| Home Page |
Column 915
Kuwait Border (Iraqi Violations)
3.32 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Iraq-Kuwait border.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of violations by the Iraqis of the border with Kuwait. The United Nations Secretary- General reported on 10 January that, on that morning, a party of some 200 Iraqis with trucks and heavy loading equipment forced entry into six ammunition bunkers in a former Iraqi naval base at Umm Qasr on Kuwaiti territory and took away most of their contents, including four anti-ship Silkworm missiles. Later that day, 500 Iraqis continued to dismantle prefabricated buildings in the former naval base. Similar violations have continued until today.
The Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that these activities were in violation of the procedures established by the Security Council. The Security Council responded on 11 January with a statement condemning the action taken by Iraq which constituted further material breaches of Security Council resolution 687, which established the formal ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war. The council demanded that Iraq co- operate fully with the United Nations Iraq/Kuwait observer mission--UNIKOM- -and warned Iraq of the serious consequences that would flow from continued defiance. We hope that Iraq will not miscalculate, that the violations of the border will cease immediately, as will other Iraqi provocations, and that Iraq will comply with all United Nations resolutions.
Mr. Robertson : We fully understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot be here but has to be in Brussels this evening.
Is the Minister aware that there is wide international agreement that the conduct of President Saddam Hussein in the last few days has been designed as a deliberate and calculated provocation by a despicable regime, which calls in one breath for constructive dialogue and with the next says that it will recover Kuwait again? Is he further aware that there is no question but that Saddam Hussein must comply with the provisions of the United Nations Security Council resolutions that formed the basis for the ceasefire at the end of the Gulf war?
I assure the Minister that the good reasons for implementing the two air exclusion zones over northern and southern Iraq--protection from Saddam's genocidal attacks on the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south--remain as valid as they ever were. The imposition of the two air exclusion zones was supported by the Opposition in order to save many lives which were and are still in danger, and for that same reason we shall continue to support the air exclusion zones and their enforcement.
I welcome the assurance that the Foreign Secretary gave the House earlier today--that whatever necessary military action is taken will be taken in accordance with international law. I also strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he will keep the House fully
Column 916
informed of all developments, because that is an assurance which is of extreme importance to hon. Members from both sides.Mr. Hogg : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He is right : Saddam Hussein must comply with the Security Council resolutions. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the no -fly zones. He is right to say that Iraq must not infringe the zones.
I can give the assurance once again that any action that may be contemplated at any stage by any party would proceed in accordance with international law. I can also assure the House once again that any material acts of any kind will be reported to the House.
Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : Everybody supports action against Saddam Hussein to make sure that he complies with United Nations resolutions, but will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action is taken with the agreement and support of our Arab allies in the Gulf war?
Mr. Hogg : It is very important that our Arab allies should support any action that the international community might deem appropriate ; that is why it is important that any appropriate action should proceed in accordance with international law.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Does the Minister agree that it is not just border incursions but the deployment of anti-aircraft missiles in southern Iraq and the interference with the United Nations arms inspection teams' rights to fly into Baghdad which mount up to a worrying picture? Is it not necessary to remind Saddam Hussein that he finds himself in the position that he does today only because of his invasion of a neighbouring member state of the United Nations?
In view of the disturbing report this morning by Saddam Hussein's press officer in an Iraqi newspaper that Iraq intends to "retake Kuwait", is it not important that the Government enjoy cross-party support in the House for whatever action they take in an international context against Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Hogg : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for the remarks that have already been made this afternoon. I agree with the great importance of proceeding in accordance with international law and maintaining cross-House agreement. It also needs to be said that the violations that the right hon. Gentleman has described amount to a pattern of conduct which must be deeply deplored.
Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no United Nations aid has reached the south of Iraq for many months, nor are there any plans for it to be sent, and that the recent meagre aid flows to the Kurds in the north were fire-bombed and have now ceased completely? Therefore, does he agree that the memorandum of understanding and the United Nations' plans to send food to the south and the north are in rags and tatters and that nothing save intervention on the ground will save millions of people in the north and hundreds of thousands in the south from death by starvation this winter?
Column 917
Mr. Hogg : As the House is well aware, my hon. Friend has been deeply involved in trying to take assistance to the people of south Iraq. She deserves all our praise.
The suffering in south Iraq, especially among the Shia people, is one of the reasons why it was thought right to impose a no-fly zone south of parallel 32.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Has not the ceasefire agreement been systematically broken over the past two years, ever since it was signed by Iraq's criminal regime? Saddam Hussein has taken every possible opportunity to test and tease the allies. I understand the difficulties that arose when the war of aggression against Kuwait was decisively defeated ; but does not the Minister appreciate that many people--probably not least those in Iraq--are asking why the allies did not take the opportunity of ending once and for all the bloodstained tyranny that has been responsible for so many deaths and tortures in Iraq, and for all that has occurred since the invasion of Kuwait?
Mr. Hogg : I well understand why people ask on occasion why Saddam Hussein was not removed at the end of the Gulf war. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, however, that we were part of a coalition acting under the authority of the United Nations, for the purposes authorised by the Security Council and none other. Had we tried to go beyond the scope of those authorised purposes, the coalition would have fallen apart--and, incidentally, Ministers would have betrayed the word that they gave hon. Members in the House.
Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Saddam Hussein has won every move on the board? He is still in power, and he is still mocking all the western countries and treating them as a laughing stock.
What worries me particularly is the fact that, for some years, one of my constituents has been waiting for compensation for the death of her husband in Baghdad. There has been no movement whatever. The United Nations compensation committee has agreed that she should receive compensation, but Saddam Hussein simply refuses to sell oil for that purpose. Is it not time that he was taught a fundamental lesson in keeping his word? Should we not go in and do exactly what the United Nations has recommended, instead of playing what amounts to a game of draughts with him? Is it not time for firm action?
Mr. Hogg : I do not agree with my hon. Friend's observation that Saddam Hussein has won every game on the board. He has not. He invaded Iran ; he lost that war, and tens of thousands of his people were killed. He invaded Kuwait ; he lost that war too, and again tens of thousands of his people were killed. His country is now in a state of ruin. That is not winning every game on the board.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) : The Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was disingenuous, to say the least. Hostilities ceased because of American domestic political opinion, not because our forces would have been acting beyond the constraint of the United Nations resolution ; and the Republican Guard army units just north of our forces should have been taken out.
Will the Minister tell us which idiot left those Silkworms where they are? They pose a real threat.
Column 918
Mr. Hogg : I was responding to a specific question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)--whether we should in some way have deprived Saddam Hussein of the leadership of Iraq. My point was that we were acting within the authority given to us by the Security Council ; we could not go outside that authority without the coalition falling apart, and without Ministers having misled the House in previous statements.
Sir George Gardiner (Reigate) : I refer to my right hon. and learned Friend's comment about the need to maintain the coalition at the end of the Gulf war. Will he give a further assurance that, if counter-action against Saddam Hussein is authorised, at least he will do his level best to ensure that this time the effort does not fall short of the objectives to be achieved?
Mr. Hogg : We shall proceed, in anything we do, in accordance with the principles of international law.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Why does not the Government more strenuously support the Iraqi opposition abroad, and in particular the Iraqi National Congress? Should not moneys owned by the Iraqi Government in the form of assets abroad be defrozen in part and handed to the INC to promote its internal campaigning in Iraq and to give it credibility in Baghdad?
Mr. Hogg : We have done various things to encourage the Iraqi opposition. We welcome the fact that a broad-based opposition is developing because that provides the people of Iraq with an alternative. As to compensation and assets, the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting proposal that has not yet been advanced. I can see two obvious difficulties. It would be a clear breach of the Security Council resolution freezing those assets, and there is a whole range of other claims on them. However I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point, as I do on all his points.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Has my right hon. and learned Friend held any discussions with the Kuwaiti Government, and will he confirm that it is no use the international community extending threats to Saddam Hussein, but that it must publicly be seen to be prepared to act?
Mr. Hogg : Discussions with the Kuwaiti Government have continued over many months, and will naturally continue. As to Iraq's violations of Kuwait, it is important for us to say that Iraq must comply with the Security Council resolutions and cease its violations of the no-fly zone-- otherwise it will be exposed to great risk.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Count some of us out of the so-called all-party, cross-party agreement. Why is it that Al Ahram and the rest of the authoritative Egyptian press are against military action ? Was not the Foreign Secretary's candid answer--which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well--to my question on Egyptian and Bahraini support a blunt "No" ? They do not support us in military action in the circumstances.
Mr. Hogg : One interesting aspect of the Security Council discussion and of the debate about Iraq generally is the broad consensus in support of the proposition that Saddam Hussein must comply with Security Council
Column 919
resolutions and cease to infringe the no-fly zones. There is very broad agreement for the proposition that, if Iraq does not do those things, it faces serious consequences.Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)--that Saddam Hussein has twice been severely defeated in the battlefield recently, but why do we continue to permit him to turn military defeat into propaganda victory ? What steps are the Government taking in the Security Council to obtain its authority to take action to stop once and for all Saddam Hussein's retreat and cheat tactics ?
Mr. Hogg : The best thing we can do to deflate Saddam Hussein's reputation is to explain the facts. They point to continued and dramatic failure--loss of the war against Iran, loss of the war in Kuwait, and a total destruction of Iraq's economy. That pattern of failure has seldom been surpassed.
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) rose --
Madam Speaker : Mr. George Gardiner--I mean Mr. George Galloway.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : My hon. Friend is much better looking.
Madam Speaker : My apologies all round.
Mr. Galloway : Notwithstanding the consensus that exists across the Front Benches, I must say--like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)--that, whatever bloody act has been planned, it will not be done in my name, in the name of many people in this country or in the name of many members of the coalition that fought the Gulf war only a couple of years ago. Does not the Minister understand that, in the Islamic world and elsewhere, the new coalition is regarded as a bunch of bloody hypocrites? They are ready to pulverise Iraq for its transgressions against international agreements, yet stand
Column 920
by and watch while Israel--which for nearly 40 years has been breaking every international law in the book--expels, imprisons, tortures and kills people in occupied territories every day of the week ; and they do absolutely nothing while Bosnian Muslims are massacred in the centre of Europe. They will be seen as a bunch of hypocrites and will receive the response from the international community that they deserve.Mr. Hogg : The hon. Gentleman's threat that he will be unable to support any action that we may have in mind is a threat that can be borne with equanimity.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Given that, sadly, my right hon. Friend has unfinished business still to be accomplished, will he ensure that, rather than concentrating on the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, Her Majesty's Government and their western allies will concentrate on creating an effective no-go zone for Iraqi troops on the ground in neighbouring Kuwait? Will he also ensure that any further incursions into Kuwait by Iraqi forces or civilians will not go unpunished--because, if they do, Saddam Hussein will be further emboldened to defy international opinion and international law and to commit further acts of aggression?
Mr. Hogg : My hon. Friend will have heard me say in answer to the private notice question that the Secretary-General is of the opinion that what has happened in Kuwait constitutes a serious breach of the relevant procedures. In answer to his question, let me make it plain that Iraq must comply with the resolutions of the Security Council and must cease to infringe the no-fly zone. If she does not, she faces very serious consequences.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : As some sort of military response on the part of the Gulf war coalition seems more and more probable, can the Minister comment on reports that, this time round, the use of airfields in Turkey will be denied to the coalition forces?
Mr. Hogg : I do not wish to speculate about matters of that kind.
Column 921
Points of Order
3.52 pm
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have already given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order concerning a Scottish Office memorandum sent by the parliamentary clerk to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). The parliamentary clerk informed the hon. Gentleman that he would be tabling a question for him on transport subsidies of the "good news" type, saying that it should not present him with any difficulties. The answer duly appeared at column 466 of Hansard of 17 December. The parliamentary question's signature was indistinct. Having referred to earlier instances in Hansard, I know that former Speakers have taken a very serious view of such matters. For example, Hansard of 20 November 1975 refers to a similar incident involving two former Members--George Cunningham and Jeremy Thorpe. On that occasion, the Speaker was unequivocal in his statement that no Member can table a Question for another Member unless he has the agreement of that Member--in other words, unless that second Member wishes the Question to be tabled.
In this case, it was a civil servant who tabled the Question. That is completely against the rules of the House and also against the civil service compromise, being in pursuit of the objectives not of the Government but of political masters. Given that disgraceful state of affairs, I am referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. But, more than anything, I seek your view and your guidance, Madam Speaker, on what should be done to ensure that hon. Members are protected and the integrity of the House is maintained.
Madam Speaker : The hon. Member has raised what is potentially a very serious matter. I should like an opportunity further to examine the circumstances, after which I shall give a considered ruling.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the problems we face in Tayside with the weather. You will also be aware that I made an application under Standing Order No. 20. Can you tell me whether I did anything that was out of order? If so, can you tell me how I can go about changing my ways?
Madam Speaker : What the hon. Gentleman did was in order. He also knows that I seriously consider such matters, and I give no reasons for my decision. I know that he will not press me.
Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a serious aspect to the point raised. Has the Secretary of State for Social Security informed you whether he intends to come to the House to make a statement on the very severe weather conditions which have affected Scotland and many other parts of Britain in the past few days, leaving many elderly and infirm people trapped in their homes
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman need not argue the case with me. I can answer him and the whole House : no Minister has informed me that he wishes to make a statement.
Column 922
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As part of the changed ways of the House, brought about by Mr. Speaker Weatherill but not practised by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd and many of his predecessors, one could make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the unsatisfactory nature of a statement in answer to a private notice question or questions themselves. Against that background, I should like to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 on the imminent military action to be taken against Iraq. The House will know that there are deep issues as to whether the Gulf allies, especially Egypt and Bahrain, have in any way
Madam Speaker : Order. Let me put this to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise him regularly in the House which allows him to put across his opinion. I value that, and I know that he values it. However, he cannot now argue the case with me again. No new facts have arisen whereby he can now make an application under Standing Order No. 20. He made such an application earlier today which I could not hear. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept what I have to say. Mr. Dalyell rose --
Madam Speaker : Is it further to the point of order?
Mr. Dalyell : Yes, and there is also a point of principle. We cannot know whether ministerial answers will be satisfactory or unsatisfactory. In the case of the Foreign Secretary, a number of my hon. Friends gasped at the answer that he gave to a factual question. We could not know that the Secretary of State would not answer the question about Egypt and Bahrain, but evade it.
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue the policy with me. New factors must arise before I can allow an application to be made under Standing Order No. 20. New factors have not arisen, and the hon. Gentleman cannot argue the matter with me now. He can make an application under Standing Order No. 20 tomorrow or at any other time, but not now.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker--
Madam Speaker : No, there is nothing further to that point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : Further to the point of order on the weather conditions in Scotland, Madam Speaker. I refer to the issue of applications made under Standing Order No. 20 and the allocation of them. You will appreciate that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was not the only hon. Member to make an application under Standing Order No. 20 today and to have his application rejected.
When severe weather conditions prevailed in London and the south of England some two years ago, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security gave contradictory statements daily in the House until new regulations were tabled--a minor improvement. Many of us who represent Scottish constituencies now face the position in which many of our pensioners and disabled
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Lady is trying my patience. I have already dealt with that matter. She put in
Column 923
a Standing Order No. 20 application to me earlier. She knows full well that I cannot hear it. She must not pursue the matter with me now.Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the private notice question on Iraq a Conservative Member said that all Members of this House supported military action. You rightly called some Opposition Members to refute that and say that it would not be done in their name. But, of course, that did not give the opportunity to all Members of Parliament who oppose such military action, such as myself, to put it on the record that we oppose--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate. I do my very best to call Members representing a variety of opinion in this House. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that President Bush has just authorised an air attack on Iraq. We have just had a statement from the Minister of State but that news was not given to us. I wonder whether exceptionally you could extend for a further period questions to the Minister so that we can find out whether the action is taken in compliance with security--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I do not have that authority.
Mr. Winnick : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give some guidance on Standing Order No. 20. As you know, at one time--certainly when my party was in government--there were six or seven applications a day at least on some occasions. There were few days, if any, when the Conservative Opposition did not have the opportunity-- unsuccessfully on most occasions--of submitting three or four applications. You were here at the time in another capacity and you were aware of that practice.
I am also aware that your predecessor made certain changes to the interpretation of the Standing Order, which presumably you also apply. May I bring it to your attention that in 1979 a debate took place on the Floor of the House on a recommendation by the then Procedure Committee that Members should not be in a position to make an application for an emergency debate? Fortunately, that recommendation was defeated. When a Back Bencher makes a Standing Order No. 20 application it usually means that you will hear it and no more. Perhaps unfortunately, it is rare that an application is successful.
May I have your guidance, Madam Speaker? Are you saying that it would be useful, perhaps before one submits an application to your office, to accept that it has become a rare occurrence even to be in a position to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20?
Although my views are diametrically opposite to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has unsuccessfully made an application, surely the subject that he wished to raise is of great significance. As a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, does he not have a right like the rest of us at least to put a case to you for an emergency debate?
Column 924
Madam Speaker : So long as the basic requirements of the Standing Order are met, that is perfectly in order. However, Standing Order No. 20 applications are made to me regularly by many Members every day. As Speaker, I have to determine whether the criteria are met so that the application might be heard. I read many applications every day of a working week.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Government seek to make a statement tonight you will grant permission for a Minister to make a statement about any possible aggressive action by the United States, using the name of the United Nations or any other combination? Will the annunciators give adequate notice to Members that a statement will be made tonight, should the Government make a statement? In the view of many Members, they ought to make a statement.
Madam Speaker : That is somewhat hypothetical at this stage, but as usual I will look extremely carefully at any request that is made to me at any time. We must now proceed.
BILLS PRESENTED
Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland)
Mr. Phil Gallie presented a Bill to amend section 23(2) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 in relation to certain planning certificates : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
Animal Experimentation (Cosmetics)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Don Dixon, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Norman Hogg, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of animals in the development and testing of cosmetics : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]
Ban of Imports (Child Labour)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Dr. John Reid, Mr. David Marshall, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mr. Thomas Graham, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of imported goods, the manufacture of which has involved child labour : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
Gaming Machines (Prohibitions on use by Persons Under Eighteen)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, supported by Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. Mike Watson, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of gaming machines in cafes, small shops, amusement arcades, snack bars, fairgrounds and other places by persons under the age of eighteen : and the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 January, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
Column 925
Energy (Fair Competition)
4.4 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate unfair competition in the import, production and sale of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, electricity and other primary and secondary energy sources.
The aim of this Bill is unashamedly to save the pits and to defend coalfield communities. This is an appropriate day on which to introduce the measure as, 100 years ago today, Keir Hardie, who had been a Scottish miners' leader, met fellow socialists at the inaugural conference of the Independent Labour party. The conference was held in Bradford and at that time Keir Hardie was editor of the paper that he had founded, which was appropriately named "The Miner". By 1893, Hardie was already a Member of Parliament and was fighting the cause of the unemployed. My Bill is directed at preventing further unemployment today, and is, I hope, in the tradition of that great Labour pioneer.
The need for my Bill arises because of the Government's failure even to debate in the House the threatened pit closure programme. All that we have heard from the Government is a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 19 October, almost three months ago. It has been left to the Opposition to raise the issue, through an Opposition day debate, through initiatives by Members at Question Time, and on an earlier ten- minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). Otherwise, the pit closure issue has emerged only through the invaluable work undertaken by the Select Committees on Trade and Industry and on Employment.
Deep-mined coal faces a crazy situation. Mines are breaking productivity records, yet a fixed and fiddled energy market denies British Coal the opening to sell sufficient of its highly efficient production. The Bill will unfix the fix against the coal industry. It is a fix to guarantee sales to uncompetitive producers in the nuclear power industry and gas- fired power stations, while electricity is also being unfairly imported through a French interconnector and dumped imports of foreign coal, and through orimulsion, which has a high sulphur content.
Under the legislation to establish electricity privatisation, regional electricity companies are obliged to purchase a slice of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. In practice, such purchases come overwhelmingly from nuclear power. In addition, there is an 11 per cent. levy on electricity supplied to consumers from fossil fuel generation. Under the arrangement, nuclear power generation is subsidised to the tune of £1.3 billion per year and it is set to remain in place until 1998. The subsidy is being used to extend the lives of the obsolete Magnox stations and for the construction of Sizewell B.
The Bill will offer the Government two options : either the nuclear levy will be abolished and assistance be provided only to the nuclear industry for decommissioning projects, which will lead to the closure of the high- cost Magnox power stations and create a market for between 7 and 8 million tonnes a year, or the coal industry will have to receive the same subsidy as the nuclear industry--a move that would lead to a dramatic growth of export revenues for our home production and stimulate growth in the British economy.
Column 926
Gas-fired stations are being built independently of National Power and PowerGen. Their new capacity would displace 30 million tonnes of coal a year. In the main, the gas-fired stations have important links with the regional electricity companies-- often through an equity stake. Those stations have already secured or intend to secure long-term sweetheart contracts with their regional electricity companies. Those contracts will usually last up to 15 years. The link between the electricity producer and the supplier makes economic sense to the regional electricity companies, but not to the customers. The new gas-fired stations wil be more expensive than the existing coal-fired ones. My Bill would halt that economic madness by suspending long-term contracts for those gas-fired stations and by obliging them to sell their electricity in open competition. As a result, some 20 projects in the pipeline would probably be dropped, and gas burn would be reduced at other stations. That would also preserve United Kingdom reserves which would otherwise be dangerously depleted.There is a two-way link between the national grid and France, but, in practice, it has become a one-way system for the import of French electricity to Britain. That has occurred in part because of the competitive advantage given to French electricity by the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales. The current contract with the French expires in March 1993, and my Bill is designed to prevent it from being renewed. That would create a market for 7 million tonnes of coal a year.
It would be of little competitive advantage to the deep-mined coal industry of Britain, however, if its potential sales were mainly picked up through further coal imports and the expansion of opencast production. There is evidence that coal imported into the European Community, including the United Kingdom, is being exported at prices below those at which such coal would be sold on its domestic market, and below its production cost.
My Bill would therefore ban the import of coal into Britain unless it could be proven not to be dumped here. Certified and checkable claims would have to be issued for the place of origin of that coal, its home market price and the cost of production. Furthermore, my Bill would require action by Britain, through the European Commission, to seek to extend that practice into other member states. For instance, 95 per cent. of Danish electricity is produced from coal that is currently imported from Colombia, but that contract is shortly to be transferred to South Africa.
The opencast coal potential in Britain is massive. The remaining pits in Derbyshire are threatened with closure, but the area is in danger of being swamped by opencast mining, which would result in massive social and environmental costs. Opencast mining, however, occupies a uniquely privileged position in the United Kingdom planning system. Mining planning guidance note 3--MPG 3--provides presumptions in favour of such planning applications and inhibits the work of local authorities seeking to act on behalf of their communities' interests.
My Bill would abolish MPG 3. Stricter conditions would be laid down for opencast applications, to include the distance of the sites from communities and the need for rail links for the movement of coal from those mines. My Bill would contain a formula to ensure the guaranteed life of all existing pits, which would ensure that commercial practices and delegated legislation are not subsequently
| Next Section
| Home Page |