Lords Sitting of 16 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

AUSTRALIAN URANIUM: NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of the draft agreement with Australia prohibiting the use of uranium imported from that country for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Kingdom-Australia nuclear safeguards Agreement will shortly be initialled by officials. The Agreement will be published as soon as the procedures of Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty are completed and the Agreement can be formally signed.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the Agreement, I should like to ask the Government whether they would consider extending it on an international scale, now that five Governments—Canada, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and India—have accepted the principles? Could not the Proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty be extended to become also a non-proliferation of uranium for nuclear arms treaty?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that this Agreement, which is imminent for initialling, and which we hope will be signed within the next few weeks, will be an important contribution towards the aims which
674
my noble friend has in mind. He will be aware, as is the House, that both parties—Australia and the United Kingdom—are actively and constructively engaged in what is known as the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation, which has a strong bearing on the points raised by my noble friend.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, did the noble Lord mention the Euratom Treaty? Can he explain to the House the extent to which the European Economic Community is involved in the process that he has been describing?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the EEC is concerned in two ways, as no doubt the noble Lord knows. In discussing this Agreement we have taken full account of the provisions of the Euratom Treaty to which we are parties. Secondly, there is provision in that Treaty, under Article 103, whereby any bilateral agreement of this sort shall be considered within the month—I think this is the point being made by the noble Lord—by the Commission to see whether it accords in every important particular with the provisions of the Euratom Treaty. I have absolutely no apprehensions that the Commission will find in the Agreement, when it examines it, anything which will create difficulty for the Commission or for us.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the pursuance of the non-proliferation for arms purposes is being done in such a way as to guarantee that there will be proper availability of processing uranium waste in order to make certain that it is used for peaceful purposes and not for warlike purposes?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: That, indeed, my Lords, is the essential purpose of this Agreement. Both countries are, of course, already parties to the IAEE safeguards system. Additionally, I should like once more to stress that we are both parties to the evaluation that I mentioned. It is world-wide and brings in all significant nuclear countries with a view not only to ensuring safeguards but looking to the larger question of the peaceful dissemination and availability of nuclear technology.

MUSEUMS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS: CUSTODIANS
11.10 a.m.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, may I apologise to the House for the fact that, although this Question was on the Order Paper last Friday, I was unavoidably detained at the last moment from being here, and I regret any inconvenience caused either to the Minister or the House.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans are in contemplation for removing custodians from a number of museums and historic sites in the protection of the Directorate of Ancient Monuments; and whether they have considered the effect any such action would have on the tourist industry as well as inconvenience to the general public.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that apology. As part of the essential exercise to reduce the cost of Civil Service manpower, the number of all-the-year-round custodians at Ancient Monuments in the Department of the Environment's care has unfortunately had to be reduced, but additional seasonal staff are being employed in summer so that monuments will still be open to the public, although more will be left unattended in winter. At several unmanned sites it is proposed to install vending machines for the sale of guide books. I expect the effect on the tourist industry to be negligible.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether the Minister would be good enough to indicate in some detail what will be the result of these economies? Am I right in thinking that some one hundred custodians will become redundant? Am I right in thinking that some museums, such as the museum at Rich-borough, and Maison Dieu at Ospringe, and Thornton Abbey in Lincolnshire,
676
will be closed? Is the Minister aware that, as a result of this step a number of famous and ancient monuments will, presumably, be left unattended, with consequent inconvenience to the public and increased risk of vandalism? Would the Minister be good enough to publish a list to show precisely the effect of these proposals?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. That is quite a considerable number of supplementary questions. May I first say that as it is my departmental responsibility for this particular area, I feel very unhappy that we have had to do this at all, but as my noble friend will appreciate, my colleagues in my own Department and right across the Government all have their own particular areas where they also do not want cuts. What we are trying to do, if possible, is to take the greatest care to maintain and also to improve our service in the summer and economise in winter. At some monuments, I must point out, the takings in winter were found to be less than £10 a week. We are also trying, and have been all the time, not to leave unattended those monuments which will be open to vandalism. Some of the monuments are less fragile than others, as my noble friend is aware, and at those that are very little visited in winter we do have to economise as long as there is no danger to the monuments.
My noble friend also asked me about museums such as Richborough. The collection has been removed from Rich-borough, both for conservation and security reasons, and its future is still under consideration. I cannot at the moment—and I also think it is very much better if I do not even start—hazard figures about reductions because at this particular time I am in the process of trying to see how I can find ways of not reducing manpower beyond absolute necessity. I should be very grateful if my noble friend would leave that point while I am trying to get matters sorted out. I can only assure him that there will be no custodian loss from any monument if I can possibly avoid it. If when I go through Hansard I see some points which he raised (because he raised quite a number) on which he has not had a reply or on which I think it would be useful for me to write to him, I will do so, as I think it would be better.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness bear in mind that I am absolutely against the policy, and would she accept my congratulations as she seems to be against it too? The custodians are marvellous people and I think it would be a great deprivation to very many people if they were no longer there to give the help and advice that they do to tourists visiting these monuments of ours. So will she kindly do everything she can to stop their departure?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I certainly will. This is what I am trying to do. I am very well aware that many of the custodians are greatly attached to the monument and they act as very knowledgeable guides, and people come and see them time after time. It is this human aspect as well that I think is so important.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the most serious aspect of this matter is that these monuments and museums are in the care of the Department of the Environment, and that not to have a custodian is a very serious matter for the country as a whole? Could she indicate what she thinks the savings from this exercise will be?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to point out that the National Trust has to follow the same line, and some of the buildings in its care also have to go uncared for in winter. I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer now, because the exercise is being conducted at this moment, but I can tell her that, over all, the admissions and sales from monuments in our care come to £6,048,000. That is gross take. But the expenditure on them is £14½ million, so we are very much in the red despite this income.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will the noble Baroness realise that she has many allies in the battle that obviously she is waging within the Department? I had a responsibility similar to hers for a number of years, and I know that that section of the Department does not carry the support it ought to have from the other parts. She ought to bear in mind that this section has a potential which would justify spending more money on it. The place
678
to save manpower is where manpower is not likely to produce anything and has no future. But here, with tourism and the necessity of attracting people from overseas as well as keeping our own people within the country for their holidays, there is a great potential for producing something, and in fighting that battle she will have allies in all parts of the House and elsewhere.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. Every point he raised I have made constantly both within and outside the Department, but I am glad to have it said again.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the figures of an intake of £6 million and outgoings of £14 million really ought to be split up? £6 million is the takings. What part of the £14 million is properly charged against that £6 million and what part of the £14 million is concerned with the care and upkeep of what, after all, are ancient buildings, including the ancient custodians?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the £14½ million refers to the care of the buildings and the staff—the upkeep and maintenance of the buildings and everything that goes with that. As my noble friend is well aware, there is such a thing as non-hypothecation and there are problems associated with that, although we are fighting that battle as well.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what thought she is giving in these circumstances to supplementing the work of the full-time professional custodians with voluntary custodians and part-time custodians?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there are other problems associated with that matter, of which the noble Lord will be aware. In some instances it is possible and in other instances it is a matter in which, quite understandably, the unions have a particular point to make.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—I do so as something of an ancient monument myself—whether she will bear in mind that these ancient monuments are a vital part of British history and any attempt to

679
economise might be false economy if any of them are damaged or ruined?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, to what extent are the custodians in question industrially mobile? Are they of an age at which they are likely to get employment elsewhere?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords; this is one of the problems. On the whole, they are elderly men and women and it is difficult for them to get employment elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why I am trying to retain as many of them as possible. It is also true that for many of them it is very difficult to be mobile.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, may I assure the noble Baroness that we all appreciate her sympathetic approach to this matter and hope that this debate will strengthen her hand in dealing with her colleagues. But I think it is desirable to ask whether, in due course, she will publish for the benefit of all those interested the details of which monuments will be denuded of a custodian and which museums, such as Richborough, will find their contents moved elsewhere?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I intend to do that. I shall be quite prepared, when I have sorted out this information, to publish it, because it is extremely important that this information should be available for guides, for the tourist authorities and boards. That is exactly what I want to do. Perhaps my noble friend will put down a Question for Written Answer at the appropriate time.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, before my noble friend does that and puts the figures into the record, could she spell "non-hypothecation" so that I may look it up in the dictionary?
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, I am anxious that this should not get out of hand. May I ask whether it is appreciated that, under ancient monuments, there could be repercussions regarding the protection of geological monuments, which could not be more ancient, of course? It could go in that direction and I am
680
rather anxious about it. May I ask the Minister for reassurance that it will be confined only to very narrow institutional situations?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must confess that I am not completely sure that I heard or perhaps quite understood the point of the noble Lord's question. I wonder whether I might read it and write to him.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with regard to the protection of certain ancient monuments, has the noble Baroness's Department thought fit to exchange details with the Home Office, so that the police may be informed of areas in question?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that it affects this point. Where there is knowledge that there may be vandalism the police are automatically informed; but very often it is so far off the beaten track that I think that the Home Office would then tell me that there were not enough police for that to be done.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report he now agreed to.
The Report was as follows:
"1. DISPLAY OF HISTORIC DOCUMENTS
The Committee agreed to a recommendation from the Administration Sub-Committee that the historic documents, including the Death Warrant of Charles I, now on display in the Salisbury Room, should in future be on public display in the Royal Gallery.
2. PRIVILEGES FOR HUSBANDS OF WOMEN PEERS
The Committee agreed to a recommendation from the Administration Sub-Committee that husbands of women Peers should be entitled to sit below the Bar on the Spiritual side of the House, to use the Peeresses' Gallery and to have access to the Prince's Chamber for the purpose of signing a book.
3. PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING
The Committee approved provision to meet the cost of additional temporary staff to reproduce essential House papers at times when the Stationery Office is unable to print them.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee were informed of the promotion of Mr. B. P. Keith to Senior Clerk.
The Committee agreed, in principle, to an increase in 1979 in the authorised complement of Clerks to 19, plus 2 seconded.
5. DEPARTMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of a review of the Doorkeeper and Attendant grades and agreed to the regrading of:

2 Doorkeeper posts to a new grade of Senior Doorkeeper, and

1 Attendant post to a new grade of Senior Attendant.

The Committee recommended that, subject to pay policy, an early opportunity be taken to review the differential between the grade of Senior Doorkeeper and the Principal and Second Principal Doorkeepers.
6. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised

(a) revised charges for the supply of typists for the reporting of Debates; and

(b) revised attendance fees to permanent staff when the House sits after 10.30 p.m.

7. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee approved an increase in the scale of fees for the Official Shorthand Writer.
8. PALACE OF WESTMINSTER TELEPHONES
The Committee were informed of the proposed employment of an Assistant Communications Manager and authorised payment of the appropriate share of the cost of this new post.
9. NEWS SERVICE
The Committee approved payment of the House of Lords' share of an increased rental for the teleprinter news service.
10. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the award of a Transfer value payment to the European Parliament in respect of Mr. David Dewar's service in the House of Lords from 5 March 1962 to 3 September 1973."
Moved, that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INNER URBAN AREAS BILL
11.24 a.m.
Baroness BIRK: 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.—(Baroness Birk,)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Designation of districts by Secretary of State]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("social").
The noble Lord said: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also had in mind Amendment No. 2. With these two Amendments we are in the general area of discussing the criteria by which the special inner areas to be designated by the Secretary of State should be chosen. They have in fact already all been chosen. This was a matter on which in another place they spent two days in committee. I think that perhaps we can dispatch it just as thoroughly in rather less time, because we have been greatly helped by the Written Answer to a Question only last week, in which the Secretary of State fulfilled the obligation undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during the Committee stage in another place, to publish in some form the criteria by which these districts were to be chosen and selected. He said at the time that it would be in the form of a circular, or possibly so. I think that would have been very much better and I hope that it might still be considered, because a Written Answer is hardly a firm enough foundation on which to base judgments from which so much else will flow.
However, for the first of these two Amendments, the Secretary of State's Answer to the Written Question is really quite sufficient to indicate that the words "social need" are really inappropriate. The effect of my Amendment would be to make the main criteria read,
"If the Secretary of State is satisfied—
(a) that special need exists in any inner urban area in Great Britain".
In another place my honourable and right honourable friends were concerned to import into the Bill at this point a rather elaborate and I think cumbersome Amendment which attempted to summarise in statutory form what occupied in an already pretty condensed form the whole of Part II of the Government's White Paper, which set out the nature of the problem with which we are dealing in this Bill. That included—just reading the paragraph headings—economic decline, physical decay, social disadvantage, ethnic minorities—by which is meant an unusually high proportion of ethnic minorities—and so on. That cannot possibly be described barely as "social need" and I think therefore that some amendment is necessary. I take the view that was expressed by the

683
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place, that to attempt to import it into the Bill was a forlorn attempt and it was therefore better to carry the ideas expressed in three or four pages of the White Paper into something like a circular, and to leave out the single misleading word "social" in the Bill itself.
Now we have the Secretary of State's Written Answer, and as all members of the Committee may not have seen it perhaps I could just read one or two sentences from it. It says:
"Every urban area has a different combination of social and economic stress and, one could easily add, environmental decay. In some districts there are small areas of intense deprivation and dereliction while in others the problems are more evenly distributed. In some areas housing and social difficulties predominate, in others unemployment is the main problem."
So whatever you think of that, my Lords, it is not accurate to describe it merely as "social need", and that is my chief reason, now reinforced by the Secretary of State, for leaving out the word "social" at this point in the Bill.
Later on, in the next Amendment, I am suggesting that when the Secretary of State by order does specify any district he should include his reasons, which will be based on his own indications in his White Paper and in this Written Answer of what combination of all the various ills to which inner areas are prey exists in any particular one. It will, I suggest, be necessary to do this because otherwise the exercise of the Secretary of State's power will be purely arbitrary, and that is objectionable from the constitutional point of view.
The other reason is that there may be some in whom unworthy suspicions—and I am not of course referring to anybody in this House but to those in other places where people have to fight elections—are apt to arise when marginal seats come into consideration. These need to be suppressed. If we know the precise reasons and can judge the reasons on which the Secretary of State bases his judgment it will be all the easier for those suspicions to be dealt with. So both in his interest and in the interests of clarity and constitutional propriety I think it is necessary to have the second Amendment. But at the moment, all I want to do is to see the word "social" left out and to
684
hear the noble Baroness give her reasons why it should be there now, and why, if she does, she thinks it ought to stay there. However, I hope she will not do that. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained fully his reasons for moving this Amendment, and it has been helpful to speak to both these Amendments, which certainly are very closely linked together. To deal with the first Amendment, to leave out the word "social", the Government intend that the expenditure incurred by local authorities under the powers of the Bill will be eligible for assistance under the urban programme. In the Act which forms the statutory basis of the urban programme, the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, the phrase "special social need" occurs but is not defined any further, and this Bill follows it on. Nevertheless, if a district is suffering from economic difficulties, and consequently has high unemployment or very low average family income, that can be said to be "special social need"; and, as the noble Lord pointed out, this has now been expanded in the Written Answer from my right honourable friend.
If the Amendment were accepted, the question would arise whether the district had been designated because of special social need, or because of special need that in some way lay outside the category of social need. In this case, then, there would be doubt as to whether the urban programme could be used to assist the designated district authorities in exercising the powers of this Bill. This is clearly undesirable and the reason why I think this Amendment should be rejected.
If I link this now with the following Amendment on criteria, the first point is that there are no clear-cut criteria or mathematical rules for deciding the relative severity of social and economic deprivation in one district as opposed to another. One may have extensive dereliction; another very bad housing; a third may be characterised by a low average family income. Here we are talking about matters of judgment, and I do not think that any amount of statistical analysis or adding word after word will remove the need, in the end, for that judgment to be made.

685
Secondly, we are discussing this within the context of the Inner Urban Areas Bill, and the districts which have been selected—and they have all been carefully selected—are in areas which are set in larger conurbations which show the combination of social, environmental and economic problems that is a characteristic of the older and inner parts of our cities. It is not just a question of bad housing. It is not a question of high unemployment, nor just of extensive dereliction. But it can be all three, more, or something quite different. So the range of deprivation to he found in each district has to be a factor in the choice. Thirdly, scale is a factor in itself. One can find pockets of deprivation in virtually any part of the country. We are talking here about sizeable communities, perhaps 50,000–70,000 people in an area with a population of 200,000. Sheer scale is a factor, and this is particularly important in the case of the choice of partnerships.
Fourthly, we have to think about the concentration and intensity of the problems in each district, at least in the indicators of deprivation derived from the 1971 Census—overcrowding, proportion of ethnic minorities, and so on. It is possible there to determine whether there are particular concentrations in certain wards or whether problems are spread evenly over a district. Clearly, if problems are concentrated, that is an important factor. Further, we are concerned with whether 2 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the population in the district are deprived. That is what is meant by the "intensity of deprivation".
Finally, if the powers of the Bill are to give any benefit to the areas with the most acute needs, it follows that they cannot be widely available since this would dilute their effect. So we have to have a limited list, and choosing the designated districts that my right honourable friend announced on 8th May was certainly far from easy, as we all appreciate. It is very difficult to draw lines that separate districts of greater and lesser need, but this is the sort of choice that Governments often have to make. As the noble Lord referred to the fact that my right honourable friend published a great deal of information and also the criteria, I will not go over that. He raised the point of a circular covering this, and we
686
certainly have this in mind once the Bill is enacted, although in view of the announcement last week I doubt whether that will take it much further. In any event, there is a case for saying that a circular to local authorities on the application of the Bill could be helpful in this area.
Finally, the point about the phrase "special social need" is that "social" is a blanket, embracing word which covers all the other points I have mentioned, and also those of the noble Lord—economic, housing, ethnic minorities, and so on. If one starts adding to it, then one comes to the point of where it is to stop. It is now very well understood, and the Written Answer given by my right honourable friend last week has clarified the issue. I should have thought that it was far better to leave it as it is, because it is quite clear to everyone and it is not limiting. This is extremely important. It has far greater flexibility than if one starts specifying.
11.37 a.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I wonder whether I might press the noble Baroness a little further on this. As I have understood her argument, she said that there is no need to amend the clause by leaving out the word "social", because if the word "social" were not included it would not be possible to use the money which comes from the Urban Aid Programme under the 1969 Act. Her second argument, with which she concluded the start to the debate on this Amendment, was that if we did not leave the word "social" in, we would be restricting the clause, which is a rather different argument. I have never myself heard that the word "social" includes "economic" and all the other matters that she has described. I admit that I have not a dictionary beside me, but I should not have thought, to most people, that it did. If it does, however, as she says it does, would it not be wiser to take it out and put something in the interpretation clause so that we know that it does mean? It is quite extraordinary to me to use a term like "social need" in a Bill which, as I read it, is entirely concerned with economic need and industrial regeneration.
It is, of course, perfectly true that on reading the Bill, and futhermore on reading the Press notice which has now

687
been published about it, we see in fact that the Government are taking into account very many other matters, because it is thought that from industrial regeneration other things will flow. I am in no way opposed to that. I think it is an excellent matter. The fact is, however, that a term is used which is not immediately and readily understood to have the meaning which the Government are giving to it. If they are not prepared to take the word out, my first question is, will they put something in the interpretation clause so that we know what it means?
On the second Amendment, to which I will now speak briefly, what the Government are in fact saying is that, as there are no clear-cut criteria for designation, the Secretary of State will decide in each case. As the number of places designated has risen steadily, clearly the criteria for designation are being amended all the time. We are left with the position for local authorities just waiting for the Secretary of State to decide what matters he will consider. It will be very difficult for any other authority, unless it has the detailed social demographic figures and the economic figures that are available in the Government's Press release, to know whether it would qualify, and indeed what mix is required to enable it to qualify. I believe this is a very open-ended commitment; it is something which local government is rightly concerned about, because at the end of the day what authorities are designated will rest entirely with the Secretary of State. It will be very difficult for authorities to know what the criteria have to be on which to establish the designation.
Lord BYERS: On the first Amendment, I would only urge the Government to resist it if it is true that it might put in doubt the Urban Aid Programme so far as inner city regeneration is concerned. This is a very important aspect, and we should not tamper with it unless we are satisfied that it will not jeopardise any part of the regeneration programme.
On the second Amendment I really am worried. I think it is misconceived. To make it mandatory that the Secretary of State shall give all his reasons will do nothing but increase bureacracy. It will also make for delay, a point I am very worried about, because we have to get the impetus working here. It will make
688
for rigidity and for timidity in the local authorities who, according to the noble Baroness, Baroness Young, will want to know what sort of mix is required in order to get the Secretary of State's authority. I do not believe that one will ever be able to define that mix; every one of these areas has different factors and it is the general picture that one has to look at. Going round these inner city areas, as I have, one can sense that there is deep privation and social need. Something must be done. This tries to put every one of these areas into the same mould; this is bureaucracy run mad. I hope the noble Baroness will resist it; she certainly will have our support from these Benches.
Lord NORTHFIELD: May I add just one point? If the noble Baroness will look at the clause again, especially in respect of the second Amendment, it is after all a power that the Minister will exercise by order. Such orders, as is stated later in the Bill, are subject to annulment by usual procedures in the House. It will therefore quickly become the case that if the Minister were to stray beyond what is reasonable in the exercise of this power, prayers will be introduced against the orders and we should gradually build up a system of what one might call case law about the way these powers are exercised. Surely that is a system that is well within the usual discretion and check that we apply in cases like this? I should have thought it would be most unreasonable, particularly because of the dangers pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to introduce the necessity for the Minister to give all sorts of reasons in the first place.
Baroness YOUNG: If I may just take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, of course this will be done by order. I have fully read the clause and I appreciate that point. I might suggest that his thinking, that we should have a major debate in the House by annulling an order on a designated area, would, I think, be the most cumbersome way of dealing with it. I would not be at all in favour of that kind of procedure. May I make it quite clear that I am not in any way wishing to hold up this Bill, nor am I in any way opposed to its aims, because they are important. We are all agreed on that. What my noble friends and I were seeking to do was both to widen its aims

689
and to require the Secretary of State to be slightly more specific than he has been already.
Baroness BIRK: I think that most of the answers to this point have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who put it extremely succinctly and strongly. Also, the point made by my noble friend Lord Northfield has a certain amount of merit. May I make it quite clear that the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, put to me is that special social need is not defined in the 1969 Act and is not defined here. To define it would inevitably restrict the meaning, which is undesirable. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is quite correct in saying that if "social" were to be deleted, it would undoubtedly jeopardise assistance under the 1969 Act.
I must stress again that there is no fixed pattern of desired characteristics for authorities to be designated. I am afraid I must repeat what other noble Lords have said, that problems vary from place to place, and flexibility is absolutely essential if effective policy is to be developed. It is quite true to say, and we are very well aware, that very often it is on a knife edge decision that one authority out of the 43 designated authorities up to date has been designated and one has not; this is a question of finance and resources. It would be not only cumber-some, it would cause enormous trouble among local authorities and create tremendous dissent if reasons had to be given. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, is absolutely correct in saying that in addition it would create enormous delay. This is something that was quite legitimately aired, and I hope that having had this quite wide discussion on it, the noble Baroness will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: We have had a useful debate. I am afraid that to some extent the noble Baroness is using the brief which was prepared for another place to deal with an Amendment by my right honourable friends, who sought to import into the Bill at this point a number of definitions which would have had the effect of narrowing it, and therefore it would have been in some danger of doing what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is
690
afraid of, sewing the whole thing up and introducing a lot of bureacracy.
The purpose of my Amendment is exactly the reverse; it is to widen the definition. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and with the noble Baroness that the Bill builds on the Urban Aid Programme which started from the point of dealing with social deprivation. I can fully understand that that is why we have the word here, but I really think it is stretching the English language to include in a Bill the word "social", without anything in the interpretation of it, without indicating that for the purposes of this Bill it includes such things as environmental decay, unemployment, lack of private investment, employment problems and so on. No reading of the word in ordinary, plain English will allow it to contain all that.
I should have thought therefore that it really is quite easy to amend the Bill, though perhaps not precisely in this way; if not in this way, then in the way my noble friend suggests, putting in the interpretation something to the effect that for the purposes of this Bill the word "social" embraces all these other things. We have had long enough debate now, but I must confess that I am not at all satisfied with the answers we have been given so far. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment I must take him up on one point. I am not reading from a brief that was prepared for another place. I listened very carefully to what was said and replied to the points that were made by noble Lords on this Amendment. When I referred to the narrowing of it, I was talking of the fact that the Secretary of State has to give his reasons, which immediately takes away an area of flexibility and introduces rigidity. I was also explaining what would happen by taking out the word "social", and answering the practical and direct question which was put to me by the noble Baroness. I object to having that sort of innuendo suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.48 a.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No 2:

691
Page 1, line 12, after ("order") insert ("(which shall include his reasons").
The noble Lord said: We have been discussing this Amendment in connection with the other one, and I will take this opportunity to reply to the point the noble Baroness was making. My own view is that the purpose of the Bill should be expressed in wider terms; there has been discussion about that, but for the very reasons which the Secretary of State gives in his Written Answer it seems to be necessary to indicate which combination of all the various reasons for designating a district have weighed with him at this particular moment. His own Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that he would have to exercise a subjective judgment. I have no doubt that in specifying these districts by order he will give the reasons. He has already given in the statistical analysis, which the noble Baroness said would be impracticable, the reasons for which the various areas have been designated; so the difficulties have been surmounted and the reasons are all there for all to see. It seems to me to be constitutionally desirable to incorporate it in the statute, but I will not press the matter now.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Loans for acquisition of or works on land]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment 2A. Lord Sandford. May I point out that there is a misprint on the paper; it should be—page 2, line 6.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2A:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("or
(c) the installation of any plant, machinery or equipment on land thus acquired and in buildings resulting from such works").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment 2A and to apologise for tabling the Amendments on the supplementary list rather late in the day. The reason was that they are all Amendments designed to restore into this Bill some of the flexibilities, virtues and merits which were established in the first pioneering industrial improvement area in the Borough of Rochdale and then incorporated in a Private Bill by the County of Tyne and Wear. It was because I have
692
just been able to visit that county, and a number of other programme and partnership areas in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, that I wanted to be sure that these Amendments were well-founded in current practice, and I find them to be so.
The first Amendment adds to the items which are eligible for grant and loan the costs of installation of any plant, machinery or equipment on land thus acquired—referring to the earlier parts of the clause —and in buildings resulting from such works. The other Amendment, 2B, is consequential to it. I do not know whether the noble Baroness would like to answer this Amendment specifically, or deal with the general point of what it is that has persuaded the Government to depart from what the experiments at Rochdale indicated were necessary and have since been further justified by the practical use of the Tyne and Wear Bill by the districts in that county. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: Before speaking to the Amendment, there is a point, I am afraid, I must make. I noted the noble Lord's aplogy for the short notice given to the Committee on this series of Amendments; I, personally, only heard of the Amendments about 10.15 p.m. last night. I must point out that noble Lords will recall the recommendations of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure which the House accepted. The report referred to the tremendous inconvenience to the House of tabling late Amendments and that:
"The late tabling of amendments is to be strongly deprecated".
I fear, therefore, the Committee and I will find it very difficult to give proper consideration to these Amendments, particularly as the House is sitting at 11 o'clock this morning—consideration which is so important with legislation which affects industry and commerce. They are, incidentally—I think I am right in saying—all Amendments which have not suddenly arisen out of this, but the points concerned in them have, in fact, if I can put it this way, been kicked around for some time. I would say to the noble and reverend Lord, echoing and perhaps paraphrasing what is said in Ecclesiastes: there is a time to sow and a time to reap, a time to speak and a time to refrain from speaking. I would add that there is a time for putting

693
down Amendments, which is not 10 o'clock on the evening before the debate.
Lord SANDFORD: If it would save the time of the Committee, we could, of course, just gloss over them rather briefly and return to them at Report stage. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee about that.
Baroness BIRK: I shall deal with it as best I can, but I do not think this is the point. I am sorry to be in such a rebuking mood today, but it is really not the purpose of the Committee stage to gloss over things briefly and then return to them on Report. Either they are put down when they should be put down, in time to discuss them properly, or they should not be put down at all.
If I can deal with Amendments Nos. 2A and 2B, the Bill is concerned with specific problems associated with inner city areas, obsolete buildings, derelict sites. Now, all firms anywhere have to obtain machinery and, therefore, it is not a specifically inner city problem and this is why this power is not, and we believe should not be, included in the Bill.
There would also be considerable difficulties in implementing the proposal. For instance, what security can be given on a 30-year loan for machinery that lasts for 10 years? What is to prevent the machinery being moved out of the designated district? I think that in this particular Bill, where one is trying to help with, let us always keep remembering this, limited resources, certainly at this stage, it would only complicate things, make it more difficult and spread the financial butter even more thinly. I would ask the Committee to reject the Amendments.
Lord BYERS: I do not propose to speak to the merits of the Amendment, but I really feel that this is an important House of Lords matter, because if we are to disregard the recommendations of the Select Committee, such as that on practice and procedure, I believe we are going to get into very grave difficulties. At its very best, it is, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Lord, extremely thoughtless. It creates a very unfair burden on civil servants. It puts all of us in a very difficult position.
694
I only saw these Amendments at 10.50 this morning and they bear, to some extent, on the Amendments I have put down myself. I really do not think the Committee should be asked to deal with the matter at this short notice. Furthermore, I hope that this will be brought to the attention of noble Lords, Members of the House, who are not present today because this is a matter which affects every single one of us.
Lord SANDFORD: I stand rebuked and I think probably the best thing to do is to leave these matters and I can perhaps have some correspondence and discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, before the next stage and if I still think that it is important for them to be debated, I can put them down, with longer notice, at the next stage.
As the noble Baroness says, they are matters which have been gone into before. They are all clauses and items which are in the Tyne and Wear Bill and I do not think it is a fact that we come to them absolutely fresh. As I said in my initial apology, I appreciate that it is improper and undesirable to introduce Amendments at a late stage like this and for that I apologise. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2B not moved.]
11.56 a.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("; but the council of a designated district shall not make a loan as respects land situated in the same county or region as that district without first consulting the council of the district in which the land is situated.").
The noble Baroness said: Loans under Clause 2 may be made not only in a designated district, but also throughout the county of which the district forms a part, so long as the loan will benefit the designated district itself. This means that a district council for a designated district could make a loan in relation to land in another district and it was suggested by the Opposition in another place when the Bill was discussed there, that this should not be done without the knowledge of the council for that district.
The Government undertook to look at this point and we are now bringing forward this Amendment to require that where a district council for a designated district wants to make a loan in relation to land outside its own area, it must first consult the council for the district in which the land is situated. I beg to move.
11.59 a.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 4:
Line 4, after ("district") insert ("and the council of the county or region").
The noble Lord said: My Amendment to the Amendment seeks to ensure that where the consultation to which it refers is required to take place, something which we very much support, we feel, under an abundance of caution, that the extension accepted in another place to the local authorities included within the ambience of the Bill—namely, county councils—should be included in this clause. In other words, if county councils can now become authorities to benefit from the terms of the Bill, it seems right to me that, in this consultative procedure of consulting other districts within the same area, it would be proper that the county authority in which the district lies should also be consulted.
If it is going to be suggested against me, as was suggested earlier by my noble friend Lord Byers, that this might appear to be bureaucratic, I do not think that it will be, because during the same cycle of consultations taking place with the other districts, such consultations could also be taking place with the county authority. It is out of an abundance of caution that I move this Amendment, because I read carefully Clause 1(2) and I could not see that the definition set out in that subsection included counties.
Therefore, for two reasons, one an abundance of caution in case the subsection does not include counties—and I suspect that it does not—and, secondly, because I think that counties, as demonstrated in debates in another place, should be fully involved in this Bill, I move the Amendment to incorporate counties in the consultative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I am as interested as anybody else in upholding the
696
dignity of the importance of county councils. But as I look at the Bill I see that Clause 2 and this Amendment refer to "designated district authorities". I then turn back the page to Clause 1(2) and I see that "designated district authority" includes the council of a district or the council of the county. So surely the point is already covered by Clause 1?
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: That really is the point. I looked at this all through the day and late into the night, and I cannot be satisfied from the wording there, that a "designated district" clearly includes the council of the county or region in which is that district. If I can have the assurance that it does, as the noble Lord suggests, I shall be delighted to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I think, as I suspected, that what the noble Lord is concerned about is that districts and counties ought to consult each other generally. I agree entirely with that, but I do not think that it needs writing into the Bill. My noble friend Lord Leatherland has pointed out that the designated district authority set out in Clause 1 means the council of that district, and he has explained the matter in that context; and this would apply to all concurrent councils, both under the Bill and under existing legislation. Many powers of local authorities are concurrent under the Local Government Act 1972.
We have put this in in this way here, and it was done at the request of the Conservative Opposition in another place, to write in a legal requirement for consultation where there are certain special circumstances, for example, here one authority is acting outside its own area. Otherwise, if we are to keep on reiterating in the Bill—I am not talking about any other consultation document or of encouraging local authorities to consult—my noble friend Lord Leatherland is right. This is a specific case where land is being used, where there is a legal requirement, and we feel that this should be spelt out rather more specifically than the general encouragement to consult anyway. I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not press the Amendment.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My wish sprang from my experience in metropolitan counties and districts, and it was to avoid one of the main reasons for the virtual breakdown in some areas of cross-communication between districts and county councils, the jealousies and the lack of consultation, and to try to ensure that those problems that local government reorganisation created were not exacerbated in the Bill. In view of the assurance given by the noble Baroness, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: On behalf of my honourable friends in another place and ourselves on this side of the Committee, I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward the Amendment. It meets points that were raised in another place, and we are glad to see them put in this way. I accept what the noble Baroness said about the question of consultation, and I believe that if there was further consultation written into the Bill we should be making unnecessarily bureaucratic requirements to meet this particular need.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4A:
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("designated district").
The noble Lord said: I shall willingly not move this Amendment and others on the supplementary list, but would the noble Baroness agree that between this stage and the next it would be useful to correspond with me on these matters so that I may judge the necessity or otherwise of tabling the Amendments again?
Baroness BIRK: As I understand the noble Lord, he is referring not just to this Amendment but to all the other Amendments on the supplementary list. I shall be happy to write to him about the various matters because, as I explained earlier, I do not think I can give a satisfactory answer today. I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the Committee if I wrote to the noble Lord.
(Amendments Nos. 4A, 9A, 9B, 10A, 14A and 21 not moved.)
Clause 2 agreed to.
12.5 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Loans and grants to common ownership and co-operative enterprises
(".—(1) Where a designated district authority are satisfied that the establishment by any persons of a body which is intended to meet the requirements of—

(a) paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976 (common ownership enterprises); or

(b) paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section (co-operative enterprises),

would benefit the designated district, they may make a loan or a grant or both to those persons for the purpose of enabling them to establish that body.
(2) The Secretary of State may, either generally or with respect to particular cases, give directions as to the making of loans and grants uuder this section and, in particular, as to the imposition of conditions.
(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, a designated district authority, in making a loan or a grant under this section, may impose such conditions as they think fit and may, in particular, impose a condition requiring the repayment of all or any part of the loan or grant—

(a) if any other condition is not complied with; or

(b) in such other circumstances as they may specify.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 15 and 16 which are consequential on Amendment No. 5. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of Industry undertook in another place that the Government would introduce a clause to enable designated district authorities to give financial assistance to facilitate the setting up of a co-operative or common ownership enterprise. This group of Amendments introduces a new clause to this effect, and makes consequential Amendments to other clauses which, as I have already said, merely reflect the order of the new clause in the Bill. This would enable the local authority to give a grant or loan, or both, to anyone wishing to set up a body meeting the requirements

699
of the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976 for certification as a co-operative or common ownership enterprise.
It might be helpful if at this point I say a few words of explanation about these types of enterprise. Many noble Lords will be familiar with co-operatives, if only from experience of shopping at the local "co-op". The common ownership enterprise is a more recent development and I suspect that it may be less well-known. This is the sort of enterprise in which control rests wholly with the people who work in it, on the basis of an equal say for each worker. Only people working in the common ownership enterprise can be members. Perhaps the best-known example is the Scott Bader Commonwealth at Wollaston, in North-amptonshire, which makes plastics and chemical products, and has over 400 employees. This concern is collectively owned by its workforce, and this was thanks to the farsighted generosity of the founder-owner, Mr. Ernest Bader, who literally gave away the business to his workers and, I am happy to say, has not regretted it since. Most common ownership firms are, of course, on a much smaller scale than this, but the democratic principle remains the same.
The membership of a co-operative enterprise is less rigidly restricted but, for the purposes of the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976, the principle of control by a majority of the work force still applies. The Act does not embrace, for example, the co-op shop which is owned by its customers rather than by its employees, although these Co-ops will be eligible, like any other retailer, for assistance under the other clauses of the Bill.
The clause reflects the Government's belief that workers' co-operatives and common ownership enterprises should be encouraged, and this is demonstrated by our introduction of the Co-operative Development Agency Bill which was given a Third Reading by your Lordships' House yesterday. These types of enterprise have a part to play in the economic regeneration of the inner cities, along with other types of small businesses which the Government are also actively encouraging. All provide valuable new jobs for inner city residents and each can benefit from assistance under the provisions of the Bill,
700
whether they be individual small businesses co-operatives or the common ownership enterprises to which I have just referred.
The extra assistance which can be given under the proposed clause to co-operatives or common ownership enterprises will not give them any unfair advantage over other types of business in the area. It is intended that it should be used to help with the administrative and other expenses of setting up such an enterprise. The people concerned will need legal advice. They may need advice from accountants on the viability of their project. They may have to consult experts on various other aspects of the project. They will have to spend time and administrative expense on planning and organising the project. They will incur incidental setting-up costs, such as the fee for registering under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and it is these kinds of expense which the clause is intended to cover. It is not intended that the clause should be used to assist with items such as plant and machinery or working capital. Nor is it intended that it should be used to assist with the cost of land or buildings beyond that available to all types of organisation under the other clauses of the Bill. To do so would discriminate unfairly against other types of small businesses.
As with most of the other powers of assistance under the Bill, the clause would be subject to the direction-making power of the Secretary of State and to a provision allowing the authority to impose conditions on its assistance. No decision has yet been taken on whether the Secretary of State should issue a direction under the clause, but one might be necessary to ensure that it is indeed used mainly for administrative and related expenses, as the Government intend that it should be. I commend the clause to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 6:
Line 8, at end insert ("or
(c) subsections (4) to (7) below,")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 6, which stands in my name, is a paving Amendment to cover Amendment No. 7, and I should like to speak to both those Amendments for that reason. In

701
principle, I very much welcome the Amendment that the noble Baroness has set down. I congratulate her and the Government warmly upon it. It may seem churlish, therefore, to move an Amendment of such length and apparent complexity as an addition to the proposals that the noble Baroness has made.
I apologise for the length of these Amendments, which I put down in this extended way. I could have moved a brief Amendment to include Commercial Premises Associations in the Amendment, but I realise that such a simple definition would properly have exposed me to the criticism that the Commercial Premises Associations were not sufficiently or closely enough defined by those words. The reason for the length is to give as tight and precise a definition as possible of the term "Commercial Premises Associations".
They are a new type of organisation not covered by the Amendment that the noble Baroness moved. My Amendment is framed to describe them and to limit them, and to give them the opportunity to apply for means to get themselves set up in a similar way to that proposed for co-operatives and the common ownership enterprises referred in the noble Baroness's Amendment.
The first of these commercial premises organisations is already in existence in London, in the shape of the Soho and Covent Garden Commercial Premises Association Limited. I understand that the Greater London Council is giving consideration to sponsoring something similar in other parts of London, and that town development trusts, which are very similar concepts, are being set up in many provincial towns, and similar enterprises are being considered in large inner urban areas such as Merseyside, where my experience mainly lies.
These bodies are not profit making. They are run with voluntary management committees and employ professional staff. The crucial difference between them and housing associations is that they operate on a self-financing basis, and they operate in areas—and this is the crux—where there is a mixed residential and commercial use in the same building or buildings. Housing associations cannot acquire premises which have a commercial user, while private property developers, unfortunately, are not, generally speaking, interested in
702
financing mixed residential and commercial uses, because generally these locations are in secondary areas and, secondly, because small businesses are often not good covenants to private landlords. Schemes are usually too small and management costs are high, and there is as yet no proven track record for these associations.
They operate in particular inner urban areas and they offer a service to the local community and the local housing associations. They also take burdens—or potentially take burdens—off local authorities and they give mixed development a chance in areas where this is generally rejected, though I think most noble Lords would approve of the concept of mixed residential and commercial development. Local businessmen get involved in the regeneration; local bank managers, estate agents and accountants are involved as members of the management committee.
All that is sought in the Amendment is the opportunity for this kind of body in inner urban areas to have access to starter finance towards the initial expense of setting up such an organisation. They have a very important role in creating in inner urban areas an atmosphere of success and change. The proposals that I am putting forward and the kind of organisation for which I am pleading have received widespread support from all Parties in another place. It was the hope of those advising me that the concept that I am putting forward would have been accepted in the late stages of consideration of the Amendments that we are now considering. But as this did not happen I felt obliged, though at a fairly late hour because of the hope that had been expressed that the Government might take this up, to put down this Amendment in the hope that consideration could be given to these very important voluntary organisations which have a valuable part to play in inner urban regeneration. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I should like briefly to welcome Amendment No. 5, moved by my noble friend. I shall listen with particular interest to what she may have to say about the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. She has explained that Amendment No. 5 fulfils an undertaking which was given in another place, and, to those of us who

703
have co-operative principles and co-operative development particularly at heart, this is a very welcome Amendment.
As was explained in another place, the Bill as already drafted would probably enable designated authorities to aid co-operatives, as well as other businesses. But, in my view, the development of co-operatives is so important and so particularly appropriate for the purposes of the Bill that separate and specific provision, which is contained in this Amendment, is very fully justified.
I would make only two points in support of it. The first is that the concept of partnership is very germane to the Bill—that is, partnership between local authorities and the central Government. This Amendment, I suggest, opens up the possibility of another partnership, which is—at least in principle—equally important. That is a partnership between local authorities and co-operatives in their area.
My second point concerns the special appropriateness, as I see it, of co-operatives as a means of industrial development under the Bill. The Bill, of course, is very much concerned with the industrial and social well-being of the local community. As we were saying on Second Reading, it seeks to counter the undue movement that has taken place if industry, of population and of the skills of workers away from inner urban areas. That is a process that has been going on in the past, and the Bill seeks to counter that.
It is the very nature of a co-operative organisation that it is local. It is a local enterprise, locally controlled. It depends on the direct and close involvement of the local workers as members of the cooperative in the decisions concerning the business carried on by the co-operative. No external board of directors, no external people, can sell it or move it or wind it up. It is the workers themselves—the members of the co-operative—who live in the area and who have their savings invested in the co-operative, who alone are entitled, under the law and by the rules of their society, to make decisions of that kind. Therefore, it seems to me that, in a Bill which is very local in its intent, a co-operative—so firmly based in the local community—is a most approp-
704
priate instrument for fulfilling the purposes of the Bill. It is for those reasons that warmly welcome this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: May I first thank my noble friend Lord Oram for his support for the Amendment that I moved, particularly because of his tremendous knowledge and experience of the co-operative movement. His contribution was extremely helpful and constructive.
I turn now to Lord Evans' Amendment to my Amendment. At first hearing, it is an attractive proposition, but I am afraid that I have to recommend that it should not be accepted. I do this for three reasons. First, it would not really provide for the kind of finance that is required. What the promoters of the Commercial Premises Associations are really aiming at is pump-priming grants and loans to tide the associations over while there is no return from the projects they are supporting. My new clause would only provide for assistance, for example, for legal fees, in establishing the associations themselves, and that has been particularly tailored to the type of operation to which I refer—the co-operatives and the common ownership projects.
Secondly, Commercial Premises Associations will already be eligible, like anyone else, for loans and grants under the clauses of the Bill. They would be in that same position. Thirdly, it would be difficult to exclude from the provision other institutions which are being set up for promotion of worthy causes if the CPAs were included.
I do not want to sound restrictive or bureaucratic on that last point, but when we are launching something like this, if we are to have the co-operatives—the common ownership enterprises—added to the very wide range of individual small businesses which one wants to help and to see revitalising the inner areas, I think that at this early stage it could be a great mistake to spread the net too far. If this is actually brought into the Bill, at which point does one stop?
Finally, although organisations of this type probably have a useful rúle to play in the inner urban areas, there is not at present any widespread indication that they are vital in helping to provide premises for small businesses and mixed

705
use developments. As the noble Lord himself admitted, we are certainly only aware of the one association to which he refers. Therefore, in rejecting this, I am not rejecting the concept of the CPA, but I am saying that, certainly at this point, I do not think it really has a proper place in the Inner Urban Areas Bill.
Baroness YOUNG: I have listened with great interest to the arguments on both sides regarding this Amendment to the noble Baroness's Amendment. I must say that I have very considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is asking for. It seemed to me that the proposal to extend the Bill in this way fell naturally as an Amendment to the Government's Amendment on co-operatives, with which I completely agree.
I could not quite understand the noble Baroness's final argument that, if this were to be included in the Bill, if would be necessary to include ail sorts of other worthy causes. My understanding of the Bill is that it is an attempt to regenerate life in urban areas, and this is one rather interesting example of what can be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, explained, it is a suggestion for a development which includes commercial and housing provision. It therefore falls into rather a different category and, I should have thought, one much to be welcomed.
I take the noble Baroness's point that commercial developments can be helped under the Bill. The point about the Amendment, however, is that it is not just about commercial developments; it covers joint commercial and housing developments. Although the noble Baroness said in her first objection to the Amendment that the Bill would not necessarily provide all the finance that was required, it would at least help the establishment of these organisations.
If the noble Baroness feels that perhaps it is too much to include an Amendment in precisely these terms, would it not be possible, as she appeared to be in sympathy with the principle of it, for the Government to take this away and look at it and draft something which was perhaps slightly wider but which could include this particular type of development and others of a similar nature, which could only be of benefit for inner urban areas?
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness. Lady Young, for the point she has made. All I can do is to reiterate what she says. Admittedly, the finances available would be small, but they would be very much better than nothing at all. The kind of organisation which I have described is one which I should have thought played an extremely vital part in certain inner urban areas, helping to bring back life to areas which have previously been deserts in the evenings because of commercial use, and assisting in encouraging a vigorous and active life in the centre of our inner urban areas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, I detected a desire on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to be helpful, and I wonder whether she might be willing, as has been suggested, to take this away and have a look at it and possibly bring something forward at a later stage. I feel that this ties in very closely with precisely the kind of things that the noble Baroness herself is trying to promote and that her noble friends are trying to promote.
Baroness BIRK: I tended to have sympathy there again because I am always interested in any new idea, and anything original, and it would also help in this particular Bill. But I think we must be fairly practical about it. The noble Lord, in putting forward what sounds like and could work out to be a good idea, is asking for something to he put into the Bill which at the moment we really do not know much about. He himself admits that there has been only one experiment in this area, and he is asking for this to be put into legislation which is an entirely different thing. I certainly cannot commit myself to having any change of mind—or say that my colleagues will—on Report about this, because the same arguments I am putting now will operate, that what we are being asked to do is to incorporate an idea into legislation, in an area where we are trying to deal with hard facts. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord and perhaps then I will be able to set out in greater detail the way I see the position.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I am greatly obliged for that suggestion. As I say, I think we are very close to agreement, from what I understand has been going on. I would hope that the noble Baroness would not resist a thing

707
purely because of its novelty. Many things that we now accept as issues that have made a great difference in urban areas were novelties very recently, but if the noble Baroness is kind enough to write to me about this, I will, with leave, withdraw the Amendment at this stage and reserve my position on Report.
Amendment to Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Loans and grants for improving amenities.]
12.33 p.m.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 17, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 9 and I should like therefore if they could be discussed together at this stage. I want to assure your Lordships that this will be considerably shorter, both in length of the Amendment and the length of what I have to say, because I think it is a much more straight-forward matter. Since I understand it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to transfer where possible freight from road to rail or water, that is why I have inserted the words:
"wharves, docks or railway sidings"
in my Amendment. Furthermore, I understand that it is the policy of the European Community not to discriminate against any particular mode of transport.
I think all of us from our experience will accept that all inner areas have railways and that derelict railways are some of the most appalling eyesores in the centre of some of our great cities. Many cities in inner urban areas, such as Liverpool, Salford, London, Bristol and many others, have either rivers or canals, and all the areas that I have mentioned have docks, many of which are in an advanced state of decay. I think some of the worst problems of the inner urban areas are
708
created by the derelict condition of the dock areas. I think that anyone who read in The Times earlier this week the article on the Port of London would see that point, and anyone who visited the Mersey or any of our other great estuaries would appreciate that some of the worst dereliction in inner ubran areas exists in docks which for one reason or another have been allowed to decay, and for which no money for improvement appears to be available.
My Amendment would cover users of all types of transport, not just road transport. It would cover all types of transport, by rail and by inland and seagoing vessels. It would also cover the use of docks. Finally I added the words:
"shelters for users of public transport",
because I cannot see anywhere that assistance is given to people who have to use public transport, and more than half the population of this country still has to do this. I think it is important that help should be available for the building and maintenance of shelters for people who ore obliged to use public transport. Many of the worst eyesores and problems are in rain-swept areas particularly again—because my experience lies there—in the North of England. One sees areas where shelters for public transport are damaged beyond repair, where they do not provide any shelter at all and where they contribute to the problems of inner urban areas. That is why I include "shelters for users of public transport". In other words, what I am trying to do is to extend the uses here, so that problems relating to public transport, problems relating to docks, to inner urban waterways, to rivers and to docks generally are brought within the compass of this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, the Amendment seeks to enable designated district authorities to make grants and loans for bus shelters for people waiting for transport. I can understand the bus shelter point, but I am not sure whether the noble Lord is talking about shelters for people waiting at railways, docks and wharves. Perhaps he could just clarify that. I am not quite sure about it.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: My wish was that the first part,
"shelters for users of public transport",
would bring into the orbit of this clause

709
public transport, which is not mentioned at all. I am sure that it is intended that the measure should extend to it, but by using the words in my Amendment I deal first with public transport and then I go on to deal with wharves, docks and railway sidings, not for users of public transport but for generally extending the points for which support is given in Clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 refers to:
"…the construction of parking spaces, access roads, turning heads or loading bays",
I am saying that, in addition, works should include work on wharves, docks and railway sidings and shelters for users of public transport. If I had put it that way round, I think it would have been clearer.
Baroness BIRK: I thank the noble Lord. I appreciate that it is very difficult to draft these Amendments. Now that I am clearer about it, when the noble Lord refers to shelters for public transport I can say that these are certainly already covered because they can be financed by local and public authorities, so no new provision is necessary in the Bill. He is also—as I now gather from what he has just said—suggesting that there should be assistance for constructing docks. By taking out the "or" and just stringing the words together the Amendment is not clear. It seems to refer to shelters for people waiting at docks or railway sidings and so on. If I am right, and he is asking that there should be assistance for the construction of docks, wharves and so on, this is something that I should like to have the opportunity to consider, because I think I misinterpreted what he meant by his Amendment. I wonder whether the noble Lord would say if he was concerned with the construction and not just with the shelters.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: Indeed. My concern was to extend the clause to cover the construction and improvement of railway sidings, wharves, docks and so on because, as I said in my speech, these in many ways contribute more than any other form of inner urban dereliction to the problems of inner urban areas. It was for that purpose that I sought to extend the provision. I concede that it was not the best draftsmanship in the world, but one is learning
710
slowly as one goes along, and I apologise for misleading the noble Baroness.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord has no need to apologise. Drafting is very difficult, even when the professionals do it. It does not always come out right the first time. My reply on the question of shelters still stands. This is, as for other bodies, public authorities and local authorities. If we have now established that, and he will accept it, then I will look into the question of the construction side.
Lord EVANS of CLAUGHTON: I am greatly obliged by the noble Baroness's acceptance of that, and on that ground I withdraw the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9, 9A and 9B not moved.]
12.41 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 18, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section (Loans and grants to common ownership and co-operative enterprises) above shall apply in relation to the making of loans or grants under this section as they apply in relation to the making of loans or grants under that section.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord NORTHFIELD: May I ask my noble friend whether she would have a look at Clause 4 before Report stage? I am not asking for an answer now on these points, but I want to make sure that subsection (2) has not been drawn too restrictively. I will take the sort of example I have in mind. This is about trying to help an area with amenities—if one takes subsection (2)(d):
"the cleaning or demolition of structures or buildings".
One kind of thing one finds in derelict areas—I have them in my new town—is, say, a decaying church which is no longer required by the Church but which

711
some voluntary body would gladly restore rather than demolish, or clean, and put to community use in some form. It is not always the local authority which does that. It might be some trust or collection of citizens. I wonder if this provision is not rather restrictively drawn. These buildings are often as worthy of restoration as of cleaning, or demolition.
Then, looking at subsection (2)(b),
"landscaping and the planting of trees, shrubs and plants",
and (2)(c),
"the cleansing of watercourses",
again, one wonders whether such things as paving associated with the landscaping, even on private land, could be included, and whether one is reaching the point of restriction to so narrow a definition that some of the interesting things that could be done and would be regarded as part of the total amenity will be excluded by the words in the subsection.
I say no more than this at this stage. It is a case of sitting down and thinking of all the nice things that can be done with some of the dereliction that we see around us in the inner urban areas, and making sure that we have not been too restrictive in the definitions in the clause. I would be happy if my noble friend would agree to have a look at that sort of consideration before we reach Report stage.
Lord SANDFORD: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I make the point to the noble Lord who has just spoken that the two Amendments that I am not moving on this occasion cover the points which he has just made? Perhaps he and I, and Lord Evans and the noble Baroness, could get together before the next stage and concoct a series of Amendments which will meet the general point which he has been making.
Baroness BIRK: There is nothing that I want to say about this except that I will have another look at it. My noble friend Lord Northfield made a good point on the question when he referred to the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings, and if I may I will take this back and look at it. I would, however, point out at this stage that they are not all equal. There are problems that I can easily see with some of these paragraphs of subsec-
712
tion (2). I will make no promise now, but I will certainly look at it.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Grants for converting or improving buildings]:
[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 1, leave out ("£1,000") and insert ("£1,500").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I am conscious that we have been round this course before. I read carefully what was said both in Committee in another place and on Report. I put this Amendment down because it seemed to me that there is a real point as to whether or not Clause (5)(3)(b) would actually meet the case of either providing extra jobs or retaining extra jobs in these areas. The first question that I wish to ask the noble Baroness is this. On what basis was the sum of £1,000 drawn up, and is it recognised that it is large enough to meet the case? I do not feel strongly about the sum of £1,500, but I can indicate why I put it down as an Amendment. I have done so because my understanding is that in order to provide a job, at any rate in London, it is generally regarded that the cost is probably of the order of between £2,000 and £3,000. It therefore follows that 50 per cent. of the cost would be about £1,500, and it is for that reason that I have put in this particular figure.
I did so also because in making a grant to help employment, or to keep jobs, the grant is either 50 per cent. of the cost of carrying out of the works—that is to say, doing up an old building—or £1,000 per job created or preserved. Many illustrations have already been given which show that subsection (b) would amount to a very much smaller sum of money than would subsection (a). As the Bill reads, the proposal is that whichever is the lesser sum of money is the sum which will be accepted. It is therefore worth having yet another look at this point, because I am sure that we are all agreed that we need to create opportunities for employment in inner cities, and certainly to retain opportunities where they exist.
I do not feel that this is an Amendment to do more than probe the question. It is not one that I would press. As an alternative, which I have not tabled but which seems to me would fit the case, we could leave out subsection (b) altogether; that might be another way of doing it. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will recognise that there is a point here: that the sum of £1,000 is already too low, that with inflation continuing it will become progressively too small, and it will not, therefore, meet the case that it is designed to. I hope that in her reply she will tell us why the figure of £1,000 is in, but I hope much more that she will be able to tell us that she is quite certain that it will meet the case as I have identified it.
Lord NORTHFIELD: May I express some guarded sympathy for the noble Baroness in this Amendment. I realise that at the top of page 5, about which we are talking, any other amount could be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is flexible to some extent. Nevertheless, one has one's eye on the figure £1,000 as put there, and relates it back to subsection (a). It is obviously an attempt at "guesstimating" what is 50 per cent. If it is any guide, the cost today of new building in provision of jobs in new factories, especially small ones—and a lot of these will be small—in the rural areas is approaching £20 a sq. ft. in building. When one works out the cost of 1,000 sq. ft. which, by the usual rule of thumb, is expected to provide about four jobs, one can see that in the case of new buildings one can often get a cost of about £5,000 a job.
On the other hand, when one looks at the cost of converting old buildings, which is what this is about, one is lucky if one can get it to 50 per cent. of that, which is the sort of figure that the noble Baroness has mentioned—£2,500. My experience in converting premises as far away as an old factory in Buckfastleigh, in Devon, or a very beautiful village school in Middleham, in Yorkshire, which I hope we shall be able to convert, is that we shall he very lucky if we can get away with anything under £2,500 to £3,000 a job.
I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. I think that this Bill was
714
originally drafted before the recent up-surge in industrial building costs took place. For safety's sake and certainly from my own experience, I should have thought that there was a good deal to be said for pitching it slightly higher than the figure of £1,000 with which we are faced in the Bill as drafted.
Baroness BIRK: When one is talking about figures in this way it is always difficult to land on the one that will be absolutely right; also there has to be room for flexibility which, as my noble friend Lord Northfield pointed out, is covered in the Bill. The limits on these grants for improving or converting buildings in the industrial improvement areas were very carefully thought out before they were chosen. We think it right that there should be a healthy contribution from the private sector in such conversions. That is why we have the overall 50 per cent. about which there appears to be no disagreement. One has to try to find a careful balance so that one does not unnecessarily subsidise expensive conversions from public funds; and therefore we have had to include the cash limit. We are talking about work-manlike conversions of old industrial property to provied accommodation as cheaply as possible for new small firms. These conversions clearly need to meet all the legal requirements; but we are quite frankly not looking for unnecessary frills in this operation.
It is true that there is not much information on the cost of converting older industrial property for new use, and it is again variable. But what there is indicates to us—and this takes into account the projection of the time that the Bill takes to go through and is not just looking backwards at it—that a total cost of £2,000 for every person to be employed in the building (which is the way that it has been assessed) is not unreasonable. If, however, there is clear evidence that the figure has turned out to be too low, my right honourable friend can make an order to change it.
The fact that this provision is included in the Bill ought to allay fears, because I am sure that noble Lords, the noble Baroness who spoke and my noble friend Lord Northfield are just as aware as I am of the need to keep these cash limits and to try to find the right balance between giving adequate help but not being over-generous,

715
simply because we cannot afford it. No Government could afford to do so at this time. But if the figure appears too low, my right honourable friend can make an order to change it. I can assure noble Lords that the figure will be kept under review, because we are also aware that this is something that we must approach in a flexible manner. Only experience will show whether it is right. I am convinced that it is reasonable at the moment. Therefore, for the time being, I ask noble Lords not to press the Amendment.
Baroness GAITSKELL: May I support my noble friend Lord Northfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this matter. I quite understand the Minister's explanation of the case, but this is an absolutely unrealistic figure at this time. Anybody who has had the smallest alteration done—even calling in a plumber — would know that.
Baroness YOUNG: I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said about this and I still do not feel that she has quite answered my question as to where she got the figure of £1,000 from. She said—and I hope that I am repeating this correctly—that the Government estimate that it costs £2,000 approximately to provide a job. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield said, because he has had a great deal of experience in these matters; and he estimates that it costs £5,000 to provide a job if one starts with a new building and probably between £2,500 and £3,000 starting with a converted building. My evidence is very much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on this matter. It therefore seems to me that, with all the evidence we have, we are in fact beginning from too low a figure.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that we do not want unlimited subsidies. I have no quarrel at all with the restriction in subsection at all with the restriction in subsection (3)(a) to,
"50 per cent. of the cost of carrying out the works".
I think that is quite fair. What does concern me is that when the amount of the grant comes to be given it has to be whichever is the lower, either 50 per cent. of the cost or £1,000 per job. If the figure of
716
£1,000 is too low, the grant will not be effective because the work will not be done. Therefore, not only will this not provide employment, but it will not preserve a derelict industrial building. Many old industrial buildings are very fine buildings indeed and, if converted, contribute a great deal to the architectural heritage of industrial towns. I was looking at some in Greater Manchester, only a few weeks ago, and there are some very striking buildings that are empty and could be used. So for both these reasons, this would be valuable.
I think that this is a point on which we are all agreed. But to leave it at the start of a Bill to the Secretary of State to make an order means that, if the figure proves to be low, we shall wait at least a year to find out and in the meantime nothing will happen. If there has been one argument that has run through this entire debate, it is the need to move expeditiously on this Bill; and that is my objective.
We have had a good discussion this morning. I shall read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and, unless I am fully satisfied, it is a point to which I shall return at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("(3) and (4) of section 4") and insert ("(2) and (3) of section (Loans and grants to common ownership and co-operative enterprises)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
1 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Power to guarantee loans
(".—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of any enactment, a designated district council may, on such terms as it thinks fit, guarantee, or join together with any other person in guaranteeing, the payment of the principal of, and interest on, any money borrowed (including money borrowed by the issue of loan capital) by any person for the purpose of enabling or assisting him, on any land in their area of which he is the owner or lessee or intended owner or lessee, to build an industrial or commercial building or to extend or improve any such existing building.
(2)(a) In this section "commercial building" means any building or part of a building used or designed for use—

(i) for the display, storage, packaging or handling of any thing in the course of a trade or business; or

(ii) as a conference centre.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection, premises which are used or designed for use for providing services or facilities ancillary to the use of other premises as a commercial building or are, or are to be, comprised in the same building or the same curtilage as those other premises shall themselves be treated as a commercial building.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if in moving Amendment No. 13 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which will, I hope, enable us to get through rather quicker.
This clause would give to a designated district council the power to guarantee, alone or with others, the payment of the principal and interest on money borrowed by a person or firm for the purpose of building an industrial or commercial building or for extending or improving any such existing building. My concern is to make available to authorities covered by the Bill every reasonable vehicle for enabling more money to be obtained to rehabilitate the inner areas and to generate new jobs. I have in mind that guarantees will be one of the ways in which large industrial and commercial firms in the private sector may be able to assist smaller firms and organisations to set up in business or to expand, and in doing so they will, of course, take the risk. But I see no reason why the designated authorities should not be able, if they so wish, to guarantee loans which can be obtained from sources such as banks, insurance companies and so on. Amendment No. 13 does not impose a duty on designated districts, but where it is implemented it will result in an increase in the availability of cash for industrial and commercial development and in the creation of jobs.
Amendment No. 18 is a new clause which empowers the designated district authority, again, to guarantee the payment of rents and other sums payable in respect of an industrial building or any sum payable to any statutory undertakers, such as the Post Office, electricity and gas boards and others. This, again, is intended to help to get things moving at
718
a faster rate. It is permissive and not mandatory, and I would welcome the Government's view on the desirability of doing something along those lines.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 19. This is another new clause, and the intention here is to empower the designated district authority to lend money to people or firms to obtain machinery or equipment for industrial or commercial purposes; to provide capital for the conduct or development of any industrial undertaking and, most importantly, to secure advisory or other services to help in the promotion of the undertaking.
Let me make it clear once again that I believe that the private sector can and will be interested in helping quite substantially in this field, but it is going to take time to set up the appropriate systems within the partnership areas to enable the private sector resources to be tapped for cash and for seconded expertise. In the meantime, there are a number of cases where a worthwhile job-creating project is either held up or prevented from expanding for the lack of a simple piece of equipment costing only a few thousand pounds. Similarly, there are projects which get bogged down at the outset for the lack of good professional advice on how to ensure that the project is a viable one, and this is vital. The cost need not be too high, but I believe it is essential to incur it.
There will be new and existing projects which need professional marketing assistance or the undertaking of a market survey or a product study, and my purpose in all these Amendments is to find a way of getting things moving in the right direction as quickly as possible. I do not, I repeat, see this as a substitute for involvement of the private sector in such projects. I believe their involvement is very important, indeed vital, to the overall success of the regeneration policies; but these Amendments, if accepted in principle, provide an additional source of cash which, hopefully, will be repaid for re-use by new projects. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: I should like to say, from my experience in visiting and assisting and considering the problems of these inner areas, that what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is urging now is very

719
necessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will give it her sympathetic attention.
Baroness BIRK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for taking his three Amendments together. I think it is of considerable help to the Committee as they are very closely linked. I can see the point as he explained it, as he did with great clarity, and what it is he is wanting to do; but I must explain to him why I am resisting him and the Amendments.
We believe that the Inner Urban Areas Bill as it stands contains provisions which are commensurate with the needs of the inner cities; and the Government in fact strengthened the Bill during its course through another place in order to ensure that the local authorities had sufficient powers to play their full part in stemming the decline of industry in the inner cities and regenerating the economies of those areas. However, the new clauses which are proposed in the three Amendments moved by the noble Lord are, I think, going too far over the other way. As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will know, successive Governments have committed themselves to a strong regional policy to encourage industry to expand in the assisted areas in parts of the country suffering from long-standing and deep-seated industrial problems.
A White Paper on policy in inner cities makes it clear that regional policy must continue, and in our view to accept this clause would harm the interests of the assisted areas. It would mean that local authorities in inner areas outside the assisted areas would be able to offer assistance of a kind which would not be available to local authorities in the assisted areas generally. This would blunt the effect of the Government's regional incentives under the Industry Act 1972, which are designed to encourage firms to move to the assisted areas, and this is not the intention of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. This Bill was carefully drawn up in order to enable local authorities to have a substantial impact on the special problems which industry faces in the inner city, but to do this without disturbing the overall priority of the assisted areas.
Amendment No. 13 seeks to enable designated district authorities to guarantee
720
loans given to industry. The Government themselves have power to give guarantees under the Industry Act and are currently considering whether such assistance would be appropriate in the proposal, like Trammel Crow Limited, to develop a trade mart in the London dock-lands. A scheme has also been introduced to allow small and medium firms in the assisted areas to borrow from the European Investment Bank. They are guaranteed against exchange loans and, where necessary, the Department would also provide a guarantee of repayment to the bank.
Nevertheless, apart from the EIB scheme and some special schemes for shipbuilders, guarantees under the Industry Act are rare. Most selective assistance is in the form of grants and loans. Similarly, the assistance under the Inner Urban Areas Bill takes this form. The Government have reservations about guaranteeing as a general form of assistance. A guarantee scheme for loans to small firms is one of the proposals currently being considered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his review of the problems of small firms. He has asked Neddy, the committee on finance for industry, for their views. It is also among the proposals considered by the Wilson Committee; and I think we should agree that it would be quite wrong to plunge into guarantees for inner cities alone before a decision has been taken on a national loan guarantee scheme which is currently under consideration. Moreover, it would be anomalous for such assistance to be available generally in the inner cities but not in the assisted areas. The Bill already provides adequate powers for local authorities to give financial assistance for land and buildings and for work on land.
The Government's reservations about the principle of assistance by way of guarantee also apply to the second of these new clauses, Amendment No. 18, which will enable any designated district authority to guarantee rents and other payments. Clause 9 of the Bill already enables local authorities to give grants to assist with rents in partnership areas. This clause is, therefore, an unnecessary addition as far as the partnership areas are concerned, while to extent assistance with rents to every designated district

721
would erode the advantage enjoyed under the Bill by the partnerships in view of the greater problems found in those areas. In fact, an identical clause was proposed for the Bill in another place but there it was rejected.
The third proposed clause, Amendment No. 19, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would allow any designated district authority to give loans towards the cost of industrial plant and machinery or to provide industry with capital, or secure any advisory or other services for industry. The loans could be on any terms; for example, a local authority could give loans on heavily subsidised terms. We are strongly opposed to this clause, since it would seriously erode the effectiveness of the Government's regional incentives under the Industry Act. Also— and this is very important—it would go beyond the intention of the Inner Urban Areas Bill. The Bill is not meant as a means of generally subsidising firms in inner cities; its aim is much more to provide selected local authorities with extra powers to tackle the special problems encountered by firms there—namely the problems relating to inadequate sites and inadequate, old or expensive buildings. This clause on the other hand is concerned with matters which are quite unrelated to these special problems. It is for all these reasons that I ask the House not to support these three clauses.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I sympathise with the difficult position that my noble friend is in on these proposals. I should like to say a particular word about Amendment No. 19. The discussions which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been having about small firms have revealed that we are in a rather ridiculous situation in this country. In regard to small firms, we have in the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, CoSIRA, a system of capital loans, machinery loans—I am looking at Clause 19 in using these words—and advisory services for firms in the rural areas with some special systems in these matters available in the areas suffering from depopulation. The Chancellor has found in considering the small firm problem generally that we have nothing equivalent to this in, the urban areas. In other words, where most of the small businesses are we
722
have nothing equivalent to CoSIRA. CoSIRA with its services is dealing with a minority of small firms in the country. We have this all the wrong way round as history has developed.
I sympathise with my noble friend in resisting these Amendments for the reasons she gives, but I feel I must say that it is high time that the imbalance in this matter as between the urban and the rural areas was rectified. The Chancellor has been considering it for some long time now— indeed, for the best part of a year, to my knowledge. I am very pleased with the number of steps which the Government have taken to help small firms in general. This has been one of the best breakthroughs we have had in the last 12 months. The Government and my noble friend deserve all congratulations for the great steps that have been made in this direction, but this one is a step the need for which is outstanding. It really is time that a general service equivalent to CoSIRA was built up for the urban areas. That would then, I am sure, satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Byers, insofar as he is talking here about the small firms.
I would say to the noble Lord, if I may, that I think we all ought to join in putting pressure on the Government to put this nation-wide urban service into existence without much more delay. It would help him a great deal on the proposals he is making. I will say nothing about the remainder of his Amendments, because I am not equipped to do so. The price of withdrawing these Amendments, if the noble Lord does so, is that we ought to be asking the Government to make haste on this late stage of help for small businesses in the urban areas. It would provide an immense relief and would be greatly appreciated, I am sure, by the partnership authorities who are involved in this Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: May I make two further points before the noble Lord, Lord Byers, decides whether to press or to withdraw his Amendment. It seems —particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said—that we ought not to let slip this opportunity to give the designated districts the powers which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to give them. But I take the point the noble Baroness is making that to give them the powers without any

723
restraint would perhaps blunt some of our other industrial and regional policies. Is it not therefore possible for the noble Baroness to consider accepting the general intentions and purpose of the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and incorporating them in the Bill, but at the same time giving the Secretary of State power for the time being to restrain the local authorities in the exercise of their powers? This would mean that when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had reported, the power would be there on the Statute Book and available for the designated inner urban areas to use to whatever extent and at whatever moment the Secretary of State subsequently decided.
Lord BYERS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very full reply. This has been a very useful discussion. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for what he has said about the small businesses and the imbalance between the urban and rural areas. Without wishing to make this into any sort of partisan forum, I would remind him that Harold Lever's appointment was requested specifically by the Liberal Party under the Lib-Lab pact and very quickly acquiesced in by the Prime Minister; it has had a very good effect indeed. We on these Benches are extremely grateful for what he and his colleagues have achieved.
I am sorry that the idea of guarantees should be resisted at this stage, but I quite understand that if a proposal for a national loan guarantee scheme is being discussed, it would be inappropriate to put that into the Bill until we had had a pronounced view on it. In the light of what has been said and of the very full answer, I would wish to study that answer in detail and in the meantime to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Loans for site preparation]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert ("by any statutory undertakers or other authority").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This is a minor
724
Amendment to correct what now appears to be a slightly misleading piece of drafting in subsection (3). In making specific reference to one type of authority in Scotland, the subsection appears to exclude from the scope of the clause statutory undertakers in Scotland. As this is not the intention, the Amendment therefore inserts some simplified wording that makes this clear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Grants towards rent]:
[Amendment No. 14A not moved.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("(3) and (4) of section 4") and insert ("(2) and (3) of section (Loans and grants to common ownership and co-operative enterprises)").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Grants towards loan interest]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("(3) and (4) of section 4") and insert ("(2) and (3) of section (Loans and grants to common ownership and cooperative enterprises)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
1.20 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Applications for Improvement Grant
.In section 57(3) of the Housing Act 1974 (general provisions relating to applications for grants) there shall be inserted after the words "the date of the application", the words: "In a designated district, a local authority shall entertain an application for a grant from any applicant who has the written permission to apply of the person who has, in every parcel of land on which the relevant works are to be carried out, an interest which is either an estate in fee simple absolute in

725
possession or a term of years absolute of which not less than five years remain unexpired at the date of the application".
The noble Baroness said: I put down this Amendment on improvement grants because we have not at any point discussed housing, and it is such an important matter in inner city areas that I am, in a sense, testing the temperature of the water with this Amendment. After our considerable discussion on the first Amendment on the definition of "social need", I find it difficult to believe that housing is outside the Long Title of the Bill. Indeed, on reading again the Department of the Environment Press Notice, I see that one of the considerations on making a designated area is that in some areas housing and social difficulties predominate.
This Amendment deals with only a very small aspect of the totality of housing problems, but it is one which is really a matter of importance to those of us who would like to see property rehabilitated, and the opportunity given to those who wish to buy rehabilitated property to do so. I have put it down because in many instances up and down the country we have what is really a chicken-and-egg problem. A local authority will refuse to give an improvement grant until a person has managed to get a mortage. On the other hand, the building societies refuse to grant a mortgage until the person applying for the mortgage has managed to get an improvement grant. The result of this situation is that nothing happens; the person cannot get the mortgage and the house is not improved.
I believe that one of the suggestions for dealing with this has been that local authorities should give people in this situation a written indication that they would be given a grant. Unfortunately, many local authorities do not follow this procedure, and the purpose of this Amendment is simply to rectify what seems to me to be an absurd situation, one which I am sure everybody in the Committee would wish to see put right, because it is of no benefit to the inner city, let alone to the individuals concerned. I have put it down in the hope that the Government will look favourably upon it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I understand entirely what the noble Baroness is seeking to
726
do in this Amendment. I also recognise and sympathise with the chicken-and-egg situation which often faces purchasers where they are having to get both a mortage and an improvement grant. It is the first-time purchasers of the cheaper, older houses who have mostly encountered these difficulties and to which the Government's Green Paper on Housing Policies drew attention. Administrative measures have been taken to tackle this chicken-and-egg problem whereby a prospective purchaser cannot obtain a loan until he has secured an improvement grant, but the local authority cannot entertain a grant application until he owns the property, and there are encouraging signs now that these measures are overcoming the problem. If they were not, I should be very much more receptive to the noble Baroness's Amendment, because I am in entire agreement that something must be done to help this particular deadlock, which, frankly, becomes quite ridiculous.
The measures already taken are twofold. First, the Building Societies Association has advised its members that they might reasonably make a loan if a local authority indicates informally its intention of making a grant. Secondly, the Department of the Environment has encouraged local authorities quite firmly in DOE Circular 38/77 to give informal indications of the availability of the grant.
The impression which the noble Baroness had and gave was that probably most local authorities were unwilling—or did not know about—or were not prepared to give an informal indication of the availability of a grant. But a recent survey carried out by a leading building society found that nearly 90 per cent. of local authorities were prepared to give an informal indication of the availability of a grant upon which building societies could proceed to offer a mortgage. This suggests that the problems which undoubtedly arose in the past should no longer do so in the future. This is an impressive figure which encouraged me enormously.
I am aware of the recent article in the May edition of Roof which criticised the present arrangements on the grounds that the local authorities are unwilling to give informal indications of grants, but, frankly, the findings of the building society survey do not support this criticism. Incidentally,

727
their survey was not concerned with just their own business but was a survey right across the field. But if a small minority of local authorities is still reluctant to give informal indications and this is giving rise to problems in a few localities, we would certainly try to deal with these remaining difficulties through further discussions with the local authorities concerned. If noble Lords are aware of any specific examples where difficulies of this kind are still arising, I should be very grateful if they would let me know.
The proposed new clause in the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness has disadvantages of its own and could create more difficulties, unfortunately, than it is intended to solve. This is in addition to the fact that we now know that the vast majority of local authorities is prepared to give these informal indications.
Informal indications—if they work and are given—have positive advantages for the prospective house purchasers, since under them they can obtain what amounts to a decision in principle on the availability of grant without having to go to any very great lengths of expense in order to get this. If a prospective purchaser had to comply with a formal grant application procedure, he would have to supply a considerable amount of detailed information about building proposals, detailed estimates and possibly incur the expense of having plans drawn up. A prospective purchaser would be placed in a difficult situation as he would not have detailed information about the house, such as drainage arrangements, precise room measurements and other matters, in order to work out his proposals in sufficient detail for formal grant purposes. Then, if for any reason he did not complete his purchase of the house, his grant application would have involved him in unnecessary time and also, very likely, expense.
Further, there is often more than one potential purchaser and the proposed clause could lead to several grant applications being made for the same property. There would then be a number of people losing all this time and also going to considerable individual expense. Some potential purchasers might have different proposals for improving the property, which would also result in additional grant applications for the same property. The clause would, therefore, open the door
728
to an unlimited number of grant applications, some of which would prove abortive or merely speculative, and it would also create significant extra work for the local authorities.
It is for all these reasons that I feel unable to accept the clause, but what I can undertake is that the Department will continue to encourage local authorities to institute this system of informal indications and will be only too ready to pursue any remaining difficulties that arise. And, as I said earlier, I shall be very anxious to hear of them where they apply to any particular local authority.
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I always accept that any Amendment I put down is badly drafted and does not really meet the case, but the purpose of this Amendment was to discuss the issue that I raised. I recognise that the Amendment itself goes somewhat wider than the particular issue, so I do not press it on those grounds.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have discussed this matter, and perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to send me the report of the building societies on this matter, which I should be most interested to read. With the assurances that she has given, I will withdraw the Amendment. I will read carefully what she has said and if I have further information that I feel would be helpful at another stage, I will consider this matter again. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Financial provisions.]:
1.31 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("(2) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants for assisting establishments engaged in promoting or assisting schemes and research relating to, and dissemination of information with respect to, the enhancement of the physical environment and the promotion of employment in industrial improvement areas.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 in the names of my noble friend Lady Young and myself. This is a probing Amendment at this stage to secure a short debate on the powers of the Secretary of State to give grant aid to national voluntary bodies engaged in promoting environmental improvement works in areas of special need, and to do so in preparation for the meeting which I understand the Secretary of State is to have with the National Council of Social Service on Tuesday next week—which was envisaged when we had our Second Reading debate but has not as yet, I understand, taken place.
Before going any further, I must declare an interest as the president of one national voluntary body—the Council for Environmental Education, which has been very handsomely treated by the Department; as the chairman of another, Task Force North, which for the time being has been rebuffed; as a member of a third—the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, who are still waiting, although we are two and a half months into the financial year, to hear whether or not their quite substantial grant is to be continued; and as one who is associated, but not directly, with a number of other regional voluntary bodies who, surprisingly at this stage, appear to have had their grants, which they have had for some years, cut off altogether.
It seems to me that if Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in what they say in paragraph 34 of the White Paper, the voluntary organisations and community groups are to have an increasing rôle, over the years ahead, in assisting local and central government strategy for the regeneration of the inner city areas. Voluntary organisations are already active in the social service and environmental fields. This was clearly demonstrated by the findings of the Wolfenden Committee, and illustrated in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lady Young only a few months ago, in January.
Already many voluntary bodies are active at the local level, making efforts to direct their activities to assisting the local authorities who are the main agents of the Government in the complex business of planning and implementing their inner area programmes. Most of these local
730
organisations, particularly those on the social side, are assisted in their efforts, guided and advised by national and regional organisations which carry out information gathering, research and promotional work on behalf of their local affiliates.
At the national level this work is already long established in the fields of personal social services, education and housing, where support is also often forthcoming from the relevant Government Departments. Work is also well established in the field of environmental conservation and is growing in other environmental fields. But in the new fields to which we now need to pay particular attention—the economic, employment and investment fields, which are so important now—there are far fewer national voluntary and charitable organisations undertaking work to help promote local developments. It is here where we need to see a substantial increase over the next few years.
There are three reasons, which I should like the noble Baroness to bear in mind and perhaps comment on, why this further increase is called for. First, there is the increasing public awareness of the damage that is being caused by the existence of so much derelict land and buildings. Secondly, there are the employment schemes administered by the Manpower Services Commission, which are being increasingly used, especially by voluntary bodies, to undertake small-scale environmental improvements and establish small-scale businesses such as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was talking about just now, and to assist them and advise them until they become viable economic projects in their own right; and, in doing all this, to harness and train the available supply of labour in the inner cities which at present is unskilled and untrained. Thirdly, there are the expanded terms of reference of the Urban Programme to cover environmental and economic schemes. That is the new scenario in which the voluntary organisations are working.
It is true that the voluntary organisations can already benefit from the broad grant-aiding powers of local authorities—where forward-thinking local authorities choose to use these powers imaginatively. They can also benefit from grant aid made available to them through the Urban Programme. In addition, the Inner Urban

731
Areas Bill will allow designated local authorities to make loans or grants to persons, which will include voluntary organisations, to undertake environmental improvement work.
However, I believe that there is also merit in the Government's giving serious consideration to increasing the role of the national and regional voluntary organisations in the environmental and economic spheres, for two reasons. The first is that the support of national voluntary organisations in these fields will enable more effective development to take place at the local level—and a great deal of that development will be hampered if they are not getting strong guidance from the centre—and thus assist the Government in achieving their objectives for the inner cities. Secondly, it would be very much in the spirit of the inner cities White Paper for the Government to have an additional inner area dimension in their grant-giving policies to national voluntary organisations working in the environmental and economic fields.
So my Amendment, which is to Clause 15, is designed to provide those powers if they are lacking, or in order to hear from the noble Baroness, if they are not lacking, why they are not being used used as extensively as those arguments would seem to indicate that they should be. I know that the Secretary of State already has certain grant-giving powers in relation to national voluntary organisations which are based, among other things, on Section 253 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This section authorises Exchequer grants, for example, to the Centre for Environmental Studies and other bodies concerned with planning research which might be appropriate. But my submission is that either these powers, if the Secretary of State does have them, are not flexible and are not all that they should be—in which case this Amendment offers an alternative or that he makes insufficient use of them, or that he is prevented from using them by the Treasury.
By way of background, perhaps I could quote to the Committee some figures which have recently been given in Written Answers in another place, comparing the Department of the Environment in its grant-giving activities with the Department of Health and Social Security, and comparing
732
the last financial year with the year before. In response to the inner area policies, the Department of Health and Social Security has increased its grant-giving activities to voluntary bodies from £2.7 million in 1976–77 to no less than £5 million in 1977–78. In 1976–77, the Department of the Environment, with all its responsibilities in this field, was deploying a mere £650,000—a quarter or so of the DHSS figure—in grant aid to national voluntary bodies. In 1977–78 that seems to have been reduced to some extent rather than increased, because the Department of Transport was hived off from the Department of the Environment in this year and took some of that grant-giving activity with it. But there has certainly not been anything like the substantial increase which the DHSS, in my view, thought to be appropriate as they came to grapple more with the inner city policies.
I am not arguing for large increases in public expenditure. These are not large amounts, taking the whole range of public expenditure controlled by the Department of the Environment. But I am calling either for a firmer statutory basis for the DOE grants, if that is what is needed, or if it is available, for a greater use of these powers and one which bears a closer resemblance to the kind of strategy which I think this Department ought to be exercising in relation to other Departments in Whitehall, and ought to be exercising this year compared with previous years. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am extremely grateful that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is not asking for an increase in public expenditure. It would ill become him to do so from those Benches. The noble Lord asked about certain individual grant applications, and on that I suggest that I should look into the cases mentioned and write to him about the progress of the applications as soon as possible. I do not think that it would be helpful to try to elicit details during the Committee stage.
It is perfectly true that the voluntary bodies, rightly, want to be as deeply involved. They want the participation side and they also naturally would like increased grants. Clearly I should like to see our being able to increase grants to voluntary bodies to which we give at the moment, but noble Lords will be

733
aware that it is difficult in the present economic situation. We are certainly not prevented by any lack of powers from making grants of the types to which the noble Lord referred in the Amendment. From that point of view the Amendment is not necessary, although I appreciate that it has opened up the debate on the question of voluntary bodies, their work and the contributions they receive. As the noble Lord knows, applications have to be considered on their merits. The Amendment would enable the Secretary of State to give grants to bodies concerned with improving the environment or employment prospects in industrial improvement areas. This makes it a somewhat narrow remit because we do not envisage these as very extensive areas, perhaps 20, 50 or 100 acres, where a special input of resources and intentions will make a real impact.
If we are talking about voluntary bodies being helped by the Government, and those bodies feel that they should be but they cannot at present, it would surely be better to relate their activities to the whole of a designated district, not just to the industrial improvement areas. As I pointed out, it is not a question of drafting which would be irrelevant at this stage. The Government give grants to voluntary bodies, some of which are concerned with just the sort of activities referred to in the Amendment. In fact, my Department gives grants of £150,000 annually to relevant national bodies concerned with the environment or with the problems of unemployment. A recent award, of which the noble Lord is probably aware, went to the National Association of Youth Clubs to undertake work concerned with youth unemployment in inner cities.
It is surely right that local authorities should be the public bodies to support what are essentially local activities in the industrial improvement areas or the designated districts. But the Government can support the local authorities in this way by making grants to the Urban Programme. In the latest allocation of Urban Programme resources to local authorities which was announced last Monday, 38 per cent. of the money was for projects run by voluntary bodies which the local authorities wished to support. No fewer than 180 projects
734
will be supported in this way. I think this is the right avenue along which we should go. This year these will not include projects related to the environment or to employment, because the scope of the Urban Programme has not yet been widened, but from next year onwards such projects will be eligible, and I hope the local authorities will wish to support them as well as projects of a more traditional kind.
As the noble Lord himself said, representatives of the NCSS are to meet the Secretary of State next Tuesday, and as this date is so close I suggest that we should wait to see what arises from that meeting. I feel that we have translated the concern and commitment which was expressed in the White Paper from which the noble Lord quoted, into action. I repeat, we are encouraging the local authorities in each partnership area to seek the fullest participation of residents and businesses in the area. As a result each partnership has taken steps, some have taken extremely imaginative steps, to inform people about what is happening and to seek their views.
I accept, too, that it will always seem to active local groups either that there is insufficient opportunity for them to influence statutory bodies or that insufficient grants are given. Those of us who have been involved with various groups, when we have been with that side, have pressed very hard as well. But there is no question of the Government not wanting to give support to, or see the active participation of, voluntary bodies in the inner city areas. We consider not only that they have a vital part to play but that it is essential that they be involved, because unless we involve people in what is happening in the inner city areas the whole thing becomes a completely bloodless structure and will not help the community at all. Therefore, it is essential that people should be involved to the fullest possible extent. I think that the only problem for discussion is in what way this can be fitted into the structure, bearing in mind, too, the present limitation of financial resources.
Baroness YOUNG: I think this is a good opportunity to debate the role of voluntary organisations in the inner urban areas. It may be that this is not precisely the right moment to meet all

735
the points we want to raise, but I believe this to be an important matter; namely, that there is a recognition of the valuable part that voluntary organisations can play in revitalising inner cities. The noble Baroness made the centre of her argument an economic one, and I think that the important matter on public expenditure is value for money. There is no doubt that one frequently obtains vastly better value for money by supporting a voluntary organisation to do something than attempting to subsidise it, or to run the particular project either by local government or by central Government. It can frequently be the most cost-effective way of getting something done. In its consideration of these matters, I hope that the Government will recognise this important cost-effective point.
The noble Baroness made the point that the local authorities themselves can support voluntary organisations in their designated districts and that the Government can contribute to local authorities through the Urban Aid Programme. The noble Baroness herself recognises that the Urban Aid Programme at present has nothing in it either for environment or for employment, the two particular areas in which this Bill is concerned. The Urban Aid Programme, I think I am right in saying, follows the same financial year, so this means in effect that there will be nothing until the next financial year by way of help for voluntary organisations in these two areas. Perhaps the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong on that.
Secondly, it would be helpful to know whether it is the intention to increase the amount available under the Urban Aid Programme because if it is not, it simply means a switch of resources from some of the projects or voluntary organisations presently supported to those proposed under the Bill. I would be glad to know what their proposals are in that regard.
Baroness BIRK: I do not think I can give any very precise answers on those points today and, if I may, I would like to write to the noble Baroness about it. I should also prefer, and I think it would be much more useful all round, if I wrote after the meeting on Tuesday. I should like to do that, but I do not want to say or do anything at this moment that could jeopardise those discussions and also we
736
could all be better informed on what has happened then.
I do not really think there is very much more I can add, except to reiterate and agree with the noble Baroness that many voluntary schemes where there is a voluntary input into other schemes can be extremely cost-effective as well as socially desirable. These are new projects in the partnership schemes and the other designated authorities and I think it really is a case of finding the best way in which one can get integration of central local authority work and voluntary contribution as well. I think it is quite right that we should be spending some time discussing this, looking at different ways of doing it and also seeing, as I have pointed out, that it varies from place to place. Again this is as it should be, so that there where are imaginative schemes it may well be that other areas will feel they can take them up or find something which is more suitable to their own needs and their own resources.
I think it extremely important not to get it streamlined to such an extent that not enough opportunity is given for imagination, ingenuity and local enterprise on the voluntary side and on the social side, as well as on the economic side. I really do not think there is anything more I can add, but if there is anything that occurs to me when I read Hansard, particularly on the points that the noble Baroness put directly to me, I should like to write to her after the meeting on Tuesday. I think this whole debate will be extremely useful for my right honourable friend to read before he meets the representatives.
1.52 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: I am glad that the noble Baroness feels that because that was the main intention in moving it. If I may say so, I was not at the beginning of my remarks intending to raise the case of any of the voluntary bodies I mentioned, but I thought it proper to declare my interest in them which, in some cases, was direct.
I think one of the main immediate uses that the debate has achieved is to assure us that the Secretary of State does no feel in any want of powers to grant aid to the voluntary bodies that are trying to help him in implementing the inner city policies. I appreciate that most of the support to the voluntary bodies will go from the local authorities, but I hope I made the case that, in addition to that

737
and complementing it, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to grant aid to some of the central and regional voluntary bodies.
The particular form of Amendment that I have tabled today is not needed. Whether any Amendment will be needed I think depends a little on what we hear about the meeting between the Secretary of State and the National Council of Social Service and whether we feel that, in the light of it, it would be appropriate to give the other place an opportunity of discussing this topic, which is an important one, but which, in that it is financial, is more a matter for them than for us.
Not surprisingly, the noble Baroness made something of the fact that this is a difficult financial climate in which to increase any form of public expenditure. That is true, but the point I was making, and which she has not answered today, though perhaps she might answer on another occasion, is why it is possible for the Department of Health and Social Security to double its grants to national voluntary bodies as between 1976–77 and 1977–78 and, at the same time, for the Department of the Environment, which says it has all the powers, to be able to do no more than to hold its grant aid to voluntary bodies steady at a time when one would be expecting it to be increasing that aid by at least as much as, if not more than, the Department of Health and Social Security. That is a point which needs answering, but I shall not ask for it today.
The second point that I should like to stress with the noble Baroness is that we are not arguing—I do not think any of us would argue—about the correctness of the Government's choice in choosing the local authorities as their main agents for implementing the inner city area policies. That is correct. But what I was arguing for was that that local support for voluntary bodies is not enough on its own and needs to be complemented by central Government support for a fairly wide range of national voluntary bodies and regional voluntary bodies.
I am very content to leave it there for the time being. I should like to take up the suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made that she might write
738
to us, after the meeting, or correspond with us in some way, so that we can judge in what form this debate needs to be continued at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
The Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
1.58 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The first four clauses of the Bill are concerned with the application of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom. The fifth clause provides authority for Government expenditure to enable early construction of the Drax B power station. Clause 1 introduces Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which themselves deal with the rights of IAEA inspectors and with regulations to give effect to certain provisions in the Safeguards Agreement. It indicates that their purpose is to give effect to this agreement, concluded in September 1976 between the United Kingdom, the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency, for the application of safeguards to civil nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom in connection with the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These safeguards comprise measures to guard against the diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful uses and to provide timely indication of possible diversions.
The United Kingdom is one of the three depository Powers of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which came into effect in March 1970. Non-nuclear weapon States party to the treaty undertake to accept International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on their nuclear activities. As a nuclear weapon State, we were not obliged to accept these

739
safeguards. During the negotiation of the Treaty, however, the United Kingdom volunteered that, at such time as the safeguards were put into effect in the non-nuclear weapon States, it would also be prepared to accept the application of safeguards, subject to exclusions for national security reasons only. The reasons for our offer were to demonstrate that we stood to gain no unfair commercial advantages by not having our nuclear facilities open to inspection, and to encourage non-nuclear weapon States to become parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. A similar offer was made by the United States, I am glad to report. France, although not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has negotiated an agreement with the Community, and with the IAEA for the application of IAEA safeguards in France.
Clause 2 of the Bill sets out the rights that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors will have under the Safeguards Agreement, together with the penalties to be imposed for failure to afford them those rights or for providing them with false information. The United Kingdom's national security interests will not be prejudiced by the inspections. We shall have both the right to object to any International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who are not acceptable to us and the right to have such inspectors accompanied during their inspections by European Community inspectors and representatives of the United Kingdom.
The third clause of the Bill is concerned with regulations which may be made by the Secretary of State to give effect to certain provisions of the Safeguards Agreement. I should like to stress that no such regulations will be needed, in normal circumstances. The unusual circumstances in which it could be necessary to make regulations are limited to those which are referred to in Articles 18, 19 and 76 of the Agreement. These might include, for example, an irregularity in the operation of a nuclear facility which might have resulted in the diversion of nuclear facility which might have resulted in the diversion of nuclear material or a situation where it would be desirable to limit inspectors' access for reasons of safety, for instance, if a release of radioactivity were to occur. It is likely that, if such circumstances were to arise, they would arise suddenly and require swift
740
action. If the Secretary of State did not have powers to make regulations, the United Kingdom might be unable to implement its obligations under the Agreement until a further Bill had been carried through Parliament.
Clause 4 provides that proceedings may be taken against any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate, as well as against the body corporate itself, if it can be proved that an offence under Clause 2, or under any regulations made under Clause 3, has been committed and that the offence was committed with his consent or connivance or as a result of his neglect. In this connection, it is worth noting that most of the operators of facilities in the United Kingdom containing nuclear material which would be subject to safeguards are bodies corporate in the public sector; for example, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. The likelihood of this penalty clause being invoked is, therefore, extreme clause being invoked is, therefore, extremely small.
In urging the House to accept the clauses on nuclear safeguards, I do not wish to imply that the Government consider the present system will be complete. The system is, in fact, being steadily improved, and the United Kingdom is contributing towards that improvement. We are playing a full part in the International Agency's various consultative committees, symposia and advisory groups. As specific examples of what we are doing, we are examining ways in which we can help the Agency with analytical services and instrument-testing facilities and, perhaps, with the gift of instruments. We are also planning to hold a training course of International Agency inspectors in the United Kingdom later this year.
International safeguards are sometimes criticised on the grounds that they cannot be guaranteed to prevent proliferation. The purpose of safeguards is to provide an early warning system to detect the diversion of nuclear material for illicit purposes. If such diversion is detected and reported to the International Agency, safeguards will have served their purpose. It would then be up to Governments to work together to ensure that the development

741
of weapons in that suspect country was prevented.
In giving our support to International Safeguards, and implementing them in this country, we are aware of their limitations but we are also firm believers in their importance. The international credibility of safeguards is itself one of the most important factors in their effectiveness in preventing proliferation. In implementing them in this country, I submit that we are strengthening their credibility and enhancing their effectiveness. It is in that spirit that I commend this part of the Bill to the House.
I turn now to Clause 5 of the Bill, which is in the second part. Clause 5 is to provide authority for contributions up to a total of £50 million towards expenses which the Central Electricity Generating Board will incur in building Drax B. Your Lordships may recall that, when I informed the House on 18th July 1977 of the Government's decision that Drax should be advanced, to meet the immediate needs of the power plant manufacturers, I confirmed that the principle of compensation for the Board had been accepted, and this principle has been upheld by another place. In considering this part of the Bill, it may, however, be useful if I were to recall some of the background.
The Central Policy Review Staff report on the power plant industry, which was published in December 1976 and, of course, widely discussed, recommended that there should be no power station orders until the turbo-generator and boiler-making industries had been rationalised. But no rationalisation can succeed if it does not command the confidence of the workers, management, and the main customer. Despite wide consultations, it proved impossible to bring the main turbo-generator manufacturers, Parsons and GEC, into a single company, but discussions are continuing on the proposed merger of the main boiler-making firms, Babcocks and Clarke-Chapman. Rationalisation of the industry remains the Government's long-term aim, and the need for it has not been fundamentally altered by the grouping together of Parsons and Clarke-Chapman in Northern Engineering Industries.
However, neither the Government nor the CEGB have the power to force
742
rationalisation on those who are unwilling to accept it. Finally, because of the pressing short-term need for work in important sections of the industry, the Government decided that the Generating Board should place an immediate order for Drax B, and should negotiate the turbo-generator contract with Parsons. Design phase contracts for the turbo-generators and for the boilers were placed in November last year, and it is the intention that manufacturing contracts should be placed this summer. The Board has, meanwhile, been authorising the purchase of long lead-time materials.
But for the Government's decision, the Board would not have placed the main contracts until, in their view, the likely growth of electricity demand made it necessary. On present forecasts, the Board would not have placed an order before 1980. Now, with orders placed in 1978, the station should begin to be commissioned in 1984, and be fully operational in 1986. It is true that there have recently been many examples of delays in power station construction. The CEGB are naturally doing everything they can to ensure that there are no delays to Drax. The separate letting of the design phase contract will mean that the design is "frozen" before the construction begins. A mutual agreement about pay and conditions between contractors on the site will be sought, so as to reduce the likelihood of industrial disputes. Contracts will also incorporate incentives for timely completion.
Ordering Drax two years early will bring benefits to the Board as well as costs. It is a mark of the Government's confidence in the future of the coal industry in the United Kingdom. It will bring forward by two years the savings in fuel costs consequent upon having a new, efficient, 2,000 megawatt generating station available to the CEGB. Suggestions were made in another place that the station's thermal efficiency could be further enhanced by using it as the centrepiece of a district heating scheme. The Department of Energy has had the opportunity to discuss with the CEGB the extent to which heat from Drax B could be made available for industrial or domestic use if practical proposals were made. I am pleased to tell the House that the design is such that if a suitable heat load became available after the plant was constructed,

743
a scheme could be completed by the installation of additional steam pipework and control.
The main benefit of early ordering will come in the field of employment. Thousands of jobs which would otherwise have been at risk in the works of the main contractors and their sub-contractors will be saved. The order for Drax will be followed by orders for nuclear plant consequent upon the Government's decision on thermal reactor choice, and the Government will do all they can to help win export orders following on those recently announced for Hong Kong and South Korea.
The CEGB operates under a statute which requires it to provide an efficient, economical and co-ordinated supply of electricity. The Government have to take a wider view, and to consider the industrial contract in particular; the House will know that the Bill to reorganise the electricity supply industry would have laid upon the new Electricity Corporation a duty to take into account the effects of its purchasing policies upon its suppliers. Against this background, it seems right I suggest, to protect the electricity consumer, but to secure the benefits of an early order by payment of a Government contribution towards the costs. This contribution will be subject to an absolue ceiling of £50 million, which will not be increased whatever happens to interest rates and to power station construction costs. Compensation will be paid in annual instalments, on receipt of evidence about payments actually made by the Board.
Although, as I have explained, the period by which the order has been advanced is two years or more, in order to take into account the benefits of early ordering, we have agreed with the Board to pay compensation on the basis of a six-monthly period of advance. The main identifiable expense of early ordering is the interest cost on the funds borrowed for the project. Payment of compensation will, therefore, be linked to interest. This part of the Bill provides for the preservation of vital skills in a very important industry, and also demonstrates the Government's confidence in the coal industry. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (Lord Strabolgi.)
2.16 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us a very clear exposition of the contents of this small Bill, which deals with two quite different matters. It is perfectly true what he said, that the major part of the Bill, the first four clauses, deal with a basically non-controversial matter, and I am pleased to congratulate the Government on showing an international lead in this question of the non-diversion of peaceful atomic material, as he put it.
Lest we indulge in an excess of self-congratulatory halo-polishing, let us also welcome his recognition that we have a very long way to go in this matter as yet, but that this represents a useful start. I was also particularly glad to hear the noble Lord confirm that there will be a right to challenge the International Energy Agency, the inspectors, which was a matter that was raised by some of my honourable friends in another place. He did not, however, deal with one other small point, which was the question of the somewhat inadequate-looking penalties of, I think, £1,000 for non-compliance with the regulations in relation to the magnitude of the issues involved. This perhaps is somewhat small, but it is not something we need to get over-excited about.
When we turn to Clause 5 we deal with something that is a great deal less straightforward and less clear-cut, and a matter with a somewhat unhappy history. The provisions in the present Bill have a somewhat dubious ancestry, which I might perhaps describe as out of Plowden by Liberal pique. I think it is worth looking at the history of why we have ended up with a small Bill with one clause dealing with one specific issue. The Plowden Committee, which incidentaly contained three Members of this House in its makeup, reported in January, 1976 after just over 12 months' work. Then the Central Policy Review Staff published their report I was interested that they said they had to produce their report by October 1976, and the noble Lord told us that it was published in December 1976. At the risk of sounding niggling, is it not rather a pity that there is no date put on the front of these sort of

745
reports, so that we know exactly to what time they refer? Something like this gets out of date very quickly, as we are well aware, and this was a hurried report, as it says in it.
Then it seems that the Government waited for about 18 months after the Plowden Report before they made the statement to which the noble Lord referred, in July 1977. Then there was a further six months' gap, when the draft Bill was considered early in 1978. Now that Bill, my Lords, was something of a curate's egg; it was good in parts and there were in it many things which many of us are rather sorry to have lost. However, there were also in it clauses about which we, on this side of the House, would have been rather unhappy, notably those clauses which we would have regarded as something equivalent to creeping nationalisation; I suppose that term will do as a shorthand.
We have the impression that one of the reasons that that Bill was not proceeded with was the rather curious one that apparently the Liberals did not particularly wish to support the Minister, who they did not feel was particularly enthusiastic to work with them. As I say, that is simply an impression that one has. Anyway, the facts of the matter are that all that happened was that the Bill appeared as the substantial content of the White Paper, Cmnd. 7134. The road to this little Bill is littered with a fair number of White Papers the names of which are confusingly similar; but this is the frustrated White Paper that we have seen before us. A good deal of the debate in another place took the form of debating the Bill that might have been; and many of us would have liked to see a number of the features in it.
If we turn now to the issue of Drax B, this too has a fairly long history in that think that the Central Electricity Generating Board first proposed this power station in November 1969. At that time, and until about 1975, it was suggesting that it might be ordered in 1978. My understanding is that it consists of three 660 megawatt sets and that the contract would be of the order of £800 million. This order was vital to the supply industry, which is already facing a major downturn in demand as a result of the world recession combined with the results of the OPEC
746
price increase. There is no need for us to get into a discussion as to which is the cause and the effect between the fuel price rise and the world recession. So far as the generating industry is concerned, we all know that for the first time for many years the demand for electricity has stopped increasing on a regular exponential basis, and inevitably this threw the industry into a certain amount of disarray.
The CPRS very strongly linked the suggestion of bringing forward the order to using the possibility of advancing the order as an incentive for rationalisation. This was one of its recommendations. It is here that we venture into a slightly more critical area. The Prime Minister somewhat sold the pass by announcing in May 1977, I imagine under pressure from Members of Parliament from the North-East in whose constituencies the Parsons and Reyrolle companies were, and also in the wake of President Carter's visit to that part of the country, that this order would go forward before the rationalisation had been completed.
Then in July Mr. Benn announced in another place, and the noble Lord repeated it here, that the order was to go forward before the turbo-alternator companies had merged. I find this slightly surprising, coming from him. I think that he must have been leant on by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I have never accused Mr. Benn of ever failing to play a negotiating card for all that it was worth; but on this occasion he seems to have thrown away this very strong negotiating card. The noble Lord correctly said that nobody could compel these industries to do certain things, but they have considerable persuasive powers. We have had this sort of discussion here in the past about the meaning of the word "voluntary" in connection with North Sea oil participation; so let us leave it at that. We are now trying to see what happened.
One other thing that we ought to bear in mind is that if we look at the energy policy consultative document and its forecasts, which inevitably are hedged around with all the uncertainties of the level of ordering which we can expect in the future, I think that we come out with about 2,000 megawatts a year. I suppose that we will have to become accustomed to calling that 2 gigawatts, but I find that

747
even more difficult than some of the other terminology. That is an ordering level of 2,000 megawatts a year up to about 1990, gradually increasing to something of the order of 4,000 megawatts by the turn of the century. So that is the structural background against which we have to consider what is happening now.
We also find in the CPRS document a certain criticism of the CEGB for not having sufficient regard to the implications of its actions upon the industry which supplies it with generating equipment. That also appears in the Plowden Report. This takes us back to thinking about the Bill that might have been. I think that we ought to say a word or two about it. The proposal, as I understand it, is for what in industry would be called "vertical integration", whereby the generating and distributing functions become very closely linked with the manufacturing functions. It may well be that the Central Electricity Generating Board took a too narrow and short-term view of its functions, and did not have enough regard to the difficulties in which it might find itself if it allowed the home-based industry to wither away.
I cannot help having considerable reservations about the advantages of getting around this difficulty by vertical integration. When one is talking of businesses on this scale, it seems to me that one may make the difficulties of controlling these industries even more difficult than they are already. We have to think, admittedly in a slightly different connection, of the Rothschild Report on commissioning of research when it insists on the customer/client relationship, which I believe is a valuable one of which we should not lose sight. I also think that we ought to remember the rather unhappy experience that there has been in the past of the influence of the nationalised air corporations, BEA and BOAC, upon the aircraft manufacturing companies, which have been induced to produce aeroplanes specifically designed for use by the national airlines—the fact that they are nationalised has nothing to do with it—at the cost of their international competitiveness. This is in no sense intended as a criticism; it is intended as a word of warning and something for consideration.
In this connection it is worth repeating the strictures made by both Plowden and the CPRS Report. As a little word of
748
warning, Plowden says on page 46, referring to the powers and the Government control over the Boards:
"Second, the Government must provide a stable framework of objectives and targets within which the Board can be held to account for the performance of the industry".
It goes on—this is the point:
"Attempts to use the industry's prices and capital investment as an economic regulator are wholly inconsistent with this duty".
That is what Plowden said. It repeated it in the Summary of Recommendations at the end. The CPRS a few months later said much the same. They say this on page xiii of their first chapter, "Summary and Conclusions":
"That is to say, the short term help should only be given as part of the agreement towards the rationalisation which is necessary for the longer term".
Both these reports are concerned about the danger of using orders as economic regulators.
It is also a pity that, in the process of what has happened, we have lost some of the opportunities to implement others of the Plowden recommendations, to which indirectly the noble Lord referred. Plowden said on page 51 to the recommendations:
"At present the industry's statutory duty is to provide 'an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply'. This duty should be changed to take into account the importance of energy conservation".
The next recommendation was:
"In order to enable the CEB to initiate heat-and-power schemes, its power to sell heat should no longer be restricted to selling heat which is a by-product of electricity generation".
The other Bill would have been desirable to meet some of those points.
My Lords, on the present Bill we have always said that if the order were to be advanced, the CEGB should be compensated for having to act uncommercially. This was done by a Conservative Government in connection with Ince B, when the compensation had to be increased under the Energy Act. Similarly, in that instance we did not go out to tender, because the industry had come to an internal agreement that GEC at that time had plenty of orders and so the order was given to Parsons.
There is a slightly different situation now. I agree that it is fine for the Parsons' workers—I believe it has been

749
said that 7,000 jobs have been saved by bringing forward the Drax order—but think we should remember that there are workers in GEC who feel discriminated against in favour of the less efficient workers at Parsons. They feel that their success in getting export orders from countries like Iran and Hong Kong is telling against them in the sort of objectionable way in which pensioners some times feel they have been treated if they have their own savings and are told they get less of a pension, which seems a little hard after managing their affairs in a responsible manner.
There is one other point I should like to raise here, and which the noble Lord touched on. It has been called the dinosaur policy by my honourable friend in another place. Are we right to build these huge power stations in remote areas, which in spite of all that the noble Lord says about the possibilities of combined heat-and-power, which I welcome, make things very much more difficult? One would have thought that there might have been a case for saying, rather than seek for an extra 2 per cent. of efficiency from 38 to 40 per cent. by going bigger and bigger in size, should one not concentrate on this two-thirds of the power which is currently wasted by building smaller stations in an area where it would be easier to exploit the combined heat-and-power possibilities? In the light of that, I must say I wonder very much whether the CPRS is right in saying that we ought to go ahead and order 1,300 megawatt sets.
In this connection may I also ask whether it is true that the 660 megawatt sets in Drax A have had a pretty unsatisfactory record of reliability? I am not suggesting that this should alter our policy, and I welcome many of the comments that the noble Lord has made about the entirely sensible arrangements which are being made to avoid the possibility of time and cost overruns in building this station. There is the other point, that it may well turn out that the order has not been advanced so much ahead of what the CEGB will in the end need.
My Lords, as usual I have spoken longer than I intended, and I apologise. May I sum it up this way: The nuclear safeguard provision in the Bill is a logical and unquestioned implementation of
750
international policy, about which we should all be interested. Indeed, we had a Question very much on this issue this morning. The Drax compensation provision is all right so far as it goes and we cannot object to it, but I think it is worth saying that we have to accept that this rather sad little clause in the Bill is essentially an admission of failure on the part of the Government to achieve a very important restructuring of the industry, which has been left in the air and which may have been made even more difficult by the decisions that have been taken.
2.38 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining and presenting this Bill. We understand, accept and welcome the first four clauses as part of the United Kingdom's policy to prevent the misuse of spent nuclear fuels for other purposes. The only question I wish to ask is whether Britain herself will be able to make a contribution to the inspectorate. We have in this country some of the finest expertise in the nuclear industry, and I should like to feel that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm that part of the inspectorate for countries other than the United Kingdom will employ British personnel with nuclear experience.
I do not wish to say much about the points the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, made, especially with references to my own Party. I feel that his interpretation of other people's Parties is not entirely correct and may be not wholly relevant in terms of this Bill. I want, however, to take up one point: that is, the role he cast for the Central Electricity Generating Board. As I see it, the only function of the Electricity Generating Board, the Coal Board and the Gas Board is to produce the fuel for which they are responsible, and to deliver it as efficiently and cheaply as they can to the consumer. I do not believe that it is the Boards' function to anticipate, direct or even force various contracts to go to certain companies. They contract out their needs, and it is the Minister for Energy, who is responsible in this country for energy policy, who has to draw the threads together, the needs of the consumer, the resources available and so on, through the various Boards that he has available to him.

751
My Lords, I think Clause 5 of the Bill introduces a new factor into Her Majesty's Government's energy policy equation, which so far consists mainly of taking into consideration renewable and nonrenewable energy resources, consumer price, conservation and pollution. This new factor is job creation, which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned. We welcome this as a new factor and one which must be a permanent factor in this country's, and indeed in all countries, energy policy.
I think it is wrong to interpret it as being simply because it is an Election year that this order has been placed. I believe this is the right time to place such an order so as to retain the expertise in the industries mentioned and to prevent further unemployment in these areas where unemployment is far too high already. We also welcome the fact that the Government recognise that this should come under a separate costing arrangement which is not directly attributable to the Central Electricity Generating Board's budget. I believe that if decisions of this kind, such as bringing forward the Drax B power station, are made for job creation reasons, they have to be separately accounted for, both to the taxpayer and to the generating board concerned.
I should like to commend to the noble Earl, and to the noble Lord if he has not already read it, Report No. 95, April 1978, from the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives in the United States. It is rather a lengthy and detailed report, but on page 73 it touches very closely on the principle behind Clause 5 of the Bill:
"The energy crisis, or the economic impact of our dependence on nonrenewable resources, is one of the major causes of unemployment".
This is in the United States, of course. The report goes on to say:
"Each dollar the government spends should be evaluated on the basis of its potential to create jobs, save money, stimulate manufacturing, lessen pollution and save depleting resources".
I am not wishing to compare the energy problems of the United States with those of the United Kingdom. The only point I wish to make is that in the United States they have recognised the role of job creation in terms of an energy policy. This is what Clause 5 is about and this is what we welcome.
752
I also feel that it is right to say, even in this small Bill where we are dealing with coal and electricity generation, that the jobs created by the new solar industries of energy creation are far more exciting than those created by new coal-fired stations or new nuclear power stations. In America, possibly because they have a better climate than we have here, the solar-based energy industry will take great strides forward, not only because it saves energy, but because it creates jobs.
I would add one final point, while talking on Drax B. There is an oversupply of electricity generation predicted in this country if the energy growth rates do not increase to anything like those predicted a few years back. I do not believe this matters—and I am not being unduly cynical here—because every extrapolation made in the energy industry to date has been wrong. It has not been wrong through the fault of those who have made such extrapolations. Other factors which have not been anticipated have always made those calculations wrong. And I suspect that they will be wrong again. Therefore, I am not unduly worried about the problem of the oversupply of electricity. However, I am worried about the current price of natural gas. I am also worried about its misuses for industrial purposes. In another debate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that this was really primarily to assist the householder and should not be used elsewhere, and should certainly not be used to fire electrical power stations.
These things again go back to the Minister of Energy and his pricing policy, and in terms of this Bill I welcome Drax B. The only reason for hesitation I have about it is perhaps one which has not been raised before in this House and which has not, so far as I am aware, been raised in terms of energy policy at all. It is that it greatly increases the carbon dioxide content, not only in the air locally, but it will on a global basis too. I do not have all the facts available at the moment, but there are some scientists, both in this country and in the United States and Russia, who are showing serious concern about the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If that concern proves to be justified, to the extent that it will have been proven without any shadow of doubt that man is changing the climate every day, the effects of this in 20 or 30 years time,

753
or by the year 2000, if extrapolated and if correct, could cast a great shadow on the use of coal-fired power stations for electricity generation. My Lords, this is not the time or the place to go into this question in any detail, but I should like just to say that I onally am concerned about this. I hope that it will be proved that this concern is unjustified. Meanwhile, I should like to conclude by saying that we give a welcome to this Bill—both parts of it—and we look forward to seeing Drax B completed as soon as possible.
2.47 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we have had an interesting short debate. I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions towards it, and I will do my best to answer the various points that have been made. I was particularly interested in the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona's, speech. He always takes a deep interest in these matters, and, clearly, he has acquainted himself with Plowden and with all the different aspects in this very important and far-ranging matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for his contribution and for the various questions that he has raised.
Of course, as he said, he went a little wide of the debate in raising the whole matter of the future of coal, but this is something which is taken into account. One of the difficulties is that we have to find a substitute one day for the natural minerals—and one of these substitutes could, of course, be atomic energy—but we are very rich in coal in this country. However, this will be taken into account. Fortunately, I think man usually finds that there are solutions to these problems. He is endlessly inventive.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, congratulated the Government on the first part of the Bill, and I was grateful to him for doing this. He asked me about penalties. The level of penalties imposed under the Bill has been fixed in accordance with the Government's policy on the appropriate severity of fines and penalties for offences of the type envisaged and are well precedented in other United Kingdom legislation. On the advice of the Home Office, the relevant clauses of the Bill have been drafted in the light
754
of this policy. The maximum of £1,000 in Clause 2 for obstruction or refusal or failure to erate accords with the maximum normally available to magistrates in British courts.
The noble Lord then turned to Clause 5, which is the part of the Bill dealing with Drax B. He asked me first why there was no date for the CPRS report. I cannot tell him that, but I will go into it and let him know. He also referred to the question of the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry and the original Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, it was the original intention of the Government that the provisions on Drax and nuclear safeguards should be included in a larger Bill, as the noble Lord said, providing for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales, and these proposals followed the report of the Committee of Inquiry under the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. It would have provided a much needed unity and sense of strategic direction for the industry. I regret to say that it has not been possible to introduce these measures this Session, with the consequent uncertainty and damage to morale in the industry.
However, the Government remain fully committed to the reorganisation, and to demonstrate this commitment and to make their detailed intentions known, the Government have published a White Paper setting out their proposals for the structure of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, said rightly that it was the Liberal Party's objection which brought about the demise of the Bill. These objections were wide-ranging and if the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, will allow me to say so, not always consistent. There are also many Liberals who support the aim of unification.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, brought up the usual Conservative bugbear about nationalisation. Sub-Committee B of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is at present studying the White Paper in a series of pre-legislative hearings, and has heard evidence from the Secretary of State for Energy and officials, as well as representatives of the Plowden Committee,

755
the industry, the unions, consumers and suppliers. In general, witnesses have favoured the overall aim of unification.
I turn now to the question of the Drax B delay. The Central Policy Review Staff which, although it was not dated, reported in December 1976 on the United Kingdom power plant manufacturing industry, suggested possible measures which could be taken to assist the industry. They laid particular stress on the need to achieve rationalisation of the industry to assist it in remaining internationally competitive. The Government then had to consider which direction to take. Intensive consultations took place with all the interested parties, the electricity supply industry, management and unions in the various companies. The aim was to achieve rationalisation as recommended by the Think Tank. But these are complicated matters and people are simply not willing at a moment's notice to consent to a fundamental change in direction of their firm's future. While there was a chance of achieving early rationalisation, the Government had to allow time for discussion and argument, but the Government had to keep in view, too, the overriding need to protect the industry's future by guarding against having any large-scale decline in employment at this critical juncture.
No rationalisation can succeed if it does not command the confidence of the management and workers involved, and, of course, that of the main customer. Equally, Government cannot bring about rationalistaion by compulsion. It finally became clear that early rationalisation could not be achieved. The Government thus decided in July last year to ask the CEGB to advance Drax orders and to place the turbine contract with C.A. Parsons. Since then, as the House will know, there have been discussions on a proposed merger of the boilermaking interests of Babcock and Wilcox and Clarke-Chapman. Rationalisation of the power plant industry, though, remains the Government's long-term aim.
I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree that it was right to allow time for an extensive debate following the CPRS report, but that it was right, too, to accede to the pressing need for home orders for the industry. After all, rationalisation can still take place, but the order for Drax B
756
was necessary to ensure that an important part of the industry did not go out of existence. Since the decision to ask the CEGB to go ahead was taken last July, design contracts have been placed, and it is hoped to place manufacturing contracts and start main manufacturing work, shortly.
I am sure that the House will agree that a project of this nature is a massive task for all concerned, It is right to do everything possible to get the design right before beginning construction, so as to avoid design changes during construction and the unavoidable delay that these entail. The Government's decision on thermal reactor choice in January opens the way for orders for two advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations so that the short-term work load before the power plant industry for stations in Great Britain, is now 4,600 megawatts. The question of future orders is under review with the electricity authorities in the light of all relevant factors including forecasts of electricity demand and the planning margin needed by the industry.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Could the noble Lord put a time-scale on that level of ordering?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I think I shall be able to say a little about that. The design phase began in November 1977. It is intended that the design should be frozen, as I said, when main manufacturing contracts are let. It is the present intention to let the contract for piling work on the Drax site in July. Comprehensive contracts for the manufacture of the boilers and turbo-generators will be let this summer, when the design phase is complete. The purchase of long lead-time materials has been authorised, as I said in my original speech. Some manufacturing work may begin on the basis of letters of intent before contracts are finally signed. The contract for constructional steel work is expected to be let in the spring of 1979, and the first 660 megawatt turbo-generator should be commissioned in June 1984, with the second and third following in 1985 and 1986. As I have said, the Central Electricity Generating Board are doing, and will do everything they can to ensure that there are no delays at Drax. The design is to be frozen before construction begins. There

757
is to be a mutual agreement between contractors on the site and this will be sought so as to minimise the likelihood of industrial disputes, and contracts will incorporate incentives for timely completion.
The noble Lord also asked me about the question of Parsons and GEC. Now the rationalisation of the turbo-generating industry remains the Government's long-term aim, though it must be acknowledged that rationalisation cannot succeed without the confidence of management and workers and the main customer. But close co-operation and collaboration is being maintained between the nuclear power company, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board, to provide a standard design of the advanced gas-cooled reactor power station for Heysham and Torness. It is too early to determine how the contracts for the turbo-generators will be placed, but it is hoped to standardise the turbo-generator design also. This matter, I am glad to say, is currently being discussed with GEC and C. A. Parsons by the generating boards.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked me whether more coal-fired stations would be ordered. The Board has not at present sought approval for any coal-fired stations beyond Drax B. The timing of future orders will depend on many factors including the growth of electricity demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, asked about Drax B and its reliability. I am not aware of the details about the performance of the 660-megawatt generating sets. That is a matter for the Board. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that in general large generating sets which had their teething problems are beginning to prove themselves in service. After a period of successful operation, the new rotors had to be fitted to Units 1 and 2 at Drax A; since then the station has operated successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, also said that he did not think that the CEGB took sufficient account of the interests of its suppliers. The Bill to reorganise the electricity industry would lay a duty on the new corporation to have regard to the effect of its purchasing policies on its suppliers.
758
He said that the Drax order should not have been placed in advance of the rationalisation. Rationalisation cannot be carried out by compulsion. It remains the Government's long-term aim that there should be rationalisation, but the need to preserve vital skills in the industry must be paramount. I hope that has answered all the various points that the two noble Lords have raised. I am grateful to them for their contribution and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for the support he has given and for his quotes from the Senate Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC) ORDER 1978
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities)(Polish People's Republic) Order 1978, laid before the House on 16th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order, which is to be made under the Consular Relations Act 1968, is to enable us to give effect to our obligations under a revised consular convention with Poland. The privileges and immunities accorded to foreign consulates in this country are governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, unless it is agreed bilaterally within the limits prescribed by the Act that the higher scale shall be conferred.
Our revised convention with Poland provides, on the basis of reciprocity, that the consulates of each country shall be accorded privileges and immunities equating to the diplomatic scale. The order will therefore extend to the Polish Consulate General in London, which is established separately from their embassy here, and to the Polish Consulate General in Glasgow the same degree of privilege and immunity as is now conferred on the Polish Embassy here and on the consular section of the British Embassy in Warsaw, whose consular district comprises the whole of Poland.
The effect of the order will be quite limited in terms of the number of officials concerned; to be precise, 13 Polish consular officers and six consular employees, together with their families, will be accorded privileges and immunities on the same scale as the corresponding categories of diplomatic staff and their families.
Consular conventions providing for privileges and immunities on the equivalent of the diplomatic scale have been concluded not only with Poland but also with the Soviet Union and other countries in Eastern Europe. Of these seven countries, Poland alone maintains consular posts in the United Kingdom. Although we ourselves have no consular office situated outside the capitals of these countries, and it is not the present intention to establish any, it was thought right to secure these facilities by treaty in order that any British Consulate which might be opened in the Soviet Union or in Eastern Europe, and in particular the consular officers and staff working there, as well as their families, should be afforded the highest degree of protection.
This insurance for the future is by no means the sole advantage gained by us in amending the convention with Poland. The principle and immediate benefits to the United Kingdom are that the convention now guarantees precise time limits within which the arrest of any of our nationals by the Polish authorities must be notified to our Consul and within which the Consul shall be given early and frequent access to the person detained. As a result, the consular section of our embassy, and any consular post later established in Poland, will be able to render assistance more promptly and, therefore, more effectively to people who find themselves in this unhappy situation.
The increased standards of privilege and immunity conferred on Polish consulates by the present order, is of course, closely related to the provision on arrest which I have just described, for unless our consular officers and staff are to enjoy a status which will enable them to carry out their duties without interference, they will in turn be unable to give the necessary help to British subjects who may find themselves in trouble with the Polish authorities. I hope the order commends itself to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Polish People's Republic) Order 1978, laid before the House on 16th May, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
Baroness ELLES: On behalf of my noble friends and, I am sure, all Members of your Lordships' House, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for having explained the purposes of the order before us so clearly and so helpfully. Indeed, I knew that we would get a very helpful explanation when I saw that the Protocol which is put into effect by this order was signed by the noble Lord himself, so this was already a good augury.
However, I regret to disappoint him in that I have certain questions to ask him arising out of having a look at what appears to be a relatively simple order and out of what he has now told the House. I have communicated to him two or three of the questions I am going to ask him and possibly there may be one or two more, in which case I should be grateful for a written reply later if it is not convenient to answer now.
One of the questions which concerns me at the moment is the definition of members of families. I could find no definition in the Diplomatic Privileges Act of 1964, nor in the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic or consular relations. As we all know, members of families can be "extended" or "nuclear", as I think the modern term is, and it may be that considerable numbers of people will, in fact, be getting privileges which were neither intended or imagined when this draft order was made. I wonder whether at some time the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would look at this question of the definition of members of families. It may be that it is acceptable to all countries to use this as a term of art, but it can be abused and I think it is for our Foreign Office to look into this and see that it is not abused, particularly, of course, where there is more than one residential premise.
For instance, in the case of the Polish Consulates—and I am not saying that this necessarily relates only to Poland—they now have a consulate in London and also, as the noble Lord has informed the House, in Glasgow and although, as he said, only 13 consular officials and six

761
members of their staff are affected, one can multiply that several times when the members of the families of all those people are included: it could come up to, say, 50. I do not know, but it could be quite a considerable number of people who will benefit from certain exemptions from Customs' duties which the order extends not only to a first-time installation but also so that every time they come into the country they will get the benefits of these privileges and exemptions and the various other exemptions which are set out in this order. For instance, immunity from jurisdiction is quite convenient when one consistently parks one's car in the wrong place and gets a ticket but does not have to pay the fine.
These privileges and immunities are extended to members of the families, not only, of course, of consular officers but also to the members of the families of consular employees; in fact, some of these privileges also extend to members of the service staff of a consular post. All these figures added together can make quite a considerable number and if these exemptions and privileges are now to be extended to this category of person attached to different consulates throughout the country, this would be quite a consideration. I should like the Foreign Office, through the Minister, to look at this question of the definition of members of families. I ask the noble Lord to confirm that the exemption from taxation under paragraph 4 applies only to wages and similar emoluments of members of the service staff. It is not, of course, a general exemption from all taxation payable by citizens and residents in the United Kingdom.
There is one other question that I should like to raise with the noble Lord. It is the question, to which he has rightly drawn our attention, which refers to Article XI in the Protocol: the question of the protection or a national abroad who has been arrested or detained by the receiving State of the consul. As he rightly says, a certain degree of protection has been introduced into Article XI which means that after the maximum of three days the consul must have the right to see the detained or arrested British national. This is valuable and we are glad to see that it is contained in this Protocol and will now come into effect. This is very valuable,
762
particularly in certain parts of the world where our citizens may be arrested on trumped-up charges or are in difficult situations and have not always had easy access to their consul.
This, I was always told at the United Nations, was customary international law. But customary international law, of course, is not always observed by all countries, and therefore I am very glad to see that this has now been contained in an international instrument. I am, however, a little worried about paragraph 4(b), which comes under Article XI. As the noble Lord rightly said, the basis of these documents is that they are reciprocal, and equal treatment is accorded to British nationals in Poland. as to Polish nationals in this country. I would draw his attention to the final sentence of paragraph 4 (b):
"The consular officer shall be entitled to be present during the trial in the receiving State of a national of the sending State in so far as the laws and regulations of the receiving State permit".
We in this country have a very high standard of justice, and the courts are always open, unless it is a matter of the Official Secrets Acts. But the noble Lord will agree with me that this is not always the case in other countries. Of course, it is not for me to comment on the laws and regulations of Poland. That is not what we are discussing at the moment. But I very much hope that the noble Lord will look into this matter and see that this kind of restriction and limitation on the right of a consular officer is not contained in future documents, because this can have a very serious effect on the rights of a national to have a fair hearing, wherever he may be arrested.
In connection with that, I should also like to see in future documents of this kind the right of interpretation for the national during his trial, because that is not included in this and this must be something that a consular official must be entitled to request for a British national wherever he is arrested and then tried in a foreign court. We provide that service in this country for nationals of any country, and we should demand the reciprocal right for our nationals in other countries.
I should also like to see in documents of this kind in the future that, while legal aid is available to the nationals of the receiving State, it is also accorded to the

763
British national. Here again, if it is to be on a basis of reciprocity, this is something that we accord to all individuals, regardless of nationality. If we are going to accord that right to foreign nationals in this country, we should be a little more tough and demand this right for our own nationals when they are abroad. This particular aspect concerns me individually because, as the noble Lord will know, I am concerned with the rights of aliens and I have been looking particularly at their rights to access in foreign courts and to equal treatment with nationals. So if reciprocity is to be given, we should demand these rights.
I think that Poland is one of the countries that have ratified the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. That, of course, states that individuals shall have a fair hearing. So this is something that should be insisted on in this kind of document in the future. There are the major points that I wish to make and I would recommend—from these Benches, at any rate—that noble Lords accept this order. I express once more my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
3.16 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the contribution she has made, as always, raising important points of clarification. She raised first the question of the definition of, to quote the Vienna Convention and other documents relating to these situations,
"member of his family forming part of his household".
As she knows, this is an expression used repeatedly in the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, but it has, I agree, proved impossible so far—indeed, it proved impossible at two conferences which drew up these conventions —to agree on a general definition of this term. It is therefore for each State to apply its own definition.
The United Kingdom administrative practice is to accept the expression as including a spouse and minor child. In exceptional circumstances other relatives would, as it were, take the place of the spouse—for instance, where a sister keeps house for a consular official who is unmarried. I agree that it is the best that the
764
international community as a whole has been able to do; but it does need looking at. We are looking at this from time to time and comparing our ideas with those of other countries. I cannot say that a solution of this difficulty has so far been available. On the whole, this has worked. The definition is a fairly restricted one and there is the built-in reciprocity of sanctions, as it were, if one country, vis-à-vis another, interprets this admittedly inadequate phrase so as to create an imbalance of administrative action.
The noble Baroness also raised important points, which I take very much to mind, relating to interpretation—the interpretation, for instance, of Article XI and a number of other articles as to reciprocity. I think the balance is there, but we will look at them and test them against what the noble Baroness has said. For instance, she raised the question of the improved access for consular officials to people in detention, and quite rightly quoted the improved provisions: three days within which the receiving State must inform our consular officials that a detention has been effected, and four days within which the first visit must be made. If I may say so, she summarised that rather long and important article extremely well.
The noble Baroness drew our attention, of course, to the question of interpretation. Like her, I do not see a direct reference to the right to interpretation in the Protocol as it stands. Practice almost invariably in these cases—even, shall we say, in the most unaccommodating of States, and Poland is by no means the most unaccommodating in regard to this country—has been in trials to allow interpretation. She will have seen that there is full provision for the use of the language of preference—I am truncating the terms—in conversations and communications. I do not for a minute think that there would be difficulty about interpretation in a Polish court; but offhand I do not see a direct reference, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to that. I will look into that as well.
I do not think there was any other specific point that she raised. If I have missed one, I am sure that the noble Baroness, of all people, will remind me that I am not discharging my duties comprehensively. I am most grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING ORDER 1978
3.21 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this order the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1978 and the Supplementary Benefits (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1978.
I want to be as brief as I can, because I am conscious that there is further business before your Lordships' House which is likely to take some time. The Order and the Supplementary Benefits Regulations together provide for most of the increases in social security benefits announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his Statement in another place on 12th April. The Fixing and Adjustment Rates Regulations provide for further increases in child benefit rates from next November and the following April—that is, in addition to the substantial increase from last April.
I think it will be helpful to your Lordships if I take the up-rating order first and then deal with the various regulations. The order provides for increases in national insurance and industrial injuries benefits. A list of the principal benefit rates, both as they are now and as the order proposes to increase them, can be found in Appendix I to the Government Actuary's Report (Command 7232). The most significant increases in both social and financial terms are those in the rates of retirement pension. These will be raised in November from £17·50 to £19·50 for a single pensioner, and from £28 to £31·20 for a married couple. The new figures will represent increases of over 11 per cent., and it is proposed that other long-term benefits should rise by corresponding amounts.
The standard rate of sickness and unemployment benefit will rise from £14·70 to £15·75 for a single person and from £23·80 to £25·50 for a married couple. These are increases of about 7 per cent., and other short-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts.
766
Pensioners will again benefit from the change in the law which links the operation of the earnings rule with the general level of earnings. The amount that a person can earn before his pension is reduced will rise in November from £40 per week to £45 per week, and this will also apply to certain wives for whom a dependency increase is payable to the pensioner. This change is made in Article 6 of the order.
The welfare of the disabled is, I know, of special concern and interest to a good many of your Lordships, and your Lordships will therefore be pleased to know that there will be an increase in attendance allowance, which will rise from £14·00 a week to £l5·60 at the higher rate and, for people entitled to the lower rate of allowance, from £9·30 to £10·40. Both non-contributory invalidity pension and invalid care allowance will go up from £10·50 to £11·70. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made an order increasing mobility allowance from £7 to £10 per week from 5th July next.
The graduated pensions which many people earned under the scheme which was in operation from 1961 to 1975 will be increased for the first time this coming November. The Government have undertaken that in this respect graduated pensions will be treated broadly the same as the earnings-related additional pensions introduced by the new pensions scheme in April of this year, and will be increased in line with the movement in prices at each up-rating. This year they will go up in line with the expected movement in prices between April and November—namely, by 3·6 per cent.
The up-rating order fulfils my right honourable friend's statutory duty under Section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975. It meets the undertaking which this Government have made to protect the position of pensioners and other social security beneficiaries during a period of great economic difficulty. This up-rating will be the sixth that the Government have brought forward in just over four and a half years. The new pensions will be 152 per cent. higher in cash terms than the rates we inherited on taking office. These up-ratings mean that the real value of pensions will have risen by over 20 per cent. in the last five years.
I now turn to the draft regulations which provide for increases in supplementary benefit scale rates laid down in Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976. The increases that are proposed are comparable to the national insurance increases to which I have just referred, and will come into force at the same time. We propose that the long-term scale rates, which apply to supplementary pensioners and to people, other than the unemployed, who have received supplementary allowance continuously for two years, should be increased from £17,90 to £19.90 per week for the single householder, and from £28.35 to £31.55 for a married couple. The rates where a supplementary pensioner or his wife is over 80 will continue to be 25p higher at each point. The ordinary scale rates, which apply to the unemployed and to people who have received a supplementary allowance for less than two years, will be increased to £15.55 for a single householder and £25.25 for a married couple.
Scale rates for other adults and for children are also being raised. The special rates which apply to the blind will go up by the same amounts as the corresponding rates for sighted persons, so that their special preference will continue. Regulation 2 proposes that the amounts added for attendance requirements in assessing supplementary benefits for a person who receives attendance allowance should also be increased. I should also like to mention two other changes, which, though not provided for by the regulations, are an important element in the up-rating. Your Lordships will be pleased to learn that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have again decided to increase both the discretionary additions for extra heating and the standard additions for special diets. These changes will also take effect from 13th November.
I should now like to say something about the increases in child benefit. As a result of the increases last April child benefit of £2·30 is now payable for each child. Under the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1978 this rate will be further increased to £3 from 13th November. The £1 premium which has been paid since last April to certain lone parents will go up to £2 per week from 13th November. The regulations
768
also provide for a further increase in the rate of child benefit from £3 to £4 a week for each child from 2nd April 1979. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome these further increases which demonstrate the Government's determination to continue their support for families with children.
At this point I think I should give some explanation of the effect of the child benefit increases on the rates of National Insurance dependency benefit shown in the up-rating order. The money which families receive by way of child benefit is available during unemployment or sickness or widowhood just as much as during employment. The dependency increases which are payable with the National Insurance benefit in these circumstances will therefore be modified to take account of the increases in child benefit. The present rates of child dependency increases—E2·30 in the case of short-term benefits and £6·10 in the case of long-term benefits—are arrived at by deducting from the rates shown in the 1977 uprating order an amount equivalent to the increase in child benefit last April. The draft up-rating order which we are now considering contains in its schedule the actual amounts which beneficiaries will receive by way of child dependency increases from next November. These will be £1·85 for short-term benefits and £6·35 for long-term benefits. These rates take account not only of the increase of child benefit last April but also of the further increase from November. The deductions being made at present on account of last April's rise will therefore no longer be necessary and are revoked from November by the Fixing and Adjustment of Rates Amendment Regulations.
The schedule to the up-rating order also shows the actual rates of child dependency increases from 2nd April 1979, which will be 85 pence for short-term benefits and £5·35 for long-term benefits. By showing the Apirl 1979 rates in the order we avoid the need for further regulations to make deductions from the child dependency rates next April when child benefit goes up by a further £1 per week. The Government hope that showing the actual rates in this way will also make the position easier to understand.
Let me now say a few words about the cost of these increases in benefits and the

769
way in which they will be paid for. The combined effect of the orders which I have described will be to increase the annual rate of outgo on social security benefits in the United Kingdom by about £1,750 million from November 1978. They will in fact benefit about 18 million people. The further increase in child benefit in April 1979 will add even more to this sum. The National Insurance contribution rates which came into effect last April will be broadly adequate to meet the extra expenditure falling on the National Insurance Fund in 1978–79 and the balance between income and outgo from the Fund in 1979–80 will be reviewed around the end of this calendar year. My Lords, I am conscious of time. I hope that it is not necessary for me to say anything more. I am not unmindful of the fact that these things are always very complicated, more than they appear to be. But I hope that I have said enough and that your Lordships will accept the three Instruments now before you. I beg to move the first.
Moved, That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
3.36 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the information he has given and the speed with which he has got through these complicated orders. I, too, like the noble Lord, will try to be brief; in fact I should like to raise only one or two points. The interesting part that I have noted is Part II, on page 6, which is the maternity grant; I see it is to stay the same, at £25. I wonder, in these difficult, inflationary times, whether the Government could not have another look at this figure. Knowing full well that it has already cost us £1.700 million and we are constantly lookng at public expenditure, I wonder whether it would help to look again at this maternity grant. I turn now to Section II. This, to me, is more amazing than ever. It is the death grant. Looking down the items, it is well worth reading them out.
A death grant under Section 32 where the deceased was at his death under the
770
age of three amounts to £9; between the ages of three and six it is £15; between the ages of six and 18, £22; for someone over the age of 18, if on 5th July 1948 that person had attained the age of 55 in the case of a man or 50 in the case of a woman, the grant is £15; and, in any other case, £30.
When were these figures last looked at? I am not an undertaker and have little to do with family funerals as I have few relations left, but are not these figures somewhat out of line? Are they not somewhat ridiculous? I believe that a gravedigger's wage is something in the vicinity of £20 for a couple of hour's work or whatever it is. I do not see how these grants can possibly help. If the noble Lord cannot say anything now, will he look at it again? I believe that certain hardship can come from this, especially for people who are saving up to be buried. Is there any possibility that the noble Lord could either answer my first question: when were these grants last raised? Or could his Department have another look at this corner of the Social Security Bill?
I turn now to the age allowance. I see that it was introduced in 1971. I do not see that it has been increased since. I think that it is in the vicinity of only 25p per week. I wonder if the noble Lord could throw any light on that item. I come to one further question to ask the noble Lord, which is on the earnings rule. I noticed that the noble Lord said that the Government had raised the earnings rule from £40 to £45. I believe that it was in this House some time ago when we passed an Amendment to permit the earnings rule to be raised to £50.
I wonder what has happened to that Amendment. If it is lost and the noble Lord cannot answer at the moment, I should be most grateful if he could let me know, by writing or otherwise, as it seemed to me that in your Lordships' House we had played a certain part to try to raise these earnings rules, and we have so far only heard that it has been raised from £40 to £45. I am happy to see that the pensions have been raised—not much, but every little helps—and the child benefit, which, being a father, I shall get myself and I shall be very grateful for it. In that case, we fully understand—or almost understand—these complicated orders and

771
I have nothing further to say to the noble Lord, except to thank him for what he has already said.
3.41 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, for his comprehensive, lucid and speedy explanation of the nature and purpose of these orders. Of course, the National Insurance increases, as the noble Lord pointed out, are in accordance with the 1975 Act, and, as I have said before, the Government cannot expect credit every year for fulfilling their statutory obligations. They were certainly entitled to a credit when they put this provision into the original Act, but now all they are doing—and it is right that they should—is to fulfil their statutory obligation so far as long-term benefits are concerned to increase them in line either with average earnings or with prices, according to whichever has had the highest increase.
That is a forumla which is designed to give satisfaction to both Government and Opposition because, when earnings are higher than prices, there is an increase in real value, but when prices are higher than earnings, there is an increase in the percentage of national average earnings represented by the benefits. It must be one or the other, so there is always something for the Government to claim credit and always something for the Opposition to complain about. This year earnings are higher than prices, so there has been an increase in real value as far as long-term benefits are concerned, and that is to be welcomed. But inevitably there is no increase in the percentage of average national earnings represented by the benefits.
There is a problem, too, thrown up by this experience this year; that is, that there is a widening of the gap between long-term and short-term benefits. The short-term benefits are only adjusted in line with prices. Long-term benefits increased by about 11½ per cent. and short-term by 7 per cent. I wonder whether it is right that this gap should be widened, and I wonder whether it would not be more correct to apply the same criteria for this purpose to all benefits. Is it right that the gap should be widened or narrowed on a purely arbitrary basis instead of as a deliberate act of policy?
772
The reference period which determines these matters is half in the past and half in the future, and that introduces into the exercise an element of guessing as to what the levels of prices and earnings will turn out to be. Last year, in the end, the Government got it about right, and I congratulate them on reducing the rate of inflation, about which I expressed some doubt at this time last year. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, said that he thought it would work out all right, but he did not know what would happen if it did not, and the Government generally did not know what would happen if it did not, but they would do something. I imagine that they still do not know what would happen if it failed, if their prognostications were wrong, and I think we should bear in mind the fact that to have a reference period half in the past and half in the future is not satisfactory.
Turning to child benefit and what the noble Lord said about that, I welcome the increases which are to take place in November and April. As I understand it, the Government are proposing to spend £500 million on this over and above the final phasing out of the child allowance, which goes to help pay for the child benefit. I am glad that they are prepared to spend that amount of money on this purpose. I am glad, too, that the one-parent family's addition for the first child of £1 is to go up to £2 in November. But there is the problem to which attention has already been given in this House on more than one occasion in recent weeks with regard to the one-parent family and the child under five on supplementary benefit. The supplementary benefit rate is £4·40 for such a child, but the child benefit for the first child of a single parent will be £5—£3 child benefit plus £2 special allowance. The one-parent family will not enjoy that extra 60p, which will next April go up to £.1·60, because the extra amount will be taken off the parent's supplementary benefit. However, I understand that that does not happen in the case of single parents on unemployment benefit and sickness benefit, and I can only repeat the question which I put to the noble Lord on Monday when the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, raised this question at Question Time: are the Government prepared to increase the child rates of supplementary benefits so that the lowest

773
is at least as much as the highest rate of child benefit?
Before I close, one word, if I may, about cost, to which the noble Lord referred. In a full year, as he said, so far as the National Insurance Fund is concerned, the expenditure will be £1,054 million. That is the extra, additional expenditure caused by these increases. The figure last year in the Government Actuaries' report was £1,234 million, and in the year before that £1,158 million. So there is a lower-than-usual cost this time, owing to a lower inflation rate and a reasonably effective incomes policy.
Again, so far as the additional expenditure is concerned on National Insurance benefits, there is no particular credit, and certainly no discredit, due to the Government because this is met, as the noble Lord said, by a buoyant revenue. Earnings-related contributions provide for earnings-related benefits. The deficit which was predicted for 1978–79 of £25 million will now be £69 million. One factor in producing that slightly greater deficit is the fact that some 10 million people are now expected to be contracting out of the Government's new pension scheme, as against the nine million previously assumed. That reduces the revenue available now, but, of course, it will reduce the outgo later on. With these few comments, I should like to support the passage through the House of these three orders.
3.49 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords. Perhaps I may endeavour to deal with the questions raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Long. On the face of it, I would feel inclined to agree that it does appear to be rather unrealistic when perhaps the death grant is as small as it is. On reflection, I am not really very worried about the maternity grant of £25, for this reason. One has to take into account that there is a maternity allowance which goes on for something like 18 weeks, and that maternity allowance is quite substantial. Therefore, with the maternity grant and the maternity allowance, it really does not seem too bad.
The death grant, having regard to what it costs these days to bury a person, does,
774
by comparison, look a little unrealistic. I can only say—and I say this because happen to know it to be true, because I have been present fairly recently at discussions on this matter—that this has very much exercised the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But we were forced to come to the conclusion that at this stage we could not do anything about it because, to do something realistically, would have meant a very considerable increase.
With regard to the premium given to the over-80s, that too, on the face of it, looks a bit mean. But I think one has to look at it from the angle that in the last five years—and I am not trying to make a political point about this—pensions have been very substantially increased. Over the last five years they have increased in real value by something like 20 per cent. So the position is rather different. I know that many people will argue, as I would myself, that the aged—and it is very difficult to know whether to draw the line below or above 80, but we have to draw a line somewhere—perhaps do need some sort of extra help. But I do not think that anybody is quite clear in his own mind whether they need financial help or added services. Some months ago, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had a very comprehensive conference dealing with the needs of the elderly. We shall be publishing fairly soon a document on the needs of the elderly and it may well be established that their needs are more for services than they are financial. We shall have to wait to see.
I do not know that I can say very much to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because he was not, if I may say so, all that controversial. He raised the matter of the 60p only a week or so ago. I endeavoured to deal with it then. I may not have dealt with it adequately from his point of view but I do not think, quite honestly, that I can say anything more today than I said on that occasion other than that, again, I know that this is causing my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security some concern. Whether or not we shall be able to deal with this as well as with, perhaps, a different formula between the long-term and the short-term benefits, I do not know, other than to say that this is exercising the minds of many of us.

775
I am glad that the noble Lord referred to the estimated income and out-go of the National Insurance Fund for 1978 and 1979. If he had not done so, I would have done so, because I can remember for the last two years I have come under fire from him because of the enormous amount in reserve. I think the implication on each of those occasions was that we ought to be running more into deficit than into extended credit. I was going to say that perhaps he ought to take some credit for the fact that the Government may appear to have taken some advice from him. I do not think that I can really add anything more, other than to thank both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to these orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY (FIXING AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1978
3.53 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved.—[Lord Wells-Pestell.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 1978
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Supplementary Benefits (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1978, laid before the House on 6th June, be approved.—[Lord Wells Peste11.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRPORTS POLICY: SEVERNSIDE
3.55 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY The Earl of CORK and ORRERY rose to ask Her Majestys' Government whether they will consider the advantages of an
776
international airport on Severnside as an alternative to expansion at the London airports. The noble Earl said: My Lords, with a barely repressible sigh of relief and absolutely no discourtsey to anybody, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I apologise for asking it at five minutes to four on a Friday afternoon, and thank those of your Lordships who have been kind enough and patient enough still to be here.
I think I should begin by declaring a "no interest". This is relevant, as I think will emerge. I have no interest, practical or financial, in anything that I am about to say. The background against which I speak is sufficiently well known for me not to go into it in any depth. It is simply that, if I may so put it, the situation at the London airports is becoming more or less intolerable. I refer, of course, primarily to Heathrow but also to Gatwick and, at a slight remove, Standsted and ultimately also Luton. As your Lordships know, an inquiry is now in progress at County Hall into the prospect for building a fourth terminal at Heathrow.
The Government White Paper, Airport Policy, which is Cmnd. 7084, takes the view that the construction of a new airport is impossible. Following the same line, in a slightly different way, the British Airports Authority in its statement of case before the inquiry—I have it here in my hand—contends that the building of a new terminal at Heathrow is absolutely essential if the London airports are not to run out of capacity by 1990. And 1990 is a number which comes up with mysterious frequency in these arguments. It appears to be a magical date when either the world will come to an end, or oil fuel will run out, or the London airports will become so clogged with passengers that no more flying will be possible. Beyond 1990 there appears to be no planning of any kind. All the arguments that are put before us by the Airports Authority or the Government are about what we shall do in the next 12 years. What will happen after that—God help us! I do not know.
The case for the Airports Authority rests fairly squarely on the fact that only a fourth terminal at Heathrow will solve the problem. I quote now from paragraph 340 of the case:

777
"Only a fourth terminal at Heathrow can provide the London area with the capacity it needs, at the time it needs it".
I could make three or four other quotations of the same kind but I think it would be unnecessary to do so. It is, in any case, a contention which I am about to contradict, as indeed I am about to contradict the Government's contention in the White Paper that it is impossible to build a new airport between now and 1990.
The proposal which I have the honour to put before your Lordships now originated within an organisation known as the Haslemere Aircraft Disturbed Action Group, or HADAG for short. This is a body which is not merely concerned with preventing aeroplanes flying over the Haslemere parish pump; indeed, if it were I do not suppose I would be president of it, as I am, because I do not live at Haslemere. It is, on the contrary, dedicated to the universal—and I think universally acceptable—proposition that aircraft, airports and people do not mix, wherever they are. The proposal is not new. It has, in fact, been turned down over and over again, for one very good reason. This reason to which I refer is the one to which we now have found, I believe, an answer, which makes it possible to build a new airport and to build it quickly.
The site proposed for this airport is on the South coast of Wales, the North coast of the Bristol Channel, a few miles East of Newport. It has long been obvious that this is a very desirable site for an international airport—what is now called a gateway international airport. It has all the advantages that would have accrued from the building of such an airport at Maplin. It is far away from people—virtually no one lives there—and the ground is flat. It is not particularly desirable land; it is already scheduled, I think, for heavy industrial development. It is bordered by sea so shallow that when the tide runs out at low water one cannot see it. The channel runs roughly northeast to south-west, which is a desirable alignment for airport runways, the prevailing wind being from the south-west. It is possible and indeed easy to construct a pair of runways, which is the number we envisage, off-shore on land which is exceedingly easily reclaimed.
The fact of putting the runways in the water not only relieves the people on the
778
ground, and indeed everything else on the ground, of danger from aircraft descending precipitously from the skies, but also makes it possible for all or most of the flying to be done over water. With the prevailing wind being what it is, it seems likely that hardly ever would any aircraft take off on a course which carried it over land. Sometimes it would happen, but not often. The only overflying of land would be carried out by aircraft descending on the comparatively quiet approach route.
There are no costly buildings or roads to be constructed of any magnitude either in that neighbourhood or anywhere else. It has excellent access by motorway and by railway, not only from London, but also from Birmingham and Manchester and all the cities of the Midlands and the North. The travelling time from the passenger's point of view, if he was coming from the west trans-Atlantically, would be reduced by 15 minutes, which also represents a great saving to the airline operator, particularly with the Concorde, which would save 120 miles of enormously expensive subsonic flying time. It would also enable Concorde when taking off to go supersonic immediately, a great saving in both time and expense. There would probably be no stacking, as there frequently is at the London airports. There would undoubtedly be a great generation of industry in South Wales, which is an industrial neighbourhood anyway, as indeed is the country on the opposite side of the Bristol Channel, about Avonmouth. It would doubtless provide a great deal of employment for these people in that part of the country which suffers a higher degree of unemployment than most parts of the country. Such a site would result in a reduction of pressures of all kinds at Heathrow, particularly in the air space west of London. There would be much less objection there than at London or near London to flying by night, if this is ever thought to be necessary.
The lead time is of some interest. How tong would it take to build this airport? Estimates that I have from engineers on the whole indicate that an airport could be made operational on this site in from three to four years after the completion of planning preparations. It is notable that the British Airport Authority's case said that such an airport could not he built anywhere in less than

779
12 years. If one allows three years for planning permissions and so on, one could still have the airport operational in seven years, which compares closely with the estimate for the construction of the fourth terminal at Heathrow, which we are told could not be fully operational before 1984 at the earliest.
The cost of the construction of such an airport would be remarkably low; someone guessed that it would be about half that of such an airport at Maplin. The water, as I have said, is extremely shallow, allowing very easy reclamation of land. There are no elaborate existing structures to be demolished, and the land is flat. It would be, I imagine, an architect's dream, like designing and building an airport in the middle of a billard table.
There is one very important factor that I have not mentioned. Your Lordships will have observed that I have said in my Question, as I mentioned in my speech also, that this proposal would have benefits for passengers in various ways over the London airports. If it is to do that, it implies that it is to be in some sense a London airport. Now we come to the reason why this site has always been turned clown. It has been turned down for the simple reason that it is too far from London. It is something like 120 miles, and that is a bit farther away, admittedly, than Heathrow or Gatwick. But to the passenger by air, distance is not measured in miles; it is measured by hours or minutes. I submit that it is totally illusory to say that the distance from an airport to the city centre is so many miles. What we want to know is how long it takes to get there. If we look at it in that way and measure the distance from Severnside to London in hours rather than in miles, we will find that is about the same distance as Gatwick.
The argument goes like this. It depends upon the existence of the high speed train, which runs already. It has great efficiency, punctuality and speed from Paddington to Cardiff, a journey which it does, I think —I speak under correction—in about one and three-quarter hours. That railway passes within a mile of the site of the airport, as does the motorway M.4, which also connects with the motorway systems to the North. It is no great engineering feat to run a spur or spurs from this railway and indeed from the
780
motorway underneath the terminal, possibly with the roads running out on to the roof. With passenger handling done on a new method and greatly speeded up, it should be possible to get the passengers in the train—forget their luggage for a moment—in a much shorter space of time than has yet been achieved anywhere in the world, for these reasons.
The arrangements of the runways end to end at sea, offshore, has the effect, whatever the direction of the wind, of the aircraft having to taxi always either to or from the inner ends of the runways, those being the ends that are nearest to the terminal, which is obviously onshore. So passengers can come ashore much quicker than one might expect. They can then go straight down by lift, walkway or escalator—clearly there are engineering matters to be thought out here—and get into their train. This can be done, I am advised, by arranging a system by which the passenger leaving, shall we say for the sake of argument, Kennedy Airport in New York, will be allotted a number. The same number will be marked upon his luggage, which is carried by fork lift truck into the aeroplane, taken out at the other end and put straight into the train which is already numbered not only for the luggage but for the passenger, who will find on arrival signposts and numbers corresponding to his ticket and even a numbered seat that he can go straight to. I am told this is a computer operation of quite notable simplicity. The passenger is in the train and his luggage is easily definable and accessible, close to him in the same train.
The train goes. It arrives in London an hour and 20 minutes later. What the passenger has been spared so far is what I think most people would agree is the worst part of his journey, that which he experiences at Heathrow or other airports, namely the long walk and the waiting about for his luggage to arrive before he can clear it through Customs. The waiting at Heathrow can often take up to 50 minutes or an hour. So irritation, frustration and fatigue have gone. A quarter of an hour's flying time has been saved and the passenger is on his way on a comfortable train.
In the train beside the passengers are Customs officers. Customs examinations are carried out in the train and this is the

781
nub of the whole proposal. Immigration procedures may present slightly greater difficulty. There are difficulties about the Customs. I have caused inquiries to be made to find out whether or not Customs examination in trains; that is, not the small hand luggage but the luggage that goes into the luggage van or the hold, has ever been done. So far as inquiries through embassies have been able to show, it has never been attempted anywhere. So there are no precedents to say that it cannot be done. There are arguments to say that we do not want to do it, or why it should be difficult. Of this I am perfectly aware, and I remain unmoved.
So the passenger will arrive at his terminus in London, at Paddington or wherever it may have to be in the end, after a short, quick journey, carried out in comfort without annoyance and fatigue. He would then be discharged upon an expectant city in exactly the same way as he is now. And this proceeding will have been inaugurated in the first place, and for a long time afterwards, I dare say, by British Airways with whom it will be necessary to fly initially which, incidentally, provides a considerable and nice fillip for British aviation.
This is the proposal that I wish to place before you. I am sorry that we do not have with us my noble friend Lord Thomas who has written to me to say that he wished he could have taken part, but he is not able to do so. However, he entirely supports the proposal, as indeed does the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, who has written to me with a lot of additional arguments in favour of the whole argument, and has invited me, if I wish to do so, to use them in the debate. They are scientific and industrial. I do not fully understand them and I do not feel competent to put them forward, and I do not think it necessary at this stage because I believe that there will be another stage. But they all add up to a great volume of support for the proposal.
The whole idea is, perhaps, surprising. To my mind it is enormously exciting. It is also entirely feasible. It is not in some ways easy. It will require resolution and imagination on the part of any Government to put it through. But I am certain that any Government determined
782
to do this would get it done, and would get it done quickly. They would get it done in time to prevent any further expansion at the London airports. The scheme would end up as a vast benefit to the travelling public and to the people who live on the ground under the aircraft flying just overhead, and among the traffic generated by air traffic and the discharge of passengers at airports. It would benefit the people of South Wales, the Midlands and practically everybody, and, above all, it would be socially acceptable. This is a feature so often neglected. It is not mentioned specifically, I believe, in the Government's White Papers. I think I am right, but I shall not press that point. But it is vital.
These airports are getting into a fearful state. We could save this state becoming worse by, I suggest, 1984. In fact, we could make the situation better, and my earnest hope is that the Government will set up as soon as possible a proper inquiry to investigate the truth of what I have said, and the possibilities suggested by it, and carry out a proper study in depth and width. If this is not done—I hope it will be done by any Government and supported by their Opposition—we are in for a desperate time. And perhaps in some ways the world really will come to an end in 1990.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him whether I understood correctly when he said that no Customs inspection was ever done on a train? My recollection is that when I went from Norway into Sweden, the Customs examination was done on the train, and I think also in going from Belgium to France.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I do, indeed, speak under correction in these matters. What I actually said was that, so far as I could find out, no examination by Customs of a traveller's heavy baggage had ever been done on the train, not the luggage that he carries with him in the compartment but what is sealed in the van. I think that that has always been sealed at one end and unsealed at its destination.
4.16 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, this is a very interesting idea, and as the noble Earl said, it is not entirely new and I am

783
sure we are all most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for his clear explanation of what he proposes. It certainly brings out into the open some of the questions about another airport to serve London after 1990, the magical year which, of course, is only 12 years away.
The question of another London airport was conveniently left undecided by the Government in their airports policy White Paper presented in another place in February this year. I quote from paragraph 160, which states:
"In the longer term additional capacity will almost certainly be required in the London area"—
but it does not say what to do. Knowing the time it takes to prepare plans as well as actually to build, what with public inquiries and further changes of plan, I should have thought that it was high time to start the planning of a new airport which will clearly be necesssry. I think most people agree about that. I think that the Government have shirked their duty in shelving the question of the next airport to serve London.
However, the proposals for another airport at Severnside are what we are looking at today. The first comment I should like to make is that, among the many aspects about which we have heard, one of the most important that has not been mentioned at all is one that I feel should be connected; namely, the Severn Barrage, which is still being studied in great depth. I believe that a further £1¼ million has just been allocated for further study. For this barrage and the building of an airport there will plainly be large quantities of earth moving, great numbers of men both skilled and unskilled, steel, concrete and all the paraphernalia that goes with building. I suggest that it is only economic sense to consider both these enterprises together, so that with proper organisation, large amounts of money can be saved if they are considered jointly.
We are considering here not necessarily only our own money but I am sure that we might well receive help from various Common Market funds, for example, under the regional development funds. Further, we might obtain two lots, one for South Wales and one for England. Another possibility is funds from the social fund in connection with the employment possibilities. Further money might well
784
be available from European investment banks.
Be that as it may, the problem here is that the timing of the proposed barrage, which has not anywhere near reached the planning stages yet, and that of a possible airport, are not altogether in accord. It appears to me that additional airport facilities will be needed, at least in the final planning stages, long before the barrage decision is able to be made and, of course, ready for building. As for the barrage itself, it seems that we must harness this tide which, I believe, reaches an average of 40 ft. in difference, and that it will provide approximately 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom electricity. I believe that that is equivalent to six nuclear power stations.
If the cost is high, and I believe a sum of £4 billion has been mentioned, this is about the same amount that the Government are investing in coal now. Coal will eventually run out whereas the tides are not expected to stop just yet. So the idea looks quite good provided that we can get it off the ground. But the studies undoubtedly will take much longer to sort out and to arrive at a solution, with the large amounts of money involved. If a combined effort is possible, however, I think it will be a definite advantage.
Going back to the airport, we will undoubtedly have reached some sort of saturation point in the London Airport situation by 1990; and with the larger and quieter planes reducing what is, I believe, known as the footprint around airports, this will obviously ease some of the noise round the airports as technical progress makes it more possible.
Another possible advantage of the Severnside plan is the closeness of Bristol, which has very excellent aerospace facilities. I am sure this might be a help. With Rolls-Royce at Patchway and British Aerospace at Filton, we have probably one of the most comprehensive and concentrated aerospace industries in the whole of Europe; and Filton, of course, as well has some of the best flight testing facilities, some of which came from Fairford where they tested the Concordes.
The noble Earl has mentioned that another advantage is the good network of roads and a good rail link. I will come back to the rail link in just a

785
moment. No doubt, there will have to be an air link between this airport and Heathrow and others, and it remains to be seen how many people will want to use it. There is always a possibility that these could be HS146 STOL planes which would give more work for the people in Bristol; but that is really another problem.
Environmentally, the Severn has been found to be extremely suitable. I believe that they have done a lot of research into this as far as the barrage is concerned, and there are not too many birds—in fact, considerably fewer to get into the jet engines than at Maplin. There is a lot of waste land and shallow water and, I believe, about three and a half thousand acres of development land in the area, most of which is owned by ICI. I am sure this makes it obvious that there are not too many people living around there.
So, it appears that this site has many advantages going for it, many of which have been mentioned by the noble Earl. But I think we must also look at some of the possible disadvantages. I said I would return very quickly to the rail link which has been mentioned as a possible 1¼ hours journey. I do not know how often the trains would run, but there was some talk at one point that they might run every five minutes. Every five minutes each way means 30 trains. This is a great many trains. In my view, the trains would have to be rather special ones, with special facilities; and British Rail would have to build these things. Then, have we really got enough track? If we have not, and British Rail have to build another track, the cost would be enormous and there would be many changes from the environmental point of view. I think, in fact, that Maplin died partly because of the rail problems.
We have heard about the Customs possibilities. Well, who knows? It is an interesting idea. I must admit that it is always better if your luggage is with you. The trains would need to be very long, with, as I said, special carriages. Here we have a major problem to overcome; it is not just a matter of sticking any old train on the track and getting it to and from London at high speed.
Another problem could be immigration procedure. The noble Earl mentioned
786
this, but I think there would be great difficulty in persuading the authorities that immigration processes could be carried out with people already moving away from the port of entry. How are you to deal with those who should not come in? They are already on a train, and at that time they are not so easy to sort out. So therefore, in my view, the immigration processes would undoubtedly have to take place at the airport. This is one of the major hold-ups in the whole procedure.
Then there are other possible problems. I am told, but I may be unreliable on this, that the weather is often misty down there. There is a military air base there, RAF Brawdy, which has to be considered, to see whether it will be in the way at all. I am not quite clear in which direction the runways are to be. There was some talk earlier that the runways might converge. This might be a possibility which is not normally acceptable. These are minor points; some of them are rather supposition, but others are fact.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I could interrupt on all sort of points, but may I pick just this one. There is no suggestion that the runways should converge. I think they should be end to end, roughly North-East and South-West, slightly away at their inner ends from each other, so that the aircraft would not fly from one runway over the other.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. As I said, there are so many little problems which could be looked at and we cannot cover them all exactly. The environmental problems, as well as the practical problems of the rail link, and, in my opinion the economic necessity of combining the Severn Barrage if at all possible with this airport both pose very major problems.
I like the idea of putting an airport here but I fear that the disadvantages probably outweigh the advantages coupled with the current rather limited understanding that we have. Certainly we must discover more facts from the other bodies who are to be involved before we can say whether this is either a brilliant and feasible idea or merely pie-in-the-sky. Airports affect

787
a great many people and the threat or the possibility, of a new airport affects many thousands of other people all over the country. It is very much a national worry, and the uncertainty can cause great anxiety to many. So I hope that the Government will stop procrastinating and will get on quickly with studies for another London airport after 1990, so putting many people out of their misery and allowing them to plan for their retirement homes.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again but, before my noble friend sits down, may I put a small gloss on his last sentence. He referred to a London airport. I myself have never used that phrase, and I hope it will not be used in connection with this Severnside project, neither a London airport nor a regional airport but simply a gateway international airport.
4.27 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Newall, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, for asking this Question, for performing a most valuable service in doing so and, if I may say so, a timely one as well, for airports policy has clearly once again been coming very much to the fore.
Like the noble Earl I have a non-interest to declare. I think that it is only right to say that I have never had any financial interest in either this airport project or any other airport project; but like him I have been involved in a voluntary capacity in airport matters for some 11 years and think it is only right in a debate of this kind to say that I have been associated over that period of time with the two main voluntary organisations which have led the campaign against Foulness or Maplin, as it came to be called.
Before coming to the noble Earl's proposal, I would say something about Foulness, for inevitably, I think, comparisons will be made with that site when plans for any major international airport to serve the London area and elsewhere in the southern part of the country are discussed. I was, of course, absolutely
788
delighted that the Government decided to abandon the Maplin project and that they confirmed that decision in their recent White Paper Airports Policy; and that confirmation has itself been endorsed by the Government here in your Lordships' House this very week. I am delighted, I may say, not just because of an association with the areas which would have been so badly affected had that project gone ahead, but also because it would have been a disaster in national and international economic terms, in aviation terms, in environmental terms and in other ways too.
It is worth recalling, at a time when other airports projects are being considered, that Foulness was under active consideration for some 10 years or more. The project, as we know, was considered and rejected by the Roskill Commission. It was considered by the last Government's extensive and commendable consultation processes, by Select Committees of your Lordships' House and of another place in very detailed investigations and by both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Maplin Development Authority Bill. It was considered by the further extensive and excellent consultation machinery set up by the present Government, and finally again by the present Government, leading to their decision to cancel.
It is a trifle hard to imagine any more comprehensive and exhaustive system of inquiry than that. It was indeed the greatest exercise in public participation in planning our nation has ever seen and it led to the verdict against Maplin—a verdict which came to be widely supported indeed campaigned for, by people generally, by expert opinion and by responsible organs of the Press, national and local.
One might wonder, therefore, how that project could ever be considered again. The Government's position is perfectly plain and precise. Maplin is dead. But there are voices trying to pretend otherwise, and one might add that they cause unnecessary concern to all those who would have been affected, and who believe the Government's decision saved them and indeed the nation from a disastrous plan. It is against that background that I came to view the noble Earl's proposal, and inevitably, one has been comparing the claims for a Severnside airport with the

789
arguments about Foulness. What I wish to do, briefly, in headline form since time is rather pressing, is to compare some of the claims for Severnside with some of the arguments concerning Foulness.
First, it is, for example, said in favour of Severnside that one of its advantages is remoteness from population. In that, it scores over Foulness, for although in the immediate vicinity of Foulness the population is not large, there are big centres of population within the affected areas. Another Severnside advantage is minimum noise—a further plus point compared with Maplin. In both places it is claimed that by having runways offshore, with take-offs and landings over water, there would be little or no noise nuisance. At Maplin, that was shown to be a fallacy for many people in both Essex and Kent, and indeed it led to the famous Roskill phrase about the county of Kent, that that would have been the uncompensated loser, because it would have had none of the so-called advantages associated with an airport, like employment, only disadvantages.
Again, minimum environmental damage is the claim for Severnside. With Foulness, there would have been enormous environmental damage and surprisingly vast loss of farming land. Indeed, it came top of the list in terms of the value of lost agricultural produce. Again, maximum safety, the runways being offshore, is another of Severnside's claims. At Foulness, another major fallacy was exposed here, with the dangers of bird-strike, to say nothing of the devasting consequences for the Brent geese and other wild life in the area, the notoriously cold and uninviting waters of the North Sea in the event of a jumbo-jet ditching, and Roskill's own dissatisfaction with safety there.
Again, it is claimed that there are almost unlimited possibilities for expansion, both for installations and for runways. That goes for both sites, but at what cost and environmental damage so far as Maplin is concerned. No costly building of roads and railways, either to London or the Midlands, is the Severnside claim, as mentioned by the noble Earl himself. Here your Lordships have one of the most striking differences from Foulness. The
790
cost of road and rail access routes and the damage they would have done to the countryside and through eastern London, with the destruction of homes and other buildings, have been amply proven.
Distance from London and travelling time have already been mentioned by the noble Earl, so I need not mention these in detail, except to underline the point that the Severnside advantages he put forward are lacking at Foulness, which is some 50 miles from London and a remote and rather inaccessible 50 miles at that. Again, there would be no stacking problem at Severnside, which was certainly going to be a problem at Foulness. Then, there is the generation of industry, with benefit to the economy and employment of South Wales, Bristol, and north Somerset. At Foulness, there would have been more environmental harm, vast industrial development in a part of the country which does not want that type of development. There is another fallacy here too about Maplin. Maplin was supposed to be the answer to the needs of the East End of London for jobs. I live in the East End and people there do not want to travel 100 miles to and from work. Indeed, East Enders do not want to move to the Essex coast either.
Again, there would be less objection than at London to night flying—that is another advantage that is claimed for Severnside. That was going to be one of the troubles at Foulness. Night flights were going to be flung down to the estuary from London and cause great nuisance to the large number of people in the affected areas. At Severnside, low construction cost is claimed. At Foulness, on the other hand, the immense cost was one of the major decisive factors against it. Indeed, the overall figure in the White Paper. Airports Policy, is given as some £1,090 million. Some estimates put it at twice that figure.
So what should be the response to the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery? I confess that I cannot, at this stage, say that I am able to be an advocate or even a supporter of the plan itself. Much, much more detailed study is needed. But I do feel that the noble Earl has made a convincing prima facie case for having the idea further examined.

791
I would just address one concluding point on Maplin to my noble friend the Minister who I think is to reply to this debate. She will not be surprised—indeed, she may well be heartened—to learn that if any attempt were made to resurrect the Maplin proposal by anyone still not convinced that the Government's decision was right, I can promise her that it would be resisted with all the strength and determination exercised before and, I venture to predict, with precisely the same result. Maplin, I believe, is dead. What that means in reality for so many people, in addition to the national and international benefits, is that the Maplin and Foulness area and its surroundings live.
4.38 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what other speakers have said and our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Cork of Orrery, for having raised this most imaginative proposition. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for many minutes, but it is worth examining for a moment the position that we are in as regards airports in the London area. On Monday last, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said in reply to a Question that I put:
"a potential crisis period is 12 years away. I should have thought that it would be valuable to discuss the matter …".—[Official Report, 12/6/78; col. 3.]
I submit to your Lordships that the crisis is not 12 years ahead. It is starting now, and will be building up right up to 1990. Therefore the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, in saying that there was no hurry, was scarcely doing credit to the position which we have to face. As the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said, there is no magic in the figure 1990. After that period traffic will go on building up, particularly with the new era of cheap fares throughout the world.
Last February the Government laid down in this document how, up to 1990, the London area could be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, used these words:
"the expected growth in air traffic demand up to 1990 could be met by the expansion of the four London airports".—[Official Report, 22/2/78 col. 160.]
I want to ask whether the Minister, Lady Stedman, will be good enough to reply to this. Do the Government still stand by
792
the clear statement I have quoted that the expansion of four London airports can cope with traffic needs up to 1990?
I must remind the Minister what the White Paper—or the Blue Paper—contained. In order to cope with traffic up to 1990 Stansted was to be developed to take 16 million passengers a year. That development has now been abandoned, according to reports in the Press, by the British Airports Authority. In that document Luton was to take 10 million. Luton's expansion has now been scaled down to 5 million. London Airport was to have a fourth terminal at Heathrow. There is no certainty that planning permission will be obtained for that fourth terminal: and even if it is obtained, delays in design and construction will be such that that terminal will not really be of use until the middle 1980s. Gatwick, which took 5·7 million passengers in. 1976, was planned to take 25 million in this document, and that is dependent upon a new terminal being constructed and the hopes that one runway will be able to cope with such traffic. But Gatwick interests have already said that they will demand the same public inquiry as Heathrow is now enjoying. Therefore, one can say that the Gatwick terminal would not he in use until well approaching 1990.
I think it was clear from the debate in your Lordships' House in March that this great proposal for the expansion of London airports, which has now fallen by the wayside, apart from the figures I have just given, was socially unacceptable to the communities surrounding the various airports. Therefore, my first conclusion is that the February policy has been outdated by events which have occurred since that time. My second conclusion is that, although in March, before these events which have diminished so much the prospects in that document, I had thought that this expansion of London airports might supply the answer up to 1990, I now see that a third terminal airport—a new one—is, I believe, inevitable. Indeed, the Government themselves envisage that possibility after 1990 by talking about the possibility of a new airport or the taking over of a military airport.
Let me say here and now that, having listened to the speech of the noble Lord,

793
Lord Boston of Faversham, I agree with every word he said. Maplin, for reasons we need not elaborate this afternoon, is a dead project. The noble Lord placed a wreath upon the grave of Maplin which is already well below the ground. So I do not think we need consider that when we are talking of the need for a new London airport. We have got to look at a new project. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has come forward with Severnside. Like other noble Lords, I am not qualified, I do not have the knowledge, to say whether a new airport at Severnside or somewhere else, or taking over a military airport, is the final solution for post-1990, which we must be looking and planning for now. The experts must evaluate, but the solution must be not only technically feasible but socially acceptable.
There are many problems about Severn-side. As the noble Lord, Lord Newall, said, there are a great many snags. But there are always snags and objections whenever any new project is put forward. There are solid objectors on good grounds; but there are a lot of people who say, "No, no,", to anything which is new. Already I can hear the chattering of the teeth of the "No" army, which always mobilises so quickly when something new is proposed.
What we can fairly ask the Government tonight is to show a willingness to examine the Severnside project as a solution, impartially, unprejudiced; and, if they cannot say that Severnside is the solution, come up with a solid alternative to the project outlined by the noble Lord today, so that we can have a reasonable standard of airport accommodation for passengers during the 1980s. Finally, after 1990, may we as a country be assured that we shall be able to accept the world's traffic and not have it diverted to the Continent, with consequent loss of trade; and take the world's traffic as we have hitherto been able to do, but about which I have fears unless we go forward along the lines such as I have outlined.
4.47 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery informed me of the outline of the scheme for Severnside airport, my interest was
794
immediately aroused and I wanted to give him whatever support I could. I shall not use this occasion to advocate a certain form of air transport which I have done in the past, except that there is a very indirect connection. I do not necessarily oppose fast travel, but I certainly give my support for any form that encourages leisurely travel. The arguments put forward today are in favour of the scheme that can provide the public with the answer to what is worrying so many air travellers. From my personal viewpoint of the airports close to London, there is only one that I look forward at all to using, and that is Gatwick. The rail service from Victoria takes you close to the terminal and, provided you are fit enough, if there are no porters available you do not have to carry your luggage very far. The rail journey takes about three quarters of an hour. The scheme for Severnside can offer a comfortable journey just over a third of the time longer, with considerably more comfort and amenities than a suburban train.
There were many pros and cons put forward about Customs service on the train. It is a very advanced idea, but I have every confidence that the problems, whether real or theoretical, can be solved. My main point concerns the airways terminals in London for this new airport. The immediate suggestion is Paddington. From my point of view that would be very convenient because I live quite close to that station. But if there will be difficulties in using that part of London, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, if the scheme does go through, whether there could be any question of using an alternative station? The one I have in mind is Kensington Olympia.
Olympia is a versatile station. There is good road access to it at the moment through the region of Kensington High Street from Hammersmith and the West. There is a branch line of the District Line. The station seems to come into use mostly when there is an exhibition at Olympia. The District Line connects with Earl's Court, where there are other London Transport lines. During the 1960s, when Euston was being reorganised, redeveloped and altered so very much, Olympia was used as a terminus for many main line trains to the north, particularly the night trains.

795
Another interesting item about Olympia: I believe it was one of the stations earmarked for use should the Channel Tunnel scheme come into effect. The railway from the Channel Tunnel to London was to end around Kensington. One alternative to this area is south of Olympia, near Earl's Court, where there are some disused railway sidings, because they are both connected by the same railway. The railway coming out of Clapham Junction, north over the Thames, passes near Earl's Court, goes through Kensington Olympia, and then goes up to Willesden where it joins the North London line which runs between Broad Street and Richmond. When the line comes out north of Olympia, by the time it has got to Willesden it has crossed the western main line and the Regent's Canal by bridges. The difference in level must be about 15 ft.
There was a track which came down from this line to the western main line. It may be only a single track and therefore would need considerable adaptation. The other possibility is that we have a bridge forming a loop line, going over the western line sidings and the canal, then joining on to the North London line just south of Willesden Junction, where the line goes south to Richmond. Just at that point there is a track in existence that descends in a gentle slope to join the western main line at the station named Acton Main Line.
I have had rather a lot of fun in the last few days looking over maps of railway tracks to try to work out how an airways terminal for London could be used. That is why I was pointing out these tracks and junctions. If Olympia is used, a high-speed train would anyway have to travel very slowly out of it and probably would not be able to start speeding up until Ealing Broadway had been reached. Having spoken of the terminal, I wish to reaffirm my support for my noble friend's scheme. I do not wish to detract any praise due to the thousands of men and women who are working as efficiently as possible to maintain a good service at any of the existing London airports, but Severnside, when it becomes a definite fact, will create a service so that international journeys—either into or out of this country—can be done with far less wear and tear to the
796
human nervous system. I should like to adapt a well-known historic phrase, also echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boston. "Maplin is dead. Long live Servernside!".
4.55 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the noble Earl's exposé in support of the new airport in the Severn estuary as a possible new international airport. I know that, as the President of the Haste-mere Aircraft Disturbance Action Group —or, as he so much more easily put it, HADAG—his main purpose is to mitigate the nuisance caused by aircraft noise, an objective with which I have the greatest sympathy. HADAG previously supported the Maplin project, and they are now proposing an alternative, but not altogether dissimilar, scheme, on the Severn. Both these schemes have attracted support, no doubt mainly because they would physically remove the main source of nuisance to a point remote from the capital. The noble Earl's proposal for Severnside is an imaginative suggestion, and environmentally it has a certain appeal. However, there are other relevant factors which the Government must take into account in determining future airports policy.
In reply, I should like to deal with these policy aspects, and to cover so far as possible the points that have been raised in the course of the debate. The noble Lord himself was kind enough to give me advance notice of the main points that he wished to make, and also to supply me with a note outlining the HADAG project. I am most grateful to him for his courtesy. I should like to comment in particular on one of the conclusions in this note, which states that:
"We [that is, HADAG] ask that no further developments be permitted at any of our existing commercial airports, but that this proposal should be given priority within a national strategy for airport location and operation".
The Government already have a national strategy, which is set out in the White Paper, Airports Policy, which was published on 1st February this year. This policy is the result of thorough and extensive consultations involving nearly 1,000 individuals and organisations, including HADAG, initiated in 1975 and

797
1976 with the publication of a detailed two-part document entitled Airport Strategy for Great Britain. The Government's intention was to lay the whole problem open to discussion and to involve all those concerned or affected by airport development in the policy-making process. A variety of options were put forward and examined, though they did not of course all find their way into the White Paper. The task of the Government was to weigh the arguments and strike what they believed to be the right balance between conflicting interests, in order to provide for adequate airport capacity to accommodate the growing demand. There was virtually no disagreement with the objective—that the demand should be met if the United Kingdom was to retain its pre-eminent position in air transport. I doubt if anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with that today.
London has been likened to the Clapham Junction of the air, a position which carries undoubted benefits in terms of trade, tourism and foreign currency earnings, and which we do not want to lose to Amsterdam or Paris because, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye has reminded us, our airports may not be able to cope with the traffic. No one denies, however, that the additional airport capacity is needed, although there are differences of opinion as to when and where, and even as to how much capacity should be provided.
The Government's policy as set out in the White Paper distinguishes between two phases of airport development—the period up to 1990 (there is no magic about that figure) and the period beyond 1990. The White Paper is concerned mainly with the first period, covering the short and medium term. It confirms the decision taken in 1974 to abandon the Maplin project which was so ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham—incidentally, one of my first duties on the Front Bench was to bury Maplin—and it concludes that, on the basis of the forecasts, there is no requirement for a new airport to serve the London area during the 1980s.
That is still the Government view. The current development work at Heathrow and Gatwick, which is nearing completion,
798
should accommodate the demand in the early 1980s, but beyond that, in the period up to 1990, additional capacity will be needed. The White Paper envisages that this might be provided by the construction of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, which is currently the subject of a public inquiry, a second terminal at Gatwick, which may be subject to a public inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has reminded us, and modest developments at Luton and Stansted. Beyond that, there would be no further development at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton. These schemes would raise the global capacity of the London airports in the medium term from 50 million to 72 million passengers a year, which is in the lower half of the forecast range of demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, expressed some doubts about the adequacy of these proposals, but I should stress that the forecasts of demand are subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty. We shall in any case be monitoring the forecasts closely to detect any new trend in the demand which might affect the timing of decisions for the longer term. This brings me to the second phase of airport development for the longer term. I have already indicated that demand forecasts are inherently uncertain, dependent as they are on a variety of factors which are always difficult to quantify. It is these uncertainties which led to a wide range of forecasts rather than a single figure for 1990. But forecasting is even more difficult for longer periods, and in these conditions of acute uncertainty the Government have concluded that it would be wrong to take firm decisions now about the provision of additional capacity beyond 1990. Nevertheless, despite the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Newall, that the Government had not been very positive about the future, the White Paper identifies three possible solutions; a major expansion of Stansted, the development of an existing military airfield as a civil airport and the construction of a new airport to serve the London area. The White Paper also emphasises the need to examine these options and the Government are pressing ahead with the arrangements to undertake this work.
The Government's airport strategy is clear. It is based on the principle that

799
airport development should be closely related to demand. To summarise briefly, it is that during the 1980s adequate capacity can be provided by the expansion of the existing London airports, but that no further expansion of these airports is envisaged beyond 1990 except, possibly, at Stansted, Secondly, three options are identified for the longer term which will be examined in the light of forecasts for the period beyond 1990. Finally, the Government believe that there is adequate capacity outside the South-East of England and no major development will be required there in the foreseeable future.
Some may regard this policy as deficient, in that it leaves the options open for a longer term. We do not accept this; the decisions will be taken at the appropriate time on the basis of the most reliable projections. In accordance with the conclusions in the White Paper, steps are being taken to establish very shortly an advisory committee to consider the options, on which the Government hope that local authorities will be represented along with other principal interests. It will be for that committee to advise which proposals for new airports would seem most appropriate for examination in detail. Therefore I am not in a position at this stage to advise the noble Lord whether his proposal will or will not make the short list.
However, I can say this: the solution he proposes, whatever its merits, is for the longer term, bearing in mind the time required to plan and construct a new airport on a virgin site. In the meantime, the additional capacity is certainly required to meet the demand for air travel. I trust the noble Lord will accept that the solution he is promoting, while it is relevant to the longer term, is not therefore an alternative to the Government's immediate strategy for meeting the demand in the short and medium term.
If I may, I should like to take this opportunity to correct any misundertsanding there might be about the future provision of airport capacity for the London area. This was referred to in questions to my noble friend Lord Winterbottom on Wednesday. The White Paper on Airports policy outlined the options which the Government believe should be considered for the longer-term handling of
800
London air traffic. The White Paper also explained that these options should be examined by an appropriate formal structure involving local authority, air transport and other interests.
The Government are discussing the form of this machinery and its programme of work with those concerned. Meetings are taking place and we would hope to be able to announce the setting up of this advisory body very shortly. The Government would expect that the detailed proposals for additional airport capacity in the south-east would be the subject of wide-ranging consultations before decisions are reached. Consistent with the conclusions of the White Paper, we would expect that the proposals for a major expansion of Stansted, the conversion of a military airfield for civil use or the construction of a completely new airport, which are the options outlined in the White Paper, would be subject to the statutory planning procedures and it is the essence of the Government's policy, following on practices adopted in the last few years, that all those concerned should have an opportunity to make their views known on these important matters. I hope this explanation of the way in which future policy could develop is helpful to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, put forward some interesting but rather complicated ways of journeying around London. He may have been poring over his railway maps; I regret, I have been poring over plans for Wales and Scotland for the last couple of weeks, but I will certainly look at what he says, and if we can give him any assurance or any help or any satisfaction on his intervention, then I will certainly write to him.
May I return to Lord Cork's proposals. I would make the following comments. The proposed airport, as the noble Earl has said, would be even more remote from London than is Maplin, more than double the distance in fact, and there is doubt whether even the best road and rail connections, which, as the noble Earl pointed out, already exist in part, would make it attractive to travellers to and from the London area, particularly in comparison with other sites which might be examined. Recent surveys that we have carried out have shown that over 80 per

801
cent. of all the passengers now terminating at London Airport have origins and destinations in the South-East, so is it reasonable to expect these passengers, who account for a high proportion of tourist and business traffic, to travel over 100 miles from the airport to get to London?
The noble Earl has suggested that journey times by rail to central London could take as little as 1¼ hours, and it has been suggested having trains leaving very frequently, perhaps even as often as every five minutes, assuming this were economical and possible for British Rail, and clearing Customs and Immigration on the train, rather than at the airport. I am not suggesting that a sealed and bonded train is beyond the realm of imagination, but it presents serious and practical difficulties which, incidentally, could not be overcome for the much shorter coach journey between Heathrow and Gatwick when we were considering this problem. Moreover, the scheme takes no account of what are generally referred to as the "meeters and the greeters" who would have to travel over 100 miles to collect or deposit their guests. I am not suggesting that any of these matters is insuperable, but they are issues which need to be weighed in the balance in comparing the various options in the longer term.
It should also be borne in mind that Gatwick and Heathrow are thriving airports, in which a good deal of money has been invested, and £100 million development is just being completed at Gatwick. We are also puzzled by the suggestion that an entirely new airport should be built only a few miles from Cardiff's new airport, particularly since the convenience of the high-speed train from Paddington and the motorway network apply equally well to Cardiff, and that the airport has the merit that it is already there. But I hasten to add that I am not suggesting that Cardiff should become the United Kingdom international airport.
During the course of the speeches, some noble Lords referred to the Government's proposal to examine the feasibility of a scheme for the Severn Barrage to
802
produce energy. The Government recognise that this might have implications for the economy of the South-West and South Wales. However, if such a scheme were to be implemented, there are already two airports—Cardiff and Bristol—which could serve the area. A third airport would not seem to be an essential element of that infrastructure. It is difficult to see what advantages the proposed airport could derive from the barrage.
Finally, little has been said about the cost of the project. The first stage of Maplin, not counting the road and rail connections, would have cost £680 million at 1976 prices, compared with an estimated cost of £150 million to provide comparable capacity at the existing airports. Clearly, an airport at Severnside, remote from its catchment area, would also be a very expensive project, and at these times of financial restraint this must also be an important factor.
We are grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this subject to the attention of your Lordships and we congratulate him on the preparatory work which he instigated to make the presentation of this suggestion to interested parties and to make people aware of the projects. I do not deny that what has been presented today could be a vision of the distant future, and it may well deserve to be examined by the experts, though I cannot today commit them to that. But I will ensure that my right honourable friend is aware of the content of our debate today. Leaving aside its feasibility, it cannot be regarded at this time as a substitute for the Government's strategy to accommodate demand during the 1980s.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I make a small request? She refers to her view that what I put forward is undoubtedly a long-term project, not a short-term project. My request is that she will not totally dismiss the argument that I think brought out—I hope, adequately—in my speech; that is, that such an airport could be made operational in the mid-1980s, a time comparable to that taken to build the new terminal at Heathrow.