Sitting of 23 March 1994

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

    European Funding
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Highlands and Islands Enterprise to discuss objective 1 funding.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the highlands discussed objective 1 arrangements with Highlands and Islands Enterprise when he met the board in Stornoway last September. Representatives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, along with other organisations, have frequent contact with Scottish Office officials to discuss objective 1 funding.
    Mrs. Michie: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable concern and suspicion that objective 1 funding will be used for projects and programmes already earmarked to be undertaken by the Government and local authorities? What assurances can he give Argyll and Bute and the whole Highlands and Islands Enterprise area, and what evidence will he provide to show strict adherence to the principle of additionality?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that there will be strict adherence to the principle of additionality. The basis for making that clear was established with the European Commission. It is for the partnership management committee to decide project priorities, but I assure the hon. Lady that the £240 million over six years that we won under objective 1 status will be most useful to the highlands and islands.

    Homelessness
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of, State for Scotland when he next intends to meet Shelter (Scotland) to discuss current levels of homelessness in Scotland.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held recently with Shelter (Scotland) relating to homelessness in Scotland.
    The. Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I was very pleased to launch on 25 February the Shelter (Scotland) housing law service, for which the Scottish Office is providing grant aid of £95,000 in 1994–95 to assist homeless people, among others.
    Mr. McAllion: Shelter has warned that the Government's proposals to remove the right of the homeless in England and Wales to permanent housing will mean a return to the "Cathy Come Home" era of appalling neglect of the homeless. Will the Minister give a clear and definite commitment that in his forthcoming consultation document on Scottish homelessness, there will be no reduction in the rights of the homeless but a positive agenda for tackling the root cause of homelessness in Scotland—the dramatic decline under this Government of quality, secure and affordable housing for rent in the public sector?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There will be wide-ranging consultation, and we expect the paper to pose questions on all the main points relating to homelessness legislation. At this stage, I do not rule anything out or anything in, but we give top priority to homelessness. It is a key strategic priority and we have an extensive drive to bring empty housing in Scotland back into use.
    Mr. Dunnachie: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to Shelter (Scotland), but I draw the Minister's attention to the other side of the problem—the homeless who live rough, about whom this Government have forgotten. The Government do nothing for them. Every year in winter, we read newspaper reports about homeless people who have been frozen to the ground and have to be scraped off to be buried. That is a sign of the Government's commitment to the unfortunate people of Scotland who have only cardboard homes and papier-mâché dreams.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We made it clear that statutory responsibility lies with district authorities, and the hon. Gentleman should make strong representations to his own district council. The number of people living rough is quite different from the number applying for housing as homeless or who are homeless. Only a relatively small number—well below 1,000—live rough, but nobody should live rough; everybody should have a house, to which they are entitled. It is the duty of a local authority to make that provision. In Scotland, £426 million is being provided to local authorities through the housing revenue grant allocation.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a housing record of which they can be proud, having built 20,000 housing units every year since 1979? Is not it outrageous that local authorities in Scotland—particularly those that are socialist-controlled —have thousands of empty housing units? Should not they be urged to rectify that ridiculous anomaly?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1979, no fewer than 257,000 new houses have been built; a proportion of those have been in the public sector. Local authorities have built no fewer than 30,000 houses. We have given guidance to local authorities urging them strongly to bring their empty houses back into use. There is a wide variation between different authorities in Scotland. Some of them undoubtedly can do a great deal more.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the Minister recognise that many elderly people are now under-occupying their four and five-apartment homes and that homelessness could be helped if the Government embarked on a system

    265
    of building sheltered housing for the elderly, with wardens and security so that they are not worried? That would help the homeless problem in many ways, one of them being that young couples could use the four or five-apartment homes which are under-occupied at the moment.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I strongly support the building of more sheltered housing in Scotland by local authorities, housing associations or the private sector. I agree that they have a major role to play. But this year Scottish Homes will be expected to do much more and it will have a lead tenancy arrangement under which empty private property is leased to housing associations for letting to homeless families. The hon. Gentleman's points are valid.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that, since 1979, there has been a loss of 273,000 houses available for rent and that his record compares unfavourably with that of Hermann Goering, who was responsible for a considerably smaller reduction in houses available for rent?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady is referring to the nearly 300,000 houses that have been bought by sitting tenants. Of course, if those tenants had not bought them, they would have continued to live in those particular houses. I have already said that 257,000 houses have been built since 1979, and a great many more will be built in the future.

    Economy
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Lang: My ministerial colleagues and I have frequent contacts with the STUC on a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.
    Mr. Clarke: Has the Secretary of State drawn up an emergency plan to alleviate the situation when the tax increases hit the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Lang: I confidently anticipate that the recovery in the economy that is now strongly evident will continue, based on low inflation, competitive exchange rates and low interest rates. All forecasters are contemplating expansion this year—including the estimates from the CBI and chambers of commerce. I do not think that the situation that the hon. Gentleman anticipates will arise.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the Scottish economy today is much better than it was in the 1978–79 winter of discontent, and why the Scotch whisky industry is exporting at massive levels is that, as a result of trade union legislation passed by the Government, Scotland's unit labour costs have made us the most competitive country in the European Union?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He might like to know that our manufactured exports last year reached a record level and achieved a growth of 12.6 per cent. during the year.
    Mr. Donohoe: The Secretary of State will no doubt have been well briefed on the report just issued by the Select Committee on Transport in connection with bilateral agreements and in particular the way in which they affect
    266
    air freight. Does the Scottish Office intend to make any representations to improve the business of Prestwick airport?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government responds to Select Committee reports in the conventional way. I welcome the commitment of the private sector to help Prestwick airport grow. The importance that the Government attach to infrastructural projects of all kinds is evidenced by the allocation of resources under the Scottish Office spending programme.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read Monday's report, which predicts that up to 5 billion barrels of oil are still to be discovered and exploited off the west coast of Shetland? Does he agree that, with the expertise that we have in Aberdeen and throughout Scotland, that presents a tremendous opportunity for the entire Scottish economy?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sympathetic tax regime and licensing system that the Government have applied to the offshore industry have stood us in good stead for many years now, and I expect that they will continue to do so as those exciting new projects are developed.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State accept that as the Government move from deceit to defeat, their broken tax promises will do immense damage to the Scottish economy? Does he accept that the price of their economic failure will be paid by Scottish families, who will have to pay an extra £10 a week in new taxes after April, and probably a further £8 a week as the price of butchering Scottish councils? Will the Government ever be trusted on tax again?
    Mr. Lang: If the Labour party understood anything, it would realise that it is occasionally necessary to have temporary increases in taxation in order to maintain confidence in the continuing recovery of the economy—a recovery which will continue the trend of rising employment and falling unemployment in Scotland. Scotland now has the lowest unemployment of all the countries in the United Kingdom—almost two points below the European average. I have confidence that that recovery will be sustained and that in 1997 Scotland will say no to the Labour party.
    Mr. Gallie: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the 4·3 per cent. reduction in Scotland's jobless over the past 12 months? Is he aware that, in my constituency, in the Ayr travel-to-work area, the figure is 8 per cent? Will he say what he can do to sustain such progress, given the current difficult world situation?
    Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall stick to the policies that have delivered that success—policies that have increased employment in Scotland over the past decade by 183,000 jobs, with self-employment now at its highest ever recorded level.

    Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next hopes to visit the highlands and islands to discuss the economic situation.
    Mr. Lang: I hope to visit the highlands and islands again soon, and no doubt while I am there I shall discuss their successful economy. The highlands and islands are well placed to participate in the economic growth that it is Government policy to sustain.
    Mr. Macdonald: The Secretary of State will know that the salmon farming industry in the highlands has been under severe pressure over the past year because of Norwegian dumping. What are the Government doing to prod the Commission into launching an anti-dumping investigation on the basis of the Ernst and Young report handed to the Commission by the industry last week?
    Mr. Lang: We have had continuing contacts with the industry about that matter, and we have emphasised to its representatives that they must pursue the matter with the Commission. We have encouraged them to do that, and have given them some assistance in that direction. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for fisheries visited Norway recently to meet the Norwegian Fisheries Minister, and my officials have engineered a meeting between Scottish and Norwegian salmon growers. In those and in other ways, we are keen to help with the problem, which I recognise is a difficult one.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important industries in the highlands is the Scotch whisky industry, whose exports are growing, so Scotch whisky can be mixed with privatised water in countries other than Scotland? When my right hon. Friend speaks to the Highlands and Islands development board will he ask it what estimate it would make of the impact on unemployment in the highlands of a national minimum wage and the adoption of the social chapter?
    Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that the mixture of whisky and water that he mentioned is something which I look forward to seeing for some considerable time to come. The sensitivity with which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have recently treated the issue of whisky taxation has contributed in no small part to the improved export figures, as has the progress made in persuading countries round the world to readdress the issue of their taxation of whisky.
    Mr. Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree with the House that water is an important commodity to the economy in the highlands and islands? Given that the overwhelming majority of the people of Strathclyde—97 per cent.—voted against the prospect in a referendum, will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon his plans for the privatisation of water, for setting up boards and for franchising of any kind?
    Mr. Lang: We do not have plans to privatise water and therefore we cannot abandon them. However, I am confident that the plans that we have for public water authorities will lead to the most efficient and the cheapest source of water and sewerage services under the new local authority structure.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at the end of the month, when the prototype fast reactor at Dounreay is closed, 1,500 jobs will be lost to the north of Scotland as a result of the misguided policies of the Government? Is he aware that that has led to the ending of apprenticeships at the site and to a draining of scientific
    268
    skills, which must be the basis of the future of the economy of the north and that, notwithstanding the excellent work that has been done by development agencies, those skills are in short supply? What plans does he have to use the site at Dounreay as a focus for skilled development of advanced industries?
    Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there would be no point in the Government sustaining employment or activities for which they could not see a recognised purpose and that, therefore, the decision about Dounreay was right. Nevertheless, substantial resources have been injected into the area to help the local economy to diversify and they are already beginning to yield considerable success.

    Queensferry Road Bridge
    Mr. Darling: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of producing the document "Setting Forth"; and what costs have been incurred since its publication in connection with the proposal to build a second road bridge at Queensferry.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The "Setting Forth" consultation document and the Government's response cost £54,000 to produce. Feasibility studies have since been conducted into proposals for a new bridge and link roads as part of the "Setting Forth" package, which have cost about £3.5 million.
    Mr. Darling: As so much public money has been squandered, will the Minister hold a full public inquiry so that the need for that bridge, the rail-based alternative and the environmental impact of the bridge may be examined? Does he accept that, just as 97 per cent. of people said no to water privatisation, 97 per cent. of people who live in his constituency, in my constituency and in Scotland would say no to that act of monumental stupidity?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not accept that there is any point in prejudging an issue before the full facts are known. Reports on the feasibility studies will be with me in the next few weeks and thereafter will be made available publicly. The hon. Gentleman used the expression "squandered". I shall make it quite clear that the cost to date is less than 1 per cent. of the total potential investment under "Setting Forth". The Government's response document estimated costs of £382 million for proposals for a new bridge and roads, with rail improvements costing £9 million. Almost 50 per cent. of the package of proposals relates to projects other than the bridge—park-and-ride, a possible railway stop near the airport, new railway stops and countless other measures. The matter needs to be considered objectively as a whole, which it shall be as soon as the feasibility reports are available.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Secretary of State for the Environment is telling us that we must place less reliance on the motor car, why is the Scottish Office persisting in this ludicrous project? Is not the proper way in which to approach the difficulty of access to Lothian from Fife to make a massive investment in public transport, especially the rail network?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that already some 70 per cent.

    269
    of transport is accounted for by public transport across the Forth and that is the potential market. Obviously, we must get the balance right between public and private transport. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) asked about a local public inquiry. If the Secretary of State were minded to proceed, the normal statutory processes would obviously be involved, which would almost certainly result in a public inquiry.

    Game Fish Stocks
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies are being carried out on behalf of his Department to assess the effect on game fish stocks in Scotland of predation by fish-eating birds.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The Scottish Office undertakes long-term research into salmon stocks and has commissioned work on the diet of fish-eating birds to help assess the effects of predation.
    Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will he aware of the importance to the economy of my constituency of salmon fishing on the River Dee and the River North Esk. Is he aware that there is significant concern about the low level of salmon stocks in the rivers, which is believed to be due partly to drift-netting in the north-east of England and also to predation by fish-eating birds such as goosander? Will he accelerate the phasing out of north-east drift-netters and, if investigations show that goosander are a problem, will he increase the level of culling of those birds?
    Sir Hector Monro: I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says about the importance of north-east rivers to tourism and rod fishing. We are careful about issuing licences and do so only after discussions with Scottish National Heritage. Where it is justified, licences will be issued. I am aware of the continuing contention surrounding the north-east drift-nets and I am glad that phasing out has begun; 13 per cent. occurred in the first year, which is a step in the right direction.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there is a plentiful supply of game fish in Loch Bradan reservoir which provides fresh water to my constituents, 97 per cent. of whom voted against the Government's water proposals? In view of that, how can the Government in all honesty still press ahead with the unwanted, unnecessary and unworkable proposals?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman rates his vote on a par with his salmon. I note that the Labour party is committing suicide in 1997 by asking us to vote no.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he has for improving safety on Scottish trunk roads.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Office is taking a number of new initiatives in the fields of engineering, education and enforcement, which are designed to improve safety on trunk and other roads in Scotland. These include measures to reduce vehicle speeds to bring down the number and severity of accidents.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that, rather than taking holidays in some grotty, overpriced, lager-loutinfested continental resort, I prefer to spend my holidays hill walking in Scotland? Is he aware that, to get to the hills and mountains, one must drive along many miles of dual carriageways and motorways, many of which do not have crash barriers along the central reservation—including the A74, along a number of miles of which there were no crash barriers until recently? What progress has been made in that important safety area?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the matter. We made a deliberate policy decision to install safety barriers between dual carriageways and motorways. That is being done through a rolling programme not only for new motorways but for all existing ones. I am encouraged that my hon. Friend spends his holidays in Scotland, as do many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Although he may not be attracted to lager, the water of life—by which I mean whisky—is good when taken in moderation.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that as regards prevention and deterrence, the finest and most effective safety measure to be taken on our roads is the substantial presence of police patrol cars? Why are there so few of them on our roads? Why is the Scottish Office refusing to give the assistance that is needed to put more cars and more police officers on our roads?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Some time ago, there was an additional allocation for more police vehicles in Scotland and, of course, capital allocations for the police have been increased. As well as cars, we are installing speed detection cameras. They have had a valuable deterrent effect in slowing down motorists who otherwise would be checked and brought to book.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: May I ask my hon. Friend—as I frequently have, although not in the House—to improve signposting in Scotland? Nothing is more dangerous than a person who does not know where he is going? [Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition. In a letter from the Department, I was told that a person who is distracted by signposts is more likely to be unsafe than someone who is not so distracted. I thought that someone who did not know where he was going was more likely to be a danger than someone who did know where he was going. I have frequently asked my hon. Friend to make signposts available, for instance, on the Stirling road; a choice of Edinburgh or Glasgow is given, but the signposts do not tell people where the Kincardine Bridge is.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are putting in place more route action plans. It is important to have uniform signs and marking, as well as skid-resistant surfacing and safety fencing where appropriate. We will bear in mind my hon. and learned Friend's points. I am aware of his aesthetic objections to gantries, but they, too, serve a valuable purpose in giving information to motorists.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will know that, among other roads, the A82, A77 and A78 trunk roads have school buses travelling along them. Is not it beyond belief that the Government can find resources for national television and radio campaigns that encourage the use of seat belts in all minibuses and coaches, while they stonewall on calls to

    271
    legislate to make it mandatory for seat belts to be fitted in all minibuses and coaches? Sanctimonious appeals by the Government for the public to act responsibly are insufficient. Does the Minister agree that every school pupil is entitled to a seat on a bus to himself? Will the Government therefore amend the legislation to ensure that and to assist local authorities in their drive to get safety on school buses?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am aware of the deep-felt concern on that subject following the recent tragic accidents in Biggar and elsewhere. The matter is being urgently and actively considered, and I have met the Minister for Roads and Traffic at the Department of Transport. One of the problems is that of enforcement, as buses from other parts of Europe come here and the situation is governed by an EC regulation. I accept the urgency of the matter.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that while signposting and barriers are always helpful, the basic condition of the road is more important? Will he give an assurance that, in the near future, the A75 to Carlisle will be upgraded? Is not that vital both to the economies of south-west Scotland and of Northern Ireland and to the safety of those who travel. on that road?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have spent over £100 million on such trunk roads. Of course that is an important route for Northern Ireland and we will continue to give priority where we can to it and to other trunk roads, particularly the M74.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Maxton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 28 January, and plan to meet them again on 17 June as part of the normal consultation with the convention on local government finance matters.
    Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the cavalier dismissals from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of the amazing referendum result on the future of water in Scotland are insulting to the intelligence of the people of Strathclyde? Are not they particularly insulting to the 96 per cent. of the Minister's electorate who voted no in that referendum? Are not they also a complete negation of all democratic principles in Scotland.? Will the Minister now take the opportunity to tell COSLA that he is withdrawing his proposals for water, or have we now reached the point where the views of the Scottish people do not mean a damn thing to the Government?
    Mr. Stewart: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are no, no, no and no.
    In relation to local government finance, if Strathclyde can easily find £750,000 for a wholly misleading and meaningless exercise, it suggests that, if anything, my right hon. Friend's local government finance settlement verged towards the excessively generous in Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great challenges for local government finance during the next few years will be how we adequately fund the updating of the water and sewerage systems throughout Scotland? That challenge can be met only if it is looked at objectively, sanely and in the light of where funds can be obtained from. The displaying of badges does nothing to help the debate, and it will certainly not help the Standing Committee when the Chairman is displaying his prejudice.
    Mr. Stewart: Could I say in response to my hon. Friend's general point—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I did not understand the last sentence of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I wonder whether he could make it clear because I am not sure whether what he said was acceptable.
    Mr. Walker: By convention, in the Chamber, the Chairmen of Standing Committees do not speak or show their views on matters that are being discussed in a Committee. I believe that an error of judgment has been made today.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland.
    Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I normally take points of order at the end of questions, but I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman who has just repeated his question did not repeat it in exactly the same terms. I believe that he said originally that the Chairman of a Standing Committee was prejudiced because he was wearing a badge. [Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with the matter. If that is the case, I require the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks and to rephrase them.
    Mr. Walker: I have no hesitation in obeying your instruction to withdraw remarks because I always accept the decisions of the Chair. I believe that an error of judgment has been made—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to an opinion, provided that it is within the rules of the House.
    Mr. Walker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe that an error of judgment has been made. I believe that I was in order to draw attention to it. If I did so wrongly, I apologise to you, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We shall now have the Minister to respond to the original question.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to refer to the need for new investment in water and sewerage services in Scotland. We have proposed an effective partnership between the public and private sectors to ensure that.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister expect that when he and the Secretary of State next meet the president of COSLA, Councillor Gray will remind them of a letter that he received from the Prime Minister shortly before Christmas on water and sewerage services, which said that the proper way to proceed was one that would allow

    273
    Scottish opinion to be given expression through Members of Parliament? There can be no doubt that Scottish opinion is in favour of the removal of the Government's proposal for water and sewerage. The proper parliamentary response would be to remove the relevant clauses from the Bill and to make proposals that would allow for water and sewerage services to be in the hands of democratically accountable people. Will the Minister do that?
    Mr. Stewart: The Bill to reform local government in Scotland and change the structure of the delivery of water and sewerage services was presented to the House and received a Second Reading by a majority of 41.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister agree with COSLA that the results of the Strathclyde water ballot demonstrate the democratic bankruptcy of this Westminster Parliament? Who will decide the future of Scotland's water? Will it be the 1 million or more Scots who reject the Minister's plans or the five English Tory Members of Parliament in a House of Commons Committee who have dictated each and every vote against the Scottish public interest?
    Mr. Stewart: Given the reception that the hon. Gentleman's question received on the Labour Benches, it seems that, yet again, the united front against the Government has fallen apart. The Bill is in Committee. It is being considered line by line in great detail. It will come back to the House. The House will decide on the Bill and it will then go to another place. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman fundamentally. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. George Robertson: I am not in the slightest surprised that the Secretary of State for Scotland has dodged the column on this issue today of all days and passed the buck to the junior Minister. After yesterday's historic 97 per cent. rejection of their water policy, the Government have to face the fact that they have decisively and humiliatingly lost the argument and that if they continue to lose arguments and to treat the people of Scotland and their views with contempt and arrogance, on 5 May they will get the punishment that they richly deserve. Surely even this Minister can now see that the message from the people of Scotland to the Government is loud and clear: scrap the plans for water and keep it under local democratic control.
    Mr. Stewart: This is the first question I have answered during Question Time today—I thought for a moment that I might not be answering any. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has answered a considerable number of questions. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) knows perfectly well that I have never accepted the legitimacy of the so-called referendum in Strathclyde—not beforehand, not during and not afterwards. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue his case in the Standing Committee on those occasions when he attends its sittings.

    Parliament Building
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the future of the Scottish Parliament building, currently used by the Crown Office.
    Mr. Lang: The old Royal high school was vacated by the Crown Office on 31 January and was then offered for sale to its former owners, Edinburgh district council, by its present owners, Property Holdings, that part of the Department of the Environment responsible for Government buildings. I understand that the council has decided to buy the building.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Edinburgh district council on having the foresight to buy back the building as a future home for the Scottish Parliament? In view of recent suggestions that, in the meantime, the building might be used as a courthouse for the trials of certain categories of international criminals, would not it be appropriate to place in the dock the Secretary of State and his henchmen on the Government Front Bench who are betraying the people of Scotland by conspiring to steal their water and refusing them a Scottish Parliament, which is their democratic right?
    Mr. Lang: I hope that Edinburgh district council will have more foresight about the future use of the building than the hon. Gentleman. As far as I am concerned, the Government are answerable to the High Court of Parliament.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend concede that Edinburgh is rapidly going down the same road as London, with hotel rooms costing a fortune? Does he think that, just as we did away with the last bastion of socialism—the GLC opposite—which is now being made into a hotel, which will help to lower the prices of hotel rooms—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are a long way from across the River Thames. We are afloat on this one. I want to hear a question that relates to the original question.
    Mr. Galloway: Given the almost unbelievably contemptuous—even by the Secretary of State's standards —way in which an exercise where 1.25 million Scots put pen to paper, paper to envelope, envelope to pillar box and pillar box to the Strathclyde region to demonstrate their views on the privatisation of Scottish water—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have chastised one hon. Member for not relating his question to the original question. I want a question that relates to what is on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Galloway: Why cannot we have, not a so-called referendum, but a Government-organised referendum on the future of the Scottish Parliament building, the future of Scottish government and national self-determination for the Scottish people? Will the Government ever listen to Scottish voices?
    Mr. Lang: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman comes along with another multi-option referendum in mind. The fact is that we have well-established democratic procedures which have been tried and tested over the years and are impervious to the kind of mob rule that the hon. Gentleman favours so much—and it is noticeable that the mechanisms of mob rule are the ones that he favours.

    Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill on the standards of public life in Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: The introduction of single-tier councils will mean that local authorities in Scotland and those who serve on them are more accountable, more accessible and more responsive to their electorates.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that four companies controlled by Monklands district councillors have made losses of about £6 million over three years, resulting in Monklands council having one of the highest council taxes in Scotland? Is not he concerned that local government legislation does not allow for those council companies' accounts to be investigated properly? Will the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill be amended to ensure that such accounts are investigated properly? Will he consider the fact that Airdrie has had enough of Coatbridge and might want to go its separate way after local government reorganisation in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: On my hon. Friend's last point, I have agreed to meet a number of Opposition Members who represent constituencies in Lanarkshire to hear their views on council boundaries under the new system. As for his first point, as I understand the figures, he is correct to say that the Monklands-owned companies have lost about £6 million. That is a cause of general concern, which has been raised with us as a matter of principle, and we are considering the possibility of amending the Bill to change the monitoring of companies owned by councils.
    Mr. McLeish: Would not the standards of public life in Scotland be greatly enhanced if the Government stopped treating the electors of Scotland with such arrogance and contempt? Is the Minister now willing to listen to the 1.2 million people in Strathclyde who said no to Tory proposals to butcher our water and sewerage industries and, of course, in the process inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Government? Or is the Minister willing simply to accept that the price of the Government's stupidity, authoritarianism and sheer bloody-mindedness will be the continuing destruction of public confidence in the democratic process, the continuing erosion of standards of public life and, more important for that lot across the Chamber on the Government Benches, the virtual annihilation of the Tories at the next regional and European elections?
    Mr. Stewart: I hardly think that that question is worth an answer. It is an absolute disgrace that members of Labour's Front Bench should dress up like childish rabble. As I said to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I have consistently stated that the so-called referendum was not legitimate. However, as the hon. Member also knows, we have amended the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in Standing Committee in response to reasoned debate.
    Mr. Riddick: Will the local government reforms put an end to the shocking behaviour of Labour-controlled Monklands council, which has issued special green job application forms to friends and relatives of Labour councillors and pink application forms to everyone else? Does my hon. Friend agree that the yellow card should be
    276
    shown to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who has had nothing to say about the matter, but that the red card should be shown to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, who has refused to condemn the scandalous behaviour of providing jobs for Labour boys?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that many people are extremely puzzled by the Leader of the Opposition's continuing silence on those matters. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the different colour forms, my information is that, following considerable public criticism, that practice has now been abandoned by the council.
    Mr. Hood: When the Minister gets to deal with tourism, in the Committee, will he step back from the Government's nonsensical decision to amalgamate Clyde Valley—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cautioned the House twice last week about the fact that we do not discuss what is taking place in Standing Committee. That is for the Committee itself until it reports to the House.
    Mr. Hood: Will the Government go back on the nonsensical decision that they have taken to amalgamate Clyde Valley tourist board with Glasgow tourist board? Is the Minister aware that that will destroy jobs and tourism in the Clyde valley? It is nonsense and the Government should withdraw from it.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Obviously, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) had to take a wide range of factors into account, and has done so. I understand that my hon. Friend has had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sorry to say that there seems to be a continuing disagreement with his views. I do not believe for a moment that the new structure will have the adverse effect that the hon. Gentleman believes that it will.

    VAT on Fuel
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special measures he plans to monitor the effects of VAT on fuel on the elderly and the low-paid in a colder climate than the British average; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stewart: A generous package of compensation measures is in place to assist vulnerable people with the costs of VAT on domestic fuel.
    The Common Services Agency of the Scottish health service already gathers statistics on hospital admissions, including those relating to hypothermia and other ailments that may be linked to winter conditions.
    Mr. Graham: The Minister knows well that in Scotland we need 40 per cent. more energy to heat houses than do people in the south. We have 2 million elderly and disabled people who are relying on being able to heat their homes, yet the Government create a loophole whereby the rich get warmer and the poor get colder. When will this mean-minded, cold-hearted, loopy-loo Government do

    277
    something to fight for the elderly and the disabled, to allow them to heat their homes so that they can live in comfort and not in cold, damp, wet houses?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking even more rubbish than he usually does. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will ensure that the introduction of VAT does not put the cost of fuel beyond the poorest in our society. The package that has been announced is worth about £2.5 billion over three years, It covers direct help from the DSS, cold weather payments and increased resources for the home energy efficiency scheme. Those are the facts.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend will be aware that the 50p and 70p package which has been announced is sufficient to pay a fuel bill of £325 or £455 respectively. Is he aware that figures that I have received from Scottish Hydro Electric plc show that the average electricity bill for a typical two-apartment home in the north of Scotland is about £300 per annum, which means that the package is sufficient to compensate? Should not the Opposition, instead of scaremongering, go out with the facts and try to reassure elderly people who are less fortunate than themselves?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. He refers to electricity prices, which have fallen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this. Electricity prices have decreased by about 8 per cent. in real terms since 1986. Tariffs in Scotland are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. That is partly a result of the success of the Government's privatisation policy.

    Housing
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the amount of capital spending that would be required to cure public housing in Glasgow and Scotland of dampness and water and wind ingress.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The 1991 Scottish house condition survey showed the extent to which local authority and new town dwellings were affected by dampness. No information is available as regards wind ingress. Obviously, the degree of severity will vary and it is for individual landlords to estimate the cost of works involved in tackling dampness in their stock.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister agree that the action that is being taken by the Government to cure dampness is insufficient? Does he also agree that at least 97 per cent. of Scots believe that the Government are not doing enough in that regard? Is not it absurd that the Government are not prepared to help Scots to get rid of water that they do not want, but are insisting on getting rid of the water that they want, through their councils, to keep?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In Glasgow's case, the resources to be spent on public sector housing in the coming year amount to £95.85 million. In addition, there is an allocation of more than £25 million for improvement grants and repair grants. Thus, the total is £121 million. I accept that not everything can be done overnight. However, that matter should be dealt with as a top priority,
    278
    especially where there is severe dampness and condensation. I have no doubt that Glasgow district council has the resources and the ability to take this policy forward effectively.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Minister try to speed up a reply to me on the question of communal blocks of housing in my constituency that suffer from water penetration? The fact that some of those have been sold to private individuals and that others are in the hands of local authorities has resulted in a legislative nightmare. The hon. Gentleman should be more expeditious in his offers of help.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will look into the right hon. Gentleman's particular point concerning communal blocks in his constituency. The non-housing revenue account and the improvement and repair grants can also be of assistance in the case of privately owned housing, and that factor needs also to be borne in mind.

    Woodlands (Public Access)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the powers currently available to the Forestry Commission to ensure woodland sold by it retains public access rights; and what plans he has to extend public access rights to such land.
    Sir Hector Monro: Before offering a woodland for sale, the Forestry Commission notifies the relevant local authority and offers to enter into an access agreement with it to provide for continued public access after sale. Public rights of way are not, of course, affected by changes of ownership.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that the Forestry Commission has been effective in providing more and greater access to forests, particularly those in my constituency of South Dorset. Most of my constituents are very keen that, following the Government's current review of forestry, they should continue to have access. When does my hon. Friend expect to be able to come forward with the Government's plans to get over some of the problems arising from the denial of access when the Forestry Commission sells land?
    Sir Hector Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am glad that he has had such a satisfactory relationship with the commission in Dorset. As he knows, we received the forestry review group's report at the end of last month. That is important and we must go through it in great detail with_ all the Ministers involved. We hope to come to conclusions fairly soon. I assure my hon. Friend that access is a high priority, especially given that a sub-committee, having looked into the question, was not too impressed with what had been happening.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland there is widespread concern about access to the countryside and to the mountains, not just because of the privatisation of forests but because of clauses 52 and 53 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will the hon. Gentleman try to ensure that those two clauses, which deal with aggravated trespass, do not apply to Scotland?
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman knows that this question deals with the Forestry Commission and with

    279
    access to forests. The House will have noted his remarks, but I think that he is misinformed as to the likely results of the two clauses to which he has referred.

    Exports (Woollen Goods)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual export value of Scottish woollen scarves and mufflers for the past three years.
    Mr. Stewart: Export values for the United Kingdom for scarves and other accessories of any knitted or crocheted material were £53.5 million in 1990, £53.4 million in 1991 and £65.2 million in 1992. Figures for the whole of 1993 are not yet available. I hope that this wraps up the information requested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish textile industry on its huge success over many years, against fierce competition? Is my hon. Friend aware that, since that lot opposite embraced the American-Anglo friendship, exports to America have increased? In view of that, will he give a particular hon. Member not the Grand Order of the Thistle but the "grand order of the muffler"?
    Mr. Stewart: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that the industry in Scotland is alert to all opportunities in the marketplace, both nationally and internationally. Indeed, there may well be an increased market among Labour Members who may wish to wear woolly scarves and hats made in Scotland when they visit their friends in Belgravia and elsewhere.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the figures for exports of mufflers and scarves, no mufflers and scarves in the colours of Clyde football club are available in Cumbernauld new town, where the club recently took up occupation of its new stadium? Is he aware that the new stadium is a great success, that it is part of a new complex for business in Scotland and that the people are enthusiastic about that, just as they are enthusiastic about bringing jobs to Cumbernauld?
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I entirely agree with him. Although I was not able to attend the opening of the new stadium, as he was, it is an excellent asset and advertisement for Cumbernauld new town.

Personal Pensions
3.30 pm
Mr. John Denham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the crisis in personal pensions that now threatens the retirement incomes of more than 2 million people".
The problem is very clear and very simple, but the Government have attempted to conceal it behind complacency and inaction.
The problem affects people who have left the state earnings-related pension scheme, but whose incomes are below about £10,000 a year. Their contribution to their personal pensions is too low: after the pension companies have taken management fees and profits out of their savings, their pensions will be less than they were under SERPS.
The Government slipped out the figures that reveal the position just before Christmas. In January, 147 Labour Members signed a resolution highlighting the problem. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte estimates that 2.4 million people—40 per cent. of all those who have personal pensions—are now affected in this way. Despite that continuing pressure, the Government have done and said nothing.
With every day that passes, the future retirement incomes of nearly 2.5 million people are being unnecessarily and scandalously reduced. The Government have had more than enough opportunities to make a statement or arrange a debate in the House; I hope that it will now be possible for the House to adjourn, so that we can debate the matter that the Government do not wish us to debate.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I must state my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, on Question 10, I endeavoured to come up with a helpful supplementary about using the planned Scottish parliament building in Edinburgh to create extra hotel rooms, as was done in London with the building used by the Greater London council. You cut me off in my prime, and did not allow me to explain the connection with Question 10. It was clear where my question was leading, as will be seen from Hansard tomorrow. I am particularly upset by the fact that, although you ruled the following supplementary out of order as well, you allowed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) to continue.
Madam Speaker: I quite understand that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was working towards the relevant part of his supplementary,
282
but perhaps I might advise him—and other hon. Members —to begin with the relevant part in future, rather than keeping me waiting in hope.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter with you in your role as guardian of the rights of Back Bench Members.
Last Monday, I arranged through the office of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to visit Campsfield detention centre near Oxford tomorrow. I saw the Minister last night and thanked him for granting my request. He wished me well and assured me that I would find the detention centre very comfortable.
You, Madam Speaker, will understand my concern and mystification when, a few hours ago, I received a message from the Minister's office that his permission had been withdrawn and my visit was considered inappropriate. That was despite the fact that a senior immigration officer had readily agreed to accompany me and had agreed to my request that I should be allowed to view the centre and to speak to the management and to any detainees who wished to talk to me. You will know that some detainees are on hunger strike and others have been dispersed from Oxford to other prisons and detention centres.
As the Home Secretary has consistently refused to make a statement on this matter, and there is no other way—apart from visiting the centre—that hon. Members can ascertain the true facts, I should be grateful if you could bring any pressure to bear on the Home Office to facilitate such visits by hon. Members.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it related to the previous point of order?
Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Madam Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I have repeatedly raised the issue of Campsfield detention centre and the hunger strike there. You will also recall that I have asked for a debate and for the Minister to receive letters and meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss what is going on at Campsfield detention centre. You urged me to contact his office, which I have done.
I was astounded when, two hours ago, my office received a phone call followed by a fax from the Minister's office saying that he is not even prepared to meet a delegation of hon. Members to discuss what is going on in Campsfield detention centre, including the operation of the hunger strike and the advice given to the private security company—Group 4—which is in charge of the detention centre.
The only recourse for individual hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the issue is to raise it with you, Madam Speaker, and ask that the Home Secretary is brought to the House to make a statement, or that, by some means, those of us who wish to do so can give the matter a public airing so that what we believe is a growing scandal in the treatment of asylum seekers is heard, debated and discussed in the House and those poor people who fled oppression can gain some form of justice in Britain.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that if a Minister intimidated, or intended to intimidate, hon. Members in the carrying out of their duty, or in any way

283
prevented them from doing so, that could be construed as a breach of privilege? The actions of Ministers are not excluded from the ordinary remedies available to the House—the High Court of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has raised a hypothetical point, but the two hon. Members who attempted to raise with me what they call a point of order credit me with more influence than I have. I have no influence whatsoever on. Ministers in allowing hon. Members to see various establishments. A point of order should concern a breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. However, there will be opportunities later this week when hon. Members may wish to press those on the Government Front Bench for a debate on this matter, and no doubt they will attempt to do so.

Withdrawal of Medical Treatment
3.38 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prescribe circumstances in which medical treatment and nutrition can be withdrawn and to secure the continued provision in such circumstances of palliative care; and for connected purposes.
The Bill concerns an extremely sensitive subject, relating as it does to the last great unmentionable—the end which confronts all mankind.
I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating those in another place who recently produced an outstanding report on the complex issue of medical ethics. There is a great deal of good sense in its recommendations, not least in its unanimous rejection of euthanasia, and I hope that it will point the way ahead for many years to come.
I seek to provide the House with an opportunity to reaffirm its opposition to the practice of euthanasia—the intentional killing of a patient by act or omission as part of his or her medical treatment. That practice is, and must remain, illegal. Most of the evidence received by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics rejected the practice of euthanasia. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, the National Hospice Council and, indeed, other health care organisations all gave evidence to that effect.
The Medical Ethics Select Committee recognised that the medical, legal and social arguments against euthanasia were particularly strong. Medically, it recognised that advances in palliative care had enabled the pain and distress of terminal illness to be relieved in the vast majority of cases. Legally, it recognised that the prohibition of intentional killing is the cornerstone of the law and social relationships and that that protection must not be diminished in any way. Socially, it recognised that, while there may be individual cases where some may consider euthanasia appropriate, the interests of the individual cannot be separated from those of society.
To legalise euthanasia would result in the vulnerable, the elderly, the lonely, the sick or the distressed feeling pressure—whether real or imagined—to request an early death.
In the face of those arguments, there is a minority who think that euthanasia should be legalised. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society continues mischievously to claim that 79 per cent. of people in this country are in favour of euthanasia, basing that claim on an opinion poll that it commissioned. However, an investigation by the Select Committee revealed that it asked the question:
"Would you like medical assistance to a peaceful death?"
Few would respond in the negative to such a loaded question.
Recently in a public debate, a leading member of the VES stated that many doctors in the United Kingdom are in favour of euthanasia. In reality, at its last conference, the BMA voted four to one against the legalisation of the practice.
We need to clarify the difficult issues involved in the withdrawal of medical treatment. Decisions about medical treatment and the end of life are more complicated now than they have been in the past. As a result of advances in medical technology, patients live longer and can survive conditions that in the past would have meant a swift end.

285
While those advances are welcome, they sometimes make it necessary to consider whether initiating a course of treatment will benefit or be a burden to the patient.
The decision can be made more easily in some cases than in others. Where a patient is competent, the decision may be arrived at through discussion between the patient, the relatives and the health care team. I stress that the autonomy of the patient is crucial and if a patient does not want to persist with an aggressive form of treatment, that decision should be respected and treatment withheld or withdrawn. That is good medical practice. It has long been accepted that a doctor does not have to strive officiously to maintain life. The prolongation of life is not the exclusive aim of medical practice, and as the founder of the present-day hospice movement, Dame Cicely Saunders, put it:
"doctors are committed to giving appropriate care to their patients, not to every treatment that may be technically possible".
With regard to incompetent patients, or where a patient is confused or unconscious, decisions about treatment withdrawal can be much more complex, for it is difficult to know what such patients' wishes are in the current situation. Advance directives can be helpful in providing guidance about the treatment of such patients, but we should not forget that not all possible situations can be foreseen. No doctor in this country should ever have to face possible legal action because he or she did not, or could not, follow an advance directive to the letter. Such action has taken place in the United States.
If there is no indication of a patient's wishes, decisions must rest with the health care team and the family of the patient. They have to decide whether the treatment to be given is appropriate. That entails an analysis of whether the benefits of treatment will outweigh the burden of the medical procedures.
The House of Lords Select Committee addressed the issue in relation to the case of my constituent Tony Bland, who was tragically left in a vegetative state following the Hillsborough disaster. The Select Committee rightly stated in paragraph 257 of its report:
"it might well have been decided long before application was made to the court that treatment with antibiotics was inappropriate, given that recovery from the inevitable complications of infection could add nothing to his well-being as a person."
In short, it would have been perfectly ethical for Tony Bland to be allowed to die long before he did, had the health care professionals involved in his case been advised differently. I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to Tony Bland's parents and to all those people who cared for him towards the end of his life.
The House of Lords Select Committee was divided on one issue: the difficult one of nutrition and hydration. In my view, however, food and water are such vital necessities that their withdrawal from a patient who is not in a terminal state can be intended to have only one outcome—killing that patient. They should only be withdrawn, therefore, from a patient who is approaching death and where their administration would be burdensome. I stress that the report of the Select Committee pointed out that the appropriate handling of a case at an earlier stage would mean that the sort of dilemma that the courts considered last year need never arise.
Thirdly, I endorse the Select Committee's call for the provision of greater resources for palliative care, of the
286
type provided by the hospice movement to the terminally ill. With almost 200 centres for palliative care in the United Kingdom and with provision for the dissemination of care in hospitals and in the community, so much has been achieved in recent years. In my constituency, the Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice and Ardenlea, which is run by the Marie Curie Memorial Foundation, are two of many whose dedicated work is so highly regarded by Members of Parliament.
Additionally, the Select Committee suggested that research into pain relief and symptom control should be more fully supported. I understand that the Government will soon reply to its report and I hope that there will be a positive response to that and to other valuable suggestions.
The demand for palliative care is such that it should be made more widely available. It need not disturb us if, as a secondary effect of such care, the life of the patient may be shortened. That is the so-called principle of double effect, which was supported and upheld by the Select Committee. If the doctor intends to relieve pain and the treatment given is appropriate to that end, the possible double effect should not be an obstacle to such treatment.
I hope that all those people who are interested in such issues will note and heed the warnings from developments overseas. The British Medical Journal reported last month that the Dutch Attorney-General had ruled that a psychiatrist who helped a physically fit, but depressed 50-year-old woman to commit suicide should not be prosecuted. There is also overwhelming evidence that involuntary euthanasia has become widespread. Such cases show that Holland presents a model of how a slippery slope may become ever steeper.
By supporting the Bill, the House will echo the great majority of the medical profession who oppose euthanasia. The House will support them in the difficult decisions that they must often take not to persist with medical treatment that would be of no benefit to their terminally ill patients. It will also give renewed confidence to the hospices and palliative care teams who see euthanasia as a negation, in every way, of the ethos that underpins their commitment and inspires their work. Our message today should be clear and it must be unmistakable: with the right sort of care, life can be lived to the full to the very end.
3.47 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to oppose the ten-minute Bill motion of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). I have great regard for the hon. Gentleman, but the way in which the Bill has been introduced is ill-conceived.
I support the concept of euthanasia, not because I am oblivious to the significance of human life, but because, if the hon. Member for Keighley were successful and got the Bill on the statute book, it would further restrict the right of an individual to choose. Everyone has the right to maximum dignity in life and indeed, in death. Through his Bill, the hon. Gentleman seeks to endorse the main themes of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics in another place, as he said. By opposing euthanasia in its report, that Committee attacked the rights of those people who wish to leave this life with dignity.
Seneca wrote:
"If I can choose between a death of torture and one that is simple and easy, why should I not select the latter? As I choose the ship in which I sail and the house which I inhabit, so will I

287
choose the death by which I leave life."
Historians will no doubt recall that Seneca was forced to commit suicide.
Mr. Derek Enright: Absolutely.
Mr. Banks: I knew that there would be at least one historian in the House who would remember that.
Those who support euthanasia stress the voluntary nature of the act. It is not compulsory. Nothing in this life is simple and the same is true in death. I accept that multiple moral considerations are involved; doctors and close relatives can find themselves facing terrible dilemmas. However, the right of an individual to choose must arch across those difficulties.
The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned the withdrawal of medical treatment. The medical profession makes considerable use of what may be described as passive euthanasia. A doctor can exercise many decisions—such as not resuscitating a patient after a heart attack, not administering antibiotics to treat pneumonia or other infections mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and not inserting artificial feeding tubes through the nose or direct into the stomach. All are examples of passive euthanasia, and they are extensively discussed by the medical profession—if only because advances in medical science allow doctors to prolong the dying process.
Compassionate doctors are often caught between the suffering of their patients and their duty, as they see it, to prolong life. If a doctor does not treat a life-threatening condition in an already sick patient, the doctor makes the choice on the patient's behalf. I see that as a form of medical paternalism—the Idea that doctor always knows best. The British Medical Association clearly states that the power to decide rests with patients. A report in the British Medical Journal in December 1991 deplored the lack of guidelines for non-resuscitation orders in hospitals. Regrettably, in far too many cases the wishes of the patient are never even sought, never mind taken into consideration.
Under British law, competent adults have the right to refuse any or all medical treatment. That right is often invoked by people who want to die with dignity, at a time of their own choosing.
The hon. Member for Keighley spoke of a patient becoming incompetent or unconscious of what is happening, or being unable to communicate clearly. In such a situation, doctors cannot know a patient's wishes. Would they welcome a non-treatment decision or the intrusive and sometimes violent treatment necessary to sustain life?
The hon. Gentleman touched on, but moved quickly away from, the usefulness of advance directives—or living wills, as they are known. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt be delighted to know that it is not my intention to pop my clogs just yet, but my wife and I have signed living wills because we believe them to be important. The individual merely states on the advance directive the sort of life-prolonging treatment that he or she does not want if they suffer in future from an incurable disease causing unbearable suffering.
A directive also provides for the event of a brain-damaging accident requiring life support systems to
288
maintain a vegetative patient, and the option to have one's life terminated. A directive does not ask a doctor to do anything illegal, such as actively terminate life, but only requests that artificial, aggressive or extraordinary means —all medical terms—are not used to prolong the dying process.
In 1992, the BMA gave full support to advance directives, stating that patients' wishes must not be overridden and that doctors must not impose their own views of beneficial treatment on others.
The legal status of an advance directive has never been tested in a British court, although statements made in the Court of Appeal and by Law Lords in the Tony Bland case indicated that an advance directive is binding. The hon. Member for Keighley said that Tony Bland could have been allowed to die earlier if the correct advice had been given, but that was not the situation. Tony Bland's parents were forced to go through the whole process of the law to do, as caring parents, what was in their son's best interests. Despite the obstacles that they met, their noble stand was supported by the majority of the people of this country. If Tony Bland had signed an advance directive, his parents would have been spared all that grief and heartbreak.
In the United States of America, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark and some Australian states, living wills are fully recognised. Also, a number of countries recognise durable powers of attorney in health matters—something that this country should recognise.
The hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on the ability of palliative hospice care in keeping patients free from pain. We all acknowledge that hospices do wonderful work, but it is not true that palliative care removes all pain and distress in all patients. I know that is so because my father died of cancer. I do not see a contradiction between offering palliative hospice care and making voluntary euthanasia an option. They should both be included in the range of options available at the end of life. Apart from the unfortunate minority who cannot be kept comfortable, many people simply do not want the slow way of dying that hospices offer.
I have great feeling and warmth for the hon. Member for Keighley, but because I believe that euthanasia is a right —the right to live one's life in dignity and to leave one's life in dignity, I must oppose his motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No.19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gary Waller, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Dame Angela Rumbold, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours

WITHDRAWAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT
Mr. Gary Waller accordingly presented a Bill to prescribe circumstances in which medical treatment and nutrition can be withdrawn and to secure the continued provision in such circumstances of palliative care; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 May, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]
Orders of the Day
  Coal Industry Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Coal Industry Bill
    Clause 9

      EXPLOITATION RIGHTS: OIL AND GAS
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 8, line 40, leave out from 'it' to end of line 44 and insert
      'at the time of its being brought from the strata to the surface or, as the case may be, of its treatment in the strata; or'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

    Clause 10

      PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN INTERESTS IN COAL AND COAL MINES
      Amendments made: No. 45, in page 9, line 37, after 'acquired' insert '—(a)'.
      No. 46, in page 9, line 38, at end insert
      '; or
      (b) under section 1 or 2 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (prescriptive possession on ex facie valid deed).'.
      No. 47, in page 10, line 1, after 'above' insert
      ', in their application to England and Wales,'.
      No. 48, in page 10, line 5, at end insert—
      '() Subsection (3) above, in its application to Scotland, shall not restrict the acquisition, as mentioned in that subsection—

      (a) of any such servitude as adversely affects any coal or coal mine to which this section applies; or

      (b) of any other right so affecting (but not adverse to the title in) such coal or coal mine.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

    Clause 11

      RESTRUCTURING OF THE CORPORATION'S FUNCTIONS
      3.58 pm
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 49, at end add—
      `(10) The Secretary of State shall direct the Corporation to ensure that no coal mine shall cease production until the Coal Authority is established and able to invite applications for licences for these mines under section 26 of this Act.
      (11) The Secretary of State shall not perform the functions of the Coal Authority under subsection (10) above.
      (12) Where it is agreed that coal production is no longer possible, the Corporation may carry out its duty under subsection (10) above by operating on a care and maintenance basis only.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in clause 66, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
      '(aa) section 11(10) to (12).'
      Mr. Cook: The purpose of amendment No. 1 is simple: to ensure that there are no more closures before privatisation and that we have a truce in the closure programme, which has already given rise to too many casualties and too many human victims. It asks that there should be no more casualties in the few remaining months for which Ministers of the Crown remain responsible for an industry that is still in the public sector.
      As well as being a simple amendment, it is charitable, because it takes Ministers at their word. It accepts the
      290
      lavish promises that have been made that privatisation will be good for the coal industry and that pits will prosper under privatisation. [Interruption.] I see that on this point I carry the Minister with me. If he is so confident that pits will prosper under privatisation, what, then, is his problem in keeping open until that moment at least those that remain?
      That will be a lot easier for him to do than it was at the time of Second Reading, because there are now fewer pits than there were when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading. Twenty-two were open then; there are now 17. What, therefore, will stop him saying that those 17 pits can remain in operation until privatisation? I hope that he is not planning another round of closures, which would prevent him from accepting this amendment.
      I mention that because I notice that it was reported in the Financial Times last week that another two or three pits will close next month after the review meetings that have been convened to consider the collieries that are open. The report even names the five pits on the short list for closure: Bilsthorpe in Nottingham; Tower and Point of Ayr in Wales, which would mean that there will be no colliery left operating in Wales; Prince of Wales and Kiveton in Yorkshire. Those pits are at the heart of the amendment. Their fate will be decided next month at those review meetings. If the amendment is agreed to, those pits will go forward to take their chance after privatisation. If it is voted down, they may well be closed.
      Those pits demonstrate the extent to which we are now closing pits that are financially viable and make economic sense. Point of Ayr is now producing coal at £1.14 per gigajoule. When the Government carried out the coal review they instructed Boyds to review pits that might be closed, and Boyds set targets in terms of cost per gigajoule for every pit for 1995. The figure currently achieved by Point of Ayr is below the figure that Boyds set it for 1995. Already, over a year in advance, it is below the target figure. Bilsthorpe is below the target figure, too, and Kiveton is not only below it but well below. Kiveton colliery is now producing coal at £1.38 per gigajoule, well below the target of £1.53 by 1995 set by Boyds.
      Some of the most efficient pits in Europe, producing the cheapest fuel in Britain, which will give consumers the cheapest electricity, are at risk of closure. In a rational world, it should not be necessary for us to come to the House of Commons to move amendments to keep those pits open—but we are not talking about a rational decision. We can see that by considering the pits that have been closed since Second Reading.
      Five pits have closed since the House started proceedings on the Bill in January. One of them, Manton, produces coal at £1 per gigajoule—cheaper than most imports and cheaper than the coal produced by most pits in this country. When Boyds carried out the review for the coal White Paper it reckoned that Manton was the eighth most profitable pit in Britain, with a potential profit margin of 20 per cent. We have just closed one of the most efficient pits in the coal industry. How can the Minister possibly defend that?
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend mentioned Manton in my constituency, and everything that he said is true. Is there not also a cloak over the proceedings when people close a pit by saying that it will be amalgamated with another pit, or by two-thirds closing it by cutting three faces down to one, as happened at

      291
      Harworth, in my constituency? That means that men who go for redundancy get £10,000 less because there is no actual pit closure, although some of the faces have closed. The whole process is filled with deception.
      Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on a clear case of deception—a proposal for the merger of pits. Such proposals are transparently proposals for a closure of one of the two merged pits. I suspect that the only reason that British Coal is operating by merger rather than by closure is that with "mergers" it does not need to offer the pit concerned for market testing, for private sector operators to come forward to take it over. That is a device to ensure not only that pits close but that they stay closed.
      I was asking how the Minister could defend those actions. The reality, as he knows, is that he cannot defend them. I suspect that he will not even try. I know that he cannot because I have here the minutes of the British Coal privatisation project co-ordination group meeting on 14 February, at which the Minister had four representatives. The meeting took place the week after Manton was closed, and a Mr. Peter Jones, a merchant banker, was minuted as having repeated concerns:
      "that cost projections"—
      for privatisation—
      "would re-open debate about the reasons for closure of particular collieries".
      In other words, if the cost projections on privatisation were revealed, they would expose the fact that the pits that have been closed were just as cheap as those being kept for privatisation—in the case of Manton, probably even cheaper. I must say that, if a merchant banker cannot make the figures fit his case, they must be pretty robust figures. If Ministers are prepared to close pits when the case is so good that they dare not reveal the figures, it underlines the case for the House to pass the amendment to ensure that Ministers do not close any more.
      I am told that those cost projections to which Mr. Jones refers arise from another Boyds' study. Boyds is currently making cost projections of the cost of pits under privatisation. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that; perhaps he could deny it. He would unwise to seek to deny it, because I have one of those cost projections with me. It is the first cost projection for Longannet and is dated 2 March.
      That cost projection of the likely cost of coal in the pits after privatisation goes to the heart of our debate on the Bill. What is fascinating about Boyds' conclusion about the cost projections after privatisation is that it shows that the cost of coal will go up, not down. The Minister need not look so surprised. The paper has been already circulated to the DTI coal privatisation unit. He will have some difficulty denying that that paper exists and some difficulty
      The Minister will be aware of the assumptions on which the calculation is based, which are revealing. I see that the paper was addressed to Nicola Kirkup. I do not know whether we have a Nicola Kirkup in the House, but I am sure that she can brief hon. Members on what she has read in that document. The assumptions show that, after privatisation, redundancy payments are expected to tumble to £5,000 per head—about a quarter of the present level under British Coal. That is relevant, because another assumption in the document is that 150 workers at Longannet will be sacked on privatisation of that pit.
      Despite those savings and costs, the reduced redundancy payments and the reduced number of staff, the total operating costs rise because of the increase in pension
      292
      contributions for a new pension scheme and the increased insurance premiums which are necessary from a private owner. Boyds concludes:
      "Overall operating cash costs actually increase under private ownership from £1.32 per gigajoule to £1.34 per gigajoule."
      That is occurring at a pit which, over the past decade of public ownership, has dramatically reduced those costs. For the first time in 10 years, it is faced with an increase in its operating costs because of privatisation. How can Ministers possibly continue to defend the privatisation proposal when they have been told that it will put up the price of coal?
      There is another problem for the Ministers—how can they sell the pits? Boyds concludes its assessment with the following observation:
      "This cost assessment will be a major disincentive to buyers, who will point out cost increases despite aggressive improvements in performance."
      The question that Ministers must answer is, how can they square their wish to privatise coal with the fact that, plainly, they will have difficulty selling that idea to the market? In a sane House of Commons, they would find it impossible to sell those figures to hon. Members. I suspect that when they answer they will not try. The Ministers know that any figures are irrelevant to the Bill.
      Privatisation has nothing to do with whether it pushes up the price of coal or cuts off access to our coal reserves. There was no economic case for the closure programme. That programme shuts down access to fuel which provides us with the cheapest electricity. There was no financial case for privatisation. The Government will never get much money for the pits and will receive even less when the word gets out that it will be more expensive to operate the pits. There is no social case for privatisation. As my hon. Friends forcefully expressed yesterday, no private coal company can boast the safety record of British Coal. Why put that safety record at risk with privatisation? The reason is that the Bill is not motivated by finance or by economics or by social argument, but by the vindictive prejudice of the Government against the coal industry.
      That is what the Bill is about. That is why I suspect that the Minister will refuse to accept the amendment and give even a temporary reprieve to the coal industry. That is why the Bill will be remembered as the low tide of privatisation. It is a measure which we always knew was strategically inept and politically vindictive, and we now know—thanks to Boyds—that it is also financially bankrupt.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall be brief. There are three enormities about the Bill: the enormity of the cost to the public purse, the enormity of the challenge to the communities that are affected and the enormity of the Government's idiocy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, the Government have produced a Bill which is bred from dogma and out of malice. With breeding of that sort, what sort of colt will be produced?
      The national interest is not being served. We will generate dependency within a relatively short time. The Government have connived with Hobart house to have a small number of profitable pits which will not be able to meet Britain's requirements for coal within a short time. Given the Government's responsibilities to the nation as well as to mining areas, the least they could do is ensure that a sufficient number of collieries remain to meet

      293
      Britain's needs, which may well become acute if the Government's calculations are wrong and the price of gas rises faster than they feared.
      Indeed, as we reach the late 1990s, the Government will be extremely fearful in case the world gas price rises. I know that the Minister does not pay any attention to us. The Under-Secretary of State for Technology and the Minister for Energy are sitting there chatting while they care not at all about the national interest.
      A short while ago, I was in Germany meeting a German local authority in the Ruhr coalfield. When I talked to the miners there, they grumbled a little because they got only three years' notice of a colliery being closed. Some of us had less than three weeks. Some of us have seen profitable collieries such as Silverwood in my constituency doomed soon after the brilliant men of Hobart house approved millions of pounds of expenditure, which simply stopped before Christmas and before the coal face that was being developed could begin to turn coal.
      We have had enough stupidity, we have had enough dogma and we have had enough malice. It is time that the Government reconsidered the matter and accepted the amendment—in the national interest.
      Mr. Paddy Tipping: Miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country will see the amendment as a touchstone of the Government's commitment to the coal industry in Nottinghamshire. If the Government accept the amendment, at least it will give Nottinghamshire miners some hope. They need it, because they believe that the promises made to them first by Lady Thatcher's Government and then by this Government only last March have been betrayed. They believe that the Government have turned their back on them and simply walked away.
      If the amendment is carried, mines could stay open a little longer. People in Nottinghamshire want that commitment. They remember that, on Second Reading, Ollerton and Manton were still open; both are closed now. The way in which those pits were closed was despicable. British Coal, backed by the Government, filled the miners' mouths with gold. It behaved in an ignorant and arrogant way; it showed no sense and no sensibility and it showed contempt for the miners and their families. It put an extra £10,000 in redundancy money on the table and told the miners at Ollerton and Manton to take the money by Friday, or they would lose it.
      I was interested to see that, when the pit ponies came out of Ellington colliery only a few weeks ago, British Coal said that they would be looked after for the rest of their lives. Would it not be fine if miners who are thrown out of employment in Nottinghamshire daily received that sort of assurance from the Government?
      As well as filling miners' mouths with gold, they have now filled the pit shafts at Ollerton and Manton, and there is no prospect of those collieries reopening. Those profitable pits have closed, and the jobs have gone for ever. Perhaps the Minister will come clean this afternoon and confirm that further closures are imminent. Perhaps he will say that British Coal has already decided which pits are to close before 30 April. Perhaps he will say whether he has been consulted on that point.
      294
      I am told, and I know it to be the case, that decisions have been made about a further round of closures, and that all we are waiting for is ministerial consent.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Jack Thompson: I suspect that my hon. Friend believes, as I do, that there is something behind this in terms of the board of British Coal. To my knowledge, only one member of the board has said that he is neither involved nor interested in management buy-outs.

      I feel that the management will try to get involved in the little group of collieries which will be left after privatisation. They will have a virtual monopoly in providing coal to the electrical generating industry, for instance. If that is the case, it is an example of absolute corruption.
      Mr. Tipping: It is clear that there has been collusion between the Government and their supporters to define the market for coal. The level of that market will be 30 million tonnes, and it is clear that the British Coal managers have moved the number of collieries down to a level which will produce that amount. The pits currently in operation are producing 30 million tonnes of coal.
      It is also clear that managers, senior managers and maybe board members within British Coal are looking at the prospects for a buy-out. It is no wonder that men who have worked in and given everything to the industry view those managers with suspicion and hostility. They know that those managers are backed by the Government, and that there is a master plan at Hobart house and at the Department of Trade and Industry for pits that are to be closed during the next few weeks.
      It would be surprising—or perhaps not—if those announcements were made while Parliament was in recess for Easter. It would not be the first time that that has happened. Christmas holidays have been disasters for miners and for their families, and Easter holidays for many of them look dim and hostile.
      The Government ought to come clean, and say whether they know which pits are to close before 30 April, when the present redundancy scheme ends. I suspect that there will be more bribery and corruption. Money will be put on the table to miners and they will be told to take or leave the extra £10,000, or they will have lost not just their jobs, but the extra money.
      That is a fine way to treat miners at Bilsthorpe colliery, where there was a disaster last year. That disaster put the colliery's production back, but the miners worked hard and are now achieving their targets. They are on the rack. They believe that they have done everything that has been asked of them, and more. They want a clear commitment about whether they will survive the next round of closures.
      The Government ought to show some faith with the miners. They ought to say clearly today that there are to be no more closures, or, if closures are conceived, that they be left in the distance until the new Coal Authority is in place.
      The Government owe the mining industry. The miners in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country have done everything that has been been asked of them and more. They have increased productivity by 150 per cent. in recent years, and are producing coal at half the cost of coal from Germany. People all over Europe believe that we are crazy to close our mining industry.
      Even at this late stage, the Government should show some compassion and sense, and accept the amendment. It

      295
      is a small amendment, and a small step forward. It is at least a touchstone of faith for the miners of Nottinghamshire and throughout the country, who feel that they have been betrayed.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I entirely support the amendment. As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) knows, we have added our names to it to show that.
      The amendment makes two key points. The first is that, in any event and whatever the long-term plan might be, there is no excuse for not undertaking care and maintenance, even if mining is to stop, or for not holding the position pending the Coal Authority coming into operation and people bidding for licences and coming along to say that they are willing to take over a pit. It would be unacceptable to allow pits that are operating today to be lost between now and the end of the life of British Coal and the creation of the Coal Authority.
      The second point is that we do not trust the Government. The point has been made on behalf of the industry over and over again. The industry does not trust the Government to look after its interests. It has already been made clear in speeches from these Benches that the industry does not trust British Coal to look after its interests, because it believes that British Coal is thinking about something else. It believes that British Coal is thinking about its own interests and the future interests of the people who work for British Coal, following the enactment of the legislation. That is a classic conflict of interest.
      The amendment seeks to protect the industry and the current workers against the conflict of interest in the management of British Coal. Certain examples suggest how right we are to be suspicious.
      It is not accidental that pits which stopped operation last year are being reopened by British Coal this year. In the past few weeks, British Coal has announced that it will put £9 million into restarting production at Maltby. Maltby happens to be near Rotherham. I do not think that it is coincidental that the announcement has been made in the past few weeks, given that a by-election is coming up in Rotherham.
      Mr. David Hanson: The Conservatives will not win it.
      Mr. Hughes: Of course the Government will not win. Not only will they not win, but they will be lucky to save their deposit. I did not mean that there was any great political benefit in reopening Maltby.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Liberal Democrats might even beat them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member says that we too may beat the Conservatives. Indeed, we have good prospects of beating them in Rotherham and in all the other Labour-held seats where by-elections are to be held. So there will be no political gain for the Government.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: That undermines the hon. Member's argument that this is done for political gain.
      Mr. Hughes: No, it does not. The Government are standing by while British Coal plays games with the industry in the very shortest of short terms. It is self-evident that some of the pits that are currently closed
      296
      have been the subject of interest from operators and are potentially perfectly viable. We know that people can make a go of those pits.
      Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friends will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and me make relevant comments about the matter. British Coal intends to de-mothball Maltby but close Silverwood in my constituency. It will transfer men from Silverwood to Maltby, having got rid of most of the Maltby men first.
      Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the one thing that Hobart house should have been worried about was to keep Maltby going immediately after completing £190 million of capital investment? The price that British Coal would have had to pay for taking Maltby into the core group it wants to set up might well have been rather higher than it wished to pay.
      Mr. Hughes: I agree. That touches on exactly the debate that we had last night, on mine water. Many unspecified liabilities have not yet been sorted out. As we have seen many times, the Government are forcing through the rush to sell off not the family silver or the Government's silver, but the nation's black silver, because they know that that is the only way in which they will be able to persuade buyers to make bids for some of the pits without knowing what the potential liability will be. That action is highly irresponsible, because it does not give any protection either to the people who are working in the pits at present or to the public at large.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): At the beginning of his speech, did the hon. Gentleman say that, of the closures which are deemed necessary, if a closure does take place that colliery should be kept on a care and maintenance basis until such time as privatisation has taken place in full?
      Mr. Hughes: I simply repeated the points of view that are formally expressed in this amendment. It makes two points very clearly—the Minister must have been briefed on how to respond to them.
      First, the third paragraph of the amendment says that, where coal production is no longer possible, the corporation should operate on a care and maintenance basis. Secondly, it says that the Secretary of State should direct the corporation to ensure that no production in any of the pits ceases until the new authority is up and running. It is a twin argument, and we argue in this way because we do not trust management to make decisions about the pits operating currently which are not compromised by the interests of the current managers.
      The risk is that pits will be closed, with a subsequent loss of jobs.We know about the potential unemployment, and we know how that will damage communities. We have rehearsed those arguments, and the Minister knows about the devastation that pit closures cause in communities where the mine is often the only major employer.
      In almost every case, the consequence of decisions to close pits means either that pits will never reopen—which means the loss indefinitely of what could be a perfectly good pit—or that pits will be closed, with the risk that licences will be taken out by people who have not addressed or picked up full responsibility for health and safety, environmental liabilities and other matters dealt with by other amendments on Report.

      297
      The United Kingdom has some of the best coal in Europe, if not the world. The nation cannot afford to allow British Coal to make further announcements after the Bill has gone through the Parliament, and say, "Right, now that we know we are not going to run into political flak, we are basically free to make unaccountable decisions without having to justify them."
      Seventeen is a small number of pits. If British Coal were determined not only to try to secure sales to the electricity generating industry, but to do what Mr. Neil Clarke said in a press release a couple of weeks ago and maximise sales in all other areas of life where there is a prospective market for coal, there is absolutely no reason why the amount of coal currently being produced from 17 pits cannot be sustained until this legislation passes through both Houses of Parliament.
      Mr. Jack Thompson: Returning to the question of care and maintenance, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I have had meetings with British Coal about Ellington colliery, and we still cannot get clarification about care and maintenance. By definition, that suggests keeping up the roof in the mine, making regulations work properly in the mine, and making sure water is contained within the mine—the safety aspects.
      But I want clarification about the maintenance and care of production machinery. If the mine is to operate and produce coal, the production machinery must be maintained. It is my experience in the industry that there is a problem in a mine after three weeks' holiday, never mind after three months' closure.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman speaks from great experience in the industry, and I bow to that experience. Even people like me, who have only been down pits, as opposed to those who work in them, understand very clearly that, once the coal mining operation is stopped, there is a huge capital cost, even if it is possible to get the pit working again.
      I know for a fact that the right hon. Member and the hon. Gentleman were led to believe that the Ellington pit would survive, and then, about one month ago, learned, with two days' notice, that it was going to close. I think my recollection is correct—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may correct me. The decision changed in a very short time.
      There was no long lead time or any indication that Ellington was going to be closed. It was said to be secure, as were many of the pits which have closed since Second Reading. In October last year, we were told by the President of the Board of Trade that these were guaranteed core pits, but they have been closed.
      The political reality is that we have two options left: we can protect the industry, rundown though it is and producing minimal amounts of coal with maximum efficiency and productivity but with the best possible performance indicators, or we effectively sign up to a minimalist coal industry with 13, 14 or 15 pits, which is what the Rothschild report promised us.
      4.30 pm
      This issue does not affect only the mining communities, although it may affect them principally. Let the House and the Government be in no doubt that the fact that there is no demonstration of 100,000 people on the streets of
      298
      Westminster today does not mean that all the communities of Britain—from places as different as Cheltenham and Chelsea, which are unlikely supporters of the coal industry but which were forced to oppose the Government, and urban areas such as mine, which has not had a pit within 60 miles of it since there were pits in the Kent coalfield—do not feel just as strongly as the mining communities. The country is telling the Government that they have one last chance to exercise some authority.
      It was the Government's idea to sell the coal industry, and it is they who are forcing the pace. If they wanted to do so, the Government could freeze the position to ensure that we have a coal industry able to compete in the international markets in future.
      If the Minister says that he is sorry, but that the Government are going to leave it to Neil Clarke and British Coal, he will be allowing a conflict of interest to determine the national interest. That is entirely irresponsible and unhelpful to all those who have worked for decades and generations to earn our coal industry its reputation as one of the greatest in the world. Yes, the Government can sell the Tory party silver, but not the remainder of the nation's silver.
      I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendment is not merely a token gesture on behalf of Opposition Members but a reflection of the opinions of people outside. We cannot afford to run down our coal industry any further. It is no good the Government saying that they are washing their hands of it and it is going into the private sector—it is not in the private sector today. It is still a national responsibility, and the Government must accept that responsibility and the duty to protect the coal industry to the utmost for the future.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The amendment reflects the great lack of confidence in British Coal felt by many of those who work down the mines. I believe that the whole of the work force lack confidence in what British Coal is going to do. They are incensed that viable mines could be closed in the next few weeks. The lessons that we learned last year provide us with good examples in that some of the mines that were closed because British Coal said that they were not viable are now coaling again. They are open again only because they are in the private sector, but they have markets for their coal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think about that.
      It is fairly obvious to those of us who have perhaps studied the industry only in the past 18 months that, although British Coal said repeatedly that it had only two customers, the rest of the United Kingdom knew that there were far more than two customers, in this country and even beyond, who were willing to buy British coal.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) referred to the speed with which the pits have been closed. He should perhaps compare it with what happened a few months ago, when he and I were talking about constituency boundaries being changed.
      It is marvellous that, when the jobs of Members of Parliament are at stake, we hold an inquiry lasting several months. Everyone is allowed to state his views, which go before an independent assessor. This all takes several months, another solution is suggested and hon. Members can use a Queen's counsel to make their case. That is quite

      299
      right; I am not condemning the process, because such changes are important arid should be handled properly. However, when it comes to miners' jobs, it is a finger-snapping exercise.
      When an industry, factory, firm or shop is in trouble, a liquidator or receiver is called in. The first thing he does is try to keep the business going. He asks people who have not received their money or whose debts have not been paid, "Will you hold off? Will you not make the factory or the industry or the shop bankrupt? Please don't demand your money just now. Let's try to keep it going as a going concern and try to find a buyer." That has happened in the case of football clubs that are in terrible trouble, big stores that are involved in a merger or amalgamated, supermarkets that have joined up, or big companies such as Rover and BMW.
      Surely it is the Conservative attitude that a business should be kept alive until a buyer is found, as any business man in the country would say. That has happened time and again with engineering companies, and with practically everything in the commercial market, but not with pits.
      For some reason, there is underhand deception. A few months ago, the Government promised, as they did with regard to my constituency, that certain coal mines were core pits which would be there virtually for ever—places such as Manton, Welbeck and Harworth. They promised that, even if the number of pits got down to single figures, those pits would still operate. The men were assured of that. Suddenly, one night, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said, usually in the recess, when we cannot raise the matter in Parliament, the rug is pulled away from under them.
      If ever a body of men have been deceived by the Government, it has to be the miners, with their promise of productivity. For years they were told, "Increase production; increase your productivity; turn out more; work faster; work harder; adopt all the new methods; adopt every piece of modern machinery; work shifts; work overtime and get the prices down." What was the result? The sack. Yet they wonder why, in all the years when I was a lad on the shop floor, miners used to say to me, "Go slow, lad; there is a whole day tomorrow not started on. You'll be working yourself out of a job."
      Shop stewards advocated restrictive practices, about which the Conservatives screamed blue murder every time that the trade unions dug in their heels and said, "We're protecting our jobs." The people who shouted the loudest said, "You're destroying British industry." After the miners' strike, what happened? The miners did everything the Government told them to do—work harder, accept new practices, not stand in the way of modern investment and machinery. They did everything.
      The Minister knows, because he is an ex-miner. That is the tragedy—an ex-miner shutting down his own industry. He ought to consider asking for another job. He understands what has happened. The reward of those miners has been the sack, in an underhand, indecent way. To prevent the miners from striking, to prevent them from protesting, to prevent them from saying, "Hold on a bit; there's a buyer for the pit," they were told, "If you sign the docket by next Friday, you will get £10,000 extra redundancy pay." Who could resist a bribe such as that?
      Some of those miners think that they are getting something. They are getting nothing. I will tell the Minister what redundancy pay is. It is advance unemployment benefit; advance social security; advance supplementary
      300
      benefit—call it what you like. That lump sum of 25,000 quid, or whatever, means that ex-miners cannot qualify for rent rebate, or for anything else that unemployed people get, until they have dwindled down and dwindled down their redundancy pay.
      They have taken their benefits in advance and saved the Government a great many of the pay-outs that they would have had to make on income support and other benefits. They know it. Accountants have carefully worked out the costs of 10 years' unemployment with redundancy pay, compared with 10 years' weekly benefit.
      There are people in my constituency who took redundancy, unwillingly—they were perhaps 48 or 50 years old—after the miners' strike. They thought that, as they had £90 a week—which was not inflation-proof—they would be able to exist for the rest of their life. Now they find that they cannot, because things wear out. Their car has worn out, and it is gone. The television is worn out. They are trying to make do with the clothes they wore 10 years ago. They tried to exist by scratching and scraping.
      When interest rates fall, all Conservative Members cheer, but lower interest rates mean a smaller return on money in the bank, so redundancy compensation becomes worth less and less. Many people are now living in a state of deep poverty, having followed the advice of the Tory Government. Is it any wonder that the general election results in Nottinghamshire amounted to such a landslide?
      After the miners' strike, the Conservative party promised the Union of Democratic Miners everything. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood won his seat from a UDM supporter, and two more seats in Nottingham came to Labour. In fact, my party secured the biggest swing to have been seen in very many years. People know how they have been betrayed.
      My constituency has three big power stations. There is no doubt that the steam they produce results in acid rain over Europe. After all, they are 30-odd years old. But they could be modernised. Thousands of people could be provided with work at High Marnham, Cottam and West Burton, and, even with continued coal burning, the acid rain could be stopped.
      That course would be much cheaper than the provision of gas-fired power stations, the payment of unemployment and other benefits and the decimation of areas. However, the Government's hatred of the mining industry is such that they refuse to take such action. They would sooner introduce gas-fired power stations employing 35 people and using the resources of the North sea for the sake of their own dogma. How often have they criticised us for dogma? They used to accuse us of being doctrinaire, of never being prepared to bend. In respect of this matter, their hatred of mining areas, and of working-class people in particular, is clear.
      Ministers are still engaging in deception. They repeatedly denied that they intended to close two of the three faces in Harworth. Two weeks later, 300 people were made redundant. A hard-hitting, high-powered, high-production, low-cost pit has been swallowed despite the Government's promises.
      We have heard that Manton produces coal at just over £1 a gigajoule. It is probably second or third in the league table of the eight or nine pits in the midlands, on practically every ground—productivity, cost of production, and so on. With the snap of a finger, it was announced that it was to

      301
      be not closed but merged with Welbeck, which is seven miles away. Now that it has been merged, everything is shut.
      Despite the padlocks and the blocking of the top, this is described as a merger. How can it be described as a merger? The mine with which it has been merged is in the Mansfield travel-to-work area, which is a development area, whereas my area has only assisted area status. But juggling the statistics makes the figures look better. And that is all that miners are—statistics. They are statistics in a table set out by people who have the cheek to try to tell us what is best for the industry.
      There is no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. It simply says that final closure should not take place until the British Coal Authority has been set up. What is wrong with that? No other industry going through major upheaval—mergers, takeover bids, amalgamations —would dream of shutting down a branch in these circumstances. If Marks and Spencer decided to build a bigger store at Meadowhall in Sheffield, one would expect some discussion or consultation. In fact, Marks and Spencer has not behaved as badly as the pit owners.
      But no one else would act like British Coal. Anyone else would talk. Let the Government accept the amendment, and let British Coal talk to the men for a change, instead of being told by the Government exactly what to do.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Martin Redmond: I have listened to Ministers' attempts to argue the case for the privatisation of coal, but I have heard no logic or common sense and no economic grounds. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that, even with a scrubbing brush, one could not get Ministers to come clean. To close pits is, in effect, to sterilise areas. The amendment seeks to ensure that there will at least be a moratorium until such time as privatisation takes place—in other words, a pit will be a working pit or a pit in mothballs. British Coal does not come clean in relation to the future of the industry. It has not done so in the past, and I cannot see it doing so in the future.
      Yorkshire has lost approximately 47,000 jobs, excluding those not in but associated with the industry. It is important that the taxpayer be given some consideration. After all, it is he who has to meet this enormous cost. At the Rossington pit, British Coal attempted to remove machinery to make the operation non-viable for any future purchaser.
      In 1993 approximately 18.5 million tonnes of coal was imported into Britain. The Minister for Energy has refused to tell us who imports this coal, saying that it is a confidential matter. British Coal imports the coal; why the hell does not the Minister come clean? In terms of the balance of trade, what is happening is costing the country £687 million.
      Neil Clarke was appointed chairman of British Coal to look after the industry. I have yet to see Neil Clarke do a day's work to earn his salary. It is the easiest thing in the world to stand back, do nothing and watch an industry collapse. But the Minister seems to be quite content with the situation. According to this week's "Westminster Brief', Neil Clarke intends to pursue every possible tonne of coal. Is that a reference to the 18.5 million tonnes of coal
      302
      being imported? I am at a loss to understand how Budge and Edwards can take over pits and proceed to make profits. If Budge and Edwards can do it, why cannot Neil Clarke—this captain of industry whom the Government appointed and who has created so much misery throughout the coalfields of the country?
      It is regrettable that the Minister is prepared to proceed and, possibly, connive with the chairman of British Coal. They are using collusion and secrecy to con Conservative Members into supporting pit closures. They take the heat out of the situation in the hope that, in three months' time, other issues will occupy people's minds. I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will support our reasonable amendment, which is an attempt to inject some sanity into the action that is being taken against the coal mining industry.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: We find ourselves in a pitiful position. We are asking for a moratorium—a reasonable moratorium, based on common sense. I keep using that phrase, because when we debate the coal industry logic goes out of the window.
      One of the Government's arguments is, "We are depending on British Coal officials." That is like the police asking for guidance from the mafia: it is nonsense. Those officials have got incompetence down to a fine art. They are hatchet men, determined to carry out the Government's wishes. The Government say that they are depending on them. Depending on them to do what? I could give example after example of the incompetence that they have shown over many years.
      We are becoming a bit cynical. There have been closures in several areas, and various proposals have been advanced. We have seen a number of slogans: "We are streamlining the industry" was a good one, which hon. Members may remember. Headlines above so-called articles refer to "concentrating our assets", "concentrating on the main coalfields, not the peripheral ones", "transferring miners to a long-term future", and "an amalgamation of production units." The "peripheral" coalfields were in Scotland, Kent, the north-east and north-west, Durham, Northumberland and Wales. In those areas, the shock is over; despair and cynicism have set in.
      The Government have promised to help. They have promised alternative employment, and they have promised RECHAR money. We have had some of that money, but some was not brought in because it was "additionality money". The Government were supposed to match the European Community pound for pound. The Irish Government seem to be very good in that respect, as are other EC Governments, but our Government are not. Money that could be spent on environmental and other coalfield improvements is going begging because the Government are not putting their money where their mouth is.
      The Government speak of retaining assets. Retaining them for what? That is what is causing the cynicism. We had a boom and bust situation. I do not only blame the current Government; over the years, I have frequently lobbied other Governments of all persuasions who had fallen for this Coal Board nonsense of running down the industry while other countries expand theirs.
      Assets should not be sold at the last minute because people are feathering their nests. Those people have a vested interest in the outcome of privatisation, and many of them are currently in charge of British Coal. I do not think

      303
      it helps to remove plant and machinery in which investment—capital or otherwise—has been made. These are the finest collieries in Europe; indeed, they are the finest production units in the world. Yet, for some reason, deep mines are being destroyed. I think that those people's motivation is reluctance to allow a large industry to compete with the coal industry that they expect to inherit and run in the future.
      I issue a plea on behalf of those in coalfield communities. We in Scotland have a mothballed colliery, Francis; we do not want it to be closed, and we do not want any of the other mines—Longannet, for instance—to be cut or otherwise affected.
      I speak with some emotion, because people in my area, and in other mining communities, are at a low ebb as they try to work out what is happening to their industry. I plead with the Government to try to retain at least our existing assets, even at this eleventh hour before privatisation.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Ellington colliery, in my constituency, is experiencing precisely the circumstances to which the amendment refers. It provides something of an object lesson.
      First, we must ask, "Why the timing?" Just 'when Ellington was being actively considered for purchase, or licensing, by a number of outside interests—and British Coal had suggested a basis on which it would continue to operate for many years—we were suddenly confronted with a closure announcement. What possible justification or explanation can there be for that timing? Such action is completely alien to what would be done in the case of any other industry with an asset in which outside purchasers were interested: the aim, surely, would be to promote that asset, rather than destroying it and rendering it unusable in the future.
      While that was going on, men were being told to go on to contract, because that would help to keep the pit lean and fit while safeguarding their jobs. In the end, it meant that they received less redundancy money than they would have received if they had remained in British Coal's work force. No concession is being made to those men now; they are being treated as if they had walked into the manager's office and said, "I have a bright idea: I want to be put on to contract." None of them had done that. They were all asked to go on to contract, for reasons connected with the future of the pit or their own jobs.
      Mr. Derek Enright: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Grimethorpe colliery has closed; the Minister assured us that it had to close, because it could not make a profit. Grimethorpe supplied industrial coal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industries that it supplied are now supplied with foreign coal, which is much more expensive? Those industries are complaining; meanwhile, Grimethorpe is being turned into a depot to mix Polish and South American coal. Is that not a good example of the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman describes?
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has given another example of the unfathomable decisions made by British Coal in recent months. Here was a pit with a market for at least a significant part of its product, which went directly into a power station—providing power for a smelter—and also into the national grid. It was in an exceptional position, which made it more readily marketable than other pits as part of the privatisation process.
      304
      What happens now? Coaling stops, the pit is put on to a care and maintenance basis and, of course, it deteriorates. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) pointed out earlier—having worked in the pit for many years—in such circumstances a pit is bound to deteriorate, even if some active care and maintenance is in progress. While it deteriorates, potential licensees or buyers are presented not with a working pit to examine but with a deteriorating pit.
      There is a further element of mystery. The day before the closure of the pit, a very expensive coal-cutting machine was put down it. There it was, in place, as though coaling was to continue. Wholly mystifying decisions have been made, leading to all sorts of rumours and suspicions among the work force. It is suspected that what is actually being planned is an internal management buy-sut, contradicting all the possibilities of outside firms coming in to take over. On top of everything else, there is now wild rumour and speculation based largely on facts that seem capable of no other interpretation. Why on earth was the machine put there?
      In response to requests from a number of us, the Minister anoounced that equipment must not be taken away from pits—that, of course, must include the machine to which I have referred—unless there is an overwhelming safety reason for doing so. We expect that to be abided by strictly, but it adds to the air of puzzlement. What is going on? Here is an asset which, even when viewed on the Government's own privatisation terms, is potentially usable; from the community's point of view, it is an asset that can be worked in the future and in which there is genuine commercial interest, but one whose future is impaired by an apparently needless cessation of coaling which has left it open to deterioration and uncertainty about its future. That does not make sense.
      I welcome the opportunity provided by the amendment to remind the House of the facts.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Two Liberal Members have taken part in the debate. We had one or two yesterday, but it was mostly the same one. It is just worth putting on record that although we welcome Johnny-come-latelies, we are talking about privatising what remains of the coal industry.
      Before the last election in 1992, I remember going up and down the coalfields reminding people that in its manifesto, the Liberal party was in favour of privatisation. As a matter of fact, the Liberals have been in favour of most privatisation. When they go up those long, winding drives with pampas grass in the garden, they are in favour of privatisation, but when they go to Tower Hamlets and other places they talk another language—that is, when they are not talking racist language. It is worth noting that they have changed their tune.
      5 pm
      Although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are now beginning to shuffle uneasily in the Chair, it is worth noting that we welcome Liberal Members—not that we are about to engage in any coalitions or pacts when Labour takes control. I hope that they do not think that they are jumping on some clever bandwagon. However, we welcome them in the Lobby. It is a pity they did not think about it in 1992. After those great demonstrations in Hyde park in October 1992, that would have been a nice little gesture by the Liberal party, and the man who leads them, Captain

      305
      Mainwaring, instead of joining the Tories and saving the Prime Minister's skin in November, just weeks after those great demonstrations. We would have had this Government out, we would not have been debating privatisation, and Ellington colliery, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) represents, would not be in the dilemma it is.
      It is always worth putting on record how we reached the present position. It is a sad story, and the Liberal Democrats have played a significant role in assisting this lousy Government in placing the Bill before the House of Commons.
      Mr. Beith: Where does the hon. Gentleman get his enthusiasm for British Coal, which shuts pits and fails to sell coal? That is why Ellington colliery is in the position it is now.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has swung his bat. We must now get down to the amendment.
      Mr. Skinner: It is significant and important to talk about how we reached the position that gave the Tory Government the power to introduce the Bill.
      As for British Coal, I do not sing its song at all. In July 1992, before the announcement of the pit closure programme, my colleagues and I went to meet British Coal at Hobart house and I challenged Neil Clarke, who has seen two thirds of the pits disappear under his leadership. Why is not he getting two thirds less salary? What is he doing with the same money? Two thirds of his domain has gone.
      I hold no torch for British Coal and never have done. The management of British Coal—with the odd exception—are engaged in a conspiracy with the Government to line their own pockets. I have said several times in the House that they plan to run a few pits so that they will have little or no competition from outside to provide the captive market of 30 million tonnes to the power stations.
      I hold no brief for British Coal; as far as I am concerned, it stinks, just like the Government. [Interruption.] I know that we are dealing with amendment No. 1. I know what it is all about and I do not need my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell) to tell me. The amendment asks the Government to instruct the Coal Authority not to shut any pits at this time. It is just a temporary amendment. We all understand that is what amendments are. I do not need any seminar or teaching.
      We cannot talk about stopping pit closures, in however short a period, without considering the main problem. Yes, it is about saving time; I am not against that. It is and always has been the lawyers' technique—if they do not have a case, they buy a bit of time as something might turn up.
      That is what we have to do with amendments. Most are either wrecking amendments or buying a bit of valuable time. I am not against it, but I do it against the background of knowing that there are more important matters to consider after we have bought some time. We have to base whatever we say or do on a set of principles.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Memberfor Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised the question of Boyds. Boyds was the Government's adviser. They used to quote Boyds at length. The President of the Board of Trade used to tell us what Boyds had said. Now Boyds tells us that, after privatisation, the price of coal per gigajoule will be
      306
      higher than it is under the public sector and will cost about £40 a tonne more. That is important and is worth repeating in the House.
      We also have to consider another problem when we are talking about saving a few pits. The amendment is about saving a few pits for a short period. If we have 170 pits, as we did at the end of the strike, and 10 per cent. of them are going through some bad geological problems, there are 160 stronger pits to carry the 10 weak pits, or in some cases it could be as many as 20 weak pits. There is a problem when we are down to 17 pits. How will a smaller number of pits manage to save the two or three that are going through a bad phase?
      Selby coalfield, with the help of new technology and retreat mining has been able to produce coal at great productivity levels. Let us suppose that it went through a bad phase. Where are the strong pits to carry it through for a year or two? That is how we dig coal; it is an extractive industry. It is not like turning the electricity on in a factory.
      The Government talk about getting the number of pits down to 17, 15 or 10 pits. Under privatisation, as soon as a pit runs into trouble, it will shut because there will be no others to bail it out. That is what happened in the previous privatisation and it is something which the Government have never considered. Once you run into trouble and you are not in the public sector, there is nobody to carry the weak pits that are experiencing difficulties at any given time.
      Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend care to comment on this point, as he has been around the industry just as long as I have? The National Coal Board, as it was then, had an ABC hit list. Bentley pit was due to close, but was carried on the strength of the other Doncaster pits. It was one of the last pits in the area to shut down.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has been in the industry for a long time and he knows that, when pits have gone through a bad period geologically, they have always known that the other pits in the area can support them, at least for a while, but that no longer applies. So, more and more, the relatively small number of pits that remains will shut.
      Mr. Ashton: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly when the Government have done for the farmers? People with bad land or hill farmers, many of them in the Minister's constituency, get subsidies. They have had massive increases last year, in some cases quite rightly. The whole industry is balanced; it has the quota system and the milk marketing board. Why can the Government not do the same for the pits?
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is very perceptive. In an extractive industry that battles against mother nature every day, we cannot always be sure what will happen next. That is why the farmers get subsidies. I only wish that some of the subsidies went to the agricultural workers who have been offered 1.5 per cent.—below the rate of inflation.
      Why can the coal industry not have set-aside schemes? We have all talked about saving pits and mothballing pits. If we could have set-aside schemes for the agriculture industry—which have gone up from £100 an acre to £128 an acre in the past few weeks—why can we not have them for the pits? Once the pits are privatised, the chances of

      307
      doing that are nil. That is why these are very sad days, as everybody connected to the industry knows and others have said.
      What sticks in my gullet is the fact the Government are importing German coal and shutting British pits. German coal is coming into Britain at £110 a tonne, yet the Government have shut down all the anthracite pits in Wales.
      There is talk about the wonderful common market. It never bought a cobble of our coal. It ships coal into Rotterdam and launders it there, but it never takes any of our coal. We are still able to produce coal at about £38 a tonne, which compares well with the German price. Germany's steam coal is twice as dear as ours. We read that the Government are now calling on British taxpayers to provide £60 million so that the Spanish coal industry can expand. Their coal will cost twice as much per tonne as British coal.
      The Government have a lot to answer for. They will hit the deck at the next election—I hope that it will be a Canadian-style whitewash. We should make no mistake —the coalfields may not cover the whole of Britain, but people out there who live miles from a coalfield understand the vindictiveness involved in shutting pits. As some of my hon. Friends have said, the amendment asks the Government only for a little extra time for some collieries.
      We shall finish up with miners chucked out of work in Nottingham. We have a few remaining pits in Yorkshire, but there are none in Derbyshire, except for one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) which has been amalgamated with a pit in Yorkshire. We will allow the French to send electricity here and chuck miners on the dole—equivalent to about 6 million tonnes of coal. We pay £9,000 year to keep a miner out of work. Yes, it is a tragedy.
      My hon. Friends must face the argument. We have said that we will go through the Lobby to vote on this amendment and others, as we have done consistently in the past couple of days to save the industry. If we are prepared to go through the Lobby and vote against privatisation, it follows logically that we have a duty to tell the people now that when Labour gets back into power, it will take the coal industry back into public ownership. It is no use running away from that argument—it has to be faced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw knows, that argument cannot be won during the last four weeks of a general election campaign because the Tory tabloids and Tory money will rout us. We have got to start winning the philosophical battle now.
      Taking back into public ownership the coal, rail and water industries is an important consideration. We are discussing a handful of pits. We know that we could reopen a few if we got back into power and took them back into the public sector. We are not naive, or innocents abroad. We know that the 700,000 miners that used to work in the mines when I first went down the pit cannot return to that work, but there are pits that could be saved, like the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and others in every coalfield. That is the only way that we can save concessionary coal and miners' pensions, which the Government want to get their sticky fingers on. If we are to achieve those things, we must start commanding the agenda now.
      I am happy to take part in my hon. Friends' campaign, but while the amendment is important, we are dealing with a much bigger issue—the demise of the coal industry,
      308
      which has been destroyed by the President of the Board of Trade, who has got the gall to parade himself as a future Prime Minister. He has not got a cat in hell's chance.
      Mr. Hanson: I very much welcome the debate. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is compelling and summarises our concerns and why the debate is so important. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that, for me and my constituents, the debate is about buying time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned, there is a shortlist for potential further closures in the run-up to privatisation. The Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned, is on that hit list.
      For me and my constituents, the debate is about the survival of the coal industry in north Wales and, for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), it is about the survival of the coal industry in Wales.
      5.15 pm
      When I came here to represent north Wales, I never thought that I would have to speak up for the remnants of the coal industry in Wales, but that is the position now. Come April, I will have been in the House only two years. In that time, 33 pits have closed nationally. The Point of Ayr pit in my constituency was included in the original list of 31. I remain surprised that it is still on the list. That pit is still open solely because of the work force's commitment, the quality of the product and the investment that they have put in. The amendment proposes that that pit will stay open until privatisation and until the Coal Authority is established.
      Early-day motion 923, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, deals with Tower colliery. Point of Ayr and Tower collieries are the only remaining pits in Wales. The licences for those pits, which are on offer in the Bill, make up one fifth of the licences available for pits. What if the pits do not exist by the time that the Bill is enacted? One fifth of the licences will disappear. It still has to be debated in another place—I fervently hope that it us rejected there.
      During the past two years, I have made many speeches about the the Point of Ayr colliery—most of my time in the Chamber has been spent arguing about that colliery and the future of coal mines. When I was selected about seven years ago to fight for the seat that I now have the honour to represent, about 700 people worked at that pit. When I was elected, about 460 people worked there and today about 180 work there. What a lack of faith in the quality and commitment of the work force would have been shown if, after doing everything that was asked of them and after jumping 30 fences in the grand national, they fall at the last fence, because the Government kick away the powers that would enable that pit to be maintained.
      If the pit is on British Coal's hit list and if it closes in a contracting market, with privatisation around the corner, I doubt—I hope that the Minister will respond to this point—whether the private sector would want to invest in it. It is not that it does not produce quality products or employ high-quality staff, but once privatisation has happened, companies will concentrate on the licences that are on offer.
      The debate is about the future of the five pits mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, one of which is Point of Ayr. If the Government do not accept the

      309
      amendment and do not provide assurances for the constituency and work force at Point of Ayr and allow the pit to close, they will be throwing away a high-quality product.
      Let us consider productivity. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston mentioned the Boyds report. In 1987, miners at the Point of Ayr pit produced 3.1 tonnes per man shift; in 1991, they produced 4.5 tonnes; last year, they produced 8.9 tonnes per shift. Now they produce 14.7 tonnes per man shift with a work force that has been reduced by half. Despite that, the work force has made massive increases in productivity.
      The cost of coal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, is down to about £1.15 per gigajoule and the aim is to to get it down to £1 per gigajoule, which is well below the Boyds report target for Point of Ayr and other collieries.
      Point of Ayr has made vast improvements in mining techniques. The Minister is aware of the continuous mining system that has been introduced into that colliery, of the advances that have taken place in roof bolting and of the £3 million worth of investment to achieve that productivity. The men have learned; they have worked, contributed, developed and improved productivity, and are producing more coal than ever before. Today, however, they are on a shortlist for potential closure a short time before the measure to enable privatisation is passed in another place. What kind of reward is that? The market is there–80 per cent. of Point of Ayr coal goes to the Fiddler's Ferry power station down the road. Although that power station has recently reduced its capacity by about 30 per cent., the coal produced still has a local market.
      The colliery has an excellent work force and working conditions and high productivity, and can achieve and do the business. If the amendment is not accepted, the message will go to British Coal, in respect of Point of Ayr and Tower collieries, "Yes, if you want to close two, three, four, or five, we do not mind. We are trying to reduce the number of pits that can be handed over to a small number of private operators, to knock out competition and reduce the volume of coal produced for the market." That is being done at a time when the pit in my constituency has 15 years' coal supply remaining.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned farm subsidies. Travelling to London by train on Monday, I read a report in The Times of a farmer who is receiving £26,000 this year for not planting thousands of acres on his farm. Next year, he will receive £42,000 for letting his land go to grass. The farmer in question was photographed wearing a red hunting jacket and breeches, and his horse was feeding from the ground—which did not endear him to me.
      That apart, is it right that, while set-aside is paid to farmers not to produce a product, a potentially productive pit that is revolutionising mining techniques, improving productivity, and shows the way forward for many other pits in respect of costs and productivity will be closed? If the amendment is not passed, we will be saying to British Coal, "We don't mind. We will let the market decide. If you want to close the pit, close it." That does not seem logical.
      The Bill provides for licensing in Wales and for the retention of a Welsh coalfield. If the amendment is not accepted, will the Minister assure the House and my constituents that, after the Bill leaves another place, a Welsh coalfield will still exist to offer to potential licensees
      310
      —as was the aspiration in Committee? Many of my hon. Friends support the amendment, but my prime concern is securing the employment and productivity of the pit in my constituency. If the amendment is defeated, I will be a happier man if the Minister will at least confirm that my aspirations in Committee of a licensing round for Wales will be realised when the Bill completes its progress through both Houses.
      My hon. Friend's early-day motion also refers to the 30 April redundancy deadline. From talking to miners in my constituency, I know that in addition to the uncertainty caused by privatisation, the possible rejection of amendment No. 1 and doubt about who will win contracts and how coal will be produced, there is the uncertainty of the 30 April redundancy arrangement. If the amendment fails, my constituents will face a dilemma that I would not wish on any hon. Member—they must look forward either to a potential future in a privatised industry or to accepting redundancy payments. They do not know whether they have a future in a privatised industry.
      The Minister could accept the amendment today, but if, as I suspect, he rejects it, he could at least give assurances to miners in my constituency and others that there will be a future for them after privatisation. That will go a long way to meeting the amendment's objectives.
      In Committee, my hon. Friends and I opposed privatisation, for a host of reasons. The Government majority that is not currently evident in the Chamber will doubtless ensure that further amendments are made before Third Reading and that the Bill will go to another place. I object to privatisation on principle and as a matter of practicality in respect of my constituents. However, if the industry cannot be publicly owned, my constituents want to work in a privatised industry.
      Now that my constituents have reached this stage, they should be given time to compete in the privatised market. They should be allowed the opportunity to be offered employment under one of the new licences. If the Government accept the amendment, my constituents will be able to pass through the 30 April barrier with some hope for the future, knowing that there is a possibility of further work and productivity. They can produce quality coal cheaply, contribute and work, and they have shown their commitment.
      If the Minister rejects the amendment, he will put the five pits mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston at the mercy of British Coal—and to date, that mercy has brought the closure of 33 pits in my 20 months as a Member of Parliament. I urge the Minister to give my constituents the hope for the future that they deserve.
      Mr. Michael Clapham: The amendment is essential if Britain is to have a sustainable coal industry. Reference was made to the way in which the industry has been run down but unless one studies the figures, one cannot appreciate the scale. In 1984, the country had 170 collieries employing 172,000 men. Ten years later, it has just 17 collieries. In one decade, the Government closed 153 collieries and made redundant 160,000 workers.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said, the Government are working to an agenda. In 1990, Britain still had 73 collieries employing 65,500 men. That same year, the Government commissioned the Rothschild report and privatised the electricity supply industry. The architects of that privatisation, now Lord

      311
      Parkinson and Lord Wakeham, worked the market in such a way as to rig it against the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others stressed that the Government have a historical dislike of the mining industry and have been committed to running it down since 1974. They saw their opportunity with electricity privatisation.
      The Rothschild report set an agenda of between 10 and 14 active collieries. Figures showing the run-down of the industry since 1990 prove that the Government have been working to the Rothschild agenda. In 1992, the country had 50 collieries employing 50,000 men. By 1994, it had 17 collieries employing 14,000 men. It is now reported that another four collieries are likely to be closed within a month, leaving just 13.
      It has already been said that miners have increased productivity enormously. When we look at the figures again, we can see just what a great effort they have put into ensuring that their industry is one of high productivity and viability, and an addition to the energy market. In 1984, we were talking in terms of just over 2.4 tonnes per man shift; today, the average is almost 8.5 overall—an enormous increase in productivity.
      When Boyds examined the industry during the Government's review, it was being spoken of in terms of an industry that could be sustained into the future if it could reach the productivity levels that are now being achieved. Boyds also referred to the cost per gigajoule and suggested that, if it could be brought down to around £1.30, a great slice of the industry would survive. Prices in the industry are now far below what he envisaged.
      For example, Bentley colliery, which closed on 4 December 1993, was producing coal at below £1 per gigajoule. Between September and its closure, it was producing coal at 88p per gigajoule. That price is competitive with world market prices and the price of coal produced in deep coal mines anywhere in the world, yet it closed on 4 December.
      5.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to Manton colliery and the fact that it was producing coal at less than £1 per gigajoule and was only recently closed. Quite clearly, the Government have launched their attack to ensure that the industry is pruned to a size where it will be profitable for a quick rip-off. It is madness to close the coal mining industry in that way and stop its contributions to the energy economy.
      Reference has been made to gas prices. Other countries, such as Holland, are looking to change their energy economy and are moving away from gas to coal because they believe that, in the short to medium term, gas prices are likely to increase. When one bears in mind the Zhironovsky factor, considering that Europe takes some 21 per cent. of its gas from the Soviet Union, any cutoff of gas from the Soviet Union into Europe would have an enormous impact on the price of gas. That impact would immediately result in Britain having to turn away from an energy market that is moving towards gas to look to its coal resources, but those resources will have been sterilised. We would have to spend enormous amounts of money to reopen the collieries.
      The amendment would ensure that, if some of the few collieries that are left are closed, they will be maintained on a care and maintenance basis so that they can be reopened and put up for sale when the industry is privatised. That is
      312
      essential. Has the Minister inquired whether funding is available from the European Community to do that, as finance might well be possible to mothball collieries?
      Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the common agricultural policy and set-aside. We should be talking about setting aside collieries to protect them for the future and about ensuring that we have a resource that can be used in the energy market. The amendment is enormously important if we are to have a sustainable industry for the future. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he is prepared to take it on board and accept it.
      Mr. McLoughlin: We have had a wide-ranging debate, in which many hon. Members who were part of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill took part. The House will recall that, when the White Paper was published in March of last year, the Government welcomed British Coal's commitment to offer to the private sector any pits that it no longer wished to operate. Since then, British Coal has advertised a total of some 28 pits, announced the licensing of Clipstone and Rossington to R J B Mining and made a conditional agreement to licence both Trentham and Coventry to Coal Investments. In addition, British Coal is continuing negotiations on a further two tenders and is still evaluating tenders for four pits.
      I remind the House of the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 9 February, in which he made it clear that
      "The Government are committed to ensuring that any closing pits are made available to the private sector…British Coal has indicated that the corporation is unlikely to offer any further closing pits for lease/licence. It is the Government's intention, therefore, to offer such pits in parallel to the privatisation regional packages. Such pits would meanwhile be kept on care and maintenance basis."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 315–16.]
      That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Clapham: Is the Minister aware that, when Neil Clarke, the chairman of British Coal, appeared before the Trade and Industry Select Committee, he said that, of the 30-odd collieries that had been closed—some are still open, although not working as operating mines—only six would be likely to be granted licences?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have stated quite clearly the Government's position on any pits that close and on the regional packages if any future closures were to take place. I should have thought that hon. Members would have welcomed and endorsed the Government's policy of giving the private sector the opportunity to operate those pits even if it is some time after the event.
      In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) told us that he believed that this privatisation was the low tide of the Government's privatisation policy. Quite frankly, he has believed that about every privatisation that the Government have introduced. He has not agreed with a single privatisation. When he winds up later, perhaps he will tell us whether he supports what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) called on him to do—renationalising the industry—and whether that is a commitment that he is prepared to enter into. If so, how he would carry it forward?
      Mr. Robin Cook: I am happy to respond to the Minister, because I have always said, whenever asked, that

      313
      I would be astonished if our plans to rescue the coal industry after the next election did not involve public ownership. My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party has always made it perfectly plain that, where we believe that the management of a pit is not meeting our energy strategy, and where the safety of the work force at that pit is at risk, we will not hesitate to revoke the licence of that pit.
      The one qualification that we make is that that step back into public ownership should have the support of the work force. That means that the people who are contemplating taking over these licences should bear in mind that we have a clear commitment to restore public ownership of the coal industry and will have clear regard to whether the work force has confidence in them.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has now said. The hon. Member for Bolsover also went on to mention a few other industries, but I will not push the hon. Gentleman on that point, because that is slightly wider than what we are discussing at the moment.
      It is interesting that a number of Labour Members have spoken of their contempt for British Coal. It is highly unlikely that any of the miners will seek necessarily to go back into the nationalised industry that is being proposed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) was perhaps more honest than most of his colleagues when he explained to us that he did not necessarily blame the Government and that he had constantly complained about a number of aspects of British Coal under a number of Governments—for example, the way that it had narrowed its horizons on the available markets.
      We had interesting discussions in Committee about that. When the hon. Member for Livingston goes on about the low tide of privatisation, it is perhaps worth treating those words with some contempt as, so far as he is concerned, there has never been a high tide.
      Mr. Tipping: The Minister has just been talking about British Coal and its management. Earlier, he gave a commitment that the Government would make available for licence any pit that closed. How can that be the case in Ollerton, where the mine shafts are being filled in at the moment? It is a complete reneging on that promise.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I would simply say what I said earlier. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. The Government stand by that commitment.
      A number of questions were raised about the future size of the industry. In the run-up to privatisation, that must depend on British Coal's success in continuing to reduce costs and to supply competitive products that meet customers' needs. The White Paper offered opportunities not guarantees, and the Government are doing all that we reasonably can, consistent with the economic realities and the legal constraints, to increase the opportunities for British Coal. We took up the central recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on a subsidy for coal and we have made four offers, subject to European Union clearance.
      Mr. Clapham: The Minister says that the Government took up the Select Committee's central recommendation, but the central recommendation was about extending the
      314
      market franchise. Had that been done, a market for 17 million tonnes of coal would have been created. The Government were certainly not prepared to accept that; they threw out all the main recommendations of the Select Committee's report.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I do not think that anyone has argued that in the past. As I said, one of the central recommendations was to offer a subsidy and that is exactly what the Government did, in connection with the additional sales of deep-mined coal for electricity generation.
      Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey, for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Midlothian, asked about conflict of interests and the possible position of British Coal management in any future sale of British Coal. I should like to put clearly on the record the fact that British Coal has internal guidelines requiring any manager preparing for a management buy-out proposal for any part of the business to declare an interest to the chairman. I understand that the chairman has received no such declaration of interest in respect of British Coal's mining operations.
      Mr. Martin O'Neill rose—
      Mr. McLoughlin: May I finish my point? Then I shall give way.
      British Coal has detailed internal guidelines to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Any employee who may in due course become involved in the preparation of a bid will be required to notify an interest so that proper monitoring arrangements and control can be established. Any bid by managers or other employees will be considered on its merits against bids from other potential purchasers. The Government will of course be the vendor in that case.
      Mr. O'Neill: The Minister spoke initially about managers, and then mentioned other employees. Does he draw a distinction between the two? Are they to be treated the same? Can we take it that the people at Hobart house will be subject to exactly the same conditions? The balance of the Minister's comments suggested that some distinction would be drawn between the two types of British Coal employee. Will he clarify that question?
      Mr. McLoughlin: What I said was fairly clear, but if it needs further clarification I shall gladly supply that later. The internal guidelines require any manager working on management buy-out proposals for any part of the business to declare an interest to the chairman, and I understand that no such declaration has hitherto been made.
      Mr. Eric Clarke rose—
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. McLoughlin: I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
      Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister accept that that is a wholly unsatisfactory condition? Even if we believed that nobody in British Coal was interested in a buy-out, and nobody had yet come forward to say that he was, none the less if somebody eventually came forward surely it would be impossible for such a person to be working up a bid to win a tender and at the same time managing the best prospects for the whole disposal to the best bidder. Those two positions cannot be compatible. Cannot the Minister

      315
      see that? Cannot he say at the Dispatch Box that no conflict of interests will be permitted and that if someone registers an interest in a buy-out he must cease to have a role in a company that may be seeking to dispose of the pits to somebody else?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McLoughlin: I have made it clear that, when there is a conflict of interests, it must be drawn to the attention of the chairman. There are strict internal guidelines to cover that point. This is well-trodden territory, and no conflict of interests will be allowed.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: The Minister mentioned me and I am of course interested in the same subject. I have no axe to grind against management—that is, against a manager of a colliery—but I have an axe to grind against the most senior management. What happens if the people at the very top do not declare a conflict of interests, yet become involved in a takeover bid? What is the logic? If they are not doing what we say they are doing, why? There is no logic in that.
      Mr. McLoughlin: I am slightly puzzled about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Where people have an interest, they will be required to declare it. If they do not, the various contacts with which they are involved will become subject to further consideration.
      The hon. Member for Bolsover gave us his usual history lesson. I am glad that he spoke after the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), because yesterday he told us that the whole problem was caused by the position of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in the 1984–85 strike. The hon. Member for Wentworth speaks on behalf of NACODS, so he might not exactly agree with that conclusion. The hon. Member for Bolsover went over his usual ground today. I am sure that he must find some comfort in his Front-Bench spokesman's commitment to renationalisation.
      Mr. Skinner: It is a big improvement.
      Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is never usually in the vanguard or the leadership of his party, but perhaps there is a chance for him yet.
      Mr. Skinner: I want renationalisation without compensation.
      Mr. McLoughlin: That is an internal matter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his case with vigour. I do not ask the hon. Member for Livingston to comment; he may be a little less forthcoming than the hon. Member for Bolsover.
      We cannot accept the amendment. I have made it abundantly clear that any mines closed will be offered to the private sector. That offers the best way forward for the British coal industry.
      Mr. Robin Cook: Hon. Members who have attended the whole debate will have observed that the one question to which the Minister did not respond was the one that I asked at the start of the debate, about whether he had received the Boyds report showing that privatisation will put up the price of coal.
      Mr. Skinner: He has got it.
      Mr. Cook: On that matter, as on others, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pretty sure bet that if that document did not exist we would have been told that
      316
      it did not. If it existed, but proved that the price of coal after privatisation would fall rather than rise, we would have been told that from the Dispatch Box. Instead, there has been an eloquent silence on the subject of the Boyds paper. From that I can conclude only that the report from which I quoted exists, and that it concludes that for the first pit on which cost projections have been made, privatisation would put up the price of coal rather than bringing it down.
      If I am wrong in that conclusion I shall be happy to give way to the Minister now, so that he can put the record straight. I suspect that those little notes that we saw being passed through the Chamber confirmed to the Minister the fact that privatisation will reverse the trend of the past 10 years of public ownership and put up, rather than bring down, costs.
      The Minister argued about conflict of interests if British Coal were preparing a bid to buy the pits that it is selling. The only reason that we are in that position at all is that the Government have failed to arouse any interest from the major players in private mining, such as Hanson, which they had hoped to interest in privatisation. They talked about Hanson on the day on which the Bill was proposed for publication, only for Hanson immediately to announce that it had no interest. So the Government are prepared to put up with any amount of conflict of interest in British Coal so long as a bid is produced, because they are desperate for anybody at all to come forward and make an offer.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the importance of the critical mass—the number of pits in operation—so that one can sustain pits that are not producing cash flow because they are undergoing development. In order to sell pits, the Government are willing to break the coal industry up into five different packets. They have only 17 pits, yet they are prepared to divide them into five packets. How on earth will they then achieve the critical mass that my hon. Friend described, so as to enable some pits to take other pits through periods in which they have no cash flow because they are not producing coal?
      The Minister told the House that any pit currently in operation would be offered to the private sector in parallel to privatisation, although not necessarily as part of privatisation. If that is the Minister's conclusion, why cannot he accept the amendment to keep those pits operating in the meantime? Why operate them only on a care and maintenance basis, which results in having to pay the cost of the care and maintenance without receiving the benefit of the output? One cannot employ a work force on care and maintenance. If production is closed, it may be possible to keep the pit under care and maintenance, but the work force will be dismissed, the team will be broken up, the people in it will receive redundancy payments and they will be put on the dole.
      The final point that hon. Members should weigh up when considering how to vote in the Division that is about to occur was made repeatedly from the Opposition Benches, especially by my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). There has been a betrayal of the mining work force who, over the past decade, have achieved dramatic increases in productivity in their industry—for example, at Point of Ayr, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn referred, where the work force have increased productivity fivefold over the past eight years. That dramatic

      317
      achievement deserves better from the House than the betrayal of closing their pit. For that reason, we shall vote to keep that pit and the 16 others open.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 297.

      Division No.178]

      [5.50 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Denham, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Dewar, Donald

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dixon, Don

      Allen, Graham

      Dobson, Frank

      Alton, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Ashton, Joe

      Eastham, Ken

      Austin-Walker, John

      Enright, Derek

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Etherington, Bill

      Barnes, Harry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Battle, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bayley, Hugh

      Faulds, Andrew

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flynn, Paul

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Foulkes, George

      Benton, Joe

      Fraser, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fyfe, Maria

      Betts, Clive

      Galbraith, Sam

      Blair, Tony

      Galloway, George

      Blunkett, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Boyes, Roland

      Garrett, John

      Bradley, Keith

      George, Bruce

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Byers, Stephen

      Gordon, Mildred

      Cabom, Richard

      Gould, Bryan

      Callaghan, Jim

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gunnell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hall, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hardy, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Henderson, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ann

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Cohen, Harry

      Home Robertson, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cryer, Bob

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Hutton, John

      Dafis, Cynog

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ingram, Adam

      Darling, Alistair

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

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

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      318

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Prescott, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keen, Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Radice, Giles

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Randall, Stuart

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Redmond, Martin

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Reid, Dr John

      Lewis, Terry

      Rendel, David

      Litherland, Robert

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rogers, Allan

      McAllion, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rowlands, Ted

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Salmond, Alex

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McMaster, Gordon

      Short, Clare

      McNamara, Kevin

      Simpson, Alan

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

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

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Mandelson, Peter

      Snape, Peter

      Marek, Dr John

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Spellar, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Martlew, Eric

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Michael, Alun

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Straw, Jack

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Milburn, Alan

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Miller, Andrew

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Turner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Morley, Elliot

      Wallace, James

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Walley, Joan

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mudie, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mullin, Chris

      Watson, Mike

      Murphy, Paul

      Welsh, Andrew

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Olner, William

      Wilson, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Wise, Audrey

      Parry, Robert

      Worthington, Tony

      Patchett, Terry

      Wray, Jimmy

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pope, Greg

      Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Alan Meale

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Alexander, Richard

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Baldry, Tony

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Amess, David

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Ancram, Michael

      Bates, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Ashby, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      319

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Booth, Hartley

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gorst, John

      Bowis, John

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brazier, Julian

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bright, Graham

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hague, William

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butler, Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cash, William

      Hayes, Jerry

      Chapman, Sydney

      Heald, Oliver

      Churchill, Mr

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

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

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Dicks, Terry

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Tim

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

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, Sir David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Legg, Barry

      Evennett, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Faber, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lightbown, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Luff, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Madel, Sir David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Gale, Roger

      Mans, Keith

      Gallie, Phil

      Marland, Paul

      320

      Marlow, Tony

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Mates, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Spring, Richard

      Merchant, Piers

      Sproat, Iain

      Mills, Iain

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Stephen, Michael

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Stern, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Stewart, Allan

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Streeter, Gary

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sumberg, David

      Needham, Richard

      Sweeney, Walter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sykes, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Thomason, Roy

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thomton, Sir Malcolm

      Page, Richard

      Thumham, Peter

      Paice, James

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Patnick, Irvine

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

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tredinnick, David

      Pawsey, James

      Trend, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Trotter, Neville

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Rathbone, Tim

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Walden, George

      Richards, Rod

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Riddick, Graham

      Waller, Gary

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Watts, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Whitney, Ray

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville, Tom

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Willetts, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shersby, Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Robert G. Hughes

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Amendment accordingly negatived.

Schedule 2

  RESTRUCTURING SCHEMES
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 76, line 30, at end insert—
  '(3A) Any term of an employment contract or non-contractual condition of employment, including any entitlement to concessionary fuel, which is transferred under a restructuring scheme or modification agreement shall not be altered or withdrawn without the agreement of the employee or his trade union.
  (3B) An employee may only have terminated by notice an employment contract transferred by a restructuring scheme or

  321
  modification agreement if the employer gives no less than 12 months notice after reasonable consultation with the employee's trade union.
  (3C) Paragraphs 3A and 3B above shall continue to apply when the employer changes as a result of a transfer of undertakings.'.
  A number of the debates that we have already had on the Bill have related to matters such as redundancies, and we have touched on certain areas of the organisation of the coal industry. We now come to an area which is of more than passing concern to the 17,000 miners who remain in the industry.
  A number of beneficiaries—the current employees of British Coal—are in receipt of concessionary coal. As hon. Members are aware, concessionary coal is perceived by the work force to be not a concession but a right. It is perceived by them as an extra payment for the work they do. It has considerable significance in terms of their houses, and certainly it sustained the market for domestic coal in the past.
  I understand that there are 4 million to 5 million domestic coal consumers in the United Kingdom. A large number of them live in mining communities. A large number of them are beneficiaries under schemes whereby retired miners and their dependents receive an allocation of coal every year. It has been estimated that the payment of coal is worth about £850 per annum; in real terms, it is more than £1,000 per annum for every household.
  In the case of miners who have retired—if they die, their spouses receive the benefits—it is an important payment. Those who are unable to use the coal for one reason or another receive a smaller amount of cash in lieu; nevertheless, it is of some importance to them. We have been told—in Standing Committee, we discussed the matter at some length—that those benefits will not be affected by the change of ownership.
  For those currently employed by British Coal, the concessionary coal provisions are in some doubt. Although the amendment focuses on concessionary coal, we are in fact examining the whole range of industrial relations provisions in the coal industry, which are the product of the attempts that were first identified as important in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
  That Act says that British Coal has a duty to enter into consultations with organisations which represent a substantial proportion of its employees to establish and maintain joint machinery for conciliation, with provision for arbitration. The Act also made provision for consultation on safety matters and general industrial matters.
  It is our belief that, over the years, there has been undue focus on the significance of the national coal strikes during the 40 or so years of public ownership of the coal industry. Although there have been three important strikes, tremendous strides have been made in the creation of a system of industrial relations within the coal industry. When the Donovan commission reported in the 1960s, it looked in large measure to the coal industry for models for conciliation and arbitration systems.
  The Opposition wish to ensure that the positive achievements in the coal industry of unions and management in establishing that system should be sustained. We have identified concessionary coal as one of the beneficial aspects for individual workers. We would
  322
  like to think that due provision would be made when the transfer is made and when the restructuring takes place for the continuation of trade union activities within the coal industry beyond the minimalist approach normally provided by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
  The amendment asks that contractual and non-contractual conditions of employment be transferred, and that they will not be withdrawn without the agreement of the employee or of his trade union. The amendment goes on to say:
  "An employee may only have terminated by notice an employment contract transferred by a restructuring scheme or modification agreement if the employer gives no less than 12 months notice after reasonable consultation with the employee's trade union."
  That point is significant, because an arrangement already exists whereby the terms and conditions of existing British Coal managers cannot be adjusted without 12 months' notice. If it is good enough for managers under public ownership, it should be an essential and basic condition for private coal employees at any rank under the new arrangements. We therefore want that enshrined within the legislation, because, as I have said, in a number of instances, undue attention has been paid to problems in the coal industry which have found expression in long and bitter national strikes.
  Outside those industrial disputes, there has been a tremendous achievement of agreement, understanding and ultimately conciliation, in which difficult and fractious disputes have been avoided by the skill of the management and the unions in finding a way through the minefield. In many respects, the difficulties have been avoided because of the structures which have been in place.
  If the Bill achieves a majority in the House and elsewhere, we want to ensure that arrangements can be set in place when the new owners take over. They would go a considerable way to improve industrial relations in the new set-up, and would protect the terms and conditions of the individuals who would continue to be employed by the new owners.
  The Opposition also feel that the amendment would leave the new or potential owners in no doubt about what their responsibilities ought to be in respect of the provision of good industrial relations. We recognise that there will always be a process of negotiation on wages and general conditions, but we also want to underpin our commitment that, if retired miners have a right to concessionary coal, it ought to be a right also for miners who continue in employment.
  It is important that that is placed in the legislation, and that the potential licensees are under no illusions about their responsibilities to the work force. It is realistic to assume that, in a climate of industrial relations rather different from that which prevailed in 1946 and 1979, certain things ought nevertheless to be laid down and made specific.
  We feel that the provisions and conditions of employment for the mineworkers should continue for at least the first 12 months of the period of new ownership. Those terms and conditions should be enshrined in the legislation for the benefit of the industry. They would provide the work force with minimal guarantees about the continuation of their present terms and conditions.
  The amendment would benefit the industry and industrial relations. I have no hesitation in commending it

  323
  to the House, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties who look for good industrial relations and a healthy relationship between management and unions will be prepared to back it.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Before the general election, the miners parliamentary group met the then Secretary of State for Energy, who is now the noble Lord Wakeham. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) will listen, as I am sure that he is very interested.
  The group and the Secretary of State discussed the threats of privatisation and the intentions of the Government, because we have all known for a considerable time what the Government's real intentions were with regard to the mining industry. The then Secretary of State referred to things which he saw as historical liabilities. Part of those liabilities were pensions, and another part was concessionary fuel.
  I was a miner for 23 years. I worked in two coalfields; first, in the Scottish coalfield as a young apprentice engineer where I qualified as a mining engineer; and then for 19 years in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. The different areas had different concessionary fuel agreements. Nottinghamshire at that time had a better agreement than most areas. When the Scottish miners were getting 7 tonnes per annum, the Nottinghamshire miners were getting 19 tons 17 cwt—I am sorry for talking in the old language.
  That difference was not because of a deliberate preference for one area against the other, but was to do with local agreements. The Nottinghamshire miners were certainly entitled to their larger allocation of the national agreement. They had an agreement whereby they filled 21 cwt of tubs.
  That was in the hand-filled days, of which I am sure Conservative Members will have great memories, when miners lay on their sides in water and dust in spaces of anything from 22 in to 3 ft. They were filling tubs, and getting paid per tub. Miners who were filling 21 cwt of tubs were getting paid per tonne, and the 5 per cent. extra coal that they were digging with their own hands went into their own concessionary fuel agreement.
  That agreement lasted until 1981, when there was a national concessionary fuel agreement. That has always been part and parcel of miners' rights, and that is understandable. Who among us—even among Government Members—would deny a miner who has worked up to 3,000 ft underground the right to concessionary fuel? There are perks in other industries, and it is my view that concessionary fuel for a miner who has worked in those conditions to produce the coal is not a perk, but a right. There has never been any disagreement about that.
  According to the then Secretary of State, it was a historical liability, which was causing problems in making the industry attractive to the private sector. I also mentioned pensions; I may get an opportunity later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on that point.
  We now have a worrying situation in which the Government have taken on a part of our concerns by seeking to give assurances—I hope that they are copper-bottomed, but I have my suspicions—that coal will be provided for retired miners and for miners' widows and
  324
  beneficiaries now. It is important that we write into the Bill the guarantee that mineworkers still in the industry—God knows, there are not that many of them—will have the same entitlement to coal as their predecessors.
  The Government tell us in the Bill that miners' terms, employment contracts and so on will be the same under the Bill. That is not good enough. Even now, miners working down the pits in the British coal industry who are employed not by British Coal but by private companies contracted to British Coal have no entitlement to fuel. Even before the industry is privatised, men working down the pits have lost their entitlement to fuel.
  The Minister would have to be very persuasive to persuade me and my colleagues that miners will not lose their entitlement to fuel when the private contractors who will be making bids to take over the industry after privatisation already do not provide a fuel entitlement. The Minister will have to be very persuasive to persuade me and others that the coal entitlement will remain. I suggest that it will not.
  As some companies have already done, private sector companies will tell miners that, within three months, their terms and conditions will be changed. I can give an example. Pit closures have taken place recently in Nottinghamshire. Ollerton colliery was closed. I worked at Ollerton. When I went to that pit in 1968, it had 100 years proven coal. When Ollerton was closed, it was one of the most profitable pits in our coal industry; yet it has gone. It has been closed for reasons known only to those who have decided to bring the axe down on that pit.
  I am told that salvage work is going on at Ollerton. British Coal is employing miners who have been given their redundancy notices to salvage stuff from the pit. They are employed on a week-to-week basis on lower money than they were paid by British Coal. They have no guarantees, such as fuel entitlements, protective clothing and so on. That is happening now, as we stand here discussing the Bill and listening to Ministers.
  I see the Minister for Energy in his place. He usually comes in when I get the rare chance to speak on these matters. He has sought to assure us about the Bill, but his assurances do not hold water. We only have to reflect on what is happening in the industry today.
  If the Minister is telling me that, as soon as this iniquitous Bill becomes an Act, everyone will be okay and miners will have protection and concessionary fuel, I do not believe it for a minute. I ask the Minister to accept what the amendment seeks to do. If he agrees with us that a miner who works 3,000 ft underground deserves a coal entitlement, he should give that guarantee in the Bill.
  As we have heard in the courts of our land, statements and promises made by Ministers from the Dispatch Box which are not in the legislation do not mean anything. If the mineworkers are to be given the protection they need and deserve, the amendment must be written into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider it.
  Mr. Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on this point. In the process of transition to privatisation the conditions for which miners have fought through the unions over the decades are being stripped away one by one. The entitlement to concessionary coal is a supreme example of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, the average entitlement of 4 tonnes of concessionary coal per annum is equivalent to about

  325
  £1,000 before tax. That is a great deal of money in an area such as Neath, particularly to many retired miners and their widows.
  In my constituency the private mine owners simply reneged on their commitment to provide concessionary fuel. For example, when Ryan Mining International took over some pits in the Neath valley, it abandoned its previous concessionary fuel entitlement and paid its workers £125 per year instead. That is about one eighth of the value of their entitlement if they had retained their previous concessionary fuel conditions. If one is lucky, £125 would buy 1 tonne of coal on the market in Neath. It would last no more than seven weeks in the winter months.
  I cite an example to illustrate the point. An 81-year-old man who used to work in Rheola pit near my home village of Resolven suddenly received through the post a notice from Ryan Mining International, which had taken over the pit some two years before, that the company was dispensing with his discretionary fuel entitlement and would give him £125 a year as a substitute. That nowhere near met the needs for which he had depended on the entitlement that he had enjoyed for many years.
  Another example is the private mining company Welsh Dragon, which has two mines in the upper Swansea valley. It simply terminated its concessionary fuel entitlement. The next week its workers and their dependants had their entitlement taken away from them. I emphasise the point made by some of my hon. Friends that concessionary fuel is not a perk. It is deferred wages. Many miners paid for the coal during their service in the mines. More than that, during their working lives, they contributed to the supply of house coal for widows of retired miners and miners who were not entitled to the full allocation. They contributed to a pool from which those widows and miners could draw.
  Concessionary fuel is not an optional extra. It is a basic entitlement earned through deferred wages, in many cases through a long life of struggle working in the pits. It is a vital resource. The Government did not give us adequate assurances in Committee. Unfortunately, I do not expect the Minister to do so when he replies.
  The threatened withdrawal of concessionary fuel is causing fear throughout south Wales and, I am sure, across the country. If the Government had any remnants of honour following their treatment of the coal industry in recent years, which has been enshrined in the privatisation Bill, they would give guarantees to those people who have been dependent on concessionary fuel for many years and expected to be so for many years to come. They now have hanging over them the sword of Damocles of the withdrawal of a vital entitlement on which they rely so extensively.
  Mr. Clapham: Amendment No. 16 is essential if we are to maintain a floor level of terms and conditions in the mining industry. In 1947 when the industry was nationalised, a carry-over agreement was made which transferred all the terms and conditions of the previous period into the era of nationalisation. It provided a ground level of terms and conditions on which the negotiations with the new nationalised industry could build.
  Since that time, a set of terms and conditions has been achieved which, while perhaps not providing all the conditions that I would like to see in the mining industry,
  326
  provides good remunerative opportunities and, as my hon. Friends have said, concessionary fuel for people who work in the industry as well as their families.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) mentioned that the concessionary fuel agreement differed from area to area and colliery to colliery until 1983 when, for the first time in the industry, a national concessionary fuel agreement was achieved. That came into being after 10 years of negotiation. I think that the Minister would accept that to reach a national agreement to span a whole industry when many different agreements applied from one colliery to another and one area to another, was an enormous achievement.
  6.30 pm
  The agreement provides, as of right, entitlements to employees and their widows and is the first time that widows have received an entitlement as of right, rather than one that is passed from their husbands. The national concessionary fuel agreement provides for the allocation of smokeless fuel and bituminous coal where coal can be burned.
  At present the use of smokeless fuel is growing and it is becoming perhaps a more important part of the allocation than bituminous coal. The agreement also provides cash in lieu. When widows or former miners become too frail to handle solid fuel, they can apply for a cash-in-lieu payment which will go towards providing heating and lighting in their homes.
  It is essential that we maintain the agreement, and the Minister gave assurances in Committee that it will be applicable to former workers and their widows. However, he did not extend similar assurances to those who continue to work in the industry. The amendment seeks to ensure that the men who continue to work in the industry receive their concessionary fuel. That is an important entitlement. Unless that right is written into the statute, there is no doubt that the new employers will seek to change the terms and conditions very quickly.
  All of the agreements negotiated in the industry have been embraced in the contract of employment. If, shortly after taking over a colliery, a new employer were to give notice that he was going to change the terms and conditions of the contract, within a short period we would be likely to see the concessionary fuel agreement replaced in the case of men who continue to work in the industry. I think that that would be grossly unfair.
  My hon. Friend has already pointed out that it is not a concession as such; it is a right which is part of the remuneration package. Former workers and their widows were originally given the entitlement because men who worked in the industry had part of their entitlements stopped and put into a pool from which former workers and widows could draw their coal. The entitlement is part of a remunerative package and, on that basis, the Minister should accept the amendment.
  In Committee we tried to impress upon the Minister the fact that the protection of terms and conditions should be written into the licences of the new operators, but he rejected our view.
  Many other terms and conditions have been negotiated since nationalisation. The industry has always operated a very sophisticated industrial relations procedure and currently about 49 volumes of memoranda of agreement have been negotiated which apply across the board to collieries and workshops and provide good standards of

  327
  terms and conditions. Unless entitlements are written into the statute, it is likely that the new employers will withdraw them. They will do that by giving notice that they intend to change the contract of employment, or they may pass on colliery work to a subsidiary. If that occurs, the new terms and conditions offered by a subsidiary could replace the terms and conditions that the miner expects based on agreements that have been negotiated previously within the industry.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is prepared to ensure that conciliation procedures continue in the industry. Section 46 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 set out conciliation and consultation procedures for the whole industry. British Coal terminated the consultation procedures in December 1985 and the conciliation procedures were terminated in May 1986 after notice was given of their termination in December 1985.
  Since that time, new conciliation procedures have been agreed in the industry and British Coal agreed that it would meet the unions on a bilateral basis. Unfortunately, British Coal has not kept its word and, as a result, many of the meetings that should have taken place under the conciliation procedure have not occurred.
  I hope that the Minister will ensure that conciliation procedures are adopted in the industry. I hope that he will accept consultation procedures for the industry and, in addition, that he will accept amendment No. 16. That is essential if we are to provide the floor level of terms and conditions required by miners who will be working for successor companies.
  Mr. Tipping: My colleagues have quite rightly stressed the importance of the concessionary coal entitlement. There are widespread concerns about that in coalfield communities. The Minister has given some assurances, but there is an area of weakness affecting those employees currently working in the pits who will enter the newly privatised industry. This amendment safeguards their position for 12 months.
  However, an important principle lies behind the amendment. Mineworkers have struggled for years, both through action and negotiation, to achieve decent terms of conditions and contracts. All that could change under a privatised industry. The date for restructuring may be 1 January 1995, but I think that the Government face an enormous challenge in moving from the current situation to that restructuring point.
  It was pointed out this afternoon that the redundancy scheme will end on 30 April this year—just a few weeks away. Men and their families are making decisions and thinking very carefully about their futures. First, they want to know whether their pits will remain in operation and, secondly, they are assessing the chances of, their pits surviving in a new, privatised world.
  There are many unknowns in that assessment. The amendment provides the men with some security; it ensures that when employees transfer to a private employer they will not give away hard-won rights and conditions of employment.
  Mr. Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister were to announce that he would allow the redundancy terms to operate for three years, that would engender confidence in the men who remain in the industry?
  Mr. Tipping: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because it was one which I intended to develop. I commend this amendment for at least providing the possibility of employment under the old terms and conditions for 12 months after restructuring. I think that the correct way forward is for the Government to tell the people who work in the mining industry that they will maintain the present redundancy terms through to the point of privatisation and beyond. I find it difficult to see how the 10,000 men who now work for British Coal can continue to work in the industry through to privatisation. The amendment is a limited step in the right direction but the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for a three-year commitment would give people a great deal of confidence.
  I know that the Minister has been approached by representatives of some of the mining unions who say that there is yet another approach to that which we are advocating. We are advocating the TUPE long-term conditions approach, but they suggest loyalty bonuses to people who stay in the industry up to privatisation. It is then not a matter of principle but of practicality. The Government are going full steam ahead towards privatisation but, frankly, they have not given sufficient thought to the matter.
  I know from conversations in coalfield communities that miners who want redundancy but who are not given it by 30 April will, after that date, act in a ca'canny way. If they do not feel that they have been given a fair chance of working under the same protected conditions or of receiving a bonus, they can create havoc. The Minister needs to think carefully about how he is going to keep the 10,000 men who are currently employed in the industry working when it is privatised. It is a dilemma not only for the men involved, although it affects them principally, but for the Government, who have to handle the practicalities.
  It would perhaps be appropriate if the Minister reassured the men and their families who are going through a difficult time and having to make hard choices,. It is very easy for me to talk about those choices, but it is very hard for the men and their families to contemplate the future. The Government could help them by giving them the assurances that they seek and they could also protect their own position by spelling out clearly how they intend to tackle the problem.
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Understandably, the debate has focused primarily on the issue of concessionary fuel, although the amendment in fact deals with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and suggests that there should be a right of 12 months' notice of any proposal by employers to change their terms and conditions. The House will recognise that the TUPE regulations operate because we have included them in the Bill.
  The amendment appears to give British Coal employees unique rights which are enjoyed by no other British employee in any other industry. I find it rather difficult to follow the argument that, in some way, employees of British Coal are wholly different from those in any other sector or working for any other firm. That dispenses with the main thrust of the amendment but, as I said, the debate has concentrated on concessionary fuel.
  I understand the concern felt by the recipients of concessionary fuel who are inevitably facing uncertainty in

  329
  the run-up to privatisation. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if it is within what I call the bounds of our adversarial system, I pay tribute to Opposition Members. At one stage, I thought that they would deliberately start a scare story and there was indeed some evidence of it a few months ago when we debated the paving Bill.
  It was suggested that, somehow, the Government were determined to do away with people's right to concessionary fuel but I pay tribute to Opposition Members because they have not played that card. Having received assurances from me, through parliamentary answers and in Committee, they have worked hard to reassure many elderly people who were getting genuinely worried, and I thank them for that.
  I repeat the assurance about concessionary fuel. After privatisation, the Government take responsibility for bringing concessionary fuel to those who are entitled to it and have not transferred to the successor companies. The successor companies will take responsibility for the entitlements of continuing employees. That is a clear undertaking, and responsibility for meeting the entitlement of continuing employees will be transferred to successor companies.
  The question was asked—quite reasonably—whether successor companies might seek to renegotiate those entitlements. Of course they might, just as they might seek to renegotiate the terms of employment as they are entitled to do under the TUPE regulations. Many Opposition Members recognise that that might be in the interests of not only employers but employees.
  6.45 pm
  There is a recognition that some of the working practices currently followed by British Coal are not as conducive to competitive coal mining as they might be. The evidence for that is that the system of working and shifts applied at Asfordby, having been negotiated freely between the union, on behalf of the membership, and the management, has generally been recognised by everyone involved at the mine as giving them significant advantages.
  I throw that out as an example because it shows that sensible negotiations can benefit employees and employers. It is not in anyone's interests to freeze for ever, or even for a lengthy and abnormal period, the particular terms of employment. However, I stress that TUPE will have to be followed and, if negotiations are to take place, they will have to do so in the context of TUPE.
  Mr. Clapham: We are suggesting that there should be a ground level of terms and conditions, not that they be frozen for ever and a day. They should provide the level on which future negotiations would take place. In an industry which has varying degrees of technology, unless such protection is provided it is likely that high-technology pits will compete with low-technology pits and that the low-technology pits will survive because they are able to change the terms and conditions offered and pay low wages.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We want them to survive.
  Mr. Eggar: As my hon. Friend says, we want those pits to survive. I do not necessarily accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Mines that are mined less
  330
  intensively might produce a return for the owner and benefit people working there. There are many examples in other parts of the world, most notably the United States, of different mining methods being used and providing competitively priced coal and safe, secure employment for the men involved.
  Let us consider the practical examples in our own coalfields. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), whose constituency includes the Point of Ayr colliery, knows very well that an inspired management approach, the full co-operation of the work force and the use of what is by British standards an abnormal mining method to start with, followed by the use of continuous miners and their adaptation for United Kingdom conditions, has made the pit much more competitive than most people ever thought it would be.
  I accept the hon. Member's argument that it has also meant a reduction in the employment level. I ask him whether it is better that there be significant numbers of men, but not as many as previously, using a different method of mining but still producing coal and providing employment, or a uniform system with a greater number of men, which probably would have led by now to the closure of that pit because it could not be competitive.
  Those are the questions to which Opposition Members must be prepared to respond. They must recognise that, in the private sector, there will inevitably be different methods of mining—different approaches—but there must be protection for the work force, and that is what TUPE give,. That is what the undertaking under the transfer gives with regard to concessionary coal.
  Mr. Redmond: If one follows the Minister's arguments to their logical conclusion, he obviously agrees with the mining production that operates in Colombia, where the children—
  Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
  Mr. Redmond: It is cheaper coal—the Minister cannot have it both ways. If he is arguing that different methods would lower the costs, to follow his argument to its logical conclusion he agrees with children being used in Colombia to produce the coal that is being exported to this country.
  Mr. Eggar: Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman volunteered for the Committee, I know that he was not able to be a member. We have had a sensible debate and that type of argument is not in tune with the way in which the matter has been approached. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
  Mr. Hain: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I will give way, but we are trying to make progress.
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful. On concessionary coal, will the Minister tackle the problem experienced by existing private miners, who have, in south Wales at least, a separate agreement which dates back to 1953 but which is being unilaterally abandoned, as I have described, by successive mines? Those miners are offered no protection under the Bill. How will he reassure them and their dependants and so on, who rely on concessionary fuel?
  Mr. Eggar: As I said in Committee and have said frequently, the Government will take on responsibility for the concessionary help to those people who are entitled but

  331
  are not transferring to successor companies. That is clear. The rights of those people who go to successor companies are protected under TUPE and they are also protected by means of transfer schemes under the legislation. I accept, and I make it absolutely clear to the House, that then there is an opportunity for a renegotiation which has to involve the work force; it cannot be arbitrarily imposed by the employer. There may very well be changes at that stage.
  The objective of the amendment, which is to give unique rights to the miners as against any other group of employees, is inappropriate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. O'Neill: It is not our intention to push the amendment to a vote tonight, but the fact that we are withdrawing it does not mean that we agree with the Minister in any way. We regard the mining industry as unique. No other industry in the United Kingdom requires people to work in the bowels of the earth in darkness, in very difficult conditions, to extract a product that is of great importance to the country. The people who do that in that industry are unionised. They are organised. They have agreements.
  There are people who work in the North Sea—in boats, fishing, and in the oil rigs, extracting oil. Virtually none of those people enjoy the privileges and benefits that accrue from being members of a trade union. Men working in extremely difficult conditions have been able to secure for themselves basic rights. We feel that those rights are sufficiently important to be enshrined during a very difficult or uncertain transitional period.
  The minimalist conditions that are afforded by TUPE, which at least extend for three months, could be far less than that if management took advantage of the sleight of hand which our lax industrial relations legislation currently affords them. That is why we want to make it specific.
  We argue that the unique character of the mining industry is also reflected in the terms and conditions and conciliation arrangements that have been built up since nationalisation, and we do not wish to see that thrown out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) put it, we want that established as part of the foundations of the next generation of coal ownership.
  For those reasons, we feel that our argument is valid, and that it overrides the argument that we are assuming that mining should be treated as elitist because it is unique. We do not take that to be the case. We reject that argument. However, we recognise that there may well be other places where arguments such as those that we have made tonight can be advanced by people sympathetic to the cause of good industrial relations and to the benefits that all miners who work for British Coal currently enjoy—the entitlement to concessionary coal.
  We believe that it is too important to have a guarantee for only three months, and we hope that it will be extended well beyond that. That is the minimum guarantee afforded by TUPE. With some regret, I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but not because we are satisfied by the Minister's assurances. As the Minister will be the first to admit, he is in no position to give assurances beyond the first three months. After that, the owners of the industry will not be responsible to the Government or to the House. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 34, in page 78, line 30, leave out from 'State' to 'that' in line 32 and insert
  `where it appears to him in the case of any restructuring scheme or modification agreement'.
  No. 35, in page 78, line 34, leave out
  `of the effects of the scheme to every such person'
  and insert
  `under this paragraph to every such person.
  (1A) A notice to be given by the Secretary of State under this paragraph shall be given as soon as reasonably practicable after he makes the scheme or, as the case may be, gives his approval in relation to the agreement.'.
  No. 36, in page 78, line 35, leave out
  `in relation to any restructuring scheme'.
  No. 37, in page 78, line 36, after 'scheme', insert
  `or, as the case may be, of the agreement'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Schedule 4

  TAXATION PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 38, in page 83, line 20, after `transfer' insert—
  `(aa) the predecessor ceases, by virtue of any provisions of a restructuring scheme coming into force at the same time as the transfer, to carry on any trade or part of a trade which is not transferred to the transferee,'.
  No. 39, in page 83, line 23, after 'continued' insert
  `or ceases to be carried on by the predecessor'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 22

  PENSIONS AND MINERS' WELFARE ORGANISATIONS
  Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 18, line 14, at end add—
  `() The Secretary of State may at any time before the restructuring date make a scheme for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Corporation to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation or a body or person to which its functions have been transferred under Section 12(3) of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952.
  () A scheme made under subsection (4) above may only provide for the transfer of land in the freehold possession of the Corporation and associated property where:

  (a) the land and any buildings thereon are leased to a Miners' Welfare, Charity or Friendly Society in pursuit of their charitable objectives; or

  (b) the land and any buildings thereon have been consistently used for the pursuit of Miners' Welfare objectives during the past five years, regardless of whether or not any rent has been paid or demanded; or

  (c) the land and any buildings thereon have been used for purposes which accord closely with the social, recreational, educational and cultural objectives of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.

  () Where a Miners' Welfare Charity or Friendly Society is unable to maintain recreational facilities it owns, either by freehold or leasehold, a local authority may agree to accept responsibility for maintenance of these facilities.
  () Where a local authority considers whether to exercise its powers under subsection (6) of this section, it may apply to the Secretary of State for an increase in its standard spending assessment to cover the maintenance costs for a period not exceeding five years.'.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 14, at end add—
  '() The charitable aims of the successor body to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation established under subsection (3) of Section 12 of the 1952 Miners' Welfare Act shall incorporate the charitable aims of that Organisation.
  () The Charity Commissioners shall have due regard to subsection (4) of this section when determining the allocation of residual funds left after the winding up of Miners' Welfare Trusts and Charities.'.
  Mr. O'Neill: We now come to one of the aspects of our coal heritage. In the previous debate, the Minister queried the uniqueness of the coal industry. I do not want to labour that point, but some areas are not only scarred by the extraction of coal, but have many attractive features that exist largely as the creation of the coal industry, and especially of the coal miners. I think of the sports facilities, the welfare halls and the health facilities that have grown up as a consequence of the miners' aspirations and recognition of what ought to be reasonable social provisions in a civilised community.
  Those of us who represent mining communities and former mining communities know of a variety of such facilities. We also know of the valuable work that is carried out by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. This work extends to the provision of counselling and assistance for elderly and retired miners and support for injured miners. People injured in pit accidents in Yorkshire, for example, may be provided with special orthopaedic facilities. In all these fields, the miners themselves have been the main source of inspiration for developments and, in large measure, the sources of finance.
  To an extent, this has been recognised. There have been protracted negotiations with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I shall hereafter refer to that organisation as CISWO, pronounced with a "S", in the certain knowledge that the next hon. Member to speak will pronounce the name with a "K". If we can agree to differ on that pronunciation, if on nothing else, I shall be more than satisfied.
  7 pm
  As a consequence of the strength of the argument put forward by the trustees of CISWO and the organisation's chief executive, Alan Vernon Jones, the Minister has gone some way towards meeting their case, although not as far as we should have liked. We recognise that there may very well be further work to be done in this area.
  One of our concerns is that there is a gap between what has been promised by the Government to cover the current levels of expenditure and the cost of perceived requirements and that this gap may well be filled by the sale of some facilities. People assume that, in the main, welfare organisations have facilities that could be described, at worst, as drinking dens and, at best, as village social centres. It is true that, in some cases, the sales of alcoholic beverages are no longer sufficiently high to sustain social facilities. A number of difficulties have therefore arisen. In my own constituency, indeed, clubs have experienced problems.
  It may well be that, in the face of these difficulties, it will be necessary to sell off some properties. What we do not want, and what these two amendments seek to guard against, is undue pressure on CISWO to dispose of properties that are of considerable value. Local authorities —in particular, those in Nottinghamshire—have identified the importance of the contribution made by CISWO facilities to the general sporting life of counties. In Nottinghamshire, provision extends far beyond football pitches to cricket grounds and so on.
  I do not wish, as a Scotsman, to intrude on the private grief of the English about cricket, so I shall refer to the fact that, in Scotland, one of East Lothian's premier golf courses—hitherto called the Royal Musselburgh—is now
  334
  owned by CISWO. This links course, which is not very far from Muirfield, has been supported substantially by CISWO over the years.
  My recollection is that it is not too far from the home of a Mr. Cowan, who is the chairman of the board of trustees of one of the coal industry pension funds. I believe that Mr. Cowan makes use of it. As this is being recorded in Hansard, I had better be careful, although I am covered by parliamentary privilege. In every part of the United Kingdom, there are sporting facilities that exist because of mining communities' support. I have spoken about England and about Scotland, and I am sure that in Wales there are rugby clubs that have benefited from such sponsorship and support.
  We want to make clear our recognition that some properties may have to be disposed of as they are no longer useful. However, a number of facilities are of considerable use, and are of great significance to communities. Their future must not be jeopardised by what we consider inadequate financial arrangements between CISWO and the Minister. We are not complaining that the Minister is being tight-fisted. We are probably aware of the role of the Treasury in these matters. Indeed, the Minister has travelled a considerable distance from a somewhat unrealistic starting point. But he must go further.
  The assets of social welfare organisations across the country should not necessarily be plundered to make up a financial shortfall. These facilities are part of the country's legacy. They are a manifestation of the vision of the men who worked in the coal industry and wanted a better life for their communities. In the absence of state funding and of a local government commitment, they made provision on their own behalf.
  They did so by building welfare halls, which became community centres, where meals on wheels are served and where mother-and-toddler groups meet. In some instances, basic health services are provided on a collective basis at these locations. Such facilities are important—indeed, vital. They are part of the fabric of the community.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend may recall that, in the course of the debate, there has been mention of St. John Ambulance, and of that organisation's important contribution in some areas. I understand that it is assisted and accommodated by CISWO. Will my hon. Friend suggest to the Minister also the importance of maintaining the collieries' musical tradition, which is demonstrated not least by fine brass bands?
  Mr. O'Neill: The brass bands make a contribution—whether as substantial as that of the pipe bands in Scotland, I shall leave to others to decide.
  Every part of the British coal industry has sought to identify areas of need and has itself made provision. The passage of time has in some respects reduced need, but in certain areas CISWO has sought to make provision that ought to have been made by the community as a whole.
  Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has referred to the funding gap. Can he confirm that CISWO's current budget is about £2.5 million and that, even with the Minister's concessions, given in Committee—the trust fund and the £1 million a year for five years, about whose source we are still uncertain—we arrive at £1.4 million? In other words, there is a funding gap of more than £1 million.
  Mr. O'Neill: It was my intention to finish on this point. I agree with my hon. Friend, although the position is actually worse than he has described. The financial and management arrangements of a number of organisations are at least overseen by CISWO at national level. In accounting terms, that can be an inestimable contribution.
  Not only are auditors' and bookkeepers' fees met and their needs provided for, but there is also a steady hand on the tiller. Thus, organisations are able to go forward. Many of the people who run these self-help bodies—that is, in effect, what they are—do not have the financial skills to enable them to handle today's problems.
  This is a very important issue, which goes to the heart of our concerns about sustaining coalfield communities. We can expect to hear, during the course of the debate, of a number of examples right across the British coal field. Facilities must not be put under the hammer to meet the funding gap, which has been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and which will, I am sure, be underlined by other hon. Members.
  The discussions between the trustees of CISWO and the Minister should not be regarded as the end of the road. We want to see the pressure maintained so that even better terms and conditions may be secured. At this stage, we wish to put down markers about the seriousness of the problem as we see it and to bring home to Conservative Members, some of whom, I am sure, will echo our concerns, the major contribution of the social welfare organisation and its myriad facilities to coalfield communities, former and present. We do not wish to see this jeopardised as a result of a shortfall of several hundred thousand pounds per annum.
  Mrs. Peacock: Let me begin with an apology. It was rather remiss of me yesterday not to place on record my interest in the coal industry. That original interest is some 18 months old. My more recent interest, which must be registered, is very well documented; because it is so well documented, and often commented on, I did not mention it initially. I wish to put that right now.
  I welcome the funds already proposed for CISWO. When I visited its establishment in the constituency of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I was very impressed by all the facilities that it provided. Those facilities are available not only to miners, but to their families. Some of our larger industrial companies provide sports facilities in a similar way, including some in my constituency.
  I appreciate, however, that, despite the funds that have been announced, there will be a gap. Having seen many of the sports facilities, I feel that it would be a great shame if some of them had to be sold off to plug that gap. Many of my colleagues will say that the cost of such facilities should not be borne entirely by the businesses concerned; that will clearly have to be discussed later.
  As well as sport and welfare facilities, CISWO provides brass bands. I am very partial to brass band music—although I should add that it is not provided only by colliery bands: in Yorkshire, we have some very good textile company bands, some of which are almost as famous as the colliery bands that may be cited by other hon. Members.
  There is a more serious aspect of the matter. The pit has been the centre of many people's lives and work; another important feature of their existence has been the surrounding welfare, social and sporting provision. The
  336
  working part of a number of those lives is going, or has gone. In some areas, the surrounding facilities are all that are left.
  Because the National Coal Board and, more recently, British Coal provided such good facilities, local authorities have not made similar provision in the areas involved. If all those facilities were lost, the authorities would have to start building them again. Surely, in the present climate—in which we encourage authorities not to spend too much —they should not be asked to undertake such expansion.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to add a little to what has already been decided. It is not clear yet where the extra £5 million a year will come from.
  Mr. Ashton: I have represented a mining constituency for 25 years. One of my most stunning experiences was attending a widows' tea at Manton colliery two or three years ago. It was attended by 249 widows from a single pit area; the youngest was about 28 and the oldest about 88. It was an astonishing experience.
  Nothing brings home the true price of coal with more impact than attending a miners' welfare occasion of that kind. In such communities men die much younger than women, but the existence of a community spirit and welfare facilities means that no one forgets the widows. In the inner cities, pensioners are found three weeks after dying of hypothermia because they could not afford a bag of coal and there was no one to look after them. Pit villages —or towns, rather; some towns in my constituency have populations of between 8,000 and 10,000—have an enormous, fantastic welfare facility.
  The tradition continues. It centres on welfare provision, but there will also be a couple of football pitches, tennis courts, a bowling green and perhaps some pigeon fanciers in the neighbourhood; the whole arrangement has been a tremendous crutch for people living in mining towns. Indeed, it has formed the bedrock of their existence. These people grew up together, went to school together, married women living on the next street and went down the welfare together on a Saturday night. Their grandmothers and grandads went for the bingo. Everyone knew everything.
  The welfare is handed down from generation to generation. It provides pre-school playgroups and maternity clinics; if the pit is closed, unemployed benefit is paid there, because the labour exchange—or, rather, the unemployment benefit exchange—may be eight miles away, and there may be only one bus an hour. The welfare centre is the focal point of the pit town or village, and its closure along with that of the pit would be a disaster.
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has mentioned many sections of mining communities. I know that he has taken an interest in youth clubs in various pit villages. As pits close, we must find opportunities for young people; welfare organisations provide such opportunities. Unless Nottinghamshire, for instance, receives more generous support in that regard, we may face real problems.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There have been other changes. At one time, everyone who lived in a pit town or village worked in the pit; 20p, or 50p, was stopped from their wages each week to fund the whole business. Now, following requests for voluntary redundancies, the situation has changed. Until the recent closure of two faces at Harworth, in my constituency, it had 600

  337
  employees; now, only about 40 people live in the town, and those who do not live there are not particularly interested. They will drive 10 miles to another pit village, and, because they may not contribute to the upkeep of the welfare organisation from their own wages, it starts to decline.
  Fewer and fewer people use the bar facilities, because young people tend to go down to the discos in Doncaster or the nightclubs in Sheffield. There are still wonderful facilities for pensioners who want to play dominoes, but if the beer prices go up they cannot afford to go in. If the prices remain the same, the loan from the brewery cannot be paid off. It is a vicious circle.
  We are not suggesting that everyone should have free beer, or even cheap beer. We are saying that these wonderful sporting and entertainment facilities must be preserved. My heart bleeds when I visit the site of Worksop colliery, which was closed about four years ago. The grass on the cricket pitch is now 2 ft high, the sport pavilions have been vandalised and gipsies have moved on to the site and parked their caravans. Because the pit no longer exists, there is no organisation to employ a groundsman. The council wants to maintain the facilities, but it has no cash: its standard spending assessment has not been increased to take account of the position.
  CISWO is not just a one-off for each pit; it is an organisation. The coalfield communities and local councils must get together, with the Minister's assistance, and form a co-operative—a non-profit-making company that can do CISWO's work if necessary. A sports ground requires more than a tractor to cut the grass for half a day a week; it needs a tractor to go around perhaps 10 more grounds in the area with special equipment. An area organisation is required, rather than individual action involving individual councils.
  The Select Committee on National Heritage, of which I am a member, interviewed the east midlands sports council on Thursday. It is very concerned about this colossal waste of sporting facilities. In Nottingham, for instance, the kids at Hyson green are desperate for a playing field. They experience all the inner-city problems of drugs, car stealing, rent boys and vice while, just a few miles away, magnificent sports facilities are going to waste. That is crazy, in view of the unique heritage involved.
  A long list of international footballers originated from the pit villages: even Barnsley could name a team of 11 who were born in the area, and probably played for England. We had cricketers such as Freddy Trueman and Larwood; the whole culture of where they came from is simply vanishing. There are floodlit football pitches in my area, but the clubs cannot afford to switch the floodlights on. They have wonderful facilities, yet they cannot afford to run them.
  International cyclists, such as Tommy Simpson who wore the yellow jersey right across Europe and won the tour de France, came from mining villages. Those villages and towns are beginning to experience the inner-city problems of crime, stealing cars and vandalism. People would use up their energy working down the pit. When they came up at night, they were so tired that they had two or three pints of beer and a game of snooker before going to bed at 10 o'clock—after all, they had to get up at 6
  338
  o'clock in the morning. The sporting facilities that took up their strength and energy at weekends are being vandalised and are a disgrace to us.
  The miners' welfare is the hub of the village, not just for the footballers and the kids; it provides the pensioners' Christmas teas and chicken and the few quid they give them and day trips to the seaside in the summer. We are talking about the destruction not of a job but of a way of life and a culture that has continued for 100 years. We are asking the Government to accept the amendment because the coalfield communities want it. They are asking not for a handout, but for the continuation of an organisation that can bring together the facilities and continue the culture of mining areas.
  Mr. Beith: If I have an interest to declare, it is simply that the Lynemouth miners' welfare institute allows me a room for my constituency surgery; that is a useful facility. I ask the Government not to add to the disaster of pit closures the collapse of facilities in pit villages at a time when young people desperately need them.
  I seek some greater assurance from the Government. They must give the mining and coalfield communities time to build up new sources of support for sporting facilities —not least from the companies that might take over pits and produce new jobs. We do not want to frighten companies off by giving them a shopping list, but we should approach them to see whether we can get support from them for facilities which in the past were supported by the coal industry and the miners themselves.
  In the parts of Northumberland that were mining areas, sports fields, welfare institutes and other associated facilities, many of them well used, are developing partnerships with the local authorities. Castle Morpeth council, which covers Lynemouth, Ellington, Widdrington and Linton, has had to take on more responsibility for what in the past have been miners' welfare facilities; the partnership is developing, but it is a painstaking and difficult process, particularly given that local authority resources are strained. We desperately need breathing space to develop more partnerships so that we do not lose the facilities.
  Sporting facilities are particularly important. We need to be able to offer them to the many youngsters who feel that there is nothing left in the village except crime or messing around on street corners and getting involved in vandalism and trouble. Sport is a constructive alternative activity and we ought to keep it available.
  As someone who was brought up on bands and who played in a brass band in an ex-mining village in my youth, I have the privilege of being the president of the Ellington colliery band. We are determined to keep the band in existence, whatever happens to the colliery in future. It provides a greatly valued community facility for all the events it attends, as do bands in all the mining areas.
  Many extremely good bands are ex-colliery bands which grew up in the coal industry, but, because of the price of instruments, for example, some smaller communities will not find it easy to find the resources for that wonderful voluntary musical activity in which such high standards are achieved unless they continue to receive some support from the traditional mining industry welfare provisions.
  Those important social facilities are needed more than ever in communities where mining has either gone completely or is much reduced in terms of the numbers that

  339
  it employs. Quite a number of companies are already showing willingness to sponsor community activities in such areas. In my constituency, Alcan sponsors local activities, as do Northern Electric. Racal Decca, a company that does not even employ people locally, is now backing shore-based watersports in Amble. We hope to find other sources of business backing in future.
  We ask the Government to give us time and to give us the opportunity to keep the existing facilities by ensuring that all that CISWO has built up does not disappear overnight because it does not have the funding to continue.
  Ms Joan Walley: I shall be brief as I know that time is limited. Like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), I wish to declare an interest. Entered in "Who's Who" under my name is the fact that I am honorary president of the Fegg Hayes sports and social club, formerly the Fegg Hayes miners' welfare club. I want to draw to the attention of the House what happened to that club as an example of what could happen if our amendment is not accepted.
  During yesterday's debate, we heard an impassioned plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Ashton: What about the hon. Member for Bassetlaw?
  Ms Walley: My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) also made a valuable contribution; I put that on record too.
  We heard an impassioned plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover who said that the coalfield communities are dying on their feet. In addition to all the waste and dereliction of disused mines, with people becoming unemployed and not being retrained because of lack of support from British Coal Enterprise, we face the further waste and disruption that will no doubt come to our communities if we do nothing about clubs such as Fegg Hayes, which was a miners' welfare club supported by CISWO.
  Anybody who was born and brought up in a mining community knows only too well that the sports and welfare clubs are the heart of the community. We have heard about various clubs and sports facilities. We really cannot tolerate buildings and sports fields being left to die. I read with great interest that, in the Standing Committee—in which I did not participate—the Minister made some concessions concerning the long-term future of CISWO, but they are not enough.
  Three years ago the Fegg Hayes miners' welfare, which is now the Fegg Hayes sports and social club, was about to go into liquidation. The trustees, even with the support of CISWO, could not keep that community centre going with all its facilities. At the eleventh hour they came, to me, as the local Member of Parliament, to see whether there was some way in which it could be saved.
  As I pointed out yesterday, company law overrides charity law. Only the Charity Commission stepping in at the eleventh hour and a brewery being prepared to come in and save it stopped the miners welfare club closing down. Since then, it has gone from strength to strength and it continues to be an important part of the local community.
  If the House does not accept the amendment, and if the Minister cannot give the House an assurance that there will be long-term funding, how can we be sure that similar facilities to those of Fegg Hayes will survive? We certainly
  340
  need an audit so that we know where all the different sports and social clubs are. We urgently need co-operation between CISWO and local authorities and the coalfield communities to save the land and the buildings and to ensure that, instead of the waste and dereliction, those clubs have some future in the aftermath of the terrible effects of pit closures.
  I hope that in his reply the Minister will take into account what happened in Fegg Hayes and give us an assurance that what happened there can happen elsewhere in the country too.
  Mr. Redmond: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being called. I apologise to the Minister for my previous remarks, which he stated lowered the standard of the debate. I was trying to fetch it down to your level.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): My level?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Redmond: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but one has grave reservations about whether the Minister understands what the coal industry privatisation involves.
  I want to deal with two separate issues. The first concerns the paraplegic service in Pontefract, which does an excellent job, as did the Firbeck hospital and the convalescent homes. Better health treatment and the improvement in mining conditions mean that people are living longer. Miners retire a damn sight sooner and will, we hope, live a little longer. That shows that there is a need for convalescent homes where the lads and lasses can go to recuperate and enjoy themselves for a fortnight each year.
  The amount of cash offered by the Minister for Energy is not enough. He is trying to lead us to believe that he is compassionate. If that is so, he will ensure that much more money is made available. Once we start to reduce the facilities available, it will be a downward spiral. There is a need for more money. Regrettably, he needs to argue with the Treasury to get that money.
  My second point deals with the welfare organisations in mining villages. They are part of the mining heritage and of the culture in mining communities. The lads tossed money in and kept the local community alive when no one else was interested. They showed their foresight by attempting to provide facilities that would be used by all in the community. Regrettably, because of the decline of the coal industry in the past few years, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation is in an embarrassing financial position.
  The local authority in Doncaster has reached an agreement on maintenance and other matters with nine of the welfare organisations in Doncaster. It costs the authority about £250,000 to help maintain facilities and ensure that they remain available.
  I do not have to tell the Minister that the Department of the Environment is seeking to bring about the demise of local government by placing cash restraints on local communities and local authorities. Given those restraints, there is no way in which local authorities can raise enough funds via the council tax to ensure that those facilities remain. There will, therefore, be a decline in the facilities available.
  Already I have been approached by old age groups in Rossington, where the pit was closed by British Coal, although I hope that it will reopen. Because of the lack of

  341
  funds at the colliery, there is a proposal to charge groups that use facilities provided by the welfare organisations. We are not in the game of ensuring that people in the twilight years of their lives, who enjoy a little get together in the week and the facilities provided by the welfare organisations, should have to depend on charity. Charity does not exist any more. To be charitable, one must be able to afford to give to charity. There is, therefore, a problem.
  I ask the Minister not to consider the short term, what the cash on offer does, and the market forces that the Government operate, but to consider the long-term needs of those communities. Will he ensure that if anything should happen as a result of CISWO being given charitable status—which it seeks—and having cash flow problems, local authorities will manage the facilities? People in the mining communities raised the cash in the first place to provide facilities for future generations and the Minister is beholden to ensure that those facilities remain well into the next century.
  Mr. Eggar: I think that I made it clear in Committee and when I wrote to hon. Members on both sides of the House that I fully recognise the important role of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and other welfare organisations.
  Sometimes we make a mistake when we identify CISWO with the welfare organisations, many of which are fiercely independent and rely only to a limited extent on the services provided by CISWO. Other organisations rely on it to a greater extent. It is one of the strengths of the social welfare system in coal mining communities that each region, and in many cases each village, has developed services, health facilities and buildings which are particularly appropriate for those villages and often very small communities.
  The House is aware of the announcement on funding that I made in Committee. It might be helpful if I report to the House a discussion that I had with many members of the CISWO council on 17 March. I do not think that I am misconstruing what they said to me when I say that they gave a cautious welcome to the idea of replacing CISWO with a charitable trust. The council has said that it will examine how it can make a contribution to securing the future of CISWO services by raising external funds—a point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—and recognises that a restructuring of CISWO assets may be necessary to make better use of the funds available within the structure and that it may also have to make administrative savings.
  I am sure that the House will agree that, in the light of the CISWO response, the best way forward is a constructive dialogue. Its council members will keep in close touch with my officials during coming weeks and, if necessary, I shall meet them again.
  Mr. Clapham: The formula involves an endowment of £10 million, followed by one of £5 million, to be made up of a payment of £1 million each year. Will the Minister confirm that that £1 million will come from the private sector once the industry is privatised? Will he tell the House the mechanism that will be set up to ensure that private companies contribute?
  Mr. Eggar: The finance will come from the private companies. We have not yet decided how that money will
  342
  be conveyed and calculated. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that it may be a royalty and that it will therefore be related to production, which has been one of difficulties with British Coal, I assure him that we are concerned about the sum and the delivery of that £1 million per year rather than about the mechanism. I assure him that the sum will be £1 million.
  I do not think that I am misconstruing the attitude of the CISWO council when I say that it accepted the need for change. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to accept amendment No. 23, which locks CISWO and its successors into its current charitable aims, which the council would not want.
  Amendment No. 22 relates to physical assets. Much has been made, understandably, of sporting facilities. I yield to no one in my belief in the importance of team sports. I can tell the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that my preference is cricket rather than golf—not that golf is a team sport. I may add that part of the reason for recent developments in English cricket is that village cricket does not play as large a role in the life of this country as it once did, which has shown through in the quality of county and English cricket.
  The amendment calls for the transfer of assets to CISWO. Most of the sports facilities are organised not by that body but by local welfares, many of which would be appalled at the prospect of their facilities being run by CISWO, centrally or regionally. The amendment refers also to freehold land and properties, but much of it is held on long leases.
  I acknowledge the importance to local communities of identifying land holdings. Many are not entirely sure of the basis on which they hold land—whether it has been gifted to them by British Coal, a lease exists, or a rental agreement existed that has not been maintained. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) nods, so obviously she has experienced that with her own welfares.
  I asked British Coal to identify the land which it believes it owns and which is currently used for coal industry social welfare purposes, including recreation. We shall make decisions on the disposal of the land identified, who should receive the benefit of the use of that land and any safeguards required.
  A point that arises from the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is that some land is no longer actively used for recreational purposes, and is unlikely to be so used in future—because of a shift in the population or other reasons. We must be careful not to build in a totally inflexible system because some land—particularly that not used for some time—could readily be used by the community in other ways. It could be put back to recreational use, developed and so on.
  I want to be sensitive to local needs on the basis of the best local information that I can obtain. As I made clear in Committee, I am wary of imposing from the centre a series of rules that, although they make sense in theory, do not work in practice locally.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I will give way—but not to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because he has only just entered the debate. I will give way first to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
  Mr. Ashton: The Minister is right about the need for flexibility. There is no real demand for some playing fields

  343
  because of population movement. If the Minister will give an assurance that discussions will take place before the Bill returns from another place, I will withdraw the amendment in the hope of reaching agreement.
  Mr. Eggar: I explained that we asked British Coal to draw up a list of assets. We have powers under the Bill to safeguard the use of land, where we are clear that British Coal owns it. I am confident that we can reach a series of arrangements without laying down hard-and-fast rules in legislation.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No. I am trying to respond to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
  Mr. Skinner: I have just one question.
  Mr. Eggar: I am still trying to respond to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, and I will then give way to the hon. Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North—all of whom have been present for the debate. If I do not answer the question of the hon. Member for Bolsover in that way, I shall then give way to him.
  I am confident that we can safeguard the genuine and current recreational use of land, but I ask the hon. Member for Bassetlaw to allow us to do that in a flexible and sensitive way.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: One cannot pigeon-hole every case. There are examples in my constituency of recreational open space in an old mining village that the community or local authority wants to revitalise. There are periods when people move away—but when they get their assets together again, they move back and want to revitalise the area. If recreational and open spaces are surrendered to the highest bidder, that land might be used for the wrong reasons. It should be redeveloped in conjunction with the local people and local authority, who should have the first option to purchase—not the highest bidder. I hope that the Minister accepts that principle
  Mr. Eggar: I cannot quite go down that route. Even when CISWO wanted to redeploy an asset such as a convalescent home that was not fully utilised, it had difficulty reaching an internal agreement. I do not want to misconstrue CISWO's response, but I made the point to that body that when it is reconstituted as a charitable trust, it must be able to take difficult decisions. That picks up the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  I want to act as sympathetically as possible, but I suspect that, from time to time, some recreational land and buildings may have to be sold against local vested interest but for the greater good of social welfare within mining communities. That will not be easy, and the hon. Member for Midlothian and others will probably have to take the lead in local cases. We must not go against the whole thrust of the work of CISWO and the welfares in order to respond to local needs. If we impose much from the centre, there will be a loss of benefit.
  Does the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North still want to intervene?
  Ms Walley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Eggar: In that case, I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Skinner: I heard the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the ensuing exchanges. The Minister said that, given some flexibility, most land would be retained. Will he undertake an audit of CISWO's land and establish how much of it is used for recreational and other purposes? If 80 per cent. of that land is used for football, cricket and so on, will the Minister guarantee that he will write into the Bill that no less than 80 per cent. will continue to be used for recreational purposes? That way, any land over and above that not being used for recreational and social purposes could be sold off.
  Mr. Eggar: I can say that I have asked for—I use the word loosely—an "audit" of the land that British Coal believes that it owns.
  Mr. Skinner: Not all the land.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. CISWO and the welfares may also own land and assets. I do not want to get into the business of telling CISWO what to do with the land and assets that it owns. I am concerned only with the land and assets that British Coal owns, or believes that it owns. I suspect that there will be some dispute over title.
  The next stage is to look carefully at that land and identify that which is used currently and actively for recreational purposes. We then need to see how we can provide the best assurance that the land will be retained for those purposes. Again, I say do not let us lock ourselves into the concept that it is to everybody's advantage, so to speak, that we should guarantee that a football pitch will for ever be a football pitch. The changing age profile in villages, for example, may well mean that people want to start playing bowls. Or the growing attraction of tennis may mean that, if they can raise the money for a tennis court, they should be able to redeploy the land. They might want to sell off part of the land to maximise its use. We must be careful that we do not freeze everything for current uses.
  Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as this is an important point. The community, not CISWO, owns the land and facilities. Therefore, CISWO is beholden to ensure that it serves the community and not become some quango that is there to make a fast buck and sell the land for profit. I hope that the Minister will accept the community's need, not some small body, to make the decisions about future needs.
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman exposes the difficulties that I have when I try to respond to ideas of legislation. Some local welfares might be willing to have CISWO in a fiduciary capacity in some way; others, frankly, would not have it anywhere near the place. If I try to impose one system, which is the thrust of the Opposition amendment, I would please one group but offend another, so I plead for an acceptance that a flexible approach, as locally based as possible, is the right way forward. I believe that the way that I have tried to proceed should command the respect of the House.
  Mr. O'Neill: We are grateful to the Minister for taking interventions and making a telling point in what was a fairly long speech. He has gone some way at least to

  345
  meeting some of our concerns. But we have to be guided in some respects by the response of the trustees of CISWO, who gave his proposition a cautious welcome.
  The Minister said that the dialogue is continuing. It cannot continue ad infinitum. There has to be an end. It is clear that there are more things to be played for at this stage. We hope, therefore, that he is now more aware of some of the problems, because some of them emerged during the discussions that have been under way since October or November of last year. For those reasons, I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw our amendment in the expectation that, if necessary, it will be looked at elsewhere. I am sure that the Minister will accept that, if we do not get satisfaction through legislation, there will be debates on the Floor of the House later this year to ensure that if the transfer of ownership takes place, CISWO and the communities that depend on the welfare organisations, regardless of the umbrella under which they operate, are represented and protected in the way that we see fit.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5

  PENSIONS PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH RESTRUCTURING
  Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 101, line 25, at end insert—
  '(aa) for securing that, if modifications are made pursuant to sub-paragraph (a) above, provision shall be made for an independent person to have power to appoint and remove the chairman of the trustees who shall himself be an independent person, and for this purpose a person is independent if—

  (i) he is not entitled to any pension right which gives rise to a pension obligation under the existing scheme;

  (ii) he is not employed in the Civil Service of the Crown, whether in an established capacity or not, and whether for the whole or part of his time;

  (iii) he is not a member of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom; and

  (iv) he is not a member of the House of Commons; and the period of appointment of the chairman shall be for a fixed term not exceeding five years.'.

  Over the years, we have been given a number of assurances in relation to pensions. In October 1991, the former Secretary of State for Energy, Lord Wakeham, said on the privatisation of the coal industry:
  "the pension interests of both current and past employees of the British Coal Corporation will be properly safeguarded."
  Further assurances were given on the same subject by the Minister for Energy on 29 June 1992. He said:
  "I say quite categorically that we are committed to safeguarding pensions, we will safeguard pensions, and we will use the most appropriate method to do just that."
  A few days later, he gave a clear and unequivocal commitment that the British Coal pension fund would not be ripped off. He made the same statement when we discussed the matter further on the Floor of the House.
  The Government have been helpful to the Opposition and interested parties in providing a series of documents covering the issue of pensions.
  I now refer specifically to amendment No. 17, which has the purpose of inserting a new sub-paragraph (aa) that requires the Secretary of State to make proposals for the appointment of an independent chairman of trustees if he exercises the powers envisaged in sub-paragraph (a). That would enable the Secretary of State to make arrangements
  346
  for the appointment of trustees. The current mine workers' pension scheme trustees believe it vital that beneficiaries of the scheme can feel confident that the chairman of trustees is able to exercise his or her responsibility without fear of Government pressure or interference.
  Officials of the Department of Trade and Industry have made it clear to the present trustees that they envisage that new trustees will exercise full fiduciary responsibilities. We believe that the Government should welcome this opportunity to demonstrate that the new trustees will be able to act responsibly. In some respects, it should be an advantage to the Government to concede that point, as they would gain greater support and acceptance from the beneficiaries and would also be assured that an independent chairman would have to pay due regard to the guarantor's interests as well that of beneficiaries. The guarantor is likely to play a significant role in the working of the scheme.
  In our view, an independent chairman would offer a measure of counterbalance. In addition, it is suggested that the period of appointment of the chairman could be limited to a fixed term, perhaps not exceeding five years. We are aware that there are continuing negotiations with the Government on that point. We are aware that the trustees would prefer a body, independent of the Secretary of State, to make the appointment. Our proposed amendment suggests certain criteria for independence that would have to be met by the appointer and appointee precluding any civil servant, Minister, Member of the House of Commons or beneficiary of the scheme. Therefore, in our view, it remains possible that the Government would accept such a condition and therefore the points are made in a non-partisan, non-political way. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall be brief, as the Minister gave guarantees in Committee. I was a trustee of the miners' pension fund for many years. We took the role very seriously and educated ourselves as best we could as lay members of a sophisticated and successful pension fund. One aspect that was always underlined to us was that, although we were appointed to represent the members of the NUM—there was a UDM member in the company, as well as the trustees who were appointed by British Coal —we were legally independent. In other words, we were responsible as individuals, not to our organisation, but to the fund itself. That was underlined on every occasion by our legal advisers and other people. The appointment of this person is dear to the hearts of the people who are in the fund.
  It was once said that the lifeboats on a ship belong to the crew, on a cargo ship—or otherwise to the passengers as well. The pension fund belongs to its members. That is the way I look at it. I hope that all the cynicism attached to the Maxwell fiasco has made us very cautious. People outside, especially members of pension schemes, are certainly extremely worried in case something in the Bill will in some way undermine their rights so that someone will be able to cream off money. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to reassure us.
  The amendments would be in no way detrimental to the Bill; they will simply add to the assurances demanded by the pensioners, of whom there are a great many. In fact, there is a huge army of them out there. The Minister should think of the former size of the industry and then of the number of pensioners watching closely to see how the

  347
  matter is handled. If I go to any public function, or indeed any gathering of people of a certain age in my constituency, the subject of pensions, especially miners' pensions, raises its head nine times out of 10.
  8 pm
  The protection requested for the post-privatisation pensions agreement is reasonable, as is the limiting of the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to the period before 31 December 1995. We ask for a limit. We do not say that there is no responsibility, or that the Secretary of State is not answerable to the House, but there must be a curb on the laissez-faire independent powers.
  The final provision would impose a duty to act in good faith towards the beneficiaries of the pension schemes when using the power to act in the national interest. There could be a conflict of interests here, but I hope that the balance will lean towards the individual pensioner or pensioners.
  I am proud of the fact that I was a member of the fund for years. It has been most successful, and the people who ran it and invested in it, anti the CIN, have something to be proud of. They were not only successful financially but created a lot of jobs. They invested in this country and elsewhere to create work with risk capital. I am proud of the fact that they used the money. They did not buy art treasures, stick them in a vault and watch them appreciating. They invested the money where it was needed. I am certain that the members of the pension fund wanted the money to be used in that way.
  I hoped that things would continue in that way, but the Government have not accepted that idea. The fund could have been treated in such a way that someone who worked for any of the privatised companies could still be a fully fledged member of the pension fund. But the Government said no, froze the fund at that point and gave the new emerging companies the right to negotiate with someone outwith the fund. I see no logic in that, apart from ideological logic. I thought that people would have been invited into a worthwhile thriving pension fund—but that is the way the cookie crumbles.
  I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
  Mr. Eggar: The whole House recognises that discussions are continuing between the Government and the trustees of the two schemes. Progress is still being made, and I hope that nobody in the House will press for a detailed disclosure of exactly where we are.
  On the substance of the amendment, the Government recognise that the chairman should carry the confidence of the fellow trustees and the beneficiaries. We also recognise the fact that the Government-appointed trustees, like any trustees, will owe fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries of the scheme. That is most important.
  The Department is currently discussing with the trustees the arrangements for appointing the chairman. That is one of the issues that is taking up a fair amount of time. I hope that we shall be able to resolve the matter by the full agreement of the trustees in a way satisfactory both to them and to the Government, so I recommend that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the Minister's response, and for the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), who cast his net rather on the wide side for amendment No. 17. Nevertheless, he raised
  348
  the subject that preoccupies many members of the pension fund, and certainly those who are the trustees. The question is: who owns the pension fund?
  Ms Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people involved, especially the trustees, have put a great deal of work into trying to impress upon the Minister the importance of independence? If there is no independent advice and no independent chairman, how can we have trust? I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention the great work that has been done on this matter, especially by Mr. Joe Wills, in my constituency.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has clearly taken a strong interest in the matter. The Minister has mentioned the importance of having an independent chairman, and in Committee we were told that the negotiations were still continuing. We had hoped that by this stage they might have been completed, which would have enabled the Government to table amendments on pensions for Report. We are aware that the negotiations are still continuing, and we are in close touch with the trustees of the various pension funds. I hope, as the Minister probably hopes—no doubt he will wish to take into account the comments made both in Committee and tonight—that the issue will be settled and the negotiations completed, so that the Government will be able to table amendments in another place.
  On the basis of the Minister's comments and of the interventions by my hon. Friends, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 102, line 37, at end insert—
  '(10A) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations under this paragraph shall not be exercisable at any time after 31st December 1995.'.
  We are concerned that any arrangements entered into at privatisation for securing pension benefits should be as watertight as possible and should not provide an easy way to alter the position in future. The amendment would impose a time limit on the regulation-making powers.
  It is accepted that, to secure an orderly transition to privatisation, it is necessary and proper for the Secretary of State to have powers to modify the scheme. However, the Bill as drafted places no limit on the time during which the Secretary of State can exercise those powers. That would enable a future Secretary of State to modify the scheme and undo elements of the arrangements agreed at the time of privatisation—although we accept that there is a restriction to prevent the power being used to reduce accrued benefits.
  The exercise of the powers in that way would clearly be contrary to the original purpose. The insertion of proposed subsection (10A) would prevent the Secretary of State's powers from being exercisable at any time after 31 December 1995. That would allow a reasonable period within which any drafting errors could be remedied. We accept that it may not be possible to get the necessary modifications right the first time, but our amendment would reassure the beneficiaries that no power of modification would be extant in the long term. After 31 December 1995 further modification of the scheme could be achieved only through the use of the scheme's amendment power. On that basis I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Eggar: I shall first I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) at the end of his comments about the previous amendment. Yes, in an ideal world, I would have liked to come to the House with agreed amendments to the Bill. It has not proved possible to reach agreement with the trustees. It has taken longer than we anticipated. I very much hope that we shall reach agreement, and shall therefore be able to go to the other place with amendments in due course.
  The hon. Gentleman has presented the substance of the amendment fairly. There are restrictions on the ability to use the existing proposed powers to reduce accrued benefits. It is generally recognised that there needs to be a time during which discussions can take place in case there have been any oversights during the drafting of the arrangements. The precise length of time is still under discussion. The length of time suggested by the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not entirely out of the ball park of what is being discussed. I am not sure that we shall agree on that particular period, but that sort of concept is being considered.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for responding in kind to the amendment. He was gracious enough to do the same in Committee. We welcome the various assurances that he gave on the previous amendment, the question of a time scale and the hope that we may see amendments to the Bill tabled in other place.
  On the basis of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 102, line 49, at end insert 'and
  (c) so much of any pension obligation arising under the scheme as derives either from modifications of the scheme made after the restructuring date or from any surplus of assets of the scheme over what is required for meeting pension obligations under the scheme.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it is convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 20, in page 107, line 6 at beginning insert
  'Subject to sub-paragraph (5A) below,'
  No. 21, in page 107, line 18 at end insert—
  '(5A) Where any modification by virtue of this schedule of any existing scheme confers any powers on the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall, in exercising those powers, owe the same duty of good faith to all persons who are entitled to any pension rights which give rise to pension obligations under the scheme as an employer would owe in exercising similar powers under an occupational pension scheme.'.
  Mr. Bell: Amendment No. 18 deals with the post-privatisation benefits improvement aspect of pensions. One of our major concerns is that, under the proposed arrangements, it would be possible for the value of pensions payable to beneficiaries to be reduced in cash terms from year to year because of the way in which beneficiaries are to share future surpluses. The draft scheme and rules in the Bill provide for half of any such surplus to be placed in a bonus augmentation fund from which any additional benefits would be paid. As the proposals presently stand, the bonus payments will not be guaranteed and may be withdrawn following subsequent actuarial valuation, thus causing the value of pension payments to fall despite the existence of the guarantee. In
  350
  the past, benefits to pensioners from surpluses have become a part of the normal pension and been subsequently indexed.
  8.15 pm
  We therefore consider that the present proposals fall too far short of what beneficiaries may reasonably expect, based on the historical position. The amendment is something of a halfway house, as it would include in the definition of principle pension obligations any payments made from the bonus augmentation fund, so that they would be covered by the Government guarantee. Amendment No. 18 does not require the index linking of such payments to be covered by the guarantee in paragraph 2(11)(b) of schedule 5. That would operate only in paragraph 2(11)(a) and not extend to the provision set out in the amendment. I hope that the House will excuse me for being technical about the amendment, but its importance is understood by the Government.
  We are aware that the trustees are continuing to have discussions with the Government on that issue, but I do not believe that the trustees are entirely happy that the proposals as they stand are sufficient to provide proper security for pensioners, and think that a position that leaves open the possibility of pensions being reduced is unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has already commented from his own experience on the benefit and importance of such a scheme.
  Amendment No. 20 deals with the duty of good faith of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 5(5) of the schedule provides the Secretary of State with powers to direct the trustees in the exercise of their duties so as to have proper regard to the national interest. That power could be exercised in relation to scheme investments, actuarial assumptions and the distribution of the beneficiaries' share of surpluses. The provisions of that paragraph are also reflected in the draft scheme and rules, although they are subject to continuing discussions with the Government. Again, discussions are continuing between the Government and the trustees.
  Amendment No. 21 would add a new sub-paragraph, (5A), which provides that the Secretary of State owes a "duty of good faith", analogous to that owed by employers in an occupational pension scheme, to all persons entitled to pension rights under the scheme. The employer acts as a guarantor in most final salary occupational pension schemes by ensuring that the scheme is adequately funded. By that method, the members' benefits are properly safeguarded. In carrying out his role under the pension scheme, the employer is entitled to protect his own interests, but in so doing he must not act contrary to his duty of good faith to the members.
  Labour Members feel that it is appropriate to reflect that balance on the face of the Bill, with the Government as guarantor to the scheme. It is vital that some acknowledgement of the interests of the beneficiaries should be included in either the Bill or the draft schemes and that paragraph 5(5) should be substantially amended.

  We acknowledge that the Government, as guarantor, will have an interest in investment policy, but feel that that should not extend to being able to direct investment policy without regard to the beneficiaries. Any power for the Government to intervene should be tightly drawn and be used only in extreme circumstances, allowing the trustees in normal circumstances to set investment policy in the light of the scheme's experience. We do not accept that the

  351
  Government should have power to interfere in actuarial assumptions. Those should be a matter for the scheme's actuary in consultation with the trustees and should not have any influence on the distribution of surplus to the beneficiaries.
  If I may use a Latin phrase, which will no doubt please my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), who, although he is not in his place, graced our Committee proceedings with lengthy words and a great knowledge of the English language, amendment No. 21 lives or falls by the principle of res ipsa loquitur—it speaks for itself.
  Ms Rachel Squire: I shall speak in support of all the amendments covering pension provision, but especially in support of amendments Nos. 20 and 21, because the future pension provision for retired miners, those currently working and those yet to be employed is of great concern to the miners and families in my constituency. As hon. Members will know, Longannet is the only deep mine left in Scotland. It borders on my constituency and I have yet to meet a family in west Fife who do not have some past or present connection with the mining industry. Given that, at one time, there were 66 pits in Fife, that is hardly surprising.
  Only two years after the Government came into office, there were still 4,000 miners employed in Fife. Now there is less than a quarter of that in the whole of Scotland. The statistics mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of miners and their families in my constituency are concerned about the Government's proposals for the two pension schemes.
  It is encouraging to hear mention of the assurances that the Government are giving and of the discussions that are taking place with trustees, but the people of west Fife are deeply distrustful of promises and assurances given by the Government. I shall explain why. First, my view and that of my constituents is that if the Government had the genuine national interest that is referred to in the pension proposals, they would not have introduced the Bill in the first place. I place on record my deep and total opposition to coal privatisation because of the effect that it will have on pay, pensions and safety. There is not a shred of evidence that private mine owners and the Government have any concerns other than their profits when it comes to dealing with the coal industry.
  I was reading some old newspaper cuttings and came across one about Lord Fitzwilliam. In 1873, he said that he was the owner of mines simply as a fund for himself and his family and they were to be used with regard only to his caprice—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having some difficulty relating 1873 to pension policy in the future; perhaps the hon. Lady will come to that.
  Ms Squire: What I am saying is that I support the amendments because we are concerned that the Government are looking at the two British Coal pension schemes in the way described by Lord Fitzwilliam back in 1873—that is, from the basis of their caprice and self-interest.
  The second reason why my constituents and I question the proposals for the two pension schemes—the mineworkers pension scheme and the staff superannuation scheme—is their value of about £17 billion. That causes great concern to my constituents, miners, pensioners and their families because they are afraid that the Government
  352
  have a hidden agenda. They are afraid that privatisation could threaten the security of current and future benefit payments, they are afraid that it could affect the real value of benefits paid and they are afraid that those who are still employed in the industry after privatisation could be denied equivalent pension rights.
  The third reason why my constituents seek more than mere assurances from the Government is the abuse of pension schemes, which other hon. Members have mentioned, most notably, the Maxwell pension scheme. Only yesterday, there was a report in the Scottish papers about a Lanarkshire steel company which took over part of the industry after British Steel was broken up and privatised. The company used £300,000 from the pension fund to prevent the business from failing, and £80,000 of the money, which included workers' pension payments, remains unaccounted for. That is why we are looking for something wider than a national interest in this part of the Bill.
  My fourth reason for supporting the amendments is that a balance must be struck between the interests of the taxpayer, whom the Minister claims to represent, and the interests of the beneficiaries of the schemes. The powers proposed in this part of the Bill are wide. What will happen if there is a conflict of interest between the national interest as defined by the Secretary of State and the views of the trustees in the three key areas of investment policy, actuarial valuations and the distribution of surpluses? Whose view would carry weight in those circumstances?
  I know that time is short; there is a great deal more that I should like to say. I ask the Minister to look supportively and favourably at the amendments and recognise the national service and interest that past and present miners have given to the industry. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, I seem to spend most of my time talking about security, insecurity and uncertainty, whether with regard to defence-related industries or, as today, the coal industry and the pension schemes. We are looking for a small lump of security in what otherwise seems to my constituents who have a connection with mining pensions as a massive seam of uncertainty.
  Mr. Eggar: I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) had any misconceptions, but the Government have given a categorical assurance about safeguarding people's pensions and I do not want her to alarm her constituents needlessly.
  What the amendments are about, especially amendment No. 18, is the precise terms of the Government guarantee. After extensive consultation with the trustees, the Government have agreed that a guarantee will be available to ensure that the pension, as from its base point, rises in accordance with the retail prices index, whatever happens with the actuarial position. The amendment would effectively extend the Government guarantee to pension increases above the RPI. It is the Government's position that that is not a reasonable expectation on behalf of the beneficiaries; it is perfectly fair for the Government to give an RPI guarantee but not that the bonus element of the pension should be guaranteed. It would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to provide a guarantee along those lines.
  It would be wrong to guarantee bonuses from actuarial surpluses which prove on subsequent valuations to have been illusory. The hon. Lady knows that the assessment of surpluses can vary from time to time according to investment records and the assumptions that are made. The

  353
  whole sector is difficult. At present, it is a matter of detailed discussion with the trustees and between the Government Actuary and the trustees' actuarial advisers. Progress is being made, but perhaps more slowly than we had anticipated.
  Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are to paragraph 5(5), the wording of which has always been a sensitive and difficult matter. Paragraph 5(5) relates to the need of the Secretary of State to be able to act on behalf of the interests of taxpayers and, equally, for the need of the trustees to be able to defend, if one likes, the position of the beneficiaries. That matter is still being discussed. I can honestly report to the House that progress is being made but we have not quite reached agreement.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for those responses. We are also grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) because she has sat here for a long time. We all listened with great interest to what she said. She has spoken in a debate on pensions which is of extreme importance to many thousands of people. She referred to the £17,000 million in the pension fund, which is a significant amount by anyone's standard. We had important debates in Committee on the matter and we went into it in great detail. As the Minister said, the matter is still being discussed and negotiated with the trustees of the pension schemes.
  I do not wish to extend the scope of the amendments or the debate, but the consequences of the abuse of pension schemes, such as that by the late Robert Maxwell, are not far from our minds. There are many parts of pension law to which the House will return. As my hon. Friend said, a balance must be struck between the beneficiaries of the schemes and the taxpayers. We heard a great deal about that in Committee. The point made by my hon. Friend, which will rest with the House and certainly the Minister, is that there is a lump of insecurity and a massive seam of uncertainty in the country.
  I come back to the point, on which the Minister has touched, that the negotiations have gone on longer than one would have thought. They went on during the Committee and have continued through Report. We are anxious but hopeful that the negotiations will be satisfactorily concluded in the interests of all parties.
  I ask the Minister to bear in mind—I am sure that he will—that we shall be looking for proper amendments to the Bill as a consequence of the successful conclusion of the negotiations before the Bill passes to the other place. We shall be looking for that with great anxiety on one hand and insistence on the other. Otherwise, we may be returning to the issues on the Floor of the House in another context.
  However, on the basis of what we have heard tonight, and fully understanding that negotiations are taking place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

  PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBSIDENCE
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 37, line 24, after 'substitution', insert—
  (a) in relation to any claim for compensation for subsidence damage, for references to the Corporation of references to the Authority; and
  (b)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 37, line 24, after 'damage', insert 'otherwise'.
  No. 4, in page 37, line 26, at end insert—
  '(1A) The Authority shall be entitled to recover all payments, costs and expenses made or incurred under subsection (1) above from the person (if any) who is the responsible person under subsection (2) of this section.'.
  No. 29, in clause 45, page 39, line 32, leave out from 'State' to the end of the line and insert
  'shall by regulations ensure that the Coal Authority will assume sole and proper responsibility for retaining the necessary expertise and resources for arrangements for the resolution of subsidence claims including'.
  No. 28, in clause 46, page 40, line 39. at end insert:—
  '(2A) Where a claimant for subsidence damage is assisted by the subsidence adviser, the subsidence adviser shall be responsible for ensuring that the damage notice is forwarded to the operator responsible for damage or to the Coal Authority.
  (2B) Where the subsidence adviser has forwarded the damage notice to the operator, he shall inform the Authority of his action and send the Authority a copy of the damage notice.'.
  Mr. Alexander: The amendment basically would require the Coal Authority to take over the responsibility for claims for subsidence damage after the date of the restructuring of the industry.
  There has been uncertainty and confusion over subsidence, and I welcome the opportunity to raise the matter with my hon. Friend and to outline the basic concerns. I think that he would agree that experience of compensation claims generally suggests that the person who is liable can be as difficult as he or she can be before settling up, and they delay for as long as possible.
  The proposed subsidence adviser may help in preventing that, but his powers seem very few, and the way in which the Bill has been drafted suggests that having the adviser cannot be the answer to the problems of properly dealing with claims.
  There is no uniform procedure for claimants, and the danger is that those with potential liabilities may try to discourage claimants by making it as difficult as possible for them to claim. I should be glad to have my hon. Friend's reassurance on that aspect when he winds up this short debate.
  Every hon. Member knows that even the most profitable company can become insolvent from time to time. We hear of large and virtually household names—I need not mention any of them—which have found themselves unable to meet their liabilities. Those who are suffering in cases of subsidence damage are particularly disadvantaged. They have generally received no benefit from the operation of the coal mining under their houses.
  My hon. Friend stated in Committee that the Coal Authority would be responsible in the last resort. I accept what he says, but that is not in the Bill, and I would like reassurance again on that point. He also pointed to the

  355
  authority's right to terminate an area of responsibility for subsidence under clause 37. However, that is of little comfort to the claimant if there is no way of making the authority settle within a reasonable time, or at all.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his explanation of the difficulties which could be faced by people suffering from mining subsidence damage if something is not included in the Bill which is firm and gives protection. Some of my constituents are having difficulty under the present system of registering and claiming for mining subsidence compensation. If we are witnessing problems now, heaven knows what the situation will be under privatisation. I support the amendment, and I am following the deliberations closely. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press his case as hard as he can with the Minister.
  Mr. Alexander: I like to think that I am pressing the case hard now.
  The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. There is nowhere in the Bill where the authority on termination would be responsible for claims already made against the operator at the time of termination. That is partly the hon. Gentleman's point. If it is intended that the authority should provide some safety net, we should be told, and that should be put in the Bill.
  I do not want to pursue the point for too long, and I conclude in this way. The explanatory note issued by the Department of Trade and Industry noted that the authority has a duty only so far as practicable to secure that
  "those owed obligations in respect of subsidence damage do not sustain loss as a consequence of a failure by those licensed to carry on coal-mining operations to make reasonable financial provision for meeting their liabilities."
  In a briefing sent to hon. Members who have taken an interest in the debate and in the Bill, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors noted that that just does not sound like a responsibility which will be undertaken and accepted in the Bill.
  I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response to the concerns enunciated in the amendment.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) in expressing misgivings on behalf of a wide range of constituents in Selby district. They include private individuals such as farmers and householders, as well as people in official positions, such as the clerks to the Ouse and Derwent internal drainage board and the Went internal drainage board, and the administration manager of Selby district council. They continue to have misgivings about the prospects for proper administration and funding of subsidence problems.
  I start by sounding a positive note to my hon. Friend the Minister, whose conscientious care for the, anxieties expressed from all parts of the House about the implications of the Bill has been a model of what a helpful Minister should provide for the House. I am particularly grateful to him for making certain that we have been sent draft copies of the coal mining subsidence damage popular guide, and for his having taken the trouble to publish and circulate in advance the draft subsidence regulations. My hon. Friend has been disarming about that, and we are obliged to him for his helpful attitude.
  The main anxiety about which I have received representations relates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out, to the possible insolvency of a licence
  356
  operator. It was vividly expressed to me in a letter from Peter Bains, who is the clerk to the Ouse and Derwent internal drainage board. He made some commendatory comments about British Coal and the present arrangements and commented on the arrangements which apply to all private people in relation to British Coal.
  As far as the internal drainage board is concerned, he said:
  "I cannot speak too highly of the way in which British Coal discharge their obligations. Problems are identified quickly. Emergency measures are taken by British Coal when necessary. They are receptive to the requirements of the drainage board. Remedial schemes are prepared with the absence of bureaucracy. Above all, the cost is funded by British Coal as an essential priority.
  The concern of the drainage board is this. What guarantee is there that remedial schemes will be funded by private companies without regard to their financial position?…What happens if a licensed mine operator becomes insolvent? I can answer that question myself, the position becomes disastrous."
  As I would have expected, my hon. Friend the Minister helpfully examined the issue after I raised it with him on an earlier occasion. In a letter which he sent to me on 17 February he said:
  "Where a mining company is liable, the Coal Authority will have a statutory duty to look carefully at the financial standing of mining companies, especially in relation to their ability to meet subsidence liabilities. Where necessary, the Authority will require operators to form special financial security arrangements, and the Bill provides that these arrangements can be set up so as to ensure that this security is effectively ring fenced for the protection of subsidence claimants."
  Those words are prima facie helpful and reassuring, but they do not entirely and conclusively evacuate anxiety from my constituents, whether private individuals or corporate bodies.
  The Minister clearly based his letter of 17 February on the provisions in clause 2(1)(c) of the Bill, which could hardly have a more robust or splendidly explicit and reassuring ring about them in terms of the Government's determination to make certain that moneys will be put aside and properly protected for meeting subsidence claims in case of insolvency. However, unfortunately, clause 2(1)(c) is governed by the tell-tale phrase "so far as practicable" in clause 2(1). That phrase is a term of art and not, unfortunately, a pillar of potential in the law courts.
  Although clause 2(1)(c) is not meant to be so definitive as clauses 29 and 36, the fact remains that it is the introductory operative paving section, and it contains the dreadful, portentous and uncertain words, "so far as practicable".
  I passed my hon. Friend's letter to one or two slightly jaundiced scrutineers in my constituency. In the words of one of them who wrote back to me:
  "The 'security arrangements' to which Mr. Eggar refers will be no good at all unless they involve 'cash down' to await a subsidence claim. Bonds or guarantees from third parties no matter of what financial standing are no answer to the potential problems that I outlined. The reason for this is that the institutions (and their assessors) who provide such security are masters of delay and obstruction … But land drainage and flood protection remedial work will not wait, and drainage authorities are certainly not in the position of being able to advance the money until reimbursement."
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can give further reassurances to the House on the issue. I suspect that he probably can.
  I am particularly encouraged by one further passage in my hon. Friend's letter of 17 February, in which he confirms that the Bill maintains the application of a rather abstruse but nevertheless living and relevant measure

  357
  which is on the statute book at present—the Doncaster District Drainage Act 1929. The Act has enormous significance in the present context. My hon. Friend explained to me in the letter that he wrote that the Doncaster District Drainage Act will maintain its present incarnation and applicability as a result of the Bill. The Bill provides for that remote but important and living statute to continue in place.
  The relevance of the Doncaster District Drainage Act 1929 is that, even before nationalisation in 1947, it provided that provision had to be made by private owners to contribute towards a sinking fund so that moneys were readily available for mining subsidence remedial work. The fund was made up of contributions from the private operators, but placed in the hands of the then river authorities and administered by them. Needless to say, a river authority which had control over a sinking fund wasted no time in dipping into its resources if private operators defaulted or failed to come up with the necessary remedial finance.
  8.45 pm
  As my hon. Friend the Minister has already implicitly accepted the precedent for requiring a sinking fund to be made available and for that fund to be placed in the hands of people other than the mining operators, such as the Coal Authority or a river board, I hope that something analogous can be provided, or at least considered sympathetically, so that we have a little pot of gold already in place which can be drawn upon and contributed to by the new coal operators and licence operators as and when a crisis of insolvency occurs. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to reassure us along those lines.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Looking around the Chamber, I see a small corps of veterans of the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill of 1991, who will recall the circumstances and the context in which we had to pass the Bill—a threatened dissolution of the House. Our desire to make sure that we got the Bill on the statute book prevailed over even the greater scrutiny that it deserved.
  Therefore, a second opportunity to consider this fundamental issue must not be passed over lightly, especially as three years down the road have been three years of more heartache, concern and in some cases despair for my constituents in the villages of Edwardsville, Treharris, Quakers Yard and Trelewis. The fact that the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 has not given the relief or assistance that one hoped and expected brings one back to examine the provisions in this Bill.
  I draw one conclusion from the experience of considering the 1991 Bill. As much as we might put provisions in the Bill about the role of the Coal Authority, a subsidence adviser or whoever else, absolute powerful rights of remedy to householders affected by subsidence are the best and most effective way of dealing with subsidence.
  I remember many of the debates we had about trying to strike a balance between the interests of British Coal and the worries and concerns of householders. Reflecting on those debates, I have come to the conclusion that that is not the premise from which we should start; we should start from the premise that a householder affected by subsidence
  358
  has an absolute right. After all, he or she is an innocent party. That householder bought the house in the hope that it would be a wonderful home in which to invest savings and borrow against. But suddenly a bulge may occur in a wall and cracks may appear in the paths—the house takes on a mini-Los Angeles earthquake look—and a house which was a family's pride becomes a nightmare. That is not an exaggerated description of the plight of householders in communities such as mine and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We are asked to explore the interests of the householder versus the interests of British Coal. It should not be a balance of interests; it should be fundamental that the householder, as an injured party, has a right to a speedy remedy under the law which is able to be enforced as speedily and effectively as possible. I do not think that the 1991 Act provides this and, as hon. Members have said, I do not think these essentially confused arrangements will provide it in the future.
  Since the Second Reading of this Bill the Minister and his Department have published draft subsidence regulations, and we thank him that they have been made available and can therefore be taken into account in debating the provisions of this Bill. I eagerly picked up the draft regulations in the hope that they would represent the sort of remedy that the affected villages in my community have been seeking.
  I turned to the provisions on which I spent considerable time—as I think hon. Members opposite did—in an attempt to get a decent provision to cover the situation of blight as a result of subsidence. Blight is one of the most dreadful consequences of subsidence. A dwelling can possibly be repaired in due course, but it becomes unsaleable for a considerable period, perhaps for ever. Blight is a deadly consequence in communities affected by subsidence.
  I looked through the blight provisions because I had fought for them during debate on the 1991 Bill—I think that we had a clause inserted into that Bill from which these regulations derive. I hope that the Minister will tell us that these are only draft regulations and that he will be willing to listen to what I have to say, because there are two fundamental problems with the draft regulations about blight.
  First, he is tying all of the blight provisions to the use of stop notices: either a stop notice has to be issued or there has to be the probability of an issue within a nine-month period before the blight clauses of these regulations can come into force.
  In the case of Edwardsville, Treharris, Quakers Yard and Trelewis, very few stop notices have been served. Therefore, that provision would not trigger the blight provisions in the regulations. I think the issue and acceptance of a damage notice would be a more effective trigger for the blight provisions.
  But I find the second subsection of the provisions most objectionable because it challenges the householder's right to serve a blight notice. Subsection 2(c) of the blight regulations states that
  "the principal reason for the sale is a change in the owner's personal or family circumstances such as would be likely to cause any reasonable owner to decide to sell the owner's interest in the dwellinghouse."
  What a curious continuing provision. The householder whose home is blighted—and has been demonstrated to be blighted by the fact that he has been unable to sell it at the

  359
  normal market value—will have to describe to British Coal or to a newly licensed mining company that it is his personal family circumstances which compel him to sell. Why should the householder have to do that? Why should he or she not just say, "I need to move; I wish to move"? Why does there have to be a detailed examination of the personal family circumstances of a householder before he or she can exercise the blight provisions under these regulations?
  Since the operation of the 1991 Act, there have been one or two dreadful cases where people have had to go on their hands and knees to British Coal and beg it to accept blight notices, describing the most painful personal circumstances. Why should people who are innocent parties and who have done absolutely nothing wrong but who have the sad misfortune to own a home under which British Coal have made a hole have to explain, as set out in the draft regulation, the circumstances which compel them to decide to move? All they should have to do is express a desire to move and prove that the home has been blighted because it is unsaleable at the normal market price.
  The provision of arbitration concerns me also—again, we pinned a lot of faith on this aspect in the 1991 Act. The Minister has provided a draft regulation on arbitration. I have found it very difficult to persuade people to go to arbitration. They are widely concerned that what we hoped was an informal, helpful, basically cheap and quick and speedy means of resolving the problems of disputes will be just as much a Goliath versus David confrontation as land tribunals and high courts have been in the past. People fear that British Coal will come along with its top advisers and override the values and concerns of individual householders who, under the draft regulations, have to carry their own expenses of going to arbitration.
  As far as this Bill is concerned, what will be the role of subsidence advisers, the Coal Authority or the arbitration assessor in upholding, technically and professionally, the case on behalf of the householder concerned? Previously it has been an unequal battle when a dispute has occurred to try to get redress by going to tribunals or to the High Court.
  Of course, no legal aid is available to householders in the case of arbitration. That is not what we wanted; we hoped that arbitration would be simpler, more effective and cheaper than previous methods. What provisions contained in the Bill, in the clauses that we are trying to amend, or in the draft regulations issued by the Minister will ensure that the individual householder is well equipped and capable of making sure that his or her case is heard properly, both professionally and technically, without incurring the costs that have been associated with other forms of procedures for resolving disputes?
  I am sorry to delay the House but, on behalf of householders who thought that the 1991 Act would be something of a salvation and who have found subsequently that that was not so, I reiterate that we once again have an opportunity to provide a real remedy. Above all, we have the opportunity to give people real rights which enable them to stand up and overcome the grievances they justly feel when their homes are affected by subsidence.
  In Edwardsville, Treharris and Quakers Yard it is ironic that much of the relatively recent subsidence occurred because British Coal decided to close the pit and mined it with great speed in the last 12 months. The people of those communities do not believe it is a coincidence that large-scale subsidence occurred in the last 12 months of the pit's operation. We are left with no jobs and no pits, only
  360
  a legacy of subsidence. If we do nothing else, we should ensure that householders have proper and full remedy under the law.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Concern is being expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the provisions for subsidence. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the present situation and the past record are not perfect, but we are in danger of fragmenting liabilities in a way that could add to individuals' difficulties.
  If every licensee is responsible, action will have to be taken against a licensee and only on the basis of assurances that we have received from the Minister will there be a fallback on the Coal Authority as a last resort. For many people, that may be far too late if they have become involved in litigation or are unable to enter into litigation but, because they have not done so, the Coal Authority says that they have not exhausted all the possibilities and that it is therefore not minded to represent their interests. The issue needs to be clarified.
  I must press the Minister on one matter. There is no commercial reason for the Government to resist the proposed improvement. The Library notes refer to the Financial Times of 13 January, which reported:
  "Prospective purchasers of coal mines are warning the Government that privatisation of the industry is being severely hampered by requirements that the new owners of mines must take on historic liabilities for subsidence. The liabilities could amount to hundreds of millions of pounds … Potential purchasers say that past liabilities may outweigh the likely business benefits of mining coal in some of the five areas for sale".
  That is clearly a factor which one understands the Government might feel they have to take into account, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that it cannot be a justification for resisting an improvement to the Bill which would ensure that there was a clear, fair and straightforward means for individuals in particular to get redress. Does he agree that, in most cases, it would be much better if individuals went to the authority and that the authority dealt with the matter and undertook to recover the money or indemnify itself against any private owner?
  In order that the Minister does not misunderstand me, I stress that I am not suggesting that private owners should not be liable for subsidence arising out of their own workings—of course they should be, and even perhaps for related cover. However, it is clearly not acceptable that those affected should find that a series of barriers are making it even more difficult for them to obtain redress.
  For many people, going to one single authority and knowing that it is the authority that will sort out the matter is surely the best way to proceed. That authority can then undertake to recover whatever is required from those who are held liable in law, whether it is the private or the historic owner.
  I shall not delay the House, but I am sure that the Minister will accept that the issue is causing concern to all parties. Although the assurances that he has given go some way to meeting that concern, they do not appear to have satisfied Opposition Members or, indeed, some of his colleagues.
  9 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester>: I shall be brief, because I agree with all that has been said. Most of us who have been dealing with constituency subsidence claims for a long

  361
  time know how difficult it can be to prove a case. We are all familiar with insurance companies, including the reputable ones which operate on behalf of local authorities, who are quick to take the cover, but with whom it is difficult to push through a claim.
  I stress the problems of insolvency caused by subsidence, which is not an exact science. I remember when the Huthwaite pit, just over the way from my constituency, planned a new seam and estimated that there would be about £1 million-worth of subsidence. In the event, there was £9 million-worth of subsidence, which was enough to close the pit because it was uneconomic.
  One can imagine that private purchasers, running fewer mines and therefore unable to offset one against the other, could get into serious difficulties if a non-exact science can lead to greater liabilities than they are able to cover. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the cost should never be borne by innocent victims.
  Mr. O'Neill: Amendment No. 29 would ensure that the expertise and resources to handle subsidence claims should be the responsibility of the Coal Authority, which we consider to be the appropriate regulatory body. It is essential that claimants have a simple procedure for the presentation of claims, which is the purpose of amendment No. 28.
  The subsidence adviser will be empowered to handle all stages of a claim, allowing him to act fully as the claimant's agent. That will not only protect the customer but standardise the form of claims, thus easing the administrative load on the authority and the operators. It will also reduce the opportunity for fraud by directing claims to an individual responsible to the Secretary of State.
  It is important that such channels and expertise are available in this critical matter, and we believe that it would be worth the Minister considering the issue again. We discussed it at some length in Committee, but there is widespread concern that a fragmented industry, with a diminished Coal Authority, will not necessarily provide the best protection for the legitimate claims of people who will have enough to worry them without wondering how long the claims will take and to whom they will be speaking.
  Ms Walley: I wish to impress on the Minister how important it is that my constituents should be able to get proper compensation for the subsidence that has already occurred. The House should be aware that, under the present system, it is almost impossible to get compensation when it is needed. Whatever the Government might have done to introduce the arbitration scheme, I can give details of tens of constituents who have not been able to get compensation from the arbitration system. Unless the Minister takes on board the amendments that we have tabled, there will be even less accountability, and it will be even more difficult to get over all those hurdles to obtain proper compensation for damage that has been done to people's properties.
  Anyone who lives in a home where there is subsidence, who walks down the sloping floor, who sees the cracks appear in their property, who has to live with all the uncertainties and with the realisation that they cannot sell
  362
  their home because it is blighted will agree with the amendments. The Minister must go away and return with greater assurances than we have had. I wish briefly, on behalf of my constituents, to make that point to him.
  Mr. Hood: I am anxious because the provision in the Bill about who will be liable for subsidence damage has a hairy-fairy quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned cracks in the walls. I have seen houses that were split down the middle. I have seen houses collapse.
  A colliery in the Mansfield area, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), was closed principally because the miners were then held responsible for the cost of subsidence. Sherwood colliery was closed because they could not afford to take the cost of subsidence off the backs of the miners who were producing coal at a profit, but against whom the costs of subsidence were being levied.
  It is important that the Minister qualifies who will be responsible for the cost of subsidence damage. We are speaking about not a few thousand pounds, but literally millions of pounds. I hope that the Minister qualifies that before we have a vote.
  Mr. Eggar: We have had a full debate, covering three areas. One area is the adequacy or otherwise of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The second area is the procedure for claims under that Act. The third area is the financial position of the protection for any claims. I will try to deal rapidly with each of those areas.
  I understand the worry of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the operation of the 1991 Act. It is fair to say that that Act marked a considerable step forward, and that both sides of the House welcome it as such. I have taken careful note of the arguments that the hon. Gentleman made about the operation of the draft subsidence regulations. They are indeed in draft, and I will consider them carefully when I read the record.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was a little unfair when he discussed arbitration. We are tryilig to make the regulations governing arbitration as simple and accessible as possible. The householder will have to pay only £50. The other costs will be met by the responsible person—the company or the Coal Authority.
  The arbitrations should be conducted on documents alone, except in exceptional circumstances, and there will be no scope for technical experts, expensive lawyers and so on to present evidence. We shall keep it, admittedly, as rough and ready as we can, but that is in everyone's interest.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to the fact that we have introduced in the Bill the concept of the subsidence adviser, who is there to "hold the claimant's hand", if the claimant wishes. We are keeping the arbitration system separate from the role of the subsidence adviser—that is important—but the subsidence adviser could, under certain circumstances, if he felt it appropriate, write to the arbitrator and give a view, but it would not in any way substitute for the view of the householder.
  Mr. Rowlands: I followed closely what the Minister said, and I am grateful for his explanation. Does that mean that the subsidence adviser will be able to engage on behalf

  363
  of the householder, or himself have available to him, professional technical advice if British Coal comes in heavy-handedly with professional technical evidence?
  Mr. Eggar: No. The subsidence adviser is there almost as a layman to help the individual through the system, to make the householder's approach to the arbitration system more user-friendly. We are not trying to build in a great deal of technical expertise through the subsidence adviser. That is not necessary, and the purpose of the arbitration system is to do away with it.
  The second main area covered in the debate concerned the whole procedure for claims. My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was kind enough to refer to the fact that we have made draft regulations available. In fact, we have also made available to the Committee a draft of the leaflet to be circulated to all householders. I see that an Opposition Member has a copy.
  I quite understand why some hon. Members feel that the Coal Authority should be the recipient of all claims. This point was made in particular by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There would be very considerable danger in such an arrangement. The Coal Authority will be located in Nottinghamshire. It will be remote. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind a sort of post box system, that would simply introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy. It would be an additional and remote hurdle. I am sure that most hon. Members would rather have a very clear duty placed on coal mining companies to deal directly with subsidence matters.
  It is in everyone's interests that we should try to build up a relationship between local operators and the people whose properties will be undermined. Such a relationship would bring the problem home in a much more realistic way. I should have thought that, coming from the party to which he belongs, the hon. Memberber for Gordon would appreciate decentralisation.
  There will, of course, be a right to go to the Coal Authority if there was any uncertainty about where a licensed operator was functioning. An application will go to the Coal Authority. If it is not the authority's responsibility, there will be a duty to pass it on to the relevant mining operator.
  I hope that I have dealt adequately with points concerning procedure.
  The major concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, whom I thank for his kind remarks, and by my hon. Friends who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies, arises from the spectre of a situation in which a private operator is not able to fulfil its financial obligations in the case of subsidence.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends, like hon. Members on the Standing Committee, spent some time discussing the words "so far as practicable". In legislative terms, those words express a very strong duty. The words that are normally used in such circumstances are "so far as reasonably practicable", which my right hon. and hon. Friends will immediately recognise as weaker.
  Why do we use "so far as practicable", and not impose an absolute duty? The reason is very clear. When an absolute duty is imposed, the person on whom it is imposed has to cover every conceivable circumstance—such as earthquake or some form of nuclear attack. Such an onus would be quite disproportionate to the actual liability
  364
  that an operator is likely to have to deal with. Thus, we shall not have to look at the substance of the obligation that is placed on the operator.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby is right to assume that the Doncaster Area Drainage Act 1929 will be maintained. That legislation, rather than the 1991 legislation, will apply. We shall use the powers under clause 65 of the Bill to deal with this matter.
  My right hon. Friend also asked whether a hard cash fund is needed. Clearly, the form of financial security is a matter for the Coal Authority. An assessment of the financial strength of an operator will take account of whether security is necessary and, if so, in what form. We contemplate the possibility of the Coal Authority's being able to accept bonds, and the Bill expressly contemplates the possibility of a trust. The point is, however, that, in all circumstances relating to the financial strength of the operator and the likely contingent liabilities, the authority will have to form a judgment and satisfy itself that the financial obligations will be there.
  Let us suppose that—notwithstanding all the provisions in regard to such matters as financial security—that security, having been called, is not adequate. In that unlikely circumstance, the Coal Authority would first establish whether anyone else wanted to take on the area of responsibility—in other words, the mining enterprise.
  If that proved impossible, the authority would probably decide that the responsibility should be withdrawn from a company that would in effect be bankrupt, and should return to the authority. I seem to remember that such circumstances are covered in clause 37. The authority would then become responsible for all subsidence claims.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is standing with his back to the Opposition. I am sure that he feels comfortable in that position, but I should be grateful if he would address the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister should address the Chair, actually—and he was looking at me.
  Mr. Eggar: I apologise to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). I shall fix him with a steely glare for the remainder of my speech—through the Chair, of course. I must say that I am not entirely sure how I can convey the steely glare through the Chair.
  Mr. Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now had an opportunity to take a look at the Minister, and I withdraw my objection.
  Mr. Eggar: For that small mercy, many thanks.
  I hope that I have been able to deal with the various points that have been made—albeit in staccato fashion, because of the shortage of time. I repeat that I understand that this is a sensitive matter for many hon. Members and their constituents, but I am confident that we have built in the right form of security. I hope that, on that basis, the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for responding to concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. His remarks deserve further study, and it may be appropriate for them to be discussed in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

  THE SUBSIDENCE ADVISER
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 41, line 12, at end insert—
  '(5A) The provision that may be contained in regulations under this section shall include—

  (a) provision for any matter to which the regulations relate to be determined by the Authority in such manner, and by reference to such factors, as may be described in the regulations; and

  (b) provision, where any expenses are to be met by the Authority in accordance with the regulations, for amounts in respect of those expenses to be recoverable by the Authority from other persons with responsibility for subsidence affecting land.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 47

  DISPUTES ETC. AS TO SUBSIDENCE MATTERS
  Amendment made: No. 33, in page 42, line 28, at end insert—

  '(6A) The provision that may be contained in regulations under this section shall include—

  (a) provision for any matter to which the regulations relate to be determined by the Authority in such manner, and by reference to such factors, as may be described in the regulations; and

  (b) provision, where any expenses are to be met by the Authority in accordance with the regulations, for amounts in respect of those expenses to be recoverable by the Authority from other persons with responsibility for subsidence affecting land.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 51

  ADDITIONAL RIGHTS IN REGARD TO UNDERGROUND LAND ETC.
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 46, line 37, after `actionable' insert 'in England and Wales,'.
  No. 50, in page 46, line 42, after `question;' insert—
  '() the doing of any act which, apart from this section, would be actionable in Scotland by virtue of—

  (i) any real burden (including a real burden ad factum praestandum); or

  (ii) any statutory prohibition or restriction, which adversely affects the land in question;'.—[Mr. Eg gar.]

Clause 52

  OPENCAST OPERATIONS
  Mr. Alexander: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 47, line 19, leave out 'after 31st December 1999' and insert
  'except in respect of land for which a valid planning application for coal mining has been received by the relevant local planning authority by the date on which this Act received the Royal Assent,'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in page 47, line 34, leave out
  'in relation to the period before 31st December 1999'.
  Mr. Alexander: I am aware that it is getting late, so I shall be as brief as possible.
  The amendments have cross-party support, and recognise the continuing concern that exists in another area. In the Bill, the Government propose that, until the end of 1999, private sector mining operators should have recourse to compulsory powers, through the Coal
  366
  Authority, to gain access to land for opencast or drift mining. Those powers are quite extensive and deserve a little more debate before being approved.
  The amendment seeks to put the privatised coal industry in the same position as any other private mineral industry, while ensuring fair treatment to anyone who has made commercial commitments on the basis of the current law. There is no obvious reason why private coal operators should be in a better position than other mineral operators whose land or rights they wish to acquire. The Government recognise that by limiting those rights to 1999. I fully understand the need to safeguard existing commitments, but the proposed period goes beyond that.
  The amendment proposes, therefore, to limit the rights to those who have made serious financial commitment to any project, as demonstrated by the submission of a valid planning application. I use the word "valid" to exclude anyone who has merely sent a letter or expressed concern or interest.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the five-year period had been adopted to allow time for a review of access to all mineral resources. If the intention is to produce a uniform set of procedures for accessing all minerals, and those procedures are unlikely to include compulsory acquisition powers, it is difficult for us to see why they need to be extended now to the private sector for coal alone.
  My hon. Friend claims that as the ownership of coal vests in the nation, the nation has the right to have access to it, but many mineral rights are vested in people other than the landowner and access has to be negotiated in the marketplace commercially in the normal way. Why should coal be any different?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Are not the rights being continued because they make the share value of British Coal's opencast executive that much higher and provide just enough time for British Coal to exploit all those areas currently being prospected?
  Mr. Alexander: I do not wish to speculate along the same lines as the hon. Gentleman, but my hon. Friend the Minister has heard that observation and will no doubt wish to comment when he replies to the debate.
  The existence of the compulsory purchase powers will distort the value of the land concerned and favour the mine owner over any other private interests. In 1975, when it first came about, it might have been tolerable in answer to a national need—and there was certainly a need for coal in the mid 1970s—but in a free market with no overriding national interest at stake, it seems oppressive and unusual and I ask my hon. Friend to justify it a little more before the House accepts it.
  Mr. Alison: In support of my hon. Friend's amendment, I should like to place on the record my view that in the new, privatised environment, normal private treaty negotiation should be the order of the day between private licence holders and private landowners and the compulsory rights order procedure should be made redundant.
  I am reassured in postulating that general principle by the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has already conceded the validity of that proposition by setting a clear terminal date—the end of 1999—after which the compulsory rights order procedure will be made redundant and removed from the statute book. The fact that it has

  367
  been conceded as temporary and short-lived is a good reason for asking my hon. Friend to agree that it should be further accelerated and CRO procedures dropped forthwith.
  My hon. Friend the Minister sought to reassure some of us on the matter, in particular a colleague of considerable distinction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), to whom he wrote a letter on 14 January this year. My right hon. Friend has been kind enough to allow me to refer to that letter. My hon. Friend the Minister was at some pains to reassure my right hon. Friend that, during the short-lived, interim, twilight existence that the compulsory rights orders procedure is to enjoy, it would be subject to decisions by the Coal Authority. He said not only that the procedure would be operated by the Coal Authority—it is a public body, so that might reassure people—but that that procedure would be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  One may think, therefore, that those two double fail-safe mechanisms will ensure that the CRO procedure will be benign, but it does not quite work out like that. Certain ramifications, involving the scope and activities of the Coal Authority, will make it almost unavoidable for the authority to confirm a CRO. The Coal Authority will grant a licence to an operator. Once that has occurred, the operator will take his licence to the Secretary of State for the Environment to obtain planning permission for coal extraction, for which it has obtained a licence.
  Under those circumstances, is it likely that the Coal Authority, which has given the operator a licence, and the Secretary of State, who has given planning permission, will suddenly say, "Oh yes, we have cheerfully given you a licence and planning permission, but, bingo, we have suddenly decided not to give you a compulsory rights order"?
  As night follows day, after the authority has given a licence and the planning authority has given planning permission, they will not then refuse to give an operator a CRO. It is self-defeating to give those powers to the public bodies, even if the idea behind it is to reassure the public. The mechanism is not fail-safe, but fail-foul. It will result automatically in CROs being granted when the Coal Authority gives a licence and the planning authority gives planning permission.
  It is for those reasons that I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully whether he needs to extend the life of the procedure and whether it would not be better to cut its throat here and now and move into the environment of private enterprise and normal private treaty negotiations between private organisations. I hope that my hon. Friend will at least consider the matter and perhaps alter it in another place.
  Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to cutting the throat of this evil proposal. If I had said it, it would have been regarded as distasteful. He is right, and I wish many other throats could be cut as far as the Bill is concerned.
  The issue is important because it gives Conservative Members the opportunity to examine what the Government are doing. They are committed to free market forces and they are giving compulsory purchase rights to private businesses.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: It is unbelievable.
  Mr. Hardy: It is an incredible development. If Conservative Members want to be able to claim that they possess political consistency, they should agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby.
  I feel strongly about opencast mining. I want Conservative Members to put themselves in the position of people who live in coal regions, who may have seen their deep-mined pits destroyed, with the attendant devastation and dereliction. They have to face the prospect of green fields and a decent environment being destroyed by the new technological capacity of the opencast miners. In the 1940s and 1950s, there was opencast mining to a depth of about 200 ft in part of my constituency, but some opencast sites now go down 600 or 700 ft.
  Opencast mining schemes can last for a decade. Would any hon. or right hon. Conservative Member care to live near an opencast site if mining was going to last for 10 years? Would they want to listen to the empty lorries banging along the pavements for 10 years, and making more row when they are empty than when they are full of coal and spoil?
  9.30 pm
  In Committee, I talked about seven lean years followed by seven fat ones. One or two Conservative Members will recognise the origin of that phrase. For people who live near opencast sites, it is seven lean years with no reward, because the profits flow away from the coalfields.
  The Minister for Energy said that Labour-controlled councils in coalfield areas were not helpful and that they were resistant to opencast mining. I hope that many of them are. In the interests of democracy and the people whom they represent, they do not want to give permission for mining on green-field sites.
  The Minister should understand that there is a place for opencast mining—in an area where it would clear dereliction and devastation. That proviso should be the principal, and perhaps the sole, determinant of a favourable position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will understand why I asked the Minister's colleague whether, the next time that he visited his constituency, he would go a little further north and turn off the M1 to visit the Rother Valley country park, which came about because of a large opencast mining scheme.
  That scheme was not a nuisance to local residents because they knew that they would benefit at the end of it. What benefit exists for people who have to live near some of the schemes that are envisaged? I suggest to Conservative Members that, while our responsibilities are to our constituents, we must have some regard for other people. I trust that Conservative Members who may feel that they are not in danger of being exposed to opencast mining will consider those who are.
  During the passage of the Bill, I harassed the Minister on several occasions to tell us where the accessible coal reserves are. He eventually produced a map to show those areas. On Monday, I tabled a question to ask the Minister to list the 15 counties where accessible coal reserves are detectable and to say at what depth the most shallow seam lies. The Minister's answer was evasive and he said that that information was not available. If the old statement that our island is surrounded by fish and built on coal is at all accurate, there must be many areas of Britain where modern technical capabilities and opencast operations can reach coal reserves.

  369
  In fun, I suggested that we should set up a Henley opencast mining company, to take advantage of the arrangements to get compulsory purchase orders until 1999, so that we could turn over the constituency of the President of the Board of Trade. I would rather that they had opencast mining in Henley than in my constituency, but I want to be charitable and I would not wish a large, noisy, opencast, operation on a green-field site in any part of our island, especially if the local community deplored the idea.
  The Minister has so far been unable to deny that the Government have been disposed to allow opencast developments to take place against the wishes of local communities, which are harmed and ravaged by such developments far too often. It is vital for the Minister to guarantee that the powers granted to him in the Bill will not be allowed to drive people to despair through the excessive nuisance that some of his hon. Friends seem to favour.
  Mr. Lester: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) spoke as if many Conservative Members do not represent coalfield constituencies where there is a potential for opencast mining, but most of the Conservative Members sitting here fall into that category.
  The amendment gives the wrong signal. The Government and the Department of Trade and Industry are giving the wrong signal over compulsory use of powers, at a time when the Department of the Environment is concerned to revise the planning regulations that affect opencast mining. The description given by the hon. Member for Wentworth was entirely right. A potentially major scheme, Robinette, in my constituency could last 15 years, never mind 10, on a green-field site in the most beautiful part of the constituency. Already, compulsory notices are closing footpaths even before planning consent has been obtained. That gives rise to many rumblings among constituents when they find notices on footpaths that they have traditionally used saying that there is the potential to close them.
  I want my hon. Friend the Minister to understand how deep are feelings in coaifield areas in which pits with workable reserves are closed, when planning consent for opencasting is given in the same area. It is obscene that pits equipped with valuable machinery and with plenty of workable coal are closed while green-field opencast sites, which cause despair and difficulty, are opened.
  As it is late, I will not develop my argument, but I want my hon. Friend the Minister to appreciate the depth of feeling among residents of areas potentially affected by opencast mining when it is not necessary or required to meet the market.
  Mr. Beith: Over the years, my constituency has produced as much opencast coal as any other in the country. Many of my constituents say, "Just a minute. Hang on—isn't it time we had more control over our county?" The same is true of south Wales and other parts of the country, where deep mining has ended and large opencast tracts are threatened. Residents are seeing the extension of compulsory powers to private companies, even if for a limited period, that are totally inappropriate when there is no overriding need for opencast coal. They see also the closure of deep mines, leading to opencast supplies being sought, and the abolition of the ceiling on the size of private opencast sites.
  370
  The sale of British Coal's opencast resources arises from the Bill, and it is proposed to revise the mineral planning guidance note, which still contains the words "national interest"—albeit in a slightly different phrase. No "national interest" exists that requires opencast mining. There is a commercial interest, and sometimes an employment reason or the possibility of restoring derelict land through an opencast operation—but there is no "national interest" to say that we need opencast resources.
  The country has more coal than British Coal knows what to do with, and deep mines are being closed on a ludicrous scale. There is no overriding demand, as my constituents and those of Conservative Members know perfectly well. They are not fooled or in the least impressed by being told at an inquiry that the inspector must take into account that it is in the national interest to have access to opencast resources.
  The dice are too heavily loaded against proper planning consideration of opencast operations. They are loaded by the existence of compulsory powers, and by existing and possible future planning guidance.
  Containing and limiting the role of opencasting is reasonable and sensible, now that we have ample supplies of coal and are closing deep mines far faster than many of us feel is right. The planning situation should reflect that, and so should the powers made available. That is why I press the Minister to accept the amendments.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: My attention was first drawn to the problem of compulsory rights orders and their effect in the Bill by the Country Landowners Association. I declare my interest, as I have many times before, as a member of that organisation—although I am glad to say that I am not aware of coal being anywhere near my farm, which is a blessing.
  I am extremely anxious about the provisions that the amendment addresses. I share the dislike of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for opencast mining. My mind goes back to memories of his own area—the hon. Gentleman will recall that I once stood for Wakefield in the West Riding—and to a day, many years ago, that I spent campaigning in West Virginia with Senator Joe Rockefeller. I saw the total ravages that had been created in that state by strip mining, which Joe Rockefeller quite rightly said that he would bring to an end. I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman said, but the amendment is not so much about opencast mining as compulsory rights orders.
  My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to write to me earlier in the year, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) referred to that letter. I remain very anxious about the provisions of the Bill. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby. I hope that, when replying, my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at the terms of the amendment and will seek to amend the Bill in another place.
  Mr. Hood: I know that hon. Members are keen to rush their contributions tonight, as I am, but opencast mining is just too important a subject to speed through the House without proper examination. I am sure that the Bill was thoroughly examined in the Standing Committee—I make

  371
  no criticism of that—but I am a bit wary of rushing it through tonight without making a few points that need consideration.
  I come from a mining background. In my political life, I have been very much involved in the British coal industry. All my views have been shaped on issues concerning a British coal industry. But I am also conscious of being a Scottish Member of Parliament. The. Bill threatens what is left of the Scottish coal industry. If—there is bit of hairiness about it—the Scottish coal industry, vis-a-vis deep-mined and opencast, is sold separately, it is my considered view that that would spell the death of what is left of the deep mines in Scotland. It is important that we have some answers from the Minister about that.
  I speak also as a Member with one of the biggest—if not the biggest—opencast sites in Europe in my constituency. Some hon. Members may be aware that Clydesdale is a large urban-rural constituency of more than 500 sq miles. It is an area with no deep mines now, but in my earlier years, in my father's time, there were many deep mines in the area. It has a history of involvement in the mining industry. In comparison with the deep fields of Yorkshire and the midlands, it is an area of shallow coal. I have said before that one can walk over the moors in my constituency, kick over a sod of grass and find coal. It is rich with shallow coal. It is said that there are 140 million tonnes of reserves in the Douglas valley alone. Therefore, I am concerned with what the House does about opencast. The Clyde valley starts in my constituency.
  Those who have heard "Song of the Clyde" have heard Kenneth McKellar or, before him, Robert Wilson say that the Clyde starts from lead hills and flows all the way to the sea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it."] I am very much tempted to; I am sure that the House would be appreciative if I did. I have been a bit of a crooner in my day, but will relieve the House from my "Song of the Clyde".
  9.45 pm
  My constituency is very much a rural area; it is one of the loveliest parts of Scotland to come to on holiday or for a visit. Hon. Members are welcome to come there any time. Clydesdale now relies heavily on tourism for its employment because, thanks to the Government, much of our manufacturing industry has been destroyed, so tourism is a major employer. We must protect our environment to protect the jobs in tourism.
  If there is any relaxation of planning legislation on opencast—there is a hint in the Local Government (Scotland) etc. Bill that that may happen—and local authorities are less able to protect the environment from the ravages of opencast, great damage will be done to our communities.
  My constituency is one of the largest rural areas to deliver a Labour Member of Parliament—at least, it is one of the largest at present. Of course, many rural areas will deliver Labour Members of Parliament in the not too distant future. But if Conservative Members think that they can sit there in their nice wee rural areas with coal 300 ft or 400 ft below them, and not have their areas ravaged by the powers given in the Bill before us and by other Bills affecting local government, they are kidding themselves.
  My local authority has recently opposed a planning application to mine coal in my constituency. It has opposed the application so far, and it will continue to do so unless the Bill takes away its power to do so. If that happens it could have a devastating effect on my constituency. I bring
  372
  that fact to the attention of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, because I am sure that Opposition Members are already well aware of it.
  The present mania for pit closures has raised another environmental question—water pollution. I discussed the matter today with a young student doing research on the effect that the massive pit closure programme will have on water pollution. Opencast mining is a great water pollution threat, too. The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) seems to be shaking his head, as if to say that that is not true. Clearly there is no opencast mining in his area; he probably has more experience with sheep than with opencast coal.
  Water pollution is one of the first problems that any opencast site causes to our communities. It is certainly a problem in Scotland, and in the north-east of England Easington colliery, which was the last pumping station treating water, has recently been closed. I do not know —I hope that the Minister can tell us—what will happen where water used to be treated and pumped by British Coal. Who will accept the responsibility? I do not think that the Government have thought about that problem.
  If the Government say through the Bill that they will be satisfied for the pumps to be switched off and the rivers to be polluted, that will spell serious problems for every community that will be affected by water pollution—and serious problems for the Government, too. I suspect that, at this delicate point in their negotiations with the European Union, the Government will fall foul of EC directives. Therefore, it is most important that when we deal with the opencast issue we know what powers are being given to the bodies that seem able to walk away from the problem.
  Some of the comments that we heard earlier about the attempt to give powers involving compulsory purchase orders to mining companies who buy up land frightened me. We are living in a time when the Government are centralising power. They are giving power to the Executive, to quangos, to unaccountable local authorities, to health boards, to trusts, and so on. The Bill takes us further down that road and will give powers of compulsory purchase to private enterprise, which will be driven by profit. That is not a power that the House should give freely.
  I hear Conservative Members talk about the European Union and the Community and about the House giving up sovereignty to unelected bodies in Brussels, yet the Bill gives powers to people in our country who are not accountable and over whom the House will have no control. It is a serious question and I am sure that the Minister knows what we are talking about, but I doubt very much that he will address it.
  Mr. Skinner: Several Tories have spoken on the question of opencast mining. I get the clear impression that if we voted on a well-drawn amendment to suit those Tories and if their votes followed their speeches—
  Mr. David Ashby: I have a well-drawn amendment.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has one? That is good because one thing is certain: we need to stop opencast mining. We cannot allow the idea of opencast to be acceptable on the basis put forward in the Bill when so many Labour Members and some Conservative Members are opposed to the very idea.

  373
  Everyone knows that getting coal by opencast is relatively easy now. In recent years many people who live in coalfield areas where pits have closed have rallied against the idea of opencast and, on some occasions, have been victorious against the proposed opencaster and British Coal. Sadly, however, at the very time at which it is becoming a little more difficult for British Coal to get away with opencast because of opposition from villagers and others, the Bill proposes to make it a lot easier. My policy in Derbyshire for the past 20 or so years has been not to support opencast applications at all, even where they were of so-called benefit to the villages. I took a principled view against all opencast applications in my area.
  A few years ago, a village in my constituency, Arkwright Town, was nearly blown up because methane was coming out of the old coal mine, which had been closed. British Coal came along with a proposition to opencast the whole area and said that it would move the village of 232 houses to the other side of the road provided that the residents accepted opencast. I objected. Finally, British Coal received approval. Now that the privatisation Bill is going through, some of those villagers who were promised a new house on the other side of Arkwright Town are beginning to wonder whether they will get the opencast but not the houses.
  It was proposed to build 232 houses on the other side of the village. The villagers were to have a pub, a school, a miners' welfare and all the various community facilities. The opencast has begun. I want the Minister to answer the question that all those people have asked me to put to him: has British Coal given him the assurance that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, when the Coal Authority takes over, those village facilities and the 232 houses will be built for the people who will have to put up with 10 years of opencast mining? I hope that he can give that assurance tonight. I opposed the proposal, but the villagers believe that, if they have to put up with 10 years of opencast, they have a right to the houses that were promised in the first place.
  I hope that, before the Bill finally becomes an Act, we shall be able to get all the Tories who are opposed to its opencasting provisions to vote against them, either when the Bill returns from the other place or on some other occasion. That will ensure that we stop private companies imposing compulsory purchase orders to enable them to decide on and, in many cases, exploit opencast sites. Everyone knows that 10 years of opencast mining results in great big holes and that toxic waste is dumped in them.
  The Government will make money out of the opencast mines. They will shut the deep mine pits—as they have done—and then they will make a ton more money by dumping toxic waste from ports in Britain, Germany and God knows where else. Someone will make another big killing. People in Britain do not want opencasting. In every coalfield area, people want us to oppose the proposals. I hope that the Minister, too, will find them unacceptable.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government's decision to extend compulsory rights orders to 1999 gives an unprecedented advantage to companies that seek to exploit opencast mining. It is done to ensure that the share values for the sale of British Coal are as high as possible. It will encourage the exploitation of areas that have already been
  374
  prospected by 1999; companies will be encouraged to exploit the areas by 1999 because their unfair advantage and the compulsory rights orders will end at that time.
  The Government's decision will enable private companies to blight coalfields and my constituency of Warwickshire, North by making opencast mining applications for as long as compulsory rights orders can be obtained. The Government are giving opencast mining companies unfair and deliberate advantages in making applications and sacrificing coalfield communities and the environment on the altar of privatisation, ideology and greed. That is what the Government are doing and that is what will happen to every village in every coalfield area where there is the prospect of opencast mining. The amendments seek to change that.
  I can tell the House from personal experience in my constituency the sort of attitude that the Government have displayed to opencast mining. In 1991, there was a public inquiry in my constituency over the Birch Coppice site. Birch Coppice is a former pit; it was closed a few years ago. Beyond that pit is another pit, Baddesley. That pit was closed a few years ago but there is still coal on the site.
  The opencast mining executive of British Coal decided that it wanted to exploit the Baddesley site, so it made an application in 1990. Mineral planning guidance 3 was in operation at the time. A public inquiry took place in July and August 1991 to consider the application on the basis of MPG3, which gives enormous advantages to the opencast mining executive in making an application.
  The application for opencast mining threatened the villages of Baddesley Ensor, Dordon and Grendon and directly threatened about 10,000 people. If the application had been granted, the threat would have extended to other villages and about 20,000 homes would have been affected. It threatened the environment, the quality of life of people in those villages and the value of their homes.
  A few months after the public inquiry, the Government published interim planning guidance with regard to opencast mining. Two years later, I was still writing to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment asking why there was no decision about the Birch Coppice opencast site: why had we not had a decision after two years even though homes were blighted? On 2 August 1993, we had the publication of the report of the inquiry in favour of granting opencast mining. But the Secretary of State overruled the public inquiry and on 2 August he decided that there would be no opencast mining at Birch Coppice. We were absolutely delighted that he made the right decision; although he had taken two years to do it, we could forgive him.
  Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment—undoubtedly after consultations with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry—decided to set aside the decision reached on 2 August 1993 because he had made a mistake. After two years of blighting the area around Birch Coppice and 20,000 people's lives, the Department decided that it had made a mistake. It has now set aside the decision not to grant permission for opencast and has put the whole thing back into the melting pot. We now do not know whether 20,000 people will have a hole the size of 250 football pitches and up to 600 ft deep next to their homes. The crass incompetence of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry in making this non-decision beggars belief.

  375
  We know now the sort of attitude that the Government have to opencast and to the coalfield communities. It was clear—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.14 (Exempted Business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: We now know the attitude that the Government have to the coalfield communities because it is clear. It was clear when the decision was made on 2 August 1993 that it should not have been made in that way. When we approached the civil servants to find out whether they had taken legal advice, we found out that they had not bothered to take proper legal advice. Instead of making the decision based on MPG 3—as they ought to have done—they made the decision based on the interim planning guidance.
  They had not given British Coal the opportunity to make representations on the matter. For any lawyer in the House, that was a classic breach of the rules of natural justice. On 2 August 1993, the planning officers at my council knew that, and all the opencast objectors knew that.
  We want to ensure that the people in the coalfield communities, and particularly Birch Coppice, get a decent and quick decision which says no to opencast. Local people should have the right to refuse to have opencast in their area unless a derelict site is involved and they want it. They should have the right to say no. The Government have shown absolute contempt for the coalfield communities and I hope that the Bill will not be passed.
  Ms Walley: Like the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), I have an interest to declare. I was born and brought up in Staffordshire. I should like Conservative Members to come to Mow Cop where my constituency starts and look at what was the north Staffordshire coalfield. They will see the dereliction of the pits that were closed down because they said that we did not need deep mine pits. They should look at the open green-field countryside and at the proposed opencast sites in Biddulph South and Biddulph West, in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox), whom I do not see in his place.
  The Minister may think that he has got away with closing down deep pits. If the Bill goes ahead and the opencast proposals rip up the whole countryside in the face of opposition from so many people—such as the people against opencast in the midlands group—let him think again.
  We do not want the countryside scarred. We want a real commitment to environmental protection, and it is high time that the Government stopped talking about the national interest when it comes to opencast coal mining. It is time that they did something about an energy policy, and that should be taken into account in the new MPG 3 guidance notes.
  Mr. Eggar: Understandably, there has been a debate on the issue because people feel strongly about opencast in general. Of course, the debate on this particular set of amendments is about compulsory rights orders.
  The principle of compulsory access is well established. It is not well known, but all mineral developers, including those of oil, gas, and sand and gravel, can get access to land on a compulsory basis. They are able to apply to the High Court for compulsory rights under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966. There is nothing new in the concept of compulsory access.
  I suggest to the House that the issue is what the procedures for gaining access and the safeguards should be. In the Bill, we are carrying forward the compulsory rights order regime but are adding two absolutely critical safeguards in recognition of the fact that the private sector, rather than British Coal, would be the instigator.
  The first of the two safeguards is that the Coal Authority and not the operator will make the orders. In other words, the operator will have to convince the Coal Authority that an order is appropriate. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) pointed out, the Secretary of State will have to confirm an order if and when it has been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he will confirm a compulsory rights order only when it would be in the public interest.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby, in a slightly uncharacteristically uncharitable assessment of the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be likely to play, suggested that because planning permission would have been given, my right hon. Friend would automatically confirm a CRO. That is not the case. My right hon. Friend would have to consider in each case the separate question whether it was in the public interest for the rights of the landowner to be set aside, albeit in practice temporarily. That is not a decision that he could take lightly because it would be subject to judicial review and other appropriate procedures. He would have to invite representations from all interested parties and the decision could be taken only in the light of careful consideration of the arguments that might be made in those representations.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have to treat the planning application entirely separately from a decision whether to confirm a CRO. If he did not do that, he would be subject to judicial review.
  Mr. Derek Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene and I shall certainly be swift about it. Does he agree that the experience of people such as my constituents and people in areas such as Selby is not good when it comes to ministerial or British Coal decisions? Wintersett and North Featherstone, which are the only country areas in my constituency, are currently the subject of an opencasting proposal. That proposal has outraged the community.
  Mr. Eggar: I understand the worries about opencasting, but we are discussing compulsory rights orders. I am trying to address my remarks directly to that issue.
  So we have a principle of compulsory access to all minerals. We have built into the Bill a series of safeguards over and above the compulsory rights order as it exists at present, but we accept that the present system cannot

  377
  continue ad infinitum, so we have time-limited it: if no further proposals are made by the Government, the CRO powers will definitely fall away in 1999.
  We feel strongly that we need to have a proper review of compulsory access to all minerals and that we should not continue to treat coal separately from other minerals. That is because there is no inherent justification for treating coal separately. We need a review because many interests need to be considered, including those of landowners, farmers, tenants and the various minerals industries. We enter that review with an entirely open mind.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am obliged to my hon. Friend as, I think, the only Member of Parliament who happens to own a coal mine. If Opposition Members come to Fife—they are more than welcome to dine with me and stay with me—I can show them what has been achieved when opencast mining has finished around us: it is a vast improvement in the landscape, on which I place great importance.
  Mr. Eggar: My hon. and learned Friend has an extremely valid point. In other parts of the country—forgive my sense of surprise—there are examples of good restitution of opencasted mines.
  In view of the assurances that I have given that we shall have an open review of the powers, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and Opposition Members will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Before we move to the vote, I hope that the Minister will answer the question that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about what will occur with the Arkwright opencast development now that the new measure is before us. It is based upon an arrangement that the people in the area will be relocated and given new homes. Is that arrangement guaranteed for the future?
  Mr. Eggar: I think it is the first time that I have seen the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) coming to the rescue of the hon. Member for Bolsover, who seemed not to be paying attention. I can inform both hon. Gentlemen that British Coal's commitment to build a new village—including a social centre, houses, shops and a pub—is formalised in an agreement with the local planning authority and would be binding on any successor or transferee.
  Mr. Alexander: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. I am not entirely convinced by his argument—no doubt he will not be too surprised to hear that—but I am well aware and mindful of the fact that there will be a further and perhaps more wide-ranging debate on the subject in another place. Bearing in mind that fact, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53

  ENVIRONMENTAL DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH PLANNING
  Mr. Ashby: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 48, line 5, after 'application,', insert
  'there shall be a presumption against opencast mining and'.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 61, in page 48, line 10, leave out 'and' and insert—

  '(aa) to the extent of the environmental impact of the proposal on the area;

  (ab) to the balance of costs and benefits of the proposal; and

  (ac) to the existence of current opencast mining operations or any such operations as have ceased within a period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application, within a radius of five miles of the proposed site of operations.'.

  No. 10, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—

  '(aa) to environmental considerations prescribed in relevant local plans; and'.

  No. 42, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—

  '(ab) to the desirability of avoiding nuisance to nearby residents in the form of dust, noise, vibration, lorry traffic, visual intrusion or loss of amenity, and the need to respond to the expressed concerns of those residents regarding the proposed development; and'.

  No. 63, in page 48, line 10, at end insert—
  '(3A) A person who formulates coal-mining proposals shall be required for the purposes of paragraphs (aa) and (ab) of subsection (2) above—

  (a) to prepare a full environmental impact assessment, and

  (b) to prepare a full cost-benefit analysis.'.

  No. 62, in page 48, line 24, at end insert—
  `(c) to formulate proposals for the compensation of land owners affected by the proposal for any loss of value on their property if sold during the period of opencast mining.'.
  Mr. Ashby: Much of the debate in respect of compulsory purchase has taken place during the debate on previous amendments. I did not speak during that debate, but I must say that I can never understand why compulsory purchase orders did not end yesterday—I see no reason to have them in any sector, except in cases of national emergency. That is the stance I have always taken and always will take.
  Although I am speaking to amendment No. 60, the gravamen of my case against compulsory purchase and the strengthening of the environmental aspects of compulsory purchase are to be found in my amendment No. 61. I will be seeking the strongest assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister, and if that is not forthcoming I know that I and some of my hon. Friends, as well as some Opposition Members, will seek to divide the House on that amendment.
  We have had too little debate about opencast mining during the passage of the Bill, yet it has become the single most important aspect of all coal mining. It is rather sad that we reached this part of the Report stage as late as 9.30 this evening and I know that many of my colleagues wish us to proceed as speedily as possible. However, this is a subject which we could debate for one whole day.
  All hon. Members who have opencast mining in their constituencies know how horrific it is and how it causes dirt and filth. They will also know that opencast mining affects those—[interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that conversations will be carried on quietly. The hon. Gentleman is having difficulty in speaking to the amendment, and some of us are interested in hearing what he has to say.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Ashby: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. It is difficult.
  All of us who represent areas in which there is opencast mining know how dreadful it is and how it affects our constituents. Opencast mining is the single most important issue in my constituency where there are not only applications for opencast mines but such mines already exist. An opencast mine affects not only the immediate locality but the area around it. Some people believe that my constituency is in danger of resembling a lunar landscape.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) hit the nail on the head. For too long, British Coal has had the most enormous powers which stem from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 and have continued under successive Acts. Those Acts mean that we —the people who live in the area and who object to planning—have to prove that opencast mining should not take place. The burden of proof lies with us—we have to prove that something which has a devastating effect on the character of an area and which lowers the value of property should not take place.
  It is an insult that a company such as British Coal should be allowed to say that it wants an opencast mine in an area because it believes that it is in the national interest. Without a by your leave, the matter goes before the local planning authority which is terrified of British Coal and starts finding reasons why it should be allowed to proceed and, in any case, it is up to the objectors to prove that it should not be allowed to proceed. The burden of proof in this instance should resemble the law in other aspects of our life. If a company does something that will destroy an area and lower the value of its property, the burden of proof should be on that company to prove that it should be allowed to proceed.
  When the planning application has been made, the full extent of the environmental impact of the proposal should be considered. There should be a full environmental impact assessment—nothing less will do. It is no good my hon. Friend the Minister saying that it is a matter for the planning authority, because all the Acts covering the coal industry deal with planning and, in respect of the burden of proof, favour the Coal Board. It is therefore absolutely right that the planning aspect of opencast mining should be dealt with in the Bill.
  One of the problems is that planning matters are often dealt with in various sections of various Acts. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about the Department's problems in deciding on the legal ways of objecting. It is a minefield, if I may make a slight pun. It is very difficult for legal advisers to decide how to frame objections because they have to consider the provisions of so many different Acts. Perhaps the necessary grounds should be set out in the Bill.
  When making a planning application, it is absolutely essential that a full cost-benefit analysis is undertaken. The costs and benefits of any proposal must be examined and must include the need for and price of coal, the cost of extracting it and the environmental cost to the area. It is essential that it should be built into this part of the Bill.
  Another aspect should also be built into the Bill. When, as is the case in my area, there is one opencast mine, with another such mine three miles away and another three miles away in a different direction, it has a devastating effect on the area. When an application is made, the fact
  380
  that there are opencast mining operations in the locality must be taken into account. Sometimes, one opencast mine has just ceased and, within a year of the hole being filled in—a year after 10 or 15 years of sheer hell—an application is made for another opencast mine only a couple of miles away, so there are another 10 or 15 years of hell. The mining operations move around the constituency in that way. The fact that an operation has ceased in the area should be taken into consideration when an application is made.
  Amendment No. 62 states that those making the applications should
  "formulate proposals for the compensation of land owners affected by the proposal for any loss of value on their property if sold during the period of opencast mining."
  That is very important.
  I received a letter, as recently as 10 days ago, from a constituent whose house is adjacent to an opencast mine. She is in a desperate situation. She is now a single parent. There has been a divorce in the family and she is desperate to sell her property. Her property has been valued at about 40 per cent. less at the moment because there is an opencast mine nearby. She has no redress; no compensation. She will lose 40 per cent. of the value of her property because there is an opencast mine nearby. She cannot tell the operator, "I have to sell my property now. You have to compensate me for that loss."
  That is the purpose of amendment No. 62. I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will consider the problem carefully and ensure that when proposals are made they contain proposals to compensate landowners, in the event of their property having to be sold, for the loss of value during the period of opencast mining.
  I have fought opencast mining ever since I became Member of Parliament for Leicestershire, North-West in 1983. Since then, I have fought every single proposal and I will continue to fight every single proposal. The collective effect of the amendments that I suggest will put right so many of the wrongs that have been done when applications have been made. We have fought and refought those applications. One of the problems of which I want the Minister to be aware is that in the past, if British Coal made an application and it was refused, another application was made, then another and another.
  Acceptance of the amendments would put right so many of the wrongs that we seek to right.
  Mrs. Peacock: I appreciate that there is very little time left, but, having sat here since 2.30 this afternoon, I wish to spend just two minutes on this issue. Perhaps I may be excused also on the ground that I am one of the hon. Members in whose name amendment No. 42 appears.
  There should be no need now for a presumption in favour of opencasting. That is not in the nation's interests when we can obtain coal from other sources. In earlier times, it was undoubtedly necessary, but much of the necessity has disappeared. We shall always have some opencast activity. I appreciate that coal obtained in that way is often needed for mixing with deep-mined coal. However, most opencasting should be undertaken on derelict land and not on open green fields. In my area of Yorkshire, it is particularly insensitive to apply for planning permission for opencast mining virtually on top of deep mines that have just been closed. Communities there could hardly be expected to welcome such a move.
  We should try to ensure that planning permission for opencast activity is granted in respect of derelict land only.

  381
  Certainly the few green fields in the valleys in my area, where there is a great deal of industrial activity, are relied on for leisure, and they should not be put to mining use. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some assurance in respect of this matter.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Opencasting and planning are inextricably entwined, but it is a great pity that we have to deal in a coal debate with what are essentially planning issues. I asked during the Second Reading debate, as I have done repeatedly following business statements since then, for a separate planning debate to discuss these issues. Alas, that has not materialised and this debate is necessary.
  I am not automatically opposed to opencast applications. Last year, together with Opposition Members and the Leeds council, I sponsored legislation to enable a massive opencast development to cure a serious problem of dereliction in my constituency. I accept that where there are infrastructure developments, such as major roads that are undermined by old mine workings, there is a need for opencasting. The land has to be graded and levelled so that the road may be built.
  But, just as there are circumstances in which opencasting is acceptable, equally there are circumstances in which it is not acceptable. At present, my constituency is being plagued by a succession of unsuitable opencast applications in respect of the area around the town of Garforth. These put at risk the whole of the planning environment that has been built up for that town. We are attracting world-class, world-quality investment, and the last thing that investors want is an environment shattered by opencast mining on the most sensitive green belt in the entire Leeds area.
  I seek three things. The first is the ending of the presumption in favour, in the national interest, of opencasting. The second is recognition of the fact that environmental factors should be decisive in determining opencast planning applications. The third is a provision for local authorities to be able to set the environmental criteria for opencasting, preferably in the local plans affecting their areas. Local people should be able to decide what is right.
  As it is late, I shall go into no further detail, save to say that it is interesting that when we are discussing opencasting it is now the Labour party which wants to bring the debate to an end quickly. On all other occasions, Labour Members want to talk indefinitely. There is great uncertainty about whether the three principles that I have mentioned will be enshrined in the revision of minerals planning guidance note 3. I hoped that these issues would be clarified before the Bill left the House. Unfortunately, they have not been. Thus, the amendments are necessary.
  Mr. Eggar: I listened with extreme interest to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). I was not at all surprised to hear them speak very passionately on behalf of their constituents. Indeed, they have been very vociferous in making their concerns known to me over the past few months.
  382
  I should like to pick up in particular a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet. This is a matter for planning procedures. The Bill has nothing to do with environmental regulation or with safety regulation.
  My hon. Friends have an ideal opportunity to make their points to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As they know, consultation is currently taking place on MPG3. I am sure that my colleagues will pay particular attention to the three points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet. I suggest that my hon. Friends pursue the matter in detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who will doubtless wish to take careful account of the views that they have expressed on behalf of their constituents. The Bill, however, is not the right vehicle in which to introduce the change that they so earnestly desire.
  10.30 pm
  Madam Speaker: What are the wishes of the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in regard to amendment No. 60?
  Mr. Ashby: I wish to withdraw it, Madam Speaker—although I wish to pursue amendment No 61.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 48, line 10, leave out 'and' and insert—

  '(aa) to the extent of the environmental impact of the proposal on the area;

  (ab) to the balance of costs and benefits of the proposal; and

  (ac) to the existence of current opencast mining operations or any such operations as have ceased within a period of five years immediately preceding the date of the application, within a radius of five miles of the proposed site of operations.'.—[Mr. Ashby.]

  Amendment negatived.

Clause 63

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 60, line 25, at end insert—
  '(1A) References in this Act to the treatment of coal in the strata shall be taken not to include references to any operations which—

  (a) are carried on in relation to coal in or to which any oil or gas that exists in its natural condition in the strata is absorbed or adsorbed; and

  (b) are so carried on wholly for the purpose of winning or getting that oil or gas;

  and in this subsection "oil or gas" means oil or gas within the meaning of section 9 above.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

Schedule 9

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 44, in page 139, line 21, at end insert—
  'The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33)
  . In section 28(1) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (interpretation), in the definition of "overriding interest", after paragraph (eg) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(eh) insofar as it is an interest vesting by virtue of section 7(3) of the Coal Industry Act 1994, the Coal Authority;" '.—[Mr. Eggar.]
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. O'Neill: I am conscious that we are straining the good will of the House; hon. Members anticipated a vote considerably earlier.
  We have been debating the Bill since 4 pm, and in that time we have covered a fairly extensive area. We have dealt with concessionary coal and trade union rights following privatisation, we have discussed the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, the latest stage that has been reached in the pensions debate and, in the past two hours, we have discussed, at some length, issues raised by subsidence and opencast mining.
  It would be wrong to say that Opposition Members have been successful in regard to any of those issues. Perhaps, if some of the Conservative Members who have spoken today had secured the permission of the Government Chief Whip, they might have been able to speak in Committee and obtain some victories. In that event, the Government might have had to come here tonight to seek changes of their own. The vast bulk of the amendments that we have debated were tabled by Opposition Members, although there is a fair amount of agreement across the Floor on some environmental questions.
  We are still opposed to the Bill. We consider coal one of our greatest national assets; we believe that British. Coal and its research departments have succeeded in developing technologies that make coal easier and safer to win than at any time in our history. Moreover, we now have coal that can be burned in coal-fired power stations in a way that is not only environmentally friendly but capable of more thermal efficiency than ever before. That is a testament to the success of public enterprise: in its years of public ownership, the coal industry has been able to achieve safety levels that are without parallel anywhere in the world.
  In this connection, it should perhaps be repeated that in 1946, when coal was nationalised, it was commonplace for men working in the British coal industry to die every week. Every year, 1,000 men died in the coal industry. Every day, three men died, so one miner died in every eight-hour shift every working day of every year. The current figures are a fraction of that. They are still too high, but they have reduced because of the safety measures and the industrial procedures we now adopt and, more than anything else, because the hand of profit no longer lies across the industry as it did before public ownership.
  We do not believe that a privately-owned coal industry will have learned very much from the past. We expect that the cowboys and fly-by-night operators will be operating not just opencast but deep mining, if they can satisfy the Coal Authority. The criteria of the Coal Authority are nothing like as strict as we would like.
  The Labour party is not simply opposed to the Bill; it is also committed to the reintroduction of public ownership of the coal industry. We believe that the coal industry can be safe only when it is in the people's hands and only when miners are employed as public servants.
  Earlier tonight, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) said that he was unique in
  384
  the House as being the only Member of Parliament who owned a coal mine. As always, the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. Everybody in the House still owns the British coal mining industry.
  Coal is a fuel of the future with a technology that will take it beyond the simple purposes of burning. I spoke last week to the last Labour Minister for coal, Alex Eadie, the former Member of Parliament for Midlothian. He repeated something that I have heard him say many times—that coal is one of the most valuable assets we have; it is too valuable to burn. There are far better uses for it. I doubt that Britain will have a coal industry under private ownership that is capable of taking advantage of the technical opportunities and of meeting the desperate environmental needs that could be alleviated by exploiting clean coal technology.
  We believe that the industry has a future, but only in public ownership. When Labour returns to power with the support of the mineworkers and the people dependent on the industry we shall restore it to public ownership and ensure that it is a safe industry for people to work in producing the fuel that the country's long-term energy needs will require. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Since Second Reading, the Bill has been changed only by minimal Government amendments. The past two days of debate on Report have shown that, however strong the arguments, the Government will always refuse to accept the need to amend the legislation to deal with fundamental issues raised on both sides of the House.
  Yesterday, we debated the duties and responsibilities of those who may take over the pits to protect against mine water flooding. Today, we have had consensus across the House on the importance of having a presumption against opencasting and for protecting underground mining rather than developing opencasting. There was no adequate guarantee on subsidence or that rights and liabilities will be upheld. There was no adequate answer on CISWO and the welfare interests of mining communities. There was no guarantee about the future of British Coal Enterprise. On all the specific matters on Report there have been no concessions from the Government, however logical the arguments.
  The fundamental reason why the Bill should not receive a Third Reading is that the Government are trying to sell off the industry without any security for coal. The reason is the same one for which they were criticised on Second Reading. They did not come to the House willing to put coal securely in the context of the energy industry and to review that industry. Instead, they have considered the coal industry on its own, piecemeal and not within the context of the taxation system.
  There has been no energy review or review of the nuclear industry. We still await that. Neither has there been a review of the subsidy of nuclear fuel and the consequent advantage that it has over coal. We have had no guarantee that we will try to find the best environmental strategy for the energy industry. There has been no review of the future of electricity generation. Until the Government realise that they are not dealing competently with energy—for example, by producing a strategic energy policy, which is

  385
  their duty—and that energy, taxation and all our assets must be considered and decided together, they do not deserve support in this place or outside it.
  The Government are trying to pull off a speedy sell-off, with no security for coal. As an energy strategy that is irresponsible and is a betrayal of those people in the coal industry who have contributed to Britain being an energy-rich, energy-efficient and energy-prosperous country. For that reason, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will join other Opposition Members and, I hope, some Conservative Members in opposing the Government as we have opposed them at earlier stages of the Bill.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Barron: I rise for a few minutes to take up one of the major issues that will result from this privatisation Bill. For many years, the Government believed that the size of the British deep-mined coal industry had to be reduced dramatically. That policy has greatly damaged employment prospects in coal mining and in the service industries and has caused many hon. Members problems. Thousands of young people have not had the opportunity to go into the mining industry that I and many other people had when we left school many years ago.
  The last phase of the closure programme started in October 1992, when the Government announced that they would reduce the number of pits to that envisaged in the Rothschild report, although it was denied that that was the intention when the report was first leaked in 1991. At that time, the Minister for Energy and the President of the Board of Trade laid great store by the fact that anyone who lost his job would be protected by the announced redundancy payments.
  I questioned the Minister in February and he replied:
  "The Government is prepared to fund the current redundancy terms for miners until 30th April 1994, and where redundancies are proposed before 30th April, for so long as the consultations with the unions on any such proposal continue."
  That statement—I hope that the Minister will listen—has thrown the British Coal work force into confusion. Last night, I spoke to Stan Robinson, who works at Kiveton colliery in my constituency, which is one of the 12 market-tested pits that Conservative Members thought that they had saved. He told me that on 20 January the work force heard from senior management that it had four different options for the future of that colliery. Two would involve the colliery continuing to produce coal until 1995, one would involve it producing coal until early September 1994 and the fourth option was that the mine would close in April.
  The House will know that, for some people, enhanced redundancy payments can mean additional sums of up to £17,000, yet two months after the consultation meeting at Kiveton colliery the work force have had no definite statement of British Coal's intentions. British Coal can rightly be accused of being guilty of mental torture of the work force.
  Maltby colliery in my constituency is to restart production in September. Originally, it was to be mothballed. More than 100 British Coal employees appear to be left with the choice of accepting redundancy, within the terms of the Minister's reply to me, or risking losing the chance of that enhanced redundancy payment if they wait, and a different employer makes them redundant after the
  386
  industry is privatised. Are the Government prepared to inform British Coal that people who remain in the industry after April will have the enhanced redundancy payments that they currently enjoy protected? It is grossly unfair that people whose interests Conservative Members voted to protect in 1992 and 1993 will have a gun held at their heads again over the next six weeks.
  What are the implications for the British Coal part-time workers who have been made redundant of the House of Lords ruling of 3 March? Most of them were women who worked as cleaners or canteen staff. The European Court of Justice states:
  "According to the case law of the Court … the concept of 'pay' within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty comprises of any consideration, whether in cash or kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the employee receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer, whether under a contract of employment, legislative provisions or made ex gratia by the employer."
  In the House of Lords judgment of 3 March, Lord Keith of Kinkel expressed this opinion:
  "The provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, whereby employees who work for fewer than 16 hours per week are subject to different conditions in respect of qualification for redundancy pay from those which apply to employees who work for 16 hours per week or more, are incompatible with Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome".
  Will the Minister tell me and the hundreds of part-time workers made redundant by British Coal whether they now qualify for some of the enhanced redundancy payments made to mineworkers over many years? I hope that the Minister can answer. I hope also that Conservative Members will put pressure on Ministers who said that they would protect the interests of British miners undergoing the restructuring phase. They are not. Those workers will have a gun at their heads for the next weeks. It is disgraceful that they still do not know whether they will forgo tens of thousands of pounds if they hang on to the unforeseen future of coal privatisation.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Hardy: The Bill is one too far. It demonstrates complete insensitivity to history and the way that the Administration are spurning the very concept of one nation —and it will not a put a feather in any prime ministerial hat. The Bill will certainly mean that all the rest of the days of this Parliament will make no difference—at the end of it, that lot will be gone.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Hood: I rise to comment on this objectionable Bill and to express my criticism of the recent cat-calling from the Government side of the House against hon. Members who wanted to make a contribution. It seems that Conservative Members are more concerned about getting home to their beds early than hearing what this Government are all about. The day will come—tragically, it may not be their generation who will suffer but those that follow—when the folly of giving the Bill a Third Reading will be realised.
  Earlier this week, Lady Thatcher fainted. She will not need smelling salts tonight, because she will be really up —really pleased to see the Bill receive a Third Reading, because she came to power in 1979 to achieve what the Government seek to achieve tonight.
  The Bill is an insult to our history. There are no economic or political reasons for it. Mines were nationalised in 1947, not because nationalisation was a

  387
  wonderful idea but because of the failure of private enterprise to run an important industry in the interests of the nation.
  I have sat here over the past seven years and listened to Euro-sceptics talk about our giving away the sovereignty of Parliament while the Government give away our natural energy and destroy the coal industry, as they are doing tonight. It is even worse than that. Only a couple of years ago we criticised Bob Maxwell—and rightly so—for stealing £500 million of Mirror pension funds. We have a Government who are putting their hands into miners' pension funds with this Bill and saying nothing about it. The Government are stealing from the miners 10 times what Maxwell stole from the Mirror pensioners. It is an outrage and it will come back to haunt the Government.
  The hon. Member for 'Worcester (Mr. Luff) can laugh and sneer. He is a young whippersnapper and does not know what it is like to work eight hours in any day to earn his living. The Government have destroyed the lives of thousands of miners, their families and their communities. It is a shame on him and on the House that we should be considering such a Bill here tonight.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Barnes: This is a sad Bill, because it comes on top of the Government's destruction of the coal mining industry. They have destroyed communities and a resource that we in this country should be able to use. Coming on top of that destruction, the Bill is inopportune. After the wounds that have been inflicted on the coal industry, it should have a period of stability in which it can mobilise and organise the bits that are left. Instead, we have a radical piece of legislation that is affecting a whole host of areas, including pensions, concessionary coal, opencast mining and people's futures.
  The Government should not be pushing this measure on people who have suffered under the previous measures, because it is inappropriate and inopportune. There should be time to recover from the burdens that the Government have placed on our communities.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Bell: Following on from what was said by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), my hon. Friends the Members for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), if ever there was an industry that should never have been privatised, it is the coal industry. The ramifications go far beyond the question simply of money and production. The consequences for the environment and for families in mining areas throughout the country have been too enormous for the Bill to address.
  It was George Orwell who called the miners the caryatids of the earth. That was at a time when miners had dignity, their families had respect and they lived in that dignity and respect. We are seeing tonight a Bill that brings to an end a nationalised industry that was one of the greatest industries in our country and whose work force was one of the greatest in our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan touched on this gently. It was General MacArthur who once said, "I shall return." We shall return again to the coal industry. We shall return again to miners and their families. We shall return again to
  388
  an industry that will be strong. We shall return again to a Government who have an energy policy. We shall return again to a coal mining industry that belongs to the people.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Eggar: The transfer of the coal industry to the private sector is a momentous step. It has widespread ramifications in the crucial areas of safety, pensions, subsidence, licensing and the environment. The Government have spelt out policies that pay due regard to the importance of the issues concerned and have made available to the House the fullest possible information.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), like all other Liberals, has opposed this privatisation Bill just as he has opposed every other privatisation Bill that has been introduced by the Government. But he does so, as ever, in a highly irresponsible way. I refer him to the Liberal Democrats' manifesto of April 1992. What does it say with regard to the coal industry? It states:
  "We will liberalise the coal industry by transferring ownership of coal reserves to the Crown … and issuing licences to operate pits to other groups, as well as British Coal".
  What will the Government do under the terms of the Bill? What have the Government done as a result of the decision to lease and license pits? Exactly that. It is typical of the Liberal party that it fails to recognise the fact, and to give credit where credit is due. As ever, the Liberal party says one thing in the House but another in its manifesto and yet another out in the country.
  When the Government first announced our policy of privatising the coal industry, it was rightly described as the ultimate privatisation. It could more accurately be described as an idea whose time has come. What has given rise to that change in attitude? More than anything, it has been the debate on the Bill.
  Before we started dealing with the Bill I should have been hard pressed to say what the arguments were in favour of a state-run coal industry. But I imagined that Opposition Members would find and put forward those arguments. In fact, we did not hear one reasoned argument from them in favour of state ownership. Instead, at the 59th minute of the 11 th hour of the debate the chief Opposition spokesman gave us an uncosted pledge to renationalise the industry in future. I hope that he has checked his figures with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), because he thereby entered into a major spending commitment, which we shall cost and draw attention to in future.
  The fact is that there has been no sensible argument in favour of—
  Mr. Hood: Without compensation.
  Mr. Eggar: No compensation? Now we are getting down to the real arguments at the core of the Labour party. Two Labour Members have said that they would not pay compensation. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Will he now confirm that his pledge to renationalise the coal industry means that he will do so without compensation?
  Mr. O'Neill: The Labour party has always paid compensation when it has taken anything into public ownership. Those who seek to do anything else are in no way representative of the Labour party's record or of its likely future policies.
  Mr. Eggar: So the hon. Gentleman has now made a spending pledge and taken on other Labour Members head on. I am most willing to give way to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) if he would like to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Hood: I am delighted to answer the Minister, and I shall give him my view frankly. In answer to his challenge, I say that if the Government are silly enough to give our industry away we should be brave enough to take it back without compensation.
  Mr. Eggar: We have just had more of a debate on Labour's attitude to nationalisation and to the private sector than we have had in the previous 65 hours of debate on the Bill.
  Let us face the fact that the most deep-rooted and pervasive problem besetting the British coal industry has been and remains state ownership. Privatisation is the solution to the problem that state ownership has caused. We believe that the industry must be returned to the private sector as soon as possible, because that is the way for the future.
  I urge my hon. Friends to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 271.

  Division No. 179]

  [10.58 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Cash, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Churchill, Mr

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Colvin, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Congdon, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Bates, Michael

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dicks, Terry

  Booth, Hartley

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dunn, Bob

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Graham

  Eggar, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Butler, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fabricant, Michael

  390

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Legg, Barry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Leigh, Edward

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Forth, Eric

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lidington, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lightbown, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  French, Douglas

  Lord, Michael

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  MacKay, Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Garnier, Edward

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Madel, Sir David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malone, Gerald

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gorst, John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mates, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hague, William

  Merchant, Piers

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hendry, Charles

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Page, Richard

  Horam, John

  Paice, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Richards, Rod

  Jessel, Toby

  Riddick, Graham

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Knapman, Roger

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shersby, Michael

  391

  Sims, Roger

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

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tracey, Richard

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tredinnick, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trotter, Neville

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Spring, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Sproat, Iain

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Watts, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Stephen, Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Allan

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sumberg, David

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wilkinson, John

  Sykes, John

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thomason, Roy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Alton, David

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Coffey, Ann

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Bob

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benton, Joe

  Darling, Alistair

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blair, Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blunkett, David

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bradley, Keith

  Dixon, Don

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

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

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Stephen

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Caborn, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Callaghan, Jim

  Enright, Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fisher, Mark

  392

  Flynn, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Madden, Max

  Foulkes, George

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Fraser, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mandelson, Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marek, Dr John

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Garrett, John

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Milburn, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Miller, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Hanson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hardy, Peter

  Murphy, Paul

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, William

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoey, Kate

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spearing, Nigel

  McFall, John

  Speller, John

  McKelvey, William

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLeish, Henry

  Stevenson, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  393

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Tyler, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Eric Illsley.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

  Peakes Parkway, Grimsby
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to present a petition from Marjorie Mary Blyth of 68 Highfield avenue and from 3,146 other residents of Highfield avenue and Peaksfield avenue in Grimsby against Humberside county council's compulsory purchase order to build the Peakes Parkway in Grimsby.
  The petitioners object to the purchase order and to the Peakes Parkway scheme because it builds a major road through a densely populated area; because the quiet location of the area was an incentive for them to purchase their homes in the first place; because the road will run 18 to 20 m from their front windows; because they will lose their front gardens to the road; because they fear for their health if the land is taken to build the new highway; and because the noise and pollution created would confine the elderly and bronchial sufferers to stay indoors.
  They object also because they question the validity of the scheme—the cost has escalated from £7.5 million to £14 million in three years and will probably be £20 million at the end—and because they feel that the road is unnecessary.
  The petition ends:
  Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House that the Order may not be brought into operation.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Uganda (Debt)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the matter of debt in Uganda on the Adjournment of the House. Uganda is the fourth poorest country in the world, with a gross national product per capita of just $170 in 1991. Despite having access to every available debt relief measure already instituted by northern creditors, it still faces a foreign debt of some $2.6 billion. That debt is simply unpayable.
  The most recently available figures show that Uganda pays about $100 million a year in debt servicing and repayments, which approximates to one third of the Ugandan Government's budget, and almost four times the amount spent on health and education combined throughout the country. Last year, debt service payments accounted for 48 per cent. of the value of all exports from Uganda. If the total debt service owed to all creditors had been met, the figure would have risen to a massive 83 per cent. of exports.
  Further consideration should be given to the extent to which Uganda is able to tackle the severe health problems which afflict its people. Many tropical diseases are endemic, and AIDS is a major problem. The HIV-positive level among women in Uganda is a frightening 17 per cent. Yet Uganda is able to spend only half of the World Health Organisation recommended minimum of $12 per head for sub-Saharan Africa. Of that, a mere 20 per cent., or just over $1 per person, is contributed by the Ugandan Government themselves. The remainder comes from donor sources.
  In quoting a raft of statistics, one runs the risk of obscuring the reality of the argument. The bare facts in respect of Uganda are that the country is stuck in a quagmire of debt, and is in real danger of being sucked under. The tragedy is that, unlike some other countries defined by the World bank as severely indebted low-income countries, Uganda has not deliberately defaulted on its debts.
  In 1987, the Ugandan Government, assisted by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, embarked on an economic recovery programme. It aimed to promote economic rehabilitation and growth, restore internal financial stability and establish a liberal economic environment which encouraged private sector investment. It succeeded. The result has been a liberalisation of prices, the removal of trade restrictions, the privatisation of state enterprises, and cuts in the numbers of people employed in the civil service and the armed forces.
  I am by nature, as you might understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suspicious of and even hostile to such structural adjustment programmes imposed by the international financial institutions on countries such as Uganda. All too often they represent the application of a model of economic management which fails to understand the basic needs of people living in the world's poorest countries, and lead to living standards being driven still further downwards. However, in the case of Uganda, like it or not, the programme worked.
  The IMF and the World bank arranged financing of about $1.2 billion for the programme, and the result has been a reduction of inflation to below 1 per cent. by the

  395
  middle of last year, from an all-time high of 240 per cent. in 1987. A revised version of the economic reforms was agreed for 1991–94, accompanied by additional financing of $1.7 billion. The result is that Uganda's economy grew by 7 per cent. in 1992–93, and a further 5 per cent. growth is forecast for the current year. The 1991 programme also involved a debt management strategy designed to reduce accumulated arrears and achieve a sustainable level of debt service.
  So the Ugandan Government have done everything that could reasonably be expected of them to regenerate their economy and reduce their debt under existing rules. Yet they remain saddled with a crippling and still mounting debt burden. Their major problem is multilateral debt, almost exclusively to the IMF and the World bank. That accounts for almost 70 per cent. of Uganda's total—about three times the average for sub-Saharan African countries.
  Crucially, annual debt servicing to the IMF bleeds one third of Uganda's foreign exchange earnings. If repayments owed to the IMF, most of which were loaned on a non-concessional basis, continue to increase at the present rate, in 1997–98 cash flows from that organisation to Uganda will be negative. What possible justification could there be for one of the world's poorest countries paying money to one of the world's richest multilateral organisations? The lunatics really are poised to take over the asylum, if they are not already installed.
  It should be clearly stated and understood that no meaningful reduction in Uganda's crushing debt burden is possible until its payments to those institutions are reduced. Although the World bank accounts for a large proportion of total debt stock, it has provided a net transfer of funds to Uganda of about $600 million since 1987. That was facilitated through the conversion of International Bank for Reconstruction and Development loans into IDA concessional terms under its fifth dimension programme. Despite this, debt servicing to the bank remains high, and existing measures must be accelerated through the provision of additional resources.
  Attempts by the IMF to increase concessionality through the enhanced structural adjustment facility have failed to alleviate the burden of Uganda's repayments, and its present soft loan agreement with ESAF comes to an end in November this year. The only practical option available to Uganda is to seek a replenishment of the ESAF to carry it over the next few years.
  Currently, the Ugandan Government are using aid given for balance of payments support to repay multilateral debt. So bilateral debt is incurred to meet the immediate payments due under multilateral debt—never its donors' intended purpose. Bilateral debt to the so-called Paris Club currently stands at $282 million, or 11 per cent. of Uganda's debt. But, under club rules, there cannot be any rescheduling or reduction of debt contracted after a country's first visit to the club—in Uganda's case, 1981.
  So the Ugandan Government are left with an unsustainable debt repayment bill to the Paris Club, which amounts to a convincing case for bringing forward the cut-off date. This should certainly be no earlier than 1986, when the present Government, under President Museveni, took office. It is surely wrong—not to say grossly unfair —to hold the present Government and the Ugandan People liable for debts incurred by earlier autocratic regimes which abused human rights and siphoned off millions of dollars of aid assistance, some of which left the country, never to return.
  396
  What can be done to provide the helping hand which Uganda needs so desperately? Earlier this month, my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), accompanied by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and Mrs. Carolyn Culey of Oxfam, visited Uganda. My hon. Friend reported that, while scarcely surprised to find the country facing severe economic difficulties, he was nonetheless shocked to learn at first hand of the price being paid by ordinary Ugandans for the debt crisis burdening their country.
  He saw the extraordinary efforts being made by Ugandan health professionals, as well as British aid agencies, to tackle not only the AIDS pandemic but also the results of poor nutrition and the remaining effects of the dreadful civil wars of the 1970s and early 1980s. He was in no doubt that the current health crisis which afflicts the country is not the result just of bad luck or bad planning, the legacy of the Amin tyranny, or the falling price of coffee on the world commodities market. It was clear that the major factor is the diversion of scarce resources from human development to debt repayment.
  All members of the delegation returned with the unshakeable belief that, as Uganda has taken every possible step to deal with the internal causes of its debt, urgent action is needed to assist it in dealing with the external causes. I strongly support the view of Oxfam that the international community which lent money to Uganda has a responsibility to help Uganda to repay it.
  For some time now, as part of its "Africa: Make or Break" campaign, with which I am privileged to be involved, Oxfam has called for the Governments of the northern nations to encourage the IMF to sell part of its gold stocks. That would generate the necessary resources to write off the debt owed to the fund by Uganda, as well as several of the other most heavily indebted countries.
  It would hardly represent a revolutionary step—after all, the IMF's original structural adjustment facility was financed by this method, and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently proposed a further sale to finance the replenishment of ESAF. For Uganda, it would represent a lifeline.
  The British Government have recently shown their willingness to take the lead at G7 level in relation to finding a means of relieving the most indebted nations. The proposal to reduce the Trinidad terms is perhaps the most obvious, but the pressure applied on the Japanese in Washington last year by the Chancellor also represented a welcome initiative, and an attempt to achieve agreement within the world's richest nations on the question of debt.
  Tonight I ask the Economic Secretary what steps he is prepared to take in terms of the case of Uganda. There is nothing more which Uganda can do itself to address its debt problems. Will the Government accept that the international community should now accept its share of the responsibility? In the past, money was lent recklessly at high interest rates to Governments which squandered it. Why should the present Government of Uganda bear sole responsibility for that?
  On current projections, there will be a net outflow of around $200 million over the next five years from Uganda to the IMF as ESAF repayments become due. Will the Government accept that it is morally wrong for one of the world's poorest nations to be transferring resources to one of the richest institutions? If not, why not?
  Until now, the Government and most of their northern counterparts have argued that multilateral debt cannot be

  397
  written off, because to do so would undermine the credibility of the international financial institutions, while selling part of the IMF's gold stocks would generate inflationary pressures. I suggest that such assertions do not withstand close scrutiny. I have already referred to the sale of gold stocks and the precedents for it.
  Given the relatively small scale of finance involved and the depressed state of the global economy, it is difficult to envisage how any of the actions that I have suggested might cause serious inflationary pressure. Fears about setting precedents for middle-income countries could be answered by imposing strict criteria for eligibility.
  Further, what do the Government have to say about the ability of developing countries to pay their debts? Governments have accepted that as the critical factor in dealing with bilateral debt—rightly so—so what is the rationale for refusing to apply the same principle to multilateral debt? Why should not there be limited reductions for severely indebted low-income countries, of which Uganda is one of the most extreme examples?
  If the Government will not meet such a request, will the Economic Secretary agree to take steps to deal with Uganda's immediate problem? For example, will the Government make an additional £5 million available in response to the Ugandan Government's appeal for a £25 million fund to meet debt repayments? Uganda needs that level of support immediately in order to make repayments to the multilateral agencies. Failure to meet those obligations will jeopardise Uganda's ability to secure desperately needed development assistance.
  I have already mentioned the difficulties in relation to bilateral debt and the Paris Club. There is a strong political case for moving the cut-off date in Uganda's case to 1986 when the present Government took office. Will the Government support that idea? I believe that they should. The club has a rule that debt which has already been rescheduled once cannot be reconsidered. It would be helpful, to say the least, if that rule could be relaxed; I have to ask whether the Government would be prepared to argue for that on Uganda's behalf with other club members.
  What will the Government do to help Uganda? The case for coming to Uganda's aid is perhaps the strongest that can be made on behalf of any developing country. If the Government are not prepared to help, it sends a grim message to the people not only of that beleaguered country but those of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. I hope that, for their sake, the Economic Secretary will respond positively.
  11.27 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): I applaud the determination of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) to raise this issue on the Adjournment, and I congratulate him on doing so in such compelling terms. It is a considerable tribute to him and to the issue that he has raised that the debate is so well attended by hon. Members of both parties. I acknowledge immediately that the matter has been raised by many of our constituents, and I know that interest in it goes beyond those hon. Members able to attend tonight to people outside.
  I acknowledge in particular the presence of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) who has been to Uganda recently. I have of course had a report of his visit
  398
  and the deliberations that he had there. I also acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who have written to me separately.
  Uganda is a beautiful but troubled country. It is a country of great riches but of great poverty, too. Many of us are conscious of our bilateral and multilateral obligations to those who have struggled with the millstone of debt and the heritage of repression which Uganda has undoubtedly has. Therefore, the sentiments behind and the contents of the hon. Gentleman's speech were well received by the House.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that President Museveni has fought valiantly for the people of Uganda, and that the prospect of hundreds and thousands of people being driven across the border from the Sudan as a result of the Muslim fundamentalism movement would place an even more intolerable burden on the people of Uganda and make the problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) even worse than they are now?
  Mr. Nelson: I agree that the cause and effect of such migration will be a tragedy, and I know the interest that my hon. Friend has in that matter. I believe that he is to visit the country concerned shortly, and I shall be interested in his observations when he returns. I thank him for his contribution to the debate.
  Uganda is one of the world's poorest and most indebted countries. The Government recognise that Uganda, like many similar developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is confronted by an unsustainable debt burden. I assure the House that I share many of the anxieties that have been expressed.
  The Government, and especially my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have taken a leading role in the development of realistic and sustainable solutions to the problem of developing country debt. It is important to recognise that there can be no simple blanket solution that is equally applicable to all developing countries. That is why the Government's policy is based on a case-by-case approach. We believe that, for the poorest and most indebted countries, simply refinancing and rescheduling debt service obligations is not enough. If those countries are to make progress towards sustainable economic development, debt reduction is essential.
  However, it is wrong to attribute all the problems of developing countries to high levels of external debt as the debt is often a symptom of deeper economic problems. The Government believe that, if the long-term prospects of developing countries are to be sustainable, those fundamental economic problems must be tackled. For that reason, we are committed to working closely with our colleagues in the Paris Club group of creditor Governments and the international financial institutions.
  As the House will know, the Paris Club now grants debt rescheduling to the poorest and most indebted countries, under what is known as the Trinidad terms. That concessional form of debt rescheduling is the direct result of an initiative that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1990.
  As a result of the Trinidad terms initiative, 20 countries, including Uganda, have to date benefited from a reduction in their official debt burdens, almost $6 billion of debts

  399
  have been restructured and more than $2 billion of debt has been forgiven. Those Paris Club agreements include a commitment from creditors to consider a reduction of the whole stock of official bilateral debt after three to four years, subject to satisfactory performance under an International Monetary Fund programme.
  Although those agreements represent a substantial achievement, the Government believe that more could be done to help countries such as Uganda. We are urging our fellow Paris Club creditors to improve the existing Trinidad terms. We hope that they will agree to give debt reduction along the lines of the Prime Minister's original 1990 proposal.
  Especially, we believe that some countries should be eligible for an immediate stock of debt reduction—possibly up to 80 cent. in the most deserving cases. To qualify for such treatment, countries would have to be up to date with their debt service payments and have established a one to two-year record of economic reform under an IMF programme.
  There is still some work to do before a Paris Club consensus can be achieved, but we are hopeful that such stock of debt operations can be agreed for one or more countries this year. If we are successful, we hope that Uganda can be among the first beneficiaries, although that will partly depend on other creditors' views.
  Of course, the Paris Club can only contribute to easing the burden of official bilateral debt. For most countries, but especially in Uganda's case, that is only one part of the story, for more than 60 per cent. of Uganda's debt is owed to the international financial institutions—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central pointed out.
  Uganda's outstanding debts to the World bank currently stand at $1.8 billion, and she owes a further $362 million to the IMF. Those figures are substantial, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that cash flow and the ability to pay are at least as important as the level of indebtedness.
  Indeed, it is worth remembering that more than 90 per cent. of Uganda's debt to the international financial institutions is on concessional terms, designed expressly to assist the poor countries. Especially, Uganda has benefited from the World bank's International Development Association and the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. Those are both sources of highly concessional long-term finance, with interest rates of only 0.5 per cent. The United Kingdom is an important contributor to both.
  In December, the Government announced that they would provide an extra £50 million to help enlarge the enhanced structural adjustment facility. That is in addition to our original contribution of up to £327 million. The United Kingdom has also contributed £620 million to the most recent replenishment of the IDA. Further help in meeting the interest payments on Uganda's nonconcessional World bank loans has also been forthcoming, through the bank's fifth dimension facility.
  It is also important to remember that the picture in Uganda is dynamic, not static. In 1992—the latest year for which World bank figures are available—Uganda made debt servicing payments of $37 million to the international financial institutions. However, in the same year, those institutions made positive net transfers to Uganda of $162 million.
  The World bank expects its disbursements to Uganda to continue to exceed repayments for several years. Furthermore, although Uganda faces sharp rises in its debt service obligations to the IMF, it is also eligible for a
  400
  further ESAF arrangement under the enlarged facility. If this is agreed, the funds provided are likely to exceed, or at least match, debt service payments to the IMF.
  There is another way in which the World bank has assisted Uganda. In February 1993, Uganda completed a buy-back operation on $153 million of its commercial debt. Under the terms of the agreement, Uganda paid a cash settlement of just 12 per cent. of the face value of that debt, using grants provided through the debt reduction facility of the International Development Association.
  In recent weeks, the Government have received a number of representations urging us to support the writing off of Uganda's debt to the international financial institutions. However, the funds of both the IMF and World bank are finite and revolving. They are intended to be available for use by members when and where they are most needed. Writing off debts owed to these institutions would reduce the pool of funds available, and risk undermining their ability to assist all developing countries.
  In the case of the World bank, debt write-offs might endanger its high credit rating. It is this high credit rating that allows it to raise money on the most favourable terms, and keeps the interest rates that it charges on its own loans as low as possible.
  The Government recognise that the process of economic adjustment for countries like Uganda is long and difficult, especially when their adjustment efforts are hampered by high debt burdens. The Government are committed to assisting this vital adjustment. Last year, aid of £15 million was agreed for Uganda. This will help support economic reform.
  However, it is also crucial that progress be made on the problem of Uganda's debt burden, and the Government have been working on ways to achieve this. To date, Uganda has benefited from a concessional rescheduling of its official bilateral debts and from targeted, conditional and highly concessional financial facilities from the international financial institutions.
  The Government very much hope that further support from the Paris Club will be forthcoming this year, in the form of a stock of debt reduction, and we shall do everything in our power to achieve this. Furthermore, our representatives in the World bank and the IMF will continue to look for new ways to support Uganda's adjustment efforts.
  There are just two more positive things that I want to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that, as I said earlier, Uganda received a Trinidad terms rescheduling in 1992. Any future discussion of Uganda's Paris Club debts might consider whether the existing cut-off date could be moved from 1981. That point was raised by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech.
  Under existing Paris Club rules, debts contracted after the cut-off date cannot be rescheduled. But the United Kingdom could, and would be willing to, agree to a call to have the cut-off date moved so as to increase the amount of debt that could be rescheduled. In other words, we agree with the hon. Gentleman. But this is not something that can be done bilaterally; it needs the co-operation of others.
  Secondly—this is an important point—the Paris Club is now seriously considering the possibility of early stock of debt operations, although in this area, too, consensus has yet to be reached. However, the United Kingdom has identified Uganda and Bolivia as two front runners for such treatment, and we shall seek every opportunity to press the claims of these most troubled countries.

  401
  In raising this matter, the hon. Gentleman has done a service not just to the House but, in particular, to Uganda. I applaud the way in which he introduced the debate, and
  402
  I congratulate all hon. Members, on both sides, for their presence and for their interest in this most important and pressing matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bait Digging
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to reply to Alnwick district council's representations to him about the proposed byelaw relating to bait digging.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We are carefully considering the legal issues relating to this matter and hope shortly to be in a position to send the council a substantive reply.

  Police Register
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there will be a charge to organisations who wish to check the police register for the suitability of adults who will be working with children.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The possibility of charging for checks on criminal records is one of the issues being considered by the Home Office in its current review of arrangements for access to criminal records for vetting purposes. No decision on this matter has yet been reached.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of personnel engaged in fire safety enforcement in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is estimated that approximately 1,834 full-time equivalent specialist fire safety officers are engaged in the enforcement of fire safety throughout England and Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit Queensferry fire station to discuss aspects of fire safety responsibility with members of the Clwyd fire brigade.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

  Police Officers, London
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers per 100,000 population for each year since 1979 for London.

  Mr. Charles
  The available information is contained in the table.220

  Number of police officers per 100,000 population in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police district

  Year

  Officers per 100,000 population

  1979

  318

  1980

  334

  1981

  356

  1982

  375

  1983

  381

  1984

  382

  1985

  382

  1986

  383

  1987

  389

  1988

  397

  1989

  403

  1990

  403

  1991

  403

  1992

  393

  1993

  385

  Drinking Ban, Cleveland
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to give approval to the ban on drinking in public places in Yarm and Thornaby, Cleveland.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Home Office Officials wrote to Stockton-on-Tees borough council on 21 March giving agreement in principle to the proposal for byelaws prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated parts of Yarm and Thornaby. That letter asked for further essential information about the areas which the council wishes to designate. We expect to be able to give provisional approval to the byelaws once the necessary information has been obtained.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum there have been in each of the past three years by persons travelling from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; and how many of these applications have been refused.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available as such cases are not identified separately in our statistics.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were remanded into custody in (a) Great Britain and (b) the west midlands for each quarter for each of the last five years for non-payment of fines imposed for not possessing a television licence.

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

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Lynne Jones, dated 23 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) men and (b) women were remanded into custody in (a) Great Britain and (b) the West

  221
  Midlands for each quarter for each of the last five years for non-payment of fines imposed for not possessing a television licence.

  There were none in England and Wales. When a court fine is unpaid the court considers a number of non-custodial options and only then can impose a custodial sentence. Information for Scotland should be obtained from the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Howard
  My ministerial colleagues and I received approximately 2,300 letters from, and wrote just over 1,500 letters to, hon. Members in February.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost of keeping(a) convicted prisoners and (b) prisoners on remand in prison.

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

  Letter from 1. Dunbar to Ms Cheryl Gillan, dated 23 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent question about the average weekly cost of keeping (a) convicted prisoners and (b) prisoners on remand in prison.

  Costs are collected for types of establishment rather than for types of prisoner. The figures for 1992–93 are:

  Type of establishment

  Net operating cost per prisoner place per week

  £

  Local Prisons and Remand Centres

  561

  Remand Prison

  333

  Dispersal prisons

  705

  Category B Training prisons

  481

  Category C Training prisons

  357

  Adult Male Open prisons

  285

  Young Offender Closed establishments

  418

  Young Offender Open establishments

  392

  Female establishments

  505

  During the year in question convicted prisoners were held in all types of prison except the remand prison and remand centres. Remand prisoners were held in the remand prison, remand centres and local prisons. It is not, therefore, possible to provide an average cost for convicted and remand prisoners separately.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances under the "Conduct and Discipline in the Prison Service" it would be a disciplinary offence for a prison officer to contact an hon. Member regarding his own employment circumstances;

  (2) what are the rules governing the political activities of members of HM Prison Service;

  (3) in what circumstances under the "Conduct and Discipline in the Prison Service" a prison officer is prevented from raising with his own hon. Member
  222
  concerns relating to (a) the handling of a grievance in his own case and (b) the operation of a particular prison establishment;

  (4) if the rules of confidentiality covering prison officers extend beyond individual cases to the general standards of operation of the prison service.

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

  Letter from I. Dunbar to Mr. Kevin Hughes, dated 23 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Questions about prison officers contacting honourable Members, and the rules about confidentiality and political activities in the Prison Service.

  Like all civil servants, prison officers have always been subject to the rule that they should not attempt to enlist political or other outside influence to support their own personal claims as civil servants. An internal procedure enables any personal concern of a member of staff to be reviewed, with the ultimate right of appeal to the Permanent Head of the Home Office.

  Members of the Prison Service are entitled to raise general matters with their Members of Parliament, but must have regard to their duty of confidentiality and loyal service to the Crown. They should avoid any action which might compromise the right of colleagues or inmates to privacy, and have a duty to protect official information which is held in confidence.

  You asked about the circumstances in which it would be a disciplinary offence for a prison officer to raise, with an honourable Member, matters concerned with his own employment in the Prison Service. "Conduct and Discipline in the Prison Service", introduced in July 1993, specifies "attempting to enlist the assistance or support of outside individuals or organisations (including Members of Parliament) to secure advancement or improve one's personal position", and "disclosure of official information held in confidence, whether to inmates, the press or others" are examples of conduct which may attract disciplinary action.

  It is not possible to state the precise circumstances in which disciplinary action might be taken in these areas, since this would depend on careful consideration of the circumstances of the particular case. The Prison Service Code of Conduct and Discipline specifically provides that disciplinary action against a member of staff who is alleged to have attempted to secure personal advancement by approaching an honourable Member can be taken only with the agreement of the personnel management division at Prison Service Headquarters.

  As to the rules governing political activities of members of the Prison Service, the position is that civil servants, including members of the Prison Service, are required to discharge loyally the duties assigned to them by the government of the day of whatever political persuasion. Ministers and the public must have confidence that civil servants' personal views do not cut across the discharge of their official duties. The intent of the rules governing political activities by civil servants is to allow them the greatest possible freedom to participate in public affairs without infringing these fundamental principles. The rules are concerned with the public expression of political views, rather than privately-held opinions.

  These rules are set out in detail in the Home Office Staff handbook and a Home Office Notice, copies of which are enclosed.

  Voluntary Services Unit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects, services and organisations which have received funding from the voluntary services unit for each year since 1981, listing the payments made in constant 1993 prices, and distinguishing
  223
  between those projects whose scope is limited to (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland, (e) England and Wales and (f) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This question could be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Court Cases (Reporting)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require mat media reporting of cases to be brought before the courts in the Irish Republic shall be subject to the same restrictions as govern reporting of cases brought before United Kingdom courts.

  Mr. Maclean
  Where a warrant for arrest has been issued or granted in a criminal case in the United Kingdom, including a case where that warrant forms part of an extradition request, any person publishing material that creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced is already liable to proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. There are no plans to extend the scope of the Contempt of Court Act to the period before proceedings are active, as defined by schedule 1 to the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William McGrath
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute a public inquiry into the length of time it took to bring to trial those accused of the death of Mr. William McGrath, of Morrison street, Bolton, and the access to drugs of the key witnesses in the case who were under police protection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The listing of cases for trial is a matter for the courts.

  The actions taken by police officers in the course of their duties are operational matters and entirely the responsibility of the police. I understand, however, that at no time during this case were any witnesses under police protection.

  Safer Cities
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safer cities programmes were running each year since 1 April 1989; what was the total cost of their budgets for each year from 1989–90; how many will be running on 1 April; and what will be the total of their budgets for 1994–95.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of safer cities projects operated and the total cost of their budgets since 1 April 1989 is as follows:224

  Year

  Projects

  Cost (£ million)

  1989–90

  16

  3·3

  1990–91

  16

  6·3

  1991–92

  20

  7·2

  1992–93

  20

  7·7

  1993–94

  120

  26·0

  31 April 1994

  14

  22·1

  1 The figure for 1993–94 excludes the 10 new areas which were announced in December 1993 and are currently being established.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Announcements on further projects are planned for 1994–95. As the bulk of the funding for safer cities is to be included in the single regeneration budget to be administered by the Department of the Environment from 1 April 1994, the precise timetable for later waves, together with associated costs, will be drawn up in conjuction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The costs quoted are therefore only those which remain funded by the Home Office.

  The costs include some expenditure, such as project staff salaries and rent for office accommodation, which is incurred by the safer cities central team.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the highest five clear-up rates for primary crime in police authorities in England and Wales in each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: My Department does not use the term "primary crime". Instead, the figures provided are the percentage of all recorded offences which were cleared up by "primary" means: charged, summoned or cautioned—as opposed to "secondary" means: taken into consideration, interview of convicted offender and other. Police forces with the highest primary clear up rates on this basis are given in the table. The information is not yet available for 1993. Prior to 1989, information in this format is incomplete.

  Per cent.

  1989

  Gwent

  48

  Dyfed-Powys

  42

  Suffolk

  37

  Cumbria, Wiltshire

  35

  1990

  Gwent

  43

  Dyfed-Powys

  39

  Suffolk

  36

  Wiltshire

  30

  North Wales

  28

  1991

  Gwent

  38

  Suffolk

  34

  Dyfed-Powys

  32

  Wiltshire

  29

  Cheshire

  27

  1992

  Gwent

  35

  Dyfed-Powys

  30

  Suffolk

  29

  Wiltshire

  25

  Cheshire

  23

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cash Plans
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish an update table A—cash plans —of 'Trade and Industry 1994"—Cm 2504—in constant 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The figures provided in table A of the Department of Trade and Industry's 1994 report are produced in cash terms, consistent with Treasury guidance. They may be adjusted to reflect constant 1992–93 prices, this being the current basis used for such analysis, by means of the GDP deflators which are shown in table 1.1 of the Statistical Supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95 (Cm 2519). Table 5B.4 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95 shows the DTI's overall expenditure for the period 1988–89 to 1996–97 adjusted in this way.

  Number of permanent staff (whole time equivalent)

  Agency

  1 March 1994

  1 April 1993

  Review of agency announced

  Financial target 1993–94

  Accounts services agency

  91·0

  88·5

  September 1993

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) Net total not to exceed £90,000estimates

  Companies house

  963·0

  983·5

  July 1992

  (i) 6 per cent. return on capital employed

  (ii) Recovery of full costs

  Insolvency service

  1,615·0

  1,572·5

  July 1993

  To operate within allocated expenditure budget

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist1

  315·5

  313·5

  May 1993

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) Net total not to exceed -£520,000 in estimates

  National engineering laboratory1

  331·0

  363·5

  May 1993

  (i) Recovery of full costs from Government work carrried out

  (ii) Net total not to exceed £2,452,000 in estimates

  National Physical laboratory1

  736·5

  767·5

  May 1993

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) Net total not to exceed -£3,545,000in estimates

  National weights & measures laboratory1

  44·5

  48·0

  May 1993

  (i) To operate within allocated expenditure budget

  (ii) Recovery of full costs of fee-earning activities

  Patent office

  957·5

  1,009·0

  June 1993

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) 6 per cent. return on capital employed

  Radiocommunications agency

  541·0

  524·5

  (No review announced)

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) Net total not to exceed -£3,028,000 in estimates

  Warren spring laboratory1

  203·5

  266·5

  (Merger with AEA to form the national environmental technology centre announced on 10 June 1993)

  (i) Recovery of full costs

  (ii) Net total not to exceed £1,900,000 in estimates

  1 DTI Laboratories.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all his Department's schemes and services to promote technology transfer together with the date on which they were opened; what was the expenditure committed; and if he will list the projects supported in each scheme or service in expected outturns up to 1 April.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's innovation and technology budget covers a number of schemes to promote technology transfer. The major ones are listed in the table, together with the date on which they were opened and,

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide for each of his Department's laboratories and agencies(a) the number of whole-time equivalent staff in post now, (b) the number of WTE staff in post at 1 April 1993, (c) whether operational and management budgets for the 1994–95 year have been determined, (d) whether the agency is subject to review and the date on which mat review began and (e) what financial target was set for 1993–94; whether it is expected to achieve it; and what target has been set for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested in(a), (b) and (d) is set out in the table. Budgets and targets for 1994–95 have not yet been confirmed. Achievements against the 1993–94 financial targets will be published in the agencies' annual reports and accounts: these will be laid before Parliament and placed in the Library of the House.

  where available, the expenditure committed. DTI activity for which technology transfer is not the main objective is not included.

  In addition, the Department continues to seek to raise awareness in the benefits of participating in EC research and development programmes, many of which incorporate elements of technology transfer.

  The additional information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  227

  Title

  Commenced

  Committed expenditure £ millions

  Advanced Control Technology Transfer

  1992

  4·6

  Biochemical Engineering Programme

  1989

  4·3

  Biotechnology Means Business

  1990

  0·42

  Business with Applications Specific Integration Circuits System (ASICS)

  1994

  3

  Carrier Technology Programme

  1992

  18

  Engineers to Japan Scheme

  1991

  0·5

  Environmental Best Practice Programme (jointly funded with the Department of the Environment)

  1994

  11

  Industrial Units Scheme

  1992

  4·07

  Manufacturing, Planning and Implementation (MPI)

  1991

  8·75

  Neural Computing Technology Transfer

  1992

  5·75

  New and Renewables Programme

  1988

  13·5

  OSTEMS—Overseas Sciences and Tech Experts Mission Scheme

  1986

  20·27

  Overseas Technical Information Service (OTIS)

  1985

  20·19

  Postgraduate Training Partnerships

  1992

  6·4

  Programme for Competitive Manufacturing

  n/a

  PROST Awareness

  1994

  1

  Pump Centre

  1992

  1·6

  Senior Academics in Industry Scheme

  1992

  0·8

  Teaching Company Schemes (TCS)

  1975

  25·5

  Technical Action Line (TAL Phase II)

  1992

  n/a

  Technology Audits

  1992

  1·9

  Vision Technology Transfer Centre

  1990

  1·3

  1 Figures for 1994–95 available only.

  2 Figures for 1993–94 available only.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Eggar
  The code of practice will reinforce and build upon my Department's existing arrangements for the provision of information.

  We will be establishing a central contact point to deal with requests for information under the code. Requests for information which can be dealt with simply and quickly will not attract a charge. More complex requests, requiring a significant diversion of resources, will attract a charge in line with the amount of work involved. We will keep our charging arrangements under review at all times. Details of charges and other administrative matters will be made available when the code comes into force.

  Phone Calls (Asia and Africa)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received concerning telephone customers in the United Kingdom being charged for telephone calls not made to Asia and Africa because of false—answers defects; what estimate he has as to the numbers of United Kingdom customers so charged; and how much revenue accrues to British telephone companies as a result.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 22 March 1994,Official Report, column 202.

  Bestwood and Atlanta Fund Managers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of the inspectors' report on Bestwood and Atlanta Fund Managers; how it has been disbursed to each inspector; what are the business connections of the inspectors; when the inspectors were appointed; and on what date the report was published.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The inspectors, Mr. Gabriel Moss QC and Mr. John Venning FCA of Robson Rhodes, chartered accountants, were appointed on 23 June 1989. Their report was published on 20 January 1994. The total cost of the inspection was £2,684,000, £202,370 being paid to Mr. Moss and the remainder to Mr. Venning's firm.

  Company Returns
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many incorporated companies have failed to file accounts at Companies House for each year since 1985;

  (2) what action he takes when a company fails to file its annual return within the prescribed period;

  (3) if he will provide a list of the number of companies which have been fined or have been disincorporated as a result of failure to file annual returns for each or any of the years since 1985.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  These matters are for Companies House. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive, David Durham, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. Durham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 18 March 1994:
  Mr. Hamilton, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, has asked me as Registrar and Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency, to reply to the following Parliamentary Questions which you tabled:
  *How many incorporated companies have failed to file accounts at Companies House for each of the years since 1985.
  *What action is taken when a company fails to file its annual return within the prescribed period.
  *How many companies have been fined or have been disincorporated as a result of failure to file annual return for each or any of the years since 1985.
  The statistical information which you have requested is published by the President of the Board of Trade in the general annual report of matters within the Companies Act, which is laid before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to section 729 of the Companies Act 1985. However, for your convenience, I have extracted the relevant figures from the reports for each of the years in question. I shall now attempt to clarify the remaining points which you have raised.
  Companies House tries very hard to ensure that each individual company is reminded of its obligation to deliver annual returns and accounts. On average, some two million letters are issued each year, as a timely reminder before documents become due and, if needs be, in an attempt to secure compliance of the law where documents are found to be outstanding.
  Where it is established, having issued reminders, that a defaulting company remains in business or in operation, every effort is made to encourage the company to file with the minimum of delay. Regrettably, however, it is sometimes necessary to institute criminal proceedings in order to secure delivery of the required documentation. Failure to file annual returns or accounts is a criminal offence and, on conviction, a fine of up to a maximum of £5,000 can be imposed upon directors personally by the Court for each separate offence.
  In addition, where annual accounts are delivered outside the statutory time provided by the Companies Act, the company itself is liable to a civil penalty of up to £1,000 for private companies and £5,000 for public companies, depending on the lateness of the

  229
  accounts. I must stress, however, that the system of late filing penalties is designed to encourge timely filing, with the ultimate aim being that no penalties are levied because all companies file on time. There is no late filing penalty payable in respect of the late delivery of annual returns.
  With regards to disincorporation, or dissolution of companies. Section 652 of the Companies Act 1985 provides me with authority to strike off and dissolve a company where I have reason to believe that it is no longer in business or in operation. Before dissolving a company, I am required to issue a number of notices to the company at its registeredd office address, inquiring if it remains in business or in operation. In the absence of any response, a notice is published in the London Gazette warning of my intention to strike the name of the company off the register. A copy of this notice, which is also sent to the company, is placed

  Compliance rates for annual returns and accounts, 1984 to 1993

  Thousands of companies Percentage of companies on effective register

  Companies up-to-date in filing:

  Effective register

  Compliant annual returns

  Default annual returns

  Compliant accounts

  Compliant for both returns and accounts

  In default for both return and accounts

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  (percentage)

  (thousands)

  (percentage)

  (thousands)

  (percentage)

  (thousands)

  (percentage)

  (thousands)

  (percentage)

  England and Wales

  May 1985

  810

  544

  67·1

  266

  32·9

  518

  63·9

  471

  58·1

  —

  41·9

  June 1986

  785

  692

  88·2

  93

  11·8

  663

  84·4

  623

  79·4

  —

  20·6

  June 1987

  824

  731

  88·8

  93

  11·2

  699

  84·9

  665

  80·7

  —

  19·3

  June 1988

  872

  775

  88·8

  97

  11·2

  742

  85·1

  697

  79·9

  —

  20·1

  June 1989

  936

  817

  87·3

  119

  12·7

  787

  84·1

  734

  78·4

  —

  21·6

  June 1990

  964

  868

  90·0

  96

  10·0

  827

  85·7

  784

  81·3

  —

  18·7

  June 1991

  931

  799

  85·8

  132

  14·2

  802

  86·1

  725

  77·9

  —

  22·1

  June 1992

  921

  825

  89·6

  96

  10·4

  844

  91·6

  781

  84·8

  —

  15·2

  June 1993

  900

  821

  91·2

  79

  8·8

  848

  94·2

  792

  88·0

  —

  12·0

  Convictions by the Department under the Companies Act 1985–93 (inclusive)

  Directors convicted

  Companies involved

  1985

  1,699

  775

  1986

  1,694

  899

  1987

  1,628

  927

  1988

  1,448

  1,016

  1989

  1,269

  956

  1990

  1,245

  1,005

  1991

  1,581

  1,284

  1992

  1,549

  1,080

  1993

  1,897

  1,168

  Companies removed from the registers, 1985 to 1993

  Number

  1985

  51,100

  1986

  95,500

  1987

  74,300

  1988

  67,200

  1989

  103,000

  1990

  82,726

  1991

  95,886

  1992

  128,760

  1993

  108,798

  Pennine Commercial Holdings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the inspectors to inquire into the affairs of Pennine Commercial Holdings were appointed; when the inquiry was completed; what are the business connections of the inspectors; whether any of them came from the accountancy firms criticised in any DTI inspectors'230
  on the company's record. I must emphasise, that dissolution action is not intended to be a punishment for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Companies Act.
  Finally, I can assure you that Companies House is committed in everything it does to balance the interests of limited companies who have a statutory duty to provide information, with the interests of the public who have a right by law to such information. If records at Companies House are up-to-date, companies can be investigated and assessed before any dealings take place and a great deal of financial uncertainty and, as is so often the case today, the loss of hard earned money may be avoided.
  I hope that I have correctly interpreted the questions which you have tabled and that I have covered the points raised. Should you, however, require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.

  reports; what is the cost of the investigation and how it has been disbursed to each inspector; what reports so far have been published; and when he will publish the final reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Elizabeth Appleby QC and Peter Wilfred Foss FCA of Moores Rowland were appointed inspectors of Pennine Commercial Holdings plc on 4 October 1983 under the provisions of Section 165(1)(b) of the Companies Act 1948 (now section 432 of the Companies Act 1985). The inspectors have not been criticised in any DTI inspection report. The inspectors are reviewing their interim report on Pennine Commercial Holdings with a view to submitting a final report following the conclusion of criminal proceedings. When the completed report is submitted, publication will be considered. The cost of the investigation to date is £384,000 of which £35,000 relates to the legal inspector, and the balance to Mr. Foss's firm.

  Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department started sending copies of the DTI inspectors' reports to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England; and what were the reasons for the decision to do so.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 28 October 1992. It has long been the practice to send copies of published reports to the institute in appropriate cases. Section 449(1)(L) of the Companies Act 1985 introduced the ability to pass to the Institute copies of reports prior to publication. The first such disclosure was in 1988.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if partners from the auditing firm criticized in the DTI inspectors' reports on Sound Diffusion, Rotaprint, Alexander Howden, Edecorp, Milbury and WMD Underwritting agencies are present on the Auditing Practices Board or its working parties.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The constitution of the Auditing Practices Board is a matter for the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will introduce legislation under which auditors would owe a duty of care to individual creditors;

  (2) if he will introduce legislation under which auditors would owe a duty of care to individual shareholders.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Al Saudi Banque
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislative proposals he has for the reversal of the 1989 Al Saudi Banque judgment.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no such proposals.

  Chile (Alcohol Trade)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what details are available of the annual value of Chilean wine imported into the United Kingdom; and what is the annual value of the Scotch whisky exported to Chile.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the annual value of wine imported into the United Kingdom from Chile is available from 1988 onwards. The annual 1993 value of imports into the United Kingdom was £7·4 million. Information on the annual value of Scotch whisky exported to Chile is not identified separately from exports of Irish whiskey in the United Kingdom trade classification.

HEALTH

  Temazepam
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total net ingredient cost of the drug temazepam in each NHS region and family health services authority area in 1991–92 and 1992–93, and for the six-month period 1 April 1993 to 1 October 1993; and if she will express these figures as an expenditure per head of population.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Information prior to October 1991 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 165, if she will list by region hospital closures which have been contested by community health councils in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following known hospital closures were initially contested by community health councils and 232
  remained contested throughout the consultation period. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Hospital closures which have been contested in this way since 1988 are as:
  REGION

  Northern:

  Ponteland and Lemington Hospitals, Newcastle

  Yorkshire:

  Grove Hospital, Ilkley

  Brandesburton Long Stay, Hull

  Trent:

  Balderton Hospital, Newark

  Scarsdale Hospital, Chesterfield

  East Anglian:

  Newmarket Hospital, Suffolk

  North West Thames:

  Clapham Hospital

  South Middlesex Hospital

  Westminster Hospital

  West London Hospital

  Westminster Children's Hospital

  St. Mary Abbots Hospital

  St. Stephens Hospital

  North East Thames:

  Rush Green Hospital

  South East Thames:

  Sydenham Children's Hospital

  South West Thames:

  St. James' Hospital

  Wessex:

  None

  Oxford:

  Iver Cottage Hospital, Berkshire

  South Western:

  Almondsbury Hospital, Almondsbury

  Standish Hospital, Stonehouse

  West Midlands:

  Mill Street Hospital, Kidderminster

  Birmingham Accident Hospital

  Mersey:

  St. Paul's Eye Hospital, Liverpool

  North Western:

  Whittingham Hospital, Preston

  Drugs
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of which named drugs she has asked in the period since 1 April 1993 family health services authorities, general practitioners fundholders and general practitioners generally to review their prescription practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Family health services authorities are responsible for working with general practitioners to improve the cost effectiveness of prescribing. It is for local decision whether the use of particular categories of drugs is targeted for review depending on local prescribing patterns.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) first or second in line managers and (b) medical consultants who were employed by regional health authorities at the time she announced her decision to reduce the number of regions from 14 to eight have been moved, or will move later this year, to other posts in the NHS on protected salaries;

  (2) for each of the 14 regional health authorities, how many (a) first and second in line managers and (b) medical consultants have (i) been appointed to a post in one of the eight merged regions, (ii) been appointed to a newly created post with a district health authority, (iii) been appointed to a previously established but vacant post with a district health authority, (iv) obtained employment outside the NHS and (v) become or expect in April 1994 to become unemployed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All employees of the 12 existing regional health authorities which are affected by mergers on 1 April 1994 will transfer to six new regional health authorities with effect from that date. Employees' employment rights will be protected by the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE).

  Appointments to posts in the new regional health authorities and in district health authorities, and the terms of those appointments, are matters for the employing authority.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each of the 14 regional health authorities, how much money has been set aside for(a) redundancy or severance pay and for paying for early retirements and (b) for paying protected salaries in the forthcoming year, to employees who will lose their job as a result of the merger of regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Questions of redundancy will be determined by the level of staffing identified as being needed to carry out the functions of national health service central management. This will depend upon the analysis of functions carried out in the NHS and the allocation of functions across the new structure. It is not therefore possible at this stage to estimate the cost of implementing the proposals to streamline NHS central management.

  Cognex
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to make available Cognex —Tacrine—to United Kingdom patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  Cognex—Tacrine—is not currently licensed to the United Kingdom. However, under the Medicines Act doctors have clinical freedom to treat particular named patients with unlicensed medicines.

  Emphysema
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has conducted or commissioned into the number of work-related incidences of chronic emphysema that have occurred since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. However, the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from my 234
  right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, spent £1,097,000 in 1992–93 on research into the respiratory system, some of which may be of relevance to emphysema.

  Generic Prescribing
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards generic prescribing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Successive Governments have encouraged the use of generic drugs where these are available and clinically appropriate.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the whole-time equivalent numbers of(a) agency and (b) bank nursing and midwifery staff employed in the NHS for each year since 1987.

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

  Bank and agency nursing and midwifery staff—England at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Year

  Bank

  Agency

  1987

  4,920

  6,130

  1988

  5,830

  6,240

  1989

  5,910

  7,230

  1990

  6,230

  6,710

  1991

  8,540

  3,930

  1992

  10,020

  3,230

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  The increase in bank nurses and midwives together with the corresponding decrease in agency nurses and midwives reflects the more widespread flexible working arrangements in the NHS for nurses and midwives.

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the dates Ministers, or officials from her Department, including her Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985 including this year to date on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since 1 April 1993 no Minister or official from the Department of Health has used the Malaysia airline MAS on official business. Prior to that date information is not available.

  Oral Health Strategy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when her Department is expecting to produce an oral health strategy; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 18 February at column 1042.

  Prescription Medicines
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 4 March,Official Report,

  235
  column 917, what has been the annual rate of growth of the price index for national health service medicines since 1978.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A single price index is not available for all national health service medicines. The annual rate of growth of the price index for family health services medicines since 1977–78 has been about 2·5 per cent.

  Pollution
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of known environmental carcinogens she estimates result from vehicle emissions.

  Mr. Sackville
  The known environmental carcinogens produced by vehicle exhaust emissions are benzene; 1, 3-butadiene; and some polyaromatic hydrocarbons—PAHs—.

  The expert panel on air quality standards—EPAQS—which advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has reported estimates that 87 per cent. of benzene emissions to the atmosphere are derived from vehicle exhausts. Benzene is classified by the International Agency for Research in Cancer—IARC—as a known human carcinogen. There are other sources of benzene to which people are exposed such as the diet, water and cigarette smoke. The panel has estimated that an urban non-smoker would take in between 61 per cent. and 80 per cent. of daily exposure from inhaled air.

  Other than local leaks from industrial plants, vehicle exhaust emissions are the only source of 1, 3-butadiene in the atmosphere. IARC has classified this compound as a probable human carcinogen.

  The quality of urban air review group—QUARG—which advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has estimated that 14 per cent. of the emissions to the atmosphere of PAHs derive from vehicle exhausts. IARC has classified some PAHs as probable human carcinogens, some as possible human carcinogens, and others, it has not classified.

  The classification of carcinogens by IARC is widely accepted and is based on an assessment of the available research findings. Only where this includes human studies are chemicals classified as a known human carcinogen.

  The reports of EPAQS and QUARG are available in the Library.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage target the NHS Supplies Authority has set for annual purchasing saving.

  Mr. Sackville
  At least 4 per cent. of the total aggregate value of all contracts negotiated for national health service customers within the year.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent to date on the commissioning of a management consultancy to draw up a strategic plan to attract inward investment from United States and Japanese pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies; and what is the total budget allocation for the project.

  Mr. Sackville
  Consultancy support in drawing up an inward investment strategy has been commissioned at a236
  cost of £25,000. The budget for implementing the strategy will be determined when the initial stage has been completed.

  High Blood Pressure
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to enable patients who require treatment for high blood pressure to use public swimming pools free of charge.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Drugs Companies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the annual saving to the NHS arising from drug companies supplying certain drugs free to hospitals for each of the last five years; what assessment she has made of this practice for the health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware that some drug companies supply drugs free of charge to hospitals either as samples or where clinical trials are in progress. Information on the extent of these supplies is not available centrally.

  Hotel Use
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of the use of private hotels for management, training and conference purposes by NHS staff and executive and non-executive members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) trusts, (c) district health authorities and (d) family health service authorities, by region and district in each of the last five years; and what are the reasons for the use of this accommodation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Use of private hotels is for each national health service body to determine on the basis of value for money, and costs cannot be separately identified from financial returns and accounts.

  Funding Allocation
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to NHS managers on how funds released by the closure or reduction of acute units are to be transferred to the primary health care sector.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Priorities and planning guidance 1994–95", EL(93)54, identifies this as a matter for regional health authorities to address, in conjunction with other national health service authorities and purchasers, in developing their investment strategies. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government's objective of transferring resources from the acute to the primary health sector is reflected(a) in the regional and national training plans for community nursing services and (b) in the regional and national plans for staff in post within community nursing services.

  Mr. Sackville
  Regional commission training places for non-medical staff, including community nurses, are based on provider unit forecasts for qualified staff in post required in five years' time.
  237
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each purchasing health authority in England, the figures for revenue funding in 1992–93,1993–94 and 1994–95, and the estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if she will identify the changes for each health authority's revenue budget resulting from the replacement of the regional allocation working party system of determining funding allocation.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information will be placed in the Library showing 1992–93 expenditure for each district health authority. It is the responsibility of regional health authorities to allocate resources to districts. Information on the total resources allocated to DHAs in 1993–94 and 1994–95 or assumptions about future allocations is not available centrally.

  The use of resource allocation working party (RAWP) targets was discontinued in 1990 when weighted capitation was introduced. Consequently, no RAWP targets are currently available for comparison with weighted capitation shares. Comparisons would not be meaningful. Under the old system authorities were funded for their "catchment population", whereas now they are purchasers of services for their resident population, with cross-boundary flows of patients being covered by payments under the national health service contracts.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts her Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has spent the following amounts from running costs on consultancy since its establishment as a separate Department:

  £

  1990–91

  18,398,000

  1991–92

  24,258,090

  1992–93

  18,399,000

  Information on the number of contracts is not available.

  Infant Mortality
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the infant mortality rates by region for the last available year and by sex.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Infant mortality rates1 by regional health authority for 1992

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  Males

  Females

  Northern

  8·1

  6·2

  Yorkshire

  7·5

  5·9

  Trent

  8·2

  5·4

  East Anglian

  5·6

  3·6

  North West Thames

  6·0

  4·9

  North East Thames

  8·3

  5·8

  South East Thames

  7·3

  5·4

  South West Thames

  6·0

  5·5

  Wessex

  6·1

  4·9

  Oxford

  6·3

  5·7

  South Western

  7·0

  4·0

  West Midlands

  8·9

  7·4

  Mersey

  6·4

  5·0

  238

  Regional Health Authority of usual residence

  Males

  Females

  North Western

  8·1

  7·3

  Wales

  6·3

  5·7

  1 Infant mortality deaths under one year per 1,000 livebirths.

  Disabled Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children suffer from a permanent disability.

  Mr. Bowis
  The 1985 survey of disability conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimated that 3·2 per cent. of children under 16 in Great Britain had disabilities.

  Breast Milk
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she takes to monitor regularly dioxins and similar substances in breast milk; what are her most recent findings; and what further plans she has.

  Mr. Sackville
  Two monitoring exercises have been carried out for dioxins in human milk in the United Kingdom, both as part of a World Health Organisation (WHO) Regional Office for Europe initiative. The results of the first exercise were reported in pollution paper No.27: Dioxins in the Environment (HMSO: London, 1989). The second exercise is nearing completion and the results will be published in due course.

  Results of the most recent analyses of human milk for total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides were published in Food Surveillance Paper No. 34: Report of the Working Party on Pesticides Residues: 1988–1990 (HMSO: London, 1992). Further analysis of specific PCB compounds is under way as part of the second WHO exercise, referred to above.

  The need for monitoring of human milk for these contaminants is kept under review by the relevant working parties of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's steering group on chemical aspects of food surveillance, on which the Department of Health is represented.

  Copies of both papers are available in the Library.

  Homeless Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of homeless children for the last available year by region.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Lead Contamination
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had or will have with colleagues in other Departments regarding the phasing-out of leaded petrol and lead water pipes in homes and schools.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is in regular contact with the Department of the Environment which is responsible for matters relating to lead in the environment. As part of the Government's policy of reducing public exposure to lead, we cut wherever possible, the permitted amount of lead in petrol from 0·4 to 0·15 grammes per litre
  239
  in 1985. We have also encouraged the widespread use of unleaded petrol which now accounts for 55 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. All new cars must now be built to run on unleaded petrol and have catalytic converters fitted; these do not operate effectively if used with leaded petrol. This action should raise the market share of unleaded petrol to at least 90 per cent. by the year 2000.

  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, as amended, require that drinking water at the point where the water is supplied contains no more than 50 mcg of lead per litre. This standard is more rigorous than the requirements of the European Community Drinking Water Directive. The Commission is currently drafting a new directive. When the position on the new directive is clearer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be discussing with us any further action on levels of lead in drinking water.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were not on waiting lists for treatment but were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service in each region for each quarter for the last two years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on waiting times to first out-patient appointment is not collected. This year regional health authorities have set targets for first out-patient appointments and are aiming to reduce those that are unacceptably long. Most people who attend out-patient clinics are not placed on an in-patient or day case waiting list as they are either treated immediately or do not require any treatment.

  Estimated number of children looked after in residential accommodation because parents need relief from the stresses of caring for a child with disabilities at 31 March 1992

  Social Services Inspectorate Regions [note]

  All children

  Total boys

  Under one

  1 to 4

  5 to 9

  10 to 15

  16 to 17

  18 and over

  Total girls

  Under one

  1 to 4

  5 to 9

  10 to 15

  16 to 17

  18 and over

  England

  380

  250

  0

  0

  40

  150

  50

  10

  130

  0

  (*)

  20

  70

  20

  10

  Shire Counties

  110

  80

  0

  0

  10

  40

  20

  (*)

  40

  0

  (*)

  (*)

  20

  10

  0

  North of England

  20

  20

  0

  0

  (*)

  10

  (*)

  0

  (*)

  0

  (*)

  0

  0

  (*)

  0

  Central England

  30

  20

  0

  0

  (*)

  10

  10

  (*)

  10

  0

  0

  0

  10

  (*)

  0

  Southern England

  60

  30

  0

  0

  (*)

  20

  10

  0

  30

  0

  0

  (*)

  20

  10

  0

  Metropolitan Districts

  130

  80

  0

  0

  20

  50

  10

  (*)

  40

  0

  0

  10

  30

  10

  (*)

  North of England

  130

  80

  0

  0

  20

  50

  10

  (*)

  40

  0

  0

  10

  30

  10

  (*)

  Central England

  (*)

  (*)

  0

  0

  0

  (*)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  London

  140

  90

  0

  0

  20

  50

  20

  (*)

  50

  0

  (*)

  20

  20

  10

  10

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to SSI policy regions.

  2. Separate estimation procedures have been used for each region and figures rounded to the nearest 10. They will not necessarily add to totals.

  * Indicates less than 5 children.

  4. Short term placements covered by a single agreement are excluded.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she takes to monitor local authorities' duties under the Children Act 1989 to identify children with disabilities and provide or make available services which might benefit them.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health publishes annual reports on the operations and achievements of the Children Act 1989. The 1993 report will be available shortly and will include a commentary on the services provided by local authorities for children with disabilities. In February 1994, the social services

  Child Protection Register
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) boys and (b) girls were on a child protection register for the latest available year for each age cohort.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  Estimated numbers of children and young people on child protection registers in England at 31 March 1993, by age and sex

  Age Group

  All children

  Boys

  Girls

  All Ages

  32,500

  16,000

  16,400

  Under 1

  2,300

  1,200

  1,200

  1–4

  9,900

  5,100

  4,800

  5–9

  10,000

  5,200

  4,700

  10–15

  9,100

  4,100

  5,000

  16 and over

  1,100

  400

  700

  Notes:— Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 and may not add up due to rounding.

  The figure for "all ages, all children" includes unborn children.

  Disabled Children
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled children are in residential care for each age cohort, by sex and by region.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally, about the number of disabled children in residential care, relates to children looked after because their parents need relief from problems or stresses of caring for them. Information for 31 March 1992 is shown in the table.

  inspectorate pulished a report of a national inspection of local authority services to disabled children and their families, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Haemodialysls
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made by health authorities to pay the extra cost of water and heating bills for patients requiring haemodialysis treatment at home; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are responsible for meeting costs connected with home haemodialysis including the cost of maintaining the dialysis room at the
  241
  appropriate temperature. From 1 April 1994 health authorities will also be responsible for meeting the cost of water used in the course of home haemodialysis by patients whose water supply is metered by their local water company.

  Psychiatric Problems (Children)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of children in the United Kingdom who have a psychiatric/psychological problem which handicaps them for a year or more.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on duration of handicap is not collected by the Department. It is estimated that at any

  Males

  Females

  Persons

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  Mental Illness (Finished Consultant Episodes) 1990–91 Provisional

  Northern

  24

  42

  62

  11

  16

  47

  35

  58

  109

  Yorkshire

  53

  58

  66

  41

  29

  74

  95

  86

  140

  Trent

  18

  22

  79

  1

  17

  66

  19

  38

  145

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  20

  0

  1

  19

  3

  4

  39

  North West Thames

  24

  2

  36

  20

  0

  26

  44

  2

  62

  North East Thames

  15

  2

  45

  12

  0

  58

  28

  2

  103

  South East Thames

  9

  6

  6

  5

  2

  28

  13

  9

  34

  South West Thames

  6

  25

  34

  14

  7

  18

  20

  32

  52

  Wessex

  44

  44

  25

  16

  23

  24

  60

  67

  49

  Oxford

  32

  48

  59

  19

  11

  110

  50

  59

  169

  South Western

  4

  51

  103

  2

  4

  80

  6

  55

  183

  West Midlands

  36

  20

  37

  17

  9

  63

  54

  29

  100

  Mersey

  15

  18

  47

  13

  5

  27

  28

  23

  73

  North Western

  6

  321

  72

  6

  183

  95

  13

  504

  167

  Special Health Authorities

  2

  22

  33

  4

  7

  28

  6

  30

  61

  Total

  290

  683

  724

  181

  315

  763

  472

  998

  1,487

  Notes:

  1. It should be noted that the figures in the table relate to finished consultant episodes and not to individuals, as a patient may be admitted more than once during the year.

  2. The total figures do not always match the separate figures for males and females due to rounding.

  Allergies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the number of(a) boys and (b) girls in the United Kingdom having chemical and food intolerance allergies for each age cohort and by sex.

  Mr. Sackville
  Such estimates are not available.

  Uganda Treasury (Debt)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will encourage the International Monetary Fund to sell off part of its gold stocks to generate the resources to write off debt owed to the fund by Uganda.

  (2) if he will consider establishing a debt relief fund for Uganda, additional to the existing aid budget, to help Uganda meet its repayment obligations to multilateral lending agencies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Although Uganda is severely indebted, net transfers from the international financial institutions—IFIs —remain substantially in Uganda's favour. Most IFI support for Uganda is on highly concessional terms, thus reducing the debt service burden.

  Debt to the IMF does not account for a high proportion of Uganda's debt stock. Uganda has benefited from highly
  242
  point, between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of children and teenagers have worries or problems severe enough to need help in overcoming them.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of hospital admissions for mental illness for the latest available year for each age cohort for children by sex and by region.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information relating to the admission of children into hospitals is not available in the precise form requested. 'Provisional information available centrally on the number of finished consultants episodes in the mental illness specialties in 1990–91 is shown in the table.

  concessional IMF assistance under the enhanced structural adjustment facility—ESAF—and, subject to continuing to pursue appropriate economic policies, is expected to receive further assistance under the enlarged ESAF. The United Kingdom was a prime mover in the establishment of ESAF in 1987 and has just agreed a further contribution of £50 million to enlarge the facility to help the poorest countries such as Uganda. The United Kingdom will over time contribute one ninth of the subsidy required by the enlarged ESAF. Uganda also benefits from highly concessional credits from the World Bank's International Development Association, which concentrates on lending to the poorest countries. The United Kingdom contributed £620 million to the IDA at the last replenishment. In addition, Uganda has help meeting its repayments on non-concessional loans to the bank through the bank's fifth dimension facility.

  While the United Kingdom has advocated sales of IMF gold in the past, this has been to fund targeted concessional facilities such as ESAF rather than debt write-off. The United Kingdom believes that continued targeted concessional financial assistance is the best response by the IFIs to the debt problem of the poorest countries such as Uganda. Debt write-offs even if financed by gold sales would, by running down these institutions' assets and increasing their financing costs, weaken their financial

  243
  standing and hence their ability to assist all developing countries. Both the IMF's and the World bank's funds are finite and revolving and intended to be available for use by members when and where they are most needed.

  Uganda also has help in meeting its debt service obligations through concessional terms for its official debt. The United Kingdom has been a prime mover for this. The existing Trinidad terms which have the effect of halving payments due to creditor Governments over the period of an IMF agreement and give a commitment to consider reducing the stock of a country's reschedulable debt after three to four years of economic reform, are based on an initiative by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor. The United Kingdom continues to press other official creditors to agree to immediate stock of debt reduction, with reductions up to 80 per cent. for the most needy, for countries which have a one to two year track record of economic reform and are up to date with their debt servicing.

  The United Kingdom believes that the approach outlined above is the most effective response to Ugandan debt and that a debt relief fund would not be a cost-effective or necessary use of the United Kingdom aid programme for Uganda.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is set out in the publication "Independent", which was published on 18 March 1994, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the increase in the exchange rate against the ecu since February 1993 has had on the profitability of United Kingdom exports to the rest of the EC of manufactured goods; and what is his assessment of the part that played in the sale of Rover cars to BMW.

  Mr. Nelson
  The profitability of United Kingdom exports of manufactures to the rest of the EC depends on a number of factors. No estimate is available of the effect on such profitability of the exchange rate against the ecu. The sale of Rover to BMW is a matter for the firms themselves.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the visible balance of trade in manufactures on a balance of payments basis as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1971, 1979, 1989 and estimated for 1993: what assessment he has made of the reason for the changes; and whether he will publish the change in the (i) nominal and (ii) real rate of exchange which the treasury model of the economy shows would be required to restore the balance in terms of gross domestic product to what it was in (iii) 1978 and (iv) 1971.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the visible balance of trade in manufactures and for gross domestic product are available on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The identifiers are BPJF and 244
  CAOB. A country's visible trade balance depends on the strength of its own domestic demand and that of its trading partners, and on the level of its competitiveness.

  All members have access to the Treasury model through the House of Commons Library. It is Treasury practice not to provide the results of model simulations in answer to parliamentary questions. This is due both to the excessive cost involved and the difficulty in making appropriate assumptions without knowing the context in which the figures will be used.

  Economic Indicators
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the changes in(a) the real exchange rate, (b) the balance of trade in manufactures and (c) the rate of economic growth since 1964; and what assessment he has made of the extent of correlation between these indicators.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no unambiguous definition of the real exchange rate. A variety of indicators is available. These are published in "Economic Trends", table 28. These, along with the balance of trade in manufacturers and GDP are also available on the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. Some useful identifiers include:

  FLAA—relative export prices;

  FLAC—relative unit labour costs;

  BPJF—the manufactures balance;

  CAOP—GDP at factor costs.

  Correlation coefficients, calculated from these data, are set out in table 1.

  Table 1: Estimated Correlation Matrix of Variables (1964–91)

  FLAA

  BPJF

  CAOP

  FLAC

  FLAA

  1.0000

  —

  —

  —

  BPJF

  .21237

  1.0000

  —

  —

  CAOP

  -.17787

  -.71785

  1.0000

  —

  FLAC

  .96217

  .19706

  -.23963

  1.0000

  Annual data for the competitiveness measures are not yet available for 1992 and 1993 on the CSO database.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part the deputy governor of the Bank of England plays in the formulation of interest rate policy; and whether the views he has recently expressed on the prospects for inflation represent those of the Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  Decisions on interest rates are a matter for Ministers, advised by Treasury officials and the Bank of England. In his speech to the Institute of Credit Management on 9 March, the deputy governor warned of the dangers of relaxing the fight against inflation. The Government will continue to set interest rates to meet their objectives for low inflation.

  Diesel Fuel
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce fiscal measures to discourage the use of diesel as a motor engine fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans at present to introduce such measures.

  Gas Fuel
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce fiscal incentives to encourage buses and taxis to run on gas fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans at present to introduce further measures.

  Petrol Aromatics
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce fiscal incentives to petrol producers to reformulate petrol by removing aromatics.

  Sir John Cope
  There are no plans at present to introduce such incentives.

  Food Exports
  Mr.Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been received by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise from Commission auditors in respect of the examining of food exports by the offloading of containers at any particular port.

  Sir John Cope
  Following a visit to the United Kingdom Customs in 1993, Commission auditors expressed dissatisfaction with the depth and rigour of examination of exports where common agricultural policy refunds were claimed. As a result, Customs issued more detailed guidance to staff on the standards to be observed.

  Betting Duty
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 222, how much general betting duty the Exchequer collected between November 1993 and January 1994.

  Sir John Cope
  Receipts from general betting duty in the three months November 1993 to January 1994 totalled £108 million. General betting duty is paid in the month following that in which the duty accrues. Thus the receipts for November 1993 to January 1994 relate to races run the months of October to December 1993.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he received asking for the deletion of clause 241 of the Finance Bill or to have it amended following consultation between the Treasury and the Institute of Chartered Accountants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Following representations made before and during the Committee stage debate on 17 March, the clause has been withdrawn. The Government have given a commitment to bring the matter back before the House in the next Finance Bill, which will allow the Inland Revenue and professional institutes an opportunity for consultations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the correlation coefficient, lagged or otherwise, between the rate of exchange and(a) the percentage of adult males of working age in work and (b) the rate of unemployment since 1964.
  246
  Mr. Nelson
  The correlation coefficients can be calculated from information available in the House of Commons Library. Population, employment, and unemployment figures from 1981 are available on the NOMIS database. Employment and unemployment figures before 1981 are published in the Employment Gazette. Population figures before 1981 are available from the population estimates unit of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Figures for sterling exchange rates index are published, for example, in Economic Trends.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the correlation coefficient, lagged or otherwise, between the rate of inflation and(a) the percentage of adult males of working age in work and (b) the rate of unemployment since 1964.

  Mr. Nelson
  The correlation coefficients can be calculated from information available in the House of Commons Library. Population, employment, and unemployment figures from 1981 are available on the NOMIS database. Employment and unemployment figures before 1981 are published in the Employment Gazette. Population figures before 1981 are available from the population estimates unit of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Figures for the Retail Prices Index are published in Economic Trends.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what level the national insurance upper earnings limit would now be set had it increased at the same rate as the average earnings index since 1989; and what additional amounts in each year that would have raised.

  Mr. Hague
  I have been asked to reply.

  The upper earnings limit is statutorily linked to the level of the basic pension. If the limit had been raised instead in line with the increase in average earnings since 1989, and rounded to the nearest pound, it would now be £442. The additional amounts that would have been raised in each year are in the table:

  Additional national insurance contributions raised

  Year

  (£ million)

  1990–91

  45

  1991–92

  10

  1992–93

  100

  1993–94

  140

  1 In the year to September 1990 prices rose more than earnings, and the upper earnings limit would not have been higher in 1991–92.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Balfour Beatty
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of cases in which Balfour Beatty has received aid moneys, otherwise than in connection with the Pergau dam project, from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the World bank or (c) other multilateral organisations in respect of work in developing countries with which the United Kingdom has significant aid ties, which the company has subsequently had to return following failure to complete the work.
  247
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under(a) we know of only one aid and trade provision case involving Balfour Beatty in which a project has had to be terminated and aid moneys returned. The project in question was the mini-hydros project in Peru, which was approved in July 1982 involving an ATP grant of £4,843,000. The project was frustrated because the local institution, Electroperu, failed to meet its contractual obligations, did not complete associated civil works and defaulted on its bank loan. The project was also hampered by the local security situation. At no point during the contract did any United Kingdom party fail to fulfil its obligations.

  For projects under (b) the World bank and (c) other multilateral organisations, the ODA does not hold details of contracts placed with United Kingdom firms by these institutions and such information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. The Pergau dam project is 60 per cent. complete and is on schedule for completion in August 1996.

  Biodiversity
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation regarding its expertise in biodiversity, particularly in respect of discussions on the global environment facility; and what action the Government are taking to discourage unnecessary duplication in the United Nations system.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have had no consultations with UNESCO in this area. In relation to the global environment facility the instrument establishing the restructured GEF, agreed in Geneva on 16 March, is designed to encourage co-operation in the United Nations system.

  Pergau Dam
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the environmental impact report from the consultant sent to assess the Pergau dam project in early February 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have placed a copy of the report entitled "Pergau Hydro-Electric Project: Environmental and Socio-Economic Issues" in the Library today.

  Earth-scanning Radar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether consideration has been given to the provision of earth-scanning radar equipment similar to that in use in the Gloucester murder inquiry for use in de-mining operations supported under the United Kingdom overseas aid budget.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our role in humanitarian mine clearance operations continues to be one of funding organisations with suitable programmes. We have not to date received any proposals using advanced technology, but would consider funding the use of any appropriate technology which would speed up mine eradication.

  Peru
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is to be given to Peru in the coming year; and for what it has been allocated.
  248
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Bilateral aid to Peru during the coming year will be largely technical co-operation. Expenditure is likely to amount to approximately £3 million in 1994–95 financial year. This involves agreed activities in animal health, renewable energy generation, teacher training, scholarships for technical training for Peruvians in the United Kingdom, and small development projects managed through the British embassy.

  Further projects either under development or planned will be directed mainly to support for health service reform, family planning and reproductive health services, renewable' natural resources and water conservation. Assistance will also be provided through funds made available to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations under the joint funding scheme. In 1994–95 this support is likely to amount to over £1 million for activities in a wide variety of sectors.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take to ensure that the Government of South Africa after the elections of 27 April will promote educational opportunities for all; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Currently more than half of our bilateral aid to South Africa is spent on increasing access to, and improving the quality of, education and training for those disadvantaged by past policies. Education will continue to feature prominently in our growing aid programme, now running at some £15 million a year.

  We will discuss with the new South African Government how best to support their efforts to reconstruct the education system on a professional, equitable and affordable basis.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in which aid and trade provision agreements since 1979 International Military Services Ltd. has played a role; and if he will give details of the company's involvement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  International Military Services Ltd. has not been lead contractor on any ATP projects. The names of subcontractors on ATP projects are not held centrally by either ODA or DTI and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. We are not aware of any role played by International Military Services Ltd. in any ATP agreement since 1979.

  Banana Producers
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current United Kingdom position on the European Community proposal for aid to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have proposed to the Commission amendments to the proposal which link assistance to restructuring and diversification. We will support the proposal if these amendments are agreed.

TRANSPORT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Norris
  The information required is not held in the form requested.

  There have been 14 questions this parliamentary session which were referred to the chief executives of the Department's executive agencies. This represents 0·84 per cent.

  Red Routes, London
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of fuel pollution resulting from the introduction of red routes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Estimates of the reductions in vehicle emissions are set out in section 13 of the Transport Research Laboratory report on the pilot red route scheme (project report 31, 1993), a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on traffic volumes on the roads involved resulting from the introduction of red routes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory's assessment of the pilot red route scheme in north and east London concluded that many vehicles had rerouted from inappropriate roads onto the red route, but that there was not a large volume of new traffic.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in ensuring tighter security for passengers at United Kingdom airports.

  Mr. Norris
  Since the Lockerbie tragedy there have been substantial improvements in aviation security in the United Kingdom both for passengers and for staff. Further improvements are being made in baggage screening and in acounting and authorising for carriage of all hold baggage on international flights.

  The Department of Transport sets training standards for staff working in civil aviation who receive terrorist warnings, and for the national aviation security programme which covers, among other things, airport authorities' contingency plans, staff instructions, training programme and exercises.

  Public Transport (Gas Guel)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to promote research and development of gas fuelling for buses and taxis.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 March at col 9.

  Bus Lanes, London
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend the number of designated bus lanes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 15 March at column 652.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a probationary period for newly qualified drivers.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend announced on 9 February at columns 270–71 the steps we are proposing to take following the consultation on "New Driver Safety". We are considering the practicalities of a scheme requiring drivers convicted of certain traffic offences within a pecified period of qualifying to pass a further driving test; this might involve issuing licences on a probationary basis.

  We also considered the case for introducing probationary plates, but are not yet convinced of its merits; we are prepared to consider this further when full results are available of a study into "restricted" plates in Northern Ireland.

  Exclusion Zones, London
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce more traffic exclusion zones in central London.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for local highway authorities, who are responsible for local roads in central London.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of pollution caused by diesel engines relative to other forms of fuel used in transportation.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Public Transport gave to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 21 October 1993 at column 298 and the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 March at column 9.

  British Rail Pension Funds
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the future of British Rail pension funds.

  Mr. Freeman
  Soon.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the figure Q for the elasticity of journey time for the channel tunnel rail link for(a) international passengers and (b) domestic commuters.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways has used several models when forecasting demand for domestic and international services. The information contained in these models is commercially confidential, given its relationship with marketing and pricing strategies.

  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to seek powers in the legislation for the proposed channel tunnel rail link to enable the new crossings of the Medway, for the rail link and for the M2 motorway, to be built at the same time.

  Mr. Freeman
  I intend that the legislation for the new channel tunnel rail link, which the Government aim to have ready for introduction as soon as parliamentary time allows, should include powers for a scheme to improve the M2 motorway from junction 1 to junction 4, enabling the two new bridges across the Medway to be built concurrently.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on light dues.

  Mr. Norris
  I am pleased to announce that light dues for 1994–95 will be frozen at the levels set in March 1993. I am able to do so largely because the three general lighthouse authorities are to contain their expenditure proposals for 1994–95 broadly within the levels set for 1993–94. This has been made possible by further savings from the automation of lighthouses and by the authorities entering into co-operative arrangements which will enable a reduction to be made of one ship in the lighthouse tender fleet.

  I commend the general lighthouse authorities for taking this initiative.

  Shipping (Hazardous Cargoes)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to keep shipping with hazardous cargoes away from areas of environmental sensitivity.

  Mr. Norris
  Measures are in place to keep ships carrying hazardous cargoes away from environmentally sensitive areas. These include "areas to be avoided" off the islands of Orkney and Shetland, around Fair Isle, and between the Smalls lighthouse and Grossholme island. In addition, there is a defined deep water route to the west of the Hebrides. Further measures to protect the coast will take account of any recommendations made by the inquiry announced to the House by the Secretary of State on 11 January 1993 under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson of Lymington.

  Greater Manchester Buses North Ltd.
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Corporate Finance Services on behalf of the employee buyout team of Greater Manchester Buses North Ltd.; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.
  252
  Mr. Freeman
  I have received a number of representations about the sale of both Greater Manchester Buses North and Greater Manchester Buses South recently. Amongst these was a letter about the sale of the North company from Coopers and Lybrand, Corporate Finance Services dated 15 March, to which an acknowledgement was sent on 17 March.

  The Secretary of State's consent to both sales will eventually be required. In view of his quasi-judicial function in these sales it would not be appropriate for me to comment further or make a statement.

  Westlink
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects Stanwell Buses Ltd., trading as Westlink, to be sold.

  Mr. Norris
  London Buses Ltd. sold Stanwell Buses Ltd., trading as Westlink, to a management buy-out team for £1·937 million on 19 January.

  M1
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that a public explanation is offered for the confusion and delay which severely affected traffic on the northbound carriageway of the M1 north of junction 29 on 13 and 14 March; what action is being taken to avoid a recurrence of such an experience; and what redress those affected have available under the terms of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: During the night of 13 and 14 March, changes were being made to the traffic management on the major maintenance scheme to the north of junction 30 on the M1. These changes were agreed between the resident engineer, the contractor and the police and were planned to occur during a period of light traffic flow to minimise the delays and confusion to traffic. On Sunday 13 March heavy rain and gales threatened to make the work more difficult and, with the agreement of the police, work started at 2030—earlier than planned. This decision was taken to ensure that the changes were completed before the Monday morning rush hour.

  Unfortunately some inconvenience is inevitable during essential changes in traffic management. Clearly every effort was made to minimise inconvenience and delay during essential maintenance work and therefore there is no redress under the citizens charter. I am sorry that members of the public suffered delay and confusion on this scheme, which has now been completed ahead of schedule.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what percentage of people taking their driving test in March 199330 had waited more than six weeks for their test.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive Dr. S. J. Ford. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. S. J. Ford to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 7 February 1994:
  253
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the percentage of people taking their driving test in March 1993 who had waited more than six weeks for their test.

  The Agency measures the waiting time for tests on the basis of the size of the queue waiting for a test in relation to the examiner resource available to conduct tests. It does not have statistics that measure precisely the wait experienced by individual customers. Instead we use our annual, independent customer surveys to provide insight into the experiences of customers.

  The last such survey was conducted in May 1993. The sample of candidates surveyed was selected from those who had taken a test in the previous two months. The response, from nearly 2,000 driving test candidates across the country, indicated that 90 per cent. waited 6 weeks or less between the date of making the appointment and the date the test was conducted.

  During January and February 1993, when customers would generally have been seeking test appointments in March, appointments were available at over 90 per cent. of our permanent centres within 6 weeks and at all permanent centres within 10 weeks, with an average of 3 to 4 weeks ahead of the date of application.

  Vehicle Inspections
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) in which vehicle inspectorate testing stations the operating costs of the station exceeds the amount of revenue generated through test fees;

  (2) if he will list his Department's vehicle inspectorate testing stations; in which parliamentary constituency each testing station lies; how many people are employed at each testing station; how many vehicles were tested at each testing station during the last year; and how much revenue was collected at each testing station in testing fees.

  1Testing volumes by stations

  1992–93

  PSV

  HGV

  Trailers

  District, sub-stations and constituency

  Class VII

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Total

  Revenue £

  2Cost £

  3Staff

  ABERDEEN

  Gordon

  144

  827

  5

  5,643

  45

  2,885

  30

  9,579

  256,193

  253,557

  12.9

  AMMANFORD

  Llanelli

  116

  1,738

  63

  5,614

  198

  2,245

  51

  10,025

  338,236

  331,857

  12.5

  Haverfordwest

  Pembroke

  406

  —

  —

  1,530

  31

  319

  2

  2,288

  —

  —

  3.2

  BEVERLEY

  Beverley

  202

  852

  20

  6,124

  92

  4,443

  25

  11,758

  306,375

  290,067

  14.2

  BICESTER

  Banbury

  820

  806

  24

  6,720

  86

  2,147

  22

  10,625

  274,773

  233,454

  13.2

  BIRMINGHAM

  Birmingham, Yardley

  744

  2,876

  27

  14,081

  158

  4,413

  22

  22,321

  630,709

  607,788

  30.6

  BISHOPBRIGGS

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  2,249

  3,569

  82

  12,051

  357

  6,775

  47

  25,110

  648,641

  659,887

  32.3

  Lochgilphead

  Argyll and Bute

  166

  —

  —

  458

  3

  112

  0

  739

  —

  —

  —

  BREDBURY

  Hazel Grove

  366

  2,454

  32

  16,040

  425

  8,447

  74

  27,838

  748,154

  601,985

  33.6

  BRISTOL

  Bristol, South

  794

  2,310

  29

  10,827

  303

  4,950

  39

  19,252

  797,659

  707,111

  27.2

  Calne

  Wiltshire, North

  340

  —

  —

  7,686

  162

  3,256

  56

  11,500

  —

  —

  9.2

  CANTERBURY

  Canterbury

  291

  605

  20

  4,611

  88

  2,088

  37

  7,740

  216,107

  285,181

  14.5

  CARLISLE

  Carlisle

  296

  853

  29

  4,704

  110

  2,921

  42

  8,955

  356,492

  329,339

  8.6

  Newton Stewart

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  70

  —

  —

  418

  7

  131

  1

  627

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries

  Dumfries

  451

  —

  —

  2,056

  39

  1,200

  10

  3,756

  —

  —

  4.0

  Workington

  Workington

  204

  —

  —

  1,032

  15

  468

  8

  1,727

  —

  —

  1.0

  CHELMSFORD

  Chelmsford

  739

  1,389

  22

  9,508

  184

  2,693

  54

  14,589

  403,423

  344,189

  17.2

  DARLINGTON

  Darlington

  537

  2,011

  35

  12,894

  269

  8,882

  87

  24,715

  628,068

  506,858

  24.6

  254
  Mr. Key
  I have asked the vehicle inspectorate chief executive to write to the hon. Member with this detailed information.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 4 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Questions about the Vehicle Inspectorate's test station network, income from testing, and costs.

  The Inspectorate's accounts and management information for 1992–93 were sufficiently detailed to provide information on test volumes and income from testing down to district level. This is shown on the attached table.

  Unfortunately information relating to the operating costs and staff at each station cannot be provided in a form that will help answer your questions. In 1992–93 VI had a district based organisation and recorded information on costs accordingly. This information was aggregated at agency level and then divided between the individual schemes, including HGV and PSV testing, for accounting purposes. This means that detailed information on costs for individual test stations is unavailable. More importantly the costs of enforcement staff based in the districts would be included in the figures and could not be separated out. For these reasons a simple list of district costs, against income generated from testing activities, would give a false impression.

  VI reorganised its operational structure on 1 November 1993. The Inspectorate now has two operational divisions, Vehicle Testing and Road Transport Enforcement. The costs of each division are separately accounted for from 1 November 1993. Although VI may have interim figures for each station later this year, the new financial structure will not be fully reflected until the Inspectorate's 1994–95 accounts are published.

  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful at present, but if you have any additional questions please write to me.
  255

  1Testing volumes by stations

  1992–93

  PSV

  HGV

  Trailers

  District, sub-stations and constituency

  Class VII

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Total

  Revenue £

  2Cost £

  3Staff

  DERBY

  Derbyshire, South

  538

  1,164

  18

  6,810

  111

  4,147

  43

  12,831

  336,378

  320,251

  16.9

  EDMONTON

  Edmonton

  2,234

  2,327

  33

  13,599

  124

  3,141

  23

  21,481

  577,375

  653,890

  28.7

  EXETER

  Exeter

  235

  1,802

  81

  5,178

  101

  1,475

  19

  8,891

  551,195

  566,717

  14.1

  Taunton

  Taunton

  77

  —

  —

  5,964

  119

  2,356

  34

  8,550

  —

  —

  9.0

  South Molton

  North Devon

  268

  —

  —

  2,027

  47

  565

  9

  2,916

  —

  —

  4.0

  GILLINGHAM

  Gillingham

  767

  905

  12

  8,410

  147

  3,931

  38

  14,210

  357,870

  338,117

  18.8

  GLOUCESTER

  Gloucester

  277

  744

  12

  7,324

  134

  2,800

  27

  11,318

  301,683

  237,949

  11.6

  GRANTHAM

  Grantham

  416

  603

  16

  8,309

  135

  5,214

  78

  14,771

  366,527

  295,717

  16.6

  GRIMSBY

  Great Grimsby

  659

  673

  7

  5,362

  54

  5,207

  23

  11,985

  287,299

  241,782

  12.7

  GUILDFORD

  Guildford

  1,235

  912

  42

  11,604

  250

  2,173

  28

  16,244

  431,307

  348,303

  17.6

  HASTINGS

  Hastings and Rye

  666

  771

  17

  4,338

  65

  892

  13

  6,762

  188,228

  210,027

  9.6

  HEYWOOD

  Heywood and Middleton

  323

  2,061

  57

  13,720

  416

  5,887

  53

  22,517

  882,085

  732,747

  29.6

  Steeton

  Keighley

  484

  457

  9

  6,936

  234

  2,379

  42

  10,541

  —

  —

  8.5

  INVERNESS

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  357

  1,062

  17

  2,135

  45

  692

  8

  4,316

  208,026

  305,785

  11.2

  Forth William

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  57

  —

  —

  259

  1

  99

  2

  418

  —

  —

  —

  Keith

  Moray

  3

  —

  —

  992

  5

  676

  1

  1,677

  —

  —

  1.0

  Kirkwall

  Orkney and Shetland

  78

  —

  —

  223

  0

  50

  0

  351

  —

  —

  —

  Lairg

  Caithness and Sutherland

  26

  —

  —

  69

  0

  1

  0

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Lerwick

  Orkney and Shetland

  102

  —

  —

  319

  2

  144

  0

  567

  —

  —

  —

  Portree

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  46

  —

  —

  139

  0

  16

  1

  202

  —

  —

  —

  Stornoway

  Western Isles

  17

  —

  —

  251

  1

  67

  0

  336

  —

  —

  0.1

  Wick

  Caithness and Sutherland

  78

  —

  —

  292

  2

  137

  0

  509

  —

  —

  1.1

  IPSWICH

  Ipswich

  413

  741

  7

  7,511

  122

  7,318

  83

  16,195

  401,611

  338,819

  17.7

  KIDDERMINSTER

  Wyre Forest

  454

  1,105

  41

  9,877

  173

  3,785

  31

  15,466

  536,759

  460,058

  18.0

  Hereford

  Hereford

  275

  —

  —

  3,166

  44

  1,639

  16

  5,140

  —

  —

  5.1

  KILMARNOCK

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  297

  1,119

  74

  5,959

  203

  2,686

  36

  10,374

  275,025

  286,708

  14.0

  KIRKHAM

  Fylde

  288

  2,236

  47

  10,435

  228

  5,962

  71

  19,267

  698,169

  633,290

  24.8

  Barrow

  Barrow and Furness

  99

  —

  —

  644

  16

  444

  10

  1,213

  —

  —

  1.0

  Milnthorpe

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  214

  —

  —

  3,899

  105

  1,852

  37

  6,107

  —

  —

  8.3

  LANCING

  Shoreham

  438

  690

  10

  5,434

  109

  1,118

  6

  7,805

  214,281

  259,846

  13.7

  LEEDS

  Normanton

  653

  2,149

  22

  18,384

  353

  10,215

  102

  31,878

  840,436

  676,916

  35.7

  LEICESTER

  Rutland and Melton

  816

  1,307

  34

  10,617

  168

  4,136

  30

  17,108

  460,438

  385,357

  20.9

  LEIGHTON BUZZARD

  South West Bedfordshire

  636

  1,019

  23

  7,540

  116

  3,453

  28

  12,815

  323,282

  270,588

  15.6

  LIVERPOOL

  Knowsley, North

  1,015

  3,163

  110

  16,523

  654

  10,778

  153

  32,396

  874,953

  686,442

  34.5

  LIVINGSTONE

  Livingston

  237

  2,558

  70

  10,022

  208

  5,396

  53

  18,544

  598,563

  578,943

  24.8

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  25

  —

  —

  739

  7

  282

  4

  1,057

  —

  —

  —

  Charlesfield

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  155

  —

  —

  831

  14

  276

  0

  1,276

  —

  —

  3.0

  East Fortune

  East Lothian

  51

  —

  —

  498

  9

  126

  2

  686

  —

  —

  1.0

  256

  257

  1Testing volumes by stations

  1992–93

  PSV

  HGV

  Trailers

  District, sub-stations and constituency

  Class VII

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Annual

  Prohibitions

  Total

  Revenue £

  2Cost £

  3Staff

  LLANTRISANT

  Pontypridd

  167

  1,897

  79

  7,778

  239

  4,144

  53

  14,357

  485,827

  492,118

  21.0

  Llayrystyd

  Ceredigion and Pembroke, North

  154

  —

  —

  1,342

  9

  220

  4

  1,729

  —

  —

  1.0

  Llandrindod Wells

  Brecon and Radnor

  241

  —

  —

  1,229

  18

  231

  2

  1,721

  —

  —

  2.0

  MITCHAM

  Croydon, North West

  1,428

  3,376

  43

  12,635

  314

  1,706

  28

  19,530

  579,402

  607,548

  28.0

  NEWBURY

  Newbury

  649

  966

  17

  7,232

  103

  2,796

  22

  11,785

  316,984

  266,810

  13.1

  NEWCASTLE

  Wallsend

  637

  2,752

  39

  10,548

  240

  4,274

  61

  18,551

  504,777

  449,119

  22.1

  NORTHAMPTON

  Daventry

  833

  761

  23

  8,184

  140

  5,961

  31

  15,933

  394,916

  324,766

  17.9

  NORWICH

  Norwich, North

  794

  840

  16

  7,961

  74

  3,316

  42

  13,043

  339,038

  361,648

  18.6

  NOTTINGHAM

  Broxtowe

  1,208

  1,470

  14

  8,637

  99

  4,008

  28

  15,464

  410,506

  483,834

  26.1

  PERTH

  Perth and Kinross

  558

  1,400

  31

  3,910

  83

  1,759

  29

  7,770

  315,063

  298,023

  8.6

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirkcaldy

  1,025

  —

  —

  2,377

  64

  690

  10

  4,166

  —

  —

  3.5

  Montrose

  Angus East

  118

  —

  —

  813

  17

  327

  1

  1,276

  —

  —

  1.0

  PETERBOROUGH

  Peterborough

  1,065

  820

  20

  6,453

  129

  4,759

  47

  13,293

  555,770

  483,491

  16.4

  Crimplesham

  Norfolk, North West

  637

  —

  —

  5,897

  78

  3,811

  48

  10,471

  —

  —

  11.4

  PLYMOUTH

  Plymouth, Devonport

  336

  1,441

  33

  3,067

  60

  603

  10

  5,550

  287,282

  372,735

  10.0

  St. Austell

  Truro

  266

  —

  —

  1,647

  12

  361

  2

  2,288

  —

  —

  3.0

  Redruth

  Falmouth and Camborne

  881

  —

  —

  2,090

  32

  308

  8

  3,319

  —

  —

  4.0

  PONTYPOOL

  Torfaen

  800

  1,253

  44

  5,189

  157

  3,375

  27

  10,845

  276,252

  250,957

  11.5

  POOLE

  Poole

  197

  1,303

  15

  4,628

  63

  1,016

  21

  7,243

  384,110

  363,457

  12.1

  Salisbury

  Salisbury

  190

  —

  —

  4,453

  56

  1,975

  31

  6,705

  —

  —

  5.5

  PURFLEET

  Thurrock

  537

  1,557

  28

  12,736

  337

  10,062

  105

  25,362

  686,150

  644,218

  30.3

  ROYSTON

  Hertfordshire, North

  1,237

  1,038

  35

  12,307

  259

  4,389

  48

  19,313

  545,473

  338,564

  17.2

  SHEFFIELD

  Sheffield, Attercliffe

  872

  1,675

  3

  10,591

  22

  5,874

  3

  19,040

  885,579

  706,009

  20.0

  Doncaster

  Doncaster, North

  697

  1,283

  44

  8,197

  111

  5,212

  35

  15,579

  —

  —

  15.4

  SOUTHAMPTON

  Fareham

  377

  1,311

  37

  7,184

  209

  3,703

  56

  12,877

  377,712

  464,469

  19.1

  Cowes

  Isle of Wight

  215

  —

  —

  937

  19

  178

  1

  1,350

  —

  —

  2.0

  STOKE ON TRENT

  Stafford

  203

  2,170

  31

  12,280

  210

  7,020

  72

  21,986

  885,961

  739,660

  27.5

  Shrewsbury

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  475

  —

  —

  6,574

  110

  3,379

  42

  10,580

  —

  —

  10.0

  WALTON

  Elmet

  475

  1,120

  14

  6,298

  125

  2,852

  28

  10,912

  346,923

  426,136

  16.0

  Scarborough

  Scarborough

  97

  —

  —

  1,509

  8

  570

  5

  2,189

  —

  —

  4.0

  WOLVERHAMPTON

  Staffordshire, South

  137

  1,662

  29

  15,208

  146

  5,057

  32

  22,271

  637,007

  543,701

  28.6

  WREXHAM

  Wrexham

  237

  2,268

  68

  7,653

  130

  3,294

  19

  13,669

  588,199

  619,946

  19.6

  Caernarfon

  Caernarfon

  241

  —

  —

  2,311

  43

  281

  5

  2,881

  —

  —

  5.0

  Bromborough

  Wirral, South

  429

  —

  —

  3,353

  66

  2,484

  29

  6,361

  —

  —

  7.5

  YEADING

  Hayes and Harlington

  2,127

  3,471

  97

  15,749

  416

  3,934

  55

  25,849

  720,994

  763,065

  35.0

  44,484

  85,692

  1,907

  567,293

  11,292

  263,799

  2,751

  977,218

  25,840,245

  23,979,799

  1,201.9

  1 Test includes Annual Statutory tests; retests and some prohibitions issued at the roadside.

  2 Includes the costs of roadworthiness enforcement staff based at VI Test Stations.

  3 Whole-time equivalents.

  258

PRIME MINISTER

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on contracts with consultants in the last five years.

  Security
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the security of Government information and other assets.

  The Prime Minister
  In recent years, the nature of the threats to Government security has changed. While some of the traditional threats to national security may have somewhat reduced, others have not. The security of Government is also increasingly threatened by, for example, theft, copying and electronic surveillance, as well as by terrorism.

  To ensure that their approach to security reflects current threats, the Government have recently completed a review of their arrangements for the management of protective security in Departments and agencies. This has recommended a new protective marking system for documents which will help identify more precisely those which need protecting, enabling them to be protected more effectively according to their value. The new system will also be more closely related to the code of practice on Government information announced in the Government's White Paper on openness.

  In addition, the review has concluded that existing security measures should be examined closely to ensure they are necessary in relation to today's threats; that commercially available security equipment should be more widely used; and that personnel vetting enquiries should be streamlined particularly in routine cases. Overall, the aim is to give Departments and agencies, and management units within them, greater responsibility for assessing the nature of the risks they face and for making decisions, within a framework of common standards of protection, about the security measures they need to put in place. Substantial cost savings will result.

  The first stage of the implementation of the proposals of this review will be the introduction of a new protective marking system with effect from 4 April 1994 alongside the code of practice on access to Government information. The new definitions, which will allow fewer Government documents to be classified, particularly at the higher levels, are set out. The other elements of the new approach to protective security will be put in place in due course.

  The four categories of protective marking: Definitions
  The markings to be allocated to any asset, including information, will be determined primarily by reference to the practical consequences that are likely to result from the compromise of that asset or information. The levels in the new protective marking system are defined as follows:
  TOP SECRET: the compromise of this information or material would be likely: to threaten directly the internal stability of the United Kingdom or friendly countries; to lead directly to widespread loss of life; to cause exceptionally grave damage to the effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or to the continuing effectiveness of extremely valuable security
  260
  or intelligence operations; to cause exceptionally grave damage to relations with friendly governments; to cause severe long-term damage to the United Kingdom economy.
  SECRET: the compromise of this information or material would be likely: to raise international tension; to damage seriously relations with friendly governments; to threaten life directly, or seriously prejudice public order, or individual security or liberty; to cause serious damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the continuing effectiveness of highly valuable security or intelligence operations; to cause substantial material damage to national finances or economic and commercial interests.
  CONFIDENTIAL: the compromise of this information or material would be likely: materially to damage diplomatic relations (ie cause formal protest or other sanction); to prejudice individual security or liberty; to cause damage to the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces or the effectiveness of valuable security or intelligence operations; to work substantially against national finances or economic and commercial interests; substantially to undermine the financial viability of major organisations; to impede the investigation or facilitate the commission of serious crime; to impede seriously the development or operation of major government policies; to shut down or otherwise substantially disrupt significant national operations.
  RESTRICTED: the compromise of this information or material would be likely: to affect diplomatic relations adversely; to cause substantial distress to individuals; to make it more difficult to maintain the operational effectiveness or security of United Kingdom or allied forces; to cause financial loss or loss of earning potential to or facilitate improper gain or advantage for individuals or companies; to prejudice the investigation or facilitate the commission of crime; to breach proper undertakings to maintain the confidence of information provided by third parties; to impede the effective development or operation of government policies; to breach statutory restrictions on disclosure of information; to disadvantage government in commercial or policy negotiations with others; to undermine the proper management of the public sector and its operations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of Tuesday 8 March,Official Report, column 148, if he has now considered, following his meeting of 3 March with the hon. Member for Linlithgow, the provision of water filtering and water pumping equipment to Iraq; and what action he has taken to respond to the list of pharmaceuticals required in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris for infants with diseases related to malnutrition in the summer.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]I have now written to the hon. Member following our recent meeting.

EDUCATION

  Special Needs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what statutory provisions apply to appellants' access to the minutes of special educational needs appeal hearings.

  Mr. Forth
  There are no statutory provisions relating to appellants' access to the minutes of special educational needs appeals hearings held by committees constituted by local education authorities in accordance with paragraph 1 of part I of schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980. There is no statutory requirement for my right hon. Friend to convene hearings before resolving appeals made to him under the Education Act 1981.
  261
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many special educational needs appeals he is currently considering; to what extent delays have been caused by the case currently before the Court of Appeal; when he expects this case to be heard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering 330 appeals under the Education Act 1981. In compliance with the recent court judgment in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for Education ex parte S my right hon. Friend now copies to the parties to each appeal any independent evaluations he receives from one of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, and invites the parties to comment. He then gives careful consideration to any comments subsequently submitted to him. This process has added several weeks to the time taken to decide appeals. My right hon. Friend is appealing against the court judgment in question. The appeal will be heard on 27 June.

  Higher National Diploma
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether students who are entitled to a mandatory grant for a higher national diploma and

  LEA name and school name

  1992–93 total budget

  Per cent. of LEA's schools budget

  1993–94 total budget

  Schools budget

  Barnet

  Ashmole school

  —

  —

  1,560,002

  1·57

  Bishop Douglass RC school

  —

  —

  782,607

  0·79

  Dollis junior school

  —

  —

  761,032

  0·77

  Finchley Catholic high school

  —

  —

  1,507,554

  1·52

  Hendon school

  2,439,826

  2·41

  3,028,952

  3·06

  Mill Hill GM high school

  798,221

  0·79

  3,476,578

  3·51

  Osidge primary school

  —

  —

  503,369

  0·51

  Queen Elizabeth GM school for boys

  2,793,196

  2·75

  2,802,023

  2·83

  St. James Catholic high school

  —

  —

  957,489

  0·97

  St. Mary's CE high school

  —

  —

  1,739,907

  1·75

  St. Michaels Catholic grammar school

  —

  —

  1,089,120

  1·10

  TOTAL

  6,031,243

  5·95

  18,208,633

  18·37

  Bexley

  Barnehurst infant GM school

  196,923

  0·26

  401,814

  0·55

  Barnehurst junior GM school

  286,834

  0·38

  472,137

  0·65

  Bexley Erith technical GM school

  —

  —

  1,020,078

  1·41

  St. Catherines RC school for girls

  —

  —

  1,028,617

  1·42

  St. Columba's RC boys school

  —

  —

  1,761,471

  2·43

  St. Mary's and St. Joseph's GM school

  —

  —

  1,709,573

  2·36

  TOTAL

  483,757

  0·65

  6,393,690

  8·83

  Brent

  Alperton high school

  —

  —

  1,842,781

  2·21

  Cardinal Hinsley high school

  —

  —

  1,227,373

  1·47

  Claremount high school

  3,161,045

  3·98

  3,454,916

  4·14

  Convent of Jesus and Mary GM high school

  —

  —

  2,697,063

  3·23

  Copland community school and tech school

  3,102,659

  3·91

  3,217,865

  3·85

  Kingsbury high school

  —

  —

  5,344,018

  6·40

  Oakington Manor primary school

  —

  —

  727,025

  0·87

  Queens Park community school

  —

  —

  2,532,850

  3·03

  St. Gregorys RC high school

  —

  —

  1,932,523

  2·31

  TOTAL

  6,263,704

  7·89

  22,976,414

  27·52

  262
  complete each year of the course at different institutions may receive a supplementary mandatory grant for a related degree at the second institution.

  Mr. Boswell
  A student who has already received a mandatory award for an HND course will normally be eligible for a further, modified mandatory award for the final year or years of a designated first degree course, depending upon its duration. Local education authorities can make discretionary payments in respect of any other year of the course. A student's entitlement to a further award would not be affected if his HND course involved study at more than one institution.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the budgets of grant-maintained schools in London on a borough basis since 1992; and what this was as a percentage of each borough's schools budget.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the table.
  263

  LEA name and school name

  1992–93 total budget

  Per cent. of LEA's schools budget

  1993–94 total budget

  Schools budget

  Bromley

  Beaverwood school for girls

  2,552,722

  3·88

  2,406,809

  3·84

  Bullers Wood school for girls

  2,928,520

  4·45

  2,694,075

  4·30

  Charles Darwin school

  1,493,439

  2·27

  2,561,554

  4·09

  Coopers school

  2,933,762

  4·46

  3,033,314

  4·84

  Crofton junior school

  1,147,490

  1·74

  1,144,559

  1·83

  Hayes school

  3,211,434

  4·88

  3,066,028

  4·89

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic school

  102,188

  0·16

  422,124

  0·67

  Kelsey Park school

  2,045,005

  3·11

  2,224,322

  3·55

  Langley Park school for boys

  2,814,775

  4·28

  2,878,257

  4·59

  Newstead Wood school for girls

  1,979,519

  3·01

  1,943,852

  3·10

  Ravens Wood school for boys

  2,280,066

  3·47

  2,333,197

  3·72

  St. John Rigby school

  689,498

  1·05

  2,542,122

  4·05

  St. Olave's and St. Saviours grammar school

  413,408

  0·63

  1,729,329

  2·76

  TOTAL

  24,591,826

  37·39

  28,979,542

  46·22

  Camden

  Jews Free School

  —

  —-

  2,228,040

  3·67

  La Sainte Union convent school

  —

  —

  1,856,608

  3·06

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  4,084,648

  6·73

  Croydon

  Edenham school

  —

  —

  2,573,840

  2·83

  Riddlesdown GM school

  2,607,369

  2·52

  2,939,118

  3·23

  St. Joseph's college

  —

  —

  1,649,960

  1·81

  Thomas More GM school

  —

  —

  981,292

  1·08

  Selsdon primary school

  —

  —

  384,867

  0·42

  St. James The Great RC primary school

  —

  —

  183,652

  0·20

  TOTAL

  2,607,369

  2·52

  8,712,729

  9·57

  Ealing

  Brentside high school

  3,524,849

  4·15

  2,637,138

  3·34

  Dormers Wells first school

  —

  —

  182,965

  0·23

  Dormers Wells Middle School

  —

  —

  217,917

  0·28

  Drayton Manor high school

  3,622,547

  4·26

  3,219,216

  4·08

  Greenford high school

  2,468,886

  2·91

  2,916,472

  3·70

  Northolt high school

  2,353,786

  2·77

  2,925,776

  3·71

  The Ellen Wilkinson school for girls

  2,461,000

  2·90

  2,823,045

  3·58

  Wood End first school

  246,307

  0·29

  720,628

  0·91

  Wood End middle school

  187,339

  0·22

  576,885

  0·73

  TOTAL

  14,864,714

  17·49

  16,220,042

  20·57

  Enfield

  Albany School

  —

  —

  1,864,553

  1·83

  Broomfield GM school

  —

  —

  1,743,264

  1·71

  Enfield grammar school

  —

  —

  677,338

  0·67

  St. Ignatius college

  —

  —

  1,577,104

  1·55

  St. Matthews CE primary school

  —

  —

  99,625

  0·10

  The Latymer school

  —

  —

  1,859,058

  1·83

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  65,855,780

  7·69

  Hammersmith

  The London Oratory school

  4,212,304

  9·59

  4,559,637

  9·65

  TOTAL

  4,212,304

  9·59

  4,559,637

  9·65

  Harrow

  Salvatorian College

  —

  —

  790,326

  1·11

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  790,326

  1·11

  Havering

  Abbs Cross School

  —

  —

  1,880,323

  2·50

  Sacred Heart of Mary Girls school

  —

  —

  1,146,126

  1·53

  The Coopers Company and Coborn

  —

  —

  3,443,500

  4·58

  264

  265

  LEA name and school name

  1992–93 total budget

  Per cent. of LEA's schools budget

  1993–94 total budget

  Schools budget

  The Frances Bardsley school for girls

  —

  —

  2,877,329

  3·83

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  9,347,278

  12·44

  Hillingdon

  Abbotsfield school

  —

  —

  1,950,200

  3·48

  Bishopshalt school

  2,446,591

  4·40

  2,551,075

  4·56

  Charville primary school

  —

  —

  858,178

  1·53

  Grange Park infant school

  —

  —

  555,895

  0·99

  Grange Park junior school

  —

  —

  578,793

  1·03

  Harlington community school

  —

  —

  859,249

  1·53

  Haydon school

  2,806,117

  5·05

  3,136,670

  5·60

  Hayes Park infant school

  —

  —

  127,654

  0·23

  Hayes Park junior school

  —

  —

  160,679

  0·29

  Hillside infants school

  —

  —

  251,830

  0·45

  Hillside junior school

  —

  —

  287,213

  0·51

  Mellow Lane school

  2,676,541

  4·82

  2,707,249

  4·84

  Northwood school

  2,751,228

  4·95

  2,465,238

  4·40

  Oak Farm infant school

  180,818

  0·33

  568,784

  1·02

  Oak Farm junior mixed school

  232,110

  0·42

  729,645

  1·30

  Queensmead school

  2,341,554

  4·21

  2,680,510

  4·79

  St. Andrews CE primary school

  —

  —

  278,195

  0·50

  St. Laurence CE junior school

  —

  —

  292,482

  0·52

  Swakeleys school

  —

  —

  1,959,550

  3·50

  The Douay Martys school

  605,074

  1·09

  2,669,865

  4·77

  The Hayes Manor school

  1,907,312

  3·43

  1,933,220

  3·45

  Uxbridge High school

  1,749,175

  3·15

  2,199,164

  3·93

  Vyners school

  2,835,642

  5·10

  2,099,170

  3·75

  TOTAL

  20,532,162

  36·96

  31,900,508

  56·97

  Hounslow

  Gumley House convent school

  —

  —

  2,634,950

  3·22

  Gunnersbury Catholic school for boys

  —

  —

  2,551,931

  3·12

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  5,186,881

  6·35

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial school

  2,277,844

  5·97

  2,729,542

  8·02

  St. Charles RC primary school

  —

  —

  277,109

  0·81

  TOTAL

  2,277,844

  5·97

  3,006,651

  8·84

  Kingston

  Beverley school

  —

  —

  1,081,348

  3·04

  Holy Cross convent school

  —

  —

  1,769,791

  4·98

  Richard Challoner school

  —

  —

  1,692,418

  4·76

  St. Lukes CE primary school

  —

  —

  165,760

  0·47

  Tiffin school

  724,171

  1·79

  2,289,250

  6·44

  TOTAL

  724,171

  1·79

  6,998,567

  19·70

  Lambeth

  Archbishop Tenison school

  —

  —

  1,687,063

  2·40

  Bishop Thomas Grant school

  —

  —

  2,909,556

  4·14

  Corpus Christi RC primary school

  —

  —

  228,984

  0·33

  Dunraven GM school

  —

  —

  3,753,813

  5·34

  La Retraite RC girls GM school

  2,595,953

  3·24

  1,929,728

  2·75

  St. Bedes RC infant school

  —

  —

  227,221

  0·32

  St. Andrews RC primary school

  —

  —

  213,273

  0·30

  St. Annes RC primary school

  —

  —

  257,674

  0·37

  St. Bernadette RC junior mixed school

  149,253

  0·19

  146,022

  0·21

  St. Martin in the Field high school

  —

  —

  1,196,551

  1·70

  TOTAL

  2,745,206

  3·43

  12,549,885

  17·86

  Lewisham

  Turnham primary school

  256,433

  0·29

  1,046,106

  1·24

  TOTAL

  256,433

  0·29

  1,046,106

  1·24

  266

  267

  LEA name and school name

  1992–93 total budget

  Per cent. of LEA's schools budget

  1993–94 total budget

  Schools budget

  Newham

  Stratford school

  1,736,276

  1·72

  2,158,996

  2·18

  TOTAL

  1,736,276

  1·72

  2,158,996

  2·18

  Redbridge

  Chadwell Heath high school

  —

  —

  2,112,265

  2·65

  TOTAL

  —

  —

  2,112,265

  2·65

  Southwark

  Friars primary school

  —

  —

  140,512

  0·18

  Notre Dame high school

  —

  —

  1,071,845

  1·34

  Sacred Heart RC school

  —

  —

  584,563

  0·73

  St. Anthony's RC primary school

  —

  —

  291,713

  0·37

  St. Francesca Cabrini GM school

  —

  —

  985,427

  1·23

  St. Josephs RC infant school

  —

  —

  160,086

  0·20

  St. Josephs RC junior school

  —

  —

  204,961

  0·26

  St. Michaels school

  —

  —

  1,094,571

  1·37

  The London Nautical school

  1,617,778

  —

  1,680,059

  2·10

  The St.; Thomas the Apostle GM college

  —

  —

  1,212,528

  1·52

  TOTAL

  1,617,778

  —

  7,426,265

  9·30

  Sutton

  All Saints (Carshalton) CE school

  —

  —

  286,405

  0·74

  Cheam high school

  2,288,669

  5·15

  2,736,790

  7·11

  Nonsuch high school for girls

  2,796,337

  6·29

  2,407,563

  6·25

  St. Philomena's catholic high for girls

  —

  —

  2,098,339

  5·45

  Stanley park infants school

  —

  —

  143,928

  0·37

  Stanley park junior school

  —

  —

  168,212

  0·44

  Sutton Grammar school for boys

  1,538,913

  3·46

  1,556,234

  4·04

  The John Fisher school

  1,790,211

  4·03

  1,840,742

  4·78

  Wallington high school for boys

  —

  —

  1,670,559

  4·34

  Wallington high school for girls

  —

  —

  1,882,587

  4·89

  Wilsons school

  1,782,533

  4·01

  1,855,838

  4·82

  TOTAL

  10,196,663

  22·93

  16,647,197

  43·24

  Tower Hamlets

  Raines foundation school

  2,511,334

  2·12

  3,432,149

  2·76

  TOTAL

  2,511,334

  2·12

  3,432,149

  2·76

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford school

  —

  —

  1,449,403

  1·71

  Highams park school

  2,601,374

  3·04

  2,959,096

  3·50

  TOTAL

  2,601,374

  3·04

  4,408,499

  5·21

  Wandsworth

  Burntwood school

  4,252,154

  5·82

  4,487,358

  7·48

  Elliott school

  2,288,120

  3·13

  3,870,951

  6·45

  Ethelburga primary school

  138,424

  0·19

  439,828

  0·73

  Graveney school

  4,802,975

  6·75

  5,244,434

  8·74

  Hillbrook primary school

  —

  —

  925,909

  1·54

  John Paul II RC school

  —

  —

  1,633,050

  2·72

  Salesian college

  620,018

  0–85

  1,653,473

  2·76

  Southfields school

  —

  —

  3,656,378

  6·09

  TOTAL

  12,101,691

  16·55

  21,911,381

  36·51

  Notes:

  1. For schools that became GM in 1993–94 only the budget for that year is shown.

  2. The amounts shown for total budget include annual maintenance grant, special purpose grants for restructuring, development, premises, VAT, transitional grant, section 11 grant and capital grant payable to the schools in the respective years.

  3. The amounts shown as total budget for 1992–93 also include special purpose grant for travellers and displaced persons payable to the schools.

  4. GM schools receive support for expenditure on items such as VAT and the transition to GM status, which form no part of an LEAs overall budget. The percentage of an LEAs total schools budget that GM schools' budgets represent do not, therefore, fall for true comparison.
  268 269

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Forth
  Over the last five years, this Department has awarded 244 contracts to consultants. The total cost in each of the last five years is:

  Year

  £

  1993

  1,629,000

  1992

  1,994,000

  1991

  1,517,000

  1990

  974,000

  1989

  555,000

  Bullying
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the number of children making complaints about bullying at school.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education what assessment there has been of the success of the "Action against Bullying" packs issued to schools in 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  Head teachers are responsible in law for maintaining standards of discipline and behaviour in their schools. The "Action against Bullying" packs were issued to assist them in that task. Registered inspectors carrying out inspections under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are required to inspect and report on disciplinary arrangements within schools, including action taken against bullying.

  Physical Education
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average amount of time spent in schools on physical education per week for children aged under 17 years for each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, recent secondary school

  LEA

  Places proposed to be removed where known

  Proposals under consideration for:

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–12 months

  (e) In excess of 12months

  Avon

  55

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Bradford

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  30

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coventry

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  7

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  270
  staffing surveys have provided information regarding the proportion of pupil periods spent on PE in maintained secondary schools in 1984, 1988 and 1992.

  Proportion of pupil periods spent on PE

  Percentages

  Year group

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  1983–84

  10·4

  9·8

  9·0

  8·1

  7·5

  1987–88

  9·4

  9·3

  8·3

  7·9

  7·3

  1991–92

  9·1

  8·9

  8·3

  7·7

  7·2

  Source: Secondary school staffing surveys.

  In junior classes in maintained primary schools in England in 1986–87, 10 per cent. of class time was spent on PE, games or swimming. Comparable data for other years is not available.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) boys and (b) girls aged five to 16 years had a statement of special educational need for the latest available year.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 171,784 pupils aged 5 to 19 had statements as at January 1993. Data for 17 to 19-year-olds is not collected separately. Figures by gender are not available.

  Schools (Re-organisation and Closure)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have school reorganisation or closure proposals under consideration by his Department; how many surplus places will be removed by each authority as a result of their proposals; and which authorities, since the submission of their proposal to his Department, have been waiting for a decision(a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) in excess of 12 months.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The table lists proposals under consideration by the Department as at 18 March 1994 for the closure, alteration or establishment of county and voluntary schools, the number of places that it is proposed will be removed as a result of the proposals—where relevant and known—and the length of time the proposals have been under consideration.
  271

  LEA

  Places proposed to be removed where known

  Proposals under consideration for:

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–12 months

  (e) In excess of 12 months

  Doncaster

  86

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dorset

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dudley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  420

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  140

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  46

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  584

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  30

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knowsley

  180

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  1,381

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  195

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  130

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  292

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  114

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  60

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  202

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Surrey

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  1,483

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  526

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  2,382

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  84

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department why applicants for the magistrates bench are invited to disclose their political leanings or affiliations.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 March at column.758.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is 272
  taking to ensure the political affiliations of the magistrates bench more closely reflect the views of the population in the areas in which they sit.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor, with his advisory committees, seeks to encourage applications from suitable people of all walks of life and political affiliations through press notices and articles, posters and leaflets and contact with employers and other organisations. Appointments are made from those considered to be suitable having proper regard to the various balancing factors such as age, gender and political affiliation so that each bench broadly reflects the community it serves. Appointments can, however, be made only from those who put themselves forward for consideration.

  Liverpool County Court
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what backlog of cases are awaiting trial in the Liverpool county court; what is the average period for a case coming to trial; what were the waiting periods compared with five years ago; and what assessment he has made of the value for money provided by the system.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Liverpool county court operates a special listing system, under the control of the judiciary, which was introduced following consultation with me legal profession. The system is designed to ensure mat the majority of defended civil cases proceed to trial within 35 weeks of a defence being filed. On 16 March 1994 trials were being listed 32 weeks ahead and the number of cases where a defence had been filed and the trial was due to take place within that period was approximately 5,120. In addition there were some 420 cases of a specialist nature, which fall outside the scope of the special listing system, listed for trial within the next 70 weeks, and some 200 cases awaiting entry into the system.

  The earliest available information on waiting times is from 1990 when, based only on cases disposed of by trial during the months of March and September, the average waiting time was 29 weeks compared to 32 weeks in 1993. Although no specific assessment has been made of the value for money it provides, the system was last reviewed and revised in January 1992 at which time it was considered that it continued to meet its primary objective: that of minimising delay, which the report of the Reviewing Body on Civil Justice—June 1988—identified as one of the main deficiencies in civil justice.

  County court fees

  Sample of changes to the more significant fees chargeable in the county courts in 1964, 1982 and 1994, giving percentage changes.

  Fee and (fee number)

  1964

  1982

  Change, 1964 to 1982 per cent.

  1994

  Change, 1964 to 1994 per cent.

  Entering a plaint (1 in 1964, l(i) in 1982 and 1994)

  £4 maximum

  £35 maximum

  775

  £70 maximum

  1,650

  Service by a bailiff (4 in 1964, 2 in 1982 and 1994)

  2/-

  £4

  3,900

  £10

  9,900

  Taxation of costs (20(i) in 1964, 3(i) in 1982 and 1994)

  l/- for every £2

  5p for every £1

  100

  5p for every £1

  100

  Enforcement of a warrant of execution against goods (37 in 1964, 4(i) in 1982 and 1964)

  £3 maximum

  £25 maximum

  733

  £50 maximum

  1,567

  Issue of a judgment summons (50 in 1964, 4(vi) in 1982 and 1994)

  £2 maximum

  £5 maximum

  150

  £20 maximum

  900

  Personal search of the Registry of Country Court Judgments, per name (72(i) in 1964, 7(i) in 1982 and 1994)

  2/-

  £1

  900

  £1

  900

  In 1964, the County Court Fees Order in force was that of 1959 (SI 1959/1262) as amended in 1961 (twice) and 1963, the first of those amendments (SI 1961/355) affecting the sample fees above. There was a fees Order in 1982 (SI 1982/1706). That order has been further amended six times since, most recently in 1992 (SI 1992/2762).

  The County Court Fees Order 1959 contained 157 separate fees, and the 1980 order 33 fees; there were 20 orders and amending orders between 1964 and 1994.

  Supreme court fees

  Sample of changes to the more significant fees chargeable in the Supreme Court in 1964, 1982 and 1994, giving percentage changes.

  Fee and (fee number)

  1964

  1982

  Change, 1964 to 1982 per cent.

  1994

  Change, 1964 to 1994 per cent.

  Writ of summons (1)

  £4

  £50

  1,150

  £100

  2,400

  Setting down for trial (21 in 1964, 5 in 1982, 5f in 1994)

  £6

  £20

  234

  £50

  734

  Notice of appeal to the High Court (19 in 1964, 11a in 1982 and 1994)

  £6

  £15

  150

  £20

  234

  Filing a notice of appeal, Court of Appeal (62b(ii) in 1964, 27a in 1982, 27a(ii) in 1964)

  £10

  £15

  50

  £100

  900

  Taxation of a bill of costs: first £100 (81c(i) in 1964, 29b(i) in 1982 and 1994)

  £5

  £25

  400

  £25

  400

  Taxation of a bill of costs: over £100 (81c(ii) in 1964, 29b(ii) in 1982 and 1994)

  1/- per £2

  5p per £1

  100

  5p per £1

  100

  In 1964, the Supreme Court Fees Order in force was that of 1961 (SI 1961/2307) as amended in 1962 and 1963, though neither amendment affected the sample fees above. In 1982, the Order in force was that of 1980 (SI 1980/821) as amended in 1982 (SI 1982/1707). That order has been further

  Court Fees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a table of court fees in the county court and the Crown court in the years since 1964, showing the percentage increase and showing the corresponding increase in the cost of living index.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Tables of sample fees chargeable in the county courts and the Supreme Court—fees are not chargeable in the Crown court—in the years 1964, 1982 and 1994 follow. The number of fees, the number of amendments, and alterations in fee structures over the period make a direct comparison of all fees impractical. The sample of fees shown includes those which are most significant for general court users and by volume of business. All fees orders are made and published as statutory instruments.

  Comparisons are shown with 1982 because until then no attempt was made to recover 'allied service' costs falling on other Departments' votes—accommodation, stationery and superannuation. From mat year, following observations by the Committee of Public Accounts on this policy of limited cost recovery, the policy adopted was that fees should recover full costs except for judicial costs. The policy has now been further modified to include judicial costs among those which should be covered by fee income taken as a whole.

  The rise in the cost of living index—the retail prices index—between 1964 and 1982 was 862 per cent., and between 1964 and 1994 was 1,567 per cent.
  275
  amended five times since, most recently in 1993 (SI 1993/3191).

  The Supreme Court Fees Order 1961 contained 146 separate fees, and the 1980 order 57 fees; there were 16 orders and amending orders between 1964 and 1994.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On the best information currently available, 74 external consultancy projects were completed in 1992–93 and the total expenditure was £3·.455 million. Comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of assessment for child maintenance have been dealt with in court since April 1993 in(a) the London borough of Newham and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is readily available only for the county courts and the High Court in England and Wales. During the period April to December 1993, the number of children made subject to orders for child maintenance was:

  (a) 253 in the London borough of Newham

  (b) 23,235 in England and Wales.

  These figures do not include lump sum and property orders which benefited children, as no separate categorisation of these cases is available.

  Information relating to the magistrates courts for 1993 will not be available until May 1994.

  Jurors
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many potential jurors have been discharged from jury service because of a disability in the last five years; what those disabilities were; what equipment was available to enable them to fulfil a juror's duties; and in which Crown courts these discharges occurred.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Section 10 of the Juries Act 1974 provides that if it appears to a member of the court staff that there is doubt as to the capacity of a person who attends for jury service to serve effectively, on the ground of physical disability, the person may be brought before a judge. The judge shall then determine whether or not the person should serve as a juror and, if not, shall discharge the summons. It is the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department that any disabled person summoned for jury service should be given every assistance within reason to enable him/her to serve as a juror. However, the decision is ultimately one for the judge.

  My Department does not collate data on the number of discharges from jury service under section 10 and such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As to the facilities available at Crown court centres the Lord Chancellor's Department has produced a digest, "Facilities for Disabled People in the Crown and County Courts" which includes information on facilities for
  276
  disabled jurors. I have arranged for a copy of that digest to be placed in the Library. Courts will also make special arrangements, if possible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Dampness and Condensation
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what research his Department is currently undertaking to eliminate dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in(a) London and (b) England;

  (2) what extra resources he proposes to allow local authority departments to spend in order to eradicate dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in (a) England and Wales and (b) London;

  (3) if he will consult statutory housing authorities in England and Wales in order to agree an action plan to eliminate dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock.

  Sir George Young
  As part of the annual housing investment programme round, local authorities are required to produce housing strategies setting out their proposed programmes over a three-year period. In support of this process, authorities may carry out surveys of their stock, which may include establishing the prevalence of dampness and condensation. My Department takes these strategies into account when allocating HIP resources each year. £1·5 billion was allocated to local authorities under the programme for 1994–95. It is for individual authorities to decide how to use these and other resources to which they have access, including how much to dedicate to dealing with the problems of dampness and condensation. Matters affecting the public sector housing stock in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a survey of statutory housing authority areas to determine the prevalence of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock in(a) London and (b) England.

  Sir George Young
  The 1991 English House Condition Survey—EHCS—included an assessment of dampness and condensation in the public sector housing stock. The findings will be reported in the EHCS energy report due to be published later this year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many appeals against valuation have resulted in a movement in the valuation of a property by two bands or more(a) in total in England and (b) in each standard region since the introduction of the council tax;

  (2) how many successful appeals against valuation there have been in terms of changing the banding of a property (a) in England and (b) in each standard region of England since the introduction of the council tax.
  277
  Mr. Baldry
  This information is currently being collected by the Valuation Office Agency for the 12-month period to the end of March 1994. A copy of the information will be placed in the Library as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many appeals there have been against council tax valuations since the council tax was introduced(a) in total for England, (b) in each standard region of England and (c) in each local authority area in England;

  (2) how many appeals against council tax valuations are still waiting to be heard (a) in total for England, (b) in total for each standard region and (c) in each local authority area in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am placing in the Library a table which sets out, by valuation office region, and by billing authority, the number of proposals to alter the valuation list which were received by the end of the initial appeal period, the number that had been settled by the end of February and the number outstanding.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table setting out for each local authority in England which submits a claim for transitional relief for 1994–95,(a) the estimated amount of transitional relief each such authority has claimed, (b) the percentage of the total sum of transitional relief for England which each individual claim represents and (c) the estimated amount of transitional relief per dwelling in each authority which has submitted a claim.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will arrange for this information to be placed in the Library of the House once it is available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department's records show that 1,574 letters were received by me and Ministers in my Department during February 1994, while 2,199 were written to hon. Members.

  Limehouse Tunnel Road Link
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what proportion of the dwellings on the St. Vincent estate, Limehouse, were demolished solely for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the Limehouse tunnel road link; and how many and what proportion of dwellings on the estate were demolished for other purposes; with whose agreement and with whose authority demolition took place; what was the cost of rehousing those displaced and who funded that expenditure; and what plans there are for the future use of the land now vacant consequent on demolition.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 92 dwellings were demolished for the purpose of constructing the Limehouse link, representing 36 per cent. of the units on the estate. A further 164 units were demolished for other reasons.

  A total of 314 households were rehoused at a cost to the London Docklands Development Corporation of £45 million.
  278
  Demolition was carried out by the LDDC with the agreement of the London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  It is intended that the land will be redeveloped largely for residential use with some commercial and retail units.

  Pollution
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's assessment of safe or acceptable pollution levels; and what are those adopted by(a) the World Health Organisation and (b) the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As set out in the 1990 Environment White Paper it is the aim of the Government's pollution policy to minimise the risk of harm to human health and the environment. The World Health Organisation publishes guideline values, but not standards, for non-carcinogenic pollutants in drinking-water and air quality which are based on minimising health effects alone. There is no single principle by which pollution level standards have been adopted in the European Community.

  Environmental Bulletin
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to publish a periodic environment bulletin similar to those published by the Irish Department of the Environment.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  My Department publishes annual reports of progress on commitments made under the Environment White Paper, "This Common Inheritance" which include detailed commitments to further action. The next report is currently at the printers.

  Ecolabelling
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the United Kingdom ecolabelling board will be self-financing at its current rate of progress.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board has set a target to become self financing by 1997–98. The board reviews its targets annually in the context of its corporate plan and will be discussing these with Ministers later in the year.

  Dishwashers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies have applied to the competent bodies of other EC member states for ecolabels for dishwashers and washing machines.

  Mr. Atkins
  As yet, no EC ecolabels have been awarded by competent bodies in other member states. All applications for ecolabels are treated in confidence until an award is made.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many companies have applied to the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board for ecolabels for dishwashers and washing machines.

  Mr. Atkins
  In November, the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board awarded the EC ecolabel to three washing machines in Hoover Limited's "New Wave" range. All applications for ecolabels are treated in confidence until an award is made and as yet no further awards have been made.

  Integrated Regional Offices
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the 10 new integrated regional offices will be established; where they will be located; and who in each region will be responsible for their activities.

  Sir George Young
  The new Government offices in the regions will open for business in April. For the foreseeable future, the functions of the new offices will continue to be carried out from the offices occupied by existing departmental regional offices. The names of nine of the 10 regional directors were detailed in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in his reply on 8 February at columns 145–46.

  Debt at end of year1

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  21992–93

  Bolton

  245

  241

  234

  215

  216

  146

  Bury

  108

  110

  118

  117

  115

  82

  Manchester

  1,138

  1,096

  1,129

  1,275

  1,382

  1,326

  Oldham

  279

  287

  292

  274

  274

  242

  Rochdale

  216

  228

  n/a

  248

  278

  212

  Salford

  420

  428

  437

  450

  467

  403

  Stockport

  151

  160

  163

  165

  156

  116

  Tameside

  224

  217

  219

  248

  262

  186

  Trafford

  99

  118

  118

  113

  109

  81

  Wigan

  303

  303

  317

  276

  278

  250

  Sources:

  1 1987–88 to 1989–90—Outstanding loan debt, capital outturn returns.

  1990–91 to 1992–93—Total external debt, borrowing and lending surveys and PWLB.

  2The debt of most housing authorities was reduced in 1992–93 as the result of the commutation of certain loan charge grants in October 1992.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families with children are living in temporary accommodation for the last available year.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available centrally and my Department has no estimates.

  Unfit Housing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of homes occupied by families with children are deemed to be(a) damp and (b) unfit for use for the last available year.

  Sir George Young
  The 1991 English House Condition Survey found 1 per cent. of homes occupied by families with children in England so seriously damp that the dwelling was considered unfit for habitation in this respect. The same survey found 5·8 per cent. of homes occupied by families with children unfit on any grounds.

  Bathing Water
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of United Kingdom bathing waters failed to comply with EU standards for sewage contamination for the latest available year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest bathing water results were announced on 1 December last year. They showed that in

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of debt for each local authority in Greater Manchester; and what was the figure for each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is given in the table. Figures before 1987–88 are not readily available.

  1993 20 per cent. of United Kingdom bathing waters did not yet comply with the mandatory coliform standards of the Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC).

  Refrigerant Bank
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are to establish a United Kingdom refrigerant bank.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to announce that a United Kingdom refrigerant bank, the Refrigerant Users Group is being launched tomorrow. RUG is being set up by the refrigeration industry with the support of Government to manage the existing stocks of refrigerants efficiently and environmentally. It is being set up as part of Halon Users National Consortium Ltd. and will have the same role for refrigerants that HUNC has performed in relation to halons. It will act as a clearing house putting those who need to continue using recycled chlorofluorocarbons in touch with those who have spare CFCs for sale. This is the first refrigerant bank to be set up in Europe.

  The establishment of RUG is a vital step in allowing us to phase out CFC production by the end of this year. It will enable existing equipment to be serviced using recycled material and allow an orderly phaseout. It shows United Kingdom Government and United Kingdom industry commitment to phase out ozone-depleting substances as quickly and as safely as possible. RUG is a very good example of industry's willingness to support Government in achieving a common environmental goal.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will be replying to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report on Regulation of the United Kingdom Biotechnology Industry and Global Competitiveness.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to announce that we have today made a full response to the Select Committee report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to "Independent" of 18 March. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During February, the Department received 684 letters from hon. Members. In the same period, 526 replies were issued.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During the period 16 March 1993 to 15 March 1994, 202 parliamentary questions were referred for answer to the Employment Service, the only agency in the Department with responsibility for replying to parliamentary questions on operational matters. This figure represents 10·1 per cent. of all parliamentary questions replied to by the Department.

  North Norfolk Action
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, columns 867–68, what was the expected expenditure on each place on North Norfolk Action and the actual expenditure in the first six months of operation; and if he will break down the expenditure to date into (a) provider fee, (b) allowances, (c) fares to interview, (d) publicity, (e) evaluation and (f) Employment Service running costs, including staff costs and payment of allowances.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  282
  Letter from M. Fogden to Sir Ralph Howell, dated 23 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to answer your Parliamentary Question about the expected expenditure on each place on North Norfolk Action and the actual expenditure in the first six months of operation; and a breakdown of expenditure incurred to date.

  The expected expenditure for North Norfolk Action was £3,263 per place. The actual expenditure for the first six months of North Norfolk Action was approximately £2,850 per place.

  The expenditure to date broken down as you requested, is as follows:

  £

  (a) Provider fees

  187,950

  (b) Allowances

  85,178

  (c) Fares to interview

  5,632

  (d) Publicity

  1,500

  (e) Evaluation

  —1

  (f) Running costs

  58,000

  1 External evaluation starts on 22 March and is expected to cost in the region of £25,250.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the organisations within the Greater London area which provide training to unemployed people in workshop and craft skills and are funded from Government programmes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following is a list of the organisations requested. Training and Enterprise Councils (TECS) are responsible for planning and arranging Government funded training programmes. London TECS are currently negotiating contracts with their training providers for 1994–95.

  ORGANISATIONS WITH WHOM LONDON TECs CONTRACT FOR WORKSHOP BASED TRAINING PROVISION IN ALL SKILLS AREAS

  AZTEC

  Craft Training

  TfW

  Wandsworth Training Agency, Clapham

  Training and Business Factory, Clapham

  Share Community, Battersea

  YT

  Community Industry, Battersea

  S Thamos College, Putney Hill

  Wandsworth Training Agency, Wandsworth

  Skill Areas

  TfW

  Apex Trust, Wandsworth and Merton

  Share Community, Battersea

  Royal Borough of Kingston

  Wandsworth Training Agency

  North East Surrey College of Technology, Ewell

  Training and Business Factory, Brixton

  Sight and Sound, Central London

  Pruners, Sutton

  Equinox Associates, Battersea

  Mari Computer Training, Wandsworth

  Instant Muscle, Tooting

  Kingston College of Further Education

  CENTEC (Central London TEC) YT:

  Camden Jobtrain

  Community Care

  Motor Mechanics

  Tyre Fitting

  Catering—Food Preparation

  Carpentry and Joining

  City of Westminster College

  283

  Sound Engineering

  Stage Electrics

  Film and TV Lighting

  Photography

  Graphic Design

  Recreation and Leisure Management

  Engineering Technology

  Video Production

  Gas Installation

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Plastering

  Carpentry and Joinery

  Shopfitting

  Stonemasonry

  Fulham Training Workshops

  Motor Vehicle

  Electrical Installation

  Painting and Decorating

  Carpentry and Joinery

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Graphic Design

  Community Care

  Floristry

  Hotel and Catering Training Co

  Food Preparation and Cooking

  Food and Drink Service

  Housekeeping

  Reception

  Kilburn Skills

  Retail

  Catering

  Carpentry and Joinery

  Painting and Decorating

  Bricklaying

  Kingsway Training

  Graphic Design

  Jewellery

  Photoprocessing

  New Careers Training

  Carpentry

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Motor Vehicle

  Community Care

  Painting and Decorating

  Catering

  Splinters of Mayfair

  Hairdressing

  Training for Work

  Camden Training Centre

  Printing

  Horticulture

  Childcare

  Micro-Electronics

  Capital Training

  Bus Driving

  Hammersmith and West London College

  Carpentry

  Bricklaying

  Hotel and Catering Training Company

  Hotel and Catering

  London Electronics College

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  Mike Bryon Associates

  Bus Driving

  Pimlico Arts and Media

  Graphics/Design

  CILNTEC (City and Inner London North TEC) YT:

  EMC INTEC Ltd.

  Hackney College

  Springboard Hackney

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  Grand Metropolitan

  Bracklyn Training

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Holloway Youth Workshops

  Springboard Islington

  284

  Wells TEC

  North London Garages

  London Retail Meat Traders Association

  TFW:

  Laing Employment Training, Hackney College

  LETEC (London East TEC) Prospects (YT):

  B and D Youth Training

  Chamber of Commerce Training

  CITB

  Community Industry

  Crawford Training

  East London Training Group

  Ford Motor Company

  Havering Group Training

  Havering 16 plus

  Inner London Training

  J. and J. Training Ltd.

  J. and J. Training Ltd.

  JHP Training Ltd.

  JHP Training Ltd.

  Joshua Galvin Hairdressing

  London College of Furniture

  London Borough of Newham

  Mowlem Training Ltd.

  Newham Building Services

  Quest

  Vocational Prospects

  Waltham Forest Training Agencies

  Advance (TfW)

  Chelmer Training

  East London Projects

  East London Group Training

  J. and J. Training Services

  J. and J. Training Services

  J. T. Ltd.

  J.H.P. Training Ltd.

  LETO Laing

  Lloyds Training Services

  Mowlem Training Ltd.

  Network Projects Training

  Newham Community College

  Newham Wise Ltd.

  Westminster Training and Development

  North London TEC YT and TfW:

  CITB

  College of North East London

  Enfield College First Rung

  Harington

  HESTA

  Hendon College

  Hotel and Catering Training Company

  J. H. P. Sumlock

  Key Training Ltd.

  John Laing

  Leaside Bus Company Ltd.

  L. B. Enfield

  North London Garages

  Ravenswood

  Sight and Sound

  North West London TEC YT and TfW:

  Brent Regeneration Agency

  Brent Workskills Training

  Capital Training

  Cathedral Employment

  Chelmer Training

  City Training Link

  Dow Stoker Ltd. and Women Returners Ltd.

  Greenhill College

  Hotel and Catering Training Company

  Kilburn Skills

  KUDOS

  London Borough of Harrow

  LUYC

  285

  Manpower plc

  Middlesex ITEC

  National Schizophrenia

  Neighbourhood English Scheme

  New Enterprise Development

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  Stanmore College

  Taurus International

  The Training and Business Factory

  The Training Network North London Ltd.

  Weald College

  SOLOTEC (South London TEC) TfW:

  The Training and Business Factory

  Work placements in various occupations, emphasis on job search support.

  PCS Ltd

  Technical and Practical in various occupations.

  MacIntyre Marketing Ltd.

  Horticulture

  Wordpower/Number Power

  NACRO

  Business Administration

  Carpentry/Joinery

  Community Project work for people with painting and decorating and general building experience.

  Carshalton College of FE

  Bricklaying.

  Nescot Training Group

  Enterprise Rehearsal

  Bricklaying

  Work placements in various occupations, and job search, counselling and support.

  Croydon Training Centre

  Fork Lift Truck Driving.

  South Thames TEC YT and TfW:

  CIRCA (Employed status YT and TC Provider)

  CITB

  NACRO

  Lambeth College

  T. and B. Factory

  Cathedral

  ICY

  Southwark College

  Community Industry

  Jarvis Training Ltd.

  Home Improvement Project

  Lewisham College

  People for Action

  Greenwich Training Company

  Woolwich College

  Seleta (South East London Engineering Training Association)

  LITS (London Industrial Training Scheme)

  Ladywell Lodge (part of Lewisham Council)

  Lambeth ET Scheme (LETS)

  LET (London Employment Training)

  West London TEC YT and TfW:

  Wempey

  Ealing Tertiary College

  CITB

  Middlesex Training Centre

  Marlborough Training Centre

  Richmond upon Thames College

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the dates Ministers, or officials from his Department, including his Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985, including this year to date, on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.
  286
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Emphysema
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many claims have been received for compensation arising from employment-related emphysema in each year since 1979; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has no arrangements for paying compensation to people who have developed emphysema as a result of their employment. Claims for compensation against employers under civil law are a matter for the employer concerned.

  Claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of emphysema are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Jobplan Workshops
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what guidance is given to the Employment Service Agency when trying to match the skills of an unemployed person attending a jobplan workshop with the employment available;

  (2) what action is taken in respect of an unemployed person who refuses to accept a job or training place offered in a jobplan workshop.

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

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 23 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about Jobplan. You have asked how Jobplan can help an unemployed person match their skills with those required in the local labour market and whether any action is taken when someone refuses a job or a training place offered to them while on the Workshop.
  It may help if I explain that Jobplan aims to help people who have been unemployed for a year or more to compete for jobs and opportunities. About 80 per cent. of the people who first become unemployed leave the unemployment register within a year. For those who remain unemployed, confidence and the intensity of job search can decrease. People often believe that they have few options open to them. It is therefore important that at this stage people take a fresh look at their situation and have the chance to review their strengths and skills and set themselves clear, achievable job goals that take advantage of the help available. This can be achieved on Jobplan.
  Whilst on the Workshop, people are encouraged and helped to identify the skills and strengths they have demonstrated in both work and non-work situations. One of the sessions on the Workshop is devoted to examining the local labour market. The purpose of this is to tell the group about the types and numbers of jobs that are available in the area and the changing nature of work. They are then asked to consider which of their skills may be transferable and whether they might need to acquire new ones. Following this session each person has an individual guidance interview which in some cases can lead to them applying for further training.
  Jobplan is run on the Employment Service's behalf by organisations from the private, public and voluntary sectors. Every Workshop leader is provided with a copy of the Jobplan Leaders manual which provides guidance on running each session.
  At the end of the Workshop, everyone should be able to agree an Action Plan which sets out the steps they need to take to get

  287
  back into work. This may be making one or more job applications or applying for a training place or other opportunity. If someone is offered a job or a training place on the Workshop and turns down the opportunity to start, no action will be taken. However, we would want to discuss with the person the factors that led to their decision and see what further help we could offer. Arrangements are made for all those completing the Workshop to be interviewed at the Jobcentre when they next sign. If at that time they refuse offers of suitable employment, we would refer their case to independent adjudication authorities.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women have participated in jobplan workshops in the Cynon Valley and in all other Welsh constituencies since their inception.

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

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 23 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of men and women who have started on Jobplan in Wales and in the Cynon Valley since the programme started.
  Jobplan Workshops are for people unemployed for a year who decline or fail to take up a job or a place on an Employment Department programme at the Restart interview. They aim to help people compete more successfully for jobs and opportunities by allowing them to review their strengths and skills, establish clear job goals and draw up an Action Plan, mapping out the steps they need to take to get them back to work. Jobplan started nationally in April 1993.
  It is possible to give the information asked for the Cynon Valley, as people who live in this valley are served by two Jobcentres, Mountain Ash and Aberdare. The details for the rest of Wales are not collected on a constituency basis and therefore the figures given are for the Principality as a whole.
  From April 1993 to February 1994, 406 men and 45 women have started on Workshops in the Cynon Valley. In Wales in total 9,873 people have started the Workshops, 8,402 men and 1,471 women.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Young People (Benefits)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the youth training scheme allowance and (b) the income support level on severe hardship grounds for 17-year-olds and what were the equivalent figures in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1991–92 and (iii) 1992–93.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures for the youth training (YT) allowance and the income support level on severe hardship grounds for 17-year-olds for the years requested are given in the following table:

  £

  YT allowance

  Income support level

  1990–91

  35·00

  28·80

  1991–92

  35·00

  131·15

  1992–93

  35·00

  33·60

  1993–94

  35·00

  34·80

  1 31·40 from 1 October 1991.

  288

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people stopped claiming unemployment benefit in 1993–94; and of those, how many entered full-time or part-time employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Detailed information is not available on the destinations of the 4·4 million claimants who left unemployment during the year ended February 1994. However, past survey evidence indicates that the majority of people who leave claimant unemployment go into jobs.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase youth training scheme allowances for 17-year-olds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to increase minimum youth training allowances. Minimum YT allowances are set at levels which reflect the fact that trainees are involved in the learning process.

  Employers and training providers benefit from considerable Government investment in the training of young people. Because of this, they are encouraged to pay trainees more than the specified minimum rates of allowance wherever possible and many do so.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each year since 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Divisions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what consideration he is giving to the difficulties experienced by hon. Members at 7 Millbank in reaching the Lobbies within the eight minutes allowed before Divisions;

  (2) if he will bring forward an amendment to Standing Order No. 37 to extend the time allowed to hon. Members to reach Division Lobbies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The situation is being carefully monitored, but I have at present no plans to bring forward an amendment to Standing Order No. 37. As the hon. Member may be aware, Madam Speaker has discretion to extend Division times in the event of any difficulties in reaching the Lobbies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations were made to the British Government by the Malaysian Government about the case of Lorrain Osman;

  (2) on what occasions the case of Lorrain Osman was discussed with the Malaysian Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is established practice that details of our relations with other Governments are confidential.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government received representations between 1983 and 1993 from the Government of or Ministers in Malaysia in relation to Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether representations were made to Her Majesty's Governmment by the Malaysian authorities concerning the murder in Hong Kong of Jalil Ibrahim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: Yes. However, it is established practice that details of our relations with other Governments are confidential.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons documents concerning the murder of Jalil Ibrahim were adjudged by him to be irrelevant to the defence of Mr. Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: It was the divisional court, not the Secretary of State, who made this judgment in respect of the "Jalil Documents" in Lorrain Osman's seventh application for Habeas Corpus.

  Non-Proliferation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reconciliation of Her Majesty's Government's policy on the exports of high-technology conventional weapons with its policy on non-proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We support the export of British equipment, including high technology conventional weapons, where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. This is based on the right of all nations to self-defence, in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter. As part of our objective to prevent destabilising accumulations of arms, we observe strict responsibility and restraint in our exports of arms and actively encourage other suppliers to do likewise.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent changes relating to the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the missile technology control regime plenary meeting in Interlaken, 29 November to 2 December 1993, member states agreed that export controls on sensitive items should be maintained, and introduced 290
  clarification of some listed export items. They undertook to redouble efforts to persuade potential exporter countries outside the regime to abide by MTCR guidelines. In recent months Russia, Brazil and South Africa have also made significant progress towards adoption of MTCR guidelines. The meeting welcomed Argentina and Hungary as new members.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those states that have indicated adherence to the terms of the missile technology control regime.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The following are member states of the missile technology control regime—MTCR.

  Argentina

  Austria

  Australia

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Italy

  Japan

  Luxembourg

  Portugal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Norway

  Republic of Ireland

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  United States

  Several other states have declared their adherence to the MTCR guidelines, or are making progress towards meeting them, including:

  Brazil

  China

  Czech Republic

  Indonesia

  Romania

  Russia

  South Africa

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will abide by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal status in international law of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons policy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not prepared to conjecture about what conclusions the International Court of Justice might reach on this issue.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to other Commonwealth countries in respect of their making submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We will be making our own submission to the International Court of Justice on this question, and the subject has been discussed with other states in the course of normal diplomatic exchanges.
  291
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the terms "strategic" and "sub-strategic" as currently used by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  These terms relate to the type of action to which a nuclear weapon would contribute. Sub-strategic weapons provide the ability to take action more limited than a strategic strike.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the referral to the International Court of Justice for clarification of international law as regards nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave him on 1 February, at column 605.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part Her Majesty's Government will play in European Union submissions to the International Court of Justice as to the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The submission of statements to the International Court of Justice is a matter for individual member states.

  European Union
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries where the European Union takes on the responsibility of representing individual countries of the European Union those countries do not have direct representation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union does not have a legal personality. In particular it does not represent individual member states. Under article J.5.1 of the Treaty on European Union the presidency is responsible for representing the European Union on issues of foreign and security policy where member states have an agreed policy. This sometimes involves the presidency taking action in a third country where not all the member states have diplomatic representation. In those countries where the presidency itself does not have a diplomatic mission, another member state acts on the presidency's behalf.

  The presidency also represents the European Union where necessary in business under the justice and home affairs pillar. In matters of Community competence—example trade—which require action in third countries, the European Commission can represent the member states. On 1 July 1993 consular guidelines agreed by member states came into effect. Subject to local circumstances nationals of a member state who require consular assistance in a country or place where that member state has no accessible consular or diplomatic representation may seek the help of a permanent diplomatic or consular post of another member state.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the International Atomic Energy Agency visit to North Korea to conduct nuclear safeguards inspections on facilities, pursuant to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; what consultations he has had with the 292
  United States Government over these nuclear inspections; and if he will make a statement on the application of United Kingdom non-proliferation policy to (a) the Koreas, (b) Taiwan and (c) Japan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Despite a written agreement of 15 February, North Korea did not allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to undertake some crucial parts of their inspection earlier this month. Consequently the agency was unable to verify that no diversion of nuclear material from the civil nuclear fuel cycle has taken place in the last year. We shall continue to work closely with the United States Administration on this issue. We expect all countries which are members of the non-proliferation treaty, or which have concluded safeguards agreements, to abide fully by their obligations not to develop nuclear weapons.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the EC proposal for increasing the number of member states required to block a decision makes an exception in the case of decisions affecting the price of food.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The number of votes required for decisions taken by qualified majority voting in the Council is laid down in article 148 of the treaty of Rome. A decision on the amendment of article 148 in the context of enlargement is still under negotiation in the Council. Council decisions on prices under the common agricultural policy are decided by qualified majority voting under article 43. There has been no proposal to amend this practice.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his departmental policy on the use by Ministers of his Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Office letterheaded paper to correspond to hon. Members on the Conservative and Unionist party strategy for the forthcoming European elections; and if he has had any discussions with his departmental accounting officer on this issue.

  Mr. Hurd
  My special adviser's office recently used Foreign and Commonwealth Office paper by mistake for a letter on the Conservative approach to the European elections. I have assured the permanent Under-Secretary that this will not happen again.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Turkey
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of how many Kurdish journalists and Kurds involved in the distribution of newspapers he has received representations that they have been unlawfully killed in the last three years.
  293
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are aware of such unexplained killings, but have not received representations about specific cases. We hope that the Turkish authorities will vigorously investigate these crimes so that those responsible can be brought before the courts.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the use of the anti-terror department against elected members of the pro-Kurdish Democracy party in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We understand that Democracy party deputies were detained by anti-terrorist police after the National Assembly voted to remove their parliamentary immunities following a request by the public prosecutor that they be tried for alleged offences related to terrorism. The Turkish Prime Minister has said she will investigate allegations that the police acted improperly. We shall continue to make clear to the Turkish authorities the importance we attach to their permitting the non-violent expression of political beliefs.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to supplies of food and medical supplies to Kurdish areas of Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no information about this, which is a matter for the Turkish authorities.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Council of Ministers has held recently on allegations of abuse of the human rights of Kurds committed by Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Council of Ministers has not recently discussed allegations of human rights abuse in Turkey. European Union Foreign Ministers raised human rights with the Turkish Foreign Minister on 8 November 1993. At the Human Rights Commission in Geneva recently the European Union expressed concern at the situation in Turkey. I stressed our concerns when I met the Turkish Minister for Human Rights in London earlier this month.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held in the Council of Europe regarding the possibility of the expulsion of Turkey from that body, in respect of abuse of human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Council of Europe regularly discusses human rights in a number of countries including Turkey. There has been no discussion of Turkey's expulsion.

  China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what complaints he has received recently regarding the detention of foreign visitors on religious grounds by the Chinese Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A number of non-governmental organisations and others have brought to our attention the detention last month of ten religious believers, including seven foreigners, in Henan province in China. We understand that all the detainees have now been released.

  Norway
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the terms agreed between the EU and Norway on the latters proposed accession to the Community with particular reference to their effect on the common fisheries policy and access by EU members to the North sea.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Norway agreed its terms of accession with the European Union at the 15–16 March Foreign Affairs Council. On the details of the terms, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 21 March at col.11. The agreement reached on Norwegian accession does not change the existing rules of the common fisheries policy. European Union countries' access to waters, including the North sea, is unaffected. Reciprocal arrangements for access to resources fully respect the principle known as relative stability, that is, the agreed allocation of fishing opportunities according to historical patterns.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been received from the United Nations to pay for(a) Operation Hanwood, (b) Operation Cheshire and (c) Operation Grapple; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The names "Hanwood, Cheshire and Grapple" are national terms to describe participation by British armed forces in UN operations in the former Yugoslavia. The terms are not used by the UN. The UN has made payments to cover United Kingdom troop costs for both Operation Hanwood—the field ambulance which withdrew from Croatia in September—and Operation Grapple—The United Kingdom operation in Bosnia—as one payment for the total United Kingdom troop contribution to UNPROFOR.

  Operation Cheshire describes RAF participation in the Sarajevo airlift. The United Nations does not refund costs to any of the participants who are carrying in humanitarian supplies on behalf of UNHCR.

  UNPROFOR Croatia—UNPROFOR I—began in February 1992. In the first six months United Kingdom's participation in UNPROFOR II was at no additional cost to the United Nations; the operation was placed on United Nations assessed contributions on 1 April 1993.

  Reimbursements from the United Nations to date are as follows:

  FY 1992–93

  UNPROFOR I payments for troop costs for the period to 31 July 1992

  Total £191,663·25

  FY 1993–94 to date

  UNPROFOR I payments for troop costs March 1992 to March 1993

  £1,667,909·09

  UNPROFOR I and II payments for troop costs April-November 1993

  £13,439,501·66

  UNPROFOR II rations for the period April-September 1993 £2,013,288·19

  UNPROFOR II payment for helicopter services April-September

  295
  1993

  £979,273·70

  Total £18,099,972·64

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the meeting between United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Serbian President in Belgrade on 15 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: Mrs. Ogata received assurances from President Milosevic that he would use his influence with the Bosnian Serbs over access to Maglaj. The situation has now improved and the first United Nations aid convoy to reach the town since October arrived on 20 March. Mrs. Ogata also expressed her concern at the continued human rights abuses in Banja Luka. We look to the Serb authorities to act on these concerns.

  EC Accession Treaty
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what dates he expects(a) the deliberations of the formal Council of Ministers of the European Community concerning an accession treaty to be completed, (b) publication of the draft text and (c) introduction of the relevant treaty for treaty ratifications.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]: The draft treaty is due to be published in early April. If the European Parliament gives its assent to accession during their session of the week beginning 2 May, the treaty will be signed in that month. It will then be open for ratification by member states and applicant states.

  Palestine
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Palestine.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]: Some of the precautionary measures enforced by the Israelis in the occupied territories following the Hebron massacre are still in place, including a curfew in the Hebron area and the closure of the occupied territories. We supported United Nations Security Council Resolution 904 which called for protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. The resolution also calls for the implementation without delay of the declaration of principles signed last year by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

  Licence and expiry date of licence

  Wild bird species and maximum number permitted to be killed under the licence

  Premise of license and location covered by licence

  Belfast International Airport 30 April 1994

  Laping (20)

  Preserving air safety within the perimeter of Aldergrove Airport

  Belfast International Airport 30 April 1994

  Black Headed gull (20)

  Preserving air safety within the perimeter of Aldergrove Airport

  Belfast International Airport 30 April 1994

  Golden Plover (20)

  Preserving air safety within the perimeter of Aldergrove Airport

  River Faughan Anglers 30 June 1994

  Cormorant (10)

  Protecton of migratory fish smolts at the River Faughan, County Londonderry

  River Faughan Angles 30 June 1994

  Cormorant (5)

  Protection of salmon smolts at the River Bundennett, County Tyrone and County Londonderry

  296

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Two hundred and twenty letters were received of which 161 were replied to.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in the past five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on the ground of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers." I also seek to comply with Madam Speaker's guidance on the need for brief answers to oral questions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for the past 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Sir John Wheeler
  During the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993 71 questions were referred for answer by a Departmental agency. This represents 4·7 per cent. of parliamentary questions asked.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list details of all current licences issued to kill wild bird species, including the premises and the wild bird species concerned.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The details of all current licences issued by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to kill wild bird species, including the premises and the wild bird species are as follows:
  297

  License and expiry date of licence

  Wild bird species and maximum number permitted to be killed under the licence

  Premise of licence and location covered by licence

  Bann System Ltd. 30 June 1994

  Cormorant (10)

  Protection of salmon smolts at the Lower Bann and tributary rivers

  Shanes Castle Estates Co. Ltd. 30 June 1994

  Cormorant (10)

  Protection of salmon smolts at shanes Castle, Antrim

  J.T. Lawrence 2 April 1994

  Cormorant (5)

  Preserving fish stocks at lough Doo Fishery, Portaferry, County Down

  Warrenpoint, Rostrevor and District Angling Club 2 April 1994

  Cormorant (5)

  Protection of trout stocks at Mill Dam and Donaghaguy Reservoir, Warrenpoint, County Down

  Castlewellan and Annsborough Angling Club 5 April 1994

  Cormorant (5)

  Protection of fish farm (stocking of trout) at Ballylough Lough and Ballywillwill lough, County Down

  T/A Alpha Pest Control/Services March 1995

  Starling

  Preventing the spread of disease or preserving public health—all of Northern Ireland

  T/A Alpha Pest Control/Services 23 March 1995

  Sparrow and Feral Pigeon

  For the purpose of preventing the spread of disease or preserving public health—all of Northern Ireland

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of legally qualified staff employed by the Northern Ireland office and the Northern Ireland Departments, listing the branches in which such staff are employed and the number in each; how many people there are in each case whose perceived religious affiliation is (i) Protestant, (ii) Roman Catholic, (iii) not determined; how many came from outside Northern Ireland; and how many of the latter were born (1) in the rest of the United Kingdom and (2) in the Republic of Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of qualified legal staff currently employed by the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland departments is 147. The table lists the branches in which such staff are employed and the number in each.

  Branch

  Number of Staff

  Northern Ireland Office, London

  1

  Northern Ireland Office, Belfast

  4

  Crown Solicitors Office

  42

  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

  37

  Northern Ireland Compensation Agency

  10

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  3

  Department of Finance and Personnel Solicitor's Office

  35

  Office of Law Reform

  2

  Legislative Counsel

  7

  Northern Ireland Land Registry

  5

  Equal Opportunities Unit

  1

  The use of community background monitoring information in the Northern Ireland civil service is governed by a code of practice, agreed with staff representatives, under which such information can be used only for the purposes of monitoring the effectiveness of the Northern Ireland civil service policy on equality of opportunity and to meet statutory requirements under fair employment legislation.

  Disaggregation in the detail sought would be contrary to the code of practice, and could contravene the confidentiality requirements contained in regulations made
  298
  under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. However, of the 147 staff currently employed in a legal capacity 83 are perceived as Protestant and 52 as Roman Catholic. The perceived religious affiliation of 12 cannot be determined. Of these, eight are assessed as being from outside Northern Ireland including five from the United Kingdom and one from the Republic of Ireland.

  Purchasing Health Boards
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each purchasing health board in Northern Ireland, the figures for revenue funding in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, and the estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if he will indentify the changes for each health board's revenue budget resulting from the replacement of the resource allocation working party system of determining funding allocation.

  Mr. Ancram
  The revenue resources—exclusive of capital charge—sallocated to health and social services boards for the purchase of health and social care for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 are shown in table 1. The figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are provisional and as funding for subsequent years is dependent upon the outcome of future public expenditure surveys, no estimates can be provided for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Table 1

  Board

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  1994–95 £000

  Northern

  188,159

  200,204

  223,093

  Southern

  148,705

  162,906

  170,601

  Eastern

  409,657

  390,289

  395,372

  Western

  137,825

  148,927

  155,453

  Following the discontinuance of provider-based funding from April 1992, boards are now funded as purchasers of services for their resident populations. Under the new funding approach, the resource adjustments effected to determine the allocations in table 1, are as follows:

  299

  Table 2

  Board

  1992–93 £000

  1993–94 £000

  1994–95 £000

  Northern

  38,654

  1,832

  16,970

  Southern

  14,533

  3,871

  4,218

  Eastern

  153,318

  18,856

  14,741

  Western

  4,392

  3,153

  4,331

  1 Figures denote a reduction in Eastern Boards share of resources.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 31 January,Official Report, columns 491–92.

  NHS Specialists (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were not on waiting lists for treatment but waiting to see a specialist in the national health service for each quarter in the last two years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of people waiting for first out-patient appointment in Northern Ireland at the end of December 1993 was 79,813. This information is available only from the last quarter of 1993.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary report on the RUC.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Copies of the 1993 inspection report, which is the first RUC inspection report to be published, have today been placed in the Library. I welcome the report and will be considering its recommendations carefully. I am grateful to Her Majesty's inspectorate for the report and am pleased to note that overall he regards the force as efficient.

  HMIC's inspections offer the opportunity of professional examination of policing policies and priorities and this inspection focused specifically on areas selected for their contribution to efficient and effective operational policing.

  The publication, for the first time, of this report is entirely in line with both the Government's and the Chief Constable's clear commitment to more openness.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the administrative costs of the electricity share offer and the trade sale of the generating stations in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The costs to the Government of the electricity share offer and sale of the generating stations in Northern Ireland are estimated as follows:

  £ million

  Underwriting

  2·9

  Selling and broking commission

  1·5

  Advisers fees

  14·5

  300

  £ million

  Marketing

  1·4

  Receiving bank

  1·7

  Share information office, printing and other logistical costs

  2·0

  Total

  24·0

  These costs represent about 3 per cent. of the total proceeds due from the sale of the generating stations, the sale of shares in the electricity share offer and the repayment of debt which together are estimated at £780 million. The costs exclude stamp duty and VAT on services provided to the Government which are not net costs to the Exchequer, and incentives on employee and individual shareholdings. The figures include expenditure incurred from April 1991 to the end of January 1994, but do not include costs incurred in previous years primarily on the restructuring of the industry which amounted to about £3·1 million.

  Self-financing Regulatory Authorities
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many self-financing regulatory authorities his Department has set up since 1979; what was the annual running cost of each of the self-financing regulatory authorities in each of the last three years; what is the current staffing establishment; and what it was last year and two years ago.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: While there are a number of regulatory authorities in Northern Ireland, none of them are self-financing.

  However, the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency—DVTA—of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has a regulatory function and is required to recover total costs through fees and charges. The agency was established on 1 April 1992. Running cost for 1992–93 was £5·4 million and it is estimated to be £5·8 million for 1993–94. The staffing complement at the date of its establishment was 257 and is currently 253.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Home Civil Servants

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Grade 1

  1

  —

  Grade 2

  2

  —

  Grade 3

  4

  —

  Grade 4

  2

  —

  Grade 5

  10

  —

  Grade 6

  4

  —

  Grade 7

  26

  23

  Senior Executive Officer

  4

  75

  Senior Information Officer

  4

  —

  Senior Research Officer

  1

  —

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  4

  25

  Higher Executive Officer

  20

  60

  Administration Trainee

  2

  50

  301

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Research Officer

  1

  100

  Executive Officer

  28

  54

  Senior Personal Secretary

  7

  100

  Typing Manager

  1

  100

  Administrative Officer

  19

  58

  Personal Secretary

  15

  100

  Administrative Assistant

  9

  56

  Typist

  16

  100

  Catering Manager 1

  1

  —

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  —

  Support Manager 3

  1

  —

  Chef 1

  4

  50

  Support Grade Band 1

  6

  —

  Support Grade Band 2

  7

  43

  Industrials (Non-craft)

  16

  75

  TOTAL

  213

  52

  Northern Ireland civil servants non-industrial

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Head of Service

  1

  —

  Permanent Secretary (G2A)

  6

  —

  Under Secretary (G3)

  31

  —

  Unified Grade 4(G4)

  3

  —

  Assistant Secretary (G5)

  116

  10

  Senior Principal (G6)

  31

  —

  Principal (G7)

  404

  14

  Accountant Grade 7

  2

  50

  Deputy Principal

  665

  25

  Accountant Deputy Principal

  4

  —

  Staff Officer

  1,008

  42

  Staff Officer (A)

  11

  18

  Staff Officer (Accountant)

  20

  15

  Administration Trainee

  6

  17

  Executive Officer

  1,399

  57

  EOI (Accountant)

  5

  40

  Auditor (SO) MIIA or BATS

  10

  20

  Auditor (SO) MIIA or BATS

  22

  27

  Auditor Deputy Principal MIIA and BATS

  12

  8

  Social Security Officer 1

  906

  69

  Executive Officer 2

  1,503

  67

  Administrative Assistant

  3,218

  75

  Administrative Officer

  3,526

  72

  Social SecurityOfficer 2B

  1,809

  72

  Social Security Officer 2A

  375

  66

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  50

  Accommodation Manager (Enniskiln)

  1

  100

  Chief Executive

  1

  —

  Chief Agricultural Economist (G5)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Agricultural Economist (G6)

  2

  —

  Principal Agricultural Economist (G7)

  5

  40

  Senior Agricultural Economist

  3

  —

  Assistant Agricultural Economist

  1

  100

  Chief Executive Valuation and Lands Agency

  1

  —

  Chief Executive

  3

  —

  Senior Deputy Agricultural Officer (G5)

  2

  —

  Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer (G6)

  3

  —

  Agricultural Inspector Grade I

  23

  4

  Agricultural Inspector Grade II

  72

  10

  Agricultural Inspector Grade III

  158

  30

  Inspector Group 4

  84

  —

  Agricultural Inspector Grade IV

  4

  25

  Inspector Group 5

  7

  —

  Post-mortem Room attendant

  4

  —

  Inspector Group 3

  34

  —

  Inspector Group 2

  107

  2

  302

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Inspector Group 1

  133

  9

  Food Technology Technician

  6

  17

  Chief Alkali and Radiochemical Inspecter

  1

  —

  Alkali and Radiochemical Inspector

  4

  —

  Director of Works Service DOE (G4)

  1

  —

  Chief Architect (G5)

  1

  —

  SUPT Architect (G6)

  2

  —

  PPTO (Architect) (G7)

  23

  —

  SPTO (Architect)

  22

  9

  HPTO (Architect)

  5

  40

  SPTO (Architectural Assistant)

  23

  —

  HPTO (Architectural Assistant)

  27

  —

  PTO (Architectural Assistant)

  47

  4

  HPTO (Maint Tech Architect)

  1

  —

  PTO (Maint Tech Architect)

  8

  —

  DIR Estate Services (G4)

  1

  —

  Chief Executive (IDB)

  1

  —

  Divisional Director

  3

  —

  Principal Auditor (G7)

  2

  —

  Senior Auditor H and SS (Acc)

  2

  —

  Auditor II and SS (Acc)

  5

  60

  Assistant Auditor

  2

  —

  Audit Assistant DHSS

  4

  75

  Assistant Divisional Director

  3

  —

  Chief Auditor (G5)

  1

  —

  Principal Auditor LG (G7)

  2

  —

  Auditor LG

  4

  —

  Assistant Auditor LG

  2

  —

  Senior Audit Assistant LG

  3

  33

  PPTO (Building Surveyor) (G7)

  1

  —

  SPTO (Building Surveyor)

  4

  —

  HPTO (Building Surveyor)

  3

  —

  PTO (Building Surveyor)

  3

  —

  Career Adviser

  4

  25

  Senior Careers Officer

  16

  56

  Careers Officer

  105

  60

  Catering Adviser

  1

  100

  Catering Manager 2

  1

  100

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  100

  Divisional Manager Belfast (G5)

  2

  —

  Chief Civil Engineer (G5)

  3

  —

  Divisional Manager (G6)

  8

  —

  OPS Director Water (G5)

  1

  —

  Superintendent Civil Engineer (G6)

  8

  —

  PPTO Civil Engineer

  73

  —

  SPTO (Civil Engineer)

  183

  2

  HPTO (Civil Engineer)

  91

  7

  Graduate Trainee Civil Engineer

  23

  17

  SPTO (Civil Engineering Assistant)

  43

  2

  HPTO (Civil Engineering Assistant)

  202

  3

  PTO (Civil Engineering Assistant)

  525

  4

  TGI Trainee Civil Engineering Assistant

  8

  8

  O Level Trainee Civil Engineering Assistant

  61

  4

  Chief Clerk of Works (SPTO)

  4

  —

  Clerk of Works 1 (HPTO)

  20

  0

  Clerk of Works 2 (PTO)

  88

  —

  Manager/Warden

  1

  —

  Assistant Manager Warden

  1

  —

  Director of Conservation

  1

  —

  HPTO (Senior Warden)

  2

  —

  PTO, Warden

  11

  —

  TGI (Assistant Warden)

  12

  25

  Chief Dental Officer

  1

  —

  Dental Officer

  4

  —

  Dental Surgery Assistant

  3

  100

  Development Executive

  14

  56

  Deputy Development Executive

  2

  50

  Assistant Development Executive

  2

  —

  Assistant Secretary Statistician (G5)

  1

  —

  Senior Principal Statistician (G6)

  1

  —

  Principal Statistiscian (G7)

  17

  29

  Deputy Principal Statistician

  31

  55

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  17

  29

  303

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Assistant Statistician

  12

  25

  Assistant Secretary Economist (G5)

  1

  0

  Special Economist (G6)

  1

  0

  Principal Economist (G7)

  8

  13

  Deputy Economist

  7

  29

  Senior Assistant Economist

  7

  29

  Assistant Economist

  7

  43

  Senior Assistant Economist

  7

  29

  Assistant Economist

  7

  43

  Director Environmental Services (G4)

  1

  —

  Director Environmental Protection (G5)

  1

  —

  Chief Environmental Health Officer (G6)

  1

  —

  Senior Environmental Health Officer (G7)

  2

  —

  Environmental Health Officer

  2

  50

  Estates Superintendent HPTO

  1

  —

  Controller (CFO) (G6)

  1

  —

  Chief Examiner (CTO)

  2

  —

  Senior Examiner

  1

  100

  Deputy Crown Solicitor (G4)

  1

  —

  Chief Inspector (Health and Safety) (G5)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Inspector (Health and Safety)

  2

  —

  Principal Inspector (Health and Safety)

  10

  —

  Inspector (Health and Safety)

  7

  14

  Inspector 2 (Health and Safety)

  3

  —

  Fire Officer 1

  2

  —

  Senior Fire Officer

  1

  —

  Fire Officer

  4

  —

  Fire Officer 2 (PTO)

  2

  —

  PTO4 Drilling Rig Supervisor

  2

  —

  Chief Fisheries Officer

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer

  2

  —

  Senior Fisheries Officer

  3

  —

  Fisheries Officer 1

  12

  —

  Fisheries Officer 2

  10

  —

  Area Foreman (PTO)

  6

  —

  Technical Grade 1 (DANI)

  26

  —

  Chief Forest Officer (G5)

  1

  —

  Forest Operations Officer

  1

  —

  Divisional Officer (G7)

  2

  —

  Forest Officer I

  11

  —

  Forst Officer II

  11

  —

  Forest Officer III

  21

  —

  Forest Officer IV

  24

  4

  Area Forest Engineer

  3

  —

  General Manager TC (G7)

  1

  —

  Senior Instructional Officer

  41

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer-NIO

  2

  —

  Higher Instructional Officer

  49

  4

  Instructional Officer 1

  275

  5

  SPTO Graphic Designer

  1

  —

  HPTO Graphic Designer

  1

  —

  Audio Visual Technician

  1

  —

  PTO Graphic Designer

  5

  —

  Training Service Manager

  31

  13

  Principal Inspector

  1

  100

  Senior Inspector

  7

  29

  Principal Photographer

  1

  —

  PTO Supervisor (Historic Monuments)

  1

  —

  PTO Senior Supervisor (Historic Monuments BD.B)

  1

  —

  Senior Photographer

  1

  —

  Custodian (Historic Monuments)

  1

  —

  Photographic Officer

  1

  —

  Assistant Draughtsman Illustrator

  1

  —

  Photographer

  1

  —

  Field Monument Warden

  3

  33

  Senior Imports Inspector

  4

  —

  Imports Inspector

  12

  —

  Senior Industrial Accountant

  2

  —

  304

  Grade

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Industrial Accountant (G7)

  9

  22

  Management Accountant

  1

  —

  Assistant Industrial Accountant

  2

  —

  Deputy Director Information Services (GR5)

  1

  —

  SP Information Officer (G6)

  2

  —

  Principal Information Officer (G7)

  6

  —

  Deputy Principal Information Officer

  11

  46

  Information Officer

  5

  60

  Chief Inspector (G3)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Inspector (G4)

  1

  —

  Staff Inspector (G5)

  6

  17

  Inspector (G6)

  —

  —

  Senior Housing Inspector (HPTO)

  49

  31

  Housing Inspector 2 (PTO)

  1

  —

  Investigation Officer

  1

  —

  PRO (Interior Designer)

  4

  —

  PPTO (Landscape Architect)

  1

  3

  SPTO (Landscape Architect)

  2

  50

  SPTO Landscape Architect

  1

  —

  HPTO (Landscape Architect's Assistant)

  1

  —

  PTO (Landscape Architect's Assistant)

  7

  43

  PTO Development Control Inspector

  10

  —

  PTO Senior Photographer

  1

  100

  TGI Photographer

  1

  —

  Chief Law Clerk

  6

  17

  Registrar Lands Tribunal

  1

  —

  Senior Law Clerk

  14

  57

  Law Clerk 1

  40

  55

  Law Clerk 2

  5

  60

  1st Legislative Draftsman (G2B)

  1

  —

  2nd Legislative Draftsman (G3)

  2

  50

  Librarian

  2

  —

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Assistant Librarian

  5

  80

  Deputy Director MGT Training

  1

  —

  Senior MGT Training Adviser

  1

  —

  Management Training Adviser

  1

  —

  Chief Mapper

  2

  50

  Superintendent Mapper

  5

  40

  Senior Mapper

  13

  54

  Technical Grade 1

  85

  44

  Mapper

  41

  59

  Technical Grade 2

  24

  38

  HPTO Ferry Manager

  1

  —

  Ship's Captain

  1

  —

  DDEE Harbour Master/Foreman Works

  1

  —

  Ship's Engineer

  2

  —

  Ship's Mat

  1

  —

  Director of OSNI

  1

  —

  Deputy Director Ordinance Survey (G6)

  1

  —

  PR Mapping and Charting of (G7)

  3

  —

  Senior Map and Charting Officer

  6

  —

  Higher Map and Charting Officer

  17

  —

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  128

  6

  Map and Charting Technical Grade 2

  10

  10

  Map and Charting Technical Grade 1

  29

  21

  Map and Charting Technical Grade 1

  2

  —

  Senior Meat Inspector

  12

  —

  Meat Inspector

  91

  10

  Poultry Meat Inspector

  26

  23

  PTO Electrical Engineer Assistant

  10

  —

  G/T Electrical Engineer

  1

  —

  Trainee Electrical Engineer Assistant

  7

  14

  Superintendent M & E Eningeer (G6)

  2

  —

  PPTO (M & E Engineer) (G7)

  20

  —

  SPTO (M & E Engineer)

  12

  —

  HPTO (M & E Engineer)

  9

  22

  Grad TR M & E Engineer

  3

  —

  TR Mechanical Engineer Assistant

  2

  —

  305

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  SPTO (M & E Engineering Assistant)

  33

  —

  HPTO (M&E Enginering Assistant)

  56

  —

  PTO (M&E Engineering Assistant)

  110

  —

  PTO4 (M&E Engineering Assistant)

  1

  —

  PTO (Service Engineer)

  3

  —

  SPTO (Superintendent of Works)

  2

  —

  HPTO (Superintendent of Works)

  1

  —

  PTO (Superintendent of Works)

  6

  —

  Chief Medical Officer

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Medical Officer

  2

  50

  Principal Medical Officer

  4

  —

  Senior Medical Officer

  9

  44

  Medical Officer

  16

  31

  Medical Officer (PT-Time)

  3

  —

  PTO Materials Testing TH

  2

  —

  Chief Nursing Officer

  1

  —

  Principal Nursing Officer

  1

  —

  Nursing Officer

  4

  75

  Nursing Grade G

  1

  100

  Nurse Grade F

  1

  100

  Nurse Grade C

  2

  100

  Senior Assistant Director DPP

  2

  —

  Superintendent Office Machines

  1

  —

  Assistant Supervisor Office Machinery

  1

  —

  Support Manager 2

  4

  75

  Support Manger 3

  38

  47

  Support Grade Band 1

  561

  56

  Support Grade Band 2

  683

  42

  Chief Pharmaceutical Officer (G5)

  1

  —

  Senior Principal Pharmaceutical Officer

  1

  —

  Principal Pharmaceutical Officer (G5)

  2

  —

  Pharmaceutical Officer

  1

  —

  Director T and C Planning (G4)

  1

  —

  DV Planning Officer (G5) BF

  1

  —

  Assistant Director Planning (G5)

  1

  —

  DV Planning Officer (G6)

  5

  —

  Superintendent Planning Officer (G6)

  2

  —

  PPTO Planning Officer

  17

  23

  SPTO (Planning Officer)

  47

  11

  HPTO (Planning Officer)

  39

  33

  GRAD TR Planning Officer

  1

  —

  HPTO (Planning Assistant)

  41

  17

  PTO (Planning Assistant)

  54

  22

  Trainee Planning Assistant

  12

  58

  Chief Education and Training Officer (G7)

  1

  100

  Education Officer HOD2

  1

  —

  Education Officer HOD1

  3

  33

  Senior Teacher

  2

  50

  DC ED and Training Officer (NIO)

  1

  —

  Teacher

  12

  50

  HPTO Prison Industries

  3

  —

  PTO (Prison Industries)

  1

  —

  Chief Examiner (G7)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Driving Examiner

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Examiner (SPTO)

  3

  —

  Supervising Examiner

  2

  —

  District Examiner

  14

  —

  PTO Vehicle Driving Examiner

  119

  —

  Senior Driving Examiner

  3

  —

  Driving/Traffic Examiner

  9

  —

  Chief Psychologist (GR6)

  1

  100

  Senior Psychologist

  1

  —

  Higher Psychologist

  2

  —

  Principal Psychologist

  1

  100

  Curatorial Grade A (G5)

  1

  —

  Curatorial Grade B (G6)

  1

  —

  Curatorial Grade C (G7)

  4

  50

  Curatorial Grade E

  14

  28

  Curatorial Grade F

  4

  50

  Conservation Grade F

  5

  20

  Superintendent Quantity Surveyor (G6)

  5

  —

  PTO (Quantity Surveyor) (G7)

  14

  —

  SPTO (Quantity Surveyor)

  11

  9

  HPTO (Quantity Surveyor)

  6

  —

  GRAD TR Quantity Surveyor

  1

  —

  SPTO (Quantity Surveying Assistant)

  11

  —

  306

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  HPTO (Quantity Surveying Assistant)

  13

  —

  PTO (Quantity Surveying Assistant)

  10

  10

  Senior Enforcement Officer

  2

  —

  Enforcement Officer

  6

  17

  PRO Supervisor (Roade)

  41

  —

  Director of Roads Service (G4)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Scientific Officer (G5)

  2

  —

  SP Scientific Officer (G6)

  17

  —

  Principal Scientific Officer (G7)

  74

  8

  Senior Scientific Officer

  136

  20

  Higher Scientific Officer

  142

  22

  Scientific Officer

  176

  35

  Brucella Tester

  13

  69

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  229

  44

  PTO4 Supervisor

  6

  —

  Security Guard

  7

  —

  Security Officer

  7

  —

  SPTO Health and Safety Adviser

  3

  —

  HPTO Safety Advisory Officer

  15

  —

  Chief Inspector (SSI)(G4)

  1

  —

  Assistant Chief Inspector

  3

  —

  Inspector (SSI)

  13

  38

  Head Legal Services (G3)

  1

  —

  Deputy Head of Legal Services

  1

  —

  Assistant Solicitor (G5) NS

  24

  —

  Deputy Registrar Land Reg

  1

  —

  Senior Legal Assistant

  83

  41

  Legal Assistant

  32

  81

  SPTO (Prison Transport)

  1

  —

  Supplies Officer

  1

  —

  SPTO (Supplies)

  1

  —

  HPTO (Supplies)

  4

  —

  PTO Supplies

  16

  6

  Stores Officer (Grade C)

  5

  —

  PTO Stores Liaison Officer

  6

  —

  Chief Structural Engineer UN GR 5

  1

  —

  Superintendent Structural Engineer (G6)

  1

  —

  PPTO Structural Engineer

  4

  —

  SPTO Structural Engineer

  11

  —

  SPTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  2

  —

  HPTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  7

  —

  PTO (Structural Engineering Assistant)

  13

  —

  Superintendent Systems Analyst (G7)

  7

  —

  Senior Systems Analyst

  71

  17

  Systems Analyst

  151

  21

  Programmeer/Analyst

  152

  27

  Programmer

  124

  22

  SW Course Student (IT)

  21

  38

  Assistant Programmer

  7

  28

  Principal Transport Manager

  1

  —

  Area Transport Manager

  2

  —

  Assistant Area Transport Manager

  3

  —

  Fleet Centre Manager

  1

  —

  PTO Workshop Supervisor

  4

  —

  Chief Typing Manager

  11

  100

  Typing Manager

  110

  100

  Typist

  1,133

  99

  Senior Personal Secretary

  36

  100

  Personal Secretary

  196

  100

  Assistant Commissioner

  3

  —

  District Valuer (G6)

  10

  —

  Senior Valuer (G7)

  26

  —

  Valuer I

  63

  —

  Valuer II

  54

  26

  Senior Valuation Assistant

  12

  —

  Valuation Assistant

  41

  10

  DC Veterinary Officer (G5)

  2

  —

  SP Veterinary Officer (G6)

  5

  20

  Divisional Veterinary Officer

  24

  4

  Veterinary Officer (G7)

  80

  27

  Chief Veterinary Research Officer (G5)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer

  2

  —

  Senior Veterinary Research Officer 1 (G6)

  3

  —

  Senior Veterinary Research Officer 2

  6

  17

  Veterinary Research Officer (G7)

  15

  13

  PTO Water Supervisor M&E

  7

  —

  307

  Number employed

  Percentage female

  Director Water Service (G4)

  1

  —

  HPTO (Water Supervisor)

  4

  —

  PTO (Water Supervisor)

  141

  —

  Assistant Supervisor Water (Personnel)

  3

  —

  HPTO Projects Officer

  1

  —

  Chief Inspector Trading Standards (G7)

  1

  —

  Deputy Chief Trading Standards Officer

  2

  —

  Area Inspector

  7

  —

  Senior Inspector

  1

  —

  Trading Standards Inspector

  15

  —

  Principal (Work Study) (G7)

  1

  —

  HPTO (Word Study Office)

  1

  —

  Senior Work Study Officer

  2

  —

  PTO (Work Study Officer)

  14

  —

  Senior Telecommunications Engineer (SPTO)

  2

  —

  Telecommunications Technical Engineer I

  12

  —

  Telecommunications Technical Engineer II

  19

  —

  Tele communications Engineering Technician

  76

  —

  PTO

  4

  —

  PTO Model Maker

  1

  —

  Under Secretary (Personnel Appointments)

  1

  —

  Director Management Training (PA)

  1

  —

  Management Training Advisor

  2

  —

  Temporary Veterinary Officer

  24

  21

  Investigation Officer (PA)

  6

  —

  Principal Librarian (PA)

  1

  —

  Total Non-Industrials

  24,895

  51

  Industrials

  Craft

  629

  0·2

  Non-Craft

  3,798

  2

  Total Industrials

  4,427

  2

  Overall NICS Total

  29,322

  44

  Housing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each council area and each Housing Executive district the number of(a) applicants by each category used by the executive and (b) the number of transfer applications by category.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have, however, been advised by its chief executive that the number of applicants by category, for each council area and Housing Executive district, is as follows:

  Applications by category at 28 February 1994

  Council area

  NIHE district

  A

  B

  Belfast

  Belfast 1

  192

  516

  Belfast 2

  165

  606

  Belfast 3

  502

  420

  /

  Belfast 4

  281

  559

  Belfast 5

  149

  391

  Belfast 6

  85

  476

  Belfast 7

  327

  955

  Region

  Belfast

  1,701

  3,923

  North Down

  Bangor

  147

  719

  Ards

  Ards I

  138

  364

  Ards II

  48

  219

  Castlereagh

  Dundonald

  42

  163

  308

  Council area

  NIHE district

  A

  B

  Newtownbreda

  73

  348

  Lisburn

  Lisburn

  158

  495

  Dunmurry

  74

  238

  Poleglass

  70

  257

  Down

  Downpatrick

  150

  696

  Region

  South East

  900

  3,499

  Banbridge

  Banbridge

  48

  255

  Newry and Mourne

  Newry I

  85

  339

  Newry II

  93

  452

  Kilkeel

  —

  —

  Armagh

  Armagh

  84

  411

  Craigavon

  Craigavon

  4

  172

  Lurgan

  57

  366

  Portadown

  71

  341

  Region

  South

  442

  2,336

  Ballymena

  Ballymena

  144

  691

  Antrim

  Antrim

  95

  555

  Newtownabbey

  Newtownabbey I

  66

  361

  Newtownabbey II

  44

  362

  Carrickfergus

  Carrickfergus

  99

  469

  Larne

  Larne

  51

  305

  Moyle

  Moyle

  28

  150

  Ballymoney

  Ballymoney

  12

  260

  Coleraine

  Coleraine

  85

  642

  Region

  North East

  624

  3,795

  Derry

  Londonderry I

  256

  492

  Londerry II

  128

  367

  Londerry III

  171

  224

  Limavady

  Limavady

  79

  300

  Magherafelt

  Magherafelt

  64

  325

  Strabane

  Strabane

  81

  349

  Omagh

  Omagh

  54

  461

  Cookstown

  Cookstown

  28

  212

  Dungannon

  Dungannon

  53

  364

  Fermanagh

  Fermanagh

  71

  441

  Region

  West

  985

  3,535

  Outside Northern Ireland

  349

  678

  Northern Ireland Total

  5,001

  17,766

  Applications by category at 28 February 1994

  Council area

  NIHE district

  Priority transfer

  C

  Belfast

  Belfast 1

  158

  422

  Belfast 2

  119

  540

  Belfast 3

  118

  314

  Belfast 4

  109

  380

  Belfast 5

  145

  444

  Belfast 6

  79

  405

  Belfast 7

  135

  609

  Region

  Belfast

  863

  3,114

  North Down

  Bangor

  122

  429

  Ards

  Ards I

  84

  309

  Ards II

  10

  148

  Castlereagh

  Dundonald

  66

  258

  Newtownbreda

  85

  262

  Lisburn

  Lisburn

  75

  435

  Dunmurry

  45

  238

  Poleglass

  10

  164

  Down

  Downpatrick

  83

  435

  Region

  South East

  580

  2,678

  Banbridge

  Banbridge

  60

  302

  Newry and Mourne

  Newry I

  62

  250

  Newry II

  39

  269

  309

  Council area

  NIHE district

  Priority transfer

  C

  Kilkeel

  —

  —

  Armagh

  Armagh

  74

  303

  Craigavon

  Craigavon

  15

  113

  Lurgan

  58

  312

  Portadown

  62

  287

  Region

  South

  370

  1,836

  Ballymena

  Ballymena

  177

  480

  Antrim

  Antrim

  128

  263

  Newtownabbey

  Newtownabbey I

  129

  367

  Newtownabbey II

  69

  327

  Carrickfergus

  Carrickfergus

  90

  286

  Larne

  Larne

  62

  219

  Moyle

  Moyle

  7

  128

  Ballymoney

  Ballymoney

  32

  250

  Coleraine

  Coleraine

  147

  514

  Region

  North East

  841

  2,834

  Derry

  Londonderry I

  264

  303

  Londonderry II

  119

  287

  Londonderry III

  161

  264

  Limavady

  Limavady

  47

  222

  Magherafelt

  Magherafelt

  52

  191

  Strabane

  Strabane

  102

  304

  Omagh

  Omagh

  34

  393

  Cookstown

  Cookstown

  30

  163

  Dungannon

  Dungannon

  49

  282

  Fermanagh

  Fermanagh

  50

  364

  Region

  West

  908

  2,773

  Outside Northern Ireland

  194

  434

  Total

  3,756

  13,669

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for council districts of(a) Coleraine, (b) Magherafelt and (c) Limavady the number of Housing Executive dwellings let in each of the last three years and the current year to the latest available date to each category of applicant; and how many applicants housed in each category were resident outside the council area in which they were housed.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have, however, been advised by its chief executive that the number of dwellings let over the past three years and up to September 1993 in the current year is as follows:

  Housing executive dwellings let by category

  Period

  A

  B

  PT

  C

  Coleraine district council area

  1990–91

  143

  236

  83

  103

  1991–92

  146

  190

  88

  62

  1992–93

  146

  121

  69

  30

  1993–941

  72

  62

  31

  17

  Magherafelt district council area

  1990–91

  67

  82

  23

  53

  1991–92

  63

  61

  15

  37

  1992–93

  61

  50

  17

  47

  1993–941

  24

  27

  7

  19

  Limavady district council area

  1990–91

  88

  57

  17

  62

  1991–92

  101

  38

  29

  61

  1992–93

  90

  26

  17

  44

  1993–941

  45

  10

  7

  10

  1 To September 1993. Collated by the Housing Executive on a 6-monthly basis and are the latest available.

  310
  A—priority applications.

  B—based on points.

  PT—priority transfers.

  C—Non priority transfers.

  The information on the number of applicants in each category in a particular district council area who were resident outside the area, is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues during February.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of letters received from hon. Members by myself and my ministerial colleagues during February was 320. The number of responses sent to hon. Members in the same period was 396.(The figure of 396 also includes responses to correspondence received from hon. Members in the latter part of January.)

  Prostate Cancer Screening
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve prostate cancer screening for men.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no plans to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. Current evidence does not suggest that any such programme would achieve a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing the length and quality of life.

  The value of available techniques for the early detection of prostate cancer is kept under review. We are aware of some local research into this issue.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total of capital allocations(a) in total, (b) for education, (c) transport, (d) social services and (e) for other services, to each county council in Wales and in total for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1982–83, (iii) 1985–86 and (iv) each year since 1988–89;

  (2) what was the total of capital expenditure on other services for each Welsh local authority, and in total for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89; and if he will give the breakdown between (i) county councils and (ii) district councils in Wales;

  (3) what was the capital allocation for each local authority in Wales, and in total, for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89;

  (4) what was the total capital allocation for housing to each Welsh district council and in total for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1982–83, (c) 1985–86 and (d) each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Redwood
  The hon. Member has requested a large volume of statistical information. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what advertising his Department has initiated of the process of schools in Wales opting out of local authority control;

  (2) how much money has been spent on advertising costs of the process of schools becoming grant-maintained in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department has not been involved in any advertising campaigns in respect of grant-maintained status.

  Eisteddfod
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation there has been of the attraction to tourists of the annual international eisteddfod at Llangollen; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Llangollen international eisteddfod is an important annual event which benefits tourism. In 1993 the international eisteddfod achieved ticket sales of 115,600.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation there has been of the attraction to tourists of the annual Urdd national eisteddfod; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Urdd eisteddfod is an important annual event which attracts upwards of 80,000 visitors each year. While most of these come from within Wales, the Urdd eisteddfod plays a significant part in attracting tourists to the particular locality that it visits each year.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation there has been of the attraction to tourists of the annual national eisteddfod; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The national eisteddfod is an important annual event which attracts upwards of 135,000 visitors each year. Figures for 1993 suggest that some 5 per cent. travelled from outside Wales.

  Drws-y-Nant Improvement Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work will commence on the Drws-y-Nant area of the Bala to Dolgellau road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 February 1994,Official Report, column 863.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the capital expenditure of Tai Cymru and housing associations in Wales on administration in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1992–93 Housing for Wales incurred capital expenditure on administration of £98,800. Information on individual housing associations is not readily available.
  312

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of reductions in the hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since the announcement of the 1994 HLCA rates on 30 November, nine organisations and individuals have made representations to me on this subject.

  Police
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received during the last six months on the question of amalgamation of Welsh police forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Home Office, but I have received one representation from Cwmbran community council.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals are currently managed by health boards in Wales; what percentage of total bed provision these hospitals represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In Wales, 76 hospitals, 50 per cent. of total beds, are managed by health authorities, 81 hospitals, 50 per cent. of total beds, by NHS trusts. On 1 April 1994, 10 further NHS trusts will be established taking the total of NHS trust-managed hospitals to 127, 73 per cent. of total beds.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average waiting time for appeals against valuation to be heard since the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Redwood
  A figure cannot yet be given because many appeals are being cleared by the Valuation Office without a valuation tribunal hearing.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals there have been against council tax valuations since the council tax was introduced.

  Mr. Redwood
  Some 55,855 at 28 February.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many successful appeals against valuation have resulted in a change in the banding of a property since the introduction of the council tax.

  Mr. Redwood
  Some 13,088 appeals have so far led to property banding changes.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals against council tax valuations are still waiting to be heard.

  Mr. Redwood
  At 28 February, 39,545 banding proposals awaited resolution

  Further Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish guidelines for the development of further education in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  313
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Wales wrote to the chairman of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales on 27 May 1992 to provide broad guidance on the functions of the council—on Government policies which are relevant to the exercise of those functions and on particular matters to which the council should have regard. That guidance has been supplemented by further indications of the Government's policies for the further education sector in the annual letter sent to the council notifying it of expenditure provision for the following financial year. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from those involved in agriculture in Wales on the designation of sheep scab as a non-notifiable disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of representations have been made for the Government to impose statutory controls in respect of sheep scab. However, this is a disease which can be controlled readily by individual farmers, who are well aware of the preventive measures and procedures needed to deal with it. Most of the detailed measures on the control of sheep scab were removed in July 1992. The Government have already announced that they will complete this process, and have no other plans to require the notification of sheep scab.

  South Glamorgan County Council
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his office received a copy of the report prepared by the auditors Coopers and Lybrand on the debts owed to and outstanding insurance claims of South Glamorgan county council; if he will place a copy of the report in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for South Glamorgan county council and its auditors. My Department has not been sent a copy of the report.

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates Ministers, or officials from his Department, including his Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985, including this year to date, on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1985 there have been no official visits by Welsh Office Ministers or officials using the Malaysian airline MAS.

  Agricultural Diversification
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives the Welsh Office has set up to assist diversification for those engaged in agriculture in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Farmers wishing to diversify may qualify for assistance from a number of sources. The Wales tourist board provides assistance for farm tourism developments in Wales under the provisions of section 4 of 314
  the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales operate the rural conversion grant scheme which assists with the conversion of redundant buildings in rural areas with the aim of bringing them back into productive use.

  Financial assistance is also available under the DRIVE scheme—development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise—which is designed to stimulate private sector activity in deprived rural areas.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding has been made available in each of the past five years to health boards for screening of osteoporosis; how many women in Wales have been screened for osteoporosis in each of the past five years; how many clinics in health boards and trust board areas exist for the specific purpose of screening for osteoporosis; how many women have been diagnosed as suffering from osteoporosis in the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is no national population screening programme for osteoporosis, and therefore no central funding, as there is not yet evidence to show that such a programme would be effective. Health authorities are responsible for assessing need and for ensuring that suitable diagnostic services for individual women are made available.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations relating to future funding provision he has received from voluntary organisations in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received 28 representations from voluntary organisations in Wales regarding future funding provision.

  F. L. Steelcraft
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants were made to F. L. Steelcraft and F. L. Steelcraft Ltd. of Borth, Aberystwyth, Wales from public funds; and on what dates payments were made to these companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Wednesday 16 March 1994,Official Report, column 695.

  Head Teachers, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Federation of Clwyd Primary Headteachers to discuss the allocation of rate support grant to Clwyd county council.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under long-standing arrangements the formula for distributing revenue support grant is agreed with the local authority associations and ratified by the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. A meeting would not be appropriate.

  Beaches (Sellafield Discharges)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for his plans to encourage greater tourism in Wales of contamination of north Wales beaches from radioactive pollution discharges from Sellafield.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of the latest recorded levels of radioactivity on the north Wales coast can be found in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report", No. 38, 1992, published by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House. The report indicates that the levels of radioactivity on north Wales beaches are not significant and are well within internationally agreed limits. It is not expected that this will have a detrimental effect on the tourist industry.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his response to the publication on 17 March of the Welsh region National Rivers Authority reports on ferriginous minewater impacts in Welsh coalfields.

  Revenue allocation1

  1992–93

  21993–94

  21994–95

  Projected231995–96

  Projected231996–97

  Clwyd

  176·861

  177·062

  182·184

  184·662

  187·163

  East Dyfed

  107·960

  108·857

  111·951

  112·062

  112·172

  Gwent

  199·564

  189·955

  196·175

  197·490

  198·814

  Gwynedd

  105·782

  109·701

  114·998

  115·946

  116·902

  Mid Glamorgan

  243·622

  247·241

  255·927

  257·231

  258·544

  Pembrokeshire

  47·941

  48·350

  49·959

  50·218

  50·479

  Powys

  60·534

  63·842

  64·092

  63·244

  62·387

  South Glamorgan

  209·111

  214·001

  221·564

  221·169

  220·767

  West Glamorgan

  160·939

  161·338

  166·403

  166·811

  167·220

  1Allocations prior to deduction of the hospital and community health element of GP Fundholder budgets.

  2Allocations from 1992–93 onwards reflect reductions in respect of the costs of education and training when responsibility for the purchase of education and training from education providers pass to central control.

  3Projected allocations based on latest resource planning assumption which, for planning purposes only, reflect 0.5 per cent. per annum real terms growth.

  Collection and processing of cross-boundary data used for the revenue formula assessment by the resource allocation working group was discontinued when the weighted capitation formula for allocating health authority revenue funding was introduced in 1991–92. The identification of differences between notional allocations under the previous methodology and allocations made to authorities under the current methodology therefore cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost.

  Avian Piscivores
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licence applications he has received for the killing of cormorants or goosanders to prevent serious damage to fisheries in the last year; how many have been granted; how many are still to be determined; and which river or locality is involved in each case.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department has received two applications relating to the river Usk, and one each for the river Wye, the river Dovey and Llyn Cefni on Anglesey. All five applications have been rejected. Two applications for the Usk have yet to be determined.
  316
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the press release I issued on 15 March, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Revenue Funding Figures
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each purchasing health authority in Wales, the figures for revenue funding in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, and the estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if he will identify the changes for each health authority's revenue budget resulting from the replacement of the resource allocation working party system of determining funding allocation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested in respect of the revenue funding of each purchasing authority in the period 1992–93 to 1994–95 together with projections of allocations in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 is as follows:

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the report on the basis for policy relating to avian piscivores which was commissioned by the National Rivers Authority and its subsequent position statement on cormorants and sawbill ducks, dated 1 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  The report provides a valuable contribution to the debate on the controversial issue of the effect of bird predation on freshwater fisheries, and identifies the need for further research in this field. The report has only recently been published, and interested parties will be considering its recommendations and the National Rivers Authority's position statement.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 22 February 1994,Official Report, columns 144–45.

  Specialist Appointments
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were not on waiting lists for treatment but were waiting to see a specialist in the national health service for each quarter in the last two years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen on 15 March,Official Report, column 632.

  Particulate Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he plans to take to reduce levels of PM10 particulate emissions from exhaust fumes in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads and traffic, 21 March,Official Report, column 100.

  Accounting Officer Directions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 417, if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the final directions, the sums of public money involved, and in what ways his Department informed hon. Members and the Committee of Public Accounts of these directions.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 March 1994]: I understand that on both occasions urgent decisions were required in respect of the Welsh development agency's investment in the Parrot Corporation.

  In 1985 Treasury approval for a £750,000 guarantee from the Welsh development agency to the Parrot Corporation was given on condition that it would be used as a facility of last resort. In October 1985 an immediate decision was required in order to ensure that refinancing negotiations which were under way at the time did not collapse and the then Secretary of State authorised the accounting officer to waive the condition.

  In April 1988 another immediate decision was required and the then Secretary of State authorised the accounting officer, in the absence of Treasury authority, to approve funding of £58,500 by the WDA to enable the agency to take up its share of a rights issue in order to allow the agency to maintain its shareholding and to remove a contingent liability.

  On both occasions the circumstances described were considered to fall within the provisions of paragraph 11 of the then accounting officer memorandum, that is, issues not of formal propriety or regularity but more widely of prudent and economical administration. This did not require notification to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Department drew the circumstances to the attention of the National Audit Office in the course of a subsequent inquiry.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cocoa
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much financial assistance has been given by the Government to(a) the international cocoa
  318
  gene bank in Trinidad, (b) by the CATIE cocoa gene bank in Costa Rica, (c) the international cocoa germplasm database at Reading, Berkshire and (d) the international cocoa quarantine station at Reading, Berkshire in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has not provided financial assistance to any of those bodies. I refer the hon. Member, however, to the answer given on 21 March by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at column 26.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will ensure that the Forestry Commission will maintain its position in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Jack
  The Forestry Commission manages over 24,000 hectares of woodland in Yorkshire and Humberside; it expects to sell about 10 per cent. of this under the current disposals programme.

  Less-favoured Area Farms
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many livestock units on average are considered necessary for a less-favoured area farm in England to be classified as a full-time commercial farm in 1964, 1973, 1979 and according to the most recent information available.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Livestock units are not used as a means of classifying farm size.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many less-favoured area farms in England of fewer than eight, eight to 16, 16 to 28, 28 to 40, 40 to 60, 60 to 100, 100 to 200 and 200 livestock units and over draw more than 25 per cent., 50 per cent., 75 per cent. or the full 100 per cent. of their total income from the farm business; how many farmers in total, for each of the size brackets, have secondary employment; and how many have secondary employment which contributes over 50 per cent. of their total income.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested. Some information on the incomes of farmers from both farm and non-farm sources is published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts her Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Jack
  As far as the annual cost of consultants is concerned I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 February 1994 to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher),Official Report, columns 429–30.

  There is no central record of the numbers of contracts prior to 1990–91. For the remaining years the approximate numbers are as follows:

  319

  Financial year

  Approximate number of contracts

  1990–91

  34

  1991–92

  71

  1992–93

  111

  Avian Piscivores
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will place in the Library a copy of the advice note dated 12 October 1993, issued by her Department to the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, on the consultation procedures for the licensed killing of birds under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Soames
  No. It has never been the practice to disclose internal memoranda issued within the Department.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the Government expects any maternal or horizontal transmission of BSE to have on the epidemic itself.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There is no unequivocal scientific evidence so far of the occurrence of either maternal or horizontal transmission of BSE. If either is occurring it is happening so infrequently that it is undetectable against the current background level of disease caused by contaminated feed. It is clear that although maternal transmission, if it is occurring, would increase the cumulative total of BSE cases, on its own it would be insufficient to perpetuate the epidemic under British farming conditions. The effect of horizontal transmission on the BSE epidemic would depend on the frequency and circumstances of its occurrence.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We received 116 letters from hon. Members during February; 92 of these have been answered and we are in the process of responding to the remaining 24.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has as to the effect on the quality of service to the public of market-testing and privatisation of civil service activities since November 1991.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Departments estimate that quality of service will improve in over a third of activities which have been included in the competing for quality programme for 1992–93 and will be maintained in the remainder.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the evidence which led to his estimate of the savings from the market testing of civil service activities.
  320
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The estimate of savings made on 4 November 1993 and published in the citizens charter second report on 16 March was based on reports made by Departments on their expectation of future performance of a service, and set against costs currently incurred.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the decision was taken to allow direct contracting out of civil service activities without an opportunity for an in-house bid to be considered.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Contracting out for strategic or policy reasons has always been an option, as the White Paper, "Competing for Quality" (Cm 1730), made clear.

  Government Publications
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what role he has in monitoring Government public relations, advertising, press releases and publicity for accuracy and honesty and to ensure that it is not knowingly misleading.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. Responsibility for these matters rests with the appropriate departmental Minister.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what property, leased or owned for the purposes of his Department, is not currently occupied.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 18 March,Official Report, column 868–69.

  In addition to the information provided by Property Holdings in respect of the common user estate, the Cabinet Office also occupies property on its own departmental estate. The Cabinet Office has no departmental property which is not currently occupied. The Civil Service college, an agency of the Office of Public Service and Science, has one students accommodation block vacant, undergoing refurbishment.

  Her Majesty' Stationery Office has two warehouse properties surplus to its requirement. One is currently for sale, the other is being prepared for sale.

  The Central Office of Information has no property which is currently unoccupied.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The most recent figures are:

  Registered disabled

  Percentage of total stuff

  Cabinet Office (including OPSS and agencies)

  23·5

  1·0

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  50·5

  1·7

  Central Office of Information

  5·0

  1·0

  Part-time staff are counted as half units.

SCOTLAND

  Maritime Borders
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the European Commission with regard to the impact of the maritime borders aspect of Interreg 2; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  We have already responded positively to the proposals in the European Commission's Green Paper to extend Interreg to include maritime boundaries. I am currently considering the more detailed proposals announced recently for an Interreg 2, and their implications for Scotland.

  A90
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent upgrading the A90 Aberdeen to Perth road to dual carriageway in(a) 1980 to 1989 and (b) in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The sums spent since 1979 on upgrading the A90 between Perth and Aberdeen amount to £138 million. The details are as follows:

  Details of sums spent on upgrading the A90

  £ million

  1979–80 to 1988–89

  87·5

  1989–90

  13·9

  1990–91

  8·0

  1991–92

  3·4

  1992–93

  11·1

  1993–94 (to December 1993)

  14·8

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Forestry Commission review group has now reported to Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The forestry review group submitted its report to Ministers on 28 February, and we are now considering it carefully.

  Local Government Reform
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends next to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss his proposed local government reforms.

  Mr. Lang
  The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities continues to have a policy of not co-operating with the Government on local government reform. Until that policy is revoked, meetings between Ministers and COSLA on the subject are unfortunately not possible.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what opinion polling he has commissioned to test the acceptability among the Scottish electorate of his proposals to re-organise local government.

  Mr. Stewart
  Extensive public consultation over the past two and a half years has demonstrated strong support for a single-tier structure of local government in Scotland.
  322

  Off-licences
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the proposals to allow off-licences in Scotland to open on Sunday; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Over the last year, my right hon. Friend has received 30 representations from organisations and individuals concerning off-licenses in Scotland. Seven organisations and nine individuals have expressed support for the proposal to open on Sundays while two organisations and four individuals wish the existing prohibition retained.

  Smoking
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects of smoking on the health of Scots.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is estimated that each year some 10,600 Scots die as a result of smoking and around 33,500 people are admitted to national health service hospitals in Scotland because they have an illness attributable to smoking. It is the major cause of lung cancer. It is also a major risk factor for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and other illnesses.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from Monklands district council to discuss local government employment practices.

  Mr. Stewart
  Monklands district council has made no request to my right hon. Friend for a meeting on the subject of local government employment practices.

  Bail
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to stop perceived abuse of bail in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reducing bail abuse is a high priority for us. We have commissioned major research into bail decision making and the report of the research should be available in the next few weeks. We have also taken steps to improve statistical information on bail abuse so that we have a better understanding of both the nature and the scale of the problem.

  We are considering with the Crown office, the police and the courts what further legislative and administrative action may be necessary for Scotland.

  Health Care, Glasgow
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be meeting the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health care in Glasgow.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State regularly meet representatives from all health boards to discuss health provision issues. There are no immediate plans for further meetings at present.

  A77
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of progress of discussions with Strathclyde regional council regarding the upgrading of the A77 Ayr to Glasgow route.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been able to make available to Strathclyde regional council sums totalling £28·7 million over the next three years, to enable them to proceed with the Ayr road route project. Strathclyde regional council will now be able to enter into a joint contract with the Scottish Office to undertake this project.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the cost of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  The transitional cost of local government reorganisation is estimated at between £120 million and £194 million for a 30 council structure. These costs will be offset by ongoing annual savings of between £16 million and £60 million. Costs will be fully recouped within three to six years.

  School Buildings, Grampian
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received for additional capital grants for school buildings in Grampian.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the current financial year, four representations have been received from the hon. Member, and one each from my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) and from the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), concerning the need for additional capital consent allocations for school building work in Grampian region.

  Electronics Industry
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take further steps to encourage the growth of new locally owned software and electronics firms in Scotland.
  324
  Mr. Stewart
  Yes. The Government are actively working to put in place the infrastructure and to encourage the investment needed to ensure growth in the software and electronics sectors in Scotland.

  The Scottish Office Industry Department, the Enterprise Network and educational institutions are working in partnership with industry-led bodies such as the Scottish Electronics Forum on a number of programmes which will improve competitiveness. Within that overall framework particular attention is given to the needs of new and growing businesses.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote access to the countryside.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The responsibility for promoting access to the countryside lies with Scottish Natural Heritage and the local authorities. The former is conducting a general review of access to the countryside and has undertaken a public consultation exercise on this. I look forward to receiving its report and recommendations in due course.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the encouragement of investment from north America and south-east Asia to Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  On the Government's behalf, Locate in Scotland is continually promoting Scotland as a location for inward investment. Through its field organisations in north America and south-east Asia, Locate in Scotland undertakes a continuous programme of contacts with appropriate companies in targeted industrial sectors.

  Economy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon.Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Cumnock, Carrick and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 23 February at column 289.
  325

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many men were in full-time jobs in Scotland in 1979; and how many there are in such jobs at the present time.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information on male full-time employment is not available for 1979. The total number of male employees, in December 1979, was 1,196,900. In December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, there were 982,900 male employees, of whom 882,100 were full-time.

  Community Care
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of community care arrangements in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Considerable progress has been made in developing procedures to ensure that the needs of vulnerable people and their carers are identified and that assistance is arranged where appropriate taking account of the choice of the individual. Local authorities, health boards and housing agencies were working together in all areas to deliver the objectives of the policy.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the steel industry.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the steel industry over the past few years. Most of these have concerned the closure of the Ravenscraig steel plant in 1992.

  Inshore Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to provide further assistance to the Scottish inshore fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The fishing industry in Scotland benefits from a range of public support, including financial support from the European Union. Consideration is being given to future arrangements for such support, by preparation of a United Kingdom sectoral plan for fisheries.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secondary pupils are currently being educated in(a) comprehensive schools, (b) independent schools, (c) special schools and (d) other schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Provisional information on the numbers of secondary pupils in Scotland at September 1993 is given in the table. All education authority and grant-aided secondary schools in Scotland are non-selective.
  326

  Numbers

  Education authority and grant-aided secondary schools

  311,898

  Independent schools

  19,979

  Education authority and grant-aided special schools and departments (pupils aged 12 and over)

  4,450

  TOTAL

  334,450

  Health Service
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen of the health boards in Scotland to discuss the health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met health board chairmen on 25 February 1994.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of each appeal against council tax evaluations in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available centrally.

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many projects bidding for support under the Scottish renewables obligation came under each of the five technology bands specified in the SRO order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand that the Office of Electricity Regulation has received 190 applications across all types of renewable energy technology expected to be supported under the Scottish renewables obligation. Further information about these applications is a commercially confidential matter for the Office of Electricity Regulation.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he will apply to projects which pass the technical and economic appraisals, in determining which ones will be awarded contracts under the Scottish renewables obligation order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  This is a matter for the two Scottish public electricity suppliers on which the obligation will be placed by the order which I expect to make in the autumn. However, I understand that they expect to contract with the projects offering the cheapest price per unit of electricity generated to the required level of capacity in each technology band as defined in the order.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has commissioned a total of 339 consultancy assignments since the start of the 1989–90 financial year. The total cost in each of the last five years was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 February 1994, at columns 51–52.
  327

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to set targets for Caledonian MacBrayne for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided to set the following targets for Caledonian MacBrayne for the year 1994–95. The company will be required to achieve as a financial target that fares income should meet at least 60 per cent. of operating costs including depreciation charged on a replacement cost basis and provision for an 8 per cent. foregone rate of return on capital. As an efficiency target, the company will be asked not to exceed a maximum unit cost of £0·86 million per passenger car unit capacity kilometre. As a quality of service target the company will be asked to achieve a figure of 96·5 per cent. of sailings arriving on time, excluding sailings which are delayed or cancelled for safety reasons, for example, adverse weather conditions. I consider that the setting of these targets will provide a clear framework for the operation of the company in 1994–95, consistent with the objectives of securing continued improvement in operational efficiency and standards of service.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for shipping subsidies for sea transport services in the Highlands and Islands in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the estimates, I propose to make available in 1994–95 total subsidy provision of £15·673 million. The deficit subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne will be £5·742 million. For services to Orkney and Shetland, tariff rebate subsidies of up to £8·557 million will be made available. Up to £1·374 million will be available for other coastal shippers operating on the West Coast of Scotland.

  The level of provision proposed for Caledonian MacBrayne for 1994–95 reflects a reduced requirement for revenue deficit subsidy from the 1993–94 level, following the introduction of new financial arrangements for the company and an expected improvement in trading performance and operational efficiency. Capital grants of up to £7·3 million will also be made available to the company in 1994–95 for expenditure on the new vessel currently under construction for the Ullapool-Stornoway route.

  The increased level of financial support for services to Orkney and Shetland which I made available in 1993–94 is maintained.

  Prisoners (Christmas Leave)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses when deciding which prisoners may be granted Christmas leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its Chief Executive Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 March 1994:
  328
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question on the criteria he uses when deciding which prisoners are to be granted Christmas leave.

  Prisoners and Young Offenders who have been allocated Security Category D, the lowest category, and are detained at open establishments or Training for Freedom Hostels attached to prisons are eligible for consideration for Christmas leave. Decisions on individual cases are a matter for Governors of each establishment who take into account the following:

  1. The nature of the offence.

  2. The prisoner's attitude to the offence.

  3. The prisoner's conduct and industry during the preceding 6 months.

  4. The home conditions and stability of the prisoner's relationship with his family.

  5. The views and likely effect on known victims and the community.

  Egg Consumption
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures for egg consumption in Scotland for each year since 1988.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]: Estimates of household consumption of eggs are provided by the national food survey. The estimates exclude eggs used in manufacturing or catering and institutions.

  Number per person per week

  Per cent.

  1988

  3·62

  1989

  2·82

  1990

  2·61

  1991

  2·17

  1992

  2·28

  Poultry
  Mr. Martin Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many poultry birds were slaughtered in each year since 1988 in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 March 1994]: Estimates of the number of poultry slaughtered in Scotland each year are:

  Thousands

  1988

  68,002

  1989

  66,056

  1990

  68,258

  1991

  67,301

  1992

  70,208

  1993

  77,899

  Freight
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all instances where a freight flow has been transferred from road to rail transport in Scotland during the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give details of all awards made by his Department under the freight facilities grant scheme over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement;
  329
  (2) if he will give details of the total amount spent by his Department on awards under the freight facilities grant scheme over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will give details of the number of applications for awards under the freight facilities grant scheme that have been rejected over the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 March 1994]: The Scottish Office has made awards to four new projects totalling £3,455,034 under the freight facilities grant scheme since March 1984. The details of the projects are as follows:

  Company

  Location

  Facilities

  Deanside Transit Ltd.

  Hillington, Glasgow

  Warehousing and bulk handling facilities

  John G. Russell

  Gartcosh, Glasgow

  Coal containers and handling equipment

  British Alcan

  Fort William

  Rail facilities and averages for the handling of alumina

  Caledonian Paper plc

  Irvine

  Siding, track and handling facilties for timber and china clay

  Over the past 10 years a total of £3,627,704 has been paid out under the FFG scheme. This includes the awards of to the four projects detailed and the balance of awards made prior to 1984. During this period three applications, which did not meet the schemes' criteria for eligibility, have been rejected.

  The Government recognise that the carriage of freight by rail usually offers environmental advantages over other transport modes, and it is our policy that freight should use rail wherever it makes good economic sense to do so. To give rail a competitive edge the Government are enhancing the freight facilities grant scheme from 1 April 1994. These enhancements include the extension of the areas of capital expenditure which may be eligible for grant, and the simplification and improvement of procedures for applicants. We hope that the revisions will lead to renewed interest in the scheme in Scotland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Certificates
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under which Act of Parliament or regulation a person against whom a certificate of permanent incapacity is issued is refused access to the reason for the granting of such a certificate.

  Mr. Scott
  The legislation governing the issue of medical evidence of incapacity for work by general practitioners to people claiming social security benefits is contained in the Social Security (Medical Evidence) Regulations 1976.

  Self-employed Persons
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, on the same basis as the answer given on 3 November 1983,Official Report, column 452,
  330
  to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), on self-employed persons, what would be the class 2 national insurance constribution necessary to meet the cost of extending unemployment benefit to self-employed people.

  Mr. Hague
  If title to unemployment benefit were to be extended to the self-employed, the class 2 contribution rate for 1994–95 would have to rise to £7·75, an increase of £2·10 over the proposed rate of £5·65 a week.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons Mrs. Netta Black of Ardoch crescent. Stevenson, Ayrshire received a request from the Child Support Agency that her late husband pay for the upkeep of his daughter.

  Mr. Scott
  Owing to a clerical error, the Child Support Agency wrote to Mrs. Black on 17 February 1994. An apology was made to her on 7 March and the case was closed. There has been no further contact between the agency and Mrs. Black.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list to-date the number of letters his Department's Child Support Agency has sent apologising to widows for inadvertently sending letters to them demanding money from their late husbands to pay for the upkeep of their children; and how many apologies are still on file waiting to be sent.

  Mr. Scott
  The Child Support Agency does not maintain statistics of such cases.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for a letter from the Child Support Agency being sent to Miss Hayley Lidster of Godlys, Mid Glamorgan concerning child support.

  Mr. Scott
  A letter from the Child Support Agency to a client with a similar name was delivered in error to Miss Lidster. The agency subsequently sent letters of apology to both the people involved.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases pursued by the Child Support Agency have resulted in the payment of maintenance to the parent with care in(a) Newham and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  Figures are not available for the number of maintenance assessments made in Newham. National figures were given by Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency in her reply to the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) on 4 March,Official Report, column 38.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents previously in receipt of benefits have had their income raised above entitlement to benefit as a result of a maintenance assessment by the Child Support Agency in(a) Newham and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not collected separately for Newham. National figures are being collected but are not yet available.
  331
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in receipt of benefits have had their benefit reduced due to their failure to provide the Child Support Agency with the required information about the absent parent in(a) the London borough of Newham and (b) Great Britain.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases dealt with by the Child Support Agency resulting in the assessment of a minimum award this assessment has not been pursued because the absent parent is exempt from payment.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information is not collected.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision the Child Support Agency has for the use of interpreters during CSA interviews where one or both parents does not have English as a first language; and in how many instances interpreters have been used.

  Mr. Scott
  Child Support Agency local offices are co-located with Benefits Agency offices. There is an inter-agency agreement which provides for CSA clients to have the same access to interpreters during interviews as BA customers. BA policy is to provide a linguistic service to customers for whom English is not their first language. Guidance, including a code of practice, has been issued to all district managers. The service may be provided by BA interpreters, BA bilingual staff, community interpreters or other commercial interpreters. No records are kept to show in how many instances interpreters have been used.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the combined rate of employer/employee national insurance contributions necessary to achieve balance in the national insurance fund in 1994–95.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated1 that a treasury grant equivalent to 16 per cent. of expected benefit expenditure will be needed to balance the national insurance fund in 1994–952. If the grant was not available a combined employer/employee contribution rate of between 23·2 and 23·9 per cent.3 would be needed to raise the same level of income.
  1 Estimates are based on the November 1993 FSBR assumptions.
  2 The Government Actuary recommends planning for an end year balance equivalent to 2 months' benefit expenditure.
  3 The contribution percentages vary according to whether there was an increase in the main primary or main secondary percentage rate, or a combination of both.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing how many claimants of invalidity benefit had the cases reviewed between 1 April 1993 and 1 October 1993; and in each year prviously to 1990; what number of such cases for each period had either(a) a reduction or (b) a withdrawal of invalidity benefit; and how many new claims of invalidity benefit were accepted for each period.
  332
  Mr. Scott
  Detailed information about adjudication officers' decisions which review entitlement to invalidity benefit is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. We estimate that between 1 April 1993 and 30 September 1993, across all benefits for incapacity1, some 35,000 disallowances2 were made on the ground that the claimant was not incapable for work. Estimates for earlier years are not available. Available information about new spells of invalidity benefit entitlement is in the table.
  1 Sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and people claiming, these benefits but receiving only national insurance credits with or without income support.
  2 Based on a 5 per cent. sample of cases referred to the Benefits Agency Medical Service, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Spells of invalidity benefit entitlement commencing

  Period

  Number

  2 April 1990 to 30 March 1991

  288,000

  1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992

  323,000

  Note: Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of existing recipients of invalidity benefit in(a) London and (b) Lewisham who will be disqualified under the new capacity test.

  Mr. Scott
  Numbers cannot be reliably estimated at this stage, but our current estimate is that around 200,000 of the people who initially transfer to incapacity benefit from invalidity benefit may fail to satisfy the test within the first two years. This estimate cannot be broken down by district.

  Some of these people would have been excluded from benefit by existing medical controls but will be excluded at an earlier stage by the new medical test. Around 100,000 people a year are found capable of their own or an alternative occupation by the existing medical controls. This includes people claiming sickness benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support because of incapacity for work, as well as invalidity benefit.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit in(a) London and (b) Lewisham for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 22 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) recipients in London and Lewisham.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefits Agency (BA) district boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries.
  The Agency's Lewisham and Brixton District is not only responsible for Lewisham postal addresses but also for some adjacent areas. Information about those customers resident in the Lewisham postal area could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. I have, therefore, provided at Appendix 1 the number of people claiming IVB in the Lewisham and Brixton District.
  Information relating to the numbers of IVB customers is collected by each District. However, separate statistics for IVB

  333
  customers were not maintained by Districts until May 1991. I am, therefore, only able to provide information for the Lewisham and Brixton District from that date.
  In addition, the figures include some customers who have claimed but are not actually receiving IVB. This is because there are circumstances in which although there is an underlying entitlement to IVB, because a higher overlapping benefit is in payment no IVB is actually paid. The figures were obtained from a 100 per cent. clerical count of cases in the District Office.
  BA District generally comprise of a District Office and one or more Branch Offices. Although a number of BA Districts deal only with London postal addresses, others consist of offices both inside and outside the London postal area. I am, therefore, unable to provide the information in the exact format requested.
  However, I have provided at Appendix 2 a table showing the number of customers in receipt of IVB in respect of the former Greater London Council geographical area. These figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample of customers. The figure given for 4 April 1992 is the latest date for which figures are available.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix 1

  Number of IVB customers in the Lewisham and Brixton district

  Year and month

  Total

  1991

  May

  5,058

  June

  5,047

  July

  4,937

  August

  4,411

  September

  5,103

  October

  5,014

  November

  4,864

  December

  4,905

  1992

  January

  5,043

  February

  5,090

  March

  5,041

  April

  5,177

  May

  5,151

  June

  5,341

  July

  5,608

  August

  5,569

  September

  5,717

  October

  5,911

  November

  5,824

  December

  6,017

  1993

  January

  6,092

  February

  6,179

  March

  6,035

  April

  6,166

  May

  6,165

  June

  6,131

  July

  6,192

  August

  6,345

  September

  6,510

  October

  6,544

  November

  6,272

  December

  6,628

  1994

  January

  6,705

  February

  6,415

  Appendix 2

  Number of IVB recipients in the former greater London council area

  Date

  Number of recipients

  2 April 1983

  54,000

  31 March 1984

  57,000

  30 March 1985

  61,000

  5 April 1986

  64,000

  4 April 1987

  67,000

  2 April 1988

  73,000

  1 April 1989

  77,000

  334

  Date

  Number of recipients

  31 March 1990

  84,000

  30 March 1991

  97,000

  4 April 1992

  109,000

  Social Fund
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the 1994–95 gross budget for the discretionary parts of the social fund will be.

  Mr. Scott
  The social fund gross discretionary budget for 1994–95 will be £353 million. Some £97 million will be allocated to grants, £255 million to loans and £1 million will be held as a contingency reserve. The new allocations represent an overall increase of £7 million over the gross budget set at April 1993.

  Details of individual district budget allocations have been placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Number of Contracts

  Cost (£ million)

  1988–89

  746

  49·5

  1989–90

  683

  43·3

  1990–91

  952

  83·2

  1991–92

  933

  69·7

  1992–93

  1,025

  100·9

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what calculations he has made of(a) the amount that value added tax at 8 per cent. on fuel will add to the cost of each unit of electricity consumed and (b) the number of units on which 50p will pay the additional VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The answers would depend on the particular electricity company, and factors such as whether standard tariff or economy 7 tariff is used.

  The Government have made available a substantial package of help, which will cost up to £1,250 million a year from April 1996 onwards.

  Pensioners and disabled people are likely to find, on average, that this extra help from the Government will broadly cover all changes in the price of fuel, including VAT, over the course of this Parliament.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.
  335
  The Solicitor-General
  The information is set out in the table.

  Department

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  620k

  (7)

  477k

  (7)

  471k

  (12)

  560k

  (24)

  1539k

  (33)

  Serious Fraud Office

  270k

  (3)

  171k

  (4)

  88k

  (2)

  112k

  (9)

  1126k

  (5)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  15·0k

  (2)

  Not Known

  54k

  (6)

  335k

  (8)

  428k

  (14)

  Note: Figures in parentheses represent the number of contracts that year.

  1 Figure not yet complete.

  2 Approximate figure.

DEFENCE

  Asbestos
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of his Department's case against Shipbreaking Industries Ltd. regarding asbestos pollution; if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's case against Shipbreaking Industries Ltd. regarding asbestos pollution was rejected by the court in January 1993. The recently reported out of court settlement between my Department and Shipbreaking Industries Ltd. related to a dilapidations claim and not asbestos pollution.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of the arms purchases by Malaysia from Britain following the agreement reached by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the former right hon. Member for Ayr, with the Malaysian Government in 1988.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 21 February,Official Report, columns 69–70.

  Nuclear Warheads (Transport)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if police chief constables are informed of the movement of nuclear warheads through their area of jurisdiction.

  Mr. Hanley
  Civil police forces are always notified at least 24 hours in advance of nuclear weapon convoy movements through their area of jurisdiction.

  Common New Generation Frigate
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that all naval ship yards have the opportunity to submit tenders to build the common new generation frigate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following competition, GEC with a consortium of BAe defence systems and services division and others have been selected as the United Kingdom member for the Franco/British/Italian joint venture company to design and build the three first of class ships, one for each participating nation. All United Kingdom shipyards with the capability will be offered the 336
  opportunity to compete for the build of follow-on ships of this class and, in order to assist them, we are seeking arrangements for them to be provided with progressive and timely access to design information.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current progress of the Anglo-French-Italian common new generation frigate programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  Good progress continues to be made on Project Horizon, the common new generation frigate. We continue to seek a collaborative way forward for the anti-air warfare system for the ship. Following a competition, GEC with a consortium of BAe defence systems and services division and others have been selected as the United Kingdom member for the international joint venture company which will design and build the three first of class ships, one for each participating nation. We still intend to contract two competing international consortia to conduct competitive project definition for the frigate's combat management system later this year.

  Conversion Units
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future developments for(a) the Tornado operational conversion unit, (b) the Jaguar operational conversion unit at RAF Lossiemouth and (c) the operational conversion unit for Nimrods based at RAF Kinloss.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans to change the location or role of the Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod operational conversion units.

  Nuclear Weapons Co-operation (France)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards nuclear weapons co-operation with France following the recent publication by the French Government of a white paper on defence.

  Mr. Aitken
  We are already engaged in a very constructive dialogue with France on defence nuclear matters, and we welcome the French Government's commitment, as expressed in their recent white paper, to deepening these important exchanges.

  Asia '94 Exhibition
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has given to United Kingdom defence manufacturers intending to visit the DSA '94 exhibition in Kuala Lumpur.
  337
  Mr. Aitken
  The Defence Export Services Organisation has advised companies and the Defence Manufacturers Association that normal trade promotion with Malaysia should continue.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, column 551.

  Defence Costs Study
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January,Official Report, columns 342–43, how many progress reports have been produced by the defence costs study teams; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have seen a total of 43 such reports to date.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether there will be any change to front-line capabilities resulting from the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what criteria will be used to assess the impact of the defence costs study on front-line capabilities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) which MoD personnel will be involved in assessing the impact of the defence costs study on front-line capabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The aim of the defence costs study is to safeguard our front-line operational capability. All proposals emerging from the study will be assessed with this criteria in mind, drawing on the advice of the appropriate personnel, in the MOD and the services.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what detailed proposals to make radical changes in procurement policies and practices have been considered as part of the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what detailed proposals to achieve reductions in the costs of his Departments' estate and property have been considered as part of the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what detailed proposals for reducing the costs of third and fourth-line repair have been considered as part of the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Separate study teams have been established to examine each of these areas in detail. They have yet to report, but are considering a range of proposals relevant to their respective remits. Decisions on their final recommendations will be announced in due course.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made as to whether it is possible to achieve a significant reduction in the costs associated with spares, procurement and stock holding without having any impact on front-line capabilities; and if he will make a statement.
  338
  Mr. Aitken
  We shall make an assessment of this when we have received the final reports from the relevant defence costs study teams.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to include examination of(a) Army support infrastructure, and (b) Air Force support infrastructure as part of the defence costs study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Both areas are being examined within the scope of existing studies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the review of the programme for market testing and contracting out has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  Work is continuing in this area as part of the defence costs study.

  Repairs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sections of(a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the Air Force are responsible for (i) third-line repairs and (ii) fourth-line repairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Responsibility for third and fourth-line repairs within the services lies with the following:

  (a) The Chief of Fleet Support is responsible overall within the Navy. Third line—generally docking and essential defect work—ship repair work is normally undertaken by the Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation at Portsmouth, the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth, or sub-contractors. Fourth-line ship repair—refit work—is carried out by the royal dockyards or by the equipment manufacturers.

  CFS is also responsible on a tri-service basis for third and fourth-line repair work undertaken on helicopters either by the Department's own workshops or in industry. Work is also undertaken on equipment such as vehicles and armaments either within the Department's own workshops, third line, or by industry, fourth line.

  (b) The director general of equipment support, Army, is responsible for advising on the allocation of work, normally through the Army Base Repair Organisation, a Defence agency which provides third and fourth-line support to the Army both through its own engineering workshops and through industry.

  (c) The director general of support management, RAF, is responsible for the allocation of work, and the raising of requisitions for contracts with industry.

  Third-line repair work is carried out by the Maintenance Group Defence Agency, whose chief executive is the AOC maintenance units, headquarters RAF support command. Fouth-line repair work is carried out by industry.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the current funding situation for British military participation in UN operations in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In accordance with long-established inter-departmental arrangements, the MOD recovers the cost of United Kingdom participation for peacekeeping
  339
  operations in the former Yugoslavia from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The cost of military participation in UN operations in the former Yugoslavia is currently
  340
  estimated at £81,000,000 for financial year 1993–94. This expenditure is partly offset by reimbursement from the United Nations which so far total £18,100,000 in 1993–94.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Court of Appeal: Quashed Convictions
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the consistent annual percentage of between 42 per cent. and 46 per cent. of appeals in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in which that court has quashed convictions is a satisfactory indicator of the state of the legal system.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Court of Appeal exists to ensure that convictions which cannot be considered safe are quashed. But less than half of 1 per cent. of all convictions in the Crown Court are overturned on appeal. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable figure.
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the Minister aware that behind those percentages lie some 400 individuals who had their convictions overturned last year; some 300 the year before; and some 250 the year before that? Does he agree that were the NHS to lop off a leg twice a day for every working day of the year there would be somewhat of an outcry? Is he aware that the bulk of the reasons for those overturned convictions lies in evidence which has proved to be unsatisfactory in the Court of Appeal for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fabrication of evidence, and evidence which is not disclosed to the defence? What proposals are there to stop that habit of manufacturing evidence to fit the case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, cases are overturned in the Court of Appeal for a whole variety of reasons. Indeed, the purpose of having a Court of Appeal is to ensure that any cases about which there is doubt can be heard through another channel. In 1992, some 78,000 people were convicted at the Crown Court; nearly 2,000 applied for leave to appeal; 866 appeals were heard; and 318 convictions were quashed. That is 318 out of some 78,000, which is a low percentage. If a large percentage of convictions were overturned, the noble Lord might ask what is happening in the Crown Courts. If a low percentage were overturned, one might wonder what was happening to the sifting system. The whole purpose of the system is to allow for people who, for whatever reason, seek leave to go to the Court of Appeal to have their cases reheard.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not the noble Lord, Lord Spens, have the wrong end of the stick here, because the vast majority of appeals or references to the Court of Appeal are by leave only? That means that there is an arguable point of law
664
and not necessarily evidence which is unsatisfactory. Is it not therefore satisfactory that, given that sift through which cases have to go before they arrive in the Court of Appeal, the percentages which the noble Lord has cited are reasonable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is entirely correct. Of course, the cases have to be sifted. As I explained in my supplementary answer, 1,900 people applied but only 800 cases were heard, because the sifting system worked. Whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Spens, got the wrong end of the stick depends upon which way one likes to hold the stick.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that, in broad terms, approximately 11 per cent. of convicted persons apply for leave to appeal—that is only a little more than one in 10—and that out of that 11 per cent., in broad terms, only one-third get leave? That reduces the 11 per cent. to approximately 4 per cent. Of the 4 per cent. who have got through the filter, approximately only 2 per cent. succeed. Does the Minister agree that if the Question were framed in what I would submit would be the accurate way, it would show that only 2 per cent. of convictions are overturned in the Court of Appeal, and that that represents a satisfactory situation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in general, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Of course it is always difficult when one starts taking statistics, because it depends upon which statistics one takes. When one then moves them into percentages that can be a problem too. The figures that I have show that about 1 per cent. go to appeal and that less than 0.5 per cent. are quashed. It probably depends upon which statistics we operate from, but, in general, I agree with the drift of the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that the last answer my noble friend gave was the same as the one he originally gave, and therefore only one convicted person in 200, on average, has his conviction quashed? Could there be any better legal system in the world that produces such a good result?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a variation of the statistics with which I would not disagree. Whether we beat the world with that statistic is not a fact that I am able to confirm or deny, because despite the many statistics that I have been given, comparisons with other countries is not one of them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we shall have a more fruitful opportunity to debate these matters when we consider the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill this summer? It may then be possible to go into the matter in rather more detail than is possible with a Starred Question. But since the Minister referred to the sifting process, does he agree that if it is too severe then a figure of 42 per cent. to 46 per cent. is probably too high, whereas if it is not severe enough, the percentage is probably too low? Therefore, it is entirely the sifting process, rather than any absolute figure of those which go to the Court of Appeal, which is the significant judgment to be made.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we should not become too hung up on statistics, because those who ask leave to go to the Court of Appeal do so arising from a sense of grievance. Whether or not the appeal is allowed depends, of course, upon the merits of each particular case. The statistics result from those merits.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that later we shall have a fruitful opportunity to discuss these matters. That is what I feared. I urge the noble Lord to restrain himself from going into too much detail, but of course he is entitled to have his go.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if nought per cent. of convictions were quashed, would there not be something very wrong with the system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some people might say that it is very wrong; and some people might say that it is very right.

MAFF Animal Health Office, Cornwall
2.40 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had a laboratory at the former Chemical Research Establishment at Nancekuke, Cornwall.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on the night of 11th September 1982 a fire destroyed the Ministry's animal health office at Redruth, Cornwall. It was necessary to find alternative premises very quickly. Vacant accommodation was available in the Nancekuke laboratory at RAF Portreath and staff of the animal health office moved in on 13th September 1982. Subsequently, the old hospital on site was refurbished for their use. On 5th October 1987 the animal health office was relocated to a new Crown building at Pydar House in Truro.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, on 9th February 1993? He said:
"Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that organophosphorous compounds are the nerve gas compounds".
In reply the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that certain nerve gas compounds were developed. He added:
"However, they incorporate organophosphate compounds which are different from those used in sheep dips; they are not the same at all".—[Official Report, 9/2/93; col. 526.]
The Minister gave a date in the 1980s when MAFF had offices at Nancekuke. However, I understand that it had laboratories there in the 1950s. At that time ICI had developed a product called Amiton. It was produced at Nancekuke and for a year was sold to farmers as a pesticide. After that it was found to be too dangerous. Amiton was also used for military purposes as VG—
Noble Lords: Question !
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister deny that those two compounds—a pesticide and a chemical weapon—are interchangeable? Does he
666
further deny that organophosphates are designed to work on the central nervous system of pests, whether the pests are insects (pesticides) or human enemies?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not believe that the House has been misled. There is no parallel between nerve agents and modern-day sheep dips and pesticides. With respect to the noble Countess, we cannot compare the situation of the 1950s with that of the 1990s. In the immediate post-war years, maximising food production was seen as paramount and safety standards for agricultural chemicals had yet to be developed. Advances in scientific understanding since then have led to the more hazardous products being withdrawn. We now have in place legislation which requires all pesticide and sheep-dip products to meet rigorous standards before they are allowed to be marketed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, to whom were the MAFF staff at Nancekuke responsible? To whom did they report and from which departmental budget were their research and personnel costs paid?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as far as I know, it was MAFF. However, if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Earl.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that I am concerned with the long-term damage caused by exposure to organophosphates. Is he aware of any instances of people at Nancekuke being damaged by organophosphates produced there and of any research that has been done into the long-term symptoms that they are suffering?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is aware of only two deaths. The first was a suicide which arose from drinking sheep-dip concentrate. The second was a heart attack following dipping. That was assessed by the appraisal panel of doctors and scientists which examines such cases. It was found to be unrelated to exposure to sheep-dip chemicals.
In answer to the noble Countess's second point, the Government do not have historical records dating back to the 1950s.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is MAFF currently engaged in organophosphate research at establishments maintained by it and, if so, does the Minister know where those establishments are?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, that question is a little wide of the one on the Order Paper. There is certainly nothing happening at Nancekuke, which is now shut. However, there may well be research taking place at other laboratories in the country.

Benefit Levels
2.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they believe lower earnings justify the payment of lower rates of means-tested benefits to people under 25, and whether they would extend this principle to any other group of people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, there are many factors to be taken into account in deciding benefit levels, one of which is the earnings of people in work. For young single people, another factor is that a large majority of them do not live independently. It would be wrong if benefit levels could be seen as offering an alternative to work, to training for work or as an incentive to leave home.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope to discover why the Minister believes that low earnings levels justify low benefit levels. I have been asking the Government that question for three years. How long will it take them to think of an answer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Earl will receive exactly the same answer as he received when he previously asked the question. It is that young people receive lower allowances because they reflect their generally lower earnings expectations. The average earnings of 18 to 24 year-olds is less than two-thirds of the average for all adults. Most people earn more in their middle age than they did when they were 18 to 24.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the benefits are the equivalent of the earnings of those who are working? That does not appear to be right. Nevertheless, will the Minister urge the British trade union movement to put in for bigger claims so that those who cannot obtain a job will at least be able to receive the reasonable assistance that they are not now receiving?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that it is wrong for benefit levels to offer an attractive alternative to seeking work or training or to act as an incentive to leave home. The large majority of young people do not live independently and therefore often have fewer financial responsibilities.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not perfectly reasonable that where earnings are at a lower level than for other categories of people, benefits should follow suit?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right, and that is why it is the case. If benefits for 18 to 24 year-olds were up-rated to the over-25 year-old rate, the cost would be £360 million. We believe that the resources should be targeted at those in the most need.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, will the Government ensure that the benefits paid to people under 25 who are householders are the same as those paid to householders over 25?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that to pay a higher rate to young people who live independently would be a bizarre incentive for young people to leave home. However, if they are unable to live at home, the maximum housing benefit or council tax benefit is available to them if they are on income support.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the number of under 25 year-olds who are living independently and the number who are not?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot give those numbers. However, I can say that only 19 per cent. of under 25 year-olds on income support are receiving housing benefit, which is an indication of the answer.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister write to me and give me the actual figures?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, those figures are not available. We do not know whether young people are living at home with their parents. We know only whether or not they are claiming housing benefit.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Government's lack of information extend to knowing whether there is likely to be any incentive to young people to leave home because of benefits that they will receive? Are there other reasons why young people leave home?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are many reasons why people leave home. However, we do not wish to encourage young people to leave home unnecessarily and, thereby, to break up families.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question. Do the Government have any information which suggests that young people leave home because of the benefits which are then available to them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if we raise benefits, that would be encouraged, and we wish to avoid that effect.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that young people aged 16 and 17 who are separated from their families need, in particular, support, encouragement and guidance? Does he agree that the Foyer movement provides support and companionship alongside subsidised accommodation? Does he agree also that that is a much better solution than the provision of cash handouts to people living alone?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that the Foyer initiative is an important, innovative approach to ending the vicious cycle in which homeless and unemployed young people find themselves. The pilot Foyer schemes are aimed primarily at 18 to 25 year-olds, but some 16 and 17 year-olds have participated. While it would he wrong for Foyers to act as an incentive to leave home, nevertheless, they can provide valuable support for some 16 to 18 year-olds.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to a different category which is unlikely to be either earning or training; that is, single, pregnant

669
women. Does the Minister agree that the income support rate for a pregnant women aged 25 is £44 per week—the minimum deemed necessary for her living costs? Will the Minister then tell the House how a pregnant woman aged 24, who faces the same housing and heating costs and the same dietary needs but perhaps different food requirements is expected to live on £9 per week less?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, when the noble Earl asked his question on two occasions previously, the noble Baroness also asked the same two questions. Therefore, she will receive the same two answers now. We see no convincing evidence to suggest that the provisions for pregnant under-25 year-olds are generally inadequate. A maternity payment will normally be available from the Social Fund to help with any additional costs due to the arrival of a baby. Of course, free milk and vitamins are available automatically to income support recipients during pregnancy through the welfare food service.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister please repeat that reply? He has given it twice and it would be nice on the third occasion to be able to hear it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness could not hear. I am sure that she has read it in Hansard twice before and she can do so again today. The important point is that the income support rate for 18 to 24 year-olds reflects the generally lower earnings expectations of that group, whose average earnings are nearly a third less than those of other adults.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, how does that apply to a pregnant woman aged 24 who receives £9 per week less than a woman aged 25? Is there not a real risk to the health of her future baby?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords, there is not. It is not clear that the day-to-day living expenses of pregnant women are significantly different from others in the age band. Therefore, special treatment is not appropriate. As I said earlier, only 19 per cent. of those on income support receive housing benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has not yet responded to the second half of my Question, as to whether the Government plan to extend that principle to other groups. Will he confirm that he is not extending that principle to women or to blacks? Will he confirm also that that either looks as though he has something against young people; or it is because if he did to women or to blacks what he is doing to young people, it would be illegal?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a bizarre argument. If we have any proposals which affect other groups, we shall announce them in Parliament in the usual way. If one follows the logic of the noble Earl, young people would be encouraged to leave home early and it would encourage an early dependency on state benefits. It would act as a disincentive to young people
670
to take up work or training. It would not encourage young people to continue with full-time education. That is what is important.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when the Government present their proposed legislation to bring together unemployment benefit and income support into a new jobseeker's allowance, will he give an undertaking that there will be no discrimination against the under-25s as they are not discriminated against with regard to unemployment benefit?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the unified rate provided by the single integrated benefit simplifies the structure and achieves proper targeting of resources. As I said before, in general the younger age group has lower earnings expectations and fewer financial commitments.

UK Energy Policy
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that after the year 2030 the useful working life of most power stations in the United Kingdom will have expired; what alternative sources of energy they are considering, other than nuclear power; and what steps they are taking to inform the public of their policy for energy supply after that date.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government's aim is to ensure that those choices are made by private sector companies operating in competitive markets.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather unsatisfactory reply, which does not really answer the Question at all. Does he agree that apart from gas turbines, gas is a wasting asset? We have no alternative but to meet our major energy requirements by using nuclear power.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is the noble Viscount's opinion to which he is entitled. I believe that such matters should be judged by the market, and that was the original Answer that I gave to the noble Viscount, which he judged unsatisfactory. That is my opinion and that seems to have worked extremely successfully since we introduced competitive markets for energy.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister seems to place total reliance on the private sector to fulfil the energy needs of the nation. Does he agree that the worldwide supplies of gas and oil will terminate over a much shorter period than was hitherto thought to be the case? The Government have an overall responsibility to see that the energy needs of this nation are met. Is it not the case that, as the Government have destroyed the mining industry, the only alternative available for the fulfilment of those energy needs will be the use of nuclear power?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, would have far more credibility if he could produce evidence to support his suggestion that we are in immediate danger of running out of gas or oil.
Lord Dean of Bessvick: My Lords, I did not say "immediate".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord did not say "immediate", what is he trying to say? Is he saying that it will happen in 100 years, 200 years or when? It is dangerous for politicians to make such decisions when we have a perfectly good market operation which provides a far better basis for making those decisions.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would my noble friend be interested to know that when I was nine, in 1915, my father assured me that there were only 25 years' worth of oil left in the world?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has great experience on his side and has answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, far better than I was able to.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that within the timescale, the Government will have sufficient confidence in the privatised coal mining industry that they are bound to give licences to coal-fired stations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, when the Coal Bill reaches this House, as it will shortly, we shall have an opportunity to discuss such matters in detail.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the market is useful for short-term decisions, there is no evidence whatever that it is good at making long-term decisions" This is essentially a long-term decision which therefore needs government foresight.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness. I co not believe that she has any evidence to suggest that governments, civil servants or politicians are better at making long-term rather than short-term decisions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what part conserving energy—that is, saving and not wasting energy—plays in that? Are the Government providing grants for insulation in that regard?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. Where there is a market failure, clearly there is a case for governments to play a part. We do that in connection with the provision of information about energy efficiency. I can confirm to my noble friend that in the past 15 years, while our GDP has increased by 25 per cent., our use of energy has remained almost static.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would it be right to assume that the. Minister's answers indicate that
672
the Government have great confidence in the development of wind and water as future sources of energy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall shortly be publishing a paper on our future policy towards renewable sources of energy. Again, it is art area where the market can decide for itself what is most viable.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be in the interests of the country if we depended upon a diversity of energy resources? Does he also agree that some of those resources depend upon a major research and development programme—for example, renewable resources, to which reference has just been made, is one of them? Does the Minister further agree that clean-coal technologies require much more research and development in which the Government could play a part, as is the case in other countries, in order to enable them to provide part of that diversified supply in the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is absolutely right that we should provide the markets with information. If markets are to work effectively, they need information. That is why the Government provide it. As I said, within the next few weeks we shall be publishing as an energy paper an appraisal reviewing the range of technologies available, or potentially available, to meet the UK's energy requirements until the year 2025.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the forthcoming paper will take account of figures made public in the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies which was available to, and indeed from, the Department of Energy? It showed that levelised costs of the generation of new power from new sources range from 4.4 pence per kilowatt per hour for coal, 3.77 pence for gas and 3.11 pence for nuclear. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that those levelised figures should be taken out of the external cost as regards air pollution and so on?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that my department will have looked carefully at those figures. However, if by some small chance such figures have passed my officials by, I shall ensure that the matter is brought to their attention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, do the Government foresee any use being made of all our nuclear power stations after 2030 and, if so, what?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again, that will depend on what happens in the energy market between now and the year 2025.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the Government really believe that their energy policy involves private firms operating in the open market? Is it not a fact that the Government, through one kind of levy or another, actually subsidise wind power to produce electricity at three times the cost of coal or gas;

673
and, indeed, are subsidising a form of energy which is causing great environmental damage, especially in places like Wales?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, our general policy is that the market should decide in a competitive market. However, as I indicated earlier, the Government have a role to play in the provision of information. Certainly, over the past few years the Government have been providing, through the levy, subsidy to wind power and other renewable sources. It is a relatively small portion of energy. As I said earlier, we shall soon be publishing an energy paper which will look specifically at renewable energy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, so the Government do not really believe—
Noble Lords: Order!

UN: Armed Forces Deployment
3.4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the case for reviewing the ways in which armed forces are employed in the service of the United Nations and for allocating the costs equitably among the member states; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord: My Lords, the past three years have seen the United Nations employing armed forces in several roles, not all foreseen in the charter. This year, more troops are being requested for Bosnia and the questions arise whether they can be found and from which countries. Britain has been supplying a large proportion of troops for the United Nations and has a particular interest in promoting an efficient system for the mobilisation, employment and control of forces serving the United Nations.
When the United Nations was established, it was intended that armed forces be available in strength to deal with serious dangers to world peace. Chapter VII of the charter, applying to threats to, and breaches of, the peace and acts of aggression, gave the Security Council supreme powers of decision to use armed force against aggressors. Article 47 provided for a Military Staff Committee to assist the council and be responsible for strategic direction. That part of the Charter never became effective because it was frustrated by the Soviet Union, although the Soviet Government had agreed to it at the San Francisco conference. They had a change of mind.
I have been personally interested in the subject since my first visit as a Foreign Office official to the United Nations in New York in 1948, when the organisation was only two years old. I remember, then, the MSC holding its statutory meetings and not being allowed by the Soviet delegation to do anything other than decide on the date of the next meeting. As a result, the special agreements, prescribed in Article 43 of the charter, between the United Nations and its members on stand-by armed forces, never came into existence.
In the two major acts of aggression in the life of the United Nations—Korea in 1950 and Kuwait in 1990
674
—the United Nations delegated command to the United States, the member best placed in each episode to exercise it. At the time of North Korea's aggression the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council in a demonstration against Chinese representation of the day and was not present to exercise the veto. Again, I have since had a personal interest because I was a member of the small UK delegation (there were four of us) who attended the emergency meeting on a Sunday morning on 25th June 1950 and the subsequent meetings where decisions were taken without the Soviet Union's presence or opposition.
Much later, in August 1990 when Saddam committed his folly against Kuwait, the Soviet Union was undergoing massive internal changes and did not oppose action by the Security Council. Because of Russia's new attitude, it has been suggested that an attempt might now be made to establish the MSC (under Article 47 of the charter) or something like it. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who I am glad to see is present today in the Chamber, has raised the matter in your Lordships' House and I have also enquired about it. The Government have indicated that they are not in favour. They are not alone in that; there are others who hold the same view. Their argument is that it is now too late; that too much has happened since 1946 and that it would be best to build upon the systems which have been constructed in the meantime. Whatever way forward is taken, I submit that it should be remembered that the charter did envisage a high-powered military staff with earmarked forces to be at the disposal of the Security Council; and that those proposals never came to anything.
Since 1950 there have been other calls upon the United Nations for military help in various situations. The concept of peace-keeping forces was adopted to meet them. United Nations contingents were made available to form neutral buffers between contending nations or factions and to monitor truce arrangements. That was compatible with the charter, though not specifically included in it. A separate budget was also set up for peace-keeping operations.
For many years military elements have carried out several roles on behalf of the United Nations. First, there are the UN observers. Here I remind noble Lords that the observers who were stationed on the border between North and South Korea were able to report immediately when North Korea attacked the South. As they consisted of officers from recognised neutral countries, their verdict was never doubted. There have also been peace-keeping forces, of which about 15 have been created.
Another role has been protecting humanitarian aid sent to places where it is needed. In these roles the requirements have mainly been for infantry, not for a balanced force with air, artillery and armour on the scale suited to a modern operation of war. The ability of the United Nations to act in such ways is widely supported. Lives have been saved and conflict reduced. But who pays and who will be expected to pay in the future? The willingness of member countries to contribute forces,

675
and their state of readiness, will be influenced by their understanding of whether they are to be reimbursed, and reasonably soon.
As your Lordships know, member states subscribe to the cost of the United Nations organisation as a whole in accordance with individual assessments. The separate peace-keeping budget is based on a curious formula. The five permanent members of the Security Council are assessed at percentages higher than for the main budget, while the developing countries are assessed at a great deal less—one group at one-fifth and the other at one-tenth of their main budget percentages. Until recently there have been massive arrears on both budgets—the main budget and the peace-keeping budget—and this has created financial problems for the United Nations' head office.
Some countries, including the United Kingdom, have willingly contributed forces to particular operations without payment. The operation in Cyprus has been long and costly but it has not been paid for out of the peace-keeping budget. However, it is now to be financed partly by voluntary contributions and partly in the form of expenses in the United Nations' main budget.
I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Chalker who is to reply to the debate could summarise the latest position on financing military operations, especially as it affects the United Kingdom. For example, are British troops in Bosnia to be paid for by reimbursement from the United Nations, or is the United Kingdom taxpayer footing this bill besides paying for the humanitarian aid donated by Britain? I look forward to hearing her reply to the debate. I am sure I speak for most noble Lords in saying that we have greatly appreciated the information on former Yugoslavia which my noble friend has supplied at Question Time over recent months and have admired her determination and efforts to get aid through to the besieged areas.
There are other factors affecting the finances. One is uncertainty over numbers of troops that may be required, sometimes at short notice. At the beginning of 1992 there were about 12,000 troops serving the United Nations in different parts of the world. In less than two years that figure grew to 76,000. Anomalies arise from different systems of payment. In some cases governments are reimbursed while in others troops are paid direct. Where direct payments are made a soldier may receive several times his normal daily pay. This seems unfair to other soldiers and is divisive when troops of different nationalities are serving side by side. I urge our Government to press for rationalisation of the financing system. If reimbursement were assured and rapid, finance ministries, even perhaps our own Treasury, might raise fewer objections to makin troops available for the United Nations.
United Nations troops have sometime been deployed in one role and then had to assume another. This was illustrated starkly in Somalia where television played a significant part. Civil war was creating chaos and starvation and also preventing food supplies being landed. Television showed horrifying pictures of starving, dying children. The American public in particular reached a conclusion that "something must be done". The Bush administration accepted a UN mandate
676
and 20,000 American and other troops went into the Mogadishu area. The famine was relieved and that task was accomplished. However, it then became clear that if the troops departed chaos and famine would return. The UN force moved then into another role, trying to establish order and a form of local administration. That proved to be against the interests of the feuding warlords. Suddenly the United Nations troops were attacked and more than 20 Pakistani soldiers were killed.
The United Nations then slid into a third role fighting the factions suspected of attacking the United Nations. American gunship helicopters patrolled and opened fire. At least one was shot down. American prisoners were taken and television again played a prominent part. The mistreatment of American prisoners was shown on world-wide television. The American public then wanted no more. The Clinton Administration, now in office, announced withdrawal by a date this month. Television has an instant impact on public opinion and so can greatly influence events. However, the cameras cannot be everywhere. Even more horrifying or dramatic events are probably happening elsewhere unnoticed.
This brings me to the role of the United Nations in former Yugoslavia which is of current concern. The first task was to protect the delivery of supplies of food and medicine. Now an additional task has been taken on of monitoring cease-fires. This further role was immediately recognised as worthwhile because glimpses are now apparent of a prospect of peaceful settlements. Here also television has influenced public opinion. Pictures of horror in certain places have been seen. Recently, however, the world has seen the most reassuring sight; namely, the band of the Cold stream Guards at a football match in Sarajevo arranged by the United Nations. What a boost that has been, locally and also throughout the western world where the pictures have been seen on television or in the press.
Great credit for the improving situation there is due to the United Nations commanders on the ground, particularly to two British officers, General Sir Michael Rose and Brigadier John Reith. The United Nations is fortunate that their skills are available for dealing with the situations that they face. Another British officer who has been making a special contribution of a different kind is General Sir David Ramsbotham. Since he retired as Adjutant-General, about a year ago, he has been on a mission to the United Nations in New York to advise on the handling of military matters. I had the good fortune to see him last week and to hear his views, which confirm most of my own impressions.
It seems that a review is being carried out, or has at least been started. The British Government sent their views to the Secretary-General last July on where they thought strengthening was needed and with suggestions for positive steps to be taken. I have seen a copy of those suggestions. This was one result of the special summit meeting of the Security Council held early in 1992, which was attended by heads of government, at which the Secretary-General submitted a document entitled Agenda for Peace. A meeting in New York was

677
arranged last autumn of commanders of United Nations forces, and former commanders, to give advice on improving the system.
Those developments are to be applauded, but progress is slow. It seems clear that the military staff at United Nations headquarters should be strengthened with more expertise and experience. I do not suggest that the numbers should be greatly increased, that there should be empire building, but in future that body should be capable of providing strategic direction. The functions of command and control in the troubled areas should remain with force commanders.
The departments in New York now dealing with peace-keeping and other military operations should be combined. They should be working side by side with, or combined with, the department dealing with humanitarian aid. There has been a lamentable lack of co-ordination hitherto. The strengthened military staff should then be fully capable of mounting and sustaining operations when required. It will have undertaken contingency planning and so have collected information on what member states could provide—that does not mean "will provide" but "could provide".
Some member states are opposed to the equivalent of a United Nations standing army, and that is understandable. In contrast, the concept of stand-by forces is generally accepted where every case is considered separately as it arises. Much useful work can be done in preparations, especially where specialised units are concerned—I refer, for example, to communications (signals) units, medical units and field hospitals. The latter were being called for at a very early stage in Operation Desert Storm although, mercifully, casualties were fewer than expected.
After the mortar bomb killed nearly 70 people in Sarajevo last month, I twice raised in this House the neutral service which the United Nations could supply with modern equipment for locating guns and mortars when fired. No one had been able to determine definitely which faction had fired that offending mortar. The Times published a letter from me at the time on the same subject. That is the kind of specialised unit which should be at the call of the United Nations at short notice. I am glad to acknowledge straight away that the British Government took action. There was some disappointment when it was announced that only 60 more men from Britain were being sent to Bosnia. However, I felt no disappointment because I learned that the group included a mortar-locating unit, which was badly needed.
The large majority of troops needed for peace keeping are not specialist but infantry, disciplined and with basic training. British soldiers have met that requirement admirably. They have earned high praise and are sought after to hold the ring in delicate situations. Their availability, of course, cannot be counted on. They are already in danger of being seriously overstretched as noble Lords have pointed out on other occasions in this House.
Events in Bosnia have been testing the United Nations' organisation and methods for using armed
678
forces. I hope that those events will also have the effect of accelerating action on the reforms and improvements which are needed. I beg to move for papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Conservative Peers have chosen an excellent subject for debate. Admittedly, their range of choice was rather limited. At present, they would not wish to start a debate on Europe, back to basics, taxation or a number of other subjects on which they are either divided, embarrassed or both. However, as a result we have a Motion on a subject which is topical and important—and likely to become much more important in the future.
For 40 years after its foundation, the main achievements of the United Nations related to social and economic welfare. For the main purpose the body was created—for keeping the peace—it was unfortunately marginalised. But now everything is changing and the hopes that we had after the war for the United Nations as a great force for peace are reviving. There is now an urgent need to give that role priority and to improve its peace-keeping capability.
From an enormous number of sources, ideas have come in for achieving that improvement and the increase in priorities. From this country alone, the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place have issued full and excellent reports. A range of different organisations and individuals have made their ideas known, including, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the former Adjutant General Sir David Ramsbotham. He might almost be said to have made the subject his own. We have the thoughtful suggestions made by the Government in July last year in reply to the document Agenda for Peace issued by the Secretary-General. There is much common ground in all those submissions. As the noble Lord concluded by saying, the question is: with all the good ideas for improvements, with the increasing urgency of the problem, why is so little being done on the ground to implement them?
There is one point on which everyone seems agreed. It is that more unity of command is needed at the top. All aspects of peace-keeping must be drawn together in a single United Nations agency. Simple common sense suggests that, and experience has amply shown it. The noble Lord suggested the revival of the military staffs committee. Other well-informed people have made the same suggestion. I confess that I had considered it. However, I now have considerable doubts although not for the reasons apparently given by the Government—that the military staffs committee is out of date—but for other reasons.
First, experience shows that peace-keeping can take most varied forms. It does not relate only to military operations. One has to think of sanctions, diplomacy and humanitarian welfare. Thus I do not believe that the military staffs committee would be appropriate for that role. In addition, I do not believe that the 180 members of the United Nations would welcome so much influence being placed in the hands of the five great powers. Moreover, one would have to increase the membership of the military staffs committee of five. But

679
even if one expanded it and made all members of the Security Council members of the military staffs committee, the basic problem remains. One needs a body at the top which has authority not only on military matters but on humanitarian and political matters, and diplomacy.
I believe it would be wiser, as I believe the noble Lord suggested towards the end of his speech, to build the existing embryonic peace-keeping organisation of the United Nations into a new planning and operations agency. The core membership might be the special representative of the Secretary-General, the three assistant secretaries-general for peace-keeping, politics and humanitarian aid, plus the military representatives of the five permanent powers and a top level administrative chief to find the money and to make sure that it is not wasted. On that body would rest responsibility for the strategic direction of all United Nations peace-keeping operations present and future.
It would have—I believe that I am not out of touch with the views of Her Majesty's Government—other duties such as advising the Secretary-General, liaising with member states and regional organisations, ensuring that proper provision is made for training and for harmonising operational procedures, and upkeeping the register of stand-by troops. It would not of course exercise military command, at least not until a force commander had been appointed by the Secretary-General.
Next, we have the problem of ensuring a wide range of forces and materiel being made available to the United Nations. The Secretary-General, in his document Agenda for Peace, favoured standing forces. On these Benches, I think we would doubt the wisdom of that. If the standing force were of modest size, there would be a risk that one could not muster the size and structure of force that was needed for the task. If it were large, it would be prohibitively expensive and wasteful. Then, surely, there would be general agreement that every nation has to have the right to decline the participation of its nationals in a peace-keeping operation. There may be good arguments for that, arguments of history, politics, religion, arid so on. The withdrawal by a member state of its nationals from a standing force would be disruptive.
The obvious alternative is earmarking, but not the nomination by a member government of a particular part of its forces. If that is what was meant by "earmarking", it would be very difficult for the United Nations to assemble force with the particular balance and capability that it needed.
Fortunately, good progress has been made there with the establishment of the stand-by forces study in which the United Nations considers, with member states, the range of its armed forces and the time needed to make certain units available. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have made their contribution already to the stand-by forces study. I have not seen it. Has it been published? Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us when she replies. It would be interesting and I think that it should be published.
Obviously, the wider the spread of contributions among the different member nations, the better. Some
680
contributions will have more capability than others, but much is gained when there is a wide spread of contributions so that the United Nations is seen not as a particular grouping of nations but as the world community.
I believe that the establishment of the central planning agency, which is also in the mind of the Government, and the completion of the stand-by forces study would be an enormous step forward in the efficiency of United Nations peace-keeping. However, there is an unlimited number of possible other improvements. In training, basic military skills are roughly the same all over the world, but peace-keeping requires a special skill. There should be working teams of United Nations people carrying out the training in member countries. There should also be more teams of military and civilian observers.
Attention needs to be given to the qualifications of the United Nations staff in the new world in which peace-keeping will be a greater part of United Nations work. Some observers have commented on the contrast between the performance of United Nations staff in Somalia and Bosnia and the performance of the staff of NGOs and charities in those countries. The list of possible reforms is virtually endless; not least, nations which do not pay their financial debts to the United Nations must be mercilessly harried by every diplomatic means.
Finally, what changes are required in our own contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping? The Government have much to their credit here, but they have also made mistakes. I hear much about the lack of co-ordination between ODA and the Ministry of Defence in Bosnia. The financial relationships in peace-keeping between the ODA, the Ministry and the Foreign Office are totally incomprehensible—at least to me.
More important, when we look back to Options for Change, we see that serious mistakes were made. Compared with the RAF and the Navy, Army manpower was cut disproportionately. Within the Army, tank regiments should have borne heavier cuts than the infantry. Since then, the Ministry has made some limited redress; but it is still true that despite our Northern Ireland commitment, we should be in a position to make more infantry battalions available to the United Nations if we wished.
However, in the forces we have sent to Bosnia, we have set an example to the rest of the world. The forces arrived more promptly than those of other countries; they are the best forces with the best general and the best military band. I agree with the noble Lord. In addition, the Government's proposals to the Secretary-General are well considered and reflect our experience of successful peace-keeping.
However, what action has been taken on them? I hope that the Minister will reassure us when she replies. The proposals were submitted in July last year. What has happened since? What action have the Government taken to obtain the necessary decisions from the Secretary-General? I believe that those are questions to which the whole House would be glad to have answers.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I know that the debate is chiefly concerned with the more general use of United Nations troops—and what more brilliant example could we have had than Bosnia in recent weeks under a British general? It is also concerned with the important issue of how those forces should be paid for. But I should like to concentrate more on Great Britain's rather unique position in all this, following what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has just said.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, I do not think anything has impressed or caught our imagination more in the past few days than the stirring spectacle of thousands of Sarajevo citizens filling, in a joyous mood, the Olympic stadium in that war-torn city; and, while British light tanks and aptly named Warriors kept a watchful eye, being entertained by skydivers of the British Army landing dead on target in the middle of the pitch with the band of Her Majesty's Coldstream Guards, in full home service order, playing at half time.
So much of this—not all, of course—came about not because of negotiations by politicians or delegates, but as a direct result of positive action by the United Nations, led by the British Army; often, I have to say, half dragging Ministers with their cautious and carefully worded ambivalence along with them. However, I must, of course, exclude the noble Baroness from that remark because I know that she always tries to be as positive with your Lordships' House as she possibly can. In that one event, our forces were able to display to the world their courage, their humanity, their professionalism, their sense of occasion and their immaculate and innate flair for ceremonial and pageantry. How proud we all ought to be and how conscious of the value of that priceless national asset which so many in the political world do their best to tamper with, to "cadre-ise", to rationalise and, if they possibly can, to privatise.
Should we not say to ourselves in connection with the United Nations forces: "We are uncommonly good at this sort of thing. Nobody can do it better"? We should take a lead in offering troops of quality for a range of situations with which the United Nations should properly concern itself, under the authority of the Security Council and where our forces will be particularly welcome.
Of course we should be reimbursed for what we provide. We cannot possibly carry the world on our shoulders. But it is the effectiveness of a United Nations intervention which should be uppermost in our minds. We should not become too obsessed about the numerical sharing out of the burden among some others who (as the Army would say, "No names, no pack drill") are often totally out of place or manifestly ineffective, and sometimes even downright dangerous.
As I have said many times before; what about the British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas? I can think of no force which would give greater confidence to the peoples of former Yugoslavia—who still face each other suspiciously across the agreed demarcation line even under a full political settlement—than Gurkhas deployed between the various factions to see that no infringement took place, as they did so effectively in
682
Cyprus. I am quite certain that with the Gurkhas there, no infringement would take place. It is no good arguing, as some may, that we could not use the Gurkhas under such circumstances. I know that one noble Lord here present will recall a particular context in this respect, but I shall not go into it. It is no good arguing the matter on the grounds that they have not had experience of Warriors, or that they are Hindus, or whatever. They have already been deployed most successfully in Cyprus. They can be trained quickly to turn their hand to anything. The Royal Nepalese Army (their kinsmen) is already there. There is no one better than a Gurkha at taking up a neutral, well-ordered and disciplined stance in any conflict, whether it be motivated on ethnic, political or religious grounds. They would make an ideal British commitment to United Nations peace-keeping.
If, as I certainly hope, and as I am sure the noble Lord will hope, the world is to refer more and more problems to the United Nations, and if under the general heading of Agenda for Peace, United Nations operations to keep and perhaps even secure peace, as the UN has begun to do in Bosnia, are to be increasingly effective, then there is an urgent need, as both previous speakers said, to augment the Peace-keeping Operations Office in New York with military and civilian staff and to make it more immediately capable of planning, mounting and sustaining such operations. I am sure that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence is well aware of that.
The United Nations would also need, if not a permanent standing force—I know that there is a certain amount of sensible opposition to that, although I think we could with advantage come to it as a result of the Standby Forces Review—at least short-notice forces which countries could make available to the Secretary-General, just as at the moment in this country we keep a spearhead battalion and an in-role parachute battalion, and an AMF(L) battalion group for national and NATO emergencies. They should be capable of peace enforcement operations—which does not apply to all the armies of the world.
Such forces could not conceivably cover all the situations that the peoples of the world may at one time or another wish to put on the plate of the United Nations. There would be a need for reinforcements and larger contingents from a wide range of nations to carry out tasks in disparate areas of the world, as in the Gulf War where they acted under the auspices of the United Nations, and the more direct United Nations operation in Somalia. Those short-notice forces would help the United Nations to react quickly, put forces on the ground early for reconnaissance, deterrence and protection of negotiators. They would also provide a chance to nip in the bud problems which may become all the more difficult the longer that they are allowed to fester. They would provide a firm base from which negotiations could be undertaken from a position of strength and not weakness.
The Front Line First Review, in trying to "civilianise" certain military elements that are vital to post-conflict resolution—such as engineers, engineering specialists, transport, medical units—is a threat to our ability to react effectively to that kind of situation. If we

683
have not tampered too much with the effectiveness of our military forces, and assuming that too much damage has not been done, we should approach the whole business of United Nations military forces in a truly positive manner. We should be fully aware that we have something special to offer. We should not the whole time be looking nervously over our shoulders.
How the costs are to be picked up will no doubt occupy the Treasury and the officials of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office for years to come. The point is that we have magnificent, instant-readiness forces—not forgetting the Brigade of Gurkhas—who could arrive quick ay, act professionally and humanely and make a real impact in enhancing United Nations control, if that has been properly authorised. Moreover, by doing so, we should be making a contribution that is not only appropriate to our status as a member of the Security Council, but which will also produce a feather in the cap of our foreign policy. As has been shown by General Rose, it is our command and control which may be needed and sought after as much as anything else.
Also we must not forget the air. There is no doubt that on the road to peace in Yugoslavia the mere threat of air attack—though I would have been the first person to be against using it unnecessarily—did a tremendous amount to get the peace process going.
The challenges and opportunities are immense. We must not be petty about this matter. It may be that this is in some ways our destiny, in the same way as it was with the Swiss and the Hanoverians in the 18th century. I believe that if we do this properly it will end up very much in our national interest.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, from this side of the House I should like to say how much I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, just said. In particular, I join with him in sharing the pride, which I believe was shared throughout the nation, of seeing on television our own troops in the arena in Sarajevo. For the first time, I enjoyed seeing an item about Bosnia on television. It was of great benefit that we were able to see such a magnificent display. I also agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the use of the Gurkhas, who form such a magnificent regiment. They could do an enormous amount to contribute to achieving peace in Bosnia.
The House is also very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising this important subject for debate. It is only when a closer look is given to the current role of the UN in its attempt to carry out its purposes under the charter,
"to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of agression",
that it is possible to recognise the burdens that fall on that institution.
The problems that are faced today are very different from those faced when the charter was adopted in 1945 —and, indeed, when my noble friend served with distinction at the UN in 1948. At that time considerations were based on averting wars between
684
sovereign states and territorial invasions, such as occurred before the war in Albania and Ethiopia, arid in the case of the Second World War itself. The membership was 51, but I understand that it has now risen to 184 as a result of decolonisation and, more recently, fragmentation of the former USSR and the Balkans. No doubt it will he further increased.
Some noble Lords referred to the first 40 years of the UN's existence when there were 13 peace-keeping operations undertaken; now the number is 15. Soldiers were employed to maintain neutrality, for instance, on interstate borders, and were armed only for the purposes of self-defence, which limits the action. The first 40 years were also marked by the effects of the Cold War, which influenced the decision-making process, especially in the Security Council. There was decolonisation in many parts of the world, particularly Africa, and wars broke out in Korea (ending in 1953) and Vietnam.
Now, as has been said, we have moved from what was called the threat of war to what is recognised as a threat of turbulence. A larger number of conflict areas is the result of civil wars, destabilising minorities or internal political strife among leaderships. The provisions of the charter, specifically Chapters 6 and 7, have already been addressed by other noble Lords, as well as what was termed Chapter 61/2, so named by the late UN Secretary-General, Dag Harnmarskjbld, covering peace-keeping, which as such is not included in the charter.
The change from the 1960s and 1970s to the present day has been marked by a series of internecine conflicts which have combined to put heavy strains on the UN. The monitoring of border disputes, the presence of military observers to monitor and verify observance of cease-fire agreements and the presence of peace-keeping forces to protect the provision of humanitarian aid are among the many tasks now being undertaken.
The UN annual report for 1993 makes interesting reading. It contains information which reveals only the bare bones of the numerous and manifold tasks reflected in the statistics. With about 75,000 military personnel scattered throughout the globe, the figures are impressive. One can glean a measure of the enormity of the task facing the UN. At the time of publication of the report there were 16,000 military personnel in Cambodia from 26 countries, 350 (recently reduced) in Angola, about 250 in the Iraq Kuwait Observation Mission, and over 6,000 in Mozambique. There are troops in many other parts of the world, including about 25,000 in UNPROFOR from 33 countries. France and the UK have made a major contribution to UNPROFOR under Resolutions 743 and 758,
"to create conditions for peace and security required for the negotiation of a peaceful settlement for the former Republic of Yugoslavia".
In all those cases very different demands are made on the armed forces with regard to their tasks: verification of cease-fire agreements; long-term stationing in a neutral buffer zone, as in Cyprus; dealing with aggressive border disputes, and assisting in peace-building measures as in Cambodia. All require different training and the ability to adapt to different climates and conditions. Many of those tasks would not be suitable

685
for conscripts, for instance, as opposed to volunteers. As we saw recently, it is not always possible immediately to raise the military personnel required to meet urgent demands, such as those of Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, which were made in order to hold and consolidate the positions achieved by his troops. They were essential to maintain the present improvements in services so ably restored in many instances by units of the Royal Engineers.
A further consideration is that it is no longer viable for any intervention on humanitarian grounds by armed forces other than on a multinational basis. In the Nicaragua case, which concerned the intervention of the USA in Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice confirmed that unilateral armed humanitarian intervention was not justifiable. On the other hand, there is evidence of the need for multinational intervention on the grounds of protection of civilian populations against gross violations of human rights, as in Bosnia. Justification for an intervention by armed forces into the territory of another member state without a request from the host state, on grounds of gross violation of human rights, is an issue which needs addressing.
At a recent conference on human rights and external intervention held at Ditchley Park, a conference which I had the honour to chair, it was generally recognised that the UN lacked the capacity for responding with sufficient speed and strength to the demands made on it. Every new situation made demands on the UN to create a new force, whether for peace-keeping or for enforcement. Clearly, speed was not easy. Various possibilities have been discussed: for example, to have a UN standing force or that some part of the armies in member states should be lined up ready at the disposal of the UN. That is unlikely in the present climate, in view of the cuts in defence expenditure under the so-called peace dividend.
The proposal, which is not unlike the proposal of the Secretary-General in his Agenda for Peace, would also mean contracting out operations, particularly using regional organisations such as NATO or WEU. There are political implications—for instance, arousing suspicion as to the reason for intervention—but they possibly could be overcome. There is also always the question of the interpretation of Article 2(7) of the charter with regard to interference in the internal affairs of a state.
What of the future? The UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in his report of June 1992 set out some interesting ideas about how the task of the UN could be achieved. He proposed to earmark forces to be made available to the Security Council under Article 43. But that would seem very unlikely, considering that most member states are unwilling to face that kind of expenditure. It could possibly only be considered in relation to the USA, though there is now a tendency even there to be more concerned with domestic affairs rather than the international scene. The only country which could probably provide the right number of troops is Russia, as my noble friend Lady Park of
686
Monmouth chillingly reminded us recently in the debate on defence, where there are about 2 million troops in a standing army.
When peaceful measures fail, as identified in Chapter 6, the Security Council has to revert to Article 42 to take military action. Forces to implement the task of peace enforcement and to carry out peace-building measures will clearly be needed now as well as in the future, whether in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia or Cambodia, to say nothing of prospects in other parts of the world's trouble spots. As the world changes, so must the means of the UN to contribute to maintaining and securing peace. The measures available to the UN must remain flexible.
It has been questioned whether the military staff committee can contribute to the organisation, co-ordination and planning needed to fulfil such needs. So far it has been quite clearly totally inadequate. It is an inadequate mechanism, inappropriate to the demands being made on our armed forces under the command of the United Nations. This is an area for professionals and I hesitate to comment at all. But I should like to support very much the Secretary-General's proposal for a pool of trained specialists to be available outside the strictly military area. That could be of great assistance. It could be readily available to meet some of the more urgent needs in conflict situations. That proposal was very strongly supported by Sir Anthony Parsons in a recent article on the UN which he wrote in relation to peace-keeping.
I should like to say a few words on the second part of my noble friend's Motion relating to the finance of the armed forces. He explained to the House how this bizarre method of financing peace-keeping is arranged at the year end, with the five permanent members of the Security Council contributing more than other member states. But we are seeing a closer concentration on domestic issues in member states and an unwillingness to bear burdens of expenditure outside internal financing. I need only mention the high cost of welfare in this country and other countries in Europe to deplore the amount that we are spending on our own Armed Forces, which are our strength.
The contributions which should go to the UN, some of which remain unpaid, are modest if the UN succeeds, as it is now attempting to succeed, in its major objective of maintaining peace and security. It is perhaps not always recognised that the cost of peace-keeping falls not only on the permanent members of the Security Council, but also on those who are contributing troops. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy rightly questioned how much is now being paid for British troops serving under UN auspices which is not being refunded to the United Kingdom; not only for accounting reasons but also because of a failure by other member states to pay their contribution to the UN and therefore for repayment to be made to member states. I would consider it appropriate if certain countries with a high GDP, such as Japan and Germany whose constitutions prevent them from contributing to the armed forces, also undertook additional burdens for peace-keeping initiatives in their national budgets,

687
especially considering that they benefit as much as any other nation from the maintenance of peace and security throughout the world.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend again for this opportunity to look at what is clearly an important issue for the United Kingdom and the world as a whole. It gives us all an opportunity to pay our respects and express our great gratitude and admiration to our forces, who serve us so well wherever they may be throughout the world.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is certainly timely. He is particularly well qualified to speak on these subjects and, personally, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he said and with what was said by previous speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.
But I wish the Motion had been set more widely and in a different way. l am very uneasy about the future of the United Nations Organisation. I am sure that others feel the same. I believe that the time has come when this I-louse should debate the whole UN structure and its necessary adaptation to likely political and military developments in the world.
In many quarters the prestige of the United Nations has fallen—the TV necessarily contributed to that. The Secretary General tries to satisfy too many conflicting constituents, and it is all too easy to criticise the organisation, the quality of the staff and its administration. The present charter was put together almost 50 years ago and the greatest credit must be given to those British negotiators like the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who contributed so much to it. In the Chamber we suffer today from the absence of Lord Caradon, who was a worthy champion of the United Nations. I am sure he would have had a great deal to say today, though I think he was going too far when he once said, "There is nothing wrong with the charter, only with its members".
That may have been correct in the days when he led the British delegation in New York. But I think it is no longer true today. The world has changed and is now changing so fundamentally that consideration must be given urgently to thoughts of revision—and perhaps substantial revision—of the charter. Many will say that sensible revisions can only be achieved by degrees. It is right to say that in recent years the United Kingdom has successfully taken useful initiatives, and previous speakers spoke of those. There can be no doubt that the Foreign Office department dealing with those problems is both enterprising and efficient. Those of us who watched on television Sir David Hannay, our representative in New York, will have seen that he is a man to be applauded.
When one looks ahead to the near and more distant future, one must ask whether tinkering with the charter and the way we do business will be enough. Years ago I heard the late Lord Stewart of Fulham suggest to Mr. Gromyko that some modifications were desirable. The Soviet minister replied rather wearily that if Lord Stewart had known personally how difficult it had been
688
in 1944 to reach agreement, he would not be making such suggestions. I wonder whether Mr. Gromyko's views are still right.
Looking ahead we must anticipate, inter alia, unwelcome calls for frontier adjustments between countries in the world—not just small countries but countries which are rapidly growing more popular, stronger economically and militarily with deadly weapons which they will not find it necessary to buy abroad. Those countries will be in Africa. the Middle East, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. In recent times, we have seen the United Nations defied successfully by comparatively small countries. Methods used by the UN over the past 50 years are likely to be totally inadequate in the future.
I am proposing a new look at how discipline in the world can best be asserted. It may be that the only way is by short steps, but a new generation may be able to think their way round the problem as their fathers did in 1944. It is time to try. Maybe the Government are applying their mind to the matter. I hope that the Minister will tell us if that is so.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for bringing this debate to the attention of your Lordships today. I must also apologise because I feel that I shall not contribute as fully as I would have liked as I only recently returned from abroad and had little time to research the subject. However, I should like to talk today about the ways of improving the military aspect of United Nations peace-keeping. My credentials for that stem from a period of service from 1975 to 1976 when I wore the light blue beret and served in the United Nations force in Cyprus, and from the very significant direct logistical support that Headquarters Land Forces Cyprus provided —and still provide—to United Nations forces in Cyprus when I was Chief of Staff there from 1984 to 1987.
In this debate, I only intend to cover some aspects of how employment of the armed forces in the service of United Nations peace-keeping can be improved. I have left the problems of allocating costs equitably to other speakers as that is a long and complex subject of which I have little knowledge. However, I should like to take this opportunity to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the financial system within the United Nations requires urgent attention, otherwise the United Nations may cease to exist.
In the 40 years to 1988 the UN authorised 13 peace-keeping operations; in the five years since then a further 15 have been authorised. During 1992 alone the number of total troops engaged in UN operations rose from 12,000 to 50,000, and even that figure by now must have increased by our own recent contributions. Those forces are employed as instruments of conflict control, and each specific operation requires a separate mandate.
I wish to refer to several main principles which are essential reforms to make if improvements are to be achieved in the employment of peace-keeping forces. To illustrate why those improvements are so necessary, I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the

689
fact that at the time of the UN Gulf operation no state had concluded agreements with the Security Council to earmark forces for UN peace keeping; the insignificant military staff committee of the United Nations had held nothing but token meetings for decades; and the council's ability to conduct the simplest operation was untested and indeed in severe doubt. This state of affairs clearly encourages a lack of credibility in the UN, and to remedy this situation it is essential that a military planning secretariat be established so that improvements and reforms can be made.
I now come to some of the principles concerning the necessary improvements for peace-keeping forces. They are not new and I believe that Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations have discussed them in general terms. The Minister for the Armed Forces in another place replied to a question on 14th January that the Secretary-General identified the need to strengthen the United Nations capacity to conduct peace-keeping support operations, and invited member states to make proposals in that regard. The United Kingdom's reply included suggestions for reinforcing the UN planning mechanisms. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to be actively involved in discussions aimed at taking these suggestions forward. In addition, the United Kingdom is co-operating fully with the United Nations stand-by forces planning team. But I ask: what has happened to the agreed proposals that emanated from the chief United Nations peace-keeper's conference last November?
I should like to discuss the proposals for improvement under three distinct headings: the creation of a military planning secretariat; the establishment of United Nations peace-keeping colleges; and the conduct and requirements for a United Nations peace-keeping force. First, the military planning secretariat. In this connection, I should also like to pay tribute, as my noble friend Lord Campbell has already done, to the dedicated work carried out by General Sir David Ramsbotham, who has been at the forefront of discussions with UN military organisations. He has a wealth of knowledge on UN military operations even though he was not a previously appointed UN force commander. However, he attended the UN meeting of force commanders and former force commanders chaired by the chief UN peace-keeper, Mr. Kofi Annan, which I mentioned earlier and from which stemmed many excellent proposals. With his current knowledge he might be an ideal person to second to the United Nations to form a military planning secretariat.
It is clear that the present military staff committee holds little clout, if any, and does little more than monitor current operations. Without a strong military planning secretariat and a robust director-general, proposals made at the New York meeting of force commanders are liable to fall prey to UN bureaucracy. In my view, the first step to be taken is to do away with the military staff committee and create a strong military planning secretariat which would be responsible for contingency planning, humanitarian aid, mounting and
690
sustaining operations, intelligence, training and logistics. However, there is little point in setting up such an organisation unless the charter is considered to be paramount, universally accepted and equivalent to acting within the law.
Political will must also always exist to provide the money, men and machinery. Assurances should be given that politicians will make sure that the military can provide the necessary resources of properly trained men from within national defence assets and that the military will ensure that there are earmarked forces available in sufficient strength and properly trained. This political will which is so essential will require co-ordination of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Overseas Development Administration with overall ministerial direction. Mandates in the future need to be better, practical and achievable. Earmarked stand-by forces should be capable of rapid deployment on similar alert notices to our current spearhead battalion and the AMF. The UK Inspector General for Doctrine and Training should co-ordinate and inspect all aspects of rostering and training of UK forces for UN operations. UN doctrine should be briefly incorporated into the junior and standard staff college syllabuses, and there must be inter-operability of command, control and communication procedures.
Within the British Army 90 per cent. of all UN specific requirements are already inherent within normal regimental training, and our existing experience from UN peace-keeping operations and Northern Ireland tours of duty help us in this respect. Only a few weeks' special training has to be delegated to the subject of UN peace-keeping operations prior to deployment, and this is sustainable within our existing structure and organisations. Within post-conflict reconstruction, disaster relief, securing safe havens and patrolling no-man's land areas, there may well be a role for the Territorial Army and reserve forces. In any future United Nations operations, there will be a requirement for a closer interface between the United Nations special representative, the force commander and the humanitarian aid representative.
I should now like to turn briefly to United Nations peace-keeping colleges of which I believe there should be two: a senior officers UN peace-keeping college based in New York as part of headquarters UN to inform senior officers of the workings of the UN and the systems and functions of peace-keeping; and a second peace-keeping college to be established in the UK on a non-public cost and privatised basis, which would be self-sustaining with the exception of its requirement for accommodation. Students of the rank of lieutenant-colonel and below would be drawn from all UN countries and would be involve in general information about the UN but would concentrate on the military aspects of peace-keeping duties and responsibilities at battalion and company level. Staff to run these two colleges could be found from the many recently retired officers with perhaps a retired British Army general running the New York college and a retired brigadier running the UK college. This would avoid depleting the remaining small number of serving officers. Surely in

691
this instance the United Kingdom would once again be seen to be taking the initiative and a lead on UN peace-keeping operations which should enhance our reputation and reinforce our strength as a member of the Security Council.
I come now to some of the improvements that should be made to the conduct of peace-keeping forces when employed. I do not have time to cover all the 20 points that were recommended at the UN meeting of force commanders in November last year, but I will touch on a few of the most important proposals agreed between the chief UN peacekeeper, Mr. Annan, and the force commanders.
There should be a clear and uninterrupted chain of command between the United Nations headquarters and the force commander, who must be given full operational command. A military council should be formed which would be responsible for the overall strategy and any change in its direction. The mandate from the Security Council must be clear and as practicable as possible with the political and military objectives clearly defined. National governments must not intervene in the agreed and established chain of command. Intelligence capability is indispensable and the force commander should determine his intelligence requirements when advised of his mission. In this connection, it is essential that the force commander participates in the formation of his multinational headquarters from the very start. A United Nations standing force is not feasible and is intensely wasteful in manpower. A UN roster for participation in peace-keeping, perhaps devised on a regional basis, should be agreed by nations with a limit that no country undertakes more than three years' peace-keeping at a time before relief by another member state.
In conclusion, I believe that a strong military planning secretariat should be created; senior and junior United Nations peace-keeping colleges should be established; and that the recommendations stemming from the force commanders' meeting in New York should become doctrine for the conduct of future peace-keeping operations, thus improving the ways in which armed service. are employed in the service of the United Nations.
Finally, I would stress that there is little risk that the United Kingdom could become involved in a conflict which is not in the interests of the country because of our tight of veto in the Security Council. I should also remind your Lordships that the deployment of UN troops is not always the cure for problems, and that there will be very few British troops available for peace-keeping duties in the future unless the Government cease the rundown of the British Army and agree to an established figure of around 135,000 troops in the future.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Craig of Rainey: My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to consider ways in which we can best contribute to an ever-increasing operational and quasi-military role for the United Nations. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Vivian, have both dramatically illustrated this growth. But I am
692
leaving it to others to debate the political importance; the value to world security of United Nations efforts and the variety of ways in which that body should act and be structured.
But when it comes to the military contribution and the roles of armed forces in support of the United Nations, there are a number of pluses and minuses to consider. For the British armed forces, our professional career servicemen and our long experience in peace-keeping and active operations at long distance from our permanent bases can only be matched, if at all, by two or three other nations in the world.
As a permanent member of the Security Council we have thus a unique experience and responsibility which over the years we have sought most successfully to fulfil. Whether as a very long-standing contributor to UNFICYP or as a major player in the Gulf War (in support of United Nations resolutions) we have carried a considerable burden over many years. But that burden was found from much larger forces than we field today or can expect to field in the years ahead.
It is therefore becoming more difficult to contribute and sustain additional commitments. Understandably, with well over £20 billion committed annually to defence, there is an expectation that the forces will and can respond to every pressing operational commitment. But to sustain that we must also retain a capability at home to train and bring on the next intake, and so on, year after recruiting year.
We cannot indefinitely rely on today's front line personnel who will pass on to civilian life or higher appointments. So in reviewing our involvement, we must also make allowance for training and developing the replacements for our current front line. Widely now, we see and hear of the excellent contribution and the high morale of those on active operations in Bosnia which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, and others have most eloquently spelt out this afternoon. But there is still an enormous challenge and novelty too in that tragic environment.
But good as we are at getting things moving and setting a hopeful pattern for the future, we must also be wary of becoming locked into more and more commitments. Our professional experience and the lessons of past operations should encourage us to continue to take a part of the initial burden, but then to seek to reduce our active in-theatre involvement as the situation stabilises. I hope that we remember this in Bosnia.
It is for others then to shoulder a share of a continuing commitment. But if they are to do so in more than a most superficial way, many countries which possess the numbers of men must adjust their defence forces to allow them to support their own contingents away from home without having to rely on others for airlift, logistic support and for repairs in the field. Such changes and adjustments are becoming more pressing against the background of our own reducing force levels and the growth of UN-sponsored operations.
Even during the Gulf War there were a number of key capabilities which we had fielded in-theatre which could not be supported by the training of replacements. The war was short; our casualties and loss of equipment

693
were mercifully low. But faced with high attrition rates and casualties, we could have found ourselves in great difficulty. That operation and the Falklands conflict a decade before, clearly demonstrated that there is now a very thin line dividing success from tragedy. We must not sail into a future tragedy by spreading our limited resources too thinly or by neglecting the need to train and sustain our active forces for the future.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, after such a galaxy of military and diplomatic talent, I feel both simultaneously out of my league and out of my depth. But that does not prevent me thanking my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing a very important and —as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, described it—very topical and well-timed debate.
The political peace-keeping role of the United Nations has been overtaken by events. Increasingly the United Nations is asked to make and enforce peace—not just to keep it. It is like the National Health Service: it has become a victim of its own success. The more it does, the greater the demand, which appears to be limitless. There are now no fewer than 26 areas of the world where there are reportedly conflicts requiring a United Nations presence. Jane's Defence Weekly has identified a total of 73 potential flash-points around the world which may explode at any time. Half of those 26 peace-keeping operations have started in the past five years. As many noble Lords have said already this evening, as presently constituted, the UN peace-keeping structure is simply unable to respond adequately to the demands made on it.
The problems are serious and manifold. A military operation which permits 5,000 Pakistani troops to land in Mogadishu without telephones, walkie-talkies, flak-jackets, tear gas or even batons; which takes months to give permission to write off one badly damaged Land Rover in Croatia; where top-level decisions can only be taken Monday to Friday during office hours, is clearly ready for administrative reform. An organisation whose costs have shot up from 400 million US dollars to well over 3 billion US dollars needs rationalised financial control. An association in which fewer than 10 out of about 175 members pay their full remittance must examine its future very carefully. It appears to lack coherence and strategy, as the Commons' Defence Committee found in its report of June 1993.
Although possibly somewhat extreme in what is a very balanced and thorough report, nevertheless one comment in that report is worth quoting:
"It sometimes seems as if the only unifying factor in UN peace-keeping forces is the colour of the headgear worn".
I make no apologies for having sounded more than somewhat negative to date. I have tried to set the scene as to what I believe can be done with the UN without great difficulty and what is very important if the UN is to achieve and to continue to achieve, a role within the world. There are solutions but they must be found urgently. Britain, as one of the fully paid-up nations, should be at the forefront of a movement for reforming
694
the ways in which armed forces are employed in the UN service. As we have already heard from those who are much better qualified than I, Britain's forces are professional, flexible and better equipped than most. They are thoroughly experienced in NATO and UN operations and capable of adapting and reacting quickly as events demand.
By contrast, it must be said that too many UN operations are now attempted by troops who are ill-prepared for the task that they are deployed to undertake. Doctrinally disparate, inappropriately trained, inadequately equipped and suffering from confused command and control relationships, they need perhaps as much effort to be integrated into a cohesive force as they do to tackle the UN task itself.
Communications can break down for reasons as obvious as language. Two fundamentals need to be treated as priorities. It is vital that, once the political decision has been taken, the execution of that decision is delegated to the military by way of clear and unambiguous instructions. The UN Secretary-General, however brilliant he or she may be, cannot and must not also be the military commander. As crises occur, neither the UN nor the military can adapt easily to a developing situation. Someone must be available at the UN at all times of the day and night to take decisions so that forces' commanders can be given the necessary political authority to enable them to carry out their military objectives. Inevitably, this may mean that there should be provision for the Secretary-General, when absent, to be able to delegate the required power. Rapid reaction can quite literally be vital.
A constructive and imaginative approach is needed particularly in the area of cost sharing where, as other noble Lords have said, the cracks have become gaping holes that can bring down the whole edifice. As I believe my noble friend Lord Vivian said, sending troops is not always the only or best contribution that a member state can make. It would in my view be infinitely more satisfactory to assess contributions according to each country's capabilities, thus making the prospects of recovering the deficit and running an efficient organisation more realistic. Some countries are able to provide specialist equipment, as was the case with Japan's contribution of landcruisers and domestic vehicles during the Gulf War. Others have representative terrain, such as jungle, mountains or desert, where it will be particularly beneficial for troops to prepare and train for operations at no cost or risk. Strategically placed countries can provide basing rights for aircraft, hospitals or refugees; yet others can offer civilian-based logistic support, such as the allocation of merchant shipping or airlift.
The possibilities for a more equitable and efficient structure are many if not endless, but vision is required to initiate them. However, all of this must be underpinned by a restructured UN secretariat, with specialists capable of providing informed and responsive direction, co-ordinated with nations and other UN agencies. With a fully co-ordinated military structure, commanders would be free to conduct operations without constant national or international consultation.

695
In 1962 Dean Acheson made the famous comment that Britain had lost an empire and not yet found a role. Some 30 years later perhaps she has now found a role within the UN. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that it is precisely because Britain had an empire and because of her wide experience on the world stage and the prominent role that she has played in so many of the globe's greatest theatres that she is uniquely qualified to seize the initiative and press other UN members to redefine the peace-keeping strategy and use effective tactics to ensure its continued existence and success.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy decided to raise this issue. I feel it has up to now been rather neglected. Indeed, I believe that the Minister will agree that it transpired from a series of Questions for Written Answer that I put to the Government last year on the linkage between military endeavours by the United Nations and the costs thereof, that there was little information available, let alone a realisation of the lacunae in the organisation of these matters.
During most of my youth the United Nations had a pretty had press. It was not very long after its foundation that the focus of attention switched from a deadlocked UN Security Council to NATO and the Warsaw Pact. That was where everything seemed to be happening, with one or two exceptions. It was with the fall of the Berlin Wall which signified the end of the Cold War that many of us began to hope that the United Nations would be able to fulfil the role intended by its founding fathers.
I was particularly interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about the need perhaps to rethink the role, functions and organisation of the United Nations. I believe that has much relevance to this Motion.
The Early success of the Gulf War gave good publicity to the United Nations and the kind of thing that it ought to be doing. But equally a failure of military intervention damages the credibility of the UN. Even more damage is done by the threat of intervention which turns out to be bluff. Bluff is really milk which nourishes dictators. I believe that we need to give a great deal more thought to the choice of where and when to intervene.
I think that there are perhaps six criteria to be considered. First, the need for a cause that can be widely accepted as just. An easy example is the invasion of one member of the United Nations by another. Secondly, the need for an identifiable enemy—an enemy that the television viewing public around the world can identify as someone who is evil and should be dealt with. Thirdly, the need for a general agreement within the United Nations and Security Council cover. The Security Council and indeed the UN in general is perhaps the one remaining area where the traditional art of diplomacy can still be practised. I believe that Britain has been extremely lucky in the calibre of its representatives at the United Nations at crucial times. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I would also refer to Sir Anthony
696
Parsons, Sir Crispin Tickell, and also Sir David Hannay who is there today. We have always ensured that we have the finest of our diplomats in what is a crucial diplomatic role. Fourthly, in deciding whether or not to intervene the right physical terrain is crucial. If we engage in the wrong terrain it is likely that there will be a military failure, however good the planning. Fifthly, we must have the resources available. Sixthly, there must be a clear objective which, when achieved, enables the military operation to be discontinued.
The Gulf was ideal for all of this. There was an invasion by Saddam, who was a very easy enemy. We had good diplomacy. We also had the desert which was good for hi-tech warfare of the sort that the United Nations could use. I was in the United States in December 1990 when the question arose whether or not there would be a war. I remember that in particular the financial people to whom I spoke were terribly worried at the prospect of another Vietnam. I was able to reassure them that the crucial difference between Vietnam and Arabia was the terrain. Finally, of course, we were able to disengage at the right time.
I believe that we have to look beyond those rather obvious criteria to the kinds of things where perhaps United Nations military intervention is not appropriate. Though I know that this is very controversial, I am doubtful whether the United Nations should intervene in civil wars. It is exceedingly difficult to know which side one should be on. I am afraid that Yugoslavia has demonstrated that. Although we may now be able to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, it has been a very risky performance so far. Equally, I do not believe that United Nations troops should be used in what in my National Service days was called "aid to the civil power". I do not believe that that is a role for United Nations forces. Nor do I believe that the UN's military role is an appropriate means of enabling humanitarian aid to reach those for whom it is intended. There is every likelihood that that will cause as many problems as it solves. That is the strong lesson that comes through from interviews with aid workers in the Yugoslav theatre.
To say that politicians should ignore television when deciding when and where to intervene is hard. But there is no doubt that it is seductive for politicians to seek to meet public demand, outrage and anxiety as portrayed through the media. I obviously do not blame the media, but we should remember the fiasco of Somalia, which has cost the US £1.3 billion. There the Americans were lured in by television and made to leave as a result of television showing the consequences.
Clearly we must separate the provision of and payment for military forces. There are probably half a dozen criteria for deciding who is best suited to act as a military force in a UN role. Obviously experience is tremendously valuable. Troops who have never done such a thing before are likely to make mistakes which may be tragic and fatal to the success of the operation. Coupled with that is the professional skill of troops fulfilling such a role. Courage goes without saying. Discipline is also very important. I am afraid that not all UN military forces from around the world have equal discipline. Of course, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Vivian and others, good, efficient staff work is

697
crucial. Finally—this is an aspect of discipline, but it goes beyond it—real integrity must be shown by the armed forces which intervene.
I of course believe—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, made this clear—that British troops are outstanding in meeting all those criteria and in the contribution that they can make. I hope that we can expand our forces considerably. The UK forces are now only some 275,000 strong as against France's 412,000, the United States' 1.7 million and the some 2 million strong Russian forces. In each case we are talking about members of the Security Council. Our seat as a veto member of the Security Council gives us a crucial role because it means that if we were to provide forces in a big way for such operations we would not, almost by definition, be put in the position of intervening in a cause of which we did not approve, because, of course, intervention has to have the sanction of the Security Council.
The cost of the UN's military operations is surprisingly low. The current 14 assignments, occupying some 80,000 troops, cost about 5.3 billion dollars a year. I say that it is low in relation to national defence budgets, even in relation to our own defence budget, but especially in relation to the American defence budget. It is sad therefore that the Americans have decided to use the withholding of payment to the UN's peace-keeping budget as a means of expressing their displeasure. I can sympathise with them. We have heard from many speakers of the shambles that exists at certain levels of the UN. That must be frustrating if one is, as the Americans are, one of the main paymasters. But it is not justified and sensible for the Americans to withhold about 1 billion dollars when their own military expenditure is some 250 billion dollars.
The cost of interventions is often not high. I believe that it is surprisingly low. The additional cost of the Falklands war was £1.8 billion. That is only about 7.5 per cent. of our annual defence budget. By today's standards that was a major war. It was certainly a major success. I would argue that it did a great deal for British prestige. It also did a great deal for world peace in that it fulfilled the criterion of not allowing illegal international action. Our expenditure on the Gulf War was £2.4 billion, of which we were repaid some 87 per cent., mainly from those countries whose interests benefited from the expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. I believe that at the moment we are not receiving back our just share of expenditure.
We must rethink and give a much higher profile to the peace-keeping budget. With that must go, as other noble Lords have suggested, a rethinking of the organisation of peace-keeping. I do not know whether we necessarily want a standing force, but some form of rolling five-year contract for certain countries to provide forces—I hope that Britain will play a leading part—would make a very real contribution.
This afternoon's debate is in no sense the end of the discussion. I hope that the debate which my noble friend initiated will be followed by a great deal of discussion in academic, military and international circles. We must
698
get this thing right if we are not to lose the opportunity of keeping the UN at the centre of the world peace process.
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not putting my name down, and for speaking in the gap in the list of speakers; but I returned from Buffalo only on Monday, and yesterday was the AGM of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, and I did not think that there would be time to write a proper speech, and there was not. Noble Lords have often told me never to open my mouth unless I felt I would burst if I kept it shut. I would not wish to inconvenience your Lordships with any untoward incident, so I shall only stand up, try to speak up, and shut up.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing this subject at a most telling moment, and we have had some very powerful and thought-provoking speeches. All of us who heard the late Lord Cheshire in his prophetic and evocative maiden speech must realise that our splendid record with the United Nations, and particularly recently in Bosnia, has shown the world the magnificent calibre of our troops, and possibly the way ahead for our Army, without diminishing it altogether.
Particularly I should like to speak of the colour and splendour of our military bands. Last Saturday when I returned the Fort Niagara flag to its original home at the fort, we had a very moving service. The fort was captured by British forces in 1813, and as soon as they had captured the fort, they climbed on the roof, and played the march of the British Grenadiers. This was heard across the Niagara River, and was the signal for the rest of the Army to cross. They played this music again on Saturday with fifes and drums. In Sarajevo we have had the amazing spectacle of the Coldstream Guards band, and we have all been moved by it.
Our forces are the jewel in our crown—it is possible that by sharing the costs with the United Nations this may be our contribution to the future peace of the world.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I too apologise to your Lordships for rising now without putting down my name. To be frank, I thought that the debate would last longer, and I did not put my name down because I did not think that I would be here at the end. As the debate has apparently proceeded rather more quickly than the powers that be anticipated, I have not been discouraged from adding just a sentence or two.
I should like to make three points. First, there is the question of the future of the UN which was raised, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill. I agree entirely that we should not be reluctant to discuss and to raise this matter. Indeed, we should be positive. There are many mutterings about our place on the UN Security Council. Some come from Europe, perhaps because it is thought that in the new European Union it would be more proper for Europe as a whole to be represented on the Security Council. That is an arguable case. Other mutterings come from countries such as Japan—I have

699
heard them at international gatherings—which believes that there should be a revision of the Security Council because the old system of five permanent members is long outdated and should be replaced.
If we are not careful we shall be put on the defensive in respect of these issues. We shall look as though we are merely trying to defend a seat that we acquired as a result of our efforts during the war and which is outdated. If we wish to preserve the influence, which is so just and so welcome in the rest of the world, it is for us to take an initiative on a matter that is of supreme importance to the United Nations.
I have been most heartened by today's debate. It is necessary for this country and this House to consider what should be the general approach and then to take a political initiative. We in this House should seek to raise these questions and argue them clearly and openly. What better hook could we hang them on than the kind of debate that we have had today? It would mean a permanent member of the Security Council opening up a most important debate on the future of the United Nations and the role that it can expect to play in the world' s future.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the United States. I am glad that he did so because it has been a missing piece in today's debate. We all understand that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the United Nations to act in a peace-keeping role—I do not speak of a political role—unless the logistics, communications and other services of the United States are placed at its disposal.
When after the Kuwaiti war President Bush spoke of the new world order I hoped that he meant that the United States would change the attitude that it has held for many years towards the United Nations. We all know that in many ways the United States has disregarded the United Nations as an ineffective instrument. In many instances, the United States has been right. However, when President Bush uttered those words I hoped that we should see something new.
President Clinton was then elected on a domestic platform and the eyes of America were turned to important domestic problems which have yet to be solved. I see in President Clinton's latest approaches that he is beginning to realise that he cannot separate the United States from what is happening on the world's international scene. With the increasing experience that comes to an Administration after exposure to such issues, it is possible that the Administration will look at them through new eyes.
My second point is that when the Government have thought what is to be the approach—my third point is that they should think it out—we should embark on a political move in conjunction with the United States. I see no difficulty in achieving a consensus. Through international discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred, we should put the utmost pressure on the United States to achieve a common approach on this matter.
In saying that, I do not neglect the important problems that we shall have with China and Russia; for example, in respect of civil rights and the circumstances in which we can intervene when a civil war is taking
700
place or when civil rights are in danger. We shall have great difficulty with China and other countries. Russia will have her own problems. However, the five permanent members of the Security Council are sufficiently related to the rest of the world to recognise that the present system of the United Nations is not as effective as it could be. I do not intend to rehearse all the problems that have been enumerated today. We all know them.
As a result of a heartening debate such as this, the British Government could take the initiative to try to set the world on course for that new world order; the new course which President Bush referred to immediately at the end of the Kuwaiti war. We have a role to play. As a result of our history, the tendency of British governments and the British people is to look outwards and to try to solve problems that have arisen as a result of our worldwide connections. We are capable of trying to settle these particular issues.
As regards the form in which changes in the United Nations should take place, that is a matter for discussion. I was impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, had to say. If I had to make my contribution in one sentence, having thought about the matter for some time, I should strongly support his idea of a military planning committee. I should also like to see a skeleton United Nations force which could hold everything together in terms of planning. It should be backed by earmarked forces from the member states, which are of a balanced composition, in order to make up a force that could be assembled. That at least is my amateurish approach to the matter.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He and I have pursued the subject for a long time and I am grateful to him for raising it today. He must be most encouraged by its reception. I apologise to your Lordships for intervening.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this has been an outstanding debate. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for leading us down this path today. The debate has been outstanding not least because of the wisdom and experience of noble Lords who have spoken. Although it is invidious to distinguish any particular speech, I too refer to the notably stirring speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He reflected the pride that we all feel in the role of our troops in Bosnia.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was right to remind us that there is a wider context which is to some extent American bound. It is a short time since the heady days of the new world order and the pax Americana, since the end of the Cold War and the success of the operation in the Gulf. We have been forced to realise that the world is more dangerous, diverse and difficult than we then thought. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, did well to remind us of that.
We must look to the United Nations as the principal agent, however imperfect, for supranational concerted action. There has been one recurring theme in the debate; that whether it is for peace-making or

701
peace-keeping purposes, the prowess and professionalism of the British Armed Forces can make a contribution to those efforts. Furthermore, it is right that there should be a reasonable attribution and recovery of costs. For instance, your Lordships will know that, although it is European and not United Nations, Britain already contributes more than 50 per cent. of the cost of the Rapid Reaction Force and, if anything, that percentage is rising. Therefore, we are right to consider the issue of cost recovery. If there is to be reimbursement, on what basis should it be made? I hope that it will not be made on the basis of performance related pay.
Perhaps I may digress from the main thrust of the debate to refer to the statement made yesterday by Mr. Jeremy Hanley that the Government are considering introducing performance related pay for the armed services. Many of your Lordships were concerned, as we were on these Benches, about that idea for the police force. To put it mildly, it seemed foolish. If it is foolish to introduce performance related pay for the police force, how much more ludicrous would it be to introduce it for the armed forces?
How would performance be measured? Would a warrant officer's pay depend upon how many privates he placed on a charge? Would productivity be measured by how many rounds had been fired in one minute or possibly, after the defence cut backs, will it be measured by how few rounds had been fired in one minute? Would marching faster than the rest of the platoon or flying faster than the rest of the squadron command a bonus?
The armed services have had a way of rewarding achievement which has worked very well for us over the centuries. If people are able, they are promoted more quickly. If they are outstandingly brave and gallant, they receive a medal. Why should we try to impose the ethos of the market and competition in a situation where it does not obtain? Internal competition does not fit well with an ethos of shared risk and common purpose. The mood and ethos of our armed forces should remain one for all and all for one, rather than the devil take the hindmost.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond to that matter, especially since it arose only yesterday. However, I have always greatly admired the noble Baroness's common sense and I ask her to relay the fact that I—and I suspect other noble Lords—have misgivings about that line of thinking.
I revert now to the main thrust of the debate. My noble friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in an outstandingly thoughtful speech, both had in common the idea of forming some kind of standing strategy and planning group at the United Nations so that we can be prepared, and so that as well as politicians speaking under politicians, generals can speak under generals. We need such a focus if we are not always to be caught on the back foot by the range of instances which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, described.
702
It may be premature to think about a standing United Nations force although I hope that we shall eventually reach that point. However, the first step must be to be prepared and to be able to plan properly.
Reference to the standing force leads me to the mention made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, of the Brigade of Gurkhas. I must declare an interest because nearly 40 years ago I served with the Brigade of Gurkhas in Malaya during the emergency. I make one compelling argument for their deployment in the manner suggested by the noble and gallant Lord. In my opinion, Gurkhas would make extremely good peace-keepers as well as peace-makers because, rather like the old-fashioned Bobby, I found that their mere presence had a wonderfully sobering effect on people contemplating misdeeds of any description. Instead of subjecting the Brigade of Gurkhas to death by a thousand cuts over decades, I urge the Government to lead from strength and use the Gurkhas to help to keep the international peace. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government have thought about the proposal made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
I believe that the request that we have made consistently from these Benches for a full defence review becomes more and more timely. Sadly, we have seen in Northern Ireland in recent months that there will be no reduction in the demands on our armed services, as many of us might have hoped, either in the short term or, I suspect, in the mid-term. We shall continue to require substantial support to aid the police in Northern Ireland. There will be further demands made on us in other places similar to those made on us in Bosnia. As the thin red line stretches into the thin blue line, the Ministry of Defence must be extremely careful not to make demands on our commanders which they are not able to fulfil. I urge the Government to take a comprehensive look at the likely pattern of our future obligations, including those crucial United Nations obligations of which noble Lords have spoken this afternoon. The Government should do their sums again.
I believe that it is not a time for defence cuts and, as my noble friend Lord Mayhew said, in particular it is not a time for cuts in the infantry.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, with whom I agreed, talked about us being the Swiss or Hanoverians of the twentieth century. In that respect, I should put it slightly differently. We are not talking about the British becoming mercenaries. I believe that it is far more as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and others described it; namely, that by our history and skills, we are fitted to make a notable contribution to the future peace and progress of the world. We should think of our role in that way, and we are well equipped to play such a role.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this debate. It has been a remarkable debate, even for your Lordships' House. Its quality has been outstanding. I have listened to almost all of it, except for one speech which was reported fully to me.

703
It has been interesting that in the debate there has been an extraordinary degree of unanimity about three points first, the necessity for the United Nations; secondly, that we think it should work rather better than it does; and, thirdly, almost all noble Lords who have spoken believe that Britain could make an increased contribution to the work of the United Nations.
In the debate there was a breath of soldierly fresh air from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and I agreed with a great deal of what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, made a thoughtful and analytical speech; and, again, I agreed with a great deal of that. As one would expect from a former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, took a cold, hard look at the matter. He warned about future possibilities unless certain difficult decisions are taken, and unless proper debate is initiated.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, made an interesting and analytical speech. Although he did not name me, perhaps T. may say how much I agreed with him as to the quality of the permanent representation in New York.
My noble friend Lord Callaghan made three points, all of which are of extreme significance. In particular, I agreed with what he said about the United States. It is impossible to expect the United Nations to work properly unless and until the United States is fully involved in the way in which the organisation works and in the decisions that are taken. Therefore, for all those reasons, this has been a useful and timely debate for which we should be grateful.
It is extremely appropriate that the House should consider the UN's peace-keeping role today because the subject is becoming of increasing rather than diminishing importance as UN troops are involved in more and more areas of the world in more and more difficult political situations. Perhaps I may do what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, did at the start of his speech; namely, to look at the existing charter to see what it says about the Military Staff Committee and to analyse what it says in relation to the present situation.
The charter is very clear. Article 47 states:
"There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements".
Paragraph 3 of that article goes on to say:
"The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council".
Then, somewhat optimistically, perhaps a little naively, but fondly, it says:
"Questions relating ro the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently".
The words to note in those paragraphs are that the Military Staff Committee should be responsible for strategic direction.
Looking at the provisions in the charter, three things strike me. One is that they are set purely and simply within the context of enforcement action under Chapter VII; secondly, they imply a commitment of armed forces by the member states; and, thirdly, the strategic direction is, by definition, reserved to the five permanent members all of whorl have to agree. Indeed, it has been
704
argued for some time by many countries that there is a degree of exclusivity in that proposal which makes it vulnerable, and perhaps unworkable, as it is confined to the five permanent members being in agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out, it is that provision which proved impossible to achieve, especially in the early years of the existence of the United Nations. He is quite right to say that representatives on the Military Staff Committee met regularly once a month, read the minutes of the last meeting, agreed the date of the next meeting and then adjourned. That went on—indeed, I suppose that it still goes on—for about 48 or 49 years and nothing seems to have happened thereafter.
However, things have moved on especially as regards the nature and scope of UN activity, much of which is moving outside the strict interpretation of Chapter VII. I shall say a few words about that in a moment. Not only have they moved on because of that, but they have also done so because of the extraordinary developments in military technology. The sheer pace of modern warfare is now such that it is impossible—indeed, if it ever was possible—to run a war from New York. I believe that response times are now so fast that that just cannot be done. It follows therefore that the form and the nature of the Military Staff Committee needs to be looked at afresh. I believe that the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, were especially useful in that respect.
If the mechanism is now anachronistic, one should for a moment look at the nature and scale of what the UN is now being asked to undertake. Peace-keeping is now one of its most important activities. However, as has been pointed out, nowhere is it mentioned in the charter. It is an ad hoc development which is widely perceived as useful and now generally accepted. Moreover, UN intervention is increasingly blurring the distinction between peace-keeping and peace-making. In Bosnia, the use of military force to aid humanitarian operations is becomingly increasingly merged into a peace-making role.
In other areas of the world, UN intervention was unashamedly political. For example, in Namibia the United Nations helped to supervise free elections and, indeed, ran the country in the run-up to democracy. In Cambodia, 21,000 UN troops supervised the return of the refugees and kept the peace during an electoral process. In El Salvador, the UN intervention mediated a peace after 10 years of civil war. I believe that the first half of the elections took place last Sunday and the second half is due to take place this coining Sunday.
It is very difficult to see how any of those interventions can be described as enforcement actions within the terms of Chapter VII. I am not saying that I disagree with any of them, because I do not. However, I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that one should perhaps be more restrictive in the way in which United Nations intervention is used.
Moreover, UN activities now, if not diluting, are at least changing the principle of national sovereignty set out in Article 2(7) which was in some ways the very basis upon which the United Nations was founded. The concept of non-intervention in domestic affairs is no longer as firm as it used to be. Certainly, that was true

705
of Somalia and possibly of Mozambique. It is probably also true of the former Yugoslavia. There will undoubtedly be other instances, some similar and some new and as yet unforeseen, in which there will be demands that the United Nations should intervene in the interests of humanity or the greater good of a sensible world order.
The demands are greater, more diverse and infinitely more demanding than the charter originally envisaged. The question now—and it was raised by several speakers during the debate, including my noble friend Lord Callaghan—is whether the UN machinery is frankly up to it. In other words, whether it is capable of being adapted to meet the new challenges. After all, the original concept was very clear and in a sense—at least, conceptually—simple. It was to prevent aggression between states and, if necessary, to use force to repel the aggressor. Hence the provisions of Article 47, the Military Staff Committee and the whole apparatus of enforcement action under Chapter VII. I do not think that that is sufficient now.
Therefore, one ought to ask oneself the question: if that is not sufficient, what do we now need? First, we need better preventive machinery. I was rather surprised that, in the whole debate, that is the one subject which has not been mentioned. I see the Minister nodding her head in agreement. A system for pre-emptive diplomacy through the United Nations hardly exists. There is no early warning system built into Security Council activities, and there is no intelligence information immediately available to the United Nations. In that regard, I should like to quote from an article recently written by Brian Urquhart in which he pointed out:
"The various parts of the existing process need to be connected up and made into a system. The first of these is vigilance—watch for situations which are likely to blow up. For example, let us think of a country of 17 million people which has the fourth or fifth largest army in the world, and some extremely sinister, highly sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. This country is ruled by a notoriously ruthless dictator who has invaded one of his neighbours within the last ten years and is in desperate need of money. This country has a small, totally defenceless, enormously rich neighbour, with which it has a series of public disputes. It also has a historic claim on that small country. You might think—
says Brian Urquhart
"that something was likely to happen in such a situation. And yet, on 2nd August 1990, the Security Council was dumbfounded to be recalled from the summer holiday to deal with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait".
He concludes:
We obviously need to have a more effective system of vigilance and evaluation of world security".
I could not agree more with those sentiments and with that last sentence. In my view, the Security Council should be under an automatic obligation to consider what to do when the international temperature rises, not merely when it has boiled over. There should be a positive obligation to try to promote a peaceful solution. International mediation, the use of the Secretary-General's good offices, the speedy despatch of a peace-keeping force interposing itself between potential combatants and insistence by the Security Council that a mediating process should be gone through, are all possibilities and should be built in either to a revised charter or the rules of the game.
706
All those possibilities need to be refined. I merely pose the following question, but do not answer it. What would have happened in the Gulf if the United Nations had intervened prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? No one can possibly tell; of course, they cannot do so. However, the presence of UN forces along a disputed border would at least have given some cause for hesitation and consideration before a decision was taken actually to invade.
Preventive diplomacy implies greater initiating powers by the United Nations, especially by the Secretary-General and the Security Council. I do not believe that we can live much longer with a system whereby the Security Council has to wait for a reference to it by one of the parties to a dispute before it feels that it can act.
Moreover, as has already been said in the debate, the UN needs more immediately available troops. The sight of the Secretary-General scratching around in the international community trying to find troop contributors is hardly dignified or, indeed, effective. As he pointed out in the Agenda for Peace, what he needs is the undertaking of member states to make armed forces assistance and facilities available to the Security Council, not only on an ad hoc basis but also on a permanent one. I am not suggesting for a moment that there should be a permanent UN army but I am suggesting that there should be a greater degree of specific earmarking, particularly by the larger members of the United Nations, of forces which would he at the disposal of the Security Council in the event that it should need them.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about the cost of peace-keeping. Here I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. In the period from 1945 to 1987 there were 13 peace-keeping operations undertaken by the UN. From 1987 to 1992 there were another 13; and now I believe there are up to 15. Up to January 1992, 528,000 personnel have at one time or another been used as UN peace-keepers. That is really an enormous figure. The cost has been 8.3 billion dollars. That is a large sum; but put against a global defence expenditure of 1 trillion dollars a year-2 million dollars per minute —one can put the sum into perspective and it hardly seems to be over generous. Indeed, one and a half days of the Gulf War expenditure would have paid for all United Nations operations for more than a year. I do not believe there has been any great public complaint about the cost of Desert Storm.
To achieve the kind of things that have been referred to in this debate, and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned, needs some vision, particularly by the permanent members of the Security Council. It needs, too, a high degree of activity and effort by the Secretary General, and finally it needs a far greater determination and commitment by the member states themselves. But, yes, it can be done; and, in my view, it has to be done.
5.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble

707
friend Lord Campbell of Croy and all noble and gallant Lords who have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was absolutely right to say this has been a remarkable debate, even in the context of debates in your Lordships' House. I have never been so privileged to hear as many outstanding contributions from all who have spoken.
We have just heard some wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He, of course, has first-hand experience of how difficult it can be to make things happen as even the permanent members of the Security Council wish them to happen. It is rather nice that in two out of the five years that the noble Lord served in the United Nations, he was said to be the best permanent representative there could be. Therefore we should take careful note of what he has said. The noble Lord's summary was correct. No one is in any doubt that the United Nations is necessary, but it needs modernisation. It needs to be made to work better and the United Kingdom is already seeking to help that to happen. We are therefore making an increasing contribution to United Nations' work.
This debate has heartened me because I believe it is both timely and significant. The noble Lords, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Callaghan, were absolutely right to say that we should be ready to discuss these issues openly. We have made an excellent start today. There is indeed no need to be defensive. As your Lordships know, I have just returned from perhaps the most complex and politically charged of all the UN operations that we have ever been involved in. My most recent experiences in Bosnia have brought home most vividly some of the matters which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, enunciated in his outstanding contribution to our debate today.
The changes since the end of the Cold War, in which disorder, not new world order, have been predominant, have generated an unprecedented demand for international activity to help resolve and prevent conflicts. In the face of chaos arid collapse, it is understandable that the world turns more and more often to the one body with the legitimacy and authority to tackle the horrors as they have unfolded even though we may say that the United Nations Charter does not now fully encompass all the work we do, particularly in the field of peace-keeping and peace-making. There has been an incredible clamour for United Nations involvement which has met with quite a vigorous and effective response. We tend to remember the failures of Somalia and forget that from Rwanda to Haiti and from Bosnia to El Salvador the UN is on the ground, alleviating suffering and trying to keep the peace. In many of those places it does so most successfully. It is the very expansion of UN activity that is bound to cause problems. The role of the armed forces in UN operations is one of the many issues that has been brought into sharper focus by the massive growth in UN operations.
In the first 43: years of its existence the United Nations established 15 operations. In the past six years it has set up 17 more. At the beginning of 1992 there were 12,000 troops serving on UN peace-keeping operations worldwide. Today there are over 70,000. Because the nature of the crises has changed in that they
708
are more complex and more ethno-centric, and some are rooted in pre-Cold War history, the operations have become larger in scope and are certainly broader in character than ever before. United Nations' operations go far beyond the policing of ceasefires. I shall say a little about that and try to answer some of your Lordships' questions.
Today's UN peace-keepers escorting humanitarian convoys in Bosnia are not just doing that. They are also doing a great deal to further the peace. Those peace-keepers demobilising combatants in Mozambique are also doing a great deal to encourage understanding between the two sides. Those monitoring national borders in Rwanda are certainly giving help to many people who have had to flee their homes. The peace-keepers in Kuwait, who still have a most difficult task, are seeking to explain why there has to he a peace. Other peace-keepers are registering voters in Western Sahara about whom we hear little. But they, too, are seeking to keep the lid on a situation and act in the preventive role that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, indicated. The spectrum of activities of the United Nations is much wider than ever before and that demands a fresh approach to the problem from all of us. Perhaps in that fresh approach there is a new recipe for success.
What, then, are the ingredients for the new mix? Top of the list come resources—we have referred to those many times in this debate. The exponential growth in UN operations has brought home to us just how finite the reserves of both men and money are. Like every government and every international organisation, the UN is required to focus the resources at its disposal where they can have the most effect. This entails a clear vision of what the UN wants to achieve and what is possible. Last year my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the General Assembly saying,
"Any operation must have clear and achievable objectives linked to a political process which offers reasonable hope of a solution and to which all parties should be committed. The mandate should be precise and finite".
Every speaker in this debate has agreed with that, but the lesson we have also learnt, even since that speech was made, is that the criteria can never be absolute. However, such an approach will help to improve efficiency and it will certainly motivate former combatants and lead to greater confidence among troop contributors. That is why that speech should form our broad guideline.
In order to make the best use of resources., the UN has to have confidence that the pool from contributors is not drying up. The UK is certainly pulling its weight with over 3,700 troops serving in peace-keeping operations in the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus and Kuwait. That makes us the fifth largest troop contributor to UN operations. We also pay our assessed contributions promptly and in full. In 1993, our 6.373 per cent. contribution amounted to over 3 billion dollars. I cannot overestimate the importance of this contribution. Unfortunately the UK, as many of your Lordships have said, is among only a handful of countries which pay their dues on time. The whole UN peace-keeping effort depends upon UN member states paying their assessed

709
shares of the cost in full and on time. Otherwise cash flow problems exacerbate other problems of overstretch. In turn it leads to a vicious circle in which troop contributors are dissuaded from contributing troops for fear of lengthy delays in reimbursement for their costs. Such reluctance often leads to delays in troop deployments which in turn put fragile peace agreements at risk, as we have seen in Liberia, Rwanda and, earlier, in Mozambique.
We therefore need to encourage others to pay their dues in full and on time wherever possible. We take every opportunity to harry debtors in bilateral contacts. But we have to recognise that there are some countries with genuine difficulties. The rate of change in our world in recent years, and the balance of global wealth, have shifted. The UN scales of assessment, calculated as they are over a three year period, often lag behind economic reality. We are concerned over current anomalies and are determined to pursue reform of that matter.
While we recognise the need for adequate financing, we are also aware of the need for sound financial control. Peace-keeping budgets are only approved after scrutiny by the Fifth Committee. That is the committee which deals with finance and administration. But more needs to be done. We favour more financial delegation to field level coupled with better auditing and we believe that that can bring about an improvement in spending.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked about the payment of assessments. They should be paid within 30 days of receiving the request. There is an almost perennial cash flow crisis because so many countries do not. My noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Marlesford talked about the question of apportioning the costs of the UN's activity. The system is indeed obsolete. It needs reform, as I have mentioned. But we need a system that bears a much closer relationship to the fundamental principle of capacity to pay. That is particularly true for peace-keeping. I hope that we shall achieve a more equitable distribution of the burden because there is no doubt that a system for peace-keeping, through which the Ukraine pays several times more than countries much richer than itself, needs reform.
My noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Marlesford also asked about our approach. I believe that I have dealt with that. However, I can assure them that we are active in all the groups which seek to resolve those UN financial problems, including non-payment and scales of assessment.
My noble friend Lady Elles also asked about methods of payment. Our share is paid from FCO Votes. We make every effort to pay very promptly. I believe that we have set a good example. I liked the idea that my noble friend advanced that if countries cannot contribute troops, perhaps they should contribute more in cash. I believe that that matter should be investigated.
My noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lady Elles also asked about UN reimbursement. Obviously all troop-contributing countries can claim back costs for which there is provision in the UN budget. There has recently been a revised procedure for claiming UN
710
reimbursement. Indeed, we are seeking a faster rate of reimbursement. So far as concerns the United Kingdom, there are only two current operations for which Britain is entitled to claim reimbursement: one is in Cyprus; the other is in former Yugoslavia. I believe that it is true to say that the UN finds it very difficult to reimburse promptly. I was asked the question by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Certainly the cash crisis has meant that the reimbursements are not forthcoming as quickly as possible. However, recent payment of arrears by both Japan and the United States means that we have received some substantial reimbursements for our contributions for UNPROFOR of standard rates for troops and for rations. I believe that the claims for equipment which are outstanding to us are unlikely to be processed this financial year, but we shall keep working for them.
I hope that I have said sufficient on the question of financing, with this exception. We believe that the UN should be involved from the outset in drafting those peace agreements which it is expecting to help implement and finance. There is no question of other countries getting together and then putting the burden upon the UN. The UN must be involved from the beginning. I believe that when we are discussing funding and targeting expenditure, it must stand a better chance of success if future UN commanders and their UN agency counterparts are involved. It is not simply the peace-keeping that causes the costs; it is obviously all the agency work which has to be done alongside it.
I wish to study in much greater detail the outstanding speech of my noble and gallant friend Lord Vivian when I have a little more time. He stated that the peace-keeping forces cannot be an automatic response to every conflict. He is 100 per cent. right. There are sometimes other more appropriate and more effective solutions. Regional organisations have an important role to play and we have encouraged them to do so. ECOMOG has done some good work in West Africa. The OAU, whose members have a long history of UN peace-keeping, has recently turned its attention to conflict resolution and we support it in its efforts.
But however important peace-keeping may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, successful preventive action is better. I shall not requote Sir Brian Urquhart. However, I remember reading what was said with a good deal of feeling. We have recently taken a new initiative in collaboration with the French to seek to strengthen the UN capacity to conduct preventive diplomacy. Since the Foreign Secretary and his French colleague launched their initiative last year at the General Assembly, we have had further discussions with the UN Secretariat on the way forward. With the French we have submitted a paper to the UN setting out the type of assistance we are ready to provide, and the range of military units available. We must now encourage other countries to follow that example. Certainly the United Nations preventive deployment in Macedonia is already proving its worth; and there will be other areas where similar preventive deployment can be extremely valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, seemed to indicate that he did not believe that there was co-ordination of

711
the various groups at the top of the UN who should be talking, whether on peace-keeping or humanitarian affairs, or indeed on the political side. I can assure him that the regular meetings between the Secretary General and the Under-Secretaries General ate extremely informative. Their discussions are reported certainly to the permanent members of the Security Council by our permanent representatives. I believe that our consultation is working better than it was two years ago. But there is still much to be done so that the Security Council can indeed discuss a country's issues before a situation boils over, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said.
The UN is learning much from its recent experience of conflict resolution. Where we require deployment of peace-keepers, there is a growing awareness of the numerous factors which contribute to peace. It is not just a question of separating combatants, but of building confidence in the peace process. Ex-combatants have to be given opportunities to reintegrate into civilian life, as in Mozambique. The local population must have its basic needs met too. There needs to be good co-operation between our peace-keepers and the UN agencies. We put forward the suggestion which led to the setting up of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs for the very reason that we need to highlight the humanitarian issues and co-ordinate that with the response of the UN where it has to go in and peace-keep.
We have seen in Cambodia that where local populations demonstrate their will in sufficient strength, politicians and faction leaders have to take notice. The population in any country must be given a stake in the peace process if the peace-keepers are to work successfully on the ground. Nowhere is that more true than in Bosnia at the moment where General Sir Michael Rose is making real progress with his policy.
At the opposite end of the scale, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, there are limits to what the UN can do. We have heard several times in the debate of the unpleasant reminder that Somalia gives us. I believe that Somalia was all the worse because the co-operation necessary from the parties was simply not there and there NA as no desire for peace among the combatants. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, we know that the United Nations cannot impose a peace. There has to be a willingness on the ground.
The UN's greatest asset is its impartiality and it is essential to maintain it. Other organisations are better placed to act if peace has to be enforced, but all the successful peace-keeping operations—whether it be in Namibia, Cambodia or El Salvador—have demonstrated the importance of local political will to create and maintain a peace.
When things go wrong we all focus on the shortcomings of the United Nations. There are enormous strains on it at present and the need for improvement is inescapable. One of the good moves in the past two years has been the restructuring of the Department for Peace-keeping Operations. The importance of information and communication has been recognised with the establishment of a 24-hour situation centre to monitor UN operations worldwide. I can assure my noble friend Lord Geddes that there is contact
712
with the leaders of the UN in New York seven days a week and sometimes almost 24 hours a day. A planning cell has been set up in New York and the technical missions, which now visit the host countries as a matter of practice to carry out contingency planning for new missions, are all part of the revision that is already going on in the United Nations. But much more needs to be done.
The UK supports such changes by seconding many of our able military officers to the Department for Peace-keeping Operations. Such officers add a high level of expertise and they make a significant contribution to the UN's effort. We also seek to -work with and support the UN across a broad front in helping them to develop their capabilities. Other countries are matching our efforts. Even before we receive the Secretary General's response to the suggestions that we have made to him, the United Kingdom is helping to develop the peace-keeping doctrine. The Canadians are working on the logistics manual and much other work continues.
We have made some concrete proposals, including a general staff for peace-keeping, in our 1993 national reply to the Secretary General. I believe that the report was published in New York late yesterday and I hope that it will show us the way ahead. It will certainly be an ongoing process of reform and I shall make sure that the views expressed by your Lordships in the debate tonight are considered alongside the returns we have from New York.
I have been asked a large number of questions about matters to do with the UN, but there are three to which I wish to refer now. Two were raised by my noble friend Lord Vivian who spoke of the need for far better command and control. We support the fact that the UN should always give clear and precise mandates and specific objectives and we are already working in the Security Council to secure those. We agree too that in intelligence terms neutrality as a UN force must be paramount. We need to be careful not to compromise that. A clear chain of command is essential and we are seeing that happening in Bosnia at this very time.
The other point that my noble friend Lord Vivian made was about UN training. We are achieving encouraging progress on that. I shall look at his suggestions. I believe that training is a national responsibility, although we are bound to need to help some of the peace-keeping troop contributors because they do not have the same ability to train that we are fortunate enough to have in this country.
As concerns stand-by forces, we have given details to the United Nations Secretary General of the available military units which the UK has at its disposal. However, quite naturally we have made it clear that we would need to consider each request on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, I believe that the stand-by forces initiative is worthy of support, even though it may need some adjustment in the way that it has so far been proposed.
My noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Richard and many others spoke of the need for earmarking. I think it is fair to say that formal

713
earmarking would not be appropriate for UK forces. But that is why we have supported the UN stand-by force planning team. Above all, we do not see a need to retain forces specifically for peace-keeping or other peacetime commitments, but we need to be ready to provide them whenever we can. I sincerely hope that we can make sensible decisions with other troop contributors to help in good time to prevent action in some cases.
My noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Marlesford said that there would be times when we should not intervene. I believe that that is an important consideration for the UN, which should be clear as to the limits of its capabilities. One cannot force combatants to stop fighting if they refuse to do so. When the UN enters a country, it must do so with impartiality. Peace enforcement, under any other circumstances, must be left to others more suitably equipped to undertake it.
When we look at the world disorder from the standpoint of our own national security many of the recent conflicts seem a long way away. Perhaps Bosnia, which is so close to home, is the one that has caught the imagination. I would hate to see us make our decisions on the basis of what came over on the television, and I believe that we never shall. But where we see conflicts building up which have a tendency to embroil neighbours and to spread instability, then we have to act because intra-state war can easily poison an entire region. The costs of inaction are great, whether it be in humanitarian terms, in lost trade opportunities or in just seeing hostility gathering momentum and eventually affecting our own region. The longer some of those problems are ignored, the bigger, the more expensive and the harder to solve they become.
Our activity must reflect our interests. We have armed forces with standards of professionalism and integrity that are better, in my view, than any in the world. I have just seen that in Bosnia in full order. The UN needs those kinds of qualities if it is to be successful in tackling the wide spectrum of peace-keeping tasks it is now asked to undertake. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we have a special contribution to make. Above all, we must remember that the UN peace-keeping effort is the sum of many member states' efforts. Certainly, we should not try to do it all; we are a major contributor, but we are not the largest. India and Pakistan have a long peace-keeping tradition and many thousands of troops in UN service.
We applaud all the efforts that are being made. But success in all those depends very heavily upon the Secretary General and the staff. At this time of exponential growth in demand we are fortunate to have a UN Secretary General with the vision and ability of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. My work around the world, especially my three visits to Bosnia, confirm what many have said. We are right to be deeply impressed with what we can do. But we are a contributor. We are not running the UN, and we should not be trying to do so. In our contribution we shall go a long way to find qualities as great as those of our own General Sir Michael Rose and Brigadier John Reith. In Yasushi Akashi in Bosnia, we are also extremely fortunate. We indeed should pay tribute to what they are doing.
714
We all need the UN more than ever before, and we need it to work effectively. But it cannot be done by a wholescale reorganisation of the UN. All the time we are trying to improve the UN. We are also trying to make peace, keep peace and help people. Therefore, the changes that need to come, many of which have been suggested by noble Lords tonight, need to be worked out in a pragmatic way. I assure the House that we are determined to be at the forefront in making our contribution. The contribution of your Lordships will be most helpful to us in the work ahead.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it remains for me only to thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate and gave thoughtful and most informative contributions. They filled gaps in my opening speech, which could only attempt to be a general survey of the subject. They also raised several points and made suggestions which I hope the Government will consider.
I shall refer briefly to two or three of those points. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to the study of stand-by forces which is going on at present. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others spoke of the major contribution which the British Army made and continues to make. He particularly raised the subject, as did another speaker, of the Gurkhas. While there was no mention of it in the reply today, I hope that the Government will consider very seriously what the noble and gallant Lord so clearly suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, spoke of the wider consideration that ought to be given to the reorganisation of the United Nations beyond mere peace-keeping, and to revision of the charter. He also gave warnings of the future dangers of new nations feeling impelled to expand beyond their frontiers—countries that might well have arms that would make them very dangerous. I hope that that point will also be considered by the Government.
My noble friend Lord Vivian spoke from his experience in the peace-keeping force in Cyprus. He was able to put forward particular proposals which, I am glad to say, were taken up in the wind-up speeches. I ask the Government to look at my noble friend's proposals for reorganisation at United Nations headquarters.
My noble friend Lord Geddes reminded us of some of the inefficiencies which have occurred in United Nations arrangements hitherto. I was very glad that in the end the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was able to make a valuable addition to our debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the Leader of the Opposition, for taking part in the debate and for winding up for the Opposition. He has been a very effective British ambassador, at the United Nations as Britain's permanent representative in New York. In his speech the noble Lord went back, as I did, to the charter. He drew attention to areas of the world where the United Nations has intervened with troops in a variety of circumstances that were not anticipated in the charter or regulated by the specific provisions in it. The noble Lord and I both worked for three years or so at different times in the British Mission at the United Nations. In the very early days I was there in a junior

715
capacity; the noble Lord was there much later on as the head of the mission. We both had to grapple with the wording of the charter. There was a time over 40 years ago when I could recite large sections of the charter from memory. It had become imprinted upon one's mind.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for having taken so much trouble in replying to the debate. She went into the finances of peace-keeping in some detail. I am sure that we are all grateful for that. It has become very complicated. It is important nonetheless for the continuation of such United Nations military operations. Unless I misunderstood my noble friend, the United Kingdom will be reimbursed for the use of British troops in former Yugoslavia, and in future will also receive some payments for the contribution in Cyprus. If I have that wrong, I hope that my noble friend will write to me. I thank her for bringing us up to date and commenting on current UN operations in different parts of the world. I should explain just one point, in response to her mention of "earmarking". That did not mean that forces would be committed to any operation. I was putting forward the case for stand-by forces which could be taken into account in contingency planning in New York but the need for their use would be put forward and considered case by case and they would not he automatically available for everything.
To sum up, I believe that there has been general agreement that United Nations peace-keeping and other military operations are needed and have produced results in restoring order, saving lives and preventing wider warfare. the organisation within the United Nations needs to be improved and strengthened. British pressure to carry out changes that are needed to make the United Nations more effective in these activities will be given strong support by Members of this House. I hope that that is the message that my noble friend will take to her colleagues in the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS COX in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Property which is treasure for the purposes of section 1]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("subsections (2) and") and insert ("subsection").
The noble Earl said: There are a large number of amendments, and we have done our best to group them in the proper order. It falls to me to take care of the main body of them. Perhaps it would help anybody who does
716
not have the proposed list if I mention those which are in a sense all of a kind. They are: Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and Amendment No. 5, which is the key to so much of what we shall talk about; Amendments Nos. 7 and 8; Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16; Amendments Nos. 20 to 24; and Amendment No. 28. Others will deal with the other bits and pieces as they arise.
First, I should like to say how well all our team studied the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I should tell the Committee something about that team. Let me name the noble Lords who are three of my colleagues, alphabetically. First, there is the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who, as the Committee will know, speaks on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum. It is all important to have the British Museum behind our efforts. Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to whom I am deeply indebted for having done so much of what I call the difficult, dogsbody work, such as listing the amendments, and so on. I should certainly not have been able to do that without him. An unexpected bonus came in the person of our third colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, who in particular helped us in drafting what was perhaps the most difficult new paragraph, namely, that on ex gratia awards. Alas, he cannot be in the Chamber today as he is otherwise engaged.
The Committee will no doubt also like to know the names of the other members of the team. In naming them, I should like to take this opportunity to thank them. Professor Norman Palmer is a professor of constitutional law at the University of London. Interestingly enough, he has given us advice, because since childhood he has been interested in treasure trove. We are very glad to have his help. Mr. Roger Bland of the British Museum, technical side, was deputed by others of his colleagues, such as Dr. Longworth and Dr. Burnett to help in our work. Last but not least, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. David Graham of the Surrey Archaeological Society. He has been working in this field longer than any of us. He was the one who first came to me and asked for help. It turned out most happily. He was involved from the very beginning and knows more about the subject than almost anybody else. His skill in persuading various people whom we consulted that we were going in the right direction was invaluable.
After that introduction, I come to the amendments to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are, in a sense, consequential on Amendment No. 5. We have studied in depth what was said at Second Reading to be the attitude of the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in her comments—I almost used the word "strictures", but refrained—made two observations on the Bill. First, she said that it needed simplification; and, secondly, that we had not taken sufficient care about the problem of the ex gratia awards or compensation. We have tried very hard in the amendments to deal with those criticisms.
Perhaps the Committee can give me some guidance on whether I should leave Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Renton', and then come on to Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Trumpington: With the Committee's permission, I think that the noble Earl should move Amendment No. 1 and if necessary speak to the other amendments grouped with it. It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to speak to that group of amendments following the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in order to show the flavour of the Government's thinking. At the moment, I wait for the noble Earl to move Amendment No. 1.
The Earl of Perth: I thank the noble Baroness for that guidance. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are not part of the first group. We were asked to try to simplify matters and we have done so by a simple amendment, Amendment No. 5, wherein the existing subsection (2) is left out and the following words inserted:
"(2) Treasure trove shall henceforth be treated as treasure within the meaning of this Act".
That is the key to everything. We avoid the difficulty of having two concepts: "treasure" and "treasure trove". It is no longer necessary for the coroner to make a judgment between them. If the amendment is acceptable to the Committee, treasure trove will henceforth be treated as treasure within the meaning of the Act. Simplification, and much else, will flow from that.
Amendment No. 6 is an important but minor amendment. We wanted to define not only the archaeological objects but also the cultural ones. However, I shall not deal with Amendment No. 6 at this point. Amendment No. 7 seeks that:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that any class of objects, which (apart from the order) would be treasure for the purposes of section 1, shall not be treasure for these purposes".
Lord Kilbracken: With respect to the noble Earl, perhaps it would be simpler if we confined our debate to Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 5 for the moment and dealt with the other amendments later.
The Earl of Perth: I shall do whatever is acceptable to the Committee. I was trying to group the amendments which hang together. However, if the Committee would prefer to deal with them otherwise, I shall certainly do SO.
Amendment No. 5 is a key amendment. Amendments Nos. I and 2 are consequential on Amendment No. 5. With regard to Amendment No. 7, we have tried to define what is treasure for the purposes of the Bill. The objects are listed. We ask in Amendment No. 5 that subsection (2) be taken out and in Amendment No. 7 that a new subsection be inserted, which reads:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that any class of objects which … would be treasure for the purposes … shall not be treasure".
That means that although the Secretary of State may list what are treasure objects, he may also remove objects from the list. That may add to simplification. For example, if a huge number of common objects kept appearing again and again, it would be open to the Secretary of State, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to delete them as well as to add to the list. This is all in aid of trying to help simplify the whole process.
The next amendments in the groupings are Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. They are consequential. We take out the words "treasure trove or" in one case
718
and, "for the purposes of section 1", in another, because it disappears under the latest suggestions. Then we come to Amendment No. 16:
"Page 3, line 2, leave out from first ('treasure') to ('he') in line
Again, that is all part of the purpose of simplification. I know it is complicated; I find it as complicated as many other Members of the Committee.
In the group containing Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 I should say at once that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 24 on the Marshalled List. It should read, "or its franchisee" rather than "or its franchise". It will be seen that all the other amendments are consequential. We take out the words "treasure trove or", and, "for the purposes of". We do not have to worry too much about them but they are consequential to the all-important Amendment No. 5, which defines what treasure is and leaves out treasure trove altogether.
Lastly in the groupings we come to Amendment No. 28, referring to subsection (5), which reads,
"in this section 'treasure' means 'property which is treasure trove—.
Again, this is a consequential amendment in which we ask that subsection (5) be left out.
With that rather roundabout introduction to the main group —in particular I draw attention to Amendment No. 5—I invite comments before we deal with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may first offer my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and to other Members of the Committee for tabling this series of amendments, the main effect of which is to do away with the distinction made by the original Bill between treasure trove and treasure. They remove substantial areas of difficulty which we had with the Bill as introduced, and would undoubtedly have the effect of improving the present law. They reduce considerably the reservations we originally had about the Bill and we welcome this particular group.
I move on briefly to say that I am delighted that the sponsors of the Bill also grappled with one of the areas which causes us greatest anxiety; that is, the matter of compensation. They have come up with an ingenious approach, taken a stage further by the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. But it is only fair to say that, as I explained at Second Reading, we believe that there is a strong case for taking a more fundamental look at the law of treasure trove, and for attempting a more thoroughgoing reform than this Bill would achieve. We also retain some considerable reservations on the issue of compensation and on the issue of notification. I will have more to say on those points when we reach the appropriate amendments. They are matters which are crucial to any revised scheme and require a great deal of further study.
I recognise the strong support for the present Bill and I know that the best can be the enemy of the good. But I shall want to give some more thought to those issues before making a full statement of the Government's position at Report stage. But whatever doubts remain, I pay tribute once again to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his extraordinary dedication to the promotion of treasure trove reform and to the noble Earl and other Members

719
of the Committee for the considerable ingenuity and effort which have gone into the drafting of the amendments we are considering this evening.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank my noble friend for her helpful statement, which is much more positive in tone to my ears than perhaps was her statement at Second Reading. We all hope that she and her colleagues will be able to support the Bill at Report stage. We hope that we are heading towards the light at the end of the tunnel and look forward to her statement.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is right that the key amendment, Amendment No. 5, is a great step forward. Treasure trove itself has become very much an anomaly and the original Bill, unamended, had the ingenious solution of saying that we would set up the concept of "treasure" to deal with those other valuables which do not fall within the category of "treasure trove" and then we would set out to deal with them in the Bill as though they were treasure trove.
But there were still what seemed to some, and I believe to my noble friend and others in the Department of National Heritage, the difficulty that it still left two parallel concepts of treasure and treasure trove. The great strength of Amendment No. 5 is that it draws the one within the other so that there is a single concept in future, an inclusive concept, and those matters will be dealt with in the same way. I do not believe that in practice it changes a great deal, but it is a much more inherent approach.
The other amendment worthy of note within this group—as the noble Earl made clear, most of them are simply drafting amendments—is Amendment No. 7. That amendment may have originated from the Surrey Archaeological Society, so ably advised by Professor Palmer to whom the noble Earl, Lord Perth, paid tribute. I must confess that, when I first saw it, it appeared to be a little opaque in its content. Indeed, I must confess to the Committee that I did not at first understand what it meant. I do now and it really is useful. As the noble Earl explained, it means that the Secretary of State can declare certain categories that would otherwise be treasure as not to be treasure for these purposes.
There is a simple aim. The Bill enlarges the notion of treasure trove to become treasure. We are talking about more objects than we otherwise would have been, and there is always the risk that the authorities may become swamped by small objects of little import—silver pins, silver shoe buckles or whatever. If it were the case that the authorities, coroners and others, were being swamped by these small objects it would be of great convenience if there was a power within the Bill whereby the Secretary of State could say, "In future we will not regard shoe buckles as falling within the category of 'treasure". That is the simple, modest, and not at all sinister purpose behind Amendment No. 7. It makes the future Act rather more workable and, as I understand it, that is its central purpose.
I do not believe the other amendments in the grouping require further comment from me. I support the initial words of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and point out that the Bill is taken with enormous seriousness by
720
the archaeological community and by the British Museum, which supports it. As my noble friend said, it only goes so far. Many of us agree with her that we should like to see more embracing legislation. That is true. But I am sure that what is enacted within the Bill will be part of that legislation whatever form it takes. That is why the Bill is a step in the right direction even if it does not go all the way. That is why it is so warmly welcomed.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may make three brief comments in addition to those already made by the noble Earl and my noble friend. First, nearly all of the amendments are based upon the warning and the inspiration given by my noble friend Lady Tnimpington during her speech at Second Reading. Those of us who were involved with the amendments—I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me—took careful note of what she said. We have tried as best we can to follow the line which she took at Second Reading.
Secondly, these amendments have all been considered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, who greatly regrets that he cannot be here this evening because he has a long-standing engagement elsewhere arising out of his judicial duties. However, I can assure your Lordships that the amendments on the Marshalled List have his blessing and approval.
Thirdly, I do not think we should overlook the fact that Clause 2(5) as it stands and as it will be slightly amended, and new subsection (5) (a), which is covered by Amendment No. 7, pass the buck to the Secretary of State in order to give further attention to some quite important matters which will require consultation and careful thought on his part and that of his advisers. It is therefore felt, I am sure rightly, by the noble Earl that these matters should be left to the Secretary of State instead of our rushing into decisions on them at this stage. We should look forward to the orders which he will make and present to Parliament in due course under the present subsection (5) and what will become subsection (5) (a).
Those are the three comments I wish to make. I should just add one other point. The heading across Clause 1 is Treasure other than treasure trove. One member asked me why we do not have an amendment to leave the heading out. The point is that these headings and sidenotes are not part of legislation. They are not matters with which the Committee is concerned but are matters which are adjusted by the Clerks of the House after any of the Bill's stages.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I found it slightly difficult to follow the exchanges at the very beginning of the Committee stage. I assume from what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that we are dealing at this stage with Amendment No. 7. I have a query about that. Normally speaking, one would not in this House--I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in particular, would agree with this point—pass any part of legislation which says that anything the Secretary of State may deem to be black shall be called white, or vice versa. I see the point of the amendment as explained by

721
the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and I see that it is a useful get-out, but it does not seem to have any limits at all. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may … provide that any class of objects, which … would be treasure for the purposes … shall not be treasure".
Is that really the kind of power one should give Secretaries of State, even in a rather limited matter such as this? I merely ask that question.
The Earl of Perth: Perhaps I may help on that point. No order shall be made under subsection (5) (a) or under subsection (5) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses. I think that the noble Lord's fear is met by that point.
Lord Donoughue: The Opposition welcome this group of amendments and also welcome several which are to come later. I said at Second Reading that I was a little unhappy with the concepts of treasure and treasure trove, which seemed to sit uncomfortably in the previous Bill. That aspect has been greatly improved. These amendments certainly have our support.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said about the deletion of the heading Treasure other than treasure trove by pointing out that the heading of Clause 4 Provisions about treasure trove and other treasure will also need consequential amendment. I understand that this is done by officials and not by your Lordships in Committee. I feel that the simplest way to deal with this matter, in view of the simplification that has taken place and the lumping together of treasure trove and other treasure, is simply to delete the two headings.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has put the right interpretation on this. Treasure trove in the past, as has been pointed out, was a narrow concept which has given rise to artificial distinctions, to be decided by coroners' courts, and has not protected the heritage. It applied only to gold and silver which had been buried with the intention of being recovered at some later stage. That is an entirely artificial and obsolete concept. But now, in order to protect the heritage, we speak of treasure at large—it is defined later—which is of historical or archaeological importance. My noble friend Lord Renfrew will be speaking in a moment to an amendment to add the word "cultural". I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that we are all on the same side.
Lord Kilbracken: I support what the noble Lord has said.
The Earl of Perth: I do not want to add any more at this stage because the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Renton, have elaborated and made more clear what I tried to explain earlier. One or two very pertinent points have been made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for what I understand is good news. By that I mean that we have met many of the problems which she foresaw at Second Reading. She encouraged us sufficiently to feel that, if we could solve the one or
722
two relatively small but important difficulties, we would make substantial progress against the time of Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("(and no other)").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 2 is part of the group and explains itself.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("in the case").
The noble Lord said: These words occur also on page 1, line 22. The words add nothing to the meaning or effect of the subsection and are therefore unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("in the case").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Treasure trove shall henceforth be treated as treasure within the meaning of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: We have already talked about this amendment at considerable length. As I believe I said earlier, it is the key to the simplification and the overcoming of very considerable difficulties. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 17, after ("archaeological") insert ("or cultural").
The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment to which my noble friend Lord Renton has already referred. It helps to clarify a little an important part of the Bill. In Clause 2(1) (c) it is stipulated that,
"any object of a class designated under subsection (5) which is … at least 200 years old when found"
may be regarded as treasure. Subsection (5) holds,
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument designate for the purposes … any class of objects which he considers to be of outstanding historical or archaeological importance".
The amendment is to make that read,
"outstanding historical or archaeological or cultural importance".
That may be a shade superfluous because those archaeologists who take a very grandiose view of their subject certainly hold that if anything is of historical or cultural importance, it would also be of archaeological importance. That is a perfectly tenable view.
However, I believe that this amendment could be a helpful clarification. For instance, one could imagine that there is a great deal of interest in some very special category of find which was not silver or gold. It might be medieval floor tiles which are extremely valuable and very much prized. Members of the Committee are probably familiar with some of those in the Chapter House in Westminster Abbey. They are a very important part of our heritage.
It is conceivable that at some future date—if there were significant finds of such tiles and if they were subject to depredation in some way and they were

723
already of some commercial value—the Secretary of State might want to make an order so that those tiles fall within this category. Yet it could be considered that their significance is more artistic and cultural than specifically archaeological. As an archaeologist myself, I find the amendment slightly superfluous because if the find is of artistic interest and old, then it is certainly of archaeological interest. This amendment is a useful clarification and it is helpful to see it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order provide that any class of objects, which (apart from the order) would be treasure for the purposes of section 1, shall not be treasure for these purposes.").
The noble Earl said: Here again, this is an amendment which I suggested should be considered as part of a group. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, raised an issue about it. I replied that the amendment is a definition which can only be approved with the consent of both Houses in the affirmative way. Under those circumstances, I hope that the amendment is acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (5) or (5A)").
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, leave out line 21.
The noble Lord said: I suggest that these words are unnecessary. The word "object" is a wide term. It is also a little misleading to narrow the issue down to the word "artefact". According to the Oxford English Dictionary that means something which is artificially produced. But "treasure" can include things which are not artificially produced. It can include precious stones or even a skeleton which might be a treasure of historical importance. So we had better keep the definition wide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of jurisdiction of coroners]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 25, leaNe out ("property which is").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 19. These form a convenient group. Amendment No. 19 is the significant one here. That amendment provides that the coroner's inquest "shall" be conducted "without a jury" and not that it "may" be. That is a significant point. Therefore, Clause 6 will read,
"A coroner's inque-it held by virtue of section 30 of the Coroners Act … shall be held without a jury".
The Committee will be aware that one of the more futile exercises of recent years has been the coroner's inquest which is sometimes held with a jury debating the issue of treasure trove. With the amendments already agreed,
724
assuming that the Bill meets with the approval of both Houses, we shall be spared recognizing as to whether something is treasure trove. But it will still be the responsibility of an inquest to determine whether something is properly "treasure" or not and for the coroner to satisfy himself or herself about the find's circumstances and various other items mentioned here which we shall come to in later amendments.
There is nothing very much for the coroner to determine other than the facts of the matter. Previously there was judgment involved regarding the great imponderables as to whether objects made thousands of years ago and the subsequent burials were deliberate or accidental loss or votive offerings. That was clearly a matter which required judgment and often more than the judgment of Solomon; it was often impossible to determine. In such circumstances there was perhaps a role for a jury. When this Bill becomes an Act, the coroner will have very clearly determined duties which are to satisfy himself or herself that the objects constitute "treasure" and to ascertain the find's circumstances. It is clear that there is no useful role for a jury in such an undertaking. The inquest could be held. briefly and without undue formality. I believe that to be the intention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendments Nos. 11 and 12:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("for the purposes of section 1").
Page 2, line 26, after ("he") insert ("now").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of finder of treasure to notify coronere]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("treasure trove or").
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("for the purposes of section 1").
The noble Earl said: This amendment provides a consequential change to what we have already been discussing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("dishonestly") and insert ("wilfully").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may explain the background to this amendment. Clause 4 places a duty on the finder of treasure to notify the coroner. Subsection (1) reads,
"Where a person finds any property which he has reasonable grounds for believing to be treasure … he shall notify the appropriate coroner of the find".
Then appear the circumstances under which he must do so. Subsection (3) states:
"A person who dishonestly fails to comply with subsection (1) is guilty of an offence".
The maximum sentences that can be awarded are then described. The people who will find treasure are not dishonest people. They may sometimes be very wilful. The suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord

725
Templeman, was that the word "dishonestly" should come out and be replaced by the word "wilfully". I trust that in the circumstances your Lordships will agree that that is much more appropriate than "dishonestly".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of coroner to notify occupier of find of treasure]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 2, leave out from first ("treasure") to ("he") in line 3.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, which is consequential on other amendments that have already been dealt with.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 4, after ("land") insert ("and, if different, the freeholder where known").
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this amendment is primarily to incorporate the interests of the freehold landowner in consideration of treasure and the matters that will be implemented by the Bill. In moving the amendment, I declare an interest as a landowner and also as a member of the Country Landowners' Association (to whom I pay tribute for the help that they have given me in this matter). This is not really about landowners' interests as against other interests. The amendment merely seeks to make sure that, if the freeholder is a known person and is different from the occupier of land, the freeholder should have an equal entitlement to be notified under the provisions of the Bill. The reason for that is, first, the enduring legal status of the freeholder and his long-term interest. After all, hopefully we are not talking about treasure disembodied from the place where it is found. We are talking about architectural and historical heritage, and therefore location of significance is important.
Where there is an occupier who is not the freeholder, he may be a fairly transient character. He may be a short-term tenant, or a shorthold tenant in a residential property. There is a real risk that that tenant will not know or understand the long-term importance to the landowner of a find of treasure.
I commend this amendment to the Committee on the basis of a need to know on the part of the freeholder. He has a need to know because he has to contend with other legal matters, whether they be scheduled ancient monuments—which may be a possible outcome of a major find of treasure following subsequent investigation—and also by virtue of the impact on his tenancy agreement. For instance, it may contain a schedule of conditions and obligations with regard to dilapidations at the end of the legal period of occupation by the tenant. Without further ado, I commend this amendment to the Committee.
The Earl of Perth: I should like to comment on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I can well understand why he is anxious that somebody other than the occupier, particularly the freeholder, should be entitled to be told. The question is: who tells him? In
726
our draft we feel that it is not for the coroner to do it beyond a certain point, that is, the occupier of the land. We have tried to deal with the same point that the noble Earl has raised in Amendment No. 18. I will not talk to Amendment No. 18 now, unless it is in order to do so, but will wait until it is called.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether I am right in thinking that Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are grouped together? If so, the noble Earl is absolutely right to speak to it.
The Earl of Perth: The answer is yes. I thank the noble Baroness for her guidance. Amendment No. 18 states:
"and that occupier shall similarly inform any person whom he reasonably believes either to be entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the land"—
I am informed that that is the correct legal term for a freeholder
"or to hold the land under a lease or agreement".
I know that a question has been raised about the word "or". I can only assure the noble Earl that we will look at that before Report stage to consider whether it should be "or", "and" or some other words. Having said that, I very much hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment No. 17.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 18 but also in support of the intention behind Amendment No. 17. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is entirely correct in feeling that it is the landowner's business to know what is going on. Clearly, he should be informed by somebody. The only question is: who should do the informing? The concern of some of us who feel that this Bill is thoroughly worth while is that, if too heavy a burden be placed upon coroners they will begin to groan under the burden. I suspect that the Department of National Heritage may anticipate that and will not wish to see additional burdens placed upon coroners.
It seems very reasonable that the occupier should be the person who has an obligation to inform the owner, for the simple reason that presumably the occupier is in the best position to know who the owner is. The coroner will not know that without further inquiry. That is why it seems to me that Amendment No. 18 achieves very much the same job as Amendment No. 17, though perhaps in a slightly more practical way, in placing the burden of informing the owner on the person who knows who the owner is. I hope that the noble Earl will see that there is a certain logic behind that.
Lord Renton: It is hardly necessary for me to add anything. I should however like to summarise the matter. Everyone agrees that the owner should be informed. The simple issue is whether the owner should be informed by the coroner or the occupier. Putting it shortly, the coroner would not normally know who the owner was. The occupier normally would know, and so the obligation should perhaps be put upon him.
Baroness Trumpington: My noble friend Lord Renfrew is quite right in his supposition. Amendment

727
No. 18 to Clause 5 places a duty on the occupier of land on which treasure has been found, who has himself been notified by the coroner, to notify the freeholder or lessee. Amendment No. 17, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, would place a duty to notify the freeholder on the coroner rather than the occupier. I should say straight away that we would find it unacceptable to impose on the coroner a duty to inform the freeholder. We would not want to increase the burdens on coroners when that was unnecessary. Amendment No. 18, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, would place this duty on occupiers, who would be best placed to know the identity of the freeholder of the land that they occupied or their head leaseholder. I can see the strength of the argument that that is the appropriate way to proceed. However, it is not clear what happens if the occupier cannot, or does not, notify the landowner. Should there be penalties for non-compliance? If not, how is the duty to be enforced? It is surely of concern that as inquests would not take place until the occupier and owner had been notified, inquests would be subject to considerable delay. There are practical complications here which we can discuss again on Report.
The Earl of Lytton: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their comments, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for commenting on the extent to which there is any sanction if the duty placed on the occupier to notify the owner is not complied with. My feeling is that it is the landowner—the person entitled to the fee simple—who must be notified, come what may, regardless of there being any other person with an interest in the land. I feel that strongly because of the potentially long-term residual effects and the statutory consequences that may flow from an important find of treasure. We are not talking about unimportant finds; we are talking about the more important finds.
I thought that as there was no sanction against the occupier for that failure, Amendment No. 18 lacked something. But I note and thank the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his comments. I should like to have the opportunity further to discuss this point with him, because we can probably come up with a formula of words. On that basis, and reserving my position to come back to this point at a later stage if it proves necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert ("and that occupier shall similarly inform any person whom he reasonably believes either to be entitled to dispose of the. fee simple of the land or to hold the land under a lease or agreement.").
The noble Earl said: We discussed this amendment when talking to Amendment No. 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6 [Inquests]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 13, lease out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment which was grouped with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Suspected treasure]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 24:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("treasure trove or").
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("for the purposes of section 1").
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("treasure trove or").
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("for the purposes of section 1 by virtue of subsection (1)").
Page 3, line 23, after ("Crown") insert ("or its franchisee").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Ex gratia awards.
Ex gratia awards may be made to finders of treasure and owners or occupiers of the land on which they were found but the Secretary of State shall take into account all the circumstances including the manner in which the treasure was found and disclosed.").
The noble Earl said: This is an important amendment. As worded, it is our attempt to cover the all important issue of ex gratia awards. I stress the words "ex gratia". The payments are not by any means absolutely necessary. It will be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, as is the case at present, as to whether he makes such a payment. With the help of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, we have tried to find a broad definition of how the award should be made, without going into too much detail in the Bill. The reason is that one can never tell what circumstances may arise: how something was found; whether it was by pure chance as someone walked along, or whatever; or whether it was a result of a deliberate trespass. Clearly if it is a deliberate trespass—digging a few hundred yards into a landlord's property or scheduled site —the finder should have no award. It might fall to the landowner, or the Secretary of State might decide that it should be forgotten, as it were.
I am also conscious that, as drafted, the amendment may be too all-embracing and without sufficient detail. If the Committee agrees to the amendment, it is our intention to have further discussions with the various people who are interested in the matter, and especially with the Department of National Heritage, so as to get the matter right. There may need to be some extension of the provision. With those words, I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton: Perhaps I may talk to Amendment No 29 tabled in my name, which is grouped with Amendment No. 25. In the light of what the Committee has already decided, the wording of Amendment No. 29 is clearly defective because it refers to "treasure trove" or "treasure". That has now been already amended. The purpose of the amendment is to investigate how any resultant ex gratia award is to be paid or made, and the circumstances that should apply.
I can cover both amendments in the same terms by saying that my concern was to address the whole question of unlawful entry onto property. If the Bill gives the least impression of legality to something

729
which, by virtue of the common application of the law elsewhere, is clearly illegal, that is dangerous. It is prejudicial to the interests of the lawful owners and occupiers of land. We are dealing with whether a finder, who may have no status as an owner or occupier, is entitled to some ex gratia award in circumstances where he has been onto the land of another.
On Second Reading I made the point that I felt that that issue needed to be addressed, because if it is not and there is no co-responsibility tied in with the ownership and occupation of land, there will be at least two people (not just one) for whom non-disclosure of the find is advantageous. The first will be the finder who has been onto the land, possibly by virtue of an illegal act; in other words, wandering onto the land of another without asking for permission—something which in many cases is not actionable by a landowner. The second will be the landowner—him or herself—for whom there may be no prospect of anything other than a great deal of bureaucracy while the argument rages as to whether the finder who happened upon the artefact is to be rewarded.
The reward must not only follow the responsibility but must be used as a carrot to lead responsible action. One cannot distinguish the two in those terms. That is using the economic prospect as a tool for procuring the objectives of the Bill, and that is important.
There is a particular problem with footpaths. I have always taken the view—I believe that it is legally correct—that a footpath or bridlepath confers on the public a right to pass and to repass for that specified purpose. It is a right over the land of another. It is not a right to look for treasure, to dig up articles or to engage in other activities. It is a right to pass and to repass and to enjoy the countryside thereby.
One must lay down a marker, which was the intention behind my amendment. Entry for specified purposes is lawful; but once one goes beyond that, it is unlawful. One must take a strict approach. It does not matter whether the item is a few feet or 100 metres off the footpath. Either somebody is on the footpath and they are within their legal rights to pass and to repass, or they are off the footpath and are not within their rights. That must be a matter of some "absolutism" in the sense that it is the normally understood law of the land.
I appreciate that the intention behind Amendment No. 25 is to overcome the difficulties which I have already discussed with the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I am not certain that I accept the amendment in its present form. However, on the basis that at this stage in the discussion my amendment is manifestly defective, I put it forward only as a probing amendment in order to obtain a response from Members of the Committee.
7 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I understand that it was the intention to group together Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 29, and for that reason the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has appropriately referred to his Amendment No. 29. That is helpful because Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 are the only amendments before the Committee which can genuinely be described as contentious. They touch on difficult issues. The nub
730
of the difficulty is that on the one hand the treasure trove legislation has always worked to reward the finder. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, indicated that that is to give an incentive to the finder to report the objects found to the coroner. We all regard that as appropriate.
Clearly, the situation is most unsatisfactory if people deliberately trespass on land—for instance, with metal detectors; but I do not wish to single out any group—with the hope of finding treasure, search for treasure on that land and are in some way rewarded for illegal entry.
As the Bill was originally drafted before it was laid before the Committee, it included reference to an offence of aggravated trespass. There is a case for looking more seriously at the law of trespass. I understand that the noble Earl met with difficulties in a general sense on the Government's side—perhaps more with the Home Office than with the Department of National Heritage.
From the archaeological point of view, I wish to quote what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, at Second Reading. He said:
"In that sense no finder who stumbles upon them [these objects] can really claim ownership and no farmer who bought his farm and paid a price for the agricultural content of it can really claim that he is an owner and is entitled to all the benefit of all the articles found on his soil. This is a preservation of the national heritage for our posterity".—[Official Report, 9/3/94; col. 1490.]
That is the position which many archaeologists take, as do many of those concerned with the national heritage. I do not infer what the compensation or ex gratia arrangements should be. I say simply that our prime concern should be to conserve the objects properly for the national heritage. If I have one single dissatisfaction with the Bill and the approach, it is that it is called "Treasure Bill". It is as though the whole thing is a game of who will get their hands on the gold and the value of it. We sometimes overlook the fact that our primary concern should be to conserve in the best way our national heritage—that is, to have finds reported.
Amendment No. 25 has a great strength in that it is flexible and imprecise. It provides that:
"the Secretary of State shall take into account all the circumstances including the manner in which the treasure was found and disclosed".
The implication is that if the finder fails to disclose treasure and receives compensation, it will be less, if anything, than he would have received had he disclosed the treasure efficiently.
For the first time the position of owners and occupiers is formally recognised in Amendment No. 25. It provides:
"Ex grotto awards may be made to finders of treasure and owners or occupiers of the land".
I hope that that element gives the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, some satisfaction. For the first time in legislation of this kind it is recognised that owners and occupiers have some standing in this matter. On the other hand, Amendment No. 29 would go so far as to deny in every case any reward to a finder who is on land without the consent of the occupier. There are many cases of stray finds. Indeed, I can think of one find on land owned by a city corporation. It was believed that because it was a park to which the public had access the

731
finder had every reason to be there. However, within the terms of Amendment No. 29, that finder might be denied any reward.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he will not move his amendment tonight and therefore I shall not criticise it further. Had the noble Earl wished to do so, there would have been an anxiety on that score. The amendment formulated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has many merits which I hope landowners and potential finders can recognise. It leaves certain matters undefined but it makes reference to all interested parties. It also makes reference to the key issues, which is the right way to approach the matter.
Lord Airedale: I support what has been said. Amendment No. 29, which omits a word such as "knowingly", is not in conformity with the words "deliberate trespass", which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, introduced in moving Amendment No. 25. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, sees things very much in black and white. He says, "Either a person is on the footpath or he is not". Life is net like that. You start on a public footpath and then when you are halfway along it, it disappears. You then have to search for the rest of it and eventually you find it.
I am sure that we do not want trespassers who are not trespassing deliberately to be caught by any later amendment that may be produced along the lines of Amendment No. 29.
Lord Kilbracken: Perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that there appears to be a drafting error in Amendment No. 25 which I am sure can be corrected at the next stage of the Bill. The new clause reads:
"Ex gratia awards may be made to finders of treasure and owners or occupiers of the land on which they were found".
I am sure that that is meant to refer to the treasure and not to the owners or occupiers. Treasure may refer to a large number of gold doubloons or pieces of eight but the word "treasure" is indisputably singular. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the words "they were" should be replaced by the words "it is".
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has made a very shrewd drafting point. Fortunately we are in Committee and I am sure that that matter can be rectified at Report stage.
This is one of the most important matters to arise in the Bill. As it stands, the Bill refers to ex gratia payments only in Clause 8(4) (b) which states:
"The Secretary of State may publish information about … the making of ex gratia awards in respect of finds of treasure".
I believe that that is passing the buck to the Secretary of State to too great an extent. We need to make up our minds about the principles upon which ex gratia payments may be made and to whom.
I was extremely relieved and pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has decided not to press his amendment because I am sure that we need to think further about this matter and, indeed, about Amendment No. 25.
The virtue of Amendment No. 25 is that it accepts the fact that the circumstances in which treasure is found may vary enormously. They varied a great deal in the
732
more limited sphere of treasure trove. But there will be a great multitude of circumstances and I do not believe that we should go into detail about them, should we make different provisions for different circumstances. It is far better that the Secretary of State should have a discretion but that that discretion shall be exercised in favour of bona fide finders and in favour of owners, where appropriate, and occupiers, if it is not a question of the owner being given an ex gratia award.
Therefore, if we accept the amendment—the proposed new clause—moved by the noble Earl, it lays the foundation for getting the matter right by Report stage with the help of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I am sure that she will be extremely anxious to help in that regard.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: I believe that my noble friend Lord Renfrew was right to say that this is potentially one of the most contentious areas of the Bill. Clearly that is the case because it is one of the most contentious areas of the subject matter as a whole.
Whatever Bill is brought forward and whatever provision is made for ex gratia awards, one meets the difficulty of the competing interests of those who may claim some right or value in the find. As further consideration is given to that question, I suggest that one of the most important aspects is to try to encourage the reporting of finds. That seems to me to be at the heart of the matter.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew said that the key factor is to preserve the object as a matter of national heritage without determining its ultimate ownership. That is an extremely important aspect. But what is really needed, almost above everything else, is the proper context of the discovery. In many cases the discovery of objects without their correct provenance reduces their archaeological and scholarly value by a high percentage. The objects may be similar to others that are already known and, therefore, they may of themselves add virtually nothing to the sum of knowledge. But if that is coupled with the context in which they are found, or even the location—because the distribution of objects can often tell us a great deal about trade or other matters of historical interest—then that will be an addition to our knowledge. I hope that it will be possible to find a more precise and clear way in which this whole area can be dealt with.
While I admire the breadth of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, I suspect that there may be serious difficulties if legislation of the kind proposed here, particularly in this amendment, is enacted into statute without a rather clearer understanding of how such a provision would operate in practice.
Let us suppose that a finder were so foolish as to trespass on the land of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Let us suppose that he strayed off one of the noble Earl's footpaths. There is a degree of culpability in that because the trespasser should not have been there in the first place. And yet, if he receives no reward, or receives only a partial reward—let us say 20 per cent. while the noble Earl receives the other 80 per cent. or whatever percentage may be appropriate—the question then

733
arises whether such partial reward or part of the overall value would be sufficient to encourage that finder to report his discovery and, therefore, to preserve the important information that is otherwise lost. I do not have an immediate solution to the problem but I believe that it is a serious area of difficulty in legislating on this subject. It is encapsulated in Amendment No. 25 and the proposed new clause.
It would be extremely difficult to allow the Secretary of State an arbitrary power of judgment, case by case, because if there were no indication in advance as to how an award might be divided, that could be disadvantageous in obtaining information from finders, which is extremely important. The greatest abuse of the present treasure trove system, which would be replaced by this legislation, is that those who prospect on scheduled sites and on other people's land without permission are strongly minded not to report what they discover. I hope that any formula which is devised along the lines of this new clause could at least have as one of its prime objectives the encouragement of the preservation of that vital information about discovery.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may, once again, put to the Committee my department's feelings about the proposed new clauses. They do, indeed, go to the heart of the difficulty as we perceived it. We welcome the recognition of the need to place awards in relation to treasure on a statutory footing for the first time. We agree that, in making decisions about the payment of awards and on their size, the Secretary of State should take into the account the circumstances of discovery and disclosure. In particular, where trespass has occurred, we agree that that should be one of the factors to be considered.
However, in contemplating changes to the present compensation arrangements, we venture on unchartered territory, where the law is unclear and there are few precedents. There are legal issues of title to be considered here—vividly illustrated by a report last week of a find in Oxfordshire of an object which would be treasure under the present Bill. In that case, there were no fewer than four claimants to ownership of the find. The question of abatement also raises important policy issues. I welcome the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stewartby and I cannot emphasise too strongly that our paramount objective is to encourage the reporting of finds. We clearly need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. At the same time we want to discourage wrong behaviour. We are not as yet convinced that the approach adopted in the proposed new clauses is really viable. We would like to give the matter further consideration before the Report stage. I must state again that the reservations I have expressed do not detract in any way from the admiration I feel for the noble Lords who have been prepared to tackle the thorny matter of compensation. They have come up with a straightforward and elegantly simple approach which merits the closest study.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I may draw one fact to the attention of my noble friend. The proposal in Amendment No. 25 is scarcely novel. If one left out the words,
"and owners or occupiers of the land on which [it was] found",
would my noble friend agree that the words,
"Ex graria awards may be made to finders of treasure … but the Secretary of State shall take into account all the circumstances including the manner in which the treasure was found and disclosed",
very accurately represent the present system of compensation for treasure trove? If we then re-insert the words—indeed, I did not intend to delete them,
"and owners or occupiers of the land on which [it was] found",
what is new about the amendment is that we would have some regard to the rights and the position of owners and occupiers of the land.
Although my noble friend is right to say that it is a matter of some complexity, I wonder whether she has, perhaps, overlooked the fact that the present arrangements are also of a great complexity and that the arrangements proposed within the scope of the Bill—that is, the unification of the whole concept of treasure —are, indeed, a simplification. I would not want my noble friend to lie awake too much at night worrying about such complexities. If she does so, she could be lying awake for many nights and indeed for many years.
Baroness Trumpington: Of course, I worry about the whole matter night after night. No doubt I shall continue doing so until the Bill has passed through this Chamber. However much my noble friend refers to the fact that the proposal is similar to what we already have, one of the objects of the Bill is to achieve simplification while at the same time improving the present situation. As yet, we are not sure about it. The legal doubts are such that we simply must reconsider the matter.
The Earl of Perth: I thank all Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. When I moved Amendment No. 25, I made the point that it needs further consideration and, perhaps, further development. For example, it is possible that some aspect needs to be spelt out in more detail at a later stage. It could then receive parliamentary approval as, indeed, happened earlier as regards defining the class of objects.
I am fully conscious that, as it stands, the amendment raises important points which are not yet fully covered. However, I believe that the manner in which treasure was found and disclosed indicates the direction in which we should like to go. I fully accept that what is all important is to get the object reported. From that, many other considerations naturally flow. I should just like to add that I recognise that the amendment is not yet perfect as regards the drafting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Government guidance about treasure]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:
Page 3, line 37, after ("museum") insert ("or").
Page 3, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: I believe that these amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause: ("Trespassers
If treasure trove or treasure is found by a person who is on the land without the consent of the occupier and, if different, the freeholder, any ex gratia award in respect of such treasure trove or treasure shall not be paid to the finder.").
The noble Earl said: Before I finally lay the amendment to rest—for which Members of the Committee will no doubt be thankful—I should like to cover a number of points that were raised. My concern was the long-term care of the site because of the site relevance of the find. I particularly associate myself in that respect with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, which I thought were absolutely to the point. However, I have to take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, because I do not believe that losing your way on a footpath entitles you to go looking for other things. Indeed, countryside legislation (which covers digging up plants and other such activities) quite clearly specifies that fact. A footpath is for recreational use and is not a facility to enable people to search for treasure.
Finally, there is the question of residual costs and administration which fall on the landowner as a result of a find. which cannot be dismissed. You cannot excise the benefits to one party and have the legacy of the problems resulting from the bureaucracy and the administration which can arise from a major find left
736
solely in the hands of the landowner or occupier. That is manifestly wrong. Bearing in mind the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter and find a better formula. I associate myself in that regard with the comments of the noble Baroness. Lady Trumpington. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
In the Title:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 30:
Line 1, leave out ("which is not treasure move").
The noble Earl said: This matter lies at the heart of the whole Bill; namely, that we have sought to gel. rid of treasure trove and start on something new. Before I formally move the amendment, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her understanding and encouragement. I also thank all other Members of the Committee who have taken part in this Committee stage. I am quite sure that we have the same purpose. We have one particular difficulty that we all wish to solve and I have no doubt it is essential that we change the law as it now stands and adopt a simpler and better provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Title, as amended, agreed to; Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  GOVERNMENT DEFEATS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  GOVERNMENT DEFEATS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION, NORTHERN IRELAND: COSTS
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION, NORTHERN IRELAND: COSTS
  LIGHT DUES
  LIGHT DUES
  GOVERNMENT SECURITY
  GOVERNMENT SECURITY
  THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF PROTECTIVE MARKING: DEFINITIONS
  THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF PROTECTIVE MARKING: DEFINITIONS
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: RIGHTS OF MINORITIES PROTOCOL
  HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION: RIGHTS OF MINORITIES PROTOCOL
  CHILD ABDUCTION: PREVENTION
  CHILD ABDUCTION: PREVENTION