House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 1991

Column 819

--which, although few at present, are of growing significance in total--and also from the gas industry, which is now to provide power for electricity generation.

Under any Government, a number of large gas generating plants would be commissioned over the next year or two, which would inevitably affect the market for coal. However, we believe that there is still a significant market for coal. The prospects of British Coal winning that market are good, particularly if we succeed in transferring the industry to the private sector.

That is why we are working out proposals to do so after the next general election and are bringing forward the supplementary estimate which is one of the subjects of this evening's debate. Decisions on the timing and details of the privatisation package and the Bill that we shall bring before the House will be taken after the next general election, but it is sensible to consider in detail the technical issues involved and some of the options that may be appropriate. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) wanted us to act faster and transfer ownership of the Monktonhall pit to a consortium of coal miners in advance of the main privatisation Bill. It is not possible for us to do that without changes in the law, so I think that he must have meant that the licensee should be the miners consortium, although there was some confusion in his remarks between the two different approaches.

The hon. Member for Gordon prefaced his main suggestions with an allegation that applicants could influence the choice by contributing to Conservative party funds. I very much resent and utterly reject that allegation. He then, confusingly and paradoxically, suggested that I should involve myself in the choice of licensee. He went further, and said that my choice should be his favourite consortium--the mineworkers consortium--which has discussed its proposals with me. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and to the mineworkers consortium : the choice is not for me but for British Coal. I am glad that an independent operator may be given the chance to work these reserves if the necessary conditions can be guaranteed, but the choice between competing applicants is not one for me to make.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce : I accept that, but does not the Minister accept that British Coal may be compromised? The Government have made it clear that it is to be privatised. They have also said that it will continue to be the licensing authority for private coal pits. Does not that leave British Coal in a position in which its judgment of who may be the best operator for a pit may be the one likely to be the least successful, or at least less of a threat, not the one who might operate in the best interests of competition, the local community or the wider economy? Should not the Government transfer the licensing role from British Coal to the Secretary of State as soon as possible?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : We are working within the statutory framework of the 1946 nationalisation legislation. Until it is altered by this House, it would be quite wrong for us to suggest that any other body could act as a licensing authority. However, when we bring our proposals for the privatisation of the industry before the House, it will be entirely appropriate to deal with matters such as this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support

Column 820

our efforts to give outside independent private miners and mining companies opportunities to exploit British Coal reserves. But that is a matter for another debate.

I noticed that the hon. Member for Gordon failed to answer my earlier point, which was that the Liberal Democrat party poses as a friend of coal- -he did this evening--but the environmental document recently published by that party is extremely enthusiastic about a carbon tax and makes it clear that such a tax would bite most savagely on the combustion of coal. The economic and industrial implications of a carbon tax are discussed in the latter part of that document, but it is entirely silent on the question of the coal industry.

Not only would the Liberal Democrat proposals be highly damaging to the industry that the hon. Gentleman purports to support, but his document fails to discuss the issue at all. So I take his professed support for the British mining industry with a large pinch of salt. Other hon. Members have rightly discussed coal research and development, a subject which formed an important part of the Select Committee's deliberations. I hope that hon. Members will therefore welcome the fact that last year we initiated a major review of the United Kingdom's coal research requirements in the longer term. We set up a coal task force, which was the Department's advisory committee on coal research, and it produced a consultation document in August.

That has already led to a large number of comments from overseas as well as from the United Kingdom industry. The report has been generally well received, and it certainly deals with the anxieties expressed this evening in favour of research being long-term. Research and development carried out in the United Kingdom should certainly be conducted in a framework that includes the long-term implications of coal burn.

At present, we are reviewing the comments that we have already received, and in the course of next year we shall publish a considered response to the coal task force. It gives the strategic direction referred to in the debate.

I emphasise that we are not standing still while we await the outcome of that review. In partnership with British industry, British Coal and overseas agencies, we have recently launched five new clean coal projects with a contract value of about £20 million, bringing the total contract value of coal research and development to more than £100 million. Further projects are at the planning stage, and announcements will be made in due course.

We believe strongly that collaboration between the Government, the coal industry and the rest of British industry is essential, not only to attract additional money for coal research but also for the technical and commercial skills that it can bring.

Reference has been made to the need for demonstration plants. We have already established an industrial working party, drawn from British Gas, the electricity generators and other plant manufacturers, to examine prospects for an integrated gasification combined cycle demonstration plant.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to Grimethorpe and the need to complete the research there. It is not true that the Department has delayed the development of the topping cycle at Grimethorpe and elsewhere. In fact, my Department found £3.7 million at short notice last year to keep the project on schedule. An important feature of that

Column 821

research is that we are working closely with other partners, in particular PowerGen, GEC Alsthom and British Coal, to decide the most appropriate next steps.

Mr. Eadie : Has the Minister had any discussions on the closure of the Westfield plant in Scotland, which was manufacturing synthetic gas from coal?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I am aware of that closure and the experiments and research carried out there. There is no immediate prospect of large- scale funding from my Department, but we remain interested, and if industrial partners come forward to carry that research to another stage, my Department will be interested in encouraging that.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to a reference price for coal. No such request, information or details have been sent to my Department from the Commissioner concerned. However, we understand that the object of a European reference price is not to boost subsidies for coal, but rather to put a limit on them. We remain in touch with the thinking in Europe about a reference price, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that proposals have been made. At this stage, no such proposals have been made.

No one pretends that in the years ahead the coal market will be easy. If faces severe environmental and economic pressures. We accept that the Government have a role in ensuring an adequate collaborative research and development programme, and I have instanced some of the projects that we are hoping to take forward. We believe that combined with our proposals to return the industry to the private sector after the next election, the outlook for the industry is by no means bleak.

9.53 pm

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : I am grateful for the opportunity to have a few minutes in which to speak, having been a Member of the Select Committee on Energy which produced the report that we are debating, part of which related to the coal industry's future after 1993. The sad fact is that, at best, the coal industry's future at that time will be uncertain and at worst it will have no future.

The Government have said that, if they are re-elected next year, the coal industry will be privatised, and their advisers have suggested that about 14 collieries will be left if that privatisation goes ahead.

This evening, the House is asked to vote £4 million for the industry's privatisation. Under the present Government, the coal industry does not really have a future, and privatisation is to go ahead without any word of the industry's liabilities after the next general election. They will include concessionary fuel to those beneficiaries who are entitled to it, and the industry's existing liabilities in respect of compensation for industrial deafness claims and so on, which date back a good few years.

The industry has very little in the way of assets. After 1993, it will not even have a production contract unless the generators relax their stand and agree to renew their contracts for substantial tonnages, whereas they have indicated tonnages of half the present figures.

The industry faces problems other than its run down and privatisation. It has a future only if it can sell the coal that it produces, but the power generators made it clear

Column 822

that they do not want its coal, for several reasons. The generators talk about importing coal, orimulsion, and using gas, to force extra concessions from the beleaguered coal industry, such as lower prices. The generators do not want reliance on British coal but diversification and a number of fuel sources.

The generators also want the flexibility to switch from imported to domestic coal. Despite advice from British Coal, the Government are reluctant to accept that once British collieries are closed, they cannot reopen for several reasons--one of which is the economics involved. All that despite the fact that the industry has improved its productivity by more than 100 per cent., and decreased its costs by more than 25 per cent. by closing collieries and reducing manpower.

Private sector generators have only one goal--to increase profits for their new shareholders. To do that, they will burn the cheapest fuel. They will go for cheaper prices and increased profits. Hence the dash for gas-- increased gas generation, which has required British Gas to implement a 35 per cent. price increase for some projects suggested for the future. It could not see that enough gas would be available to meet all the new gas projects on the drawing board. The generators talk about importing gas from Norway and the Soviet Union. The uncertainty in the Soviet Union at least means that gas supplies from that source may not be relied on. We are using a fuel to create a fuel, and wasting it for the sake of short-termism and increased profits.

We have heard also that the power generators will burn orimulsion, because Venezuelan tar sand is very cheap, but it has very high sulphur levels. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said that the generators could burn orimulsion and still remain below their emission targets, because they would be burning gas, which has much lower emission standards. I make the point that the generators are willing to go to the limit--and because orimulsion is cheap, they will burn it, despite the fact that it will produce high emissions.

The Government have deliberately encouraged the coal industry's complete rundown through privatisation. The industry's only answer is further to increase production, to try to reduce its costs. We have heard that opencast production could be increased to reduce costs. That will merely flood the market with coal which the industry will not be able to sell, because the generators do not want it. Consequently, more pits will close as the industry argues that it needs low-cost capacity in a handful of collieries.

Over the past 10 years, the Government have simply allowed the coal industry to be whittled away, leaving the rump of pits mentioned in the Rothschild report. That will happen after 1993, when the generators say, "No, we will not burn 60 million tonnes, or 50 million ; we will burn half what we burned in the past."

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Mr. Speaker,-- pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Supplementary Estimates, 1991-92 (Class XIV, Vote 1 and Class V, Vote 9).

Column 823

CLASS XIV, VOTE 1

Resolved,

That a further sum not exceeding £1,680,076,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on non-contributory retirement pensions, Christmas bonus payments to pensioners, pensions etc., for disablement or death arising out of war or service in the armed forces after 2nd September 1939 and on sundry other services, on attendance allowances, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance ; on pensions gratuities and sundry allowances for disablement and specified deaths arising from industrial causes ; on income support, transitional payment, child benefit, one parent benefit, family credit, and on the vaccine damage payment scheme.

CLASS V, VOTE 9

Resolved,

That a further sum not exceeding £4,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.

Mr. Speaker-- then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1991-92

Resolved,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,743,208,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 6 of Session 1991-92.

ESTIMATES 1992-93 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £75,069,116,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Session 1991-92.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1992 and 1993 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11].

Column 824

Ministerial and Other Salaries

Mr. Speaker : I have not been able to select the amendment on the Order Paper, because it is out of order.

10.1 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : I beg to mov

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

I am sorry that a small error appeared in the final version of the 1991 order in article 2 on the first page, where an "of" appeared instead of an "or". The necessary correction slip is being issued. Our proposals for increases to the salaries of Ministers and paid officials in this House are, this year, quite straightforward. On Monday 2 December, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), I announced in a written answer all the details of the changes that we envisage. The increase in salaries in this House and in another place would be 4.5 per cent. effective from 1 January 1992. The total cost of those increases would be just over £154,000 in a full year.

Ministers' recent record on pay restraint--and, indeed, that of the past 10 years--has been good. Over the lifetime of the present Government, most Ministers have received increases significantly lower than the increase in average earnings in the economy as a whole. From 1979 to 1991, such average earnings increased by 218 per cent. whereas Commons ministerial salaries increased by between 94 per cent. and 115 per cent. Over the same period, the retail prices index increased by 147 per cent., so there has been a fall in ministerial salaries in real terms. Moreover, ministerial salaries in the Commons have increased more slowly than parliamentary salaries, which, as the House will know, are increasing by 6.5 per cent. from 1 January 1992. There is no doubt that Ministers have given a clear lead in practice in regard to pay restraint.

I believe that the proposals that I have outlined continue to demonstrate the Government's commitment to pay restraint, and I commend the motion to the House.

10.4 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : The burden of the remarks of the Leader of the House was that the increases for Ministers were very modest. My first comment is that the performance of Ministers has also been very modest. Indeed, to say that it has been modest is almost an exaggeration-- it has been much less adequate than that. Of course, by any outside comparisons, Ministers of the Crown are underpaid. I say that in an objective sense, not in support of Ministers in the present Government. But for the fact that the salary of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was included in the order, I might be moved to recommend that we vote against it. However, in the circumstances, such a recommendation might be open to misinterpretation, so I shall not recommend such a move to the House.

During their term of office, the Government have been molved--I was going to say "obsessed", but that is perhaps an exaggeration--to pursue arguments about performance-related pay. I can say only that, if the country was asked whether performance-related pay should apply

Column 825

to Ministers of this Administration, it would almost certainly say yes and call for cuts in the salaries of certainly a number of Ministers.

I cannot believe, for example, that people in the country at large think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has earned any increase in salary in view of his performance in the past few months. If the salary of the Secretary of State for Employment were reduced by just 10p for every job lost in the past 12 months--and that means 580,000 jobs--he would end up having to pay the taxpayer to be able to stay in his post instead of receiving a salary. It will seem strange to some people outside that we should be recommending a salary increase to the Secretary of State for Employment when hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs as a result of the disastrous performance of the Government's employment and industrial policies.

We shall not divide the House on the order. The Leader of the House said that the salary recommendations were modest. I say that the Government's performance is equally modest, and I am sure that people outside this place are looking forward to the opportunity to hold their own review of the Government's performance when the general election comes. I have no doubt what the outcome of that review will be.

10.6 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : There are three component parts to the order. The third gives you, Mr. Speaker, an increase and I have no quibble with that. The second gives an increase to the Leader of the official Opposition and to the Labour Chief Whip. Although I do not quibble about either of those two gentleman being paid more, I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the general issue of salaries. The first and largest in terms of its consequences for the public Exchequer means that Ministers of the Crown should be paid more.

I have been advised that, although it was in order to table an amendment to try to reduce the salary of a Minister of the Crown, it was unlikely that it would be in order for it to be called. I understand that the procedure has been changed in recent years to make that an impossibility, which seems to be a protective mechanism for the Government. Therefore, one has to deal with the issue generally rather than specifically. By contrast, there have been debates in the House in which one has been able to move a reduction in ministerial salary. I think that the most recent was in relation to the Lord Chancellor, whose salary is dealt with in a different way.

I share the Lord President's view that one cannot criticise the general principle of the amount of the increase. It is a modest increase in view of the annual and average rate of increase across the board. I do not dissent from the view that Ministers--and I include Members of Parliament--should be paid relatively more. I believe that, relatively, the amount that they earn is still inadequate to recompense them for the importance of their job and their functions.

As the hon. Member for Copeland rightly said, it is an anomaly that there is no way in which the House can make a judgment on the link between Ministers' performance and pay. Ministers are carefully protected from that.

Column 826

It is even more inconsistent for the Government to make a virtue out of performance-related pay. They always defend pay rises for highly paid chief executives of the now privatised but formerly public industries as justified by the importance of their jobs. When we complain about the salary increase for the boss of British Telecom or for the boss of British Gas, we are told that it is because they do an important job and deserve to be well paid. Many people have been relatively inadequately paid all the time. The great tragedy of the Government is that the gap between the top 10 per cent. and the lowest 10 per cent. has widened consistently. We are a far less equal society than we were in 1979, 1983 or 1987. There should be performance-related pay.

I put it on record in an objective way that leaders of parties other than the principal Opposition party should have a compensating increase above the allowance of the ordinary Member of Parliament. I do not include only the leader of my party, but the leaders of other parties, perhaps parties over a certain size. If we expect democracy to function and to flourish, there is a strong argument for that. I understand the historical reasons why the Leader of the Opposition has a different status in the House from the status of the leaders of other parties, but there were often not so many other parties as there are now, and the logic of increases being given only to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip--apart from yourself, Mr. Speaker--is now historic, and the anomaly should be corrected.

The hon. Member for Copeland cited two examples. There is a failure in the system if it does not allow us to challenge the way in which Ministers increasingly hang on to office, no matter how poor their performance in specific areas. My amendment illustrates my case. No matter how serious the breach of convention, there is no possibility that a Minister in this Government will resign for a constitutional failure. It seems that that is now an historically unrecognised position.

The most relevant examples have appeared in the Home Secretary's most recent year in office. I make no personal comment about him. One may consider a Minister to be a perfectly pleasant bloke or woman, but that is not the point. The point is how he or she does his job. We are all accountable.

It has been an extraordinary year in the life of the Home Secretary since last November. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Copeland that, if the public were asked tomorrow to judge how much each Cabinet Minister should be paid, and if they were paid according to the public's perception of how well each did his job, it would be a salutary lesson for the Government because they might discover that some Ministers would be paid very little.

I do not attribute the general rise in crime to the Home Secretary, although I attribute to him the increasing numbers in prisons, the inability to deal with that problem and the inability to cope properly with the law and order issue. The Home Secretary has had several run-ins with the courts on Government immigration policy. In March, the High Court asked him to review a decision to return an asylum seeker to Togo. In May, he said that he did not intend to introduce legislation to curb dangerous dogs, but then he decided to do so. In July, two IRA prisoners escaped from Brixton prison. One shot a friend of mine,

Column 827

Malcolm Kemp, the driver of the car that was attacked outside the prison when he and his wife were on their way

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is outside the scope of the order.

Mr. Hughes : With respect, Mr. Speaker, I seek to address how we judge the record of Ministers, and I am giving examples. I accept that I may have extended that example too far. The prison escape was so significant that the Home Secretary returned from his holiday because of it. Things then became even more suspicious when we heard that someone had been planted in Brixton prison as part of an escape advisory service for prisoners.

We then had a summer of joyriding, followed by an announcement at the Tory party conference that there would be legislation to deal with that, and a Queen's Speech which suggested that there would not be any legislation. Then, in the past two or three weeks

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : Rubbish.

Mr. Hughes : It is not rubbish--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Whether or not it is rubbish, it is wide of the order.

Mr. Hughes : The Home Secretary said that he would do one thing, but he did not do it until he was chased. As the House knows, in the past two weeks--at the very end of the year--the right hon. Gentleman was told off by the Court of Appeal. There were many protests across the House about the fact that the Home Secretary is the first Cabinet Minister ever to be held guilty of contempt of court. It has yet to be seen, of course, whether that decision will be borne out by the House of Lords. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary was criticised by the court and, in the same fortnight, refused to implement the law on Sunday trading.

There may be other examples, but if ever, in any one year, there could be more reasons for saying that somebody has failed the duty of his office

Mr. Gale : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this discussion about Sunday trading in order and, if it is, may I join it?

Mr. Speaker : I have a suspicion that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is coming to a close.

Mr. Hughes : As so often, Mr. Speaker, you are correct. If ever there was a case for being able to ask whether a Minister should stay in office, that must be a good example of it. It is a failure of the House that there is no way in which we can challenge a Minister's entitlement to his full salary if he does not do his job properly. I hope that the next Tory party manifesto will contain a pledge to the effect that performance- related pay will be applied to Ministers as well as to the rest of the economy. That might improve their performance considerably.

10.17 pm

Mr. MacGregor : This has been a brief debate, so I shall make a brief response. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made two main points. I note that he thinks that Ministers--and Members of Parliament generally--are underpaid for the responsibilities that they carry. One way of dealing with that point in

Column 828

relation to Ministers' pay would be for the Top Salaries Review Body to undertake another review of Ministers' pay. That has not been ruled out, but none is planned at present.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I shall certainly not stray into all the policy issues that were raised, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charges against my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has made his position on the escapes absolutely clear, and has totally justified it.

The hon. Gentleman was completely wrong about the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill. As he knows, there were an increasing number of cases involving dangerous dogs, and my right hon. Friend acted extremely speedily to draft legislation that was not easy to draft, and to push it through the House quickly, with the full support of all hon. Members. That was prompt action. My right hon. Friend announced his intention to introduce legislation to deal with aggravated vehicle taking at our party conference. The legislation was not included in the Queen's Speech--many Bills are not--because we were still involved in drafting what proved to be a complicated piece of legislation, but that has been done-- and done quickly. The legislation has now gone through the House.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is therefore completely off beam on both those points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted promptly, and a great deal faster than is sometimes the case for other urgent matters requiring legislation. The hon. Gentleman was also wrong to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should implement the law on Sunday trading. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He made his position clear, rightly and fairly, in the House the other day, so I reject the charges--

Mr. Gale rose --

Mr. MacGregor : I do not want to become involved in a debate on Sunday trading, and I reject the charges absolutely.

Mr. Gale : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on that precise point. I speak as one who opposes Sunday trading. Does my right hon. Friend recall that our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General came to the House to announce that he did not intend to take action on Sunday trading because the matter was before the European Court, and is it not the Liberal party that wants all our laws to be made in Europe?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

My final point relates to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He posed a hypothetical question about the public response on Ministers' performance. Indeed it was hypothetical. When the country is asked who should head the negotiations at Maastricht, people give a clear answer, as we saw in recent polls. By a substantial majority, they support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. People have shown clearly that they have faith in my right hon. Friends and do not have faith in the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.

Column 829

Dr. Cunningham : Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the news of tomorrow's poll--or perhaps he has seen it and is ignoring it. The greatest criticism of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should have come from the Leader of the House, but perhaps I understand why he did not make it. The hon. Gentleman seems to want to remove the Government one Minister at a time. It will be quicker and far better for the country for them all to be removed together.

Mr. MacGregor : I am happy to await the verdict on that matter. Meanwhile, there is general agreement this evening that the House should proceed to pass the order. Therefore, I am happy to sit down. Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Column 830

PETITION

Human Rights (Kashmir)

10.21 pm

Next Section

Home Page