for, say, two to three years to see how its relations with the new coal industry develop. Then I would like to see its debt of probably £30 million written off. A single cash injection of £50 million should then be sufficient for it to operate as a stand-alone organisation for the foreseeable future. That was much the same tactic as we adopted in the case of British Steel Industries during the time I was chairman. I therefore support Amendment No. 26 but would prefer my suggested way of moving ahead.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment and I would like to say a few words in support of it.
I slightly take issue with the right reverend Prelate on one of his remarks right at the beginning. I am not as gloomy as he is about the future of the coal industry. One reason why I have gone to some trouble to take part as much as I possibly can in the debates on the Bill is that, although I would certainly not have gone down the route of privatisation, it has been my concern that if we are to have a privatised coal industry, it should be one which is viable and produces a great deal of coal. My main criticism of the Government because of their approach to risk is that they have placed that in peril. I shall not go over that ground again. I am not suggesting for one moment that we can get back to the position of 1911 and employ quite as many people as the coal industry did then or produce as much output. But I am
1502
convinced that in the right circumstances we can have a viable industry. I say that even though I know that we are asking our own miners to compete with low-paid exploited labour—sometimes even slave labour— abroad. I add that as a point.
That does not detract from the importance of the amendment which I support or the importance of British Coal Enterprise. One thing which has startled many of us and which was pointed out when noble Lords debated this matter at Second Reading and in Committee is that there seems to be no room in the Bill to mention British Coal Enterprise in the first place. That puzzled many of us. The case is not specific but is to do with policy generally in different parts of the country in endeavouring to create new employment when one industry declines. We are discussing it as regards BCE because we are dealing with the Coal Industry Bill, although it is of much more general application.
There is one part of the case at least which is worth bearing in mind—that is to say, that if we do anything to keep men and women in work we also improve public finances. We should not forget that when we are discussing the costs involved. If we keep men and women in work they will not be a burden on the social security system and they will pay taxes. My judgment is that, if we do the analysis of BCE correctly, it will show that, even though it costs money to keep it going, far from being a burden, it will almost certainly be a net generator of funds to the Treasury. That does not mean that the Treasury necessarily believes that.
That leads me to my last point in supporting this amendment. I believe that the Government should support this amendment. I cannot for one moment believe that deep down the Department of Trade and Industry does not favour the continuation of British Coal Enterprise and is not sympathetic to this amendment. I equally cannot believe that the Department of Employment would not be in favour of an amendment of this kind. However, what lies behind this is the current disastrous state of the nation's finances, and the Treasury is grappling, scrabbling and searching for every penny it can get its hands on in the short term, no matter what damage it does to the nation's economy in the long term. We shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, or the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who will no doubt say that is why they cannot commit the Government for a decade. In a way that does not matter because of what will happen in a couple of years, let alone a decade. This matter will then have nothing to do with them. I thought that we should have a teeny bit of politics today, just before dinner. So in a sense others of us will be stuck with this responsibility.
Without pulling the noble Lord's leg too much, what we want is a stronger statement. I believe that is what the right reverend Prelate wants, and it is certainly what I want. We want a stronger statement of support that all is not lost with British Coal Enterprise. Whether we go via the route chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, which has a lot of sense, or the other route of finding direct public moneys, we must make sure that an

1503
enterprise of this kind, which is doing such useful things in the areas of economics and industry, continues to survive.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate took the House back to 1539 and the rule of Henry VIII, a monarch whose name is constantly being taken in vain in relation to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I certainly did not expect his name to crop up with regard to coal.
The Government have previous indicated that British Coal Enterprise will be retained in its current form throughout the transitional and immediate post-privatisation period. We have received, and are considering, British Coal's suggestions about BCE's future. DTI officials are in discussion with British Coal and BCE on what in future should be the focus of their activities.
Clearly there will be a need (for a time) to settle and retrain former employees of British Coal—essential work which BCE has pursued successfully and single-mindedly. This cannot come to an abrupt end. BCE statistics show that, while some former employees quickly find new jobs, others may take from between 12 and 18 months to settle into new employment. But that is a diminishing and time-limited task. It also illustrates why we believe that the beguilingly straightforward approach embodied in the amendment is in fact misconceived.
BCE's business funding and managed workshops play an important role in that regeneration of coalfield areas. This work has complemented other regeneration activities undertaken by the Government and others; and those measures are themselves continually evolving. I would refer, for example, to the establishment of English Partnerships and to the creation of the single regeneration budget.
In looking at the longer-term future we need to examine how BCE's work might best continue to complement such programmes. For example, in recent years BCE has undertaken a substantial programme of building workshops. It is not self-evident that that level of building would be appropriate for another decade. We would clearly not want to spend taxpayers' money on workshops that are likely to stand empty.
Beyond that, there are a series of issues flowing from the question of whether BCE's future lies in the public sector or the private sector. These are complex matters. It would be wrong to leap to hasty and premature conclusions before all the options have been carefully examined.
I fully understand the reasons why this amendment has been moved. I join all noble Lords in commending the work of BCE. It has made a substantial contribution to the regeneration of the coalfield areas, helping to create over 100,000 job opportunities over the past 10 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, BCE attracts European funding through British Coal. It has received, for example, ERDF funding which has helped to support workspace development. This must be taken into account in reviewing all the options for the future. Clearly, we shall
1504
want to make the best possible use of any available European resources. Indeed, we are willing to take into account the interesting suggestion of my noble friend Lord Haslam in the review that we shall be conducting into the future of BCE.
Noble Lords in all parts if the House have stressed the importance of continuing to take advantage of BCE's experience and expertise. The Government share that desire. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Government are considering the long-term future. That is precisely why we should take the time necessary to reach considered conclusions. Those who will suffer from hasty and ill-judged decisions are the coalfield communities we are all concerned to help. In the light of that explanation, I therefore ask that this amendment should be withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, in the light of the noble Viscount's words "hasty" and "premature", can he give us some idea of when some actual decisions are likely to be made? This has been on going throughout all stages of the Bill's progress and long before that, yet the noble Viscount speaks as; though it has just been thought of and that the negotiations and so forth are now just beginning. The end of the year is not very far away, so may we have: some hint as to the timescale?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must advise the right reverend Prelate that until all the options have been carefully considered, we are not able to say precisely when decisions will be taken about BCE's future. However, we aim to have agreed firm plans with British Coal by the early autumn.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, although I am happy to withdraw the amendment, I would do so with more confidence if I felt that decisions were going to be taken with a view to the significance of the long-term regeneration of these communities and the long-term futures of these men and women, and that that was a more central concern. Nonetheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Iranian Terrorism
7.26 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they now propose to take in collaboration with other members of the European Union to counter Iranian terrorism abroad.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was at the beginning of March that your Lordships last had the opportunity of discussing recent developments in Iran and, in particular, the gross and persistent violations of human rights committed by the fundamentalist regime

1505
in Iran. I make no apology for returning to the subject after such a short interval because of some recent developments on which I hope that the Minister will be able to comment in his reply.
I should like to focus on one aspect of the regime's behaviour which is of particular concern to other states, such as Britain, where refugees from Iran have been given asylum. I refer to the extension of Iranian terror apparatus abroad, as was described in the report by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, entitled The Tehran Murder Machine. Some of the evidence that we presented has already been outlined in the debate at the beginning of March, which was initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and has been covered in correspondence between the Parliamentary Human Rights Group and Foreign Office Ministers.
The response by the United Kingdom and by other European Union states to the threat posed by Iranian terrorism abroad has been totally inadequate. We have not been prepared to draw the obvious conclusions from the evidence which is already available or to take stronger measures to bring home to the mullahs the unacceptability of their behaviour, which I think is necessary.
Mr. Douglas Hogg wrote to me on 13th April saying:
"We await with great interest the outcome of both the Mykonos trial in Berlin and the French investigation into the murder of former Prime Minister Bakhtiar. Proof of Iranian involvement in these murders would be a significant new development and we and our European partners would have to consider our position towards Iran accordingly".
Mr. Hogg had said previously that no proof beyond reasonable doubt existed that the Iranian authorities were behind these and the many other assassinations which we described in our report, and,
"It is unrealistic in my opinion to base our policies on such a high standard of proof in regard to each individual terrorist crime perpetrated against the opponents of the regime".
Since we can list, and we referred in that report, to over 100 killings or attempted killings of dissidents and in none of those cases was there any other identifiable motive for the crime, there is a clear pattern. Several further incidents of terrorism have occurred in the past few weeks, including the attempted use of explosives against an embassy in Thailand, for which an Iranian has been arrested.
The pattern to which I refer becomes even stronger when one considers that in many cases the police have identified Iranian diplomatic personnel as being involved in the offences. The successful blackmail of the French Government by Iran to release two suspects who were wanted in Switzerland for the murder of Doctor Kazem Rajavi shows how far the Iranian regime will go to cover its tracks.
The Americans have no hesitation in reaching a conclusion. I wish to refer your Lordships to the State Department's Patterns of Global Terrorism 1993, which was published in April. It states:
"Iran again was the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 1993 and was implicated in terrorist attacks in Italy, Turkey and Pakistan. The intelligence services support terrorist acts, either directly or through extremist groups, aimed primarily against the opponents of the regime living abroad. Iranian intelligence continues to stalk members of the Iranian opposition in the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Despite Tehran's
1506
attempts to distance itself from direct involvement in terrorist acts, Iran has been linked to several assassinations of dissidents during the past year".
Some of the cases in our analysis were dealt with in a recent article in the magazine Time, dated 21st March. The author had obtained a copy of the secret 177-page report by the prosecutor in the Bakhtiar case and quoted it as saying flatly that:
"Iranian intelligence services effectively took part in carrying out this criminal conspiracy".
By the way, this morning I was speaking on the telephone to someone in Paris in order to ask when the Bakhtiar case was likely to start. I was told that probably the prosecutor will not be ready until some time later in the year; for instance, November.
Time also names Ali Fallahian, head of intelligence, as playing a key role in these assassinations. We identified him in our report as the mastermind responsible for several murders. Time also confirms the allegation that we made that the Qods force, part of the revolutionary guards headed by Ahmad Vahidi, actually carries out the executions.
One aspect of Iranian terrorism has been acted upon by the Foreign Office without requiring proof in a court of law. It was when Mr. Hogg summoned the Iranian chargé d'affaires and told him that we knew about the contacts that they had with the IRA, which were then lamely denied by the chargé. According to the Independent, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, headed by Ali Fallahian, offered the IRA a range of weapons including eight Stinger surface-to-air missiles, Semtex explosive, 400 Colt pistols and 80,000 rounds of ammunition, 100 Uzi sub-machine guns and 50,000 rounds of ammunition, plus 6 million dollars in counterfeit money and 500,000 dollars in real money. That was all in return for the assassination of three people; Mr. Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, the former Iranian President living in exile in France since 1981; Mr. Javad Dabiran, a spokesman for the Iranian National Council for Resistance living in Bonn, and Ms. Farzaneh Taidi, a well-known actress who took part in a film which annoyed the fundamentalists. She has since stated that she perpetrated other equally objectionable acts which caused the Iranians to want her to die.
The IRA took three months to consider this offer and then turned it down. Iranian sources told the Independent that it was not the first time that they had been asked to help to kill prominent opponents of the regime including, shortly after the 1979 revolution, General Fereydoon Jam, a brother-in-law of the late Shah, Mr. Ardeshir Zahedi, former Iranian Ambassador to Washington, and Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar, who was later assassinated in Paris though without the help of the IRA.
It was also mentioned that that deal was put to the IRA at a meeting in Tehran last November. It was also attended by members of the Greek extreme Left-wing group, November 17, the Corsican nationalists and ETA, the Basque nationalists. Michael Evans, the defence correspondent of The Times adds that Ali Fallahian's Intelligence Ministry also has links with Japan's Red Army terrorists and Italy's Red Brigades. There is no ideological kinship between the Iranian fundamentalists and any of these groups, and the only

1507
conceivable purpose for Tehran to cultivate their friendship is for the regime to use its footsoldiers in its own terrorist activities.
The man in charge of the Intelligence Ministry's links with the IRA is reported to be Mr. Amir Hussein Taghavi, head of the Orwellianly named Anti-Terror Department. He was also the man who negotiated the release of the two Iranians held by the French on charges of murder in Geneva, as mentioned previously, and he is said to have taken the opportunity of his visit to Paris to meet the IRA. There was an intriguing reference in Stella Rimington's lecture yesterday evening which could have been interpreted as a claim that MI5 had headed off operations by the IRA in collaboration with Tehran. If that is so I warmly congratulate MI5. I certainly hope that we are keeping a very careful watch on those activities.
Even though the British authorities are satisfied that Iran was trying to strike deals with the IRA and other tettorist groups, Mr. Hogg still puts the matter hypothetically. He stated:
"Any evidence … of support by Iran for terrorism would be extremely disturbing".
That is how he was quoted by Reuter on 30th May. Why does he summon the chargé d'affaires to remonstrate with him about links between the IRA and Tehran if they are purely hypothetical? Surely it is hopelessly unrealistic to expect any change of policy in Tehran to follow such mild remonstrations. As The Times put it in a leading article on 20th April,
"A tougher policy to contain Iran is urgently needed".
But the author puts his finger on the problem when he points out that going beyond a public rebuke could risk £297 million-worth of exports. He points out that the Germans and the French are fighting hard for a bigger share of what seems to be a lucrative market and we do not want to be left out of it.
The Americans, on the other hand, are urging a tougher strategy which could work in view of the weakness of the Iranian economy. Foreign debt has risen above 30 billion dollars and 8 billion dollars has to be rescheduled urgently. Oil revenues fell 20 per cent. last year and may decline further if the price of oil falls below 15 dollars a barrel, as many people expect. In Iran real wages are falling as subsidies have to be reduced and public-sector workers are made redundant or put on short time. Furthermore, a power struggle is developing between President Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Ali Khamene'i, the spiritual successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. James Wyllie, writing in Jane's Intelligence Review of April 1994, says that:
"At no point since the early days of the revolution have the political, economic and social condition of Iran been so fragile".
It is time, therefore, for the United States and the European Union to get together and impose tough penalties on Iran for its continued use of terrorism against dissidents abroad as well as its espousal of murder as an instrument of censorship against Mr. Salman Rushdie, his publishers and translators, and even his supporters. If Iranian leaders, from President Rafsanjani downwards, continue to insist that the fatwa pronounced against Mr. Rushdie by the late Ayatollah Khomeini five years ago is still in operation, they should be made to suffer penalties in their dealings with
1508
civilised nations. Khomeini actually ordered Moslems everywhere to kill Mr. Rushdie. Now Ayatollah Hassan Sanei declares that:
"Supporters of Salman Rushdie, too, will not be safe from revenge by zealous Moslems. By their action they insult the sanctities of Moslems and deserve to be punished".
The fact that Khomeini could order the killing of Mr. Rushdie, and that the Iranian Government as a whole upholds the fatwa and its extension to others, shows that Iran under the fundamentalist regime operates according to a different concept of the law from everywhere else in the world. The rest of humankind believes that no person can be sentenced except by due process of law. In Iran they believe that as the law comes from God and is promulgated by clerics, the ayatollahs have the power and the right to declare all in one breath that a particular action, or even the use of certain words, is a capital offence, that an individual has committed that offence and that all true believers have a duty to carry out the sentence. No wonder that, holding those views, they have no scruples about killing their opponents. If those murders are planned by the clerics, they must have been decreed by God. It must also follow that if the acts of terrorism that you commit or plan are divinely sanctioned, then no appeals from earthly agencies will influence your conduct. Iran is a unique regime demanding unique responses from the outside world. We should stop behaving as; though it were just another of the many dictatorships which violate human rights.
At the Edinburgh summit of the European Union in December 1992, the Twelve expressed concern about Iran's behaviour and called for improvements in three areas in particular: human rights, the fatwa and terrorism. In all those areas the performance of Tehran today is worse than it was 18 months ago. It is time for the European Union and others, such as the US and Japan in particular, to stop making ineffective criticisms which they have no intention of backing by concrete measures. International terrorism will not be halted by resolutions without sanctions attached to them, and in the case of the theocratic terrorism from Tehran, the world has to act together now.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought the House back to the issues we debated on 3rd March. In that debate, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford—and I make no criticism—we concentrated upon the appalling internal circumstances and the ways in which the Iranian regime has wrought terror and death upon its own population, including religious minorities to which we drew attention. It is right that on this occasion we should look exclusively at the external affairs and threats which the Iranian regime presents to law and order in so many parts of the world.
During the last debate, I congratulated the Parliamentary Human Rights Group on the report which it had published the day before entitled The Tehran Murder Machine. I reminded the House of the resolution which had been passed on 17th August 1993 by the

1509
United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities which strongly condemned,
"the continuing flagrant human rights violations of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including … the continuing execution of political prisoners and the assassination of opponents abroad".
Although, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am in no way an expert, I agree entirely that the situation has worsened not only since Professor Galindo Pohl brought out his UN report on 8th November but also in the past three months since we debated the issue in this House. Therefore, the situation has become worse rather than better.
This short exchange gives the Government the opportunity, which I am sure they wish to take, to set out clearly their policies in relation to those external threats. Some have been carried out. Some have not yet been carried out but may be carried out in the future. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that we need to act together with the European Union and the United States because purely individual action would not be appropriate.
I wish to refer to some events that have taken place concerning the barbarous threats to the life of Salman Rushdie. In an interview published in Jomhuri Eslami newspaper earlier this year, the Ayatollah Hassan Sanei said that an unspecified extra award would be added to the bounty if anyone involved in Rushdie's travels killed the author. He said:
"Today conditions are prepared better than at any other time for carrying out the edict".
He referred to the fatwa for killing Rushdie, issued by Iran's late revolutionary leader some five years ago. He said:
"Rushdie is within firing range and there is a serious possibility that the arrow put in flight by the late Imam's historical fatwa would strike at Rushdie's fear-ridden heart at any moment".
He said that the supporters of Rushdie would not be safe from revenge by zealous Moslems, adding:
"By their action they in fact insult the sanctities of Moslems and deserve to be punished".
He referred again to the increase in the reward for the death of a British citizen. That is an appalling situation. It is not as though, after five years and appropriate representations by the British Government, there has been any softening in the Iranian position. In fact the position has hardened. I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on that.
Secondly, we have seen the nonsense of the forgeries. I know that a forgery does not act as a threat but the absurd actions of the Iranian Government in forging supposed letters between the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, and the Secretary of State for Defence, show the pathetic situation reached by a government who are a member of the United Nations and who claim to have civilised relationships with the rest of the world.
I draw the Minister's attention to what I thought was a very sound leader in The Times on Friday 3rd June which referred to,
"the revelation that a cluster of Iranian diplomats have been circulating [obvious] forgeries in an attempt to discredit British policy on Bosnia and sabotage weary Western efforts to halt the fighting and broker peace".
The newspaper went on to urge that Britain should respond in a very positive way to such dishonest
1510
behaviour. It may be that the leader contributed to the diplomatic exchanges to which I wish to make reference in a few moments.
While referring to admirable leaders in British newspapers, I hope that the Minister's attention has been drawn to that in the Daily Telegraph today which is also very strong. It is clear that important organs of opinion in this country strongly urge the Government to stand firm and to make their position extremely clear. They have that opportunity this evening.
More serious than forgeries as an example of Iran's malevolent policies is the example of Sudan. It is reported in News on Iran that there are estimated to be 3,000 of Iran's revolutionary guards in Sudan. Officially, they are military advisers to the Sudanese Government in their war with rebels in southern Sudan but western intelligence experts believe that the Iranians are also helping to train a variety of Arab recruits in the latest terrorist techniques. That implies a threat to many other countries and that the sad situation in Sudan, into which I shall not go in detail, is being used as an opportunity to train terrorists to operate on behalf of the mullahs in different parts of the world.
In addition, Khartoum has apparently allowed the Iranian navy to use Port Sudan as one of its main re-supply ports and the Iranian air force has been given special landing rights. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could say whether that information is true and whether the British Government have made any representations both to the Iranians and to the Government of Sudan, who appear to be involved in an extremely disturbing situation.
Most worrying of all is the last example that I wish to give. On 28th April the British Foreign Office summoned the Khamene'i regime's chargé d'affaires to warn him about the regime's contact with the Irish Republic and the IRA, demanding that the mullahs cease those contacts. The facts which have now become clear and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, have been reported in the Independent, refer to a situation which certainly I knew nothing about but which was known by those who are experts. Apparently, for years, the Government of Iran have been seeking to use the terrorist operation of the IRA for their own malevolent purposes. That is a direct involvement in a situation which causes great concern in this country. If the IRA has refused to accept the regime's demands, that is at least one bit of good news. However, I do not know. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the situation. It is quite intolerable that a foreign government should be seeking, by payment presumably, to use terrorists in the United Kingdom for purposes which have nothing to do with the sad conflict in which the IRA is involved but which have a great deal to do with the malicious intentions of the Iranian Government.
I conclude with two questions. First, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the face of such a crude promotion of terrorism by the Iranian regime? Again, I refer to the very relevant leader in the Daily Telegraph. Secondly, on the other side of the coin, in the exchange which took place on 3rd March, I set out to encourage Her Majesty's Government not only to

1511
condemn the actions of the Iranian Government but also to have at least some friendly and informal contacts with those who stand for democracy in Iran. It is not unknown for democratic governments at least to recognise the existence of those of other political parties who stand for different principles. I referred particularly to the Iranian National Council of Resistance. I set it out in detail, but answer was there none. Perhaps the Minister will make some comment now that there has been time to reflect on the points I raised in my speech on 3rd March. I look forward with eager interest to his reply.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward the topic again after three months. The noble Lord explained why he has returned to the matter so soon and my noble friend Lord Ennals expanded on that theme and has given us much further information about the serious and deteriorating situation. Principally, as I took it from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, this includes the problems of extra territorial executions—if you like so to call that sort of terrorism—and possibly the use of other terrorist organisations, the IRA being just one example, to further their ends.
That is one of the developments. Then, of course, there is the continued fatwa on Salman Rushdie, which was mentioned by both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There is now an increased reward for the assassin who manages to kill him. I believe that £2 million dollars have been offered by the Iranian regime. The internal situation in Iran has continued to become worse both from a point of view of human rights and, as has already been mentioned, economically. In fact, things in many directions have become worse.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in his reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in March, while condemning Iran's behaviour, did not recommend any specific action, other than expressing strong disapproval both nationally and internationally. He was saying in effect: to the Tehran regime, "You have been a bad boy and you must improve your behaviour if you want us to treat you as a normal member of the family". Alternatively, and perhaps more diplomatically —in his own words:
"It is vital that the Iranian Government understand that if they are to benefit from membership of the international community, both politically and economically, then they must show by their deeds that they respect their international obligations".—[Official Report, 3/3/94; col. 1204.]
The nearest approach to any effective measure—and one, I must say, without teeth—was the announcement that the United Kingdom Government, together with their European Union partners, had co-sponsored a resolution at the 1993 United Nations Commission on Human Rights which was strongly critical of Iran's record. That resolution was again brought forward this year. With your Lordships' agreement, perhaps I may quote from Recommendation 3 which says that the Commission:
"Expresses its concern more specifically at the main criticisms of the Special Representative"—
1512
that is, Professor Galindo-Pohl, whose name has already been mentioned—
"with regard to the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely the high number of executions, cases of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the standard of administration of justice, the absence of guarantees of due process of law, discriminatory treatment of certain groups of citizens for reason of their religious beliefs".
Here I should draw particular attention to the fact that those who adhere to the Baha'i faith are particularly condemned by the fundamentalist regime because the Baha'i movement broke away from Islam in the 19th century. Their philosophy is one of tolerance, which is precisely the reverse of the fundamentalist regime. The resolution continues to say that there are,
"restrictions on the freedoms of expression, thought, opinion and the press and … continued discrimination against women".
Despite that highly critical review, little in the way of effective action was recommended, apart from extending the mandate of the special representative and keeping the human rights situation in Iran on the agenda for the next session.
However, there are more effective forms of action which could be taken. In the first place, more effective judicial action must be pressed in the case of the known assassins who have been implicated in murders outside Iran. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the opposite seems to have occurred, especially in France in the case of the two suspected killers of Dr. Kazern Rajavi in 1990. The French authorities had arrested them after the murder in Geneva (they had crossed the border into France). The High Court in Paris ordered that they should be extradited to stand trial in Switzerland. That was countermanded in Paris by the Prime Minister's office for reasons,
"connected with our national interests".
According to one informed source, which is quoted in the report, The Tehran Murder Machine, Paris took with great seriousness the Iranian threats to launch a new wave of terrorist operations in France and abroad if they extradited the men to stand trial in Switzerland. In fact, that was giving in to blackmail.
In Germany in October 1992, Iran's intelligence Minister, Mr. Ali Fallahian, who has also been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, visited Bonn probably in an attempt to stop the trial of those involved in the murder of the four Iranian Kurds in the Mykonos Restaurant in Berlin in September 1992. The German Federal prosecutors wanted him to be detained because they had evidence of the Iranian Government's involvement in that and other murders. However, that was blocked by the German Government. Threats of increased terrorism or damage to commercial interests would seem to be the underlying reasons why Western governments are not responding more strongly to these Iranian international acts of terrorism. The Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said three months ago,
"our outstanding problems … can much more easily be resolved if we talk to each other on something other than …a dialogue of death."—[Official Report, 3/3/94; cols. 1203-4.]
How true, but if one side believes so strongly in its cause, as has been outlined by both previous speakers, that it is prepared to murder or execute those who oppose or who criticise it, talking is hardly likely to succeed.

1513
United Nations' resolutions and condemnations are of course in order, but with a regime that pays no respect to national or international law a tougher response is surely needed. Islamic fundamentalism obviously cannot be simply condemned as evil. Its successful spread from Iran to much of the Arab world owes much to its message of hope, self-discipline and renewal in the face of economic hardship and the growing influence of western values and morality, or rather lack of morality as Moslems would see it. However, in Iran, as both speakers have pointed out, economic hardship is now much greater than before. While religious fervour is still strong, there is growing disillusion with the current regime.
If forms of economic sanctions were imposed over and above those which preclude military exports now, and there was an international agreement not to renegotiate Iran's international debt—which unfortunately the Germans have just done—the present regime would find itself in difficulties quite soon from its own population. Relaxation of sanctions and relaxation of debt relief terms could be promised if international terrorism was stopped and human rights within Iran showed real signs of improvement.
It has been said that sanctions do not work, but it was eventually the effects of sanctions on the economy of South Africa which more than anything else was responsible for the ending of apartheid and the democratic elections which we have just seen. I would like the Minister to say why a similar course of action —not simply involving this country but also involving the rest of the countries of the European Union, and preferably countries of the whole world through the action of the Security Council—applied in such a way that it would be calculated to cause maximum difficulty for the Iranian economy, would not act as a means of persuading that country to conform to the universal United Nations' human rights declarations to which it is itself a signatory.
8.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cranborne on 3rd March in the most recent debate on this issue when he made it quite clear that aspects of Iran's behaviour are of more than serious concern to us. I believe that recent events underline just how Iranian misbehaviour can impact on the United Kingdom. I am sure that, even if the noble Lord feels that it was inadequate, he would agree that our firm protest to the Iranians over their contacts with the Provisional IRA was fully justified. We are more than satisfied that there have been contacts between the Iranian intelligence and the Provisional IRA. We believe that funds may have been transferred but, contrary to some reports that went somewhat further, we do not believe that weapons have been transferred from the Iranians to the Provisional IRA.
We are also deeply concerned by the reports, including those prepared by the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury,
1514
is chairman, and by the United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative, Mr. Galindo-Pohl, of involvement by the Iranian regime in attacks against the Iranian opposition abroad. Such reports give us and our partners every reason to maintain our vigilance. And, of course, the problem of Mr. Rushdie remains.
We strongly condemn the assassinations of Iranian dissident figures abroad and the attacks on those associated with Mr. Rushdie's book, whoever the perpetrators may be. We noted with concern the indictment in Germany of a suspected Iranian Government agent in connection with the Mykonos killings of four Kurdish opposition leaders in Berlin in September 1992 which all speakers have referred to. Obviously we are following that trial most closely, along with the investigations of the murder in France in 1991 of former Prime Minister Bakhtiar. It would be a very serious matter indeed if the Iranian Government were found to be involved. We must though await the outcome of that trial and of the French investigation. There is as yet no proof beyond reasonable doubt—I repeat what my right honourable friend said in his letter to the noble Lord—that the Iranian Government are involved in those murders.
I shall refer briefly to the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. We are aware that an Iranian has been arrested in Thailand and others have been interviewed. Again we are watching the outcome of that case carefully and we are seeking further details. As regards the allegations of Iranian involvement in Sudan made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I was very interested to hear what he had to say. I regret that I have no information at present that I can give the noble Lord, but I certainly undertake that I or my noble friend Lady Chalker will write to him.
As the noble Lord's Question implies—I think that this was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—we consider that the best way to influence the Iranian regime is by acting together with our European Union partners and through concerted international pressure. I can give an assurance to the House that this we will continue to do. It was for this reason that we promoted a strong declaration on Iran at the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 which made quite clear that the union's future relations with Iran would be determined by Iranian actions in a number of areas including human rights, terrorism and the case of Salman Rushdie. The establishment of a critical dialogue between the European Union and Iran has provided the opportunity for the European Union to continue to make clear to the Iranians the full force of our opposition to their unacceptable activities both at home and overseas.
I have referred to the case of Salman Rushdie. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quite rightly reminded the House of that case. We are appalled that the threat to Mr. Rushdie remains. The fatwa is a serious violation of international law and an outrageous infringement of his fundamental rights as a British citizen. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on the fifth anniversary of the fatwa on 14th February 1994:
"We have been heartened by the way in which many governments round the world have demonstrated their support

1515
both by meeting Mr. Rushdie and in their discussions with the Iranian C5overnment. We all want to make clear to the Iranian Government that they cannot enjoy full and friendly relations with the rest of the international community unless and until we can be satisfied that there is no further direct or indirect threat from the Iranian authorities to Mr. Rushdie's life or to that of others associated with his book be they translators, publishers or whatever".
We hope very much that the Iranian Government will listen to that message. It is the clearest possible message to the Iranians and I cannot stress that more strongly. It is also why, together with our European partners, we drafted and co-sponsored a resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights in March of this year which urged the Government of Iran—and with the permission of the House I would like to quote—
"to refrain from activities such as those mentioned in the report of the Special Representative against members of the Iranian opposition living abroad and to cooperate wholeheartedly with the authorities of other countries in investigating and publishing offences reported by them".
This action by the international community, inspired by the European Union and strongly supported by Her Majesty's Government, sent a clear message to the Iranian authorities that they cannot flout international law and accepted standards of behaviour and expect to get away with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite rightly referred to the internal and economic situation in Iran. We keep in close touch with developments in Iran, including through our embassy in Tehran. We are obviously aware of the debate within Iran about the future direction of Iranian domestic economic and foreign policy. Obviously the decision is one that must be made by the Iranians themselves, but we hope that they will take account of the international community's legitimate concerns when they make their decisions.
We also monitor carefully the state of the Iranian economy. Obviously the transition from the controls of a wartime economy towards liberalisation and an ambitious reconstruction programme has imposed many strains. The weakness in the price of oil and the subsequent loss of revenue has exacerbated Iran's problems, and it is now faced with significant debt payments arrears. Obviously, resolving that problem will take some time and will subject the Iranian people to yet further hardship.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the forged letter, allegedly from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That forgery is known to be the work of the Iranian intelligence services. It is a forgery similar to others which have been circulating in the Middle East and elsewhere since the summer of 1993. On 25th May the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right honourable friend Mr. Hogg, requested the withdrawal of a first secretary at the Iranian embassy because members of the embassy had been involved in attempting to distribute the forged document purporting to show that our policy on Bosnia was directed against Moslems. But, as I have made quite clear, and I repeat now to the noble Lord, to the House and to the world at large, it is quite obvious that those documents were self-evident forgeries. As to our Bosnia policy, as noble
1516
Lords will be well aware, the United Kingdom is fully behind the contact group initiative to achieve a negotiated settlement. That remains our position.
Turning to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about our contact with the National Council of Resistance of Iran and opposition groups, I have made clear we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime. We have constantly made clear that improvements in its behaviour will be important in determining the extent to which relations can be developed. But we do not believe the National Council of Resistance of Iran to be an alternative to the Iranian Government. It is a coalition dominated by the Left-wing Islamic organisation, Mojahedeen-E-Khalq, sometimes known as MKO. MKO, by its own acknowledgement, has itself been involved in acts of political violence against the Iranian Government from its base in Iraq. In Iran itself MKO appears to have little support. I believe that it was seriously damaged by its own decision to side with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Its leadership was expelled from Paris in 1986 and thereafter established its headquarters in Baghdad. We would not wish to offer MKO or any other body any recognition or encouragement by agreeing to any meeting between them and Ministers of the Government.
As for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, it is difficult to square claims that the NCR] is a democratic party with its own history of violence, its authoritarian nature and the personality cull; surrounding the Rajavis. Despite its democratic structure, we believe that ultimate power is exercised by Massoud Rajavi and his associates.
Having said that, Iran is and will remain an important country for the United Kingdom and the European Union. It is obviously a major regional power whose policies on important issues such as the Middle East peace process, Iraq, Yemen, the former Yugoslavia and Nagorno-Karabakh matter very much to the international community. It has to be stressed, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about sanctions, that we and the European Union have important commercial interests to pursue in Iran. Again, as I stressed, we are under no illusions about the Iranian regime. Along with our European Union partners and many others we wish to see Iran's human rights record dramatically improved. We seek an end to the totally unacceptable threat against Salman Rushdie and his associates to which I referred. We also wish to ensure that other hostile Iranian activities against the United Kingdom which have once more cast a cloud over our bilateral relations in recent weeks are not repeated.
To resolve those problems we believe that it is absolutely right to maintain a dialogue with the Iranian Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners. This is, and will continue to be, a critical dialogue. I simply cannot accept that there is some simple solution of breaking off relations. It must always be important to maintain a direct line of communication with the Iranian authorities. Together with our European partners we shall continue to press for improvements in Iranian behaviour across the board. We shall make it clear to the Iranian Government that before they can benefit fully from membership of the international

1517
community, both politically and economically, they must first show that they are prepared to respect their international obligations.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask a question. He said that we must maintain a dialogue with the Iranian Government. He said that a series of clear messages have been sent to the Iranian Government. He has not told us what was the response of the Iranian Government to those messages or how a dialogue can be carried on by one side only. Has there been any response to our dialogue from the Iranian side? What are we doing if we have had no response?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I had finished and sat down, but I tried to make clear that I believe that it is important that we continue to keep open our diplomatic representation in Tehran, albeit at a reduced level, so that there is the ability for dialogue with the Tehran regime. I accept that some of the responses from the Tehran authorities have not always been satisfactory, but it is far more important that the possibility and availability of that dialogue should continue than that we should simply close up shop and walk away from the problem. I do not believe—and I do not think that the noble Lord believes—that that would be a satisfactory solution.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, does he not agree that the Iranian chargé d'affaires denied point blank that there had been any association between the Iranian regime and the IRA? We heard him do so on television. What is the point of continually reiterating the necessity to conform with internationally agreed standards when the noble Lord and the Government of whom he is a Member are not prepared to do anything of a concrete nature to bring home to the Iranians the penalties that they suffer as a result of those policies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in referring to the reaction of the Iranian chargé d'affaires. What I wish to make clear is our belief that our outstanding bilateral problems with Iran are most easily resolved by maintaining relations with Iran. That is why we restored relations with Iran in September 1990. That was done on the basis of public statements made by the Iranian authorities that they would respect international law and would not interfere with the internal affairs of another country.
Obviously we shall continue to listen very closely to what they have to say. As I said, I believe that it is important to continue to maintain contact with them. I end by saying that we shall continue to judge them not merely by their words but by their actions.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.25 p.m.]

Coal Industry Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 22 [Pensions and miners' welfare organisations]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 18, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his powers under subsection (3) of section 12 of that Act of 1952, the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to maintain financial support to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation or any successor body of that organisation, and such support shall not be less than that provided by the Corporation immediately before the restructuring date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 28. The amendments deal with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. One of the most abrupt statements in the Bill is in Clause 22(2), which states:
'The Miners' Welfare Act 1952 shall cease to have effect".
I must say that that shook me when I first read the Bill. One does not expect draft legislation to have a heart, but, my goodness, I do not know what is in the place of a heart.
The miners' welfare organisation has existed to demonstrate the caring side of the mining industry. We had a good deal of discussion about it at Committee stage on 28th April. I do not wish to go over too much of the ground except to say that actuarially it is estimated that, because of the ageing of former mineworkers, the period of highest need for those services could well arise in the first quarter of the next century. Therefore it is essential to make provision for that time ahead. One cannot easily accept simply disposing summarily of the whole concept.
The Government have already indicated that they realise that there is a problem. When we discussed the matter at Committee stage we were advised of certain financial contributions which they were prepared to make or to stimulate. During the next five years there would be provision for a total of £1,650,000 per annum, £650,000 coming from an endowment fund and £1 million being found from the successor enterprises. After that five-year period there would only be the £650,000, unless additional funds could be found.
However, in answer to questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that further consideration might well be given to the issue. So the real question I put is this: and in light of the clearly accepted need for the organisation, in light of the fact that the financial provision made will tail off at the very time when it is felt that there could be greater need, have the Government now had time to give further consideration to the matter? If so, could they tell us what they have decided? I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on CISWO. To date, the Government have proposed a funding package of a £10 million endowment fund plus a total annual contribution from the new mine owners of £1 million per year for the first five years of privatisation. CISWO, perhaps operating as a charitable

1519
organisation—and the Government might clear up this matter when they reply—will receive an estimated income of £1.65 million per year for five years, dropping to about £650,000 each year thereafter. As the Minister must know, if this be true it will be seriously and woefully inadequate. I gather, though, that there may be an addition to the endowment fund, which may ease matters; no doubt the Minister will be able to fill in the details later on.
We had spelt out at Committee stage the wide range of welfare services provided by CISWO throughout the mining communities, particularly to the elderly, the disabled, the sick, social welfare and benefits for half a million beneficiaries—indeed, there are 72,000 people in receipt of benefits who suffer from pneumoconiosis and thousands more with chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Also, CISWO is in partnership with more than 400 miners' welfare trusts providing recreational and sporting provisions in the coalfield areas, not just for miners but for all the local people. Not all those facilities will be maintained on a reduced income, especially if we realise that the many pit closures and job losses have meant a reduction in voluntary subscriptions to CISWO. At the same time, there is a growing demand for sporting and recreation facilities, due to the rising numbers of unemployed. It is folly, indeed thoughtless, to cut funding of this important service and welfare organisation when the demands on its services are bound to grow.
On the question of sporting and recreation facilities, we are worried that some will be under threat, especially if the Coal Authority is charged with the disposal of British Coal's non-operational land. Forty per cent. of the miners' welfares lease all or some of their land from British Coal. CISWO fears that the Coal Authority, faced with payments for liabilities, will be likely to sell these recreation and sports areas—especially those with development potential. I believe that we should have assurances that these sports fields should be safeguard-ed. None of our coalfield communities should lose a valuable recreational facility because of this privatisation measure and, again, at a time of rising demand.
In my area we are concerned that vital community facilities in the form of the miners' welfare recreation grounds are at risk, especially because British Coal has considerable land assets tied up in leases to miners' welfare ground schemes. They, in turn, are at risk from a commercial approach to property assets as the trusts, due to the loss of miners' levy and reduced CISWO income, fall into indebtedness and are broken up, instead of the Coal Authority considering transferring them to local authority stewardship.
In my area, where all our pits have closed, we are concerned about the future of important ground schemes at famous collieries such as Woolley, North Gawber, Cawthorne, Mitchells and Darfield Main and Goldthorpe. That is an example of the threat to just one mining district hovering over its sports fields.
The East Midlands Council for Sport and Recreation has emphasised to the Minister for Energy that as well as the preservation of CISWO's health and welfare provisions—important as these groups are—the emotional needs of the mining communities are also
1520
currently served through CISWO. Sport and recreation contribute to those needs, so the young, the fit and the able-bodied are supported; therefore the health of the community is preserved and enhanced.
One can easily see how CISWO has become intertwined, through its health, welfare and sporting activities with all our mining communities. These amendments seek to ensure that recreational land owned by British Coal and leased to, or otherwise occupied by, CISWO or a local miners' welfare trust is not disposed of to the detriment of the local community. Unless this Bill is amended to safeguard the future of CISWO at its present level and to safeguard the future of our coalfield sports fields, rugby and football grounds, cricket pitches, athletic tracks, tennis courts, welfare halls, bowling greens and pavilions, some of these recreational lands could be at risk and could be lost to our communities for ever.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, first, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the pleas that were made at Second Reading and also in Committee in April. The financial difficulties which will confront CISWO's successor body will mean that important services will have to be withdrawn or severely curtailed.
I understand that last February the CISWO council gave a cautious welcome not to what is on offer from the Government but to the department's decision that a successor body should be a charitable body. The council gave that a cautious welcome and I have not challenged it. But I believe that CISWO was wise to give it that cautious welcome and no more because, being a charity, the successor body would have to be funded to some degree as if it were a charity and not by industry. So to replace CISWO with a charitable organisation may be described as an uncharitable act on the part of the Government because there is no way that CISWO can guarantee that the social problems confronting the mining communities can be successfully tackled if its successor body is inadequately funded. If the offer of £10 million plus the annuity for five years is not improved upon, it will be inadequately funded.
It seems to me that there are two real problems with the department's offer. First, it expects private industry or the private sector to respond and give support to CISWO. In the United Kingdom I believe that about 140,000 registered charities are competing for funds. According to the figures which I have seen, no more than about 7 per cent. manage to attract the kind of funds which will be necessary to close the deficit. I well recall in the inaugural Arnold Goodman charity lecture it was pointed out that, while voluntary help will go into new departures, only very reluctantly and haltingly will it go into those gaps created by the action of central government. Those gaps will be caused by the action of central government. Therefore, there is considerable doubt as to whether matching funds will be found. That is the first worry.
The second worry is that if the private sector, the voluntary sector, fails to respond on the necessary scale CISWO will have no choice but to withdraw or curtail many important existing services. In that event, we ask

1521
the Government: who steps into the breach that is left by the withdrawal or curtailment of services? We also suggest to the Government that if those gaps are left at the end of the day, new social problems may fester and come to the surface in the former mining communities in about 10 or 20 years' time. If important CISWO services are withdrawn or are substantially curtailed the world will become a little darker for members of many mining communities or former mining communities.
For those reasons I once again urge the department to give careful consideration to the arguments that have been advanced and which I believe to be valid. I hope that the Government can announce a further improvement upon the offer which is already on the table.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I shall be very brief. First, I want to underline everything that my noble friend Lord Mason said. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I say that those of us who were brought up in mining communities and who had the advantages of all the sporting and social facilities perhaps appreciate the work of CISWO more than most. It is something that we do not forget; we have seen our families take advantage of the facilities.
Like other noble Lords, I am glad to see that the Government have added £2 million to the resources. That is very much appreciated. But perhaps the Minister can say how that figure was arrived at. I do not want to be mealy-mouthed—the extra sum is appreciated—but it would be helpful to have an idea of how that figure was reached. I say, too, on a matter that is quite frequently referred to in this House (and more so in recent weeks) that playing fields are disappearing; literally by the hundred every year. That is happening not just in inner-city areas but in rural areas, too. Schools have for some time used the whole range of miners' welfare facilities. I can foresee a situation, which I hope does not arise but which may, whereby the miners' welfare facilities will be an oasis in the middle of deserts. I refer to all kinds of playing fields, bowling greens, cricket fields and so on. I hope that the Minister will take that into account. The letter that most of us received today says that the Minister's correspondence refers to the additional £2 million as "a final offer". I hope that the Minister and the Government will have further thoughts and say that in view of the strength of the case that has been made from all sides—we are all concerned about this matter—it might be possible for the Government to think again.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the Coal Industry Bill, as originally proposed, made remarkably little mention of CISWO other than to abolish it. That was something which provoked considerable concern across the entire political spectrum. It is a straw in the wind, but it is yet another example of the way in which this Bill is focused on the chances of the successor companies and very seldom thinks of the relics or those left behind—in this case, the people.
1522
But in response to the loud noises that were then made, the Government proposed a funding package to give CISWO some limited income for the future: a £10 million endowment and the £1 million per year, which would raise £1.65 million per year for the first five years, falling to about £650,000 per annum thereafter. It would represent about a two-thirds cut in income after the first five years of operation.
I understand that there has now been a revised offer, about which my noble friend seemed to know rather more than I do. It would mean that there would be a rather smaller shortfall after the year 2000, but the offer would still fall well short of what is necessary.
Although the proposed package was a welcome recognition by the Government of the value of CISWO's work and the important role that it continues to play in coalfield communities, the proposed level of funding remains woefully inadequate. It is the old government game. I could refer to it, I think without fear of successful contradiction, as pontoon politics: "Here is your card. Now what are you going to do, stick, or twist?". It is also good government policy to give CISWO a hard choice: "Are you going to take what is on offer, even though it is not much; or are you going to risk not taking it and watch it perhaps vanish altogether?". That is not justice; it is craps—notice that I use the plural and not the singular.
CISWO's response to the Government's funding package was muted. For example, it has given a cautious welcome to the proposal on charitable status. One element that seems to have been neglected so far, is CISWO's workload. CISWO's actuaries estimate that the demand for CISWO services will peak in the first quarter of the next century, when there will be many more elderly ex-miners in need. Surely it is folly to consider axing the funding of an organisation when demands on its services are bound to grow.
If I may respectfully say so, the suggestion made by the Minister that local miners' welfares should reimburse CISWO for its services (good market economics) fails to recognise that their assets are largely tied up in land and property and do not represent an alternative source of funding which they can put their hands into their pockets to find. Furthermore, many of them are struggling financially, not because of a fall in demand but because more of the users of the facilities have less income, being drawn from the ranks of the unemployed, the sick and the elderly. The suggestion sounds like a good market forces argument, but it is not. The miners' welfares do not have enough money even to come to market.
I shall put just one question on the other amendment. The majority of miners' welfares own the land that they operate. But a substantial minority of about 40 per cent. lease all or some of their land from British Coal. The Bill proposes that the Coal Authority be charged with the disposal of British Coal's non-operational land, which puts those leasehold lands at serious risk.
Although this issue was raised during Committee stage, the Minister did not give us clear assurances about retaining those lands for sports use, or how much such use could be safeguarded. We believe that the Bill should ensure that no community should be under threat

1523
of losing a valuable recreational source because of the privatisation of the industry and the demands placed upon the Coal Authority.
Many noble Lords will have been recipients of considerable correspondence from the East Midlands Council for Sport and Recreation. They certainly kept me very well informed about the situation at every stage. The East Midlands Council for Sport and Recreation is not happy. What is the Minister going to do for it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in addressing Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 I should like to refer momentarily to our debate in Committee, and also to the CISWO council's response to the Government's proposals for the future of coal industry social welfare.
We are grateful for the positive comments and advice from noble Lords during the debate in Committee and indeed for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who appreciated the sympathetic way in which we have been dealing with this matter. Nevertheless, there was clearly concern that there should be a modest increase in the endowment for CISWO's successor and also understandable doubt expressed about the future of sports and recreational facilities used by local miners' welfares.
Similarly, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy has welcomed the constructive response from the CISWO council, and in particular its submission of a 10-year business plan, which he and DTI officials have been considering. We have concluded that the plan is robust although we believe that there remains scope for administrative savings and that there is no compelling reason why technical, advisory and regulatory support should be provided free to miners' trusts and welfare schemes—particularly where they have an excess of income over expenditure. More importantly, we are convinced that CISWO underestimates its potential for raising voluntary income. Nevertheless, we have accepted that CISWO could still face some difficulties in sustaining its core services after year five. My honourable friend therefore wrote to Mr. Neil Clarke, Chairman of CISWO, on 6th June, saying that we are prepared to make one further and final contribution to securing the future of those services.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said that he was not being mealy-mouthed. I can confirm that what we have in mind is an addition to the endowment fund of £2 million. This would be available to be drawn down from year six onwards in annual tranches not exceeding £500,000 and not exceeding the amount raised by CISWO itself from the private sector. The commitment then to CISWO's successor is a settlement of £17 million, in endowments of £10 million and £2 million, and an annual sum of £1 million from successor coal companies for five years. This is in our view a very reasonable basis on which CISWO's successor can commence and then thrive in the voluntary sector.
On the issue of playing fields, recreational land and property, we have made it very clear that we want to deal sensitively with this issue. We said in Committee that uppermost will be the interests of the welfare organisations, sports facilities and so forth, so that we
1524
ultimately produce a package which is fair to people in the mining communities and to the taxpayer. We have been unwilling to agree broad prescriptive measures in the Coal Industry Bill which are either unnecessary or do not take account of individual specific situations.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, raised the issue of leaseholds. Last week the DTI received a list of leaseholds from British Coal. We understand this to be fairly complete, but it will require some further refinement. We believe that our sympathetic but cautious responses have been vindicated. We are not just talking about land leased to miners' welfares but land leased directly to local authorities, from county to parish councils, a diversity of clubs, including angling, bowling, cricket and gun clubs and to youth organisations, including the guides and the scouts. There are long-term leases, annual leases and no leases at all, but simply informal arrangements, with rents which range from "peppercorn" to near-commercial. We rather suspected that we should be presented with a complex situation and we feel we have been right to resist the broad brush approach tabled in an earlier amendment. If proper solutions are to be reached then each lease will need to be examined carefully, with consultations with those who are tenants and leaseholders.
We do have misgivings about the present amendment on sports fields and recreational land. Once again we believe that this is over-prescriptive. As I have emphasised, we wish to be sensitive to local specific needs and we would therefore expect that land in active recreational use will go to CISWO, local welfares and other organisations. Little may remain with the Coal Authority. It has never been the intention for the Coal Authority to be a long-term landlord, as would happen under subsection (5) (b). The Coal Authority will have limited powers, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to obtain new property but only if this will enhance a package of property which they hold and intend to sell at the earliest opportunity.
We are also concerned about subsequent disposal, when land had first been freeholded to CISWO, to a local welfare or other local organisation: that is subsection (5) (a). The trustees of CISWO and the local welfares, in exercising their obligations, will need to keep in mind the best interests of the mining and former mining communities they serve. The trustees must be allowed to take decisions which are for the greater good of social welfare in mining communities. I would therefore hope that in the light of my earlier announcements the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I just say that I do hope I have not caused any consternation by my mentioning the business of the £2 million? I am glad to see that he is smiling, because I saw some toing and froing and then my noble friend on the Front Bench said that I knew more than he did: it must be the first time that has ever happened. So I do apologise if that was the case, but I

1525
have to say that the letter I received was not marked "confidential". Had it been so marked, I would not have dreamed of raising it at this stage, or indeed at any other.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not believe that the noble Lord has acted in the slightest way improperly. He may well often know things that his own Front Bench does not know.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it happens very frequently, and it is probably all my fault.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the response that he has just made. In the first place, he has shown that the Government have gone some way, though not the whole way, towards meeting the concerns that were so vigorously expressed at Committee stage and which have been re-expressed again since. I am pleased that the sums which are now to be dedicated to this good cause are going to be increased at the end of the five-year period, which was the point giving us most concern. The noble Viscount seemed to be more optimistic about the chances of raising money in the private sector than some of the rest of us are—those of us who have been involved either in trying to raise money or in refraining from over-contributing. We have been at both ends of the spectrum. Let us see what turns out.
I would like to make two points. First, I hope we can assume that there will be something on the face of the Bill to indicate that these arrangements are in place. I am getting a little bit concerned because everything about this Bill is agreed in such a way that it does not find its way into the Bill. I hope that we are not getting into a new sort of legislative situation. We have hitherto been concerned with secondary legislation as being one of the things we ought to worry about, and now we are going to be concerned because the Bill does not in fact mention what has been agreed. So I do hope that we can look forward to some amendments from the government side on Third Reading which will confirm what they have planned both as regards the sums of money involved and as regards the playing fields and the land to which the noble Viscount has referred. Secondly, I hope that this matter can be kept under constant review. If the moneys from the private sector do not eventuate and if the need is still there, as we suspect it will be, I hope this will be regarded sympathetically at the time. Having made those two points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Designated mining museums

—(1) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by statutory instrument, after consultation with the Authority, designate one or more museums as a "designated mining museum" for the purposes of this section.

(2) Each designated mining museum which includes underground areas open to the public shall have available to it, free of charge, the services of a mines rescue service established under the provisions of section 55 of this Act.

1526

(3) Any historic artefacts found, by a licensee under Part II of this Act, during the course of mining operations shall become the property of the Coal Authority, which shall offer any such artifact to a designated mining museum in the relevant area within one year of its becoming the property of the Authority.

(4) The Authority shall be required to provide or secure the necessary maintenance and other services to enable all designated mining museums to continue in operation, and, in pursuance of the discharge of this duty, may make it a condition of any licence granted under Part II of this Act that the licensee is required to provide maintenance and other necessary services to any mining museum designated under this section.

(5) The Authority shall make it a condition of any licence granted under Part II of this Act that the licensee shall be required to offer any mining equipment or other machinery, tools, artefacts, etc., as they become obsolete, to a designated mining museum in the areas in which the mine at which they were used is located.

(6) The Authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants to any designated mining museum.

(7) Any Order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whose sudden illness detained him in hospital, I rise to move Amendment No. 29. I am sure that all noble Lords will join with me in wishing him a speedy recovery and in sending to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, our best wishes. Perhaps the best medicine for the noble Earl will be a good outcome to the debate this evening.
I treat Amendment No. 29 as a probing amendment. The situation has changed, since the amendment was tabled, as a result of the Minister's reply to a Written Question by the noble Earl on 9th June. At col. WA 82 the Minister said,
"that transitional funding of £900,000 over three years should be made available to the Yorkshire Mining Museum, the Scottish Mining Museum and the Big Pit Mining Museum in South Wales to replace the help-in-kind currently provided by British Coal".
The reply added that those payments,
"amounting to £100,000 a year for each museum for a period of three years will be made available to the Department of National Heritage, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office as appropriate".
I thank the Minister for that reply. We are grateful to him for his recognition that there is a case for supporting the three designated mining museums. However, my gratitude does not stop me examining the provisions indicated. I understand that it is not politic to look a gift horse in the mouth but on this occasion I must do so on two accounts: first, on the adequacy of the grant and, secondly, on its distribution.
I must remind the Minister of the difference between the three museums mentioned in his written reply. Two of them, the Yorkshire Mining Museum and the Big Pit Mining Museum have an underground element; the Scottish Mining Museum does not. The Yorkshire and South Wales museums have similar financial requirements. Therefore, I propose to take the Cap House Museum in Yorkshire as an example. The cost of keeping the underground mine at Cap House colliery is £336,750 per annum or, if we exclude what would be necessary if there were no underground element, £296,670 per annum. That includes the salaries; for example, of the mine manager, the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer and underground guides. The amount includes services supplied by British Coal, the main elements of which are supply and maintenance of

1527
environmental monitoring equipment, the supply of operational equipment, pumping, the Mines Rescue Service and emergency winder service. Lastly, it covers operations, the main elements of which are underground repairs, Mines and Quarries Inspectorate requirements and power-electricity for underground and for the winder. It can be seen from those figures that the amount suggested by the Minister is far from satisfactory. It is less than one third of the cost of the underground element of the Yorkshire and South Wales museums.
My second point relates to a fair distribution of the proposed £300,000-£100,000 per annum to each museum. The important clauses are Clauses 2 and 4 which apply only to the Yorkshire and South Wales museums because they deal with the underground element which is the most costly. Clauses 3 and 5 deal with artefacts and obsolete equipment and machinery. That applies to all three museums but is less costly.
The amount of help received by the Scottish Mining Museum-solely towards its collection and not to its running costs -is approximately 10 per cent. of the combined amount required by Big Pit and the Yorkshire Mining Museum. All three museums receive machinery for their collections from British Coal. Therefore, even if the split between the three museums-the Scottish Mining Museum and the two museums with an underground element-were 10 per cent., 45 per cent. and 45 per cent., then the Scottish Mining Museum would still be receiving almost complete replacement of the value of its collections while Big Pit and the Yorkshire Mining Museum would be receiving nothing for their collections and less than half of what it costs each to run their underground element. In effect, that would mean that the Scottish museum would be running at a profit. That is surely not what the Minister intended; it is certainly not in keeping with what he said in Committee about the need to give the museums incentives to raise their own finances.
I suggest that the best option is Amendment No. 29, which would place responsibility for maintaining all three museums on the Coal Authority. If the Minister is unable to accept that, then I must put to him a number of questions. First, will he reconsider the total amount of grant so that it can be raised adequately to cover the requirements of the two underground museums? Secondly, can he give an assurance that the grant can be renewable after three years; that is, after the first three years of transitional grant? Thirdly, will he re-examine the division of the grant to cover the appropriate needs of each museum, because all three museums have their individual needs? Perhaps it could be left to the heritage department to allocate the total grant to each museum according to its needs. I understand, incidentally, according to responses he has made to a number of letters from Members in another place, that the Secretary of State for National Heritage is very supportive of the mining museums.
Fourthly, there is no mention in the Minister's answer about artefacts, machinery and equipment, which are mentioned in subsections (3) and (5). Will the Minister agree to make provision in the Bill for private contractors to be required to supply the designated mining museums with any historic artefacts which are
1528
found during mining operations and to supply obsolete mining machinery and equipment for their collections? Fifthly, if the Minister is unable to respond positively to these points tonight-I quite understand that he may want time to reflect-will he be prepared to meet representatives from all parts of the House in order to discuss how we might proceed at Third Reading?
There is a great deal of concern in all parts of the House about the future of the museums, which are such a significant part of our heritage. A number of noble Lords who would have spoken in support of the amendment, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and others, are not able to be here this evening but they, too, would like to see a satisfactory outcome before the proceedings on the Bill are concluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively and give assurances on the points and questions that I have raised. If he is unable to do so, we shall have to reconsider our position. We shall certainly be back at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment, which was so ably proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, in the unfortunate absence through illness of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, whom we all hope will have a rapid recovery. In a way this is rather similar to the amendment which we have just considered. The Government had noted our deep concern about the mining museums and have come forward with a proposition. That is all to the good. But as the noble Baroness pointed out, it creates problems because two of the museums have underground workings which have to be preserved and which obviously are fairly costly. The question arises of how these funds should be allocated in such a way as to reflect the increased cost of those museums with underground workings. There is also the important point about the artefacts. Unless there is a regular flow to these museums of mining equipment which is no longer required in current operations, they will cease to be a continuous reflection of the industry.
I very much hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will be able to tell us where he stands in relation to the points raised by the noble Elaroness. I should like to hope that at Third Reading, once we have reached an amicable conclusion as to how this matter can be dealt with, there will be something on the face of the Bill about it. At the moment it is just not mentioned at all and, as the Minister will have realised, it is a matter to which many of us attach a considerable amount of importance in view of the great history of the mining industry.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I had not intended to speak at this juncture but I think it would be only right for me, coming from north of the Border, to point out to my noble friend the Minister that once a pledge is given it should not be retracted. I strongly believe that the Scottish Mining Museum requires to be supported. I am not in any way saying to the noble Baroness that her case should go by default. All I am saying, however, is that it is very important that that mining museum should get the treatment that my noble friend has already indicated it will get. If he does not

1529
fulfil the pledge which has been given for the next three years then, as he will well understand when he comes north of the Border, he will not be very popular.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, that is a lovely example of a point that I wish to make. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, the Government have now made an offer to these three museums. They have indeed played political pontoon with them—"take what is on offer or take the risk of getting nothing". They have tried to set the one against the other by making it originally, if I am not mistaken, a three-way split of equal amounts. So the Yorkshire Museum and the Big Pit, which have large underground workings in their museums, would get about 40 per cent. of their essential costs and the Scottish Museum, which has no underground activity, will think that it is Christmas. They will buy drinks all round. They never expected to get anything like that amount. Immediately the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, with what I must say is commendable commercial skill, is on his feet saying, "You cannot go back on what you have originally given". It is an old trick and an obvious one, even for this Government.
I should like to know how the Department of National Heritage, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office are obliged to split up this gift horse as appropriate. It seems to me that this is to toss a bone into the middle of the playing field and then release the dogs and say, "Fight over it as best you can". I hope that I am being unduly cynical. I know that the Minister is an honourable opponent and a reasonable and a fair-minded man. I know that he will realise that that puts these museums into an absolutely intolerable and unfair position and that he will feel able to think further on this matter.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, at Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, when the inclusion of the new clause under Amendment No. 85 was moved by my noble friend Lord Swinton, 15 Members of the Committee in your Lordships' House gave their views on the importance of the three national coal museums which now exist in the United Kingdom. I believe that a very unusual occurrence took place that evening and one which does not often occur in your Lordships' House. I refer to the fact that every one of the speakers from all sides of the Committee were in complete and amicable accord about the issues at stake. I doubt whether that will set a precedent, but I certainly hope that it will be repeated this evening.
My noble friend the Minister, speaking for the Government, showed a great deal of sympathy for the reasons behind the amendment and I hope that he will not mind if I repeat one short sentence from his speech. He said:
"I recognise [from the speeches] the tremendous strength of feeling that has been demonstrated all around the Chamber … and the arguments that have been put forward".—[Official Report, 3/5/94; col. 1111.]
I feel that that is a true summing up of the atmosphere in the Chamber. I am sure that all who spoke that night
1530
will appreciate the efforts that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has made to reach a satisfactory compromise. It is a pity that, after all those efforts, what is on offer falls so very short of what is required.
What is the offer? It seems to be this: for three years the mining museums will receive a fixed sum of money by way of financial support, but at the end of that period the Government will wash their hands of such a trivial matter. This is not a trivial matter and should not be treated as such. What is really required is an index-linked guarantee that the museums will receive sufficient financial support to replace that given in the past by the Coal Board. After all, it is by the act of privatisation from which the Government will receive some very large and unspecified sums of money, that the museums will be deprived of this support. In all fairness it is the duty of the Government and in the interests of the British people that the relatively small sum of money required to replace any such loss of revenue incurred by privatisation is made good. If that is not done there is more than a serious danger that 1,000 years of history which has gone into the making of the industry with its developments, its skills, acts of heroism and its tragedies will be lost to future generations.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. I do not know why the Minister is frowning cynically. As he has already gathered, this is a most important subject.
I visited Cap House Colliery Museum—I cannot speak of the others—and was amazed at how well it has been kept. It is funded by Wakefield District Council and British Coal. It is perfectly safe for school parties, mining students and tourists and shows the history of the state of the art of coal-mining from hand-got coaling to mechanised mining. It is a marvellous part of our industrial heritage that should be preserved. It services all Yorkshire primarily, but receives parties from all over the country.
British Coal mines have helped it to survive with gifts of equipment and professional advice. We are afraid that when the pits are privatised, much of that is likely to cease, especially the gifts of mining machinery. The estimated loss to the Cap House Colliery Museum if all British Coal's assistance ceases is in the region of £80,000 to £100,000. As the Minister knows, if that happens it will place the future of Cap House in jeopardy. I am pleased to learn of the possible financial assistance. I know that the elected Members from West Yorkshire were fobbed off by the Minister in another place when he told them to advise the mining museums to look after themselves. I hope that there will be a change of heart.
Do we not have some responsibility for assisting with the upkeep of a rare industrial museum? I guess that some other types of museums receive Arts Council grants, subventions, professional advice from government arts departments and so on, but not pit museums. But should not the Government and the Coal Authority recognise the importance of such museums as an aid to coal-mining, an ally, in fact, playing a prominent part in

1531
the educational aspect of the Coal Authority's activities? For a sum that will be paltry to such as the Coal Authority, why cannot they accept and pay that small financial supplement to ensure the future of the Cap House Colliery Museum?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am very pleased to support this amendment in the name of my noble kinsman concerning the mining museums, which was; so clearly and comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
The noble Earl, my kinsman, like myself, is very grateful for the work and effort that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has put into this matter of the mining museums and for what he has said and done. The Minister, I am sure, and anyone else who has visited the museums cannot help but be impressed by what has been done to make them so interesting and exciting. They are the very example of teaching history during a leisure activity. The greatest excitement is being able to go underground. I have visited the Yorkshire museum and was very impressed with the excellent layout and facilities, which included accessibility for disabled people.
Yesterday I met a man who last year had taken his family to Big Pit in Wales. When I told him that Members of this House were seeking assurances for the long-term continuation of those museums, he said, "If they did not continue, it would be a tragedy. You must see that they are safeguarded". Everyone I have met who has visited the museums has been most enthusiastic and impressed by them.
When I broke my back, I met during my time in hospital and afterwards many miners who had become paraplegics due to accidents down the mines. It is because I have heard many stories of accidents and the bravery of comrades who risked their lives to help others that I feel so strongly that an important part of our history should be passed down from generation to generation. If in the future the museums closed, a part of history would close too.
The answer given to my noble kinsman says nothing about the other items in the amendment regarding the private contractors supplying the mining museums with historic artefacts found during the course of mining operations and with obsolete mining machinery for the collections.
We may be talking about safeguarding mining museums but because of the underground facilities, Big Pit and Cap House colliery must have all the necessary health and safety and rescue cover. Maintenance must be kept up and staff have to be trained.
I can assure your Lordships that these museums are well worth preserving. They have moved with the times and provide shops and restaurants to make money. There is interest for everyone; for instance, the machinery, the ponies, the baths, the lockers, the pits and the displays of mining through the ages.
I wish to congratulate all the people who have put so much time and effort into establishing such excellent facilities. We do not now want to lose them. Will the Minister say what will happen if funding dries up after three years? In Committee there was a great deal of
1532
support for this measure. It was supported by a former Prime Minister and a former chairman of the tourist board. There will be a great deal of support on Third Reading too.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am told by the staff of Big Pit that there has been no estimate of the correlation between the costs to British Coal of providing various services in the past and the likely future costs to the museums if they themselves have to pay for securing these services on an open and privatised market.
I received a letter from them only this morning. It is clear that there is anxiety about apparent failures to make an adequate computation of what the real situation is likely to be for the museums. At present they receive a great deal of unpaid help from British Coal and they have no guarantee that the private coal mines will follow that up.
I wish to make a further point. The staff of Big Pit point out that:
"Some of the most important opportunities for collection of artefacts and operational spares present themselves when working collieries close. It is inevitable that the bulk of such closures will occur almost immediately".
Obviously, they have no confidence that the private operators will let them have them for nothing. The letter continues:
"we clearly need significant additional funding immediately, simply in order to acquire, transport and provide for storage of the material concerned".
Those two issues are worrying them most strongly.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, as one of the Peers who some months ago signed the letter on this subject to The Times, it would be churlish not to show some gratitude and thanks to the noble Lord for the financial help that has been offered. Nevertheless, while I do not want to be accused of looking a gift horse in the mouth, it has not been done properly. It stinks a great deal more of the financial politics of the Treasury than of any knowledge of the running of museums. One wonders whether the Museums Commission was consulted. As a former president of the Museums Association, and with experience of running a museum, I can say that museums are expensive to run and rarely make a profit.
Three years may be long enough to concentrate the mind, but it will not give potential sponsors any time or confidence to make any long-term investments in facilities for that museum; nor will it give any time for marketing to get going. Therefore, the problem facing the museums will be a slow death unless some flexibility is shown on behalf of the Government to keep the finance going after that time. The amendment also refers to artefacts, which must be housed and maintained. It is no good moving them and expecting them to look after themselves.
Britain's gift to the world was the Industrial Revolution. That revolution was fuelled by coal, the coal which made Britain prosperous. Coal is king no more. It would be tragic for future generations to be denied the opportunity to go underground to appreciate the conditions in which men, boys and animals toiled in harness and made British industry prosperous. Coal is

1533
part of our island history. It is absolutely vital that those mining museums should be kept going not just for three years but for a long time in the future.
9.30 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment and have great hopes of the Government's generosity. As other noble Lords have said already, the offer of help by the Government is extremely welcome. However, there are still one or two problems.
The Yorkshire Mining Museum and the Big Pit are keeping our industrial heritage alive for future generations by running their museums with an underground section. Will the Minister say whether the initial funding will be renewed or, if not, will the Government agree to a lump sum of £900,000 being allocated for distribution by the administering bodies, which should decide on the allocation to the three mining museums?
Cap House, the Yorkshire Mining Museum, tries to earn money by having shops and restaurants, but I understand that private coal operators feel that they would never be able to support them at the same level as British Coal has done in the past.
I have already mentioned our industrial heritage, which the mining museums are helping to keep alive. The mining museums also contain national treasures and bring history to life for those schoolchildren who are fortunate enough to live sufficiently close to them to visit them to see and feel the historic artefacts for themselves.
Today, when so much is being done in other spheres of activity for disabled people, the Yorkshire Mining Museum and, I believe I am correct, the Big Pit cater for disabled people. Certainly in the Yorkshire Mining Museum wheelchairs are welcome at every stage, and no doubt that is so also at the Big Pit. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton has been down in the cage to the bottom of the mine in her wheelchair and was taken round by a miner. She said that the facilities for disabled people have been especially well thought out there.
Of course all that costs money. It would be tragic if all that history were lost. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be generous and that our plea will not go unheeded.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, for the reasons which have already been so clearly stated by my noble friend, I wish to support the amendment.
We have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald, that an amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was looked upon as a matter of considerable importance by the Committee. Noble Lords will know that there was a procession of witnesses bearing testimony to the value of the three museums. They made an extremely powerful plea for their preservation.
In Committee the amendment was left on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would have a look at the position to see whether the Government could offer any assistance. I am sure that the House will be
1534
grateful to the Minister for the care with which he has considered this matter. However, although the offer is welcome, for my part I believe that it is inadequate.
I shall not repeat the arguments which have been advanced by many noble Lords, but there are two points that I wish to raise and I should be grateful if the Minister will deal with them in his reply. First, has that offer been discussed with the officials at the museums? Those are the people who know precisely what is the position and what the deficit will be. Has the department asked the museums for a business plan to show how income can be generated and whether savings can be made?
Secondly, if the Government take the view that they cannot increase the global sum that is on offer, has the department attempted to quantify the costs which would be consequential upon the closure of the three museums in terms of unemployment and maintenance of the pits to prevent pollution and subsidence?
It seems to me that the latter are factors which should be taken into consideration if the Government are pleading that they cannot increase the global sum available. I have no further points to make, but I believe that all the points raised deserve an answer. If that answer is not satisfactory, I venture to believe that we shall return to the issue on Third Reading.
Lord Feversham: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment, although, as the noble Baroness said, it is a probing amendment. I had quite a few points to make, some of which have not in fact been made. However, I shall not make them because I know what the Minister is thinking; indeed, I am quite close to him here. I can see from the number of heavy sighs and the endeavours to get to his feet to terminate the proceedings on this amendment that the Minister actually understands that on all sides of the House — that is, behind him and to the left and right of him— despite the Government's change of mind, there are still people in the Chamber who feel that the matter has not quite been got right and that the problem has not been solved. I can see that the Minister understands that: it is the main thing he should understand.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, put his finger on it —or, perhaps, failed to do so—when he accused the Government of a change of heart. On the Cross Benches, it is my experience of the Government, and sometimes of all governments, that they do not have changes of heart; they have changes of mind. What is needed is a change of heart; what we have had, I believe, is a change of mind.
The way that mind has worked is that the Government have said, "Hello, we are going to have a bit of a problem about the mining museums; there will be an almighty fuss. There was an almighty fuss in Committee and there is an almighty fuss brewing even at Report stage, although it is slightly restrained. We'll do something to resolve it". So, like most Tory governments—and, indeed, sometimes Labour governments—they think that money will solve the problem.
That is a change of mind. A change of heart requires a little more. It requires a real understanding of the problem about which people are making a fuss. What I

1535
like about the amendment is the fact that it talks about things that I believe are needed in a change of heart. For example, it talks about safety. And it talks about trying to help such museums to survive through provisions to ensure that artefacts come their way. It will not cost a great deal of money. However, the people who are trying to run the museums will be given the confidence to go forward and, if necessary, raise money from the private sector, and so on. That is what worries me. So often the Government would benefit more with the voter if the changes of mind were in fact changes of heart.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, for not giving us the benefit of his full speech, even if he felt that some of the points that he intended to make were not in fact mentioned. I rise to reply to the debate with some disappointment; indeed, it has not been the debate I was expecting when I entered the Chamber earlier, especially given the announcement I made last week.
I believed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood said, that the amendment had been tabled again to probe but also, perhaps, even to congratulate the Government on coming forward with such a substantial amount of money. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for at any rate congratulating the Government for doing so. I too join with other noble Lords in wishing my noble friend Lord Swinton a speedy recovery. He is greatly missed from these Benches.
When we discussed the matter in Committee, I undertook to give careful consideration to the problem of replacing the help-in-kind which British Coal currently gives to mining museums. I did not need a change of heart because I think that my heart was always in the right place. I have been to Cap House Colliery, as I explained in Committee, and I very much enjoyed the underground experience. I had some discussions with my noble friend Lady Trumpington who speaks for the Department of National Heritage in this House. Together we came to the conclusion that something needed to be done. It was on that basis that we were able to convince those who needed to be convinced that the Government should come forward with a deal. That was the genesis of the £900,000 which is by any measure a substantial amount of money. Some noble Lords have said that it is not enough. I do not understand on what basis it is not considered to be enough because this is a step into the unknown.
The museums have not yet tried to raise more funds from the private sector. The museums do not know how willing private sector companies will be to offer expertise, health and safety advice and other such advice free. Given that so many noble Lords believe these museums to be second to none —I agree that they are certainly excellent examples of the kind of museums we should have in this country—why cannot they increase their custom base? The answer is that too many of us look to the taxpayer to solve problems which can be solved elsewhere.
Furthermore, I do not believe that we should require the new mining companies to provide help-in-kind. Naturally I would welcome any voluntary contributions that these companies feel able to make. It must be up to
1536
the successor companies to offer their obsolete equipment to mining museums, but that must be for them to decide. Can it really be right for this House to oblige people to give away their property, albeit for a good cause? Can that really be right and would it not be far better for us to rely on the voluntary principle?
I am no great expert on the question of artefacts but, if they are discovered, why should they be required to be sent to the mining museum? Might there not be many other local museums equally worthy of receiving these artefacts; or if they are so good perhaps they could be sent to the British Museum or to other national museums? Why is it that they must be sent to the mining museum? I believed that the best way of dealing with this issue was to find the money to enable the museums to buy in the expertise where necessary. The Government believe these museums are important. The issue is pound notes.
Many noble Lords have asked about the three-year funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned it. I cannot think of other occasions when we have given funding for more than three years. I believe that three-year funding provides the breathing space for museums to work out their longer term strategy. That is not saying no to further funding because I believe these museums are important and they offer a valuable experience. But what it is saying is that these museums must demonstrate that they have sought to maintain themselves within the private sector or with help from other public sector bodies, such as local authorities and other such bodies. There is no reason why they should not be able to do so.
The House will recall that, as I understand it, Dr. Faull, the director of the Yorkshire Mining Museum, put the value of the help provided by British Coal at between £80,000 to £100,000. We have taken the. higher of those figures. It was conspicuous in the debate that we had in Committee that a number of noble Lords suggested that the solution was to provide some form of transitional funding. Of course when it is provided noble Lords then say that it is not enough.
I rather regret the tone of the debate that we have had this evening. I hope that the House recognises that the offer that has been made is not so much a generous offer as an honest offer as a result of the appeals that were made at the Committee stage.
Finally, I turn to the question of redistribution. I believe that the fairest way is to divide the money equally. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, an offer made is not easily retracted. If the case is so obvious to the mining museums, there is no reason why they should not come together and treat the £900,000 as a single lump sum and divide it up among themselves. That would show the true spirit of voluntary co-operation which I gather is indigenous to working practice in the mining industry.
I believe that through this exceptional support the Government have responded constructively and positively to the very strong views expressed from all sides of the House on 3rd May. There is another stage in the consideration of the Bill, the Third Reading, next

1537
week. I hope that before then the Government and noble Lords around the House will have agreed that that is the very best that we can do.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for their support. There have been some very powerful and moving arguments in favour of the points that I made. I must say that I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. He has not really responded to any of the five questions which I put to him. I am surprised that he did not even respond to the point that I put about meeting him to see whether we could come to a common agreement before Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer that point. I forgot to do so. I am happy to meet anyone who wishes to discuss the matter. I shall be happy to do anything to reduce the amount of time needed to deal with the issue at Third Reading.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister. We shall take up that offer with the Minister, but what he said does not seem to offer much hope. Nevertheless I shall take in all good faith what the noble Lord said and we shall seek to meet him.
It seems to me that to suggest that the fairest way to resolve the matter is for the three museums to distribute the money among themselves is a non-starter. The Minister will know that.
I fully understand and sympathise with the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. The three museums have co-operated and have supported each other. It is a great pity that the offer that the Government have made did not take into account the different responsibilities of the museums. Most of the points that the Minister made related to the underground element of the mining museums and not to the surface mining element which applies in Scotland.
There is one further point that I should like to make to the Minister. He said that we should test what the management of the museums can do. We have been doing that. Those of us who know individual museums know that they have been making every effort to raise funds in addition to the grants that they have been given. In the case of the Yorkshire museum, I know that the director has met with some of the organisations which are likely to be the private operators. They have said that it is impossible to expect them to provide anything like the level of support which British Coal was able to give. They point out that British Coal has been operating a much greater number of pits than there will be after privatisation. It has been able to provide many of the services in-house that the private operators themselves will have to buy in. That is not a viable alternative to the level of support that British Coal has been giving.
I said that it was a probing amendment. I shall read carefully what has been said and will consult with my supporters. We shall take up the Minister's offer of a
1538
meeting. However, he can be assured that there is likely to be a further amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Pensions Provision in connection with Restructuring]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 38:
Page 104, line 9, after ("by") insert ("or in accordance with the directions of").
Page 104, line 12, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 15 and insert ("who have become entitled in respect of any period of employment to be participants in another prescribed scheme are not, as from such time as may be determined in accordance with the regulations, to be entitled in respect of that period of employment to be participants in the existing scheme;").
Page 104, line 17, after first ("of") insert: ("(i)").
Page 104, line 19, at end insert ("; or
(ii) the benefit of any arrangements under which participants in the existing scheme are relieved from any obligation to make contributions;").
Page 104, line 22, leave out ("paragraph (e) above") and insert ("this Schedule").
Page 104, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) for enabling expenses incurred in or in connection with the management or other administration of the existing scheme to be met out of the assets of the scheme;").
Page 104, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) provision for income accruing in respect of assets representing an investment reserve to be added to the reserve;").
Page 105, line 1, after ("amounts") insert ("that would have been comprised in the value of the reserve if assets representing any part of it had not been").
Page 109, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(4) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision for securing that individuals with pension rights under a scheme to which this paragraph applies are allowed to become participants in another such scheme or to renew their participation in the same scheme where, in prescribed cases, they enter the employment of a person any of whose employees are already, in respect of their employment with that person, participants in the other scheme or, as the case may be, in the scheme under which those rights subsist.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendments are essentially of a technical nature. They all involve detailed corrections to the pensions provisions of the Bill to ensure that policies already agreed with the trustees and announced can be implemented in full. The amendments have been discussed in detail with the advisers to the trustees who support them. Perhaps I may give a brief explanation of each of the amendments.
Amendment No. 30 makes it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State can give directions to the trustees in relation to the twin objectives of minimising fund deficiencies and maximising fund surpluses as mentioned in paragraph 5(5) of the schedule.
Amendment No. 31 clarifies that British Coal pension scheme members who continue in employment in the industry and have the option of joining the new industry-wide schemes cannot remain as contributing members of the existing schemes. Such members will, of course, be able to leave their past service entitlements in the existing schemes.
Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 ensure that the staff scheme will be able to fund continuing employee contribution holidays in respect of widows' benefits by means of staged transfers to the industry-wide staff scheme.
Amendment No. 35 ensures that the schemes will be able to make direct payments to their administrators to cover their expenses in connection with the management or administration of the existing schemes rather than making them via offsets to payments from British Coal.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 ensure that a proportion of the income of the scheme fund can be added to the investment reserve and that when payments have been made from the investment reserve to make good a deficiency in its guaranteed fund, the reserve can be replenished from subsequent fund surpluses to the level that it would have been at had the deficiency not been made.
Amendment No. 38 ensures that pensioners and deferred pensioners who rejoin the coal industry will be able to become members of the industry-wide schemes if their terms of employment permit membership and their employer already participates.
I should add that there may be an inconsistency of a technical nature between paragraph 2(12) and the provisions of paragraph 2 which enable the Secretary of State to modify the existing schemes. The Government accordingly propose to table an amendment at Third Reading to remove the inconsistency. The terms of the amendment are currently under discussion with the scheme trustees. I therefore beg to move the amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's word that these are all technical amendments. I see no objection to them other than the fact that if, at this late stage, we can amend the Bill in this way, we begin to lose faith in any other part of the Bill. One wonders whether any of the Bill has been properly thought through. The noble Viscount says, "There may be an inconsistency". For all I know the whole Bill may be full of inconsistencies. Nothing shows more clearly that the Government would have done well to take my advice and to have started again with the Bill.
The Bill is clearly being amended on the hoof. I have no objection to that; I would rather that the provisions were right than wrong. But that is not the way to do business. The hour is quite early. I had felt that perhaps one ought to go through the amendments line by line. However, as we are about to discuss other much more important amendments, I refrain from doing so. This is a bad sign in terms of one's ability to have any faith whatever in the Bill.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord was attempting to make. With every single Bill that I have had the pleasure of sitting through, there has been an ongoing process of fine-tuning. This is fine-tuning. We are putting in place technical, detailed amendments which have been agreed by the trustees. I do not believe that they should give the noble Lord, Lord Peston, any cause whatever for sleepless nights.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in order to clarify what I said, there is no question of sleepless nights. It looks to me as though we shall be up all night with this Bill and the next one with which we are about to deal. My point
1540
was serious and noble Lords should reflect on it. If something as technical as these amendments, right at the heart of the pension matter, can arise at this late stage and at this late hour one begins to wonder about the rest of the Bill. Perhaps the Government will suddenly announce that quite a few other clauses do not make sense.
I am not making a debating point. It is a serious point about the way in which we engage in the legislative process. I do not criticise the noble Viscount. I do not imagine that he was responsible. He is doing the best he can in adverse circumstances, as am I. That is what I sought to say.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Reduction in membership and dissolution of the Corporation]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Abolition of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 19, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall consult the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council in good time before making an order abolishing the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40, with which has been grouped Amendment No. 41. The amendments refer to the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. The Bill deals with this important council in a summary way, merely saying that it "shall cease to exist". We had much discussion in Committee and, as I understood it, the noble Lord said that there were ongoing discussions between themselves —that is the DTI—British Coal, the Consumers' Council and the trade. My first question to the Minister is this: what has come out of those discussions? I hope that it is something positive, because the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council has played an important role in the development of the coal trade and in safeguarding the interests of consumers. Alongside it, there has been the approved coal merchants scheme. I was much associated with founding the scheme, at the time I was in the coal industry.
The objective of the two arrangements was to make sure that there was a properly run, properly conducted coal trade. I fail to see why those safeguards should be abolished when the industry is privatised. I mentioned in Committee that this was the one industry serving the public in a major way for which no provision was made in the legislation for a consumers' council. I instanced electricity, gas and telecommunications and was told that they had been privatised in a different way; that major bodies had been put into the private sector; and that therefore consumer safeguards were essential. That was not, however, so in the case of the coal industry which was being privatised on a fragmented basis, about which some of us have our doubts.
Perhaps I may mention the railways. It seems to me that the railways are on all fours with what is happening with coal. Railway services are being licensed, just as coal mines are being licensed. Yet on 1lth May there

1541
was the first meeting of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, another name for the body which previously existed.
I hope that in response to the modest amendments before us, the Minister will be able to say that the Government are anxious that there should be safeguards for the domestic consumer of coal which the coal industry fully supported in its nationalised guise. It should also be in the interests of private owners that the safeguards in the trade should be continued. I hope that at the very least these amendments will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it was clear in Committee that the Government are hell-bent on abolishing the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, which is a cheap, necessary, efficient service doing a fine advisory and safety job, but which is too small to kick up much of a fuss.
The Chamber of Coal Traders is another independent body which is small enough for the Government to ignore or treat carelessly, but its general secretary has written to us a sensible letter which makes a significant point and asks a pertinent question. Mr. Browne-Clayton (for it is he) says:
"My members consider the matter of safety to be crucial to the future of the domestic coal industry post privatisation. We also believe that the success of the Domestic Coal Consumers Council should continue through further funding by the Government … At the moment, safety in the field is carried by Complete Heat, part of British Coal … Parts of Complete Heat are profitable i.e. the depots which supply spare parts for appliances when the safety experts advise customers that work is required to make their appliance safe. This is where British Coal generates income to try to cover the cost of their advisors, but as I have said, it is not a profitable organisation … My concern is that no one will look after this side of consumer protection after the privatisation of British Coal".
Mr. Browne-Clayton goes on to describe the approved coal merchants' scheme, which he administers, incorporating some 3,000 merchants who are required to abide by a code of practice and citizens charter. He says that the scheme gives a very good service to domestic customers in relation to the burning of solid fuel. The letter continues:
"The issue of safety in the field has still to be resolved. We have been pursuing British Coal and the Government for some months, but each time they come back to us saying that discussions are continuing. As was highlighted during your Lordships Committee debate, gas have a Consumers Council and, as you know, a safety service is provided free for customers. We believe it is about time for the Government and British Coal to come clean, and advise my members as to what they want in this important area after privatisation".
So concludes Mr. Browne-Clayton. I invite the Minister to come clean.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Minister inform us whether his attention has been drawn to the trouble that we have had in South Wales recently over concessionary coal? With the closure of so many pits we lost our sources of Welsh house coal. I shall read from the local Western Mail last week:
"Smoky English coal imports brought a rash of pollution complaints across the Valleys. Council officials were called in and they issued orders to some ex-miners to stop the home fires
1542
burning. The answer to the coal problem has come from the Mid Glamorgan firm of Maxibrite who supply an open-grate smokeless fuel under the trade name of Newflame".
This coal is now to be supplied by British Coal under the concessionary fuel scheme. I shall not read the whole article. It is perfectly clear that even people who were born and brought up in the coal industry have their difficulties about the quality of coal being offered to them as concessionary coal. If that can happen to them, what is the position faced by members of the general public who are not able to buy adequate coal for their coal burning grates or stoves? This is the kind of problem which the domestic fuel advisers are there to protect one from and to advise when things go wrong. That was all in last week's Welsh press so I want to make quite sure that the Minister is keeping up to date with the situation.
Lord Haslam: My Lords, I too have a high opinion of the Domestic Coal Consumers Council. It has been particularly effective, I believe, in ensuring the safety and protection of domestic coal users, of whom, surprisingly, there are 3.5 million in the United Kingdom at the present time. Many of them are elderly and among the less well-off in the community. Many of them are in Northern Ireland.
The council is currently responsible for some activities which would clearly not be valid following privatisation; for example, participating in negotiations on domestic coal prices with British Coal. Surely, rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel", the best solution would be a slimmed-down and more focused Domestic Coal Consumers Council which preserves the commendable experience which already exists within this organisation. I strongly support these two amendments and look forward to hearing that discussions are at present going on between British Coal and this organisation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these are of course amendments with which we dealt in Committee and I believe that we voted on them at that time, so your Lordships have already taken a view as to what should happen to the Domestic Coal Consumers Council. However, there is no harm in reopening the issue and having a further discussion.
Perhaps before addressing the specific terms of these amendments I could respond to the proper concern shown by noble Lords for the interests of domestic coal consumers. I fully recognise the importance of continuing consumer protection and safety arrangements after privatisation. The noble Baroness, Lady White, read out the interesting article and ended by saying that these were the kind of issues with which the DCCC should be dealing. I wonder whether it is actually dealing with them, because it is in existence now. I wonder what it is doing, whether it believes that it has a role, and what its answer might be.
I clearly understand the need for domestic coal consumers to have confidence that after privatisation effective arrangements will be in place to enable them to seek advice or to have their complaints heard. We accept the need for a smooth transition to new arrangements before abolishing the DCCC. That is why the Bill

1543
provides for the abolition of the council to take place on an appointed day, which has not yet been decided. I cannot commend too highly the efforts made by the DCCC to promote safety awareness among domestic coal consumers through its various campaigns. There is also a deep understanding of the value of continually reminding coal consumers of the dangers from unswept chimneys, blocked flues and poor ventilation. This is a message promulgated by the trade, by safety bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and not least by my own department. I have every confidence that all those bodies will continue to promote that safety message and to provide consumers with information and advice.
The real difference between now and some years ago is that there is already a substantial body of consumer legislation which offers consumers the necessary protection. That includes the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The basis for this legislation existed when the DCCC was created in 1946, but it is immeasurably stronger now than it was 50 years ago. In addition, solid fuel appliances will be subject to the provisions of regulations implementing the General Product Safety Directive, which are due to be made later this year. Such appliances will need to meet established standards.
The coal trade has been, and is, actively looking at ways in which it will market domestic coal and attract the confidence of the domestic consumer after the privatisation of British Coal. There will be a period of "shake-down" after privatisation, and that is why we do not wish to see the premature disappearance of the DCCC. The trade has already made progress. In May this year the coal trade introduced a classification system for domestic coal, which embraces imported coal as well as British coal. A similar system has been in operation in Northern Ireland since May 1992. Consumers can be assured that coal which meets the standards of these systems is high quality and safe to burn.
The Approved Coal Merchants Scheme (ACMS) has been dealing with coal users' complaints for many years. It is part funded by British Coal and will remain so until April 1995. I understand that the Chamber of Coal Traders is optimistic that its members will be able to secure funding from suppliers and importers after that.
On guidance and advice, there is a good deal of material produced giving advice on safety in the home in general, and fire and fumes in particular. My department, the Home Office, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) all produce such information. I also understand local fire services and the Chimney Sweeps Association give further information and advice. All those sources of information stress the importance of having chimneys swept at least once a year, of ensuring rooms are well ventilated and of cleaning flues. Citizens advice bureaux also hold much of this information. We are considering whether more might be done to improve safety training for the industry, which will no longer be able to fall back on the expertise of British Coal.
1544
We do not propose to abolish the DCCC until we are satisfied that alternative arrangements are in place. The timing of the abolition of the DCCC will depend on the progress made on developing those arrangements. My officials are keeping in touch with the trade and are confident its members have the commitment and the will to secure consumers' interests post-privatisation. I do not therefore consider Amendment No. 40 to be necessary.
As regards Amendment No. 41, my officials are keeping in touch with the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council on the future arrangements for consumer representation and protection, and the council is itself involved in many of the discussions within the trade. To that extent it is being and will continue to be consulted. That amendment also is therefore unnecessary.
Much has been made of the comparison between this industry and other industries that were privatised. But there is a difference between coal, electricity, gas, telecommunications, rail and so forth. The way that they were privatised created an inevitable degree of local monopoly. That is why they all have regulators and consumer bodies. However, the market for coal is already extremely competitive and will continue to be so. Indeed, that competitiveness is likely to increase over the course of the next few years, particularly if the privatisation process is successful.
I am not against consumer bodies; in fact, I am entirely in favour of them. I am against bodies which no longer have a use. It is my desire that we will not need a DCCC any more. We have not set a date; we shall do so when we conclude our discussions with the Consumer Council.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am reassured on one point; namely, that the Government will not rush the abolition of the DCCC until they are satisfied that they have other arrangements in place. But I am a little puzzled by what the noble Lord said regarding the development of consumer protection legislation. It seems to me that that would apply just as much to all the other consumer bodies that he mentioned. If there is such highly developed consumer protection, why do we need a Gas Consumers' Council, an Electricity Consumers' Council, a telecoms consumers' council and a railways consumers' council? Why should there be one application of general consumer legislation for people who use domestic coal and another for all those other people? I was therefore a little puzzled.
I am puzzled also about the change which the noble Lord seems to think the privatisation will make to the domestic consumer of coal. It will make no difference whatever to the domestic consumer of coal. The coal trade has always been in private hands in the coal industry. Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, the Minister responsible at the time of the nationalisation of coal, decided that the coal trade should remain in private hands. They bought the bulk of their coal from the National Coal Board and its various pits. For some years they have been importing coal. Instead of buying it from those pits of the National Coal Board, they will now buy it from different mining companies. But it will make no difference whatever to the domestic coal consumers.

1545
They will be in exactly the same position. They will still go to their local coal merchant, ask for the quality of coal they want and hopefully be supplied with it.
If domestic users needed the support of the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council in the past, they certainly need it now. Nothing has changed for them and that is what puzzles me about the proposition. Competition will not change. There has always been competition. The Domestic Coal Consumers' Council could go to any merchant it chose. It could buy any coal on the market it wanted to buy. And that remains the case.
I note what the noble Lord has said. I hope that by the time we come to Third Reading we shall be told more precisely what is in mind. I am not at all convinced by the Government's argument against the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. The case for retaining it is exactly the same as it ever was. I hope that we may perhaps be able to address this matter again at Third Reading. In the circumstances, and because of the advance of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Grant of licences]:
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 22, line 10, at end insert:

("(7) Where the Authority proposes to grant a licence and the operations detailed in the application for the licence will not, if the application is granted, give rise to an obligation on the applicant to seek planning permission or any other form of authorisation from a relevant body, the Authority shall before it does so—

(a)refer the proposal to the National Rivers Authority and the River Purification Authority whose area includes any land comprising the area with respect to which an application for a licence has been made; and

(b) consider any representations which the National Rivers Authority or River Purification Authority makes to it during the period allowed for in subsection (8) below.

(8) The period allowed under subsection (7) (b) above is the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the proposal is received by the National Rivers Authority or the River Purification Authority, or any such longer period as may be agreed in writing between the Authority and the National Rivers Authority or the River Purification Authority, as the case may be.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 71. Amendments Nos. 42 and 44 are about starting operations and stopping them. Amendment No. 71 is a simple technical consequence of the first two. They are designed to be helpful, to improve the Bill and to create good relations.
The first amendment is intended to impose requirements in certain circumstances for the Coal Authority to consult with the NRA, or appropriate river purification authority in Scotland, in respect of proposals to grant coal-mining licences. Consultation will take place only where the operator will require no further form of permission—either planning or environmental—in order to undertake its coal-mining activities. Unless the Bill includes such an amendment, the NRA or the river purification authority would be consulted prior to operations commencing only where
1546
either planning permission or some other form of authorisation—for instance, a charge consent—is required. It is intended to address the situation where an operator taking over existing workings may not be aware of the full implications of mining activity on groundwater or pumping regimes.
Perhaps an example will make things clear [Interruption]. Excuse me, that was the fly that has been bothering me for half the evening. But I have now killed it. Your Lordships may care to imagine a situation where, after taking over a mine, a new operator decides to alter the pumping regime from two connecting pumps to one large pump, with the water being pumped from a different location. Above ground the outlet might appear to be the same, with the same quantity of water. But by altering the underground pump arrangements there could be dramatic changes in water quality. Consultation in relation to existing workings and before a licence is granted provides the regulators with an opportunity to make representations or to offer advice in order to protect surface or groundwater.
The second amendment in the group concerns what ought to happen when a licence holder decides to abandon a mine. During the Committee stage of the Bill the Government stated that it will be a condition of the lease between the Coal Authority and the licensed operator that the operator will be required to provide the authority with six months' written notice of its intention to abandon the mine. While the Government gave an assurance to the Committee that they would notify the NRA, or the river purification authority in the case of Scotland, at that point, no indication was given as to precisely when within the six-month period such notification would be forthcoming. The amendment is intended to remove this uncertainty by requiring the Coal Authority to notify the NRA or the river purification authority within seven days of it being notified by the operator. That would add a certain amount of briskness to the exchange.
A period of four weeks would then be granted to the NRA or river purification authority in which to make representations to the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority will not be entitled to give its consent to the proposal to abandon until that period of time has expired. The procedure is important and we had better get it right. Sufficient prior notice is essential if potential problems from minewater discharges are to be identified by reference to geological and other data and proposals for their resolution are to be assessed, verified and agreed by the organisations concerned through the full examination of the proposed mine closure plans.
The third amendment is consequent on the amendments to Clauses 3 and 53 and adopts the definition of "controlled waters" as set out in Section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I hope that that makes everything clear. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for taking up points which I believe I raised at Committee stage. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will remember that when pressed by me on this particular point he undertook to look at what I had said and the

1547
arguments that I had advanced. In the NRA we believe it is very important that we have amendments of this kind in the Bill. It is not satisfactory that the NRA should be involved only at the planning stage. There would be a totally different situation if a new licensed operator was to move in. He might well comply with the basic planning requirements but he might operate underground in a wholly different way with consequences which are extremely damaging to the environment.
It is also of absolutely fundamental importance that the NRA should be brought in to the process of closure early and that it should have every opportunity to influence the outcome. We have practical experience to guide us. We know exactly what negotiations took place between British Coal and the NRA about possible closures in the Durham coal field. We know how important it was to have adequate time to reach agreed solutions and to look at possible consequences.
I hope that this is one of those few occasions on which the Government will actually listen to the strongly held representations made to them and accept these amendments. If they do not accept them in precisely the present form, I hope that they will introduce something which meets the point.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I treat the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, with renewed respect. It is the first time that I have seen blood spilled across the table. He did it very well. If the noble Lord, Lord Peston, missed it, he missed a fine sight.
Amendment No. 42 seeks to give the water regulatory bodies a special role on the grant of licences, where there is an existing planning permission for mining activity. It would require all such proposed licences to be referred to the appropriate body and they would have a fixed time in which to make representations to the authority. This returns to a basic question which we have heard and debated under several heads here and in Committee; namely, what is the proper role of the authority and the grant of licences under this Bill and what is the role of other regulatory bodies?
There is a perfectly understandable tendency to heap more and more responsibilities on to any body which the Government propose to create. In particular, there is a tendency to heap on such a body more responsibilities for the environment. I say again that that is very understandable. Nevertheless, it is a recipe for at the least a duplication of effort and very likely for confusion and muddle.
Our approach is based on the premise that bodies which have been given particular responsibilities should have the right duties and powers for the role which has been conferred on them. In this case that means the NRA and the corresponding Scottish bodies should have the powers to carry out their role. I believe that they do. All discharges to controlled waters must have their consent. Moreover, they are statutory consultees on any planning proposal and so able to make any appropriate representations to the planning authority about the implications of any new development, including coal mines, for the water environment.
1548
We covered these points in discussion of an earlier amendment at Committee stage. What is different about Amendment No. 42 is that it only applies to cases in which the mining can proceed without an application for planning permission—in other words, where there is an existing planning permission. It seems to me that the amendment would give the authority an additional role, that of environmental regulator. If so, that would be undesirable. Environmental regulation should be the business of the bodies which have specifically been given those roles and whose powers and duties have been fully considered by your Lordships on previous occasions. The authority should co-operate with those bodies and I am confident that it will, but its duties and powers should address its particular responsibilities and should not overlap or conflict with theirs.
As to whether there is a need to amend or update existing planning permissions, where they may have been in existence for some time and environmental standards have in the meantime moved forward, I acknowledge that there is an issue to be addressed. The Government recently published their proposals for the reform of old mineral permissions. The implications for coal are being addressed and will be announced separately. I think that altering existing planning permissions is a complex matter and that it should be tackled in the complex way set out in the Government's proposals, with proper safeguards for the holders of the permissions, rather than in the ad hoc way which would follow on this amendment.
Amendment No. 44 is meant to ensure that there will be proper consultation with the appropriate water regulatory body (either the NRA or the relevant river purification authority) before a licensed mine is; abandoned by its operator. It is desirable and necessary that such consultation should take place before abandonment. We have by no means overlooked the question. As I explained on 26th April, the approach that we envisage will be followed. The eighth schedule to the lease contains a covenant from the tenant that he will keep the mine in a satisfactory condition, which is defined as the condition required to ensure that no immediate or potential liabilities fall on the authority. If he wishes to close any part of the mine, he has to give the authority six months' notice and a report on the possible consequences of the closure, with details of the steps that he will then take to secure that the mine remains in a satisfactory condition. The authority will ensure that the NRA is consulted in that process. That has been spelt out in the Revised Coal Authority Explanatory Note. Before agreeing to termination of the lease, the authority will expect the operator to institute any reasonable treatment measures identified, 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 it will be for any other abandoned coal mine.
I think that that is the most effective way of proceeding. The leases of the mines and the responsibilities of the authority will not only secure proper consultation with the environmental regulatory

1549
bodies, but, what is much more important, will also secure that appropriate measures are taken to protect the environment in those circumstances.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 72—
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: No.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord did not, so I shall not reply to it.
I hope that I have given the kind of full explanation that the noble Lord needs to give him more confidence in the regime that will apply post-privatisation.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, before I proposed these amendments, which seemed at the time to be reasonably simple, I thought that I understood them quite clearly. Having listened to the Minister, I am less and less convinced of my own perspicacity. He spoke of duplication here, of muddle and of confusion. He spoke of environmental regulation. I agree that the whole problem of environmental regulation lies deep at the heart of our objections to many parts of the Bill.
I shall need to take advice on what the Minister rather rapidly said. I shall read it carefully in Hansard and I shall test the temperature of the water with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and his colleagues. We may wish to return to this at a later stage or we may not. I do not yet know. Meanwhile there is nothing further to be gained by banging on about this one tonight, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Conditions of licence: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Withdrawal of licences
—(1) Where the Authority is satisfied—

(a) that any person is carrying on any coal-mining operations in contravention of a final enforcement order, or

(b) that any person is carrying on any coal-mining operations in contravention of a provisional enforcement order and the Authority is satisfied that contravention would continue following the making of a final enforcement order, or

(c) that any person is no longer able to finance both the proper carrying on of the coal-mining operations and the discharge of liabilities arising from the carrying on of those operations
the Authority shall give 28 days notice to that person of its intention to revoke the licence granted under section 25(1).

(2) If at the expiry of the period of 28 days, the Authority is satisfied that the person to whom the notice was given is continuing to contravene a final enforcement order or provisional enforcement order or is likely to do so in the future or remains unable to finance the operations in accordance with subsection (1) (c) above, the Authority shall, subject to subsection (3) of this section, revoke the licence entirely.
(3) Where the contravention under subsection (1) (a) or (b) of this section affects one or more sites where coal-mining operations are carried on but those sites do not comprise the whole of the area included within the licence of that person, the Authority may specify the site or sites in respect of which the licence is revoked.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill goes into considerable detail on the issue of enforcement orders providing for provisional and final orders to be made
1550
and for prior notice of breaches to be given. The model licences provide for the withdrawal of licences for breaches but, as we know, those licences are wholly negotiable. Those models can be changed by Ministers from time to time.
That is unsatisfactory, and typically unsatisfactory of a great deal that we find wrong with this Bill. So much of it is tucked away in various drafts, models and bits of documentation which have nothing to do with the Bill. Right at the heart of nearly all the objections that we have heard tonight and at an earlier stage is that so little is actually stated on the face of the Bill. So much is left to other documents, drafts and memoranda about which any Government may say, "That is what we thought at the time but times change. Things are different. We are into a recession, or out of a recession, and it all has to be changed".
We want the degree of certainty which is involved in making an issue into a law to be increased. I hope that noble Lords on these and other Benches will agree that time and again we are being fobbed off with comments such as, "There is no need for anything of that kind to be put into the Bill because the Government fully intend to do this, that or the other". That is at the heart of what we regard as unsatisfactory.
It must be clear that the licence will be withdrawn if fundamental breaches arise, if the companies become unable to fund their operations and liabilities, or otherwise create a substantial problem of whatever nature. As a result of any such problem, the power to revoke the licence should exist and should be seen to exist. In this respect, coal privatisation is not like other privatisations. We accept that the power to revoke licences is not incorporated in other privatised industries but the potential for the coal mining industry to cause loss to third parties and to create exceptional environmental harm is considerable.
The Government state that, as owner of the coal and the coal mines, the Coal Authority is responsible and that this provides some protection. This is only at the time when the licence and the lease of the coal has been revoked so that there is no intervening interest. Given the exceptional nature of the coal mining industry, I believe and we believe that this amendment is a necessary and important addition to this Bill. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord is a little excited about the lack of detail in the Bill. But, of course, that is the whole point. We are trying to provide an important framework and for very good reasons some of the details may be subject to change. It is the kind of flexibility which I hope the noble Lord would like to see. We are trying to make sure that there is a long-term, viable financial future for the coal industry in this country. We can do that. We know from bitter experience that we cannot predict every situation that may occur in the future and that is why legislation is often too rigid.
The purpose of the noble Lord's new clause is to place a duty on the Coal Authority to revoke a licence where it is satisfied that the operator is continuing to

1551
carry on coal mining operations in contravention of a final or a provisional enforcement order; or that the operator is likely to do so in the future; or that the operator has ceased to be able to finance both the operations and the discharge of the associated liabilities.
I entirely agree that there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for the Coal Authority to terminate an operator's authorisation to mine. Indeed, the revised draft model operating licence contains provisions which allow the authority to do just that where the licensee has failed to comply with a final enforcement order.
But it would be wrong to require the authority automatically to revoke a licence. After all, the contravention might be relatively minor and the other remedies available through the courts by virtue of Clause 33(7) may be more appropriate. Revoking a licence, as distinct from the authorisation to mine, brings to an end the operator's obligations and liabilities under that licence, including his obligation as to those affected by subsidence damage. I do not believe that that can be right. Furthermore, I do not consider that that is the effect which the noble Lord believed would occur when he moved his new clause. Therefore, the automatic revocation of the licence envisaged by the new clause cannot be right.
I give an example. Let us suppose that an operator encounters unexpected geological difficulties and is seeking additional funding from his backers, then the circumstances envisaged by the new clause might occur. Revocation of the licence would remove the possibility of a future income stream. That would destroy the prospects of the operator securing additional finance and increase the chances of creditors suffering loss.
Under Clause 2(1) (b) the Coal Authority has a duty to carry out its licensing functions in the manner it considers best calculated to secure that operators are able to finance both their operations and the discharge of the associated liabilities. It must be right to allow the authority discretion to decide how best to implement that duty, but in doing so it will be seeking to ensure that the situation does not arise where an operator ceases to have the ability to finance its operations and liabilities.
It is not that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is wrong. It is that I believe that he has gone too far in seeking an absolute automatic revocation. After that explanation, I hope that he agrees with me.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I do not agree at all. I wish that I could trust the entire corpus of Her Majesty's Government as much as I trust the Minister. Alas, I cannot and I should not be doing my duty in relation to this Bill if I did.
The example which the Minister gave is a special case and he can make a case for a special case. The case that I was arguing was the general principle, which I believe is untouched by the particular instance which he gave. On this issue, neither he nor I will easily meet. There is no middle ground and we cannot do much about that. Therefore, if my noble friends and advisers storm at me with shot and shell, I reserve the right to revisit the situation, but I can do little more this evening than to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1552
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 31, line 14, after ("licence;") insert:
("( ) any provision included in the licence for the purposes of section (Liability for inaccurate information furnished to the Authority) below and any conditions requiring the disclosure of information which may be of the description specified for those purposes;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68.
As the House will be aware, British Coal answers mining searches from solicitors and others. As explained in the Coal Authority Explanatory Note published in January, the Coal Authority will answer them in future and operators will be required to supply information to the authority so that its search answers remain up to date.
At present a purchaser who suffers loss through his reliance on a wrong answer may have a legal remedy against British Coal. But in the same situation in future he might be unable to obtain a remedy if the fault is that of an operator who, in breach of his licence, failed to give the authority the accurate information. Although there are likely to be very few, if any, instances, the purpose of the amendments is nevertheless to address the problem by providing a right of redress for such persons against the operator.
Perhaps I may pre-empt the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It would obviously have been desirable had that point been picked up earlier. It did not become clear that amendment was necessary to overcome the problem, which was identified in DTI officials' discussions with the Law Society, until we had completed the Committee stage. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important to protect people who otherwise might not have had a right of redress. That is what the amendments achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is nice at last to be able to thank the Government for something. Thank you very much. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for Amendments Nos. 46 and 68. It is good to know that the Coal Authority is to provide searches in the future and that it will require regular returns of information from operators as a condition of their operating licence.
It is good to know also that the other issue has been taken care of. We knew that a purchaser who suffers loss through his reliance on a wrong answer because British Coal failed accurately to report its own actions might have a legal remedy against the BCC. We asked whether the same situation would obtain in future if the fault were that of an operator who, in breach of his licence, failed to give the authority accurate information. We now know that he will have right of redress and that is very welcome. However, we hope that that will act as a kind of coal-fired nuclear deterrent to recalcitrant operators.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Persons responsible for subsidence]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 37, line 42, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 43 and insert ("Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 48. The purpose of the amendments is to provide one respondent for all claims made in respect of subsidence damage and to ensure that claimants do not suffer by any failure of licensed operators to pay proper compensation. We have been here before, and I shall try to go through the matter as briefly as I can, but it may take a little longer than the last amendment.
With regard to the subsidence provisions of the Bill, the Minister said in Committee:
"The new regime is as clear as crystal"
That renews a phrase which I believe I mentioned at about 5 p.m. and is in the Official Report for 28th April at col. 910. I believe that I may say, without fear of successful contradiction, that his view is very much a minority one. The proposed arrangements have drawn stinging criticism from all quarters, both within and outside Parliament.
At present, subsidence damage is exclusively the responsibility of British Coal. Under the terms of the Bill, subsidence liabilities will be divided between the private operators and the new Coal Authority. We seem to have got that clear at last. The operators will all be expected to meet claims arising from historic and future mining activity within "defined areas of responsibility", with the Coal Authority responsible for claims everywhere else. That sounds as clear as crystal; however, it is in fact as clear as mud.
The first point to make is that no one disputes the principle that the mine owners should bear the costs of surface damage arising from their operations. However, there is concern that the added burden of historic subsidence liabilities within their "areas of responsibility" could threaten the privatisation process before it even begins. Subsidence liabilities are potentially enormous and impossible accurately to quantify. The image of the situation being like one of those kitchen gadgets that we mentioned previously which you use to take the core out of an apple simply will not work. It is not enough; indeed, it is too complicated both in space and time to be a genuine analogy. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has gone as he seems to have invented the concept. It sounded so easy at the time, but it is not so easy when you try to make it work.
In 1992, British Coal (which knew all about the apple corer business) were required to set aside £249 million on provision for surface damage. Last year it paid out £38 million in damages, plus the considerable costs associated with evaluation and legal processing of claims. For the industry to survive, privatisation must succeed. It hurts me to say that, but I believe it to be the truth. But it will not happen if there is the danger that historic liabilities will outweigh commercial benefits.
Apart from that fundamental concern, the subsidence arrangements proposed in the Bill are a formula for confusion, delay and default. In particular, the individual claimant is faced with a complex and involved procedure which begins with the first major
1554
hurdle of actually establishing who on earth it is who is responsible for discharging the claim. When, for good reason, the claimant is dissatisfied with the outcome there is no sanction to bring against an errant mine operator. The recommendation of the new subsidence adviser—and we will deal with that later—is merely advisory; it has no standing in law. Moreover, there is no specific provision in the Bill that liability for subsidence damage will revert to the Coal Authority and, ultimately, to the Government in the event of an operator becoming insolvent. Of course, we have heard it time and again across the Dispatch Boxes, but nowhere is it present in the Bill. It is one of those things which, although stated 50 times, can be walked away from if circumstances are deemed by the Government to change at any time. The Minister has given some verbal assurance that the Coal Authority would take ultimate responsibility. But, once again—and let this be the chorus for tonight—it needs to be confirmed on the face of the Bill.
Uncertainty on this issue is concerning the Association of British Insurers and has already manifested itself at ground level where householders whose properties are at risk of subsidence are being refused structural insurance or, at best, offered greatly increased premiums.
Then there is no formal mechanism for dealing with the disputes over responsibility that will inevitably arise between operator and operator or operator and Coal Authority. A great deal of reliance is pathetically placed upon the proposed interaction agreement which puts the emphasis on mutual agreement to settle grievances between interested parties—the kind of thing which King Solomon might well have understood when presented with a baby being claimed by two mothers. Why did they not have an interaction agreement? Why did they not settle their grievances as interested parties by getting together around a table and talking it all out? Human nature is just not like that. This arrangement is quite inappropriate and is no substitute for a pro-active regulatory body.
These amendments propose a sensible solution to these difficulties by making the Coal Authority responsible for the handling of all subsidence claims and giving it powers to obtain from the private operators appropriate security to cover the cost of claims and associated expenses. What could be more simple?
These amendments would not shift the existing duties of the Coal Authority very far. Already it has responsibilities for subsidence claims outside the licensed areas and as the licensing body it has a role in ensuring that the terms of the licence are fulfilled.
Finally, such an arrangement would have the added and significant bonus of offering a single national compensation scheme backed by a team of subsidence experts similar to that currently provided, to everyone's satisfaction, by British Coal's Surface Damage Unit. It seems such a lovely and simple solution, I cannot understand why the Government do not immediately rise up and accept it. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 aim to make the Coal Authority responsible for discharging all coal mining subsidence claims, including those which we believe should be the responsibility of licensees. Noble Lords will be aware that similar proposals were considered in Committee. It may be helpful if I start by setting out the approach which we have provided in the Bill.
We believe it is important that each mine operator should be responsible for claims involving any lawful subsidence damage which arises within his area of responsibility. We believe that the subsidence provisions in the Bill are extremely straightforward.
We believe that operators should deal directly with those whose property they damage, and that they should have every reason to make dealing with subsidence damage the highest priority. However, these amendments would shield operators from the consequences of their mining and from direct contact with those affected, and would send them a signal that subsidence was not their problem.
In our view it is essential that coal mining companies should have, and be seen to have, real and meaningful responsibility for their own subsidence. This means that they must accept their responsibility to meet claims for damage due to their mining. They should not only have the financial responsibility, as these amendments recognise, but also the direct responsibility for seeing that the claims from people whose property they have damaged are properly dealt with.
We reject the noble Lord's contention that these proposals create confusion. The arrangements under the Bill are very simple. The Government have now decided that the lines of authority will be drawn so as to include only those areas that are likely to be affected by mining carried out from March 1994, as we discussed in the debate on the first group of amendments. Furthermore, the successor companies will be indemnified for the costs of meeting any claims relating to damage within this area where liability had been admitted by British Coal before the sale was agreed.
I have tried to put forward the contention that the arrangements for the settlement of subsidence claims contained in the Bill are simple and straightforward. As we have said, a line will be drawn on the map: if you are inside the line you claim against the mine operator; if you are outside you claim against the Coal Authority. Nothing could be simpler than that. The guidance note which the House has seen will be provided to all those affected. If anyone is still confused they can ask the subsidence adviser.
We believe that we have arrived at the best arrangements for the settlement of subsidence claims. I hope: that having gone over the ground again I shall have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not recognise that, although he may feel that adequate arrangements have been made, virtually no professional operating in this field feels the same way? This is the trouble with the Bill throughout. The
1556
Government have paid no attention to professional views—some interested, some disinterested—and the advice that they have received from outside. The advice is almost unanimous. I should think that on this issue it is unanimous. I am most disappointed to hear the noble Viscount's response to the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I made notes while the noble Viscount was speaking. I wrote down: "He may think that. No one else does". As I was about to get up and say that, the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, got up and said it for me. Clearly two minds in your Lordships' House think the same way.
There can be no real meeting of minds between the Government and us on this matter. We are both of us arguing from prepared positions. We are sitting in fixed trenches and firing at each other. The Government prefer this bewildering complexity to simplicity of procedures. We prefer certainty, speedy settlement and natural justice, which clearly are no part of what they want to see.
We are not going to get any further with this tonight. I doubt whether we ever will. At this hour of the night there is no point in putting the matter to the vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 38, line 34, at end insert:
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of the person with responsibility for subsidence to deposit such sum as is necessary with the Coal Authority to meet the cost of all works reasonably required to prevent any pipeline or flood defence installation being damaged or suffering deterioration as a result of subsidence damage that may be expected as a result of the coal mining operations in respect of which notice is given under section 45(1} (e) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this grouping includes Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, one of which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The others are in the name of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I say that in case the Ministers are unaware that the grouping includes an amendment which they are supposed to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with these amendments and we are aware of the fact.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is fine. One of my problems is that I do not fully understand Amendment No. 50 and I am not sure why it is in the group.
I have one other problem. I had understood from various remarks that had been made in the past few weeks that we would not start to deal with serious amendments at 11 o'clock at night. I have to go on record as saying that this has to come to a stop. It is absurd that we are dealing with this kind of issue now. My amendment is quite important, and we are about to come to another amendment in the name of the. noble Lord, Lord Stanley, which is of overwhelming importance. Noble Lords should know that I was; under the impression that we were not going to do this sort of thing any more, and I certainly think that we should not.

1557
I have no choice; we have to carry on, but this is not remotely the way that serious legislators should consider carrying on.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend again deal with subsidence. Technically they are of a different type. Up to now we have been debating liability for subsidence and have at least explored that issue in some detail. This is a slightly different problem, which is the question of anticipating subsidence as a consequence of various activities and doing something about it in advance.
I am advised that, although the present arrangements are less than perfect, they are regarded as at least reasonably good at dealing with works taking place in advance of subsidence. The matter as it arises under the Bill has been addressed by the Minister. As noble Lords will recall, we have the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The Minister claims that the Act, quite rightly, allows the corporation such responsibility and therefore I assume that it will be within the area of responsibility of the authority or those who take out licences. They will be able, if they so wish, to arrange for anticipatory works. As I understand it, that is discretionary. There is no obligation for them to do that.
Therefore, when we come to the effect of subsidence on pipelines, flood defences, and so on, there are authorities responsible for that; they have a statutory duty. The point I make is that it is unreasonable and unfair that those who have such duties should have to comply with the obligations with which they are confronted when the cause of the problem is not theirs. The cause will be those who engage in mining, and so on.
There should be a duty on the Coal Authority, or on the licence holder who has an area of responsibility, to provide information relevant to subsidence, and the cost of the works which have to be undertaken, in advance of mining. In other words, if the mining is expected to cause subsidence damage to the installations, then there should be information provision and financing beforehand. To leave the matter as it stands exposes people and property to the risk of damage which could be extensive. It might even lead to risks being taken with regard to preventive measures.
I do not doubt that the Bill as written will enable those who suffer to engage in litigation in order to place the liability where it was in the first place. I believe that it would be much better if we had a set of arrangements which would not require such litigation to be undertaken.
I reiterate that I regard the matter as important, but it is a difficult issue and not one which I willingly would wish to discuss at this time or as briefly as I feel obliged to discuss it because of the lateness of the hour. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully even if he is unlikely to be persuaded at this moment. I refer to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby. It is an area in which the expert advice I have received is not on the side of the Government; it is against the Government. Speaking as one who often earns his living from being an expert, I am never one to say that the expert is always right. However, the expert should be
1558
taken seriously. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will say, without coming to a definite conclusion, that he will reflect on the issue further.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I, too, speak to the same amendments, including government Amendment No. 50. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that these are complicated matters which are difficult to deal with at this time of night. However, I am not in control of the timing of the agenda when these amendments arise. This evening our discussions on consumer councils took half an hour. Debate on the mining museums took an hour. I thought that we dealt with consumer councils very adequately in Committee but the subject came back again. No doubt it will arise again at Third Reading. That is the way in which we do business in this House. If that means we have to sit late, it is our fault and we should not complain.
I should like to deal first with the proposal that advance notification should be required. Advance notification of all owners or occupiers—whether or not they are responsible for pipelines and flood defence installations—who may be affected by subsidence is already required and will be so in future under the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991.
Secondly, operators will be obliged by their operating licences to submit detailed estimates of their future subsidence liabilities, including individual assessments of the effects on such structures as pipelines and flood defence installations. Their permission to mine will be conditional on the Coal Authority's approval of those estimates and assessments.
Where preventive measures are to be taken—and it will be in the interest of the licensee that they should be —these will necessarily involve consultation with the person responsible for the structure in question. Moreover, the draft subsidence security guidance note published by my department which sets out what information it is envisaged the Coal Authority will require from operators expressly contemplates discussions with such surface owners.
Under our proposals mining will only go ahead after reasonable notification and proper assessment of its impact, and where it is necessary to involve the other party to forecast the damage he will be involved.
Amendment No. 49 is concerned with security for preventive measures. It is fundamental to our proposals that where it is appropriate the Coal Authority will take security for subsidence damage and that operators who fail to comply with subsidence obligations will risk losing their mining rights.
As far as damage to land drainage systems such as rivers is concerned, the 1991 Act provides that such measures as may be reasonably required by the appropriate drainage authority are to be carried out. If the drainage authority requires preventive measures but the operator neither pays for these to be taken nor takes them itself, it will be in breach of its subsidence obligations and the mining which necessitates the measures can be stopped. Furthermore, any security provided by the operator will have to be calculated with reference to damage which is nevertheless expected.

1559
Turning to pipelines, it is vital that there should be no threat to safety; and there will not be. It is clear that if an operator were to contemplate undermining pipelines, which may contain such hazardous substances as oil or gas, or for that matter flood defences, that company would be unable to do so without in some way putting people at risk.
All employers are obliged by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act to conduct their undertakings in such a way as to ensure that so far as reasonably practicable there is no risk to the health and safety of people not in their employment. Furthermore, all employers are obliged to carry out risk assessment of their activities. If that assessment is found to be inadequate in any way, the HSE can require the activity to cease while a new assessment is prepared.
But we also want to avoid the extensive damage which could result from the fracture of a pipeline. It is inconceivable that an operator will intentionally cause that kind of damage because the cost of his obligations under the 1991 Act would be potentially enormous. We have a safeguard against the danger that he might fail to foresee the damage because he has to submit his proposals to the Coal Authority, which has to approve his detailed assessment of subsidence damage so that it can fix the level of financial security required.
I fully understand the desire to extend the security arrangements we envisage. But there is no need for these amendments because the position is already satisfactorily covered.
The noble Lord said that the arrangements were complicated and would end up in the courts. When one changes a system there is always the potential for litigation. The whole point of legislation is, where possible, to avoid doubt; I believe we have done so, but if it ends up in the courts, then so be it. I hope that at least I have given the noble Lord some comfort that we understand the situation and take it seriously.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister. What he said was immensely interesting and well worth thinking about. But my complaint earlier about our proceedings is precisely that this is not the hour when I feel I can possibly investigate whether what he said is right. As he said it, the explanation sounded quite convincing to me and I am not for a moment saying that he is necessarily mistaken. But whether I would have found it convincing at three o'clock in the afternoon, when I had much more time to reflect on it and when other noble Lords would have been present also to investigate further, I do not know. I shall certainly reflect on the matter between now and our final deliberations.
To emphasise the lateness of the hour, did the Minister talk about his own amendment, or was I asleep during his remarks? If he did, I missed what he said.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have just received a note reminding me that I did not speak about my Amendment No. 50. Clearly, the lateness of the hour has had a greater effect on me than I thought likely. I have a short note on the amendment.
Amendment No. 50 is a technical amendment which ensures that the joint and several liability provisions in
1560
Clause 44 apply to subsidence obligations in respect of which damage is anticipated, as well as those where damage has already occurred.
Lord Peston: Thank goodness for that, my Lords. I really was beginning to despair a little bit. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister.
To revert to my own Amendment No. 49, there is. nothing more for me to say at this stage, except to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Further modifications of the 1991 Act]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 113, line 6, at end insert:
("8A. The provisions of section 44 of this Act, so far as they relate to obligations, liabilities or rights of responsible persons, shall also apply as respects obligations, liabilities or rights by virtue of paragraph 6 or 8 above of persons who would be: responsible persons if subsidence damage occurred; and, for that purpose, references in that section to subsidence damage shall be construed accordingly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Information to be provided by responsible persons]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 46 [The subsidence adviser]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris
moved Amendment No,. 52:
Page 40, line 42, at end insert:
(" ( ) the investigation of such complaints as the Subsidence Adviser thinks fit made against the Authority or one or more of its licensees and concerning the administration of claims relating to subsidence or the abuse of discretionary powers granted under this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we all live and work in difference shapes and patterns. I get better as the light gets darker. I am just extremely pleased that your Lordships' House does not meet at nine o'clock in the morning.
In moving Amendment No. 52 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. The purpose of these amendments is to strengthen the role of the subsidence adviser, the most welcome figure appearing on our scene.
We have of course trodden this path before. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for writing to me on this subject in a letter dated 31st May and for discussing the subject with me at a meeting last week which he so kindly agreed to and which was so helpful. I wish that I could be happy with the case that the noble Lord made then. Alas, I cannot. I still share with many others grave concern about the minimalist and reactive nature of the duties that are to be taken by this person.
We have recent additional evidence to take into account. According to the draft claimants' guide from the DTI, it is proposed that the adviser will have,
"discretion over whether and when to investigate complaints … He can also investigate the abuse of discretionary powers such as unjustified use of stop notices. He also has powers to require information from mine owners, and the fact of this involvement alone may be enough to resolve the problem".
If by requiring information you could solve any real problem there would not be a lawyer left in the land.
The draft guide goes on to say:

1561
"Where he discovers a complaint is justified, he can use a public written recommendation to indicate what steps should be taken: and although this recommendation is not mandatory and does not carry the force of law",
and so on, and so on. The very tone betrays the weakness, the flaccidity, of the powers—or lack of them —that this poor, wretched creature will have to carry about.
Such limited powers are wholly insufficient to ensure a speedy and satisfactory resolution of complaints. The publication of such circumscribed powers will have two unfortunate consequences. Public confidence in the proposed system will at the very least be minimal. At the same time mine owners will be sent a powerful signal that the adviser will have minimal powers to the extent that delay in settling claims could become the accepted norm.
The DTI must realise that the mining operations that survive the privatisation process will be encumbered by two enduring problems: low profit margins and high fixed costs. This is a prescription for companies to delay settlement and minimise costs for damages associated with their operations, not as a consequence of bad character on the part of the operator but as a result of a hostile commercial set of arrangements. They are not all sinners, but they are all businessmen and they are going to take the business way through this situation. Without mandatory powers backed by the force of law it is highly unlikely that the forecast in the draft guide that,
"his [the adviser's] involvement alone may be enough to resolve the problem",
is at all realistic. There will be—there is bound to be —deadly delay.
Last night at a reasonably advanced hour, as I sat at my desk I was casting about for some sort of analogy to try to drive this home to the Minister. I remembered Goldsmith's lines in his poem "The Deserted Village" —your Lordships may not recall it, but go away and look it up: it is a good book. He was describing in this case the village minister and he says of him:
"He tried each art, reprov'd each dull delay,
Allur'd to brighter worlds, and led the way."
And I thought, "That is it. What we on this side want is the village policeman: what the Government have given us is the vicar." I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the House will be pleased to hear that I am not going to offer any competition to the noble Lord and his literary allusions. He does them so much better than I could. However, I should like to refute the central allegation the noble Lord makes, that we have not got a system that is going to work in practice, it is not strong enough, and the mining companies are going to get away with it. They are not.
These amendments concern the appointment and powers of the subsidence adviser. Amendment No. 52 is intended to assist the subsidence adviser by making it an explicit statutory function of his to conduct investigations into complaints made against responsible persons, where they allege maladministration of subsidence claims or the abuse of discretionary powers. I agree that he should be able to do this, but I cannot agree with the
1562
amendment because Clause 46, and the draft regulations which the House has seen, already give him the necessary powers.
Let me explain in more detail. The draft regulations intended to be made under Clause 46 of the Bill provide that the subsidence adviser shall have the function of assisting persons by investigating allegations of conduct of a kind to which the regulations apply. So investigations form an essential part of the assistance to be provided by the subsidence adviser. What may he investigate? The current draft regulations provide that he may investigate allegations that a responsible person has, first, consistently failed to comply with subsidence requirements for the purpose of avoiding his obligations; secondly, in the course of complying with a subsidence requirement has caused damage or an unreasonable degree of inconvenience to any person; or, thirdly, has been guilty of unreasonable delay in taking any step required to be taken by him under the subsidence requirements or has been guilty of maladministration in the discharge of his obligations under those requirements.
Although the final form of the regulations has yet to be settled following the expiry of the consultation period, it is intended that they will follow the lines set out above. Thus, the subsidence adviser will be able to investigate the matters contemplated by Amendment No. 52, which is therefore unnecessary.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, the House will recognise that they are similar to amendments discussed in Committee. If they are intended to ensure that the subsidence adviser can get all the information that he needs to do his job, then I fully agree with this aim. But this is already achieved in the Bill. Amendment No. 53 would place licensees under a statutory duty to assist the subsidence adviser. The Bill already places the Coal Authority under a duty to assist the adviser where it is the responsible person, that is to say when the adviser is looking into matters to do with claims against the authority. A similar duty is placed on other responsible persons by their operating licences, model drafts of which have been published.
The duty on operators appears in licences rather than the Bill because, unlike the Coal Authority, the licensees will not be public bodies, and it would be difficult to enforce the duty were it contained in the Bill. The duty can, however, be enforced if it appears in the licence, because the Bill contains a specific mechanism for enforcing licences. The Coal Authority will thus have powers to make a reluctant licensee co-operate with the adviser. In addition, as a practical matter we believe that the threat of enforcement by the Coal Authority is likely to act as an effective deterrent against non-compliance. If the Coal Authority is considering enforcement proceedings, it may well also consider whether the licensee in question is meeting his subsidence obligations more generally.
Amendment No. 54 would oblige the Coal Authority to provide the adviser with any information and assistance in relation to any of its activities for which the adviser decided it would be reasonable for him to ask. That would apply regardless of whether or not those activities were in any way related to the handling of

1563
subsidence claims. It would greatly and unnecessarily extend his powers to secure information and would then go well beyond those appropriate to the needs of his task. As I indicated in Committee, the kind of information the adviser will want in connection with his investigations will not be in the possession of the Coal Authority.
As I explained, the draft licences which we published include specific provisions which require licensees to provide information needed by the adviser and they include suitable enforcement powers for the Coal Authority. The Bill places a similar duty on the authority to assist the adviser where he is the responsible person. All three amendments are therefore unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw them.
Perhaps I can make one other point. Subsidence claimants will have the right to take claims to low cost arbitration and the arbitrator can make inconvenience awards up to £5,000. A mine operator who fails to meet his subsidence obligations can lose his mining right. Those are strong sanctions. I believe that we have covered the problem.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I listened to what the Minister said. It is, of course, entirely unconvincing. The subsidence adviser is, and presumably will always be, a toothless tiger. As the Minister said, all he can provide is assistance. He can solve nothing; he can compel nothing; he can alter nothing that comes before him. He has the power to investigate. That will strike terror into the hearts of the recalcitrant! He can refer things to someone else who might conceivably, in certain circumstances, given a lot of goodwill and a following wind, be able even to do something. And the Coal Authority must assist him. That duty is not more powerful than the duty to assist an old and crippled lady across the road. Even the Coal Authority can only threaten. The Coal Authority turns out to be the tame puppy of the Government and the subsidence adviser is no more than a flea on the puppy's fur.
None of us is convinced on this side; none of us is satisfied. However, it looks as though we shall have to live with this wretched thing since the Government are utterly unconvincable about this kind of issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Amendments of the Opencast Coal Act 1958]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 120, line 29, at end insert:
("Conditions to be satisfied before a compulsory rights order is made
A compulsory rights order shall not be made unless it is shown that it has not proved practicable to obtain the right by private arrangement for any of the following reasons—

(a)

(i) that the coal in the relevant land is required to supply a market which cannot adequately be met from other sources which are currently being
1564
worked or capable of being worked where a coal mining company has secured all the relevant planning and other consents and has acquired the necessary interests in land, and

(ii) that the persons, or any of them, with power to grant the right unreasonably refuse to grant the right in respect of the whole or any part of the relevant land which it is necessary for the holder of the licence to occupy in order to extract the coal;

(b) that the amount of marketable coal to be extracted as a result of the compulsory rights order being made exceeds, 250,000 tonnes;

(c) that there is a danger that the coal will remain unworked on account of other development proposed on the; relevant land;

(d) that the persons with power to grant the right, or any of them, cannot be ascertained or cannot be found; or

(e) that the persons from whom the right must be obtained, or any of them, have not the necessary powers of disposition, whether by reason of defect in title, legal disability or otherwise.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for pointing out that these amendments are of major importance and should not really be discussed at 11.17 at night. But I must say to my noble friend that, although there is an empty Chamber, many noble Lords are here in spirit. They support me more vigorously than I am able to do myself and will continue to do so unless the Minister gives me a very reasonable reply.
Throughout discussion of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has repeatedly assured your Lordships that CROs will be invoked only in the most extreme cases. I have held that if that is the Government's view it would be far better to do away with them now rather than in 1999. However, much to my regret—and I believe your Lordships' regret also—the Government refuse to do so. Yet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde continues to tell your Lordships that they will only be used as a last resort.
I have therefore taken my noble friend at his word. Amendments Nos. 55 and 56—I am speaking to both —tabled in my name, spell out the conditions that must be met before a CRO is granted. I hope my noble friend will agree that they reflect not just your Lordships' views, but also the Government's, although as usual I am more than happy for the Government to redraft them.
Amendment No. 55 states clearly in the first paragraph that the compensation would be considered reasonable if the agreement had been made without compulsion; that is to say, between a willing grantor and a willing grantee. That is the crux of my amendments and it merely reinforces the principle of the open market. I have to say that I thought a Tory government would be quite keen on that principle, but quite obviously I have been mistaken. The amendment then explains in detail how this valuation is to be obtained. I hope my noble friend will agree to those provisions. If not, I am sure that he will try to explain to your Lordships why he does not and I shall do my best in summing up to explain why he has been misled by his department.
Before I move on to the first amendment, I gather that the Government are having second thoughts about the minerals clause which now appears as paragraph 22 in Schedule 8. Perhaps when my noble friend replies he

1565
might be so good as to tell your Lordships the Government's latest views on that; in particular, whether the Government accept, first, that the percentage value of 12.5 per cent. is too low (these minerals are, after all, the owner's minerals); secondly, whether the Government accept the need for a definition of "market value" and the date for its calculation; and, lastly, that the provision should apply only to a CRO made after Royal Assent.
My Amendment No. 55 spells out the conditions that must be met before the Secretary of State grants a CRO. Paragraph (a) states quite clearly that the land in question is needed to supply a market that cannot be met elsewhere. I would remind your Lordships that there is an overall surplus of coal at the moment. Surely we should be very careful before we rip up more countryside. The paragraph also allows a CRO to be made if the owner of the site has behaved unreasonably. Paragraph (b) merely repeats the existing position; that a CRO cannot be granted to extractions of coal under 250,000 tonnes. Paragraph (c) is a standard clause and paragraphs (d) and (e) deal with the problems raised by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and indeed are in line with item (d) on page 29 of the Government's revised explanatory note.
Finally, I accept that there are a number of detailed points contained in the amendments that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde may wish to consider. But I hope he will accept that they spell out an alternative to deleting CROs altogether from the Bill. I hope, too, that between now and Third Reading a satisfactory compromise can be reached. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Stanley if only to demonstrate that there are others who are prepared to stay up until this late hour of night with many behind me to support this amendment.
My noble friend the Minister tried to console us at the Committee stage by saying:
"CROs only have an effect if confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment—or the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Wales, as appropriate … My right honourable friends will only confirm a CRO if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. In determining whether to confirm a CRO, they will have to have regard to any representations received from the land owner".—[Official Report, 3/5/94; col. 1018.]
That is very nice of them. During the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was induced to remind the Government that the free market was missing from these arrangements and to remind my noble friend of Adam Smith. I was glad to see that enlightenment is penetrating that side of the House.
I also felt that it was a point which my noble friend the Minister might well be reminded of. The agricultural and landowing industry is firmly under the control of two Secretaries of State already, both for the environment and agriculture. It introduces a third element when the Department of Trade and Industry will presumably have a say in what is the public interest in which a CRO would be granted. Is the public interest
1566
that the Government should get a proper price for the land which they are selling under this arrangement or not?
I believe that it is very unreasonable to leave this to the discretion of the Secretaries of State jointly between themselves to sort out the public interest in this affair. How are they to judge what are the eccentric long-term objectives possibly of some landowner with the plans for his estate? How are they to determine the compensation on land for which a landowner might have other plans? How much are they prepared to pay for the imagination of a landowner and the long-term future of what he considers his estate to be?
I would back to the hilt the amendments of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, which at least limit the scope in which the Secretaries of State can operate in this affair.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I intervene very briefly and immediately to say that it is too late for me to speak at length on Adam Smith. After 40 years of study of Adam Smith I believe that his views are much more akin to those on this side of the House than on the other. When we get a chance, one day I shall take noble Lords through the Wealth of Nations to demonstrate that, but not tonight.
I believe that the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wrote to me on 24th May was copied to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and in that the CROs were discussed. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for me to mention two aspects of that letter. I hope that noble Lords will not feel that that is discourteous of me. The first is that the Government on such issues are relying on the argument that it is all a very remote risk. That is their argument. The second aspect is the peculiar position that even the risk is immensely remote within the area of discourse in this matter. The noble Lord wrote to me that, even if the unexpected occurs, responsibilities will fall on the Coal Authority. He goes on to add that nevertheless the proposition which has been put and which he goes on to reject is that the Bill should go further and impose an explicit duty on the Coal Authority.
One of my great difficulties is that you cannot have it both ways. Either the responsibility falls on the Coal Authority, in which case it should be in the Bill, or, if not, there must be some reason why not. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has tried to be extremely reasonable. I had envisaged that there would be tabled a much more extreme amendment that simply said "No". He has tried to move somewhat in the direction of the Government by putting down this very long amendment in an attempt to offer a kind of olive branch to the Minister. He went further in his speech. He said that it is still not too late for an olive branch to be offered. I am not clear in what direction that would be —whether from him to them or from them to him.
I certainly have no desire to make difficulties here where I hope that reasonableness can follow. I recommend to the Minister that he listens to his noble friend —and forgets about me entirely, of course — and says that he will try to respond positively and allay these fears. One of the things which worries anyone

1567
with experience of life is that whenever one refers to a remote risk, it somehow seems to be the very thing that happens. It usually frightens the life out of me when I am told that there is a very remote risk. I know that it will hit me within the next day. That is why I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is right to have brought these matters yet again to our attention. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, I too rise to support my noble friend Lord Stanley. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that we should forget about him. I do not think that anyone would wish to do that. He has half taken the words out of my mouth when he emphasises the remoteness of risk. I remind the Minister that I believe I read somewhere that it would only be in the real national interest that the need for this clause would arise. I cannot envisage what national interest in peacetime can arise with the coal market worldwide in its present position. I do not believe that it is a remote risk. I think that it is a risk that might only too easily arise with commercial advantage that might be seen on one side. I distrust CPOs. In the modern jargon that we have here, they are CROs; but to me they are CPOs - and I distrust them intensely.
I would have tabled a negative amendment if I had had the knowledge, power and time to do so. Be that as it may, I apologise to the House for being bad-tempered, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I started bad-tempered at 3.15 p.m. and I am still bad-tempered. I am bad-tempered because I do not think that I have ever heard such complete oblivion to outside opinion as that which has permeated this debate and which has been brought to light by the amendments. I absolve my noble friend Lord Strathclyde from this; he is charm itself, but I am astounded by the arrogance of a government who can walk over opinion without any recognition of it or any reasoned argument against it in amendment after amendment. As your Lordships will understand, I am still very angry.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole point of dealing with legislation in this manner is that noble Lords can table amendments because they disagree with the Government. You do not read amendments congratulating the Government on the wisdom of their approach. That is why my noble friend is depressed and bad-tempered. All the amendments seem to be attacking the Government and I am here, this lone voice, protecting the integrity of the Government. I must tell my noble friend that none of this was dreamt up one wintry afternoon. A great deal of time and effort has been spent dealing with specialist advisers, City financiers and various surveyors. They have been consulted in drawing up the Bill that is now before us.
I join my noble friend in saying that there have been a number of occasions today when I was not sure that there had been very much in the way of progress since we last debated this Bill just over a month ago. Some of the arguments sounded rather familiar, and some of the amendments were more than familiar. They were word
1568
for word unchanged from their last appearance on the Marshalled List. Hence the lateness of the hour, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I feel perkier as the hours go by and I join his great relief that we do not sit at 9 a.m. I am happy to say that my noble friend's speech, and his amendments, do not fall into those categories. I am most grateful to him, and to those landowning interests, like the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, which he is so capably representing, for their genuine efforts to make progress on what is undoubtedly a difficult issue, and an issue on which there are deeply felt concerns.
My noble friend has explained that he, and they, have accepted that there must be some rights of access in certain circumstances, subject to better definition of the terms of these rights and of the circumstances in which they might apply. This is a substantial movement towards the Government's position, and I am most grateful. I intend to do what I can to reassure him, and noble Lords who spoke in support, on the two key issues thus identified.
The two key issues on which my noble friend's amendments focus are the terms on which compulsory rights could be conferred and the circumstances in which they could be granted. The first of these turns largely on what might constitute an unreasonable refusal by the landowner. My noble friend fears that any request by the landowner for greater compensation than is provided by the 1958 Act will automatically be unreasonable; and his solution is to replace these terms entirely by reference to market value and to terms which might have been agreed for comparable sites. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Government's position as regards the transitional regime up to 1999 is in between these extremes.
On the one hand, we do not believe that applicants for CROs will be able to rely on getting a CRO merely on the grounds that the landowner has asked for better compensation than the statutory code. The authority will have to consider each case on its merits and unless the landowner is being unreasonable we would expect the authority to refuse to make any order. It will have to consider the landowner's refusal on its merits and in the light of any representations from either side. On the other hand, I could not agree to a radical change in the basis of compensation during the transitional period, such as would be implied by a move to market value. That would create an uncertainty about the required level of compensation, which would be potentially damaging to the industry and, I suspect, to the interests which my noble friend represents.
Perhaps fortunately for me, my noble friend has tacitly conceded the point about uncertainty, because his amendment calls for compensation to be based on whichever is the higher of market value or the statutory code. That recognises that the outcome of a total reliance on market value would be unpredictable, and would not always be in the landowner's interests. The Government for their part believe that this degree of uncertainty would be a seriously adverse factor in the prospects of the industry for this period.
Perhaps I may outline how I would expect these matters to work under the Government's proposals,

1569
which I think would provide a degree of certainty which should be helpful to both sides while preserving reasonable flexibility and maintaining the very strong preference, which will be shared by all sides in this Chamber, that these matters should be settled by negotiation and agreement to the maximum extent possible. In other words, we do not need to fall back on CROs. I think that the key to my noble friend's anxieties may be the question of what constitutes an unreasonable refusal where the landowner wants more compensation than the operator offers. I must say straightaway that it would not be possible to prescribe in advance or by some general set of rules what is reasonable or unreasonable.
At the extremes, perhaps, some results seem most unlikely. I cannot see that it would automatically be unreasonable for the landowner to seek more compensation than the statutory provision. On the other hand, it does seem likely that it would be unreasonable for him to seek a royalty on the coal as he does not own it. But in all cases the authority will have to form a judgment after considering any representations made and all material facts. While I cannot prescribe how it will do this in every case, I think that I can point to some factors which would be likely to be relevant.
First, I believe that the Coal Authority would be likely to conclude that compensation agreed with, or offered to, other landowners in respect of the same site was most relevant. If a landowner knows that his neighbours have been offered more, and there is no objective difference in his situation to justify the lower offer to him, it seems unlikely that it could be unreasonable for him to ask for the same. Similarly, if better compensation has been agreed for other sites which are comparable it must be perfectly reasonable for him to ask for that higher compensation.
I make the point that comparability will be more difficult to demonstrate when different sites are compared, especially if the terms of the site compared were negotiated some time ago. But at all events, it seems unlikely that it would be viewed as automatically unreasonable for the landowner to base a claim on compensation paid at a different site, once proper allowances are made for the differences which may exist. No doubt chartered surveyors could advise on how this matter could be carried out.
One other obvious category of potentially reasonable request from the landowner would be for better compensation for disturbance. There may be some kind of disturbance which would be caused by the proposed workings and which is particular to the case. A request for extra compensation in such circumstances might well be reasonable. In fact, I believe that it would be eminently reasonable. A further factor I would mention is the possibility of alternative uses for the land. If the landowner has a good case that, but for the opencast development, he would be able to go ahead with a different kind of development he would naturally seek greater compensation. I believe that this is sometimes called "hope" value.
I do not think that it would necessarily be unreasonable for the landowner to seek compensation
1570
enhanced by the "hope" value of the land, although of course everything will turn on how realistic those hopes may be. But all these matters would have to be considered in the particular circumstances, and what I have said must be taken to be just an indication of what may be relevant matters. The Coal Authority would have to consider each set of facts very carefully before deciding whether or not it was appropriate to exercise the power to make a CRO, and in reaching its decision the Coal Authority would itself have to act in a proper and reasonable manner.
The other key question is the circumstances in which the rights can be granted. Here, the crux is the decision by one of the Secretaries of State as to whether to confirm the order. My right honourable friends have indicated that they would not intend to confirm any order unless it was in the public interest to do so.
It is not proper or possible for me to define criteria which would be required or which would be mandatory in every case without regard to the specific circumstances. But again I can point to some factors which are likely as a generality to be relevant. On the one hand, I am advised that the granting of planning permission, or the intention to grant planning permission, is a separate matter and would and could not determine whether a CRO should be confirmed. On the other hand, I cannot accept that it would be proper to adopt criteria which were so restrictive that the operator would have in every case to prove a special or unique need for the coal.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for one moment. He was talking about granting planning permission and yet it was not possible to confirm that the CROs would be approved. Does that mean that the planning authority will have to pay damages, as is sometimes the case? If so, there is then an incentive for the public purse, or the public side, to approve the CRO. Otherwise the authority which had granted the planning permission would be involved in heavy costs.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that that issue arises at all. The issue of planning permission and the granting of a CRO are entirely different. There was some anxiety in Committee that if an applicant received planning permission, that would make it more likely that a CRO would be granted. That is not true. That is simply not the case. It makes no difference and would not act as a point in the applicant's favour. CROs will be granted on their own merits.
It would for the applicant in each case to put forward his case for the confirmation of the order being in the public interest, citing whatever evidence he could to support his case. The Secretary of State would have to weigh the relevance of that submission against the objections of the landowner and any other representations which might be made in reaching an overall judgment as to whether, in his view, the public interest in granting the right would justify the overriding of private interests. I agree with my noble friend that that is an extremely important power and right. I do not believe that very much can be said in the abstract about how the judgment would be arrived at but I make the

1571
point that the Secretary of State would have to give proper weight to all objections which might be made against the confirming of the order.
Having outlined in broad terms how we would expect these central issues to be addressed in the interim period, I shall speak only briefly about the amendments. It will be clear that there are key points in each which I cannot accept. And there are other points, particularly in Amendment No. 55, which do not need to be covered in the Bill because they have already been covered procedurally. But there are matters on which I would be prepared to make further changes to the Bill.
First, we have already amended the Bill to provide compensation for any non-coal minerals worked with the coal. Further discussions have identified what I think are reasonable doubts that this works in the the way that both sides would wish. I would wish to respond to those concerns, and I undertake to bring forward some corrective amendment at Third Reading should that be found necessary.
Secondly, my noble friend made an interesting point in Committee about the very reasonable practice of British Coal that its best offer is always left on the table and can be accepted by the landowner even after a CRO has been made and confirmed. I think I can respond to that also. As I have said all along, it is our firm intention that CROs should be used to the minimum extent possible and that the necessary rights should be secured by agreement rather than compulsion wherever possible. To that end, and as a further safeguard for landowners, we are giving thought to how British Coal's practice can be preserved in the new circumstances. I undertake to bring forward a new amendment next week for that purpose should it be found necessary to amend the Bill.
Finally, there are concerns about the working of Section 14 of the Act which have not yet been resolved. I also wish to respond to them and I undertake to bring forward a clarificatory amendment if necessary.
On the detail of the mineral clause mentioned by my noble friend, I only wish to say at this stage that we are not persuaded that 12.5 per cent. is too low. However, we are looking for measures of clarifying the meaning of market value and the time at which it is assessed. Therefore, I believe I can say that we are, indeed, looking at two of the three points raised by my noble friend.
I apologise for speaking at such length. However, I hope that what I have been able to say tonight has been of material reassurance to my noble friend and that he will find the further amendments to the Bill helpful. If there remain concerns which I have not addressed, I emphasise that I shall do what I can to meet them either tonight or, as the hour is late, by separate discussion before Third Reading. I hope that that is helpful.
11.45 p.m
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be accused of being ungrateful, although I have no doubt that I shall be. I begin by saying that I believe my noble friend's smooth words really accepted many of the minor points in my amendments and, possibly, did not accept some of the major ones. But we shall see
1572
what happens. I have to say that at this late hour, and as opposed to other noble Lords, I prefer to work at six in the morning rather than late at night.
I shall not go into the reasons of how we arrive at a fair market value, but I am prepared to follow that up with my noble friend at another stage. However, if he thinks that it is impossible to establish an open market, I shall have to consider seriously going back to straight abolition of CROs, which is something upon which I have been trying to reach a compromise with the Government, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It will depend on what amendments my noble friend tables. I have to say that my noble friend did explain what was reasonable and relevant so far as concerns evaluation. I hope that, as he promised, he will put how that will be decided on the face of the Bill.
On a technical matter, I should like to ask my noble friend when he intends to table the amendments. I cannot say too strongly that having amendments tabled at a very late stage makes it extremely awkward for part-time, non-political animals such as myself to study them. It makes the discussion on the Floor of the House longer than it need be. I do not know whether I am allowed to sit down now in order to allow my noble friend to say that he will do so tomorrow—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave the House, I wish to table the amendments as quickly as possible so that my noble friend can study them. I know that we can have ongoing discussions. I cannot confirm that it will be tomorrow, but it will certainly be as early as possible this week.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that response.
Finally, I should like to thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House for the support that I have received. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that I was being moderate and that he expected me to produce a more: vicious amendment. I have to remind my noble friend —and he knows as well as I do—that I was pressed very strongly to table a much more vicious amendment. However, the amendment now before us is what was eventually produced. Of course, I could do what I did once before; namely, divide the House at a late hour when I did not like a particular Bill and encourage the Opposition to stay put. However, on that occasion, there were insufficient Members to make up a quorum and the result was that the proceedings of the House were suspended. It would teach the Whips quite a lesson, but I am a kind and gentle person. I shall only do it once in my lifetime. At present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 en bloc:
Page 121, line 41, after ("(2) (c)") insert ("—
(i) for "authorisation" there shall be substituted "opencast planning permission";
(ii)").
Page 121, line 43, at end insert:
("(iii) for the words from "under" to "applied" there shall be substituted "under the provisions of the Act of 1990, applied";").
Page 121, line 50, at end insert ("; and
(c) for subsections (8) and (9) of that section there shall be substituted—
"(8) In this section—
"statutory water undertakers" means—

(i) in England and Wales, the National Rivers Authority, a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker; and

(ii) in Scotland, a water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

"local enactment"—

(i) in England and Wales, means any local statutory provision within the meaning of the Water Industry Act 1991; and

(ii) in Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980;

and, in the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Act of 1990 there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.".").
Page 126, line 34, at end insert:
("(aa) for "has been made" there shall be substituted "has been confirmed";").
Page 136, line 8, at end insert:
("Application to Scotland
In section 52(3) (construction of references to water authorities in relation to Scotland) after "shall" there shall be inserted ", except in so far as the context otherwise requires,".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendments I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 75. The amendments relate to Schedules 8 and 11 are all drafting amendments to correct minor defects in the provisions of the Opencast Coal Act 1958. Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 relate to Schedule 8 and are designed to ensure that the provisions of Section 7 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 correctly reflect changes in terminology used in that section following amendments made by other enactments since 1958. The amendments, as I have said, are purely technical. Amendment No. 75 relates to Schedule 11 and amends the repeal of provisions of Section 25 of the Water Act 1989. The amendment is consequential on the other amendments to Schedule 8 and again is purely technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Environmental duties in connection with planning]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 65 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Limitation on enforceability of conditions
No condition attached to any planning permission for coal mining operations shall be enforceable against any person other than the licence holder for the relevant land, the Coal Authority or, where it retains an interest in the land, the Corporation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows up the problems raised in Committee in Amendment No. 83 at col. 1057 of the Official Report. I warned my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that I would return to the problem of eventual liability falling on the surface occupier, in particular if the licence holder became insolvent. I think the Government's explanatory note that we have just had envisaged this problem.
It must be wrong for any liability to fall on the surface occupier bearing in mind that it was the operator who made the money out of the extraction who caused the problem. This amendment makes it clear that those
1574
who are involved in and profit from coal-mining activity, who could be the licence holding operator— British Coal or the Coal Authority—must be made responsible for complying with those planning conditions which, if not complied with, could result in a £400 a day fine, apart from the cost of rectifying the problems. This again emphasises the problem of the innocent bystander of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which we have debated at times, not least as regards contamination, which we discussed fully on an earlier amendment. I look forward to a more helpful answer from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde than he gave me in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps it would assist noble Lords if I outlined what the position will be in future under the Bill. Generally speaking, landowners who are approached by mineral developers and who do not want to sell outright have to consider what safeguards they want to give as assurance that obligations such as restoration will be carried out. This is reasonable: after all, they are to obtain an income from the development.
Where the mineral is coal, the landowner has in some respects less to worry about because—exceptionally— there will be a licensing body in the Coal Authority who will not permit the development until it has considered the financial standing of the developer in the light of Clause 2(1) (b). The proposers of the amendment are seeking explicit statutory protection for landowners from the consequences arising from the use of their land for coal-mining. Some landowners will choose to sell outright to the coal company. Indeed, British Coal owns the majority of the surface acreage on its sites. Others who wish to avoid any planning risk may sell the freehold but insist on a right to buy back once the coaling and the restoration have taken place. Landowners who do not wish to do either will have every opportunity to ensure that there is reasonable security, as they do with other mineral developments. A landowner will quite naturally wish to consider which course will bring him the greatest financial benefit.
It is a general principle of planning law that permissions and their conditions run with the land. The amendment depends for its justification on the proposition that the state of affairs I have described is so inequable to landowners as to justify interference with this general principle. I cannot agree that this is so, particularly when one remembers the comfort afforded by Clause 2(1) (b). I hope that my noble friend feels we have included enough safeguards to protect the landowner.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Not really, my Lords. On the question of financial standing which my noble friend has mentioned two or three times, I do not know how one can possibly say that a firm or a person has financial credibility. I can refer to two cases off the top of my head. Recently possibly the oldest farming co-operative, Eastern Counties Farmers, has just gone home carrying a lot of farmers with it. I would never have expected that. Dare I mention Maxwell? That is a small point.
I am very concerned about the matter. I cannot see how one could possibly justify such a situation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point for clarification. The point that I made was that the landowner can demand a security. That can take a variety of shapes, including the coal in the land. That should give the landowner some comfort. I also pointed out that the landowner does not need to have a lease on the land. He could sell the land with a right of pre-emption. I only wanted to provide information.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I shall consider the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Health and safety regulations as to rescue service]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 57, insert the following new clause:
Liability for inaccurate information furnished to the Authority

(".-(1) This section applies where the conditions of a licence under Part II of this Act contain provision stating-

(a) that information of a specified description which is furnished to the Authority in pursuance of the conditions of the licence may be disclosed by the Authority for specified purposes in pursuance of arrangements under section 57 above; and

(b) that any information of that description that is disclosed by the Authority for any of those purposes is to be treated, for the purposes of this section, as information whose accuracy the operator has undertaken to secure.

(2) The licensed operator shall owe a duty to the Authority and to every person likely to be affected by any inaccuracy in information disclosed by the Authority for any of the specified purposes to exercise all due diligence to secure-

(a) that the Authority is furnished, in accordance with the conditions of the licence, with all the information of the specified descriptions which the operator is required by those conditions to furnish to the Authority; and

(b) that the information of those descriptions which is furnished by the operator to the Authority is accurate in every material particular.

(3) Where a duty is owed by any person to another person by virtue of subsection (2) above, any breach of that duty which causes that other person to sustain loss or damage shall be actionable against the person in breach at the suit or instance of the other person.

(4) A person shall not be liable for any breach of a duty mentioned in subsection (2) above except—

(a) in respect of a disclosure of information made by the Authority for a specified purpose; and

(b) to the Authority or the person to whom the disclosure was made.

(5) This section shall be without prejudice to the liability of any person for breach of the duty to comply with an enforcement order (within the meaning of Part II of this Act).").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Information to be kept confidential by the Authority]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 55, line 28, after ("under") insert ("this Act or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. Amendment No. 69 would amend Clause 58(2) (e) to allow disclosure of information for all civil proceedings brought under the Bill. Amendment No. 70 further extends Clause 58(2) (e) to cover arbitration under Clause 47(2) and to proceedings before the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under Section 40 of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991
In short, these are technical amendments to enable disclosure in further circumstances where that seems appropriate.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle; Morris, will recall that he proposed a similar amendment to Clause 58(4) at a previous stage. The present amendments result from further consideration of the noble Lord's proposal, and I am grateful to him for making it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 55, line 29, after ("enactment") insert (", of any proceedings before the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under the 1991 Act or of any arbitration for which provision is made by regulations under section 47(2) above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Interpretation]: [Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 153, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) under or in pursuance of a restructuring scheme,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Government have decided that purchasers should not have to meet the cost of subsidence claims already admitted by British Coal. The amendment permits restructuring schemes to provide purchasers of successor companies with an indemnity in respect of the cost of meeting those claims. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 159, column 3, leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert:

("In Schedule 25-(a) in paragraph 26, sub-paragraphs (1) (b) and (3); and(b) paragraph 50.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to with Amendment No. 57. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.

  PRISONERS: NUMBERS HELD EN LOCAL PRISONS
  PRISONERS: NUMBERS HELD EN LOCAL PRISONS
  PRISONERS: NUMBERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS: NUMBERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME: REPORT
  SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME: REPORT
  PRISONERS: MEDICAL CARE IN CONTRACTED-OUT PRISONS
  PRISONERS: MEDICAL CARE IN CONTRACTED-OUT PRISONS
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: REDRESS
  RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: REDRESS
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY: GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY: GUIDANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: INDEPENDENCE OF PLANNING INSPECTORS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: INDEPENDENCE OF PLANNING INSPECTORS
  HEALTH SERVICES IN LONDON: WEIGHTED CAPITATION
  HEALTH SERVICES IN LONDON: WEIGHTED CAPITATION