Lords Sitting of 22 February 1979

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

THE PRESS CHARTER
11.6 a.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: 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 progress is being made in the preparation of a draft Press Charter, and how many meetings of the Press Council the Secretary of State for Employment has called and attended.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the Government's consideration of the Press Charter is continuing, following the completion of a long and detailed series of consultations with those in the industry carried out by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment. The Press Council is an independent body set up by the industry and is one of the parties which remain to be consulted under the terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he not agree that it is a little disappointing that an Act of Parliament which was passed in March 1976—nearly three years ago—to write in the freedom of the Press under a Press Charter has still not been drafted or provided for Parliament? Secondly, if the interested parties continue to agree to disagree, could he say at what stage the Minister will introduce a draft Press Charter to Parliament, as laid down under the Act?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I can understand the noble Earl's anxiety about this matter, but I do not believe that there has been any undue delay. Press freedom is a complex
1912
subject, as noble Lords will know from the length of our debates when the legislation was before this House in 1976. The Government naturally wish to establish as much common ground between the parties as possible before laying a draft Charter before Parliament. As regards what steps my right honourable friend can take, there are few that he can take until some measure of agreement has been reached. There are still a number of consultations to be held. Until a reasonable measure of agreement has been reached he will not be in a position to bring it before Parliament.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how close is the agreement? I believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, was submitted to the Government some months ago indicating the consultations in which he had taken part between the interested parties. How close is the agreement? Can he give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that safeguards will be written into the Press Charter, particularly safeguarding editors and journalists, as provided under the Act?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to give any details of what has been agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in a previous Question on another occasion raised the same matter. However, I can say that some progress has been made at these meetings and that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, indicates a large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of the Charter. For example, the parties declared support for the principle of the freedom of the Press to collect and publish information, to publish comment and criticism, and to abstain from the exercise of any improper pressure upon editors. However, there was less agreement on the best methods of putting it into practice. On several important points the parties still remained far apart. That is the situation, and I am afraid that that is as far as I can possibly go in giving information about what has been agreed.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, while accepting that the freedom of the Press is a complicated issue, would not my right honourable friend, or rather the noble Lord, agree that the Royal

1913
Commission on the Press which reported in the summer of 1977 gave a great deal of attention to an analysis of this issue, set out six essential safeguards, and made a series of recommendations for the content of a Press Charter in default of the agreement of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce? Would the noble Lord explain why his right honourable friend has been unable to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission in respect of the content of the Press Charter?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the implied compliment, which nearly put me off my stroke. However, in point of fact, all the recommendations, such as my noble friend mentioned, are still the subject of negotiation, and until we can get all the parties to come to some measure of agreement—which, strangely enough, they seem very loath to do—there is nothing that can be done at present. I accept the valuable contribution made by the Royal Commission. It is now a question for the parties involved to adopt the same attitude to the matter as I and many of my colleagues.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would not my noble friend think that the best way to ensure Press freedom is to leave the Press free, subject only to the laws of libel?
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 required the Secretary of State to lay a draft Charter before Parliament in default of agreement among the parties?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, yes; but it would be a very unwise Minister who did so in spite of a great deal of opposition. The best thing that can be done, so far as my right honourable friend, the Government and Parliament are concerned, is to get the largest possible measure of agreement. There is very little use in having a Press Charter as regards which the majority do not agree on one point or another.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of that answer, may I ask again
1914
whether the introduction of a Press Charter would do something to interfere with the freedom of the Press?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, my noble friend has had vast experience in the past in many areas of journalism, and my mind boggles at trying to find a suitable answer to his rather difficult question.

LONG-TERM PRISONERS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
11.7 a.m.
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 whether they will apply the recommendations of the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on The Régime for Long-term Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum Security to prisons in Northern Ireland where maximum security prisoners are confined.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, the principal recommendations of the report related to the dispersal in England and Wales of a relatively small number of high-risk, long-term prisoners, the provision of maximum security for these prisoners and the type of régime which should be applied to them. The high proportion of such prisoners in Northern Ireland at the present time and the nature of the accommodation available makes dispersal within Northern Ireland impracticable.
Most high risk prisoners in Northern Ireland are held in Maze and Belfast prisons, and the security arrangements and the régimes within these prisons are generally in line with the recommendations made in the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Although having no sympathy with the prisoners in Northern Ireland, who seek to blackmail by indecency and filth, is

1915
not the position in the Maze prison becoming humanly intolerable both to prison officers and to prisoners? Would not the extension of these recommendations—which are good in themselves—to Northern Ireland, do something to change that situation?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first remarks made by my noble friend, and I am sure that what he said has the agreement of the whole House. In fact, to some extent conditions have improved slightly in the cell blocks where prisoners are protesting, because the introduction of steam cleaning, and now the greater regularity with which that is carried out has enabled the prison officers who are carrying out their duties in very difficult circumstances to keep the cells in rather better condition than was the case last year.
As I said in my original Answer, the fact of the matter is that the recommendations of this report which apply to the régimes within prisons, are already in force in Northern Ireland if prisoners wish to take advantage of that régime. If prisoners refuse to take advantage of the régime, there is very little that the Government, prison officers or anyone else can do about it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not an acknowledgment of this be very valuable in meeting the very misleading propaganda which is now being undertaken in the United States of America?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I would go further and say that an acknowledgment of the fact that prison conditions in Northern Ireland are to some extent rather better than either the Radzinowicz Report recommended or the position in Great Britain, would be helpful. For example, prisoners can wear their own clothing during leisure periods; all sentenced prisoners receive a weekly visit; prisoners are allowed compassionate home leave for family matters and some prisoners are allowed it at Christmas. All prisoners receive a 50 per cent. remission on their sentences. All those things are available to prisoners in Northern Ireland, and are not generally available to prisoners in the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree with my noble friend that a rather wider recognition of those facts would be very helpful to all concerned.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, whatever sympathy we feel—and I saw the programme about United States' help to Northern Ireland—should we not hold on to the fact that these conditions are self-inflicted? That is what the Secretary of State made so clear when he spoke on television a few days ago.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, yes. It is also important to recognise the influence which some people outside the prison system have on those who are protesting inside the prison. It is not simply a question of convincing those inside the prison that the protest is completely without any hope, but also of persuading those with influence outside the prison, who have influence over the prisoners, that they should persuade them to abandon this completely hopeless protest.

COMMUNIST TAKE-OVERS AND ELECTIONS
11.18 a.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 whether there have ever been genuinely free multi-Party elections in any country in the world after that country has been taken over by a Marxist or Communist group or administration.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there have been cases where Communist Parties have participated in Government and where free elections were subsequently held. But in none of these cases did the Communist Party control the Government. Genuinely free elections have never been held in any country where a Communist or Marxist Party has achieved full power.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government still believe that it is essential that after independence Rhodesia should have regular elections, or even one man, one vote once, as is normally the case?

1917
If so, can he explain why the Government insist that the Marxist terrorists must be so closely involved in view of their record and the obvious consequences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is certainly our central aim to break with the past and to institute in Rhodesia a truly democratic system. We look to the future in Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe, as it may be known—as one in which the will of the majority will prevail. For that reason we are working through the Anglo-American proposals to get an all-Party conference which in due course will set up a constitution which will do precisely what the noble Lord advocates.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not this problem a little more general? Can my noble friend the Minister tell me of any instance anywhere in which a post-colonial independence Government has lost an election? Is not that the point being made by the opposition in St. Lucia at the moment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is no doubt that my noble friend would like it to be the exclusive point. However, it is necessary to relate what happens in one category of country to what happens in others. I refuse to apply a general political principle simply to one type of country. In any case, my noble friend knows very well that there are instances, splendid instances, in the post-British colonial period, if I may put it like that, when countries which were not familiar with democratic processes have made excellent progress towards, and indeed have achieved, democratic processes. If I only refer to Malaysia, it is an excellent example of this.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer my question? Has any Government ever lost an election?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, indeed. The major example of post-colonial development is surely the Indian Union. I seem to recall that from time to time the Indian Government has lost an election.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to define what is meant by "genuinely free"? So as not to arouse passions in the immediate present, would he take his mind back to three historical examples. Would he have said that the attempt by the Tory Party to exploit the forged Zinoviev Letter through the medium of its Press, or the Savings Bank scare in 1931, or the attempt by Mr. Churchill to do the same thing over the Gestapo, were attempts to maintain genuinely free elections or not?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, genuinely free, of course, is as we in this country—and we have a right to apply our principles in this matter—understand genuinely free elections to be. We know what they are, and we apply this commonsense principle to what happens in other countries and, without unduly interfering I hope, give good advice. As to my noble friend's always interesting historical excursions, I am not here either to explain to him or to defend to him the past, present, and future vagaries of the Conservative Party.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on the subject of the post-colonial glories of the British Commonwealth, would the noble Lord not agree that it is already a hopeful advance that under the internal settlement in Rhodesia regular elections at not less than five-year intervals are proposed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that this is an advance—a little late and perhaps too little. But I have never from this Box condemned any movement forward by anybody in Rhodesia towards what we all want to see in that country. However, the position is surely that the elections as proposed to be held in April, and the constitution which is presaged by them, are woefully inadequate for a permanent, equitable and lasting solution for that country.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when he uses the phrase "we understand", he may be quite correct, but so far as Rhodesia is concerned our apparent reluctance to give some support to the internal agreement—which is a big step forward—is not understood in Africa?

1919
It looks as though we are giving sympathetic support to the guerrilla parties, who are Marxist and who are dictatorial in their outlook; we understand, but the countries that can be influenced by our reactions do not understand to the same extent.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord. I am quite sure that, if we took any other attitude to what is happening now in Rhodesia, and is proposed for it constitutionally, African opinion as a whole would rise in protest against any such attitude. When the noble Lord refers to African opinion, it is not just a section of African opinion about which he should be thinking but the great mass of African opinion as represented, for instance, in the Organisation of African Unity.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think we are running rather wide of the original Question. The next Question is really about Rhodesia; perhaps we could go on to that one.

RHODESIA: ELECTIONS
11.25 a.m.
Lord FORESTER: 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 plans they have made to respond to the request made by the Rhodesian ruling executive council on 5th February 1979 to send observers to monitor the 20th April elections.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, our objective is to get agreement between all the parties on a cease-fire and the holding of free and fair elections under United Nations supervision. For the Government to send observers to the internal elections would not bring us nearer that objective.
Lord FORESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for replying to my Question. I should like to take it a little further. What harm can there be in
1920
sending some observers? At least that way we shall receive back in this country a true picture of what has taken place.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe that I have put forward the Government's view on previous occasions, and fairly recently. The conditions for what would be genuinely free and fair elections in Rhodesia do not, in our view, exist. Therefore, if we were to take official action (this is how we see it) in the form of sending out official observers to observe such elections, it might very well be taken in the rest of Africa—and I referred to African opinion —as being our endorsement of those elections, which we all know to be inadequate and indeed not fully free and fair. Therefore, we insist that the elections should be under United Nations supervision with everybody taking part.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to reconsider this? Although he has made it plain that the Government are not satisfied with the constitution and the arrangements in the internal settlement in Rhodesia, it might very well be that the people of Rhodesia at the election would take a different view from the Government. Why is it not possible for the Government at any rate to send observers to see what happens in the election? There can surely be no damage in that? Would the noble Lord not think again that there would be advantage it from everybody's point of view?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are constantly thinking about the situation in Rhodesia, and we are not by any means dogmatic on these matters. Ninety per cent. of the country is under martial law; a large number of substantial parties, the external parties, are banned; the Press and the radio are censored. Under those conditions for a Government, especially in view of their obligations to the international authority, to send observers officially to that country to observe elections which palpably are not free and fair in any sense of the term would be gravely interpreted in the rest of Africa, and I believe in the rest of the world.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree, and would he draw to the attention of Members opposite, that the Salisbury régime is still in a state of treason to Her Majesty? Would he further agree that, after blocking the Anglo-American plan designed to provide genuinely free and United Nations supervised elections for six months, that régime has now produced a constitution, and is hoping to hold elections under it, which is grossly undemocratic? Therefore, would it not be highly improper for Her Majesty's Government to send anyone who could be held to give credence to this undemocratic and treasonous régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I think my noble friend has put the Government's view. In these conditions we do not see that it would be helpful, and it might be harmful, in terms of outside opinion, African and worldwide opinion, if we took this step in these conditions.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elucidate his references three or four times now in the last seven or eight minutes to African opinion? Would he not agree that he has referred to the OAU as the organ of African opinion? Can he tell the House whether any, and if so how many, of the Governments that make up the opinion attributed to OAU are themselves democratically elected in the sense that we understand?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I refer to the OAU as an extremely important element in the formulation and presentation of African opinion as a whole and we would be making a very grave mistake indeed, in the interests both of this country and of a durable settlement, if we ignored that fact. The internal arrangements of the various members of the OAU have no relevance at all to the fact that we have so to formulate our policies and actions that we take fully into account what the OAU says about the position in Rhodesia.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, when the Minister talks of African opinion, is he not talking about the opinion of Governments—Governments like ours—the opinion of peoples?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl knows enough about the OAU and Africa to know that whenever there is any development in the situation in Rhodesia and in other parts of Africa the OAU very effectively intervenes and makes its views known.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Idi Amin?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: It is a matter for judgment and interpretation whether any particular Government represented in the OAU does, in his sense and mine, represent the African people.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I was about to ask—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, although it is the last day before the Recess, we have a very large amount of business to conclude. We have now spent 24 minutes on Questions and I hope I have the House with me when I say that I think we have had enough. That being so, I would, with the leave of the House, remind noble Lords that lunches will be served in the Lords' Dining Room throughout the Recess.

FILMS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
11.33 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): 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.—(Lord Wells-Pestell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Attendance allowance]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I understand there is a mistake on the Marshalled List in that Amendment No. 1 should be shown as standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (2)(b) after the words 'one or both of those conditions' the following words are added 'except if a person is already in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate in which case the Secretary of State may empower the Attendance Allowance Board to issue a certificate under which he may receive the attendance allowance at the higher rate so long as the normal conditions are satisfied for a period of not less than 3 months'.")
The noble Lord said: I was particularly pleased when I saw the Marshalled List this morning because it gave currency to the suggestion that the Government had appropriated this Amendment, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, appearing to it. It would give us great pleasure if that proves to be the case and the Government accept it.
The Amendment arises out of a very similar Amendment moved in another place on 23rd January, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the three factors which compose the situation here. We have the principal Act—the Social Security Act 1975—the Amendment, and the wording as it stands in the Bill, and I will read out how the clause would read as amended:
"… a period preceded immediately, or within such period as may be prescribed, by one of not less than six months throughout which he satisfied or was likely to satisfy one or both of those conditions, except if a person is already in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate, in which case the Secretary of State may empower the Attendance Allowance Board to issue a certificate under which he may receive the attendance allowance at the higher rate so long as the normal conditions are satisfied for a period of not less than three months".
That is the critical issue and it revolves around a situation in which a person suffering from, say, a debilitating disease such as multiple sclerosis has already been in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate. It was our contention that should a deterioration take place in
1924
the debilitating disease, a further waiting period of six months should not be necessary if he wishes to go on to the higher rate of attendance allowance.
The Amendment moved in another place proposed that if circumstances and the Attendance Allowance Board permitted, it would have effect immediately once the situation was granted. The Government resisted that Amendment in another place and claimed it would not be satisfactory and would have the opposite effect from that desired. We are now proposing an alternative in which a three months period is suggested. This was proposed in another place on Report and the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Deakins, said he would look into the matter and consider it further.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for explaining the position as he sees it. The Government cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I shall give. My colleague in another place said we would look carefully at this, and that has been done, and I know Lord Sandys will accept my word when I say that. As the noble Lord pointed out, under the Amendment those receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance would be able to receive the higher rate of allowance after satisfying the different requirements for that rate for only three months instead of the six months as everybody else must do, and it is important to bear in mind that everybody else must do it.
It is important to remember that it is the attendance needs with which we are concerned and not the medical disability. Lord Sandys made a point of deterioration; but deterioration does not necessarily mean that more attendance is necessary—the two do not necessarily go together—and so we must be concerned with attendance needs. The requirements which have to be established to qualify for the higher rate are different from those of the lower rate. Attendance needs can vary even between individuals suffering from precisely the same disability, depending on how they have managed to adapt, their age, their home circumstances and a whole variety of matters, and one cannot say that because two persons are suffering from the same disability, there is no difference in attendance needs. In fact

1925
there is. The needs can fluctuate for some time after the worsening of the medical disability. They may well lessen, as we know from medical evidence, as a person adapts to the worsening situation.
I accept that this is an area of very real difficulty where it is more difficult to establish settled attendance needs than it is to diagnose the medical disability. It is so easy to diagnose the medical disability. It is not easy to assess accurately the attendance needs. We rely upon medical advice and opinion for what I am about to say. It is generally accepted that the needs of the individual in the long term can be reasonably determined only over a period of six months, so with respect, I think that a period of three months is unreasonable.
I note that the Amendment tacitly accepts that it seeks to make the change for only one group. I hope I have shown that the establishment of the attendance needs for this group is no different from that of any other. The period of six months in order to show established attendance requirements is needed in general, and to reduce this category, and this category only, would be unfair on other claimants who have to continue with the six months rule. Indeed, this category already has some advantage, in that during the qualifying period the claimants are receiving the lower rate of the allowance and their relatives who are caring for them may well be receiving invalid care allowance.
I must remind the Committee of the question of cost. I dislike doing so because I seem to be doing nothing else from the Dispatch Box. We must consider the cost of concessions time and time again during consideration of the Amendments. The cost of the concession proposed here would be little more than half a million pounds, but the cost of reducing the qualifying period generally to three months would be about £15 million. We are in a period in which we must look at every penny—and I really mean every penny, not just every million, or every half million. If some of the Amendments before your Lordships today were carried, the consequent cost, added together, would be a considerable sum.
1926
However, I am not really relying upon the cost argument, but rather on the medical advice and opinion that we have received that the attendance needs cannot be accurately judged in three months, and that six months is not only a much more realistic period, but the period in which medical opinion can make the best judgment. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, whether, following that explanation, he feels able to withdraw the Amendment. We have gone into the matter very carefully, not just superficially.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question about this matter. Let us suppose that it is decided within three months that the allowance should go to the additional amount. Would the claimant still be limited to the lower amount for six months despite the fact that perhaps within a short time of a medical condition arising it was certified by doctors that the condition was permanent and merited the higher figure?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The limit would have to continue for the six months. I say this because I should be very surprised if, after a claimant had been receiving the attendance allowance for one or two months, a doctor would say that the condition was going to be permanent, that it would not get better, but worse. I am advised that it is the general practice that the doctor would say, "We must see what develops". Over a period of six months a much more adequate and accurate judgment can be made about what the future situation will be. In answer to the noble Baroness, I would say that it would not be possible to make the judgment after one or two months, but if a judgment were to be made in such a short period we would say that it ought to be delayed up to the six months.
Lord SANDYS: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining in such detail the situation surrounding the Amendment. Of course I am reluctant to withdraw the Amendment, but before doing so, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible for the allowance to be backdated to a period when the deterioration took place and the attendance necessity

1927
increased after the six months period had elapsed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This would be a very dangerous door to open, because if such action was taken for one group, what might be the argument for other groups? I should like to take advice on this matter and I promise to do so and to write to the noble Lord before the Report stage, to let him know whether it is possible to meet him on this. My first reaction is that the suggestion would not be helpful other than to one or two individuals, and I think that it would put others at a disadvantage. However, I should gladly take back the matter.
Lord SANDYS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that he will examine this matter, and I look forward to hearing from him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and ' in") and insert ("and ' mentioned in").
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, this is a simple drafting clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.47 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
(" (7) For the purposes of determining the entitlement to attendance allowance of any person who

(a) has been refused payment of an allowance, or

(b) has had an allowance withdrawn,

section 35 of the principal Act shall be deemed always to have had effect as amended by this section, but payment shall be made at the appropriate rate out of the National Insurance Fund.").
The noble Lord said: We return to the matter of attendance allowance related to renal dialysis. On Second Reading I referred to this unhappy situation, which is only partially rectified by the Bill. I am well aware that we should deal with the Amendments as swiftly as possible, and so I shall go back only a short way into the history of this matter. The
1928
anomaly arose in that patients who were receiving kidney dialysis treatment in hospital, with all the facilities of the NHS, were receiving the attendance allowance in full, while patients who were dialysing at home for two periods a week, rather than three, were denied the attendance allowance by a ruling of the Attendance Allowance Board.
I wish to quote what the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Orme, said in the Standing Committee in another place, as reported at column 10 of the Official Report:
"The latest figure for people now receiving attendance allowance is 320,000, of whom there are 2,400 dialysing. It is estimated that 100 home dialysists have lost the allowance, or will lose it, before the change in the law becomes effective. We estimate that approximately 200 more who were patients at home will lose the allowance if the law is not changed. Approximately 350 people who dialyse as hospital outpatients will no longer qualify".
We have already been informed by the Minister for the Disabled that 40 people have received the back payments, and we are very glad to hear this good news. Can the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, assure the Committee that the remainder of those people mentioned in the Minister's statement will shortly be receiving their extra statutory payment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is no difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on this particular matter. We are all agreed that the people adversely affected by the Attendance Allowance Board's decision should have their benefits restored. I hope I shall be able to convince the noble Lord that there is no need for him to press his Amendment, for two reasons. The first is that arrangements have already been made under the extra-statutory powers, and I am happy to inform the noble Lord that so far about 200 cases—I might as well be precise; it is 202 cases—have already been paid. It is many more than 40, because we have taken these powers and have used them to pay. The remainder will be paid soon. We felt that this was the best way to proceed, rather than to make the legislation retrospective, since that could have meant delaying the payment for a considerable time; and we have all agreed—and I think we in your Lordships' Committee all agree—that this should be accomplished as soon as possible. I recognise the

1929
noble Lord's desire to put the matter on a statutory footing, but, as I have said, it is unnecessary because we have powers to do it immediately.
It would have, I think, two unfortunate effects if the noble Lord pursued his Amendment, and I am sure he would not want them. It would certainly mean that those who over the years have received the allowance while dialysing as hospital out-patients have been overpaid. Secondly, the statutory authorities who make the awards of the allowance could not take into account the extra-statutory payments already made; and I am sure your Lordships will recognise that if this could not be done there would be duplication of payment and we should therefore have immediately to stop making these extra-statutory payments, to the detriment of those presently receiving them. Furthermore, in some cases, I am advised, where payment has been made, we may have to make the payment again, so some might have to be paid twice. This, of course, would not be desirable; but I am sure the noble Lord will take the point that we have embarked on paying them and have made 202 payments. We have these extra-statutory powers, which we are using at this stage, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to accept that.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Might I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of what he has just said? If he continues to deal with these cases under extra-statutory powers, what happens if there is a disputed case, if there is a dispute as to the facts between a patient and the Department? As I understand it, where he is proceeding under the legislation, as he would be proceeding, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, then I assume the ordinary adjudicating system would operate; that is, the system approved by Parliament for dealing with these cases. But where the matter is being dealt with extra-statutorily, does the adjudicating procedure come in, or is the patient simply at the mercy of the Department?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I frankly do not know. I had not given thought to that arising, for the simple reason that we know the number of people who were stopped and who ought to be paid, and, because we have such a list and know
1930
the people who are involved, it had not occurred to us that they would not be automatically paid. It is possible that this may well arise, but, as I say, I would have to find out what procedures would be adopted in the event. It may be possible for me to find out during the course of this morning.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord a question following on what has just been said? While wholly agreeing that these payments should be made in one way or another, may I ask him whence the statutory powers to which he is referring derive? It seems rather curious that it should be possible to make the payments in this way, without statutory authority.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My understanding of the payments under the extra-statutory powers is that they are payments which the responsible Minister regards as being within the broad intention of the relevant statute but which fall outside a strict interpretation of the statute; and, with Treasury approval, they are charged to the relevant Vote but are noted in the Appropriation Account which is laid before Parliament for approval. Essentially, they are made when a technicality frustrates the intention of Parliament and individuals would otherwise suffer hardship as a result. Parliament retains the ultimate control through the approval of the Appropriation Account, but this is done with prior Treasury approval.
Lord SANDYS: I am very glad that 202 patients are to be reimbursed in this particular situation. I am very glad to hear that announcement, because it is considerably more than the 40 I mentioned previously. There appears to be a very interesting area here, and I was most pleased to hear the points raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because as I understand it the extra-statutory payment is permitted through powers contained in an Act of Parliament deriving from the 19th century. It is one which I have not given attention to, and it is an area which I think will require further examination; but there does appear to be a number of situations in which this particular problem may arise again, and I

1931
am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for what he said in this regard. Of course, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, with your Lordships' permission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Mobility allowance]:
11.57 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
" (6) If a person—

(a) is over the age of 75; and

(b) was, immediately prior to reaching the age of 75, in receipt of a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act, as amended by this section; and

(c) ceased to receive a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act, as amended by this section, only by reason of subsection (5)(a) of the said section, as amended by this section and otherwise fulfils the conditions laid down for the receipt of a mobility allowance;

that person shall be entitled to an allowance payable out of the National Insurance Fund at the same rate as may be laid down for the time being for a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: We turn now to the mobility allowance. Your Lordships will be aware that in the Bill as presented to us the position was as follows. There were two categories of disabled who benefited from the disability allowance. The first category comprised those who became eligible prior to their 65th birthday and continued to be eligible to claim the allowance until the age of 75, now permitted in the Bill. However, after the age of 75 the allowance is going to be denied. The second category comprised approximately 32,000 patients (reference was made to that number in column 55 in Standing Committee) in the ex-vehicle scheme, who were beneficiaries under mobility allowance and who will continue to enjoy the lifetime mobility allowance.
How do we stand? What information have we on the estimates? I can only draw your Lordships' attention to a very interesting Written Answer given in your Lordships' House on 10th April 1978, at column 442 of the Official Report. This is what the Government informed us (I quote the words, and I shall be as speedy as I may):
1932
"By the end of 1979, it is estimated that mobility allowance will be payable to 100,000 new beneficiaries and possibly 25,000 ex-vehicle scheme beneficiaries. By increasing the value of mobility allowance to £10 a week from July 1978 the Government are putting potentially some £65 million a year in the hands of disabled people …".
Perhaps I can go forward a little and quote the words of the Minister, Mr. Deakins, who said this in Standing Committee, at column 85:
"The Committee will appreciate that most mobility allowance awards are for life, although there are some one-year or two-year awards where the medical condition might improve".
So there is, in a sense, a third category of beneficiaries, who might be only temporary beneficiaries under the scheme.
But there is an important point here which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention, and it is this. Here, the Minister acknowledges that the award to eligibility is on a life basis, but, alas!, under the Bill the financial provision will stop at the age of 75. Our Amendment seeks to rectify the situation and to ensure that, in the unknown number of cases of those people who survive beyond their 75th birthday, the allowance should continue, and that the sum charged should be charged to the National Insurance Fund, which as we understand it has at the moment a surplus of over £200 million. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I first comment on the National Insurance Fund issue? If this Amendment were to be carried, the money for the allowance would come out of the fund and would be a continuing commitment that would have to be taken account of when future contribution rates were decided. It might require increased contributions from the generality of people who pay National Insurance contributions and, in the Government's view, that is not desirable. If the noble Lord's Amendment were put into operation the additional cost would be in the region of about £50 million a year.
But there is probably another argument which is much more telling. I was perfectly frank with the House on Second Reading that the relevant provision in the Bill was simply to give a breathing space of about ten years during which we or another Government—and I am sure that whichever Government were in power they

1933
would want to do it—would be able to look in depth at the position of the elderly. A lot of what we have done is to meet emergencies. In some respects it has been piecemeal, but good and effective. But we must take a long-term view of the best way or ways of helping the disabled. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State indicated in another place, we are considering with the Office of Population and Census and Surveys the updating of the Amelia Harris Survey, which was a survey on the handicapped and the impaired in Great Britain. It came out in 1969 and is now ten years old. I do not think that we can plan for the over-75s on the basis of the information we have at present. We need much more up-to-date information upon which to base our concept of what they need and what kind of services we ought to offer them. With respect, what we think in 1979 may be useless in ten years' time. I think this must be something which (while I dislike the word "on-going") has to be an on-going thing.
Little is known about the mobility requirements of disabled people over 75. They are sometimes much more difficult to provide and much more serious than those of people who are getting mobility allowances at a younger age. At some stage, services such as shelter accommodation or domiciliary care become more important perhaps than cash benefits. It may be that we shall have to introduce some entirely different concept of help to people who need mobility at that particular age. I would emphasise that we are not seeking logic here; it is merely a breathing space. I accept that the Amendment put down will not create any immediate expenditure but, equally, it is not going to achieve immediate legislative effect. The situation it envisages cannot happen for ten years, and by then the Amendment may be totally unnecessary because the whole structure of benefits for the disabled may have changed radically. If it has not done so, the review and the surveys which will be undertaken (and which I am sure will be carried out by any other Government) may suggest something entirely different.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place:
1934
"When we reach the late 1980s I am sure that my right honourable friends will have worked out further proposals for extending benefits to the disabled which I am sure will meet the situation at that time".
But he went on:
"My right honourable friends deserve to be judged on their record, which is extremely good".
I would go farther and say I am confident that when the time comes a Labour Government will not be found wanting; and, from the terms of this Amendment, I am perfectly certain that that could be said of a Conservative Government also. This is a matter that both sides of the House are very concerned with. I feel that rather than to clutter up (and I apologise for using the word) an Act with things which at this stage are unnecessary, we ought to leave it so that either side or both sides, working either independently or simultaneously, can be looking at the needs of the disabled with a view to planning something in ten years' time. I believe that this is the way to deal with it and I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that it is the better way.
Lord BANKS: The Minister said that it would be unnecessary to make this provision. One might as well say it is as unnecessary to make provision for somebody at the age of 74 as it is at 76. The person who comes into the category in the years immediately ahead will be affected by the knowledge of whether it was for a limited period or for life. It could be argued that it is necessary that he should know that this allowance is there for life. I do not think that one can put forward the argument that it is unnecessary. The noble Lord also said that a breathing space is required. There is a breathing space. If it should turn out that the current provisions are, as the noble Lord said, useless in ten years' time, or before then, no doubt they can be altered to suit the facts that have become available in the interim or the experience that has been obtained in the interim. I cannot see that there is any argument against extending this provision beyond the age of 75, except the argument of cost.
I wonder whether this is the real point: that the noble Lord feels that it is not safe enough to allow for the additional cost that would occur over the present system if people over 75 were to be included; that

1935
is to say, people who became qualified before the age of 65 in the way the Bill lays down. I wonder whether that is such an enormous cost that we have to be so careful at this stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to take up too much time. We are, of course, concerned with cost; but I should have thought that if a Government, regardless of the Party in power, wanted to do something for the over-75s or the 75s in ten years' time, the thing to do would be to start making adequate provision now in the terms of how they are going to give that help—help which may be something entirely different from a mobility allowance. It might be a provision in some other way, as I have tried to point out.
Lord BANKS: Would that not also apply to the 74-year-olds in nine years' time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think it would. That may be so; but I do not see that this Amendment can really serve any useful purpose when it is clearly understood that it cannot be effective for the next ten years. Governments are criticised time and time again for the amount of legislation, for the number of sections and provisions that go into every Act and which at some subsequent stage are found either not to be in use or not to be effective. Anybody who has sat on the Consolidation Committee, as I did for some years, will realise that. I cannot see that any useful purpose can be served by putting this in the Bill when it will not have any immediate effect and cannot possibly have any effect for 10 years. I would much sooner leave it out because I think it is wise to do so. Then we can consider what our long-term policy for the disabled is to be. That can be introduced at a later stage.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to award for life. If he does not mind, I ought to qualify that for him, by saying that it only applies in what I think are known as the switch cases, that is the vehicle scheme beneficiaries. To use it without that qualification might give a wrong impression.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I may try to clarify my own mind, if nobody else's, on this point. What I think the noble Lord is saying is
1936
that if it is passed this will cost £50 million 10 years later. He does not want to enter into a commitment of that kind. He also says that it may prove later on that this may not be the best way of dealing with the circumstances. But the fact remains that people will be looking forward to this particular allowance, and the longer time goes on the more difficult it will be to alter it and amend it. People will have become accustomed already to the payments up to 65 and thereafter. Anybody who is incapacitated and immobile will be wondering what is going to happen to them after that—and increasingly so as the years go on. This will not be a common rate of growing disability for all people, it will vary in many different cases. I cannot see any objection to making this commitment at the present time because if the commitment is there a Government will have to make a better provision later on in order to supersede the commitment. I do not see why they should not do that. If this matter is going to be studied now and a better answer is obtained for those over 75, that is fine, it will obviously supersede the existing arrangement. What I think is difficult to see is why there should be a cut-off date at 75 when quite obviously the immobility will be growing. There will be a greater need after 75 than there is before it.
Lord PARGITER: I wonder whether I may ask a point which is rather technical. Presumably it would not be possible merely to extend the mobility allowance, because I assume that there is a Money Resolution in the other House which would prevent that. So it is being dealt with in a round about way to throw the cost—quite apart from the merits of the case—on to the Insurance Fund. Is there any power to throw matters brought in under one Bill, a charge, on to another Act of Parliament?—I would have thought not without providing the appropriate resolution providing the money for it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It has occurred to us whether the Committee can properly discuss this Amendment. My understanding of the situation is it can; I do not know whether the fact that the Amendment being switched over to the National Insurance Fund alters the situation; but there is certainly a doubt in our minds as to whether we are competent

1937
to pass an Amendment of this kind. I cannot give a more definite answer than that.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, regarding when the mobility allowance came in, it came in by stages and, if my memory serves me correctly, it is only recently that we have extended it as distinct from—shall I say?—just phasing it in. We have only recently extended it to take in, as they say, women from 60 to 65. The mobility allowance has been adjusted as we have gone along. I can see no reason why later on, if it is felt that this is the right way to deal with the over-75s—and it may well be the right way—we could not do this by amendment at some later stage. I cannot see that there is any merit at all in putting this in this Bill when in point of fact it cannot be implemented for 10 years.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask the Minister one short question? I understood him to say that the Department are not able to reckon the number of people this will encompass either now or in 10 years' time; yet he has given a figure of £50 million. He must have based that on some figures and I wonder which.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The £50 million being committed will only help those disabled before the age of 65. One would not be able to get a mobility allowance from 65 until they are 75 unless one qualified for it before the age of 65. It means that those who would receive it until 75 would be those who had qualified for it before 65. In 10 years' time noble Lords opposite may be in power and may wish to spend the £50 million to help all the elderly and disabled through services as I have tried to say. If the commitment is made now they could easily be very frustrated if this goes into the Bill at this stage.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened with great interest. Do I understand that if a mobility allowance is being paid to someone up to the age of 75, then that allowance is cut off after 75 because there is nothing in the Bill to continue it? That seems to me extremely unfair.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not unfair when one is talking about something that is 10 years hence. If somebody said: "We are going to cut it off in a year's time or two years' time" then there would be very serious objections to it; but there cannot be serious objections to saying to people that it has to stop at the age of 75 unless we come up with something, either by way of extending it or by some other form of mobility allowance which will help them. It stops at the present moment when people reach the age of 75; that is quite true. What I am saying is, let us plan in the coming years. We are undertaking an extension of the survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to see what the real problems of that age group really are so that we can make some benefit provision for them. Whether it is the right way to do it in kind or financially or provide some other facility, only a scientific survey will tell us. It is far better to let us, or any other Government that may be in power in the next 10 years, do this so that we fit the garment to the needs.
12.20 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: May I put a point to the noble Lord which I think his own departmental experience will confirm? In 10 years' time, whoever may be in power will have to consider this, as he says: and he knows as well as any noble Lord who has been in Government knows, that any project, however admirable and socially attractive, has to compete inside the Government machine for funds or with other good causes which other Departments in their wisdom wish to put forward. I do not suppose the noble Lord will be, or will wish to be, in his present appointment 10 years from now but, taking as a hypothesis that he is, would he not feel himself to be in a much stronger position to look after the interests of this very deserving section of the community if he had already got this provision on the Statute Book and could say to his colleagues: "Look, if you want to prefer some other expenditure to this, you will have to repeal through Parliament what is now on the Statute Book"? He would find himself in a very much stronger position in the scramble for funds—I think that is the right word to use, because anyone who has been in Government

1939
knows that all departments under all Governments have to indulge in it. Why will he not think again and endow his successor in 10 years' time with that stronger position which my noble friend's Amendment offers to him?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am most grateful to the noble Lord; his experience in Government is greater than mine will ever be, and I acknowledge that. I acknowledge his vast experience and his competence, if he will allow me to say so, in this particular field. But, speaking for the Government, I accept the Government's view for two reasons, because I know that a great deal of thought has gone into it. I accept it for another reason entirely; that is, that all my life has been concerned with professional and voluntary social work and I have seen the disaster—that is not too strong a word—when people have laid plans today for five or ten years hence, and those plans, when the time comes, have borne no relationship to the needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, for example, started a remarkable college in Birmingham for the disabled. She planned it and had the best possible advice available when they were able to start on the project, and yet the end result bore no relationship to the beginning and cost about five times as much, if I remember rightly.
I think it really is very unwise. I would urge that we should use all the experience in the community, both inside and outside Government, to see what we really ought to be doing, not in 10 years' time, but what we ought to be doing in six or seven years' time to plan for the period ahead. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will be convinced by me.
Lord CLITHEROE: There is one point the noble Lord has not dealt with, and that is the question of giving a sense of security to the individual.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to make a Party political point about this, because the disabled are above that sort of thing; but with great respect I think that this Government—and I do not doubt that any other Government would do precisely the same—have shown immense concern about this problem. I should have thought that any disabled
1940
person could go to bed every night feeling fairly certain, in fact very certain, that his or her needs will be looked after to the fullest possible extent. I do not see that there is any reason for anyone feeling they are going to be let down.
Lord SANDYS: I wish that I could share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am sure there are many disabled people who will share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. From a long and seasoned experience, it is of course this pressure of events and the struggle which takes place for funds available at a particular moment in time which so exercise our minds.
There are two matters I should like to mention to the noble Lord. I am well aware that time is creeping up on us, but I think it is worth mentioning because your Lordships have expressed such interest in this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestcll, mentioned that the Amelia Harris survey was to be updated. When we discussed the Snowdon Report two years ago, on a Motion introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, we went into the whole question of the integration of the disabled at that time. It surprises me that in the interval of the two years that have passed since then material should not be available on the disabled mobility arrangements for those over 75. I have been re-reading that important debate, and I think the Amelia Harris survey was mentioned at some length on that occasion—and even in those days it was seven years old.
I think the Government are leaning on a very slender argument in this set of circumstances. I believe there are other factors here which weigh heavily on their minds. But let us not forget that in the Bill we have Clause 3(2): an important Amendment brought in by the Minister for the Disabled which states:
"any changes in taxation which directly affect the cost of motoring for persons in receipt of mobility allowance and such other matters as he thinks relevant; and he shall lay before Parliament a statement setting out his conclusion and the reasons therefore as soon as is reasonably practicable.".
Here is a Minister saying that the allowance, as such, might be increased by special provision. He is allowing for that, and both major Parties have agreed

1941
on that. So there is some flexibility in the uprating of the allowance. Nevertheless the extension of the allowance to those over 75 is disallowed by the Government. I hope that we may come back to this on Report, and I advise the Government that we would welcome some consultations were it possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
12.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of provisions relating to earnings after retirement age
(" .—(1) In section 30 of the principal Act (supplementary provisions about retirement pensions) the following subsection is inserted at the end—
"(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) substitute for the period of 5 years mentioned in section 27(5) of this Act and subsection (1) above a shorter period; and

(b) substitute for the ages of 65 and 70 mentioned in sections 26(1) and (3), 36(5), 37(6) and 79(2)(a) of this Act and subsection (3) above such lower ages as are appropriate in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above.".

(2) In section 167 of the principal Act (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations)—

(a) in subsection (1) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b)—

"(c) no order shall be made under section 30(6),"; and

(b) in subsection (3) after the words "section 17(3)" there is inserted "30(6),".

(3) In Part II of Schedule 15 to the principal Act (regulations not requiring prior submission to National Insurance Advisory Committee) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 17—
"17A. Regulations contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only provisions in consequence of an order under section 30(6) of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: With the indulgence of your Lordships, I wonder whether I may preface what I want to say about this Amendment by a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have taken advice on the matter he raised concerning a dispute between the Department and a person receiving a
1942
payment under the present system of extra-statutory payments. I am informed that there is no sort of appeal procedure at all when payments are made by that method, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that, should the situation arise that there was a dispute, then we should certainly do our level best to secure some sort of independent view. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that in fact there is no appeal procedure.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am much obliged.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In moving Amendment No. 5, which stands in my name, I think I ought to refer, if the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will allow me, to their Amendment No. 6 which follows immediately.
This new clause, which is concerned with the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, flows from an undertaking given by the Government in another place, to which I referred briefly during our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, when I said that at the Committee stage we would come forward with an Amendment to honour a pledge given by my right honourable friend in another place. May I say that the Opposition in the other place tabled an Amendment to the Bill at Report stage to make provision for the earnings rules applicable to retirement pensioners, and to increases of retirement pension, invalidity pension and industrial injuries unemployability supplement in respect of wives living with their husbands, to be abolished by an order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. At present such a change would require an amending Act.
But the Amendment had defects, to which I will refer later, which precluded its acceptance by the Government. The movers therefore withdrew the Amendment on the Government's undertaking to introduce a new clause in your Lordships' House, which would enable the Government, by the use of affirmative orders, to phase out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners by steadily reducing the period over which it applies, with the aim of abolishing it entirely in due course.
The earnings rule for retirement pensioners, which applies only in the first

1943
five years after pension age—that is, between 60 and 65 for women and between 65 and 70 for men—provides that where a pensioner's earnings exceed £45 a week, his pension is reduced on a sliding scale. This earnings limit is reviewed each year and increased in line with the movement in the general level of earnings.
The earnings limit is also relevant to the retirement condition which a person in these age bands has to satisfy before he can be awarded a retirement pension. A person can be treated as retired if his earnings are not expected to exceed the earnings rule limit. However, women over 65 and men over 70 are treated as retired whatever their earnings may be.
In fact, the only purpose of the retirement pensioners' earnings rule is to maintain this retirement condition. Since 1948, it has been a condition for the receipt of the pension that a person must have retired, or been treated as retired, from regular employment. But this is not a concept that has been readily accepted by contributors, and I admit that the earnings rule has been a constant source of complaint for many years. As a result, the Government are committed to abolishing the earnings rule for retirement pensioners when resources are available. But the cost would be very high.
It would depend on the number of people who continued to defer their retirement beyond pension age and, depending on what assumptions are made, the cost to central Government funds over the 12 months from November 1978 to November 1979 would be between £64 million and £124 million. The problem of abolition and details of how these costs are calculated are set out in the report on the earnings rule, which the Secretary of State for Social Services published last October under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1977. Copies are available in the Library and I would refer your Lordships to them.
During the debate in another place the Opposition cast doubts on these estimates, and because they did so we have reexamined the figures with the help of the Government Actuary, who is independent of the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Department's Economic Advisers, and we are quite satisfied that these estimates are reliable.
1944
These are very large sums of money, indeed, and the most likely way of bringing the earnings rule to an end is by phasing it out over a period and thus spreading the cost. One of the major objections to the Amendment introduced by the Opposition in another place was that it did not allow the rule to be phased out. Another objection was that abolition of the earnings rule in the way the Opposition proposed would have left the retirement condition in the air, as it were, and it was not at all clear what the effect on that condition would have been.
The Government's new clause now before your Lordships overcomes these problems. It provides that the Secretary of State may by affirmative order substitute a shorter period for the period of five years over pension age during which a person has to retire in order to qualify for a retirement pension and over which the earnings rule applies to pensioners. It also enables consequential Amendments to be made where necessary to the principal Act; for example, by inserting a lower age for the age of 65 at which a widow pensioner who has not retired automatically becomes entitled to full retirement pension.
The clause provides that any such order shall not be made until a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses. The new clause therefore provides a simple and convenient way of phasing out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, by reducing the age at which the retirement condition is deemed to be satisfied and at which the earnings rule ceases to apply. I beg to move.
12.37 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I hope that the noble Lord will not think it ungracious of us to put down our Amendment No. 6, in view of the fact that the Government have carried out their promise to introduce this new clause today. We are grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the new clause to us. The only difference between our Amendment and the noble Lord's, apart from the technicalities to which he has referred, is that his is really an enabling clause and ours provides for action over the next five years. Where we differ is as to the cost that would be involved in abolishing the earnings rule.

1945
I think the noble Lord will remember that the Government's estimates of cost used to be considerably higher than they are today. In fact, it was under pressure from the Opposition that the Government brought out a report very much altering the estimated cost. Strangely enough, before that time no proper review had ever been carried out. This report of over 40 pages was published four months ago and it contains a great deal of information. It overturns many previous mistaken assumptions put forward by the Government, to which I shall refer later. There is no doubt that it was an extremely useful exercise.
When the earnings rule was discussed last month in another place, one of the objections to abolition put forward by the Government was that it would be incompatible with what is called the retirement condition. The Minister meant that the pension is for retirement only, and that if a person takes up work he is no longer retired and, therefore, should no longer receive a retirement pension. The earnings rule ensures that this is what happens.
I have only two observations to make and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to refer to them if he intends to repeat this argument. Would he explain why the retirement condition applies to the younger pensioner, but not to the woman aged 65 or over or the man aged 70 or over? If the retirement pension is truly a retirement pension, then how can this distinction be justified? Secondly, would the noble Lord also explain why, if the retirement condition is of such vital importance, it does not apply to the new State second pension scheme?
I could go on. I could ask why many widows receiving a retirement pension are completely unaffected by the retirement condition, whatever their age, but it would be unnecessary. The so-called retirement condition is a convenient peg on which to defend the earnings rule which would have been abolished a long time ago if this had been its only justification. So we come to what is really the crux of the matter, which is the cost of abolishing the rule, and I must ask your Lordships to bear with me as I shall have to use various figures in order to make my point.
1946
As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons which prompted this House to defeat the Government in 1977 was the unreliability of previous Government estimates. In 1976, concern about Government errors was mounting so fast that Ministers published a special 15 page paper, entitled Note on Estimated Savings, in which they conceded that:
"Assumptions have been altered in a number of important respects from those used to provide earlier estimates".
As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out in this House, these mistaken assumptions were not trivial. The Government had miscalculated the cost of abolishing the earnings rule by up to £75 million a year. In another place, the Government Minister described these mistakes as hilarious, though I think he could have chosen a more suitable adjective. The same Minister admitted that the new figures about the cost of abolishing the earnings rule might also be wrong. It is hardly surprising that in these circumstances your Lordships forced an Amendment upon the Government to ensure that a proper review of the earnings rule was carried out, and the report was made in Parliament in October 1978.
In 1977, the Government had put the net cost of abolishing the earnings rule at around £150 million. Imagine my surprise on reading the new report to discover that the net cost of abolishing the earnings rule for pensioners had been reduced to a possible £64 million, as the noble Lord told us a moment ago. How, I asked myself, had this come about? The answer is quite simple and relates to the number of people deferring retirement —that is, those who postpone drawing their pensions and who become entitled to a higher pension when they do eventually retire: the incremental benefit. As the State makes a big profit out of people who defer retirement, it follows that the fewer the number of people who defer retirement the less money the State will make.
In their 1976 document, Note on Estimated Savings, the Government assumed that if the earnings rule was abolished, 100 per cent. of those who deferred retirement would no longer do so. However, in their recent review, the Government discovered, to their evident surprise, that 40 per cent. of those who deferred retirement would in fact probably

1947
continue to do so if the earnings rule was abolished in order to get the incremental benefit. This, of course, makes a radical difference to the cost of abolishing the earnings rule. This correction to their previous figures reduces by some £80 million the Government's estimate as to the cost of abolishing the rule. To this figure must also be added the increase in income tax revenue resulting from so many people deferring retirement. They will be working and also getting their pension and will therefore have to pay extra tax. This has been calculated at £43 million.
The latest official cost of abolishing the earnings rule having thus been reduced to a possible £64 million, many noble Lords may think that we need go no further and that it is perfectly feasible to abolish the earnings rule in five stages over the next five years, with each stage costing less than £13 million. However, I should like to explain why this figure is still wrong and why the cost of abolishing the earnings rule is much less than even this estimate. Conservatives have long argued that the abolition of the earnings rule would remove a major work disincentive. Many pensioners work up to or near the earnings rule limit but not beyond it. If pensioners work longer hours and increase their pay, then there will be an increase in tax revenue. In their latest review, the Government have gone some way towards meeting this argument and have conceded that £28 million would be raised in tax revenue.
I have two comments to make on this. First, I strongly dispute the Government's strange assumption that if the earnings rule were abolished a number of pensioners would work fewer hours. The Government are assuming that all those who had previously deferred retirement would now be drawing a pension and would cut their earnings by 10 per cent., thus reducing tax revenue by £17 million. Why such a large number of people should make this decision in such inflationary times is a mystery to me. That some will do so—some disabled people or those contemplating ceasing work altogether—I have no doubt, but why do the Government think so many people will work less when a disincentive to work has been removed? On that reasoning, many people would reduce
1948
their hours of work whenever the standard rate of income tax came down. I cannot agree to £17 million. We could agree to £1 million or £2 million, perhaps, and we might stretch it to £3 million, which would knock £14 million from the £64 million and reduce it to £50 million.
My second point is a very simple one. We know that there are thousands of unemployed pensioners who would have liked to continue to work. A recent survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that four out of 10 people would have liked to work beyond normal retirement age. There are some 2 million people within the earnings rule age bracket, most of whom are not working but some of whom would certainly like to do so. I believe that if we abolish the earnings rule, we can expect an increase in income tax revenue from many pensioners taking up work. How many we know not, but 35,000 pensioners taking up work on average earnings would mean extra tax revenue of £40 million to £50 million a year. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that if extra tax revenue of the higher of these two figures were achieved, the annual cost of abolishing the earnings rule would be nil.
I concede that we are talking about several grey areas, and it is impossible, either for us or for the Government, to be precise on these figures. But we are getting to an interesting situation where the cost, instead of being between £64 million and £120 million, could well be between £64 million and nil—possibly it could be nil.
We can also expect pensioners outside the earnings rule bracket to take up work. For example, I am aware of a pensioner aged 81 who saw his local Member of Parliament and said that he wanted to work and the only thing that deterred him was the earnings rule. His Member of Parliament was able to assure him that the earnings rule did not apply in his case. The moral of this anecdote is to show the psychological effect of the earnings rule.
It is not enough for the Government to say that only male pensioners aged 65 to 70 are affected by the earnings rule. The crucial point is not whether someone is affected by the earnings rule but whether

1949
he thinks he is affected. I suggest that the abolition of the earnings rule will come as a relief to people outside the earnings rule age bracket, as well as those within it, and that the extra tax revenue gained will match the cost of abolition. I do not know what allowance, if any, the Government have made, but I suspect that they have skated over this important issue altogether. I emphasise that some of the figures are on the cautious side and that if the number of people who take up work proves higher there will be a net gain to our economy.
Before I close I should like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the discrepancies between the original Government estimate of the cost of abolition and the figure given in the Official Report, it would not be valuable to dig deeper into some of the grey areas to which I have referred and to publish a further report in 1980.
Finally, I should like to summarise the position of the various Parties. The Conservative Party is committed to the abolition of the earnings rule and we have concluded that five years is a reasonable period. If it can be done sooner, so much the better. The Liberal Party—as I expect the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to confirm—is committed to the abolition of the earnings rule as soon as possible. Then there is the Labour Party, and in another place a Government Minister has said that there are sufficient references for future historians to see that at least in the last couple of months all Parties in the House have placed firmly on the record, by one means or another, their commitment to abolish the earnings rule.
The same Minister added that the Government did not need to carry out a broad review of the rule in 1978 to emphasise that abolition is, and remains, their long-term objective. That was said in 1977; this Amendment proposes abolition of the rule in 1984, and no doubt noble Lords will agree that this is what the Minister may have had in mind when he said that it was Labour's long-term objective. To my mind, seven years is indeed a long time. In supporting this Amendment, noble Lords in the Labour Party will be doing no more than giving effect to what their Government colleagues have said in another place, and there is no reason for withholding their votes.
Lord SOMERS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would clear up one point which has always rather puzzled me. Can he tell us whether a pension from one's previous profession, from which one has now retired, counts as earnings under this particular rule?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he replies, to deal with two questions. The first is this: when a Government put forward legislation giving themselves additional powers, it is normally the custom to give some indication of the Government's intention as to the likelihood and timing of any exercise of those powers? If the Committee and another place approve this Amendment in the Minister's name, the Government will have these powers. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord ought to give some indication, even in general terms, whether or not, if the Government have these powers, they intend to exercise them, and to give some indication of the time scale.
The second point is a slightly more complicated one. I note that the Amendment refers to 70 and 65 as being at present the age at which the earnings rule ceases to operate in the case of men and women respectively. Does the fact that those ages are incorporated in this Amendment mean that the Government have abandoned all ideas of altering the pensionable age under the National Insurance scheme? The noble Lord will be aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which feels that the discrimination against men under the scheme, with an age of retirement five years later than that of women—although the women have the longer expectation of life—is perhaps somewhat unfair, and I understood at one time that a review of the ages of retirement was being undertaken. Are we to assume that putting the ages of 70 and 65 quite firmly in this Amendment means that the Government have abandoned that concept?
I should like to say a word particularly to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I suppose that I have defended the earnings rule more frequently than any other noble Lord in your Lordships' House, even than my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, because I was longer in the Department—then called the Ministry of Pensions and

1951
National Insurance—than he was, although I recall his defending it most valiantly. I am bound to say that I have never had any great difficulty in defending it on one ground. The ground was that we could argue, as my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne has argued most persuasively, as to the quantum of expenditure that would flow from the abandonment of the rule, but, so far at any rate, we have proceeded on the basis that it would cost something.
I am bound to say to my noble friend that I have great confidence, based on experience, in the Government Actuary's view which has been given to your Lordships. As the Minister said, the Government Actuary is wholly independent. Indeed—if I may mention it in parenthesis—once when I was Minister in another place one of the noble Lord's honourable friends accused me, admittedly in the middle of the night, of "fixing" the Government Actuary and I was always very pleased with my reply: that I should be only too grateful if the honourable Member would tell me how one could do that, as no doubt on occasions it would be highly convenient but I had always regarded it as impossible.
I give a good deal of weight to the Government Actuary, and on my noble friend's calculations, as I tried to follow them, I wonder whether there is not one rather questionable item. He referred, by way of compensation, to the increased yield of the income tax arising from more employment being undertaken by people of pensionable age. But in an age where we have the best part of a million and a half unemployed, I wonder whether that would be a net increase to the revenue or whether the employment taken up by those people, admirable in social terms, would not be employment which otherwise would be available to, and taken up by, those under pensionable age and at present unemployed. If that be so, then, with very great respect to my noble friend, his calculations of the savings to the State are not very convincing, because, first, there would not appear to be any increase in the gross yield to the revenue, and secondly, one would have to offset the increased unemployment benefit which would have to be paid over and above what is payable under the present system.
For my own part, I believe that there will be some substantial sum, and I am
1952
inclined to accept the Government Actuary's lower figure because previous estimates have proved to be on the high side; there will be some additional expenditure. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will remember, the problem which always arose when he and I defended the earnings rule was this: given that there is always a limit to the amount of money available for social benefits, is it a good priority for the expenditure of that money to give it to those people over pensionable age who are fortunate enough to have good health and a good employer to enable them to continue to earn? These are admirable people and should be encouraged, but in terms of social welfare it never seemed to me that they were the highest priority. I was inclined to feel—I do not know how the Committee feels—that such funds as were available would better go to those elderly people whose health had broken down and who required, either through the retirement pension or through some of the allowances, support which their unhappy condition perhaps made even more urgent than it was in the case of their more fortunate brethren who were still healthy, happy and at work. Therefore, I have felt that we should be a little hesitant in abolishing the earnings rule.
My noble friend is, of course, absolutely right in saying that it has never been understood, and it has sometimes, I think, been deliberately misunderstood. It has never been popular; I accept that. But it has been a feature of the scheme since it was introduced in the 1940s. As a claimant for priority in the funds available I myself have never ranked it very high, and, indeed, even today would not rank it very high. Therefore, I am bound to say, as between the two alternatives offered to us, I am inclined to prefer the Minister's proposal, which leaves the matter open to the Government of the day in judging the priorities of expenditure, rather than to accept my noble friend's apparently rather Orwellian choice of 1984.
1.2 p.m.
Lord BANKS: Perhaps I might be allowed to say, very briefly, that we on these Benches have always been opposed to the earnings rule and have never accepted the retirement condition. We have never been able to see why it was

1953
perfectly in order to have the largest possible unearned income with no effect on the pension and the very opposite if you actually earned what you received. But I need not go into that because, as has been made clear, the Opposition and the Government together have both now come round to our point of view, and we certainly welcome that.
Amendment No. 5 gives the Government the ability to phase out the earnings rule, whereas Amendment No. 6 would place an obligation on them to do it. I should like to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he was asking what kind of time-scale the Government had in mind. One wonders whether it would ever be done if we had to rely on Amendment No. 5. It is for that reason that of the two, as I understand the position at the moment, I prefer Amendment No. 6.
Lord PARGITER: Quite briefly, it seems to me that the Opposition have very cleverly dealt with this purely on a financial basis. I happened to be a Member of another place following Beveridge when the Insurance Acts were introduced. They were introduced for specific purposes, and one of the purposes was to enable people to retire and to have some reasonable pension on retirement from industry or whatever they were doing. This had the effect of opening up the avenues of promotion; that was one of the arguments used at that time. It also had the effect of bringing young people, school-leavers and so on, into the general stream of employment. That was one of the principal objectives that was provided for under the Acts.
At this time an increasing number of school-leavers are finding it very difficult to get work, and, in my view, that number will continue to increase, as people continue working and as we reach the stage of increasing efficiency, which we are supposed to be doing, and consequently we are required to work fewer and not more hours. It seems to me that if this matter is to be reconsidered we ought to reconsider the whole basis upon which the Insurance Acts were constructed, the financial aspects which were given by the Government Actuary at that time, the sort of things that could be done by the
1954
fund and the sort of conditions that would have to apply. These conditions have been gradually whittled away and, in whittling away those conditions, we have considerably increased the amount of contributions having to be paid into the fund.
It seems to me that if we are going to deal with this aspect we ought not to deal with it from the point of view of the earnings rule; it ought to be dealt with fundamentally from the point of view of whether we still mean the same sort of things now as we meant when the Insurance Acts were introduced, when the figures were decided on what pensions were available. It seems to me that if we are going to have an age at which a pension is payable, irrespective of retirement—that is what we are arriving at—we really ought to look at the whole situation properly, and not try to deal with it, even in the way the Government are trying to deal with it, on the basis of the abolition of the earnings rule.
It seems to me also that if people do continue working we shall have increasing charges on the insurance fund or some other fund for young people who are unable to get work. If people choose to continue to work and we do not have a retirement age at all, perhaps we should consider whether they should cease to pay insurance contributions, or whether they should not pay a social fund contribution in order that we can deal with those young people who cannot get work. I am not arguing against people continuing to work if they want to, but I am saying that we ought to look at all the social consequences and not just at the earnings rule and the likely effect of abolition purely on the financial aspects.
Lord SANDYS: I have listened with very great interest to what all the noble Lords have said. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has raised the very widest issues, which go even beyond the terms of Amendment No. 5 and cover a very broad field of social policy. I think one point which I detect in common between Lord Pargiter and Lord Boyd-Carpenter is an assumption that by permitting elderly people of pensionable age to go on working you are denying younger people the opportunity of filling those jobs. I think it can be argued, and it has been argued in official documents—the Office of Population Studies have records of this—that

1955
this is not always the case. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne asserted, that four out of 10 of those of pensionable age would like to work beyond retirement. There is a whole area here for further investigation, and of course we do once again need that vital element, the Amelia Harris survey, updated in regard to those disabled persons in this category. I feel that if we remove this major work disincentive it would be of major benefit. Nevertheless I listened most closely to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who speaks from long experience in this field, both in Government and out of Government, and I believe we should be wise to follow his advice in this matter.
1.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to take up your Lordships' time. I am very grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who put the matter much more succinctly than I could. Also I think we ought to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Pargiter has said. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, I thought the first thing I ought to do when I went back to the Department was to try to persuade my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to sack the Government Actuary and the Government's economic advisers because they were so totally at variance with the noble Lord.
I do not think noble Lords on the opposite Front Bench can have it both ways. The defeat inflicted on the Government in this House in 1977 forced us—I admit that—to review the whole basis of our costing of ending the earnings rule, and gave the Government Actuary over a year to fulfil that task. The resulting report might, one would have thought, have been accepted as a basis for further informed debate, but apparently it is not. Because the report does not reach exactly the conclusion which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, wants, he argues that the underlying assumptions therefore must be vitiated. I do not think this will do. The Government Actuary is an independent person. One may not trust the Department's economic advisers —I do not say that seriously, of course—but when one has an independent Government Actuary I think one really must.
1956
It is a pity if we are to have our discussions on the basis that the only answers which will be accepted in one's debating points are those that one puts forward oneself. The ones that I put forward are from the Government Actuary who is an entirely independent person.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Perhaps I can clear this matter up. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the figures which the Government Actuary has provided. I am saying that he left out of account the effect that there would be if various people, who are now pensioners, decided to take up work. I believe that there could be a considerable number of such people. I leave out the factor that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned; that is, that if one of those took up a job somebody else might lose it. I think that a large number of those jobs would be part-time. There are many jobs about today, even though there are many people who are unemployed. Anyone who walks in a London street will find that practically every shop is looking for assistants. Many old age pensioners would be delighted to help out in jobs of that sort. Therefore, I am not suggesting that the Actuary's figures are wrong, but simply that he left out of account quite a major element.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I may be at fault, but I told your Lordships' House that the cost of all this would be between £64 million and £124 million. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, to say that the figures are between £16 million and £64 million. I must read Hansard tomorrow, because it may be that I misunderstood him. I thought that he was seriously challenging the Government Actuary's report.
I do not want to say anything more other than to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who raised two points. The exercise of the power to phase out the rule is a matter which the Government feel can be decided only in the light of the economic circumstances prevailing. At present—let me be quite frank about it—we cannot afford to exercise that power. Noble Lords will not want me to go on reminding the House of the restraint on public expenditure, but that is a very real matter so far as the Government are concerned.

1957
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked whether the provision of this new clause was without prejudice to any further fundamental change which the Government might introduce in relation to the pensionable age. No; we have not abandoned the idea or the possibility of being able to reduce pension age. But, as we all know the cost of reducing it for men from 65 years to 64 and for women by one year, is almost astronomic—it is extraordinarily high. Any such change would require main legislation. What we are concerned about is not that we have abandoned the idea of reducing the retirement age but rather the financial implications involved. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would help us, as we may be in some procedural difficulty as regards this matter. We believe that there is a case here. Very wide issues have been raised on both sides of the House. We believe that one way out of these procedural difficulties, owing to the flexibility of procedures in your Lordships' House, might be as follows: To recommit this one clause of the Bill. It is so important. Major issues have been raised, and we believe that there is such a wealth of experience in your Lordships' House in this particular area that there would be justification for re-examining this one clause in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to respond to that affirmatively?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We have had a long discussion on this matter this morning. We have taken a tremendous amount of time and I really do not think that there is anything fresh that could be said about it. We have had, if I may say so, the contribution of one noble Lord who is very experienced in these matters, as is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I should not have thought that any useful purpose could be served and I am very loath to agree because, I think that it would be taking up further time of you Lordships' House quite unnecessarily having regard to the length of time that we have discussed this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
1958
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Abolition of earnings rule
(" . Section 30 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall cease to have effect on 5th April 1984 and all references to those subsections in that Act or in any other enactment shall then likewise cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I think that we are in the procedural difficulty which I identified. It appears that it would probably be better if this Amendment were not spoken to, but were withdrawn at this stage and we return to the situation once again on Report when we have a new print of the Bill. Therefore, with the leave of the House, and most reluctantly—because the noble Lord was given the opportunity to recommit this clause—I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Increase of official pensions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, leave out line 4 and insert—
(" (3) A direction under this section may provide that where it has applied ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. With the permission of your Lordships I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 enable a direction made under Section 59A to provide for an official pension to be recalculated in circumstances to be specified, as if the direction had never applied. The third Amendment enables a direction to provide for the re-calculation of an official pension as if the direction had applied to that pension during the whole of the specified period.
These Amendments are minor technical changes. New Section 59A of the Bill is directed towards certain unusual circumstances where full inflation-proofing of official pensions would, for technical reasons, not take place under the new arrangements. The intention of Section 59, as originally drafted, was to continue present levels of price protection but to link the arrangements to those for up-rating the additional componnents of the State pension scheme. Therefore new Section 59A allows the Minister for the Civil Service to make directions allowing full pension protection to be paid by public

1959
service schemes where this cannot be done by the Department of Health and Social Security. None of the categories of former public servants affected is likely to be large, but their pension circumstances are likely to be rather complicated.
These particular Amendments are required to ensure that the direction to be made by the Minister makes proper provision for the groups concerned. These groups will include certain widows of former public servants and could also include former public servants who have worked simultaneously in two contracted-out employments. In some cases this will require re-calculation of an official pension affected by a direction to ensure that the pensioner is neither over-compensated, nor under-compensated and these Amendments ensure that that can be done correctly. I hope that your Lordships will accept that these are not major changes although they are important in ensuring fair treatment for the groups affected. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord SANDYS: We are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these Amendments, which are technical rather than drafting Amendments. We shall look at them with care. We believe that they are beneficial to the Bill as a whole.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question about one word that he used. He referred to public servants who had been earning a pension "simultaneously" in two, or presumably more, separate capacities. Did the noble Lord mean that, or did he mean "successively"? If he meant "simultaneously", can he give us an example?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I used the phrase "worked simultaneously in two contracted-out employments". I cannot give the noble Lord an example. I think that he has raised an important matter, and I shall certainly make it my business to find out about it and let him know. I do not know whether I can do so while we are sitting in Committee this afternoon.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Might not this cover those people who we describe as being members of QUANGOs, about which from time to time we have discussions in this House? There are
1960
members of QUANGOs who are members of several QUANGOS, and who hold two or three posts. They might very well be caught by this clause.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If that were so, are the members of QUANGOs public servants? I should have thought not. They are generally persons appointed to non-official bodies.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can give one example, and I think that we should try to deal with it while it is fresh in everybody's mind. It would apply to a consultant who works for two health authorities. Does that satisfy the noble Lord?
Lord DRUMABLYN: I do not mean this offensively, but it seems plausible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.24 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert (", in such circumstances as may be specified in the direction,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("that the rate of an official").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LEATHERLAND: I shall be very brief indeed. I find few defects in this very beneficial Bill, but I think that there is a weakness in Clause 10. It adversely affects those people who had increases, say, on 1st December 1978. On 12th November 1979 they will receive eleven-twelfths of the cost-of-living increase that has occurred between November 1978 and November 1979. This is to keep up with the actual increase in the cost of living for the full period of 11 months and 11 days which will have elapsed by 12th November 1979. Therefore, it looks to me as though those people will be deprived of 11 days' worth of cost-of-living increase which might have affected their salaries. Therefore, I suggest that instead of using complete months, as we do in the clause, we should express the

1961
period in terms of actual days. I do not, of course, want an answer today, but the point is now on record and perhaps at the next stage the Minister will be able to give me a reply.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am aware of this. In fact, this matter was discussed rather extensively in another place, and as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security explained, apart from the major administrative difficulty in introducing a fundamental change of this kind at such a late stage, there are other reasons for resisting any suggestion that we should do something about it. First, 11 days of inflation-proofing represents only about 5p a week on the average pension at current rates of inflation. Secondly, although these pensioners will receive only 11 months' worth of increase, they will get it three weeks earlier than the usual increase date. Thirdly, 11 days' worth of inflation is well within the margin of error of any statistical index or retail prices. Although on the face of it there seems to be a point here, in practice there is nothing of any consequence at all.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Maternity grant and death grant]:
1.26 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("If the Secretary of State concludes that during any year those sums have not retained their value he shall prepare and lay before Parliament the draft of an Order increasing those sums by at least the amount necessary to restore their value.
If the draft Order is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament the Secretary of State shall make an Order in the form of the draft.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 12 obliges the Secretary of State to review the maternity grant and the death grant each year to see whether they have lost value during the course of the year. This obligation was inserted into the Bill during the Committee stage in another place. The Government made clear that although, of course, they would carry
1962
out that review, they did not intend to act upon it; they did not intend to rectify any shortfall which the review might reveal.
This Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to take action to restore the value. If we look at past experience we can see, for example, what has happened to the death grant, which was introduced at £20 in 1949. It has been increased twice and is now £30, but it would have to be at £123 in order to retain its original value. It has been allowed to decline in value over the years. The Amendment would not remedy that position. It would not take account of any past erosion, but it would prevent further deterioration. When I asked an Unstarred Question about the death grant, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated that the Government were going to allow the death grant to fall further in value. This Amendment would prevent that from happening.
In my view, if Parliament decides that benefits at a certain level are necessary, they should be maintained at that level in real terms until a new decision is made. That has not happened in the past. I hope that Parliament will rectify that situation on some other occasion. This Amendment is designed to prevent it from happening in the future; to make sure that these grants retain their present value, and to prevent further erosion. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I do not suppose that at this stage my noble friend will say that he will accept this Amendment. However, I warmly ask him to persuade the Government to keep it very closely in mind. The maternity grant and the death grant are both very much appreciated, in the one case by the mother, and in the other case by the relatives. There is no doubt whatever that the amount of these grants has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living.
I suppose that at the age of 80 there is a prospect that I might not be concerned with the maternity grant; there is probably a prospect that I shall be concerned with the other one. But I believe that these grants have been of inestimable benefit to large sections of the community, and if the cost of living has increased, and if it

1963
is likely to continue to increase—as it will —it is only fair that these two grants, which are so very valuable to millions of people, should also be increased in keeping with the cost of living.
1.29 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, we had a very full debate—notwithstanding that it was on an Unstarred Question—in your Lordships' House fairly recently, and I do not think I can add anything to what I said then. I would simply remind your Lordships that Clause 12 as set out in the Bill is the clause which was accepted by the other place. Albeit it was put in as an Amendment, nevertheless the wording, as set out in Clause 12, was accepted by the majority in another place. It resulted, as your Lordships know, from an Opposition Amendment at Committee stage. It does not require the Secretary of State to be committed to increasing these grants following any kind of review.
Lord Banks' Amendment makes the position of the Amendment very different from when it left the House. As I understand the situation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can increase the grants, if he wants to, under the wording of the present clause. I do not want to go over all the arguments we had on 30th January. I raised the question of cost then. I pointed out that there had been a considerable piece of research done not so long ago into the effect on people of the death grant, and there was no evidence at all from the group, which was a real cross-section of the community, that any hardship was experienced at all in general terms. There were one or two cases, but of the number seen they were very small.
We are concerned with the financial implications of the matter, because if we are thinking in terms of from November 1978 to 1979, and uprate them each November thereafter, it would cost about £1 million for 1979–80, rising to about £3·5 million for 1980–81. Having regard to all the things that we have got to do for the aged, and across a very wide front of benefits which are being given to a large section of the community, we have to use every penny we can to meet and keep the particular benefits that we are paying abreast of any rise in prices and, as some of them rise, in earnings.
1964
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time by going over all the ground that we covered on 30th January, but the increases in child benefit taking place last November and the coming April require an extra £500 million; the Christmas bonus over £100 million. We are doing so much, and if a good many, as I said earlier on, of these Amendments before your Lordships today had been accepted, or had succeeded, they would have added quite appreciable sums of money, many millions of pounds, to an already overburdened Department when it comes to meeting resources from its allocation.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who is by no means an unreasonable person, to leave the clause as it is, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State can increase the grants if he wants. Let him carry out his responsibility to both Houses of Parliament by exercising the responsibility put on him under Clause 12, and then let him see whether, having done that, anything can be done to meet the spirit of the Amendment before your Lordships.
1.33 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help the Committee. He quoted two figures which rather puzzled me. The cost in the coming year would be about £1 million, and in the following year £3·5 million. Does this imply that the Government think that inflation is going to increase more in the following year than it has been hitherto?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No. I cannot give the age bands, but we know that, taking statistics year by year, there are more deaths in one group of people than in another. We know that another group tend to live a much longer period. The only way by which one can make judgments of this kind, which I admit are not absolutely foolproof but they are not very far off, is by working according to the trends of people who are going to live and how long they are going to live. We know that in the next 10 years there will be an increasing number of people not only living over the age of 75 but, believe it or not, over the age of 85. Therefore, there will be greater strains on our resources for providing for the elderly. In the same way, we can tell from trends the number of people who are likely to die in any one area.

1965
The cost is smaller in 1979–80, because the Amendment would only become operative in November and that would only really cover half a year. I said for that half-year it will be about £1 million; in the full year £3·5 million. That is because to some extent we can gauge the amount of claim there would be on this benefit if it was uprated.
Viscount SIMON: We cannot examine the figures very easily across the Floor of the House, but I must say I was rather surprised at the noble Lord telling us that, because if it is expected that people are going to live longer there will be fewer deaths in the ensuing year will there not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This is true, but we have to set that against what would be the possible uprating of the benefit if the benefit was uprated. If it is going to be done in line with prices, which I imagine it would be, then one would have to take into account the possible inflation figure in a year or 18 months' time.
1.38 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question about Clause 12, which the Amendment seeks to alter or add to? The clause itself is a curiosity. I do not blame the Government for this because it was not their clause. It merely provides for the examination of the present levels and, as a result, requires the Government to state what would be required to bring them up in real terms to what they were in the previous year. This is something which I imagine the Government still do; certainly we used to do it when I was associated with the Pensions and National Insurance Department. But this particular clause does not require him to do anything else. The noble Lord says that a Minister can, if he wishes, raise these amounts, either by the disparity between the previous value and the new value, or else presumably by another amount. I am not clear under what powers he can do that.
I take it that what he means is that at an ordinary uprating of National Insurance benefits provision could be made at the same time for uprating these two benefits. Of course, again he can do that anyway. I am not clear what the whole exercise involves. The great
1966
difference between Lord Banks' Amendment and what the noble Lord has been saying is that whereas Clause 12, as it now stands, provides only for a year to year increase, Lord Banks' Amendment would involve going right back to the original. Is this not so?
Viscount SIMON: I do not think so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Going back a further distance, at any rate, because it says:
"during any year those sums have not retained their value he shall prepare and lay before Parliament the draft of an Order".
He is simply requiring that these two grants should be raised from their present levels to whatever is required from year to year to make up the loss in their value and their real purchasing power.
This is a curious procedure because the real value has already fallen behind so far that it seems almost miniscule to provide for increases from year to year based on the present state of affairs. At a certain stage one would have to decide what the value of this benefit was. Lord Wells-Pestell seemed almost to be saying that these two grants were not of much value anyway nowadays and that the money could be better spent elsewhere—he did not say exactly that, but that was the deduction one would make from his remarks. Yet that is at variance with what is at present in Clause 12, which seems to say that, whatever else happens, we must at least keep this benefit under review to see that its value is retained.
If Lord Wells-Pestell can demonstrate that the Amendment is unnecessary—because the Government have power, if they so wish, to increase the amount in accordance with their re-examination—then I should not have thought there was much point in pressing the Amendment. But if he is saying that the Government will simply tell Parliament what the amount is and leave it to Parliament to clamour for an uprating, he will probably find that from year to year an Amendment will be moved, and the Government would then have to resist it because that would be the effect in the annual uprating. Perhaps the noble Lord would elucidate the point and explain what he meant by saying that the Government would have power to increase the grants. And may we be told how they would do it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify perhaps my own thinking on the matter. As I understand the situation, the Secretary of State is bound by various provisions in other Acts to consider certain benefits and, if they have not kept pace—some of them with prices; some with earnings—to uprate them accordingly. That does not apply to some benefits, and it does not and has never applied to the maternity and death benefits.
I think we are all agreed that the amounts paid out by way of death and maternity grants are very low; they were fixed a good many years ago and, trusting to memory, I do not believe the death grant has been raised since 1967 or 1968. To bring it up to its present level would be very costly; that is, if it were brought up to its present level from the time it was originally given. However, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is not asking for that. In his Amendment he is saying that the Secretary of State, when he looks at the death grant and maternity benefit eash year, must uprate them according to what their value was the previous year. I understand, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is asking for this to be uprated in line with prices as from November 1978.
The clause as drafted puts a responsibility on the Secretary of State to review maternity and death grants at the next review, but it does not put him under an obligation, according to the clause as drafted, to use the power he has to uprate it; he is required to review it. I am saying that, although he is under no obligation, according to the clause, actually to uprate it, if he wants to do so he has the power to do so under Section 124 of the Social Security Act, and therefore he does not need authority here to do it. The authority in this Bill is merely to review, although he could come forward and say he has decided to uprate it in line with prices because of the power he has under Section 124 of that Act. I must not make suggestions as to what may be in Lord Banks' mind. He may feel there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to uprate. However, as things are, all he must do is review and he is under no obligation to uprate. I am merely saying that if he felt he wanted to do so he has the powers so to do.
Lord BANKS: When we discussed the Unstarred Question I was then asking for the whole of the back erosion, as it were—from the time when the grants were first established—to be made up, but, as has been made clear in discussing the Amendment, that is not what I am asking for today. I am simply asking that any future erosion should be made up, and I have chosen wording already contained in the Bill in respect of other matters. Noble Lords will see on page 8, at line 40, that exactly the same phraseology is used in regard to the uprating of income and guaranteed pensions; I have taken that wording and applied it to the death and maternity grants.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said the wording of the clause had been accepted in another place. I have not interfered with the wording of that clause in any way; I have merely added this obligation on the Secretary of State to the wording approved in another place. The noble Lord said the Secretary of State could improve the maternity or death grant if he wished to do so. The complaint is that he has not wished to do so. Indeed, he has not wished to do so, as Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out, since 1967.
Taking the death grant back to the time when it was introduced, it then met 60 per cent. of the cost of an average funeral, whereas it now meets less than 15 per cent. The question is whether it is to go down further. In my view, if the Government wish to abolish these grants they should come before Parliament with a proposition to that effect, rather than allow them to be eroded gradually and steadily over the years, as is happening now.
The Amendment would prevent any further erosion. It would maintain the present level, inadequate though that is in relation to the past value which the grants originally had, and I cannot see that Lord Wells-Pestell has adduced a substantial argument against doing that. The cost of £1 million out of the £10,000 million or so paid out of the National Insurance Fund would be minimal, but it would at least do a minimum of justice for those involved with these two grants. Because of that, I feel I should test the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
1.50 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Gainford, L.

Meston, L.

Amulree, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Avebury, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Feversham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Swaythling, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Leatherland, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rugby, L.

Brock, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Shackleton, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Melchett, L.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Stedman, B.

David, B.

Milford, L,

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Stone, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Peart, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Wall, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigg, L.

Jacques, L.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 43.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Adjustment of secondary Class 1 contributions for exceptions to redundancy provisions]:
2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. The first Amendment is a paving Amendment, and the substance of the matter is contained in Amendment No. 12. The purpose of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 12 is to enable certain regulations, consequent upon the passing of the Bill, which are made within six months of the Royal Assent, to be exempt from the general requirement to be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The new clause includes the provision previously in Clause 13(3), but extends the power so as to include regulations made under Section 119 of the principal Act (effect of adjudication
1970
on payment and recovery) in consequence of the amendments to that section contained in Clause 7 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that reference to the Advisory Committee is unnecessary within such a short period following the passing of this Bill through Parliament. That is the ground on which we are moving Amendment No. 12: so as to exempt the general requirement to refer to the National Insurance Committee matters which have been discussed just prior to the passing of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: May I ask the Minister whether the National Insurance Advisory Committee have themselves been consulted; and, if so, whether they acquiesce in or object to their exclusion from a consideration of regulations made under these provisions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think I am right in saying that they have not been so asked.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Reference of regulations to National Insurance Advisory Committee
(" . Section 139(1) of the principal Act (reference of proposed regulations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee) shall not apply in relation to regulations—

(a) made under section 119 of the principal Act (effect of adjudication on payment and recovery) by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to this Act;

(b) made by virtue of section 13 of this Act; or

(c) made under paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (calculation and adjustment of amounts) in relation to contributions reduced under section 4(7) of thet Act;

and made within 6 months of the passing of this Act.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States
(" .—(1) The following subsections are inserted at the end of section 85 of the principal Act (overlapping benefits)—
"(4) Regulations may provide for adjusting benefit payable to or in respect of any person whether there is payable in his case any such benefit as is described in subsection (5) below.
(5) Subsection (4) above applies to any benefit payable under the legislation of any member State other than the United Kingdom which is payable to or in respect of—

(a) the person referred to in that subsection;

(b) that person's wife or husband;

(c) any child or adult dependant of that person; or

(d) the wife or husband of any adult dependant of that person.".

(2) In Part II of Schedule 15 to the principal Act (regulations not requiring prior submission to National Insurance Advisory Committee) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 12—
"12A. Regulations under section 85(4) of this Act (overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States).".
(3) The following section is inserted in the Child Benefit Act 1975 after section 4—
"Overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States.
4A. Regulations may provide for adjusting child benefit payable in respect of any child in respect of whom any benefit is payable under the legislation of any member State other than the United Kingdom.".")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power to restore the effects of certain overlapping benefit provisions of the EEC regulations on social security which, in the context of the Treaty of Rome, may be declared to be invalid by the European Court of Justice. It enables regulations to be made for adjusting benefit payable under the principal Act or the Child Benefit Act in cases where benefit is payable also under the legislation of another member State of the Community.
The origins of this Amendment are somewhat complex to explain, but I do not think I need dwell on them at great length. The object of the Amendment is quite simple. It is designed to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations which would restore the intended effects of certain overlapping benefit provisions in the EEC regulations on social security which, as I said a moment or two ago, may be declared by the European Court of Justice to be improperly included. The EEC regulations in question form part of the free movement provisions of the Treaty. They provide advantages in the social security field to persons who move from one part of the Community to another, such as enabling their insurance or residence in the various member States to be aggregated for benefit purposes and transferring their right to receive benefit from one State to another. But, as one would expect, the regulations also contain provisions which are designed to prevent excessive duplication of benefit where the person acquires title concurrently under the schemes of two or more States.
The European Court has given a succession of judgments which have shown some aspects of those overlapping benefit provisions to be invalid. The court has said, in effect, that although, in the interests of free movement, the EEC regulations may co-ordinate social security provisions to the advantage of persons who move within the Community, they are incompatible with the Treaty in so far as they purport to reduce rights which a person may acquire under the legislation of a member State without the aid of the EEC regulations. So far, the court's ruling affects only a very limited range of cases. But we are advised that the principle is likely to be extended in due

1973
course to other provisions of a similar nature in the regulations, and if this happens the consequences would be more substantial.
The result of these developments could be that a person who changed residence from one member State to another, or who pursued employment successively in them, could in certain circumstances receive two full benefits for the same contingency, or at any rate considerably more than the maximum that he would normally receive from either country. May I give an example?—and I hope it is right. To take child benefit, a husband who is working abroad would be eligible, perhaps, for child benefit in that particular country of the EEC, while the wife would also be entitled to it at home here if she was in this country.
The court has made it clear that, although the provisions in the EEC regulations which were intended to regulate this situation are invalid, there is nothing in the Treaty to preclude the application of similar provisions in member States' national legislation. Some member States already have such provisions, and these may in appropriate circumstances enable them to offset against their own liability in the case the benefit which is being paid from our funds. The power which we are seeking is therefore needed, not only to restore the intended effects of the EEC provisions so far as British benefits are concerned, but also to save us from being placed at a disadvantage in relation to some of our Community partners. The intention is that regulations should be made under the new power as and when developments, or anticipated developments, in judgments of the European Court make it desirable to do so. In the light of these facts, I hope that the Committee will feel that this is an appropriate Amendment, and one to be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: This field of overlapping benefits is an extremely complicated one. Your Lordships will be aware that we had a debate on this subject on Friday, 19th May, 1978, in which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replying to an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said at col. 692:
"Your Lordships may be interested to know that it has been estimated, although I admit that
1974
it is not easy to calculate this precisely, that it would cost something like £2,000 million a year or more to remove all the provisions preventing duplication".
I think that at this hour it would not be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to expand on this matter very much further, but as we read it at the moment we think that the Government's clause would be beneficial, and I have no further comments to make.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Criminal proceedings. 1965 c. 20. 1970 c. 55. 1975 c. 16. 1975 c. 61.
(" . For the purposes of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 as it applies in relation to proceedings for any offence which is connected with—

(a) the obtaining or receipt of any benefit under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975, the Child Benefit Act 1975, the principal Act or the Act of 1976; or

(b) the failure to pay any Class 1 or Class 2 contribution (within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act),

"business" shall include the activities of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause extends the scope of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 to cover the records of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment relating to claims for the payment of various social security benefits for which the two Departments are responsible. It is intended to allow the more effective prosecution of those engaged in the substantial defrauding of the social security system.
Your Lordships will wish to know that until recently it has been the practice of my Department to prosecute those who defrauded the social security system under our domestic social security legislation, but because the offence lies in making a false statement to obtain benefit the evidence which needs to be adduced is relatively simple and straightforward. But lately for a variety of reasons the Department has been under pressure to prosecute those who commit the more substantial frauds under the Theft Act.
However, prosecution under the Theft Act requires the Department to present full evidence of a chain of events leading from a fraudulent claim to the actual receipt of benefit. This requires, as your Lordships will understand, evidence from a large number of officials who deal with the claim in all its stages. Because of the vast scale of the Department's operations and the turnover of staff, it is often impossible to identify, when a fraud comes to light perhaps many months after the claim, the officials who dealt with the case. Furthermore, even if they can be identified, it is, in general, unreasonable to expect them to recall the events on which they would have to appear and give evidence.
The new clause, therefore, extends those provisions of the Criminal Evidence Act which enable documentary evidence to be presented in such circumstances to include the benefit operations of my Department and also the Department of Employment, and the records relating to benefit claims and the payments of the various benefits for which the two Departments are responsible. This is obviously done with the knowledge and consent of the Department of Employment and I also understand of the Home Office who in the normal way would be responsible for the Criminal Evidence Act 1965. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Financial provisions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert—
(" ( ) Section 60(1) of the Scotland Act 1978 (modification of enactments authorising payments out of money provided by Parliament etc.) shall have effect as if subsection (1) above were contained in an Act passed before that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment connected with the Devolution Acts. I was a little puzzled but I am told that the Devolution Acts are on the Statute Book and they must be taken into account whatever happens. By virtue of Section 6 of the Pension (Increase) Act 1971 the Secretary of State is the pension authority (and hence responsible for paying increases under that Act) for teachers and National Health Services Staff and one or two other
1976
categories of people. Although the matter of making orders increasing official pensions under Section 59 of the Pensions Act is reserved by the entry in Part III of Schedule 10 to the Scotland Act 1978, the responsibility for paying increases will, in a case where the Secretary of State is the pension authority, pass to the Scottish Executive. This being so, the Scotland Act should provide for the increases concerned to be borne by the Scotland Consolidated Fund, and that is the purpose of this Amendment which I commend to your Lordships. I am advised that no Amendment on account of Welsh devolution is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I should like to ask the Minister something about this Amendment. It puzzles me. What happens if, as is perfectly possible, in the referendum the target of 40 per cent. is not obtained and the Scotland Act is, therefore, under the procedure contained in it, subject to annulment under the Resolution procedure? If we put this subsection into the Bill and that happens, will this not be an extraordinary anomaly in the Bill? Will it not be necessary to take it out?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I asked the same question because it seemed strange to me that before the referendum (and before we knew the result of it) we should be concerned with a matter of this kind. I am advised that this is necessary. The Devolution Acts are on the Statute Book. We shall know whether devolution takes place presumably within the next few weeks. If it does not then, again presumably, there will have to be some amendments.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: With respect, should this not have been framed —and I take the noble Lord's point—in some form of words such as, "subject to the continuation of operation of the Scotland Act 1978" or "providing the Scotland Act 1978 is still in effect" or something like that? This provision would stand out like a sore thumb if that Act were annulled.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I take the noble Lord's point. I found it rather surprising, but I am advised this is the way to do it; and I take the advice I am given.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: It is very odd.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Short title, etc.]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("(1) to (3)") and insert ("(3) and (4)").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They are minor drafting Amendments dealing with commencement. The first Amendment is consequential on the insertion in the Bill at an earlier stage of subsection (2) of Clause 3. The second Amendment will ensure that Clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with the increase in official pensions will come into force on 6th April, 1979 which is the same date as that on which Section 59 of the Pensions Act (which also relates to increases in official pensions) is due to come into operation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 10 and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, line 46, at end insert—
("SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1973 (c. 38) 2A. In section 68(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 (reference of proposed regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board) for the words from" (other than "to" passing of this Act) "there are substituted the words" (other than regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked thereby) ".").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to speak to Amendments 18 and 19. These Amendments remove from the Social Security Act 1973 and the Pensions Act those provisions which exempted draft regulations—affecting
1978
occupational pension schemes and made within six months of Royal Assent—from the necessity of being referred to the Occupational Pensions Board. Obviously those provisions have now served their purpose. The Amendments also provide that future draft regulations made only for the purpose of consolidation shall be exempt from the Board's formal scrutiny. The Occupational Pensions Board have been consulted and are content with what is proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 43, at end insert—
("19A. In section 61(2) of the Pensions Act (reference of proposed regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board) for the words from "to be made" to "passing of this Act "there are substituted the words" made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked thereby ".").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with Amendments.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL RELIEFS) BILL [H.L.]
ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
EXCISE DUTIES (SURCHARGES OR REBATES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.20 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Customs and Excise Management Act,
Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act,
Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act,
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act,
Matches and Mechanical Lighters Duties Act,
Tobacco Products Duty Act,
Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) Act,
Films Act,
Inverclyde District Council Order Confirmation Act,
Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act,
Tamar Bridge Act.

CIVIL SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Civil Service Industrial Action.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
2.21 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: 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.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increase of number of constituencies in Northern Ireland].
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("18 or less than 16" ") and insert ("5 or less than 3.
( ) For rule 2 of the rules in Schedule 2 to the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"2. Every constituency in Great Britain shall return a single member, but every constituency in Northern Ireland shall return not less than 3 or more than 5 members to a total not greater than 18 or less than 16.
3. Each vote in a constituency in Northern Ireland shall be a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voters' order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when, owning to a deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.".").

The noble Lord said: The Bill increases the Northern Ireland representation in the House of Commons from 12 to between 16 and 18, and the object of the Amendment is to change the voting system by which this increased number of Members will be elected from Northern Ireland. It would replace the first-past-the-post system of voting in Northern Ireland for the election of Members of the House of Commons by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. If this were done it would mean that the system used for Westminster elections would be the same as that already used for local government in Northern Ireland; it would be the same as that used for the election of the Assembly; the same as that used for the Convention, and the same as is proposed in Northern Ireland for the elections to the European Parliament.
We may well ask: Why was this system of proportional representation introduced for local government, regional and European elections? It was introduced because the first-past-the-post system leaves substantial minorities under-represented and sometimes unrepresented. Of course, the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland is such a minority. The proportion of Protestants to Catholics in Northern

1981
Ireland is roughly that of two to one, yet in the February 1974 election, securing a vote of 51 per cent. the Unionists secured 11 seats out of the 12, and the result in October 1974 was not very much better.
This Bill increases the number of seats, as I have said. It is anticipated that the number will be 17, which is five more seats, and, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, pointed out on Second Reading, all these seats could go to the majority. Surely we do not want that, and surely we do not want as a result of this Bill to compound the grievance which already exists. There would be no opposition to the statement that what is required in Northern Ireland is reconciliation. In order to get reconciliation one of the requisites is fair representation. It is only one element, but it is an important one. It is a necessary first step. It would not by itself solve the problems of Northern Ireland; but so long as there is not fair representation, then the problems of Northern Ireland are likely to be the greater. Certainly during the Second Reading debate the noble Lords, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Hampton, were in no doubt that proportional representation was the answer. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said that as the single transferable vote was already in operation in Northern Ireland, that would be the system of proportional representation to pursue.
What are the arguments that are so important that they completely outweigh that Southern argument in favour of fair representation as one of the means of reconciliation? The argument is that, as to the voting system, one cannot regard Northern Ireland separately from the United Kingdom; but Parliament, by introducing proportional representation where it does not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, has already recognised the special situation existing there. Why is it possible to have proportional representation for Northern Ireland and first-past-the-post for the rest of the United Kingdom when it is a question of elections to Europe to the same Parliament but not for Westminster? Particularly, why should this be so when there is a precedent for the two systems operating together in Westminster elections? That of course is the precedent of the university seats.
1982
When we discussed this matter on Second Reading, I thought that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about this was irrelevant. He clearly objected to the universities having had representation, and maybe they ought not to have had it; but the point is that both systems worked perfectly well together, and no one denies that Northern Ireland should be represented at Westminster.
I hope that the Committee will support this Amendment as one contribution to reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is far from being the only contribution required; nevertheless it is an important one. I beg to move.
2.37 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: I do not think that it can be denied that proportional representation is theoretically the most democratic system for elections. The most democratic of all would be a constituency as large as the area electing Members. I have always been opposed to it in returning Members of the House of Commons, for this reason: that it is very important that Members of Parliament should be in close contact with their constituents, and constituencies with five or six Members would make it almost impossible for a Member of Parliament to have that very close contact. Therefore, as nearest to a democratic system, I have been in favour of single constituencies with the transferable vote.
However, today I think there is a strong case for saying that proportional representation should be applied in Northern Ireland. It has been the system of election in Northern Ireland before. There is the very desirable necessity that in the election of Members for Northern Ireland to the Westminster Parliament there should be the opportunity for the minority. This has always been the crucial issue in Northern Ireland. It has been the case for power-sharing. I suggest that it is not logical to urge power-sharing in Northern Ireland unless you give the minorities the right to representation at the Parliament of Westminster. Therefore I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: In rising to support my noble friend in his support for the Amendment, which was so ably

1983
moved from the Liberal Benches, I should like to say first that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, of the Alliance Party to say that unfortunately he is unable to be present in this Committee today, but that if he had been here he would have given his full support to the Amendment. The Alliance Party represents something like 20 or 25 per cent. of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and if we had to have the majority of the minority community, I think it would be fair to say that over half the electorate in Northern Ireland would be in favour of proportional representation. As has been stated already, in Northern Ireland all other elections are held under this system. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, a precedent exists, in that university seats were returned by proportional representation, and they would see nothing wrong in having one system of election for some seats and another system for other seats.
I have only one final matter to add: that if we are honest we must admit that it will be a very long time before proportional representation exists in this country as a whole, if only because it would be against the interests of both main Parties and it is principally the Liberal Party which would benefit from it. But I must point out that in this case it would certainly be in the interests of the Government to have proportional representation, because, whatever may be said, when it comes to the "nitty-gritty" the Unionists in another place are going to vote with the Conservatives and the SDLP, certainly on important occasions, will vote with the Government. Therefore, although I do not know whether it is politic to mention it or not, it would certainly be to the Government's advantage if this Amendment were accepted.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: However forlorn the hope of changing the first-past-the-post system for these elections, I think that those of us who support the principle of proportional representation should let no opportunity pass of stressing the unrepresentativeness of the present electoral system. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, a system of proportional representation was adopted when the present system excluded a minority which was so militant that it could not be, and has not been, subdued.
1984
When that imperative was behind the change, the Government made it and persuaded Parliament to support it. It looks now as if the Members of the other place and the Government are bent on adhering to the existing system long after its credibility has been assailed. I should have thought that the same reasons for agreeing to proportional representation for other elections in Northern Ireland would have held good for the elections for additional Members under this Bill.
We have heard in the past all the legends about the existing system providing this country with stable and firm government, that we are not as other people are who are content with coalitions and adjustments of political power with a view to getting a representative Government. That we regard as a form of democratic weakness. But recent experiences rather suggest that we are not so sure of getting the same results now from the first-past-the-post system as we are led to believe that we had in the past. It amazes me, for example, that in connection with the Scottish Assembly Referendum Parliament has insisted on a minimum proportion of consent to the change which, if applied to elections to Parliament itself, would throw out a very large number of people in another place. This seems to me to be a form of humbug. I also feel that at the root of it is the desire to preserve the system, with all that flows from it to the advantage of particular individuals and Parties.
If we have any firm conviction about democracy, we should be searching for the greater truth of democracy and not allowing the conventions of the past to hold us in such a grip that we feel there is no case for change. Other countries in Europe with a proportional representation system are politically and economically as successful as we are. The trouble with this country is that we are slow to change. Things that have been done by tradition and in traditional form we want to hang on to. We are going to be left behind by the world of tomorrow in all sorts of ways because we cannot adjust ourselves.
I have been reading over the last few days a book called Roads to Ruin by a writer named E. S. Turner. I got it out to read the history of the well-worn controversy about marriage to a deceased

1985
wife's sister, which arises from the Bill recently introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. What people said on that matter some years ago is absolutely incredible. Another item in the book is about daylight saving. We have been using this now for half a century: summertime. All manner of things were said about interfering with God's time, when William Willett was advocating the cause of greater happiness, more sunlight and more opportunity for outdoor recreation by using the clock to adjust our habits. One could go back not very far in the history of Parliament and public opinion and see how backward people were in their thoughts about changes which are now fully accepted. One wonders why they were not made long, long ago. I think we are going to have this delay about our electoral system and our Parliamentary system.
We are bewitched by the word "democracy" in this country, though little time is spent on examining the reality of it and the representativeness of our institutions. Why is it that so much pressure is being built up outside Parliament at the present time? The government of Britain today is government by pressure groups: let us be honest about it. Parliament has lost a good deal of its authority because it is not representative. In those circumstances, I think that in this Chamber, where we are not directly affected by the electoral system, we ought to be able to speak as we feel, even though it is unpopular in certain quarters and especially where they have still to undergo elections. I did not look back with pride to my representative capacity as a Member of Parliament for the Sowerby Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire when I realised that more people voted against me than for me at six out of eight elections. That does not give one confidence; and yet we talk about "representing our constituents" and we are so "prissy" about allowing nothing to erode our representative capacity in respect of our constituents—when, if they had their choice, we should not be there at all. Yet we go on introducing the same old system and rejecting the arguments for change. I am glad to have come into your Lordships' House just in time to express myself on this Amendment, which I support.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Banks, who moved this Amendment, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, have done so as though the reasons which persuade them that proportional representation is a generally desirable objective prove that proportional representation should be written into this Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it is on this point that the argument for this Amendment turns, and I take leave to disagree with the other noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that it is on this point that this Amendment founders.
This Amendment would, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, very fairly said, break totally with the past, and the principle that Members of another place are elected on the same basis, equal in their responsibilities and in their rights, would, to some extent, go by the board. This Amendment would also, in particular, break with the principle which the noble Lord specifically mentioned, and which has been very much valued over the years, in practice, that a Member is returned to Parliament to represent the interests of all his constituents.
Your Lordships who are in favour of the Amendment will say to me that, to some extent, that is what it is all about. We are talking about a different form of electoral procedure in which some things are discarded, but in which there are also future advantages. If such a very considerable step were to be taken, it would be fair to assume, surely, that an attempt had already been made throughout the country and in Northern Ireland to secure the widest measure of agreement possible for this change. No such attempt has been made.
Mr. Speaker's Conference, which was set up to consider the redistribution of constituencies in Northern Ireland, reached almost unanimous agreement as to the extent of the increase desirable, and that conclusion is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. But that Conference had no remit whatsoever to make recommendations about the method of voting. I do not know the reason for that. It was at a time—and I do not say this in a "snide" way—when the Lib-Lab Pact existed, and it was therefore, presumably, at a time when members of the Liberal Party could, at least, have given very strong advice to the right honourable

1987
gentleman the Prime Minister to include proportional representation as a term of reference of Mr. Speaker's Conference. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Speaker's Conference had no remit to make recommendations about the method of voting, and therefore did not do so.
But—so the argument, as I understand it, of the noble Lords proposing this Amendment runs—all this is irrelevant to the political realities in Northern Ireland. Many of your Lordships, including noble Lords who have already spoken, may be reflecting that proportional representation would help to achieve a distribution of seats which corresponded to the total of votes cast, and that this, in particular, would be electorally fair to the minority interests in Northern Ireland. If I may lay my own cards on the table, I have very great sympathy with that point of view, provided that the election is confined to Northern Ireland. That is the reason why the Conservative Party, of which I am a member, in 1972 introduced the single transferable vote method for local government elections, and in 1973 was responsible for introducing STV for the Assembly elections.
But I say, most seriously, that to appear to hive off Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom in General Elections for the nation's Parliament is an entirely different matter. Such a move would be seen in Northern Ireland, so I believe, to call into question the commitment which Governments, of both the Conservative and Labour Parties, have given in legislation on two different occasions since the war, that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom while that remains the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province. Certainly, that would not be the intention of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I believe that that would be the effect of this Amendment, and the risk which we should be running in that respect must not be taken without careful preparation, and without as wide a measure of agreement as it is possible to secure. That preparation has not been undertaken, and that agreement has most certainly not been secured.
So what do we do to try to go some way towards meeting the points which have been put very fairly by the noble
1988
Lord, Lord Banks, and the anxieties which he and other noble Lords have very properly voiced about the rights of the minority community in Northern Ireland? The rules for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 do not include any rule that the Boundary Commission should take account of what will be the political consequences of their redrawing of constituency boundaries. However, the Government may have a view which they would wish to give to the House as to the kind of political spread of the increase in seats, which this Bill is likely to have. I do not know and I wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has to say.
But I believe, most certainly, that we must as a House rely on the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission, and Rule 6 of the rules in the 1949 Act, having regard to the special geographical conditions, which are especially relevant to constituencies in Northern Ireland. This rule will enable the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission to take account of the more thinly populated and inaccessible areas, and can prevent the increased number of constituencies from being concentrated only in the more densely-populated areas. To that extent, the redistribution can be as fair as it can possibly be made.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I feel that this Amendment is no way to embark upon a step of electoral reform. I repeat that it would be seen in Northern Ireland not as a natural step, but as an indication that your Lordships' House does not stand by the undertakings which Parliament has twice given in the last 25 years. I hope that the noble Lords moving the Amendment will not seek to go so far as to alter the Long Title of the Bill, which is part and parcel of the package comprising this Amendment, and will not therefore be pressing the Amendment.
Lord MONSON: I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in opposing this Amendment. Whatever the arguments in favour of proportional representation, I am bound to say that I am not convinced by them for reasons which I shall not bore the Committee with at this hour. It would surely be quite wrong to have different electoral systems for different

1989
parts of the United Kingdom at the same General Election. It would merely fan the flames of suspicion and resentment within Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe that if any Amendments are made in your Lordships' House the Bill itself may well be jeopardised, in view of strong Left-Wing opposition to it in another place. I think that that would be intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, believes that coalitions elected by proportional representation make for stability. I wonder whether he has heard of Israel, where a small, ultra-religious Party, which represents very few voters, holds the balance of power in that country and completely calls the tune. Much the same thing happened in Turkey before Mr. Ecevit's recent re-election. So I do not think it can be maintained that proportional representation makes for fairness and stability in all cases.
2.49 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: If I may start by saying a word about something which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said in moving this Amendment, the noble Lord said that all of us wanted to see reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that every Member of your Lordships' House would entirely agree with that sentiment. But what all the major political Parties in your Lordships' House and another place also agree on is that the need is for reconciliation leading to devolved government in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Blease said at Second Reading —a sentiment with which I agreed very strongly—the change proposed in this Bill for Northern Ireland's representation in another place is neither a step towards nor away from the agreement which is necessary between the political Parties in Northern Ireland if they are to secure the devolved government which all the political Parties at Westminster would like to see them achieve.
In other words, I think it is wrong to suggest that any changes which are made as a result of the Bill—whether more seats or the method of election—will secure any advancement so far as the agreement of the main Parties in Northern Ireland is concerned over the type of devolved government which Northern
1990
Ireland should have. That is perfectly clear from the remarks which members of the SDLP have made about the Bill and its intentions. They have said on numerous occasions that the Bill is irrelevant to the real problems of Northern Ireland. If that is the case, how can noble Lords suggest that it is relevant in attempts to secure the reconciliation which we all want to see. I simply do not believe that that is the case. What is needed in Northern Ireland is agreement among the political Parties there about an acceptable method of devolved government for Northern Ireland.
We are considering the representation of another place, and it would be worthwhile briefly to remind your Lordships' Committee about the views expressed by another place on this question. At the Second Reading of the Bill, there was a vote on a reasoned Amendment tabled by the Liberal Party calling for the rejection of the Bill because it did not provide for proportional representation. That Amendment was defeated by 355 votes to 27 votes, a majority of 328. So the views of those of another place, who would be directly concerned by the Amendments which we are now considering, were expressed, I think it is fair to say, pretty overwhelmingly.
If I could briefly mention one minor problem about the Amendments—I should like to go back in a moment to some of the technical problems—if these Amendments were approved as they stand, no longer would the Boundary Commission be given any guidance as to whether there should be 16, 17 or 18 Members. As I understand the noble Lord's intention, it would be left entirely up to them. Also it would be for them to decide whether there should be three, four or five constituencies. Again the Boundary Commission would be given no guidance. In fact, there could not be three constituencies because, as I understand it, the maximum number of Members per constituency is set at five, while the minimum total number of Members is set at 16. So there would have to be four or five constituencies. Nevertheless, for reasons which we might discuss in more detail on a later Amendment which my noble friend will be moving, I think that it would be very undesirable for the Boundary Commission to be left with this lack of

1991
guidance on two extremely important points which they would have to consider.
I accept that the Amendments are designed to ensure adequate representation in the other place of the minority community in Northern Ireland. That is something which all noble Lords who have spoken in favour have stressed. However, this assumes, without anybody having explicitly said so in this debate, that the simple majority system will give inadequate representation for the minority community.
Certainly it is true of most electoral systems that the more seats there are at issue the more proportional the result becomes. Certainly that is true of the proportional representation system. But it is also true in some circumstances of the simple majority system. In Northern Ireland, if there were simply three seats at issue, as there are in the European Elections, it is clear that the simple majority system would return three majority representatives. That is why the Government felt that it was right that the proportional representation system should be used in elections to the European Parliament. As we discussed at Second Reading, it is clear that this will be a once-off arrangement because of the introduction of a pan-European system of election to the European Parliament in future Elections.
The position in Northern Ireland, going up from three to 12 seats, is rather better. The October 1974 Election returned two minority representatives, and that number would have been three if the minority vote had not been fatally split in one constituency. If there had been three members elected, as the system allowed for, this would have provided 25 per cent. of the total representatives. With 17 seats, as the Bill now proposes, the proportionality is likely to improve even further. Nobody can accurately predict who will win the 17 seats, because we do not know yet how the Boundary Commission will draw the boundaries, but it is reasonable to guess that perhaps five of the 17 seats will have a majority of non-Unionist voters, which means about 29 per cent. of the total. That is as close to strict proportionality as one can get, given the 35–65 minority-majority split, as there is in Northern Ireland, and with 17 seats to be contested.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Will the noble Lord also take into account the Alliance Party, which is not usually counted among the minority community?
Lord MELCHETT: I am not quite clear in what sense I am meant to be taking the Alliance Party into account. They are an important Party in Northern Ireland, but as I understand it, the argument that has been put forward in the debate is that proportional representation would provide a fairer representation for the minority than the straight first-past-the-post system. What I have been outlining to your Lordships is, in my view, a reasonable assumption about the kind of results which the first-past-the-post system would provide, given the increase in seats which this Bill proposes.
In any constituency—and I mentioned that this happened in one constituency in 1974—it is possible for the vote to be split, with consequences for a Party that would otherwise have secured a majority. It might be split by the Alliance Party. There are a number of nationalist Parties which might split the minority vote. There are a number of Unionist parties which in the past have threatened to do so, and so far as the current publicity regarding the talks or the lack of talks between the unionist Parties in Northern Ireland is concerned, this threatens to split the votes in a number of constituencies in future elections. With respect, it is quite impossible to take into account either the likely effect of the Alliance Party, the nationalist Parties, the Democratic Unionist Party or any other, on these kind of calculations. All I would say to your Lordships is that to suggest that to increase the number of seats to 17 is simply a ruse whereby the Government will ensure that the Unionist voters in Northern Ireland secure extra seats at the expense of the minority is quite misleading. What the Bill proposes is likely to ensure that there is much fairer and more adequate representation of the minority community at Westminister than has been the case in the past.
I said that I would want to return to some technical points about these Amendments. I do so with some reluctance because I know that this is not something which your Lordships' House is particularly fond of Government Ministers setting out,

1993
but there is a more important point underlying it. This was made very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The question which your Lordships need to ask is whether this Bill is the right vehicle for introducing a fundamental constitutional change of the type which the Amendments propose.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill is not the right place, and if it is attempted, as these Amendments do, an enormous number of problems on drafting and consequential Amendments immediately arise. For example, the Amendments provide for proportional representation, but they do so in a Schedule to the 1949 Act which is solely concerned with the Boundary Commission's rules of procedure. The place to provide for a new method of election is the Representation of the People Act 1949. In addition, there is no power to make regulations governing the complex count procedures which are needed for PR-STV. The means of determining the electoral quota is completely wrong, with great respect to those who drafted the Amendments. No allowance is made for the effect on how the Northern Ireland Assembly members' constituencies are determined. At the moment, Northern Ireland Assembly members' constituencies are based on Parliamentary constituencies, and themselves become multi-member proportional representation constituencies for elections to an Assembly.
The effect of these Amendments would be to remove, for practical purposes, the possibility of setting up an Assembly elected by proportional representation, something which, as I said in introducing my remarks, all Parties in your Lordships' House and at Westminster are agreed is the main thing that we should all be aiming for, so far as finding some political solution to Northern Ireland's problems are concerned. In other words, as I have said, these Amendments would have to be followed, if they were approved, by the substantial rewriting not only of this Bill but of a number of other important constitutional statutes which affect Northern Ireland in fundamental ways. That reinforces my view that this Bill is simply not the right place to attempt to introduce this sort of change, and I hope your Lordships will agree with that view.
3 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: I always find myself in a very curious position when, during debates in this House, I am sitting on these Benches and listening to the discussion which takes place and I never find that I want to say anything at all, but when I am sitting in the Chair or perhaps on the Woolsack I always find an intolerable urge to intervene, simply, I suppose, because I am unable to do so. But it just happened that my noble friend took my place in the Chair in time for me to make one or two remarks on this Amendment before the noble Lord decides what he intends to do about it.
What seems to me so extraordinary is that the whole of the tenor of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Belstead was that if we were to introduce proportional representation in this particular Bill it would add to the suspicions and the resentments in Northern Ireland and would impede reconciliation between the various parties there. But the noble Lord the Minister said that in fact this is quite irrelevant to the whole problem of reconciliation: that reconciliation would come only if there was devolved government in Northern Ireland.
It really means that this opposition to proportional representation has nothing whatever to do with Northern Ireland. It is the gut reaction of the Parties here in the House of Commons against proportional representation of any sort in any place, except that, because of certain reasons which are historic, it has been introduced for two forms of election in Northern Ireland already. But anything that might contaminate the House of Commons by introducing into their numbers Members of Parliament from any part of the British Isles who were elected by proportional representation is regarded by them as being the thin edge of the wedge and would place the other Members of the House of Commons in a disadvantageous and intolerable position, because those who were elected by proportional representation would be able to say, "We are really representative," and those who were elected by the first-past-the-post system would then have to argue that their position was as strong as those elected by means of proportional representation; and the argument, to any reasonable, sensible person, would of course go against them.

1995
It really is intolerable that we should go on and on with this argument. Let us accept that the House of Commons is not ready, it is not sufficiently educated, it is not sufficiently far-sighted to see the importance of introducing proportional representation in this democratic age. But let us not go over all these old arguments about its being better to be first-past-the-post from a representational point of view and let us not have the argument of the Minister, saying that under the first-past-the-post system in Northern Ireland we shall get a better proportional representation between the various Parties there than we should perhaps under proportional representation. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is quite right: the noble Lord the Minister was thinking entirely of the Catholic minority and the Protestant minority while the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was thinking of the moderate minority on which, on the whole, the future of Northern Ireland probably rests.
I should be sorry if the noble Lord were to withdraw this Amendment. No doubt we shall be having many other arguments about proportional representation in this House in the future. I do not think for one moment that this is not the Bill to put it in, to start a precedent of this sort; I think it is exactly the Bill to introduce a precedent of this sort and I very much hope that the noble Lord will not withdraw his Amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support the Amendment and that the Government and the House of Commons will then have to face some of the realities of political life in this country before it is too late.
Lord MONSON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Alport, sits down, may I ask whether he wants the Bill to be lost? It will surely be lost if it goes back to the House of Commons amended.
Lord ALPORT: It may well be lost but it will come back in the next Parliament, which will start very soon.
Lord BANKS: I do not think I need detain the Committee at any great length, because I think we are all familiar with the arguments on both sides. I should like to say a word about the technical problem which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I have no doubt
1996
at all that in the further stages of this Bill we should have every opportunity to make quite certain that any further Amendments which were necessary as a result of this Amendment today could be made in their proper place in the Bill. I am quite certain, too, that this Bill is the proper place to do it, because it deals with increased representation for Northern Ireland. That is the essence of it and it is the argument which has been put forward by Ministers, that this is a Bill dealing not with a larger number of constituencies but with increased representation. By having increased representation we are in danger of compounding the distortion which already exists in the system, and this surely is the moment to choose to get rid of that distortion so far as we possibly can.
I greatly appreciated the arguments in favour of the Amendment which were put by the noble Lords, Lord Brockway, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Alport. It was the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken who mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, whom I should have mentioned earlier and whose support as a member of the Alliance Party for this Amendment is, of course, an important factor.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead spoke about "hiving off" Northern Ireland by having a different system of elections. I do not think that Northern Ireland has been hived off by being given a different system of voting for the European Elections, although it is for the same Assembly, and I see no reason why Northern Ireland should consider itself to be hived off by having a fairer system of elections for Westminster. The noble Lord said that this would lead to the calling in question of British commitment to Northern Ireland. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. I cannot see for a moment why a choice between first-past-the-post and the single transferable vote should be the issue on which Britain's commitment to Northern Ireland's remaining as part of the United Kingdom should hang.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I intervene? I think it is necessary to make clear to the noble Lord what I meant. In the national Parliament we are treating a part of the United Kingdom in a different way from the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord BANKS: I understood that, but it did not seem to me to be an argument which carried very much force or very much logic, and that was the point that I was making.
Lord BELSTEAD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord again, I do not think it matters very much what force it carries with the noble Lord, Lord Banks: what matters is the effect it has on people in Northern Ireland. This is really the force of the argument that I was trying to make, and it is that that I hope the noble Lord might take to heart.
Lord BANKS: I do understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I find it very difficult to accept that the people of Northern Ireland will judge the atitude of the United Kingdom by whether a system of proportional representation or a system of first-past-the-post is used for elections to Westminster. That is the argument I am putting. I do not feel that the people of Northern Ireland will be moved about that matter in the way the noble Lord feels. Then, again, this question of leaving it to the Boundary Commission to work out the boundaries so that this will, we hope, produce a fair result is, surely, very unsatisfactory indeed; one could not possibly rely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this was not going to bring nearer any agreement between the various parties in Northern Ireland, but surely fairer representation must help; fairer representation cannot hinder. It must surely help in some way to improve the atmosphere and the situation. The noble Lord spoke about the Amendment in another place and the fact that that had been quite readily defeated, but there were people in that debate in the other place who felt that they could not vote for that particular Amendment, although they were not

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Barrington, V.

Halsbury, E.

Airedale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hampton, L.

Alport, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Erroll, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amulree, L.

Foot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Ilchester, E.

opposed to the principle of proportional representation, and were they here today in this House they might well vote for the Amendment we are considering now.
The noble Lord felt that there was a fault in the Amendment because he felt that there could not be three constituencies, I think because 16 is not divisible by three. But, under the system of proportional representation, you do not need the same number of Members in each of the constituencies; it can depend on geographical factors how many members are elected for particular constituencies, so three would be quite possible. The noble Lord said, and I agree with him on this, that 12 Members gives a better representation under first-past-the-post, or a chance of better representation, than three, and 17 more than 12. But if 17 were the perfect number to ensure that one had satisfactory representation under the system of first-past-the-post, why was it felt to be necessary for the Assembly; why was it felt to be necessary for the Convention, which had very much larger numbers of members? Because, of course, it was desirable to see that all shades of opinion were fairly represented and to be certain that that was going to happen. That is why it was introduced there, and that is why I suggest it should be introduced for the elections to Westminister. I believe that this is a very important issue. I believe it is linked with the whole question of reconciliation. I have been regarding it today entirely separately from what might take place in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because I think it is important, I feel that I must press this Amendment.
3.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 72.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Sligo, M.

McNair, L.

Robbins, L.

Smith, L.

Milford, L

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Soper, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Rochester, L.

Spens, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Rugby, L.

Swaythling, L.

Plant, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vernon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Wall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

St. Just, L.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birdwood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hale, L.

Snow, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Strathspey, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Sudeley, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson. L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Monson, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Torphichen, L.

Denington, B.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, W.

Noel-Baker, L.

Trenchard, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ullswater, V.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Ebbisham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peart, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Phillips, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3:
3.20 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I do not regard this as being in any way a paving Amendment or a preparatory Amendment for Amendment No. 4 standing in my name. However, I tabled it because it seemed to me that subsection (2) is unnecessary and otiose, and should be omitted. Under subsection (1) we have already amended rule 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act so that the number of constituencies for Northern Ireland shall be:
"Not greater than 18 or less than 16".
Therefore, I cannot understand—I am sure that the Minister will be able to
2000
enlighten me—why we have to state in subsection (2):
"in discharging their functions under section 2 of the principal Act, the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall read rule 1 as if it required the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland to be 17, unless it appears to the Commission that"
it should be 16 or 18. That is precisely what has been achieved by amending rule 1 to:
"Not greater than 18 or less than 16".
In addition, this subsection seems to leave us completely in the air because it says that the Boundary Commission:
"shall read rule 1 as if it required the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland to be 17, unless it appears to the Commission that Northern Ireland should … be divided into 16 or … into 18 constituencies".
If that Commission decides that it should be divided into 16 or 18 constituencies, what does it do then? We are not told. Presumably it then discharges its functions under Section 2 as though Northern Ireland were divided into 16 or, as the case may be, into 18 constituencies. But when it is left to the Boundary Commission to decide the number of constituencies, surely it goes without saying that it

2001
will decide on a number, divide Northern Ireland into those constituencies and discharge its functions accordingly. I do not think that subsection (2) adds anything at all. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend's view of this, although I confess this to be somewhat complicated. In essence, the point is that the Boundary Commission has been told—first, as a result of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and subsequently as a result of the clauses in this Bill—that there is a target for the number of seats for Northern Ireland at which it should aim, and that that should be 17. That should be the case, both when it first draws up the new constituencies and on any subsequent occasions on which it reviews the constituencies in Northern Ireland. That is why the figure of "17" appears in Clause 1(2).
However, by this Bill, again as a result of recommendations made by the Speaker's Conference, the Boundary Commission is also being given a degree of flexibility: one above or below the target figure of 17. As I explained on Second Reading, that will, for example, allow the Commission to change some of the constituencies. Let us suppose that one constituency suffers a large loss of population and a neighbouring constituency a large gain, but there is not sufficient movement to make it necessary or desirable to redraw all 17 constituencies, with the consequent degree of change and upset that that would involve, and the time it would take. Under these proposals the Boundary Commission will simply be able to give Northern Ireland one extra seat by dividing into two the constituency which has gained a great many people. Obviously there are various permutations of that flexibility which will be available to the Commission.
It is very important that the Boundary Commission should be given a clear target—the target of 17, as the Speaker's Conference recommends—because although it may not be particularly contentious to suggest that as a result of changes in population constituencies should either be divided or changed in some degree, either to reduce or increase the number of seats by one, if the Boundary Commission were instead sitting back
2002
and having to make a decision first of all about whether they should be aiming for 16, 17 or 18 seats for Northern Ireland—in other words if they were not given any target to aim at—that would involve them in taking a politically contentious decision so far as Northern Ireland was concerned and one which, if they were considering it, would certainly bring them under considerable political pressure locally, or at least would run substantial risk of that being the case.
The problem with my noble friend's Amendment is that, although in the first review after the passing of the Act the Boundary Commission would have to recommend 17, and would have absolutely no flexibility in the matter—and that is the effect of my noble friend's Amendment, whether it is intended or not—
Lord KILBRACKEN: That is the next one.
Lord MELCHETT: I was looking at the two Amendments together because I had assumed that they would in fact go together.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Not necessarily.
Lord MELCHETT: Well, in that case, confining myself to the first Amendment, I have probably said all that I want to. It is important that the Boundary Commission, as the Speaker's Conference recommended, should have a target to aim for, and that is what the Bill attempts to do.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. There are two separate things here. There is Amendment No. 2, which covers the whole future and will be affected by changes in population, and so on, whereas in subsection (3) we are talking only about the first report after the Act, which is a different matter. It does not seem to me that by subsection (2) the Government are giving a target. They are saying that the Boundary Commission shall take it as being 17 seats in Northern Ireland unless it appears to them that there should be 16 or 18. That leaves them absolutely free to make it 16 or 18 as they, in their wisdom, may decide. I do not see in what sense it is providing any target in view of the strange wording that has been

2003
used. However, I do not want to prolong this discussion, and I certainly do not feel strongly about it. In fact, as I would read it, it is more or less a drafting Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
3.28 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 20, after (shall") insert ("(a) take the number of constituencies as being 17; and (b)").
The noble Lord said: As I understand it, this is a point of more substance because it considers the number of constituencies into which Northern Ireland should immediately be divided. I quite accept the necessity of having a spread of 16 to 18 for the reason which the Minister of State gave at Second Reading, that there are going to be changes in population. There may be rises or falls, or a redistribution of population. It may be necessary at some future date to have a greater number of seats, or a lesser number of seats. I accept that, and that is why the number of seats is stated to be 16 to 18.
The noble Lord has just told us in fact that 17 is the target number of seats at the present redistribution. If that is the case, then surely it should be stated without any doubt at all in subsection (3), which relates to the framing of the first report after the passing of this Act, that the number of seats should be stated to be 17. The Government have all the facts. They know the number of the electorate; they have all the data. They know the numbers they want, so why cannot the figure go into subsection (3)? For that reason, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend is right in saying that the Government, along with others, have the data and much of the information on which the Boundary Commission will be working and can make assumptions about the splits and divisions of population that the Boundary Commission might make at arriving at 17 constituencies. But that, with respect, is quite different from saying that the Government already know what the Boundary Commission will recommend.
2004
We do not; nor, so far as I know, does I anybody else, including the Boundary Commission at this stage because the Bill has not become an Act and the work, if it has started, is not far advanced.
The point of retaining this degree of flexibility, which the Amendment would remove, is that it may be, when the Boundary Commission gets down to its work in detail and on the basis of the new electoral register, which has been in force only a matter of days, that the Boundary Commission may find it is much simpler for some reason or other to divide Northern Ireland into 16 or 18 seats rather than 17. To give my noble friend an entirely hypothetical example—and I have no idea whether or not this is realistic; I stress that to your Lordships—it may be that it will be possible to redistribute the seats in Northern Ireland without changing the boundaries of one or more of the existing seats. As I say, this is totally hypothetical and may be quite unrealistic. But if that were the case and if that could be done only by going to, say, 18 seats or 16, the Boundary Commission might decide that was a sensible thing to do because it would involve less disruption, fewer public inquiries and so on. It is such unforeseeable reasons—that is why it is always difficult to give examples in advance—that the Boundary Commission might come across in the course of its work.
Incidentally, the Government and the Speaker's Conference originally recommended that the Boundary Commission should retain some degree of flexibility although, as I said when speaking to my noble friend's previous Amendment, they should be given the target of 17 quite clearly to aim for. I think it is fair to say that the Government feel it is very unlikely that they would do anything other than recommend 17 seats, unless they came across very good reasons for doing so. It is because there might be those very good reasons, although it is unlikely, that I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment either.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I certainly do not intend to press the Amendment in view of the lack of any support. My noble friend mentioned that we do not know what the Boundary Commission will recommend. Nevertheless, we can circumscribe the powers of the Boundary

2005
Commission in any way we like, as indeed we have done in the rules. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not restrict them to an exact number on this initial occasion, while leaving them a choice at some time in the future. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.34 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("any") and insert ("each proposed").
The noble Lord said: It might be convenient to the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 which are both concerned with the same point; namely, that when the Boundary Commission are considering the circumstances in any given area, they can make certain proposals as to the areas to be covered by the new constituencies. But these are not yet constituencies; the Boundary Commission can only make proposals and they are subject to Parliamentary approval. For that reason I believe subsection 4 (b) should be amended in this way.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend has with unfailing accuracy hit on another very complicated and technical point. The first point I wish to make to him is that the Bill is not one which is dealing in an entirely unprecedented way with this type of legislation; it is one of a series, and the wording which my noble friend seeks to change follows previous Bills. I shall come back to this matter in a moment.
Subsection (4) is designed to deal with two specific problems which would otherwise come from the operation of Rule 7 in Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act. There are two problems. Subsection (4)(a) makes it clear that the Commission should divide by 17, not by 12, to find the new electoral quota, because they will be working with 17 seats rather than 12. Subsection (4)(b) ensures that an up-to-date electoral register can be used by the Boundary Commission in their calculations. Subsection (4)(6) therefore changes the base date for selecting the electoral register to be used from February 1976, which it
2006
would be without subsection (4)(6), to the one in force on the passing of the Act —the one that came into effect in the last few days. Other than that, subsection (4) follows the wording of Rule 7 of the 1949 Act as closely as it can, and that wording, particularly the reference to a constituency, has worked perfectly well for the last 30 years, and the Boundary Commission have not been in any doubt as to its meaning. This is a complicated matter, but given that it has worked in existing legislation perfectly well for 30 years, and that the other changes made by subsection (4) are clearly necessary, I hope that my noble friend might think it wise to leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister of State. I should like to consider it at greater length and leisure. In the meantime, I accept his assurances, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("which") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: I hope that your Lordships will not think me pedantic in moving that the word "which" should be left out and the word "that" inserted. The use of "which" and "that" is a grammatical point that is perhaps less widely understood than any other, but I do not intend to give your Lordships a lecture on English grammar because I am perfectly certain that you all know already that in any defining clause "that" is desirable, and in any non-defining clause "which" is responsible. I do not feel that this is a matter that I would wish to press to a Division, but I should be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As my noble friend can imagine, this substantial Amendment caused considerable consternation among my advisers, and we have spent a large amount of time looking through previous Acts of Parliament for useful precedents to support both my noble friend and the draftsmen of the Bill. Perhaps it would reassure my noble

2007
friend if I were to tell him that there are precedents for the use of the word "which" in the earlier House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, the Representation of the People Acts 1948 and 1949, and the Health Services Act 1976. I hope that upon the basis of those substantial and weighty precedents my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: All I can say is that what my noble friend has said only goes to show how very often Parliamentary draftsmen make this mistake, as I have frequently noticed. I have time and again wished to put down an Amendment that either the word "that" should be used instead of "which", or "which" should be used instead of "that"; but it was only today, when I was putting down six Amendments, that I thought I might as well put down another in order to bring up this highly important constitutional matter! But I do not feel that it would be appropriate to send the Bill back to the House of Commons, even if I could get your Lordships' agreement, for the sake of a "which" or a "that". Therefore, although I am right, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the strike action planned by two Civil Service unions for tomorrow. Seven other unions will not be taking action. The two unions concerned, the Civil and Public Services Association and the
2008
Society of Civil and Public Servants, have called on their members not to work tomorrow in support of a pay claim. They have taken this decision in spite of assurances already given to all the unions concerned that the Government will implement a settlement based on a joint evaluation of the evidence submitted by the independent Civil Service Pay Research Unit. This work is now going on. The unions concerned have also been informed that any increases will be staged and that the staging will be the subject of negotiation.
"Moreover, the present pay settlement has not yet expired and will not do so for another five weeks, on 1st April.
"I understand also that tomorrow's action may be followed by an orchestrated campaign of disruption designed to achieve maximum disruption to public business in the forthcoming weeks, arranged to ensure the least loss to the union's members. Rarely can there have been a more unnecessary strike. This action, and any continuing disruption, is wrong both in principle and in practice. It is against the best long-term interests of the Civil Service and is contrary to the guidance recently issued by the TUC to which both these unions are affiliated—which emphasises that strikes are to be used only as a last resort. In no circumstances can the present position on negotiations be interpreted in that way. Those civil servants who go on strike will suffer a loss of pay for the day or days concerned.
"Even at this late stage, I ask the unions to show a proper sense of leadership and responsibility. And I express the Government's thanks in advance to those civil servants who will remain at their posts tomorrow and thus maintain the traditions of service to the public.
"The Government regret any inconvenience that will be caused to the public. Contingency action will be taken as far as possible to mitigate the effects."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for repeating this very important Statement which his right honourable

2009
friend has made—one, indeed, in which the noble Lord himself has played a very considerable part. The fact that day after day we have become accustomed to first one Minister and then another coming to the House to explain that yet another body of people are going to strike should make us reflect on the deep seriousness of the situation: first, that a deep sense of grievance must have arisen all the way around throughout the present Government's tenure of Office; and, secondly, how serious it is that once a sense of frustration is allowed to grow it cannot be removed. That is the measure of the seriousness which is faced all the way round and of which today's Statement is one part.
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord has told us that the Civil Service, of all people, are to go on strike is a matter of great regret and is wholly contrary to the public image, through public service, which these people have traditionally enjoyed and portrayed. It is a matter of great regret that they claim (as the Statement said) that they intend to conduct the maximum disruption to public business which will ensure the least loss to the union members.
I would ask the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, what parts of the Civil Service are to be so affected. Is Defence to be affected? What about the immigration authorities; are they to be affected? Will computers be affected?—because this could be devastating. And if they are to be affected are they going to be undermanned or are they going to have the plugs pulled out? If the latter, will the noble Lord confirm that that will wipe out the memories of the computers? The noble Lord is shaking his head, so I may assume that that will not happen. If that is so, I shall be glad to know it. Does not this Statement today indicate a breach of the agreement which the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Prime Minister came to with the unions in the announcement of the concordat? Is this not, in effect, taking strike action while negotiations are still in progress and before the agreement has run out? Is it not therefore a straight contradiction of the agreement announced a week ago?
As two unions are affected and seven unions are not, can the noble Lord give
2010
an assurance that those civil servants who continue to work will not be victimised and that they will be permitted to go to work? And will the noble Lord carry out the words of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and, with him, lead his people across the picket lines, if that should be necessary?
3.48 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and in deploring the action that is planned for tomorrow by the two unions involved—and all the more because, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, that action is to be taken before the existing agreement on the pay of those concerned expires on April 1st. We support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also in what he said about this being in breach of the joint statement which has just been issued by the Government and the TUC, and we offer the Government support in any action they may take to safeguard essential services in this area.
My Lords, I have two questions to ask the noble Lord, neither of which will occasion him any surprise. Does not the action that is now planned highlight the need for means to be agreed between the political Parties on how we can together ensure the general observance of negotiating procedures under which work would be continued throughout the period prior to the expiry of existing agreements and strike action used only as an instrument of last resort? Secondly, does not what is now in contemplation also show the need in the longer term for the pay of civil servants to be determined not in isolation as at present by the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, but by a single, independent and permanently constituted body which would deal with the pay of people employed in a number of key occupations which are vital to the support of life or, as in this case, it may be to the essential operations and even the security of the State itself?
3.50 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, became partisan in this matter. I do not complain when politicians behave like politicians, of course. But when he talks about a

2011
sense of frustration, I cannot understand this because most of the Civil Servants are not going on strike. This is only two unions and I believe they should be deplored because we have not properly started negotiations. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the Liberal Party. It is a breach of the agreement which the Government and the TUC have made. I remember being cross-examined on this not so long ago in this House. It is a breach of the agreement and we regret it. I hope that this Statement made by the Prime Minister will be listened to very carefully and that civil servants will respond.
It has been said that we should think in terms of longer term arrangements; but we did reactivate the pay research unit. They wanted this. I have a responsibility in this matter, being responsible for the Civil Service Department, and I think it is a good system; but the system has to be allowed to work. Moreover, the trade unions are represented on that unit, so I see no sense in this strike. I hope, without wishing to score Party points, that noble Lords will condemn it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the questions that I specifically asked him, such as, are the computers to be affected, and what about Immigration and Customs?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn too much on this issue because obviously we have contingency planning. In a dispute of this kind I must be careful. There are certain sectors of the work in the Civil Service which are difficult from the point of view of interruptions, and I recognise that. However, I cannot reveal contingency planning.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether strike action by these unions extends to spheres other than direct employment by Government Departments? For example, a good many members of these unions work for the Civil Aviation Authority. Are these people involved in the strike or not? Secondly, while I fully understand his unwillingness to disclose contingency plans, can he at least reassure people proposing to travel tomorrow that the airports will be open and operating?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that I can give that assurance, yes. It is true that some of the civil servants are employed in different parts. Anyhow, only two unions are involved, as I stated: the Civil and Public Services Association—which I admit is a large union with a membership of about a quarter of a million—and also the Society of Civil and Public Servants, which has a membership of over 100,000. We believe, especially when we are now busily preparing the information for negotiation, that this is an unnecessary strike, and it really is deplorable.

RATES AMENDMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
3.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT rose Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order extends relief from rates in two main areas as a result of the recommendations made by the Lawrence Committee. That committee was appointed in September 1976 to look at the rate liability of bodies providing facilities for sport, recreation and community activities in Northern Ireland. In addition, Articles 5 and 6 of the order extend to Northern Ireland the rate relief provided for disabled people in Great Britain by the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.
Article 3 increases the level of rate relief available to facilities used for sport and recreation from 35 per cent. to 65 per cent., but restricts this relief to the parts of the premises actually used for sport and recreation. A detailed list of the sports covered by this relief will be drawn up in consultation with representatives of local authorities and the Northern Ireland Sports Council. Article 4 provides for partial exemption from rates for premises occupied by voluntary bodies which are used for recreational and charitable purposes. This will allow the occupiers of suitable halls now outside the scope of rate exemption to reduce their rates bill by allowing their premises to be used for community purposes. Articles 5 and 6 remove the burden of rates from special domestic facilities needed by a disabled person living in the property, and provide

2013
rate exemption to organisations providing welfare facilities for the disabled.
I have no doubt that this order will be widely welcomed by the whole community in Northern Ireland, and particularly by those involved in voluntary and charitable work, and by disabled people. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the information he has just given to us, and especially as he has been working very hard for the last hour or so on a Bill concerning the boundaries of Northern Ireland. Now he is once again back on the Front Bench, working. We on these Benches agree that this order will certainly be very helpful to the disabled and will also be beneficial to certain bodies and organisations providing recreational and sporting facilities, both indoor and outdoor, in Northern Ireland.
The existing law of Northern Ireland restricts rate relief to property classified in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 as
"playing fields or fields used for certain specified kinds of recreations"—
almost exclusively, if I may say so, by the look of the order, of the indoor variety. Also, the Department of Finance, which in Northern Ireland is the rating authority, has, as I understand it, no discretion to grant or withhold relief, or to vary its amount. It is obliged to apply relief at a fixed level of 35 per cent. on playing fields and premises designated under the 1972 order. Therefore I believe that this new order, as it increases the percentage from 35 to 65 per cent., as the noble Lord has said, goes a long way towards being very helpful to the recreation authorities.
It will also, I believe, allow premises used for community purposes to qualify for relief in proportion to the amount of time during which the premises are used for charitable purposes. I think these changes were recommended by a committee known as the Lawrence Committee, which did so much work in order to
2014
bring about these changes. That committee was set up quite a long time ago in 1976 and its report was given to Parliament in 1978. Two of its recommendations concern sport and recreation and also the disabled. That, in itself, as I have already said, is a great help to the bodies concerned.
I do not think that the order will put Northern Ireland exactly on a par with Great Britain so far as rate relief goes for sporting or recreation facilities. I am wondering whether the noble Lord would confirm that we still have not brought Northern Ireland into line with those facilities of Great Britain. Great Britain has elected local institutions, which are subject only to very general statutory conditions, and they are permitted to grant or refuse rate relief as they think fit. But in Northern Ireland the duties of levying and collecting rates have since 1973 been in the hands of the Local Government Department, responsible only to the House of Commons. This appears to be a weak point and shows a lack of effective democratic scrutiny of regional administration in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that point.
We on these Benches are very pleased to see the order and agree with what is in it, but I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord one or two questions. Though this order was received in Northern Ireland without any controversy, it appears that the sporting authorities there were slightly unhappy with the rating of clubs. If I have not given the noble Lord enough time, perhaps he can reply later. For example, rating relief is calculated on only part of a club, such as a committee room or a room used for the raising of funds, and the rest of the club may not get relief. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give his attention to that point, because the sporting authorities are slightly worried about it.
Also the Department of Finance already has power to grant relief on property used for cultural as opposed to community activites, and the Lawrence Committee felt that there was no need for any change. However, the Committee formed the opinion that the existing provision for rate relief was not generally known to people in Northern Ireland. Therefore,

2015
I should like to ask whether the Government are doing anything about this and spreading the word around, so that people in Northern Ireland can get this relief. Having said that, and also having given the noble Lord a little more work to do, may I say from these Benches that we are quite happy with what has been put into this order.
4.3 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Viscount's point about the scrutiny of local government functions in Northern Ireland it is of course the fact that since the abolition of Stormont there has been a gap between the functions exercised by local authorities in Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament. That is why the noble Viscount's Party and the Government both agree that we wish to see a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland exercising real powers and real functions, that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland, and to Parliament in Westminster. And it may be that the fixing of rates, and other matters connected with rates, is something which would come under the scrutiny of such a devolved legislature. Members of another place may have an opportunity to debate the question of rates in the near future.
But as the noble Viscount knows, this order is concerned with exemptions which are made and which are fixed. As he himself pointed out, the Lawrence Committee sat for a long time—because this is quite a complicated area—and made recommendations which, by and large, were accepted by the Government and are implemented in the order. The noble Viscount mentioned the question of not allowing rate relief for portions of premises which are not used for recreational purposes. That is the case, as I mentioned very briefly in my opening remarks and it might be helpful if I expanded on that a little. The exemptions are designed to ensure that those premises which are used most for sporting purposes, and least for fund-raising, get the maximum.
In other words, if a club consisted simply of playing facilities and changing rooms, it would get full exemption from the rates, because all the premises would be used for recreational purposes, and things connected with them, such as
2016
changing rooms. If, on the other hand, a club is 99 per cent. a lounge bar and disco, with one squash court tacked on at the end, then it will get very little rate relief. Its ability to raise money for itself will be very considerable. I know, from personal observation of the accounts and from visiting a number of sporting clubs in Northern Ireland, that many of these clubs are in an extremely healthy financial position because of the profits that they make from the sale of alcohol.
I do not think that it would be right or, indeed, expected by many of these clubs, if not all of them, that they should receive substantial additional finance from the public purse through rate relief, given the substantial profits that they are making by the sale of alcohol. Although the noble Lord has been told that there are some sporting organisations which are not entirely happy about this, on the whole I think that it is fair to say that the representatives of the sporting organisations in Northern Ireland are reasonably happy. Obviously, everybody would like rather more than they are being offered, but the way that this has been done is recognised as being fair and sensible, taking into account the ability—or the lack of ability—of clubs to raise funds for themselves.
The noble Lord also asked me about the extent to which we are publicising the availability of rate relief. I think that the noble Lord has hit on a real problem, particularly for smaller groups and community organisations. Most sporting clubs would be aware of the relief available, either through the governing body of their sport, or through publicity given by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, or through their regular contacts with the Department of Education's Sports Branch about capital grants for sporting provision and about the help and relief that is available. But there is a problem, as I say, in the case of smaller organisations.
When the Lawrence Committee was sitting, I encouraged community organisations—whose representatives have regular meetings with me—to give evidence to that committee. Once this order becomes law in Northern Ireland, I shall certainly encourage them to have a look at the provisions and I shall encourage those who are eligible to claim relief. If I may, I will draw what the noble Lord has said

2017
to the attention of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland who, I am sure, will also do all that they can to encourage sporting organisations to claim the reliefs that are available.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("In") insert ("sections 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11 of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2, for both are drafting Amendments. They specify in the earliest possible place in the Bill the particular section of the principal Act in which references to an "endangered" wild creature are substituted for references to a "protected" wild creature. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from second ("Act") to ("there") in line 9 and insert ("and in the definition of "authorised person" in section 15(1) of that Act for the word "protected", wherever it occurs,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is contingent upon Amendment No. 22 and the third part of the new clause which I am asking your Lordships to insert after Clause 7. Subsection (3) of Amendment No. 22 contains a minor drafting Amendment which is intended to ensure that the word "wild" in
2018
Section 10(d) of the principal Act does not qualify the word "plant". The point is that "plant" is defined in Section 15(1) of the principal Act as meaning:
"… subject to subsection (2) of this section, any plant growing wild on any land".
I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("or pupae of any such") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages of any such wild").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee—and here I must express my gratitude to my noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Craigton—we got very briefly into a discussion about zoological stages from egg to adulthood, and this Amendment is intended to satisfy all points of view. I am advised that it is thought unnecessary to mention the word "nymphs" as such since they are now adequately covered by the general words "taking account of other immature stages". To mention nymphs as such would be confusing because in fact there are other stages in adult development, such as the "in-star" stage in the development of a caterpillar which would also have to be mentioned. Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree that the words in the Amendment are preferable. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) For Schedule 1 to the principal Act there shall be substituted the following Schedule:—

("SCHEDULE 1 ENDANGERED WILD CREATURES

Area where restrictions apply

Common name

Scientific name

Greater Horse-shoe Bat

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

Mouse-eared Bat

Myotis myotis

Common Otter

Lutra lutra

England and Wales".").

Sand Lizard

Lacerta agilis

Smooth Snake

Coronella austriaca

Natterjack Toad

Bufo calamita

Large Blue Butterfly

Maculinea arion

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for the second part of Amendment No. 23. In one of my discussions with the Department which the noble Baroness represents I was invited to move for the revocation of the Otters Order 1977 and I am advised that the only way this can be done in the Bill is to print the Schedule in the earliest possible place in the Bill, as it should appear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Vulnerable wild creatures]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, transpose subsection (1) to end of line 36 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. It is a much neater way of setting out the words in this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("or marking") line
Page 3,17, leave out ("or marked") line
Page 3,19, leave out ("or marking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30 and 34. At the last stage of the Bill I gave an undertaking to the noble Baroness that I would seek further advice on the desirability of any authorised person being able to mark a vulnerable wild creature. I have now taken this advice from the Nature Conservancy Council, which of course is the competent authority under this Bill, and I am told by them that there are many vulnerable creatures which would be damaged by marking if the marking was done by inexperienced persons, which of course is the danger if this marking is left to "authorised persons". Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree with this Amendment. The licensing provisions here are already covered by Section 8(1)(d), as amended in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will put Amendments Nos. 8, 9, and 10 en bloc.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I should just like to say that everybody concerned with the conservation of wild creatures will be glad to see the last of that word "marking".
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 1(1) of the principal Act for the words "his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing" there shall be substituted the words "no other course of action was open to him to prevent".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have given notice to the Table that I wish to move a manuscript Amendment to my Amendment: it is the addition of the word "reasonable". I wanted to add the words "no other course of action was open to him to prevent" and I now want the Amendment to read "no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent". What I say here also applies to consequential Amendment No. 26.
This is a fairly narrow but nevertheless important point. As the Bill is now worded, a person is not guilty of an offence "if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing …" et cetera. I want to say that no other "reasonable" course was open to him. Put very simply, under the Bill as it stands the farmer can say, "The otter was taking my poultry and I killed it". If my Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, the farmer has to explain why he did not call in an expert, or even what steps he took to strengthen the chicken-run. It is a small point. It is going to give a little protection, and I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 1(1) of the principal Act for the words "his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing" there shall be substituted the words "no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent".")—(Lord Craigton.)
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, may I say that so far as the Government are

2021
concerned we were not happy with the Amendment as it originally stood, but we are happier now that we have the word "reasonable" added by the Manuscript Amendment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am still a little unclear about this Amendment. It would have seemed to me that if the action was necessary it was also necessarily reasonable. But having made that comment, I do not object to the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if I may comment on this, it is very rarely that I find anything the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, says, not absolutely clear, but I am inclined to agree on this occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If action is taken which is necessary, then I do not think one has to bring in all sorts of other qualifying words. While the use of these qualifying words—if my noble friend Lady Stedman will forgive me—is always very acceptable to a Government department, because they produce a degree of uncertainty which is highly desirable, it seems to me that the original statement in the Bill is perfectly clear. I would not have thought it necessary to bring in a word such as "reasonable". If one is dealing with law one assumes that actions are reasonable. If one has to qualify every statement by saying that the action must be reasonable, it seems to me that all it does is to say that at any moment someone in the Department may come along and say, "We do not think it reasonable". In whose mind is the reason? I would have thought it much better to leave out a word like "reasonable".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if I can come to the help of my noble friend, we did look at this and we decided that as the Amendment was originally submitted it meant that a defendant in court had to satisfy the court that as an authorised person he killed or attempted to kill or took a wild creature and that no other action was possible to prevent that creature from damaging crops or property. If the Amendment had remained like that, I would have had to advise the House that it would be safer to reject it. The Amendment which the noble Lord has
2022
now put in— "no other reasonable course of action" —means that whereas under the original Amendment the court could have required the defendant to take quite unreasonable measures, and certainly might very well have led the defendant into considerable expense, the Amendment now changed, to "no other reasonable course of action", we think more acceptable. I hope my noble friend will not press his objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with my previous Amendment, No. 8. However, it would probably be helpful to your Lordships if I said this Amendment seeks to omit subsection (4) of Clause 2.
Whereas at one time it was thought that marking a vulnerable wild creature would not be likely to cause harm, the point here is that, the view, as I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council, is that there is a danger to vulnerable wild creatures by marking them. As I said previously, the matter ought to be dealt with by licensing. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 27, after ("sections") insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 27, after ("10") insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a pure drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 16:

2023
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke in effect to this Amendment when we were dealing with exactly the same situation as regards the definition of "endangered wild creature". The Amendment is paralleled in the Schedule by Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Disturbance of certain wild creatures]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords I should point out that, if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for having pronounced his name incorrectly hitherto.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("which") to end of line 5 on page 4 and insert ("an endangered or vulnerable wild creature uses for shelter or protection; or
(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is occupying any structure or place which it uses for that purpose,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker. We now reach an Amendment of substance. It is of substance in two respects. First, it substitutes for the reference to a structure or place which is used for shelter or protection a reference to, a structure or place which a wild creature uses—in other words, it is in the present tense—for shelter and protection. In the passive tense, the words "is used" imply a casual connection with the relevant structure or place, whereas the active tense indicates that the structure or place has to be in current active use.
Secondly, the Amendment omits the qualifying words "being a mammal" which again was a point that I promised to look at after the Committee stage. It thus extends the scope of the offence in the new Section 1A to cover all endangered and vulnerable wild creatures. Therefore, the Amendment overtakes, and goes further than, the proposal of my noble friend Lord Craigton in the next Amendment to insert a reference to amphibians and reptiles. I hope that he will agree with that proposal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Forfeitures]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 5, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 11(1) of the principal Act for the words "£200" there shall be substituted the words "£500".
(1A) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment to cover the increase of the penalty in the principal Act from £200 to £500 which we agreed in Committee. It is a neater place in the Bill to put it rather than Clause 6, which I am asking your Lordships permission to remove in Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I said during the Committee stage that we had persuaded the Home Office, subject to the sending of a satisfactory explanation, that it was right and proper for us to increase the amount of the fine. We have now sent that explanation to the Home Office and I understand that it has been accepted. Therefore there are no problems.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I apologise for intervening as regards this matter, as I did shortly during the Committee stage. As I understood it, the reasoning behind the increase of the penalty as given then was that first, there should be a deterrent, and secondly there should not be an element of profit available to an offender. In the course of that discussion it was mentioned that indeed a sale might take place—although one did not want to force up the price—at a price of roughly £600. I ventured then to ask whether consideration could be given, bearing in mind that this is a maximum penalty and that all factors in mitigation could be taken into account by the court, to the convenient figure of £1,000. May I know whether that was considered in the communication with the Home Office and generally and whether it is still the decision that £500 is appropriate?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, perhaps I may read the relevant passage of

2025
the explanation to the Home Office. We told them:
"An otter can be valued at well over £600 (1976 figure) and whilst it is true that the animals/ skins may be confiscated by a court it is quite possible that they may by then already be out of the vendors possession; magistrates court costs would add very little to the penalty. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for magistrates to be unable to levy a level of fine which would act as very little deterrent to a determined ' rogue ' who is not even gentleman enough to be offended by the opprobrium of conviction. As regards limiting the fine to otters, two points arise—in the first place some other rare specimens may fetch equally high prices (e.g. the emerald green moth which is about to be added to the schedule) and there is the possibility that others may be added which could have equally high values. We are convinced that the level of fine must allow magistrates a reasonable chance to prevent a felon from making a profit from deliberately undertaking illegal activities in this field.
"In the circumstances you agreed, provided the level of fine was consistent with your new scales and I am grateful for your assistance.".
This is the level of fine which is consistent with the magistrate's new scales and the £1,000 would have taken it rather out of the run of all the other offences that are subject to the same sort of fine.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, with respect, I shall obviously not persist in this, but does the noble Baroness agree that in the explanation she gave she was covering my point by reasoning, but not covering my point in the result? Quite obviously, it is still the possibility that a profit could be made; that the rogue of whom she spoke could, therefore, receive, as a maximum penalty, less than the profit he might obtain from his roguery. In all the circumstances, whether or not this is consistent with other fines imposed in other sections in other Acts, does she not think it is appropriate that there should be a maximum fine of £1,000?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, no. Speaking personally and with the advice of my Department, which looked into this matter, we think that the level at which it has now been fixed is the proper one at this point in time. Obviously, if there are some changes in future in other legislation which alter the range of fines on all kinds of things, this also is one of the offences that will have to be taken into consideration then, and, if necessary, the level of fine altered.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to put a suggestion to the noble Lord. Is it not possible that when it is forbidden to sell something, one would not get the full market price? It is rather like a burglar selling his goods; he will receive only a proportion of the value, because at the end of the day the man who buys those goods cannot put them in his shop window because it is forbidden to sell them there. Although technically an otter could fetch more than £600, it will be a very, very clever man who manages to get anything like that figure if he just catches one and tries to "flog" it where he can.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate time for me to sum up this Amendment. The issues have been discussed very fully this afternoon and they were also discussed very fully at the Committee stage of the Bill. I would only add that there will certainly be magistrates' fines in one form or another and legal costs to be added to the fines which are imposed by the magistrates' court. Therefore, I do not think that £500 is an unreasonably low sum in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 15, after ("In") insert ("consequence of subsection (1A) above in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is a pure drafting Amendment. It is to make sure that the second subsection of Clause 5 follows in consequence of the first subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Penalties]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when I spoke on my previous Amendment, No. 19. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Minor amendments of the principal Act
".—(1) In section 2(2) of the principal Act for the words from "and any reference" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and any reference to a dead creature shall be construed as including a reference to any part of, or anything derived from, such a creature".
(2) In section 9 of the principal Act immediately before the words "name and address", in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the word "full".
(3) In section 10(d) of the principal Act immediately before the word "plant" there shall be inserted the word "any ".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this in part on my previous Amendment, No. 3. The new clause is divided into three parts. The first, subsection (1), is paralleled by Amendment No. 33, and is again meant to meet Lord Craigton's point about the need to insert a reference to parts or derivatives in Section 2(2) of the principal Act. My noble friend's Amendment would have substituted the words "skeletons, parts or derivatives" for the existing words "or skeletons". It would seem to me that skeletons are already parts, and I hope that perhaps he will agree to this simplified form of wording.
The second subsection is paralleled by Amendment No. 35 and inserts the word "full" in Section 9 of the principal Act, to make good an inconsistency between what an authorised person or constable may require a person to give by way of his name and address, and the offence which is also in this Act of refusing to give his full name and address. I have already spoken to subsection (3), which is consequential on Amendment No. 4 to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, etc.]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The enactments mentioned in Schedule (Enactments repealed) to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 is hereby revoked.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts a new subsection to provide for a Schedule of repeals to have effect and also, as I said before, to revoke the Otters Order 1977. This last is unnecessary since the common otter has now been included in the revised Schedule 1 which has been entered into the Bill by Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment omits from the main Schedule to the Bill the references to the Criminal Law Act which are now unnecessary because of the revision of the fine to £500 in place of £200, which it would have been had the Criminal Law Act affected this particular range of fines, and also the Otter Order 1977, to which I have already referred many times. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 8, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE
ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1975 c. 48.

The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.

In section 10(d) the words "or restored". Section 14(2). In section 15(1) the definition of "protected wild creature ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the substantive part and the summing up of all repeals in the principal Act made by the Bill. It is thus drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
4.33 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 26:

2029
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("serious") in line 19 and insert ("no other course of action was open to him to prevent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the addition of the word "reasonable", I beg to move. This was discussed with a previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("serious") in line 19 and insert ("no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent")
—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30:
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("or marking")
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("or marked")
Page 7, line 26, after ("released") insert "uninjured")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("or marking")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 en bloc. They are all consequential on the new necessity of having a licence to mark vulnerable wild creatures. In passing, I should say that Amendment No. 29, which is also covered by this general point, is to correct an omission in preparing the parallel Amendment at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 31 is accepted, No. 32 cannot be moved.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert ("an endangered or vulnerable wild creature uses for shelter or protection; or
(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the parallel of Amendment No. 17 to which noble Lords agreed in preference to Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 8, line 2, leave out from second ("and") to end of line 4 and insert ("and any reference to a dead creature shall be construed as including a reference to any part of, or anything derived from, such a creature.")
Page 8, line 6, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
Page 10, line 23, after ("his") insert ("full")
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are all consequential on previous Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is contiguous on Amendment No. 16; it parallels it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, before we leave the Bill, I wish from the Government Benches to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and welcome the improvements he has made yet again at this stage to the Bill. We hope now that we shall have a very early Third Reading, after the Nature Conservancy Council have had their next meeting. We hope they will give their blessing to the Bill, and then we can go full steam ahead.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but I should point out that without the help of herself and the officials of her Department, doing all this would have been quite impossible for me.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless

2031
any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON AIRPORTS: DEVELOPMENT
4.38 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present and projected developments at the London Airports will be adequate to deal efficiently with traffic in the mid and late 1980s; and in particular whether they are now prepared to arrange with the British Airports Authority for the construction of the second runway at Gatwick, further terminal buildings at Heathrow, and better facilities at Stansted.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question I wish to express my deep gratitude to those noble Lords who have put their names down to take part in this debate. Although it may seem invidious to say so, I take special pleasure from the fact that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has so put down his name. When, as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was involved in work leading up to the Government Blue Book, I worked very closely with him in his capacity of chairman of the Standing Group of South Eastern Planning Authorities; and, but for his skilful management of that highly variegated and sometimes opinionated team, it would have been impossible to present to the Government of the day a considered view representing both aviation and planning. Therefore, when we come to discuss the London airports it is particularly appropriate that my noble friend should be taking part.
I think I should also disclose three rather variegated possible interests. First, as some noble Lords may know, I am chairman of a company that makes cement, and as a certain amount of building will be suggested in the course of my remarks I should disclose that we make cement and that any sensible user of that commodity will have no difficulty in deciding where to select it. Secondly, as Minister I was involved both in the decision to develop Gatwick Airport and in the opening of the central buildings at Heathrow. Thirdly, I am involved as a member of the council of Trust Houses Forte Limited, the biggest holiday and travel organisation in the world. I hope that that multifarious disclosure of possible interest will not disqualify me in the minds of your Lordships from offering a few observations on this subject, because it is at least possible that the possibilities of bias which derive from it may, at any rate in some measure, be offset by a certain familiarity with some aspects of the topic.
The substance of my Question, as I hope is clear from its terms on the Order Paper, is that I am very concerned by the slow progress now being made in the development of the airports which serve the Metropolis, as against all the indications that are building up of increasingly heavy traffics in the 1980s. It may seem strange to be raising this matter with a Government whose life may be—in Sir Harold Wilson's immortal phrase—measured in weeks, not months, but the matter is urgent, and there is said to be a considerable moral value in death-bed repentances.
Part of the trouble about decisions on airport development is that they are so long term. When they are taken they are unpopular. They involve Governments in conflict with private interests, with environmental interests and with landowners, and if they are not taken in time it is not the existing Government who suffer but perhaps two Governments later—that is when the chickens come home to roost. It is just because it is such a long-term operation that there is perhaps a peculiar temptation to Governments—which I beg this Government to resist—to defer possibly unpopular action which can only have its beneficial effect and attract its credit many years ahead.
Having been involved in the business, I accept that the forecasting of the demand for airport use is a terribly tricky operation. It is rather like weather forecasting; it is reasonably easy to forecast what is to happen, but when it is to happen and the speed at which it is to happen is the difficulty of the problem.
I can only offer a thought by way of guidance. This is an area in which the penalty for forecasting too low a figure is in due course very serious indeed. It is perfectly true that if one forecasts more than the traffic turns out to be one undertakes nugatory expenditure. Perhaps a classical example is the beautiful airport at Rhoose near Cardiff—an airport which has every attraction, except traffics. I suggest that that is perhaps an error on the safe side, because the consequence of under-providing, particularly in the case of metropolitan airports, can be very serious indeed. After all, it is a fact—and I think that the noble Lord on the Government Bench will confirm it—that tourism today is overall our largest earner of foreign exchange. If there are not good facilities for airports for the capital, that enormously important national interest will suffer. The airlines themselves are very big earners of foreign exchange, and big contributors to the United Kingdom balance of payments.
The problem is that if we fail to make adequate provision in, particularly, the metropolitan airports, to which my Question refers, then we are simply going to lose very valuable business in both tourism and aviation. It is no use kidding ourselves that if the London Airports become over-congested most of the international air services will terminate at the other British airports. All experience points the other way. If they cannot get into London, they will go into Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt; and, indeed, we have already had a lesson in connection with Frankfurt, which has gained the newspaper traffic to North America simply because the business-minded Germans keep the airport open at hours at which newspapers have to be despatched to the United States, whereas the curfews which our own Department of Trade have imposed on Heathrow and Gatwick have lost us that traffic, and have lost it to British aviation. So there
2034
is a warning there. The first point I want to make to the noble Lord who is to reply therefore is that, whereas no one but a fool would claim to be able to give a completely confident assessment of the traffics even in the middle 1980s, never mind beyond that, this is an area of such economic and industrial importance to this country that, if there is to be an error, then the error ought to be on the side of over-provision rather than under-provision.
Again I stress the London context, even though I know that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, feels, as he said the other day, that if people cannot get to London they will go to another British airport, perhaps one to be constructed at Severnside. I do not think experience supports that. A very large proportion of travellers to this country on international routes want to go to London. The same applies to an even larger proportion of them on domestic routes. And, of those who do not want to go to London, a considerable further proportion want what is called the interline; that is, to leave (shall we say?) an aircraft from North America at an airport in this country where they can pick up another one to Oslo, Moscow, Belgrade or wherever it may be, and therefore they want to go to the big metropolitan airports where interlining is possible. It is an easy temptation to all of us to try to get away from these very expensive problems by saying, "Let us build airports elsewhere"; but, apart from the fact that I do not believe, in the face of the resistances that there are in this country, we shall see a new green field site for an airport developed in this century, it is really a great mistake to seek to provide an airport at a place people do not want to go to, because you cannot in fact compel them to use it, and they will go to your foreign rivals.
The decisions are difficult, as I say, because they have to be taken well ahead; but I very much believe that present plans are falling behind any reasonable assessment of the demands of the future. I am not, I hasten to say, casting any aspersions at all on the Government's blue book, Airports Policy (Cmnd. 7054), which was laid before Parliament about a year ago. I am hardly in a position so to do because a body with which I was

2035
concerned was responsible for a good deal of its contents. But; the point I want to make is that, of course, the work leading up to that document was done mainly in 1976 and 1977, and could not help being influenced by the depression in the international aviation world which existed at that time. Since that time—indeed, not only since the work was done in 1976 and 1977, but since the blue book was laid in 1978—the situation has changed.
I know that one can argue that there are factors like Iran which could be said to be factors militating against further increases in traffic. But I think that the most significant element in this can be detected in the ebullient figure of Sir Frederick Laker. His popularisation, through the Skytrain concept, of cheap fares, and the repercussions from that which have shaken the old stranglehold of the IATA arrangements, shaken them to breaking point, is contributing to a very substantial increase in passenger movements even at a time of some economic difficulty.
I call in aid in that connection not only Sir Frederick Laker but I think it right at this stage to pay a tribute to the former Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Edmund Dell; because when the Court of Appeal made its decision in the famous case of Laker v.the Department of Trade, Mr. Dell promptly accepted the decision of the court and used his very considerable ability to see to it that Sir Frederick and his airline were given full opportunity to exploit the opportunities that the courts had said were owing to them. It would be wrong, particularly now that Mr. Dell has resigned from the Government, that his; part in this build-up should be forgotten and I am happy to pay tribute to a man with whom I worked happily for some time a little while ago.
However, my Lords, there is further evidence of what is happening. I have seen in the last 48 hours a paper by Professor Secore Browne, who noble Lords may remember was the highly efficient chairman for some years of the American Civil Aviation Bureau and who is now an aviation consultant. He demonstrates that 1978 turned out to be a year of far greater expansion in international aviation than anyone had anticipated, and that this s continuing. Therefore, I must ask the Government to look
2036
very hard at proposals and timings which, arguably, may have been justifiable a year ago but which all the evidence is now suggesting are not adequate.
Let us look at the situation. Let us take Heathrow, first. Those of your Lordships who use that airport regularly, as most noble Lords do, and particularly in the summer, realise that there is already congestion at the terminals up to and sometimes beyond the limits of human endurance. When there is a delay, as there can always be in aviation, that congestion becomes appalling. It has reached a stage when I am afraid it is already damaging to the economic interests of this country, to our tourist travel to London as the aviation centre of the world. Perhaps not all noble Lords are aware that Heathrow has more international air movements than any other airport in the world. This is a very significant thing.
What is happening there? The British Airports Authority have put forward a proposal for a fourth terminal—urgently necessary and needed some time ago. I think that the Government were very much at fault in insisting on a public inquiry into this, which has dragged on as public inquiries do, despite the fact that everybody knows—including the noble Lord who sits on the Treasury Bench-that whatever the inspector finds, that fourth terminal must be built and when it is built it will be already late and overcrowded. Nothing has been done about a fifth terminal which could be built on the Perry Oaks site but which needs to be planned now because the Perry Oak site and its use involves moving a sewerage works. There are few things less popular in the planning world—as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will agree—than the moving of a sewerage works to somebody else's neighbourhood. An airport is comparatively agreeable.
Here we have the London situation where the shortage is not of runways but of terminals. It is serious, increasingly serious, and there is not a sign that there will be actual additional facilities there for two or three years—and only then if the Government really act urgently. Then there is Gatwick. I have already inflicted on your Lordships on more than one occasion, so that I shall do so briefly now, my view that it is an extraordinary

2037
mistake to seek to develop Gatwick, as it is being most expensively developed, on the basis of it being a single-runway airport. No airport in the world dealing with traffic such as is contemplated for Gatwick is, or is planned to be, operated on a single-runway basis.
It so happens that this morning—whether there is any connection with your Lordships' debate this evening it would be indelicate to speculate—there appears in the Press (I am quoting from the Financial Times) a statement by the British Airports Authority that they are proposing, though apparently with some unwillingness, to convert the taxi-way which runs parallel with the Gatwick runway and widen it over 2,500 metres of its length, so that in an emergency it could be used as an alternative runway.
It is indicated—and this does not surprise me—that this is related to the reaction of the foreign airlines whom the Department of Trade are trying to persude to come to Gatwick. When the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry (who has asked me to say how sorry she is not to be able, owing to a previous engagement, to take part in this debate) raised the question of the compulsions being imposed upon a number of foreign airlines to go to Gatwick, it came out that one of the reasons—and there are several —for their reluctance was that they did not want to be directed to an airport where one minor accident could immobilise the whole set-up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, when she dealt with the question the other day, said that there had been such incidents in both December and January, when the breaking of a nose wheel on a modest-sized aircraft caused all aircraft trying to land at that airport to be diverted elsewhere, and all aircraft seeking to take off having to wait. That was in December and January when traffic was low. What will be the situation on a summer weekend when Heathrow is already full to capacity and unable to take any diversions? What will be the case if, as sometimes happens, weather conditions take Heathrow out and unavailable, and Gatwick has to be used? This could be a very serious situation indeed.
In some measure I hope the British Airports Authority's suggestion—which I
2038
gather, to my alarm, according to their statement is likely to be the subject matter of yet another planning inquiry by the Department of the Environment—would deal at some cost with that emergency situation; but, with respect, it would not deal with the major problem of how to operate an airport carrying, as is planned by the Government, up to 25 million passengers in the course of a year on a single runway.
We can easily delude ourselves by saying: "You average that out through the year; it is not all that much. "But aircraft movements and passengers do not average themselves out throughout the year and one gets far, far more of them—as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows from his practical experiences—on a summer weekend than in midweek in midwinter. They do not average out. An airport, if it is to be efficient, has not to be equipped to deal with demand averaged out throughout the year; it has to be able to deal with peak demands in difficult circumstances, perhaps with the weather going wrong, and perhaps with accidents happening. This is the alarm.
I was particularly struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said in reply to a question in this House on 7th December at column 268 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, said:
"My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are satisfied that the single runway operated at Gatwick is going to be sufficient to cope with this enormously increased volume of traffic?"
The noble Baroness said this, which I think is significant:
"Yes, my Lords, until the mid-1980s".
Those ministerial words were no doubt used with some caution, and if the implication is—and it seems to be quite clear—that beyond the mid-1980s it will not be sufficient, it is becoming increasingly urgent that the Government should take action to secure this second runway. This is made all the more necessary by the statement in this morning's Press by the chairman of the British Airports Authority that there is no space available now for a second runway at Gatwick. I think, with great respect, that Mr. Payne is misinformed because even within the area of the airport I have a plan here which shows two possible lines for the runway which I can show to the Minister. But even if he is right in this respect, this is an area

2039
which has much open country around it and in a matter of such importance as this further land should be acquired if necessary.
When I raised this question the other day, my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said that if the Government adopted this proposal it would produce an unplanned environmental catastrophe. My noble friend was not right to say "unplanned", because a second runway at Gatwick—and I speak as the Minister responsible for the Gatwick proposal—was in the original plans for the mid-1950s. So whatever the second runway is, it is not unplanned. Secondly, why is it an environmental catastrophe? A second runway will probably marginally increase the amount of use of the airport, yes; but the main effect will simply be to operate aircraft on two runways instead of one. From the environmental point of view, that may actually have advantages. Noble Lords may be aware of what is done at Heathrow where, when weather conditions permit, alternative runways are used for landing and take-off so as to spread the environmental and noise trouble more fairly as between different areas which are affected by one runway rather than the other. A second runway at Gatwick could be used for that purpose and so, with great respect to my noble friend, I would say that that comment does not seem to me to be wholly justified. The British Airports Authority are spending a great deal on buildings at Gatwick. I am delighted to see that; I hope they will continue with it and that they will be supported by the Government. But I hope also that they will match that with adequate runway facilities.
Then there remains Stansted. The Government of my noble friend Lord Home many years ago decided that Stansted should be the third London airport. It has a magnificent runway. The bad ground communications with London that used to affect it are now disappearing with completion of the M.11 motorway, and there is an enormous amount to be said for developing facilities at Stansted. It would be a particularly good airport to take over more and more of the holiday charter traffic, where interlining is of hardly any significance—less significance than with scheduled traffic. I should like to see work now
2040
being done at Stansted to deal with that traffic because, with the rates for holiday traffic now being quoted, once economic recovery comes in this country—and history teaches us that under some Government or other it always does come sooner or later—the public appetite for holidays in the sun reached by aircraft will become enormous and whoever is in Government at that time will have a very serious problem to cope with if people cannot get away on their holidays because no convenient airport is available.
I have put only tentative suggestions about the three airports to the Government. They are tentative suggestions and they are ones upon which I agree views may very well differ; but the central point on which I hope the House will feel there is no room for difference is that the matter is becoming increasingly urgent. We will never make up the lost time in respect of these airports if we go on losing that time. We shall see a gradual, perhaps almost imperceptible, shift of traffic and tourism away from London to our European friends. We shall see our civil aviation industry earning a good deal less than it could and less than the skill and devotion of those who run it would enable it to do.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of the problems that surround our economy, but here is an area in which we are doing well, in which we can do well, and it would be a tragedy indeed if it were to be strangled because of lack of pre-vision by the Government of the logistical bases on which these tourist and aviation industries depend. So I hope very much that, when the noble Lord comes to reply—and I know he will reply in his usual charming and agreeable style—he will give an indication that a wave of dynamism has come into the Government in this respect; that they are really going to get on with the job, not necessarily of doing what, in my amateur way, I have suggested should be do le, but of doing what they think right to improve the facilities of our airports, and therefore securing, at least in this sector of the economy, that we have a real future and a real success. I shall close by giving this Government a motto from one of my favourite hymns:
"Oh, happy band of pilgrims,
Look upward to the skies
Where such a light affliction
Shall win so great a prize".
5.6 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot, I am afraid, equal the quotations of my noble friend, but, like him, I ought to begin by declaring an interest, because I, too, have a job in the industry and spend a lot of my time, when not in your Lordships' House, working at Gatwick. So I am thus directly concerned with the decisions taken relating to that airport, and indeed to the others. The House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. We have indeed discussed the topic in general terms earlier, but he has, in his usual style, focused our minds on the immediate problems with considerable effect, and I think that we ought to be grateful to him for that. I am not so sure, though, about the Government's position in the matter. I recall speeches from the Government dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and now tonight we have the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and, like my noble friend, I am looking forward to the wave of dynamism, as he put it, that is to come across the Floor of the House and strike us all sitting here on this Opposition Bench.
Hitherto, the Government have told us—certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said this quite recently from the Government Dispatch Box—that there was no runway problem, anyway, until the middle of the 1990s. I think that the Government may well have changed their view on that. I do not wish to quote them unjustly, but my understanding is that the Government now think that there will be a runway shortage—and I use that word advisedly—before the time that they originally anticipated.
The question of terminal shortage is, of course, more imminent. As my noble friend has said, an inquiry is presently proceeding into the prospect of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, and undoubtedly, whatever the inspector may report, that terminal will have to be built in the very near future. There are plans for a second terminal at Gatwick, but that, too, will no doubt be the subject of an inquiry and, certainly, that cannot exist until a long time after the fourth terminal at Heathrow. It is true, therefore, that new airport capacity—and I use that word advisedly, as well—will be needed
2042
very soon, because it seems that we cannot necessarily get both runway and terminal capacity matched to provide the total capacity that we need at the right time.
The Government are assuming, in figures that they have published, that, for example, Gatwick will be able to handle 16 million passengers using the present single terminal, and up to 25 million passengers using two terminals, as and when that second terminal is built. Their figures also assume, I think, that there will be at least a fourth terminal at Heathrow, and perhaps a fifth. We are also told that modest expansion must be expected at Stansted.
The principal defect in the Government's argument is the capacity of Gatwick. I do not believe that with the present single runway it will be possible to carry 16 million passengers a year through Gatwick with one terminal, or 25 million passengers with two. As my noble friend explained, the prospects for growth are, for the most part, confined to what can be carried in the summer, because there is no growth in the market in the wintertime. It is the summer when people want to go on their holidays, and that is when the growth must be accommodated. The fact of the matter is that Gatwick is already very congested during the summer months. I simply refuse to believe the figures put forward by the British Airports Authority: that they can perhaps double the total carryings during the year to reach the 16 million figure that they are forecasting and take that growth only in the summer.
If I were asked to put a figure on it—and I confess that this is something of a "guesstimate"—I would say that Gat-wick's maximum capacity with a single terminal is 10 million, not 16 million. The figure of passengers moving through Gatwick in 1978 was, I think, 8 million and, as I have said, at times during the summer the airport was approaching saturation.
On the vexed question of a second runway at Gatwick, I very much doubt whether it can really be justified in terms of cost benefit. Almost everyone involved in the problem has turned his face against it so far. I was interested to hear what my noble friend said about the recent thoughts of the British Airports Authority

2043
regarding the use of the taxiway as an emergency runway. Even if a second runway were to be built—and I do not deny that it would be possible—it would increase the theoretical capacity of the airport, in terms of aircraft movements, by only 10 per cent., because I am advised that it is not possible to construct the new runway sufficiently far from the existing runway to enable it to be used to the full extent.
In fact, the two parallel runways at Heathrow are not so far apart as they might be, and that is why Heathrow has imposed a limit on the number of movements that can be accommodated. Certainly that limit is restricted by the proximity of the two runways. Thus, if a second runway were to be built at Gatwick, we would not provide a significant solution to the problem.
However, I see no prospect at all of achieving the forecast figures for Gatwick without the construction of a second runway. The British Airports Authority claim that they can carry these passengers with the single existing runway but, as I have said, I do not really believe that to be the case.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the money which could be spent on a second runway at Gatwick might be better spent elsewhere. My noble friend has referred to possible developments at Stansted, and I think that he is right. There are many fewer geographical problems over the terrain around Stansted. Access has recently been improved with the completion of a major length of the M.11 motorway, and there is already a considerable infrastructure, to use the modern jargon, around the airport in terms of housing for employees and all the other facilities that are required but which are not directly related to the airport itself.
It might be, therefore, that a second runway at Stansted would result in a better use of our scarce resources than a second runway at Gatwick. Without wishing to claim any detailed technical knowledge of the matter, because I cannot pretend deeply to have studied it, I feel sure that a second runway at Stansted would provide better use of the resources that we have than a second runway at Gatwick. But whether or not we have
2044
a second runway at Stansted, I certainly think that there is some scope for development there, even within the existing boundaries.
Indeed, the Government have already foreseen some development there and I think are at present forecasting an increase in the passenger carryings at Stansted to (if my memory serves me) 4 million passengers a year or thereabouts. Clearly to make any significant difference to the problem throughout the whole of the South-East airports Stansted will certainly have to carry many more passengers. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has suggested, I believe that the scope for expansion at Stansted must be in terms of charter operations which have already, to an almost complete extent, been excluded from Heathrow and may in future have to be at least restricted at Gatwick. As for Heathrow itself, my noble friend has described very fairly the position with regard to the fourth terminal, but, like him, I wonder what is going to happen to the sewage farm if they decide to build a fifth terminal on that site.
In the meantime, while we are considering these weighty problems, I am firmly convinced that better use of Heathrow could be achieved by a more equitable distribution of flights between the three existing terminals. For the moment there is no acute runway problem at Heathrow except for comparatively short peak hours in the mornings, but there are a number of what I might call complementary peaks and troughs at Terminals 1 and 3, for example. At times when Terminal 1 is very congested Terminal 3 is less so and vice versa. I hope that the Government will see whether they cannot bring some influence to bear on the British Airports Authority, and indeed British Airways, to achieve a better use of the existing, most expensive facilities at Heathrow.
I noted that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has put his name down to speak this evening, and undoubtedly therefore we shall hear something about Severnside airport. Without wishing to dismiss that project out of hand I am somewhat sceptical about the likely success of that proposal. For a start the cost is clearly going to be astronomic, but I accept that that would apply wherever a new airport was built. The details that I have heard of the rail link, which is such an essential

2045
feature of the proposal, lead me to wonder whether British Rail are really going to be able to operate a train at 250 or 300 miles an hour—or whatever the speed was—having regard to their current success with trains at about 50 miles an hour. But assuming that that difficulty can be overcome, as perhaps it may be in the future, I am still worried about the difficulties of providing all the other facilities around the airport in addition to the aviation facilities that are required within the boundaries. I am also worried as to whether the airport proposed on Severnside can be constructed within the timescale that my noble friend so rightly described.
We certainly have some major problems just around the corner. I do not claim to have any cut and dried solution, but the Government, with all the machinery of office at their disposal, can and must prepare their plans and make their decisions. Whatever improvements can be made at existing airports, a new one will be required sooner or later and we are entitled to see the Government plan now, or at least to know their idea of the likely timing. Whatever may be the political uncertainties of the next few months, while the Government remain in office they have a clear duty to bring forward timely and well considered proposals. So far I am afraid we see no sign of it but perhaps tonight the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will be able to shed a little light for us.
5.20 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I have no interest to declare other than that I am a pensioner of British Airways. In his Unstarred Question—for which I am grateful, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss this challenging question once again—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asks the Government whether they are satisfied with the planning to date, up to the middle 80s or late 80s. The Government White Paper makes an estimate of passenger traffic growth up to 1990. But that is only 11 years away. We all know, as the noble Lord has already said, how long it takes to get airport developments off the ground and they can be delayed by such things as public inquiries. So I wonder whether it would not be wise now to consider planning for a much longer term, at least
2046
up to the end of the century—say, A.D. 2000. If I heard him aright, I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had sympathy with this idea, which makes me wonder whether, during his distinguished chairmanship of the British Airports Authority, he had opportunity or occasion to promote it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, I would not wish to sail under false colours. I never had any connection with the British Airports Authority. I had the good fortune to be chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is, of course, as the noble Lord will appreciate, a totally different body.
Earl AMHERST: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was misinformed, or rather my paper is wrong. But I think my comment still holds. The White Paper estimates that in 1990 the London passenger traffic will increase to somewhere between 66 and 67 million; that is in rough figures. Is the Government's view that this indicates a saturation peak, or is some Department trying to crystal-gaze further, in which case should not we in planning try to crystal-gaze further, also.
London is to have three airports, according to the White Paper, all of international standards. These are to be Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Luton, it seems, is not to be so developed, so presumably the British Airports Authority will not purchase Luton Airport from the Luton Borough Council. I wonder whether the noble Lord can confirm this. A couple of weeks or so ago in a supplementary question by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in what seemed to be perhaps a rather light-hearted vein, he asked whether the Maplin chickens were not coming home to roost. I do not know whether that still is a moot question, but you never know.
As we all know, Heathrow is and has been for some time bursting at the seams. To relieve immediate pressures there are two major plans afoot. One is the building of a fourth terminal on the South side of the perimeter, and the second is the transfer of certain airlines and their traffic from Heathrow to Gatwick, and presumably later to Stansted. The building of the fourth terminal on

2047
the South side has been referred to a public inquiry, and I am told that we shall not know the results of this inquiry until next April. So I feel somewhat inhibited in trying to pursue that matter further tonight, save to say that I still urge, as I did last year, that the Authority should consider a long-term view and develop the Perry Oak site, despite its cost and delay and the removal of that wretched sewage farm, rather than pursue this South side site, where so far as I can tell the only advantages are that it is cheaper and can be done quickly. I am told that the customers—that is, the airlines—have rather grudgingly said, Yes, to this scheme on the basis that they think this is better than nothing, but they would much rather see development of the Perry Oak scheme on a long-term basis even though they would have to wait longer for it.
We discussed the transfers to Gatwick on 24th January, and if my memory serves there was considerable argument and objection to the transfer of Iberian, TAP, and Air Canada almost immediately to Gatwick. I understand that the matter has now been put back into the melting pot. In his reply, will the noble Lord answer a few questions of which I have given him notice? He has been kind and good enough to write to me in some detail on these questions and I am most grateful to him. However, I must still ask them so that my questions and his replies will be on the record.
First, do the Government intend to proceed with such a scheme, and, if so, how will the selection of the airlines to be moved be determined? Is it to be based on the safety requirements of the Air Traffic Control, so that the flight paths of aircraft coming to and going from the London area from the North and the East will not interfere with those coming from the South and the West. Or will it be based on the importance of the destinations overseas and their particular traffics, or perhaps a mixture of both? Will the transfers become mandatory or subject to negotiations between all the interested parties, possibly through the medium of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Airport Policy?
Reverting to Heathrow, I understand there is, and has been for some time, growing irritation and exasperation at
2048
the delays experienced by passengers arriving at No. 3 Terminal in retrieving their baggage; indeed, so much so that I have been told that an increasing number of transatlantic passengers who used to stop off on their way to destinations in Europe for a day or so in London are now overflying and going to other places like Amsterdam, so as to avoid these delays. I am told that the bottleneck is the shortage of carousels in Terminal No. 3. The provision of carousels, is, of course, an Airport Authority's responsibility. What happens is that the baggage loaders have to wait until a carousel has been cleared of a previous flight's baggage until they can start loading another lot of baggage on to the baggage belts. They sometimes have to wait a long time before so doing.
Another source of extreme irritation and frustration, again in No. 3 Terminal, is that the immigration desks for foreigners are seldom, if ever, fully manned, and sometimes only half-manned. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made succinct reference to that during our debate on 24th January. The net result, of course, is that queues build up, temper;; become frayed and there is considerable delay. That is very bad for our national image and especially for those foreigners arriving early in the morning after a long, tiring night flight and possibly making their first visit to Britain. I am told that the Home Office, which is responsible, pays little or no attention to requests for more immigration officers. Can the noble Lord impress upon his appropriate colleague the necessity of inducing the Home Office to be at least a little more co-operative?
We had a considerable discussion on Gatwick on 24th January. So apart from saying that we agree very m ach with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, and with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, I do not want to say any more than I said on that occasion. As regards Stansted, I understand that sufficient territory belongs to the airport to allow for more runway facilities, if that is what is wanted, but that the airport will require,;o bring it up to international scratch, considerable terminal and ancillary facilities.
As regards public access, as had already been said, the new motorway, the M.11, when it is completed will pass within

2049
two miles of the perimeter and presumably there will be a link with the terminal areas. But, the Southern end of the motorway ends somewhere East of Woodford. Therefore, should one want to reach central London or the West End one would have a long and tedious road journey through Woodford, Epping Forest, Seven Sisters and Caledonian Road to reach even King's Cross; or one could go round the North Circular Road and come into London via Finchley and Hampstead. Either way it would take considerably longer than it would take to reach either Heathrow or Gatwick.
There is a rail connection at the moment between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford, which is some four miles from the airport. But at the moment there is no public transport available, so presumably it is a question of taking a taxi. The train frequency is one an hour on weekdays and one every two hours on Sundays. The fast trains take 35 minutes; the slow trains 55 minutes. There is a station at Stansted, but to reach it one has to change at Bishop's Stortford and take a local train. The Airports Authority's brochure, entitled Airport Information, says:
"Do not book to Stansted as airport connections are difficult".
Unless an air link—possibly by helicopter—is set up, quick or efficient interlining between Stansted and the other two airports would seem to be a difficult if not an impossible problem. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will tell us something of the plans of the Airports Authority and, indeed, of British Rail to improve the access facilities at Stansted.
I have the impression that high on the list of facilities for their passengers, airlines require quick and efficient access to and from airports, both by motorway and by rail. At the moment with its rail connection, which British Rail plans greatly to improve this year, Gatwick seems to be leading the field. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us when the adjacent M.3 will be extended to go into South London, and the M.25, which now ends at the top of Reigate Hill, will be extended to reach the M.4, passing quite close to the Perry Oaks site?
In the planning for the future I would urge the Government in their turn to urge
2050
the British Airports Authority to think long-term and to think big; and not to plump for short-term ad hoc patchings-up to meet this or that crisis, which may be cheaper but which ends by being too little too late. I should like to remind the Government, and through them the Airports Authority, of the proverb: "Where there is a will, there is a way", with the rider that the will must be genuine.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am afraid that owing to the rather unexpected lateness of the commencement of this debate I may have to leave before the end and therefore, strictly speaking, I should not take part. I have made my apologies to the Minister and I hope that my apology will also be accepted by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and by your Lordships as a whole; I impute no discourtesy. I have no interest to declare. I rise partly in order to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his plea for a wave of dynamism in the matter which we are discussing. There is no doubt whatever that urgency is lacking, and is greatly required if the airport situation near London is not—as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has just said—to burst at its seams, an expression that has come readily to the forefront of the minds of a great many people by this time, for I believe that that is more or less what is happening.
I should like to refer to one or two remarks in the speech of my noble friend. The first struck a certain amount of dismay into my heart. I do not know whether he meant to make quite so damning an accusation of the Government as he intended, but I take a certain pleasure in, for once, supporting the Government. My noble friend said that whatever the inspector in charge of the fourth terminal inquiry at Heathrow might say, the fourth terminal will be built anyway. The fact is that at that inquiry every local planning authority, and certainly every amenity group, which gave evidence was unanimously against the building of the fourth terminal. The inspector doubtless will report that, but what else he may say I do not know. What my noble friend's statement that I have just quoted (I hope correctly) amounts to is that the Govern-

2051
ment in fact have set up this inquiry as a pure whitewash exercise, and have not the slightest intention of taking any notice of it at the end.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, as my noble friend referred to me perhaps he would allow me to say that I think he has slightly misunderstood the emphasis of what I said. For the avoidance of doubt perhaps he would allow me to correct him. What I said was that, whatever the result of the inquiry, the terminal would have to be built because it is a sheer necessity. I criticised the Government, on a rather different basis from the one he is suggesting. I did, for setting up the inquiry, which they were under no legal necessity to do. And in the circumstances I should have thought they have probably wasted the time not only of a perfectly competent inspector but of all the worthy groups to whom my noble friend referred.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am most obliged. I have no wish to pursue this matter, nor in any way to misrepresent him, but it sheds a rather unhappy light on the whole inquiry procedure, which I believe will be repeated in the case of the second terminal at Gatwick. I am not sure whether I am right in this, but I understand that an application for that inquiry has already been called in by the Department of Trade.
My noble friend was good enough to refer to the Severnside project, supposing that I would have something to say about that. I can give him a crumb of comfort by saying that I have no intention or wish to use his Question in order to advocate the Severnside project. This is not my purpose at all. I have done that before. If any noble Lord wishes to refresh his memory, or find out what I said in presenting that case, he will find it in the Official Report of 16th June last year. I do not wish to go into that any more.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has foreseen the arguments that I intended to deploy, and answered them, in a way, very much to the point. Therefore there is no need for me to deploy them any further, except to say this: he suggested that I had envisaged a speed for the high-speed train of something like 250
2052
miles an hour. He has in fact introduced a factor of two in this. My suggestion was 125 miles an hour, which is the present speed of the high-speed train.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am happy to stand corrected.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, it might go up a little but not to that astronomical speed. I must say a word about the time scale, to which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred. I argued, and I would be prepared to do so on another occasion, that the time scale is nothing like as great as he fears it would be. In fact, I have good authority for believing that if the construction of an airport at Severnside were to be sanctioned now it would be operational before the second terminal could come into operation at Gatwick, or at any rate in a space of time comparable with that, and certainly before the beginning of the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow.
All I want to say about Severnside is simply this, and this is the important thing to me: it is not necessarily the only possible alternative to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is asking for, but it is an alternative. I believe it is certain that we shall have to have another airport somewhere, and the time to begin thinking about that is now. This is a matter of urgency. We cannot wait until the mid-1980s. Almost all the advantages that were ever claimed for Maplin exist in favour of Severnside, and others as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, spoke on my Unstarred Question last June. Your Lordships will remember that he is now a Member of the Government. He was not supporting the Severnside proposition, but he said that in his opinion I had made out a convincing prima facie case for having the issue further examined. That is all I am asking for now. I believe it would be totally wrong for any of these proposals, to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter addressed himself, to be put into effect without proper consideration of all the alternatives that might make them unnecessary.
I believe, and others believe with me, that the Severnside project is the one which would fill the bill, but that is one among

2053
others. All I ask is simply that that project be examined and either approved or disposed of, one way or the other, before any decision is arrived at to expand at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke of the possibility of a new terminal at Gatwick, or even a second runway, and said that would not so greatly increase the number of air movements at that airport. I do not know the amount of salt so large that I could pinch between my fingers with which I should have to take that statement. Gatwick is looking forward to an expansion, with one runway, to 16 million passengers a year, and I share the doubts of others as to whether that capacity could be met; I very much doubt it, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, does, too.
If we had two runways at Gatwick, properly spaced—which, as Lord Trefgarne said, the ones at Heathrow are not—I see no reason why the passenger traffic at Gatwick should not go up to the projected Heathrow figure of 38 million. We should have another Heathrow, and an even bigger one possibly at Gatwick. If this is thought to be of no great importance, I would remind noble Lords that so far we have heard nothing about the people on the ground. It is all very well for Lord Boyd-Carpenter to say:
"O happy band of pilgrims,
Look upward to the skies,
Where such a light affliction
shall win so great a prize".
I suspect he has not heard the verse:
"O miserable groundlings,
Look upward to the skies,
And steel yourselves to suffer
This apocalypse, that flies".
An expansion of this magnitude at Gatwick would, I believe, amount to an urbanisation of the whole railway corridor from London to Brighton, an environmental disaster of the greatest magnitude. My noble friend took me to task, with some justice, for referring to his proposal—he made it in his Starred Question the other day—by referring to the second terminal at Gatwick as "an unplanned environmental disaster". I say "with some justice" because I think I was rather misleading. I meant to say that the whole airport network around London is itself unplanned. Nobody ever planned Heathrow or Gatwick to be London airports,
2054
as they are now; if they had, they would seriously have needed their heads examined because nobody would ever have set up a system such as we have now. It was not planned; it has just grown, like dropsy. I do not want to see it go on growing, and that is what I meant by "an unplanned calamity". It is not the runways that are unplanned but the whole system, the planning or non-planning of which has been grossly exaggerated at the expense of millions of people.
I have nothing to add and I have no analytical comments to make. However, I urge on the Government the point of view that the Severnside project, which in my opinion is the best of all, should be examined by the Government and either adopted or turned down. All the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, put against it must be considered; there are objections to every possibility that might be put forward. Nevertheless, may it please be considered one way or the other before anything else is done, above all at Gatwick?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, we seem to have been sitting for an awfully long time today, and I shall be very brief. I rise to support my noble friend in his continued thirst for the latest Government thinking on how to handle the London airport traffic problems by the mid 1980s, and I congratulate him upon the very moderate and clear way in which, as always, he put what has become an increasingly urgent case for action. I do not think that there is any Member in this House who has more political, or indeed practical, experience than my noble friend of running the great CAA. He referred to Sir Freddie Laker and the catalystic effect that he has had on air travel, and indeed the effect which means that the only item which seems to go down in cost in our present days of inflation is the price of an air ticket. Perhaps we can reflect that my noble friend had some little part to play in the success of the Skytrain issue at the time of its introduction.
I start with the view that the London airports policy and the Government's contingency plans are developing into an increasing morass of lack of decision. We

2055
are faced with the situation in which last year there was an unexpected swing in passenger traffic of 15 per cent., whereas I understand that the figure on which the Government have been working in respect of the next 10 years or so is between 7 and 8 per cent.
We are also faced with contingency plans which are subject to long, expensive, and, to some people, puerile inquiries on whether the Heathrow fourth terminal should be built, or whether the second terminal at Gatwick should be built, when in fact we know that there is no alternative. We are faced with the official airport capacity figure at Gatwick of 25 million in respect of the second terminal, when many experienced people genuinely believe this to be ficticious. We are faced with a delay until the autumn because of the Government's private study led, I understand, by the Steele Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is a member—and I am pleased that he will be intervening in the debate—yet we do not know what progress will have been made by the end of that study. Will there be need of another Roskill, or of three or four years' planning procedures, or whatever?
The real truth is that our options are becoming more limited. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, no one now believes that we can afford a new green field site. I consider that no one believes that we can afford even a coastal site, in view of the timescale. So the options are limited to either an existing civil airport, or a military airfield; and of course that comes down to Stansted, or possibly Thurleigh. Whatever options the Steele Committee reach by the autumn, there will be one overwhelming view—that an existing airport must be used.
I turn to specific questions I wish to put to the noble Lord. I wish to ask whether the Government will genuinely look into the form of planning inquiries on new terminals at major airports. Other noble Lords have made the point, yet I believe it needs to be stressed yet again, that considerable money, time, and energy go into these planning inquiries, whereas at the end of the day everyone who has taken part knows that the Secretary of State does not have an option; he has to go forward because it is part of the contingency planning. I believe that there is
2056
room where, by the terms of reference, the evidence produced could be limited, which would allow a more sensible form of inquiry, yet still give people a chance to air their views. I am sure that many of the active bodies concerned with the environment—bodies which have to collect voluntary subscriptions in order to pay expensive barristers—and indeed all the local authorities involved, would be very grateful for that. I hope that the Government will look into the procedure of the planning inquiries and come up with something hopeful and helpful.
The second point is on the projected capacity of Gatwick. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne, whose experience, particularly his practical experience, we all value, knows that the projected movements on this one runway are, I think, 150,000 a year. This is allowing for the 25 million passenger projection. He knows that this figure assumes that each aircraft will carry 168 passengers. We also know that the present average load of the aircraft using Gatwick is only something like 80, so there is a big fall-short here. Are we to assume that if the Government are going to reach this capacity of 25 million, they are going to request, or indeed insist, that all the small aircraft using Gatwick at present move to another airport? I believe that is the only alternative; but I think the noble Lord who is to reply should come clean on this, because there have been serious doubts about this capacity figure.
I shall also be interested to hear a little about the facilities at Gatwick. The noble Lord who is to reply will have seen, as indeed the House will have noted, that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority recently described the Gatwick facilities in the midsummer of 1978 as appalling. There was a serious lack of immigration officers; there was a dearth of luggage trolleys; there was a meagre sprinkling of porters; and passengers, particularly the old, were forced to carry luggage down a long flight of stairs to the Gatwick Station. I hope the Government will have some reassuring words on the point of facilities, as this is a specific point in my noble friend's Question.
The last point I would put briefly to the Government is: How are they progressing in encouraging airlines to move from Heathrow to Gatwick? The noble

2057
Lord who spoke earlier commented on the fact that there have been problems with, I think, Iberia and Air Canada; indeed, not only problems but embarrassments and upsets. The case, I am told by Iberia, is that there was a distinct lack of consultation prior to an announcement on 18th August, delivered by our Ambassador in what was quaintly termed "a verbal note", that that airline—and indeed, I believe, Air Canada as well—was to move to Gatwick by 1st April 1979. This in fact culminated in a legal action by Iberia, and the Government have now withdrawn that request.
I should like to ask two questions, if I have put those points fairly. First, I should like to ask whether that apparent history is compatible with paragraph 86 of Airports Policy—and I would quote:
"This policy"—
and it is talking about the building up of Gatwick—
"requires the full co-operation of the airline operators";
and it went on to say that the Government will not dictate. The second question I should like to ask is whether, when discussions are taking place between Governments (and this, I think, is very important) included in those discussions are any counter-agreements with regard to airport facilities in other countries which could damage the interests of British carriers—and I am of course thinking of British Airways. I hope the noble Lord will be able to address his remarks to some extent to that point.
My noble friend ended his comprehensive case with the words of his favourite hymn,
"O happy band of Pilgrims".
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he comes to reply, will not send us away with a message from a hymn which I remember learning, irreverently, at school, which was:
"Onward Christian soldiers,
Marching up the wall".
Because what many people feel now, I believe, is that very message—that we are going up the wall.
5.54 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in this interesting
2058
debate promoted by my noble friend's Question, and I should begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy. When I saw my noble friend's Question down on the Paper, I was in the difficult dilemma that if I did not speak people would ask why I did not, and if I did speak they would probably ask why I did. But, curiously enough, this structure, as the Minister will no doubt say, is not one of a completely confidential nature, and because of its very constitution it allows consultation outside. Many of these consultations have already taken place, and therefore I am not breaching any confidences in what I intend to say.
Our first meeting was last September so that we are, as it were, under way. Let me say immediately that my speech is not going to be a forecast of an inside nature of what the Committee is likely to recommend as the best solution to the Third London Airport. I shall confine myself to comment on the constitution of the inquiry and the methods by which we are approaching it. Let me say immediately to my noble friend that I feel that he has a "bull point" here (and I am sure that the Minister will agree) in the need for urgency. That is why we as a Committee have committed ourselves to making our report by the autumn, which is a very short time in which to deal with an immensely complicated subject. But we understand the urgency of the matter and if the Government is vulnerable to criticism—and I think they are—it is that they did not set up this inquiry two or three years ago, certainly a couple of years ago, when the signs were there.
However, they have done it now. I believe that the structure is a good one and I hope that what I have to say will be of interest to noble Lords and will, perhaps, give them some confidence, at any rate so far as we are concerned, that we should be able to produce a helpful answer. My membership of the Committee is because I am chairman, and have been so since it was set up, of the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning. That is the local government body for regional planning. What we have succeeded in doing after many years of argument with Government is to convince Ministers that in the search for a major airport it is absolutely essential to bring in the planning

2059
authorities at the very beginning. My presence on this body is, of course, the culmination of a long, long argument. The membership of this Advisory Committee—which is set up under the Board of Trade, as has been said, with the Deputy Secretary in the Chair—covers a range of Ministries very comprehensively. It includes a number of other important national bodies who may be interested, including the national and local government bodies. No doubt, the Minister will give details if he is asked for them.
An interesting feature of this inquiry in that there is a parallel body to the Advisory Committee which is called the Study Group on South-East Airports. That body is set up in order to consider the land-use planning aspect of the development of a third London Airport. Again, there is a senior Board of Trade official in the Chair and the members of the Committee include a range of representatives of various Government Ministries; but the members brought in are officials from the planning authorities from London and the counties and the planning authorities in the South-East who have the expert knowledge which is necesssary for this input.
This study group is charged to work in close liaison with, and parallel to, the Advisory Committee but also works directly and reports directly to the Minister. Of course, the success of the whole operation will depend upon the successful liaison between the Advisory Committee, on the one hand, and the study group, on the other. I am hopeful that we shall achieve that. The method of working by which we are proceeding is that the Advisory Committee, which includes all the aviation interests—the CAA, British Airways et cetera—with all their expert knowledge. They have advised, and the Advisory Committee has accepted, the basic air parameters which they consider are necessary. We have accepted that this covers such matters as the required capacity of this new airport that we are to look for. Let me say at once—and this should reassure noble Lords who have anxieties in this matter—that we are looking ahead to the year 2000 and beyond: that this airport that we are looking for has to be a multipurpose and omnidirectional one, and it has to have an ultimate throughput capacity of 50 million passengers per annum. In the location of it, we have to
2060
be guided by the air interests in the vital matters of air traffic control in order to co-ordinate the management with Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, et cetera. This has a determining influence on the location that we eventually find. Similarly, the Ministry of Defence and their requirements have to be catered for as well.
Regarding the size of the airport, we have been advised that it should be about 2,000 hectares. That is a very big airport, nearly double the size of Heathrow. It should cater for all future requirements. We must also cater for the necessary capacity and speed of communication to Central London, both by rail and by road; and, above all, we must cater for timetables. My noble friend made the cogent point that the dynamic effect of the Laker influence in the past year or two has been greatly to accelerate the increase in traffic flow particularly for leisure. Therefore the BAA, as the noble Lord has indicated, have orought forward the date at which existing airports, even with the proposed expansions of the fourth terminal at Heathrow, and the second terminal at Gatwick, will probably be bursting at the seams some three years earlier than the Government's blue paper indicated; in other words, coming forward from 1990 to 1987. We have taken these facts on board. We are well aware of the urgency and therefore we are aiming to make our report by the autumn, which will be quite an undertaking for us.
These basic parameters have been passed to the study group which are concerned with the landside interests. They set up a working party of experts who have expert knowledge of the physical conditions throughout the South-East region to apply those parameters to the ground. Inevitably, this has meant immediately the definition of quite large "no go" areas where, for one reason or another, it is impossible to establish a major airport. The study group has now completed its study and is about to submit its report which will show that there are a number of possible sites which can meet these necessary parameters. The study group has also added its set of parameters applying to the land use interests.
The first one—and this is the one which has brought my presence on to the Advisory Committee and brought the

2061
Standing Conference for South-East Regional Planning into the picture—is employment. A fact which is well understood by my noble friend but is not always well understood is that a major international airport is the largest single place of employment in the country. This is a factor which has to be catered for in deciding where the site is going to go. Heathrow today employs some 50,000 people. By 1987 it will probably have gone up to 60,000 people, and Gatwick in proportion. There are as many again in employment in the supporting and service industries. The third London airport, which is to have a potential of 50,000 passengers per day—nearly double Heathrow—will employ, when it reaches full size, something of the order of 70,000 or 80,000 people on the airport with as many again outside.
We are talking about an employment of 150,000 people by the end of the century, and multiplying that by four to get the full population, we are talking about a population of 600,000. That is a very large population. Therefore it is essential that the site should be located with regard to the urban infrastructure which could be called upon to operate the airport; in other words, near large populations.
The second parameter that the local authorities are concerned with is of course the broad environmental protection problem. Local authorities are responsible for planning generally, but of course they are responsible for the protection of local communities from noise; they are responsible for the protection of amenity in the villages, the towns, and countryside with special amenity values. And, of course, they are concerned with the protection of the best agricultural land. They are also domestically concerned with the very heavy financial liability which falls upon them in the early years of these developments.
Finally, both the Advisory Committee and the Study Group are concerned with the cost element. This, as noble Lords will know, was a major factor in the shedding of Maplin on the earlier study. Costs must be catered for: it is one of the factors that must be considered. I should add as a matter of interest, that within the standing conference for regional planning, we have set up a structure to
2062
make sure there is member participation both of county representatives and of district council representatives, so that they will be kept informed as these possible sites are being considered.
We consider we shall not adequately have discharged our difficult responsibility unless we can bring members in so that we can—I do not know whether it will be possible, but we shall try—to reach a consensus among local authorities, including London, throughout the South-East on what is the best site for a third London Airport. We feel it is so important to try to cater for the broad environmental picture from the representative council members, who, after all, have the major say in this matter. If would be a fact of tremendous value to the Government of the day, when the report comes along, if we can produce such support. That we shall try to do.
Obviously we have quite a formidable task on our hands in the Advisory Committee and the study group. It has been well said that there is no perfect solution. There are so many conflicting factors which have to be balanced one against the other; but we are going to be capable, first of all, of categorising them and evaluating them, and then we shall use our best judgment and our best compassion for each other to try to reach a consensus between us, which will produce a report that will be helpful to the government of the day. They will then be able to make up their minds, consult with all the interests concerned so that perhaps in the not-too-far distant future—even perhaps by 1987 but, my word! they will have to be quick —we may have the beginnings of this great new third London airport which is undoubtedly needed.
6.8 p.m.
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like to talk mainly about the environmental issues, and I should indeed like to declare an interest—the interest of an inhabitant of the South-East. We are, quite unquestionably, all closely concerned with this emotive problem, and though I live 25 miles to the South of Gatwick, perhaps that fact will give a rough idea of what my interests may be. That is what I am, and I shall declare it.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for putting

2063
down this Unstarred Question, because I agree so much about the urgency and the need not to let more water go under the bridge. Obviously, I am not a part of the aviation lobby; I am on the other side of the fence. I have one or two "parish pump" matters to mention regarding Gatwick, which I believe it is right to raise because they are illustrative. I recollect that the last public inquiry there had to be held because when the runway was last extended it was necessary to lop some trees on property which was outside the control of the British Airports Authority. I seem to recall that the hall was too small. At an early hour it rapidly became overcrowded with people who did not appear particularly anxious to operate the normal noise abatement procedures that would have been appropriate to such an occasion. One learned representative who was submitting evidence had to address the inquiry through a window from outside, with the aid of a packing case. The inquiry had to adjourn thereafter to make more seemly arrangements. That all indicates what an emotive business it is, and one must think how one can make it a little less emotive and more satisfactory.
The reasons that I have listed are, first, failure to take social costs into account, even remotely adequately, and many a local authority has complained about this. Secondly, there is noise. It may get better, according to the blue book, but I am sure we all realise that it is not a problem that will go away. Thirdly, there is a lack of sufficient forward plans. Fourthly—and this is something which we cannot do much about—we are a small island, the South-East is crowded, and we need to look after our land resources, because they are irreplaceable.
I should like to say a little more about the failure to take social costs into account. Part of this problem arises because of the function of the British Airports Authority. It is not their fault, and the last thing I want to do is to decry their management over this matter, but it remains a fact that they are permitted to cause a nuisance on their property against which others do not have normal remedies. On that score, their immunity from the more normal planning procedures has been too great, and it is an extremely good thing that efforts are now being made to remedy that situation. I know that it takes time,
2064
but it is vitally important that it should be done. In the same way, I think it is right to stick to having planning inquiries. I think that we must have them. If they could be a little less emotive because our policies were better, they would not waste so much time. Nevertheless, they remain of great importance.
I should like to mention the question of compensation for private property. In this connection, I want to take an extreme case, the case of Mr. Greenfield, who had a smallholding at the end of the runway at Gatwick. He had on it a livestock enterprise with a riding school, and his whole operation was completely upset by noise. I believe that independent tests of the noise levels were made at the time, and it was concluded that the houses there were unlivable-in. They were right at the end of the runway where by comparison at the end of the runway at London Airport there is a sewage farm. His property suffered blight. Not so very long ago, the late Lord Henley put down an Unstarred Question in this House about that man. I believe that nothing more has been done about him, and I wonder whether we shall one day get some better news about his case. He has recently died of a heart attack, which may or may not have been connected with his experience at the airport.
When this matter was raised earlier, there was the counter-agrument that more people suffered at Heathrow, but I think it is right to say that individually they did not suffer so much. I have every sympathy with the people living around Heathrow, but the case of Mr. Greenfield shows a serious lapse in the way in which our country upholds personal rights, particularly bearing in mind the situation of that man.
We have not done enough generally about these matters. Those who live around Heathrow have received grants for double glazing and other improvements, but I think that the help given to them should have gone further than it did. Air conditioning is an obvious corollary. A better regard for personal property rights would lower the temperature and might lead us to get on better with the problems that face us over the allocation of scarce land resources and the preservation of the quality of life. These two

2065
problems are difficult to quantify financially. Nevertheless, they are of vital importance.
Turning to local authority planning problems, it was good to hear what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford had to say. The West Sussex County Council will certainly be glad to read what he has had to say. They have asked for a full environmental study to be carried out if the throughput at Gatwick is to be increased from 16 million to 25 million passengers. A great deal lies behind that short sentence. Their study group, consisting of five county councillors, produced a valuable outline report, entitled Gatwick Tomorrow, which they say straight away raises more questions than it answers. But these are the questions which need to be solved, and they are very much the ones which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford touched upon.
It is thought that the future increase in population which will be needed to bring about a 25 million throughput of passengers at Gatwick will be round about 68,000. This will take place in an area which is already crowded. Crawley New Town is close by. In the Strategic Plan for the South-East, it was said of the planning district:
"No further induced growth should be encouraged".
That means Gatwick. There will obviously be great infrastructure problems—over schools, finance, cross country roads, and so on. There is a serious lack of communications with Southampton, where there will soon be 1 million people, some of whom will doubtless want to get to Gatwick. Already there are pressures on the area. The effect on Crawley's modern industries must be considered. The airport will become the major employer. Will Crawley's industries therefore be able to keep the skilled labour that they need? There is anxiety about that.
I understand that the effect of the airport rates on Crawley should be mentioned. Crawley receive the airport rates but lose an equal amount of rate support grant, which means that the airport does them no good at all, despite the problems which it creates. This is another matter which should be considered in terms of social cost.
2066
We have already heard of worse to come. Both the West Sussex County Council and Crawley agreed to Gatwick handling 16 million passengers, but they feel the very greatest concern about Gatwick handling more than that number, that is, 25 million passengers; and it could be worse than that, as we have heard this afternoon. Will one runway and two terminals work? I understand that the airline operators told the county council a long time ago that they thought they would not work. There will be a severe problem over the peaking of air traffic, which may again make it impossible to reach the targets anticipated. I wonder whether Iberia was the best operator to send to Gatwick first, in view of the fact that I imagine theirs is a very seasonal operation. If there is to be a second proper runway I should very much like to know. If there is any further news about the emergency runway I should like to hear it. If there is a second full-scale runway the trouble is that there will be a great temptation in the future to say, "Well, what about a third terminal?". That will be the next cheapest way out of the difficulty, and if that is done I feel fairly certain that the consequences could only too easily be an unplanned urban mass extending from East Grinstead to Horsham and down to Haywards Heath, which would be a pretty profound tragedy and certainly would not contribute to the quality of life.
Does one not have to reckon the true cost to the community in all this? I think we do. Both at Gatwick and at Stanstead two major inquiries have found that they are not suitable sites for international airports. That is the point from which we start. As regards Stansted, I should like particularly to mention that although I understand there is to be a public inquiry at Gatwick there is no such intention at Stansted. I believe that there should be a public inquiry at Stansted. They have an equal right to have one.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, can he say what it is that the public inquiry at Stansted should enquire into?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I think it would clear the air very greatly about the planning difficulties that would be facing Essex.
Lord TREFGARNE: But surely, my Lords, the inquiry must enquire into something?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, it would be enquiring into the implications of the growth of the airport, as is the case at Gatwick. At any rate, although the Blue Book says that it is anticipated that there will be 4 million passengers by 1990 it is an open-ended commitment, and there is quite a possibility that there will be 16 million there instead, by 1990.
I hope that we shall not end with a 19th century type solution and repeat that kind of mistake. I feel that the Blue Book cost of £150 million for the developments is no great sum, bearing in mind this particular problem. One might call it a shoestring. I think we need perspective and an open mind about that.
To get this into perspective, may I say that only this morning I—and not I alone in this House—received from the British Tourist Authority a statement that 12 million tourists last year spent £3,000 million with us. Laker Airways and British Caledonian together, I understand, are shortly about to spend £500 million on their aircraft fleets. When one sees this one wonders whether £150 million is really not very little.
At this stage I do not want to go deeply into the matters of Maplin, but something on a greater financial scale should have been possible and might have got us over very great difficulties here in the South-East. I would have liked to get more precise information about the planning of de Gaulle airport at Paris. I believe it was thought about quite 20 years ahead and not 10, and that it was a very much smoother and happier operation for everyone concerned. I know it may be said that it is easier in France because they have three times as much land per head as we have, but I think it is really the other way round, that because we have so little we and not they are the people who ought to be more advanced withour planning.
At any rate, I think we have to decide between a great 19th century mistake, doing a proper job, or, the third alternative —the objections to it have already been mentioned but nevertheless it remains a third alternative—which would be to refuse the traffic after a certain point. I think, finally, that you will have, in view of the
2068
situation at Gatwick, to limit the growth there and after it has got to that stage traffic must go somewhere else. I would like to wish my noble friend Lord Nugent the best of luck, and I am sure his sagacity will contribute very greatly. I think that is all I need to say about it.
6.27 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, who unfortunately has had to leave, in asking the Government to give serious consideration to the Servernside airport project. Your Lordships may be aware that a notice has gone up that a study group has been formed for this matter, and I, for one, am looking forward to attending some of its activities. My own particular interest in the problem of airports is in the way of getting to them. In June last year there was an Unstarred Question on the Severnside project and the suggestion of using high-speed trains to and from Severnside on which special facilities for customs and immigration matters to be dealt with could be included. The proposed position for Severnside is an airport constructed on a sits where there would be little problem of either noise or disturbance of homes, and it could have easy access to South Wales, the Midlands and the South West of" England as well as London.
The study of railway tracks around the London area has been a particular interest of mine. For many years I have had to use public transport in my work, and I always prefer to use the rail rather than the road. At times I have had to go to some lengths to work out the railway routes from one place to another. In my contribution to the Unstarred Question last year I suggested the use of that very versatile station at Olympia, together with the idea of constructing a connection between the line there which goes north towards Willesden and the main line out of Paddington, with the use of a bridge connecting up with another suburban line, which I admit was a rather elaborate and very expensive project. I am glad to say that, with a little further simple research on the matter, I discovered that a connection already exists. It is between Westbourne Park and Acton and it is a double track. It has sharp bends, so if high-speed trains were using Olympia they could not accelerate at all until they were safely on the main line.

2069
The line north of Olympia is useful. It goes up to Willesden, where there is another connection with the main line out of Euston, and from there it goes eastwards to Broad Street via Kilburn, Hampstead and Camden Town. South of Olypmpia it joins the main line out of Waterloo at Clapham. There is another useful little addition because there is a small connection with the District Line at Earl's Court.
So, to sum up, Olympia should be the station for London to use as a terminal for Severnside. It could still be used for railway connections to other airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, like the station at Feltham. It is easy to get to by road and it has good rail access from both the north and the south and, in particular, it has a very good central position.
Severnside is not really a new idea. I understand that it was thought up some years ago, but at the time it was definitely shelved because it was feared that the area would be far too remote. But, now that we have the fast trains—particularly the 125s—it makes it an ideal situation for the new airport for London and also for the rest of Britain.
6.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great care. Your Lordships will notice that, in spite of perhaps wanting to do so, I have not interrupted any speaker. I hope that the House will give me the same courtesy and allow me to make my speech without interruption. However, at the end of my remarks your Lordships can always catch me before I sit down.
The planning of future airport capacity, raises such important environmental problems, involves the expenditure of so much public money and, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, involves such risks of under-provision that debate on the issues involved should always be welcome. That is especially so if the debate is informed and tolerant and if it is positive rather than purely negative. I think we can say that our debate has, by and large, been on those lines.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for putting down the Question. He has given very distinguished service to civil aviation, first as a
2070
Minister and latterly as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. There is perhaps no one better qualified to lead this debate than he. I should also like to pay a tribute to the contribution that was made by the Civil Aviation Authority, under his chairmanship, to the work which preceded the White Paper. The noble Lord will be aware that the conclusions of the White Paper were based upon very careful studies of airport capacity, detailed forecasts of demand and exhaustive studies of the options.
That White Paper came to three main conclusions. First, owing to the very considerable uncertainty of forecasting, traffic demand should be kept under continuous review and the work should be commenced immediately on the next stage which was outlined in the Paper; secondly, that limits on the growth of Heathrow and Gatwick should be accepted; thirdly, that local authorities and other interested parties involved in future airport capacity should be brought into consultations. As a consequence, following the White Paper—as the House already knows—the Government set up the Advisory Committee on Airport Policy and the Study Group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has referred. I was particularly pleased by the noble Lord's intervention because he is at the centre of this and was able to speak with first-hand knowledge of what is going on. I should also like to pay tribue to the work which he did preceding the setting up of those bodies and to the work which he is continuing to do as a member of the Advisory Committee.
I should like now to take each airport in turn, dealing first with Heathrow. Heathrow has a throughput of 26 million passengers per annum. Redevelopment of the central terminal area has been completed and this gives a capacity of 30 million passengers. The extension of the Piccadilly line has improved the flow of surface traffic; and the Eurogate satellite, which is planned and which we should have at a very early date, will be linked by travelators to Terminals 1 and 2, and should greatly improve the passenger handling at those terminals.
The construction of the fourth terminal will increase the capacity to 38 million passengers. It is subject to planning inquiry, which has just been completed. However, that planning inquiry showed

2071
that we not merely have problems of estimating demand, but that we also have problems of estimating what the capacity will be. It emerged from that inquiry that a more realistic figure of the capacity after the fourth terminal is completed is not 38 million passengers but 43 million passengers, which, of course, would be very much to everybody's advantage. But let us be quite clear: even though the planning inquiry has been concluded, without a final decision having been announced, the fourth terminal cannot be completed before 1984.
If the traffic continues to grow at the present rate, the capacity at Heathrow will be exhausted by 1981. Therefore, it is vital that the Government should pursue their policy of transferring traffic to Gatwick. I would point out that we are not transferring particular airlines to Gatwick; we are transferring aircraft for given destinations, regardless of the airline to which they belong. I would also point out that the consultations with the Spanish Government began almost two years ago. We are conducting those consultations within certain guidelines. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, was good enough to give me notice of the points he has raised. His questions called for detailed answers. I have already written to him and I have given him those detailed answers, including the guidelines which are used for the transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick. If, at the end of the debate, any noble Lord would like a copy of that letter, I should be very pleased to arrange for him to have a copy.
The White Paper explained that the Government had concluded that Heathrow's ultimate development should not go beyond a fourth terminal. That is still the view of the Government. Consistent with that conclusion, the further development of Heathrow—whether by building a fifth terminal at Perry Oaks site or otherwise—is not among the options that are being considered in the long-term.
I know there are those who find the Government's policy on this more difficult to accept, and that suggestions have been mooted for further massive expansions at Heathrow. These ideas seem to us to take insufficient account of the environmental implications of such developments; insufficient account of the planning considerations; and insufficient account of the operational problems in the arrangement and management of an airport handling
2072
such volumes of traffic on what, by most standards, is still a very restricted site. The Government have made clear their policy on Heathrow, and I believe that the right approach now is to concentrate our efforts in the consideration of the long-term options which were identified in the White Paper.
I pass now to Gatwick. Gatwick had a throughput of only 7·8 million passengers last year. The £100 million redevelopment is virtually completed. This raises the capacity to 16 million. I am advised by the experts that this takes fully into account that there is only ore runway and that there is a seasonal peak in the demand. But it also assumes that the improvements in the rail-link which were dealt with by my noble friend Lady Stedman in answer to an Unstarred Question on 24th January should be completed within reasonable time.
The British Airports Authority announced yesterday that it will shortly make planning application for the development of the second terminal. The White Paper on airports policy stated that the proposal for a second runway at Gatwick should not be revived, which effectively limits development at Gatwick to a two-terminal airport. The Government are still of that view. The White Paper suggested that such an airport should be capable of handling 25 million passengers a year. I recognise that there is a strong body of opinion which takes the view that a single runway at Gatwick will be inadequate to handle such a volume of traffic.
Two main reasons have been advanced in support of this view. The first is the question of operational needs. It has been argued that closure of the runway could totally incapacitate the airport, and ground the aircraft possibly for a considerable time. Past experience does not support this view. Apart from planned maintenance and repairs which are carried out at night, usually in the off-season, and apart from closures due to adverse weather conditions which would not be reduced by having a second runway, the single runway at Gatwick has been out of use for relatively insignificant periods due to incidents or obstructions on the runway. Over the last nine years there has been an average of less than four hours closure per year due to incidents of this kind.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned, being always

2073
up to date, there was an announcement this morning that the British Airways Authority is seeking planning permission to widen the northern taxiway at Gatwick. It could then be used as an emergency runway when the main runway is obstructed. But it could not be used simultaneously with the main runway. Therefore, it could not become a second runway. At the present time, the Airports Authority is in consultation with the airlines on this issue, and it is also giving serious consideration as to whether the cost would be justified.
I come to the second reason why it may be thought that the capacity of one runway is not sufficient for 25 million passengers. The runway capacity at Heathrow is estimated at 160,000 air transport movements a year and, before going further, I wish to defend that figure. It will be readily understood that if you have two runways you cannot double the number of transport movements, because you need airspace for each of the runways; and there is the significant point which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, namely, that the runways at Heathrow were so close together that we could not safely make the fullest use of them.
At Heathrow we have on those two runways 269,000 movements, so we see no difficulty in having 160,000 movements on this single runway at Gatwick. At the present time the runway has less than 100,000 air traffic movements and the average passenger load is only 88. This relatively low figure in comparison with Heathrow reflects the mix of the traffic which currently uses Gatwick. However, with the increase in scheduled air services at Gatwick, the transfer of major blocks of traffic from Heathrow, the general trend towards larger aircraft and the introduction of new fares structures on scheduled routes, which are designed specifically to fill vacant seats on aircraft, there is little doubt that the average passenger load per aircraft will grow considerably during the next decade. When it reaches 168, then, assuming that 90 per cent. of the movements at Gatwick are passenger aircraft, the runway will be capable of handling 25 million passengers a year. And 168 is not outrageous; the third terminal at Heathrow already exceeds that figure.
One can hardly predict exactly when
2074
we will reach this situation, but all the forecasts indicate that it will be reached. The British Airports Authority are confident that the single runway at Gatwick will be sufficient to handle 25 million passengers a year and the Government see no reason to dissent from that view. In the light of that, and bearing in mind the Government's decision effectively to limit the extension of Gatwick to a capacity of 25 million, it is not envisaged that a second runway will be required at Gatwick.
Luton in 1973 had 3 million passengers. It is now down to 2 million. Nevertheless, as the White Paper indicates, we visualise an extension of the terminal buildings which would increase the capacity to 5 million. The local authority is considering the timing of this development. There are no plans by the Government to purchase Luton airport; that would be a matter for discussion and negotiation between the BAA and the local authority. The Government are quite happy to leave it at that. Stansted has a throughput of only 300,000, though it is capable at the moment of taking at least 1 million, and, as announced in the White Paper, we have at this stage of development an extension of the terminal buildings which would give a throughput of 4 million passengers capacity.
In the White Paper the Government identified three possible options. The first was the development of Stansted as an airport. The second was the conversion of a military airport to civil use, and the third was the construction of an entirely new airport. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, the Advisory Committee and the study group are at present evaluating these options, and they are doing so with a sense of urgency. The intention is that the work of the study group and the Advisory Committee should form the basis of a document to be completed this autumn, and this should evaluate the options. This document will be published, and will serve as a basis for consultation on the options with a wide range of interests including local and environmental bodies. It is intended that this process should be completed in time for decisions on the longer term airports capacity to be reached by the end of 1980—by the end of next year we expect the decision to be taken.
I should like to sum up the position in the following way. Last year the throughput of the four London airports was

2075
36 million. The capacity is 50 million. Within the next decade we intend to increase the capacity to 72 million; that is to say, to double last year's throughput. Of course timing is of the essence, but we are assured by the British Airports Authority that in its opinion the work will be completed in time, provided that there is no undue delay in planning procedure. So far as the long-term is concerned, as I have indicated, we are working towards a decision next year.
I believe that I have covered the main ground, but I would add two points. First, we shall look at the record of what has been said, and in so far as I have not covered any points which call for replies in writing, letters will certainly be sent. Secondly, I can assure the House that what has been said, especially by the noble Lord who led the debate, as well as by all those who followed, will be taken into account when the final decisions are made—
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Lord deal with the following point before he sits down? In view of his confident assertion that a single runway airport at Gatwick can handle 25 million passengers a year, can he explain why, throughout the world, airports which aim at much lower annual throughputs provide two or indeed three runways? Why does the noble Lord think that he is right and all the rest of the world is wrong?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that the others were right when they built their airports, and that I am right when I am building my airport. The circumstances are quite different. The average passenger load at Gatwick at the moment is 88, whereas an average of 168 is required to carry the 25 million passengers. Other countries were planning for entirely different circumstances from those for which we are planning. That, I believe, is almost a perfect answer to the noble Lord.