Lords Sitting of 24 July 1979

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

LORD HARRIS OF HIGH CROSS
Ralph Harris, Esquire, having been created Baron Harris of High Cross, of Tottenham in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Robbins and the Lord Houghton of Sowerby.

BARONESS RYDER OF WARSAW
Margaret Susan Ryder Cheshire, CMG, OBE, wife of Geoffrey Leonard Cheshire, Esquire, VC, DSO, DFC, having been created Baroness Ryder of Warsaw, of Warsaw in Poland, and of Cavendish in the County of Suffolk, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Dowding and the Baroness Hylton-Foster.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MILLBANK HOSPITAL: FUTURE
2.45 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the future of Millbank Hospital.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to redevelop the whole of the hospital site, as resources become available, to provide new accommodation for the Tate Gallery. In the meantime, existing buildings are being converted to display the Turner Collection and to provide additional facilities for the Gallery.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the longer delay occurs about this matter, the further this building is likely to deteriorate? Is he able to give an estimate of what in the meantime is the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining the hospital in a proper state of repair?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot give an estimate of what it would cost to keep the hospital because that is now history, but what I can tell the noble Lord is that the immediate conversion to enable us to show various exhibits and to use it for archive purposes will be about £700,000.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to convey to the Secretary of State for Defence that it would be an affront if this site were handed over to the demolition experts without leaving some memorial to the fact that for the better part of a century officers and other ranks of the Royal Army Medical Corps and members of the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service rendered yeoman service there, including looking after the first wounded from Mons, and that the British Army will always have an affection for this hospital, particularly those of us who on many occasions have benefited from being a patient in it?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the goodwill towards and affection for the Army and the Armed Forces on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, are well known. I have every sympathy with what he has said and will certainly convey his remarks to my right honourable friend.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that he has sounded the death knell of the use of this building as a hospital?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, but this has been a death knell which has been accepted by past Governments of both the noble Lord's and my party. Perhaps I should have added in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that it is not necessary, and I hope it may not be necessary, for the actual shell of the building as we look at it from the Tate side to be pulled down, even in the final development.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if there is any question at all of the building being disposed of, by which I mean sold, may I ask the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend to secure some of the money for the National Health Service?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is being mischievous; there is no intention of disposing of this building for that purpose.

PROPOSED NEW BIRMINGHAM-OXFORD ROAD
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: 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 is their policy with regard to the proposed new road between Birmingham and Oxford.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has said in another place that he will make available shortly an interim statement on his policy for trunk roads. Final decisions on the trunk road programme cannot be taken until the Government have completed their consideration of the public expenditure programme for the next few years. The Government intend to give priority to roads required to meet industrial needs, roads to the ports, and those which relieve the worst congestion and environmental problems. The proposed new road between Birmingham and Oxford fits into these categories.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. May I press him a little further to give me a date when the White Paper will be published and to say how soon after that a decision will be made regarding this particular road?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, a short document will be available quite soon, and it will give the Minister's broad outlines of policy. The actual detailed White Paper will take a little longer, but I hope that we might see it by the end of this year.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that, whatever further road development takes place, there will not be any more encroachment into the Oxford Green Belt, to which there have already been many inroads from various directions?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but I do not think that it comes into this particular context.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how short the document will be?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I do not know how short the noble Lord means by "short", but it will not be very long.

PAY AND PRODUCTIVITY: PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING
2.51 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: 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 aim to confer with representatives of employers, trade unions and other interested parties under conditions which might enable a better public understanding to be gained of the effects on the national economy of pay increases which are not matched by increases in productivity.
The MINISTER of STATE, TREASURY (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, it is a major concern of the Government to improve public understanding of the general economic context of their policies and of the consequences of pay increases of different magnitudes. In particular I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the desire which we expressed in our Manifesto for
"… more open and informed discussion of the Government's economic objectives … so that there is wider understanding of the consequences of unrealistic bargaining and industrial action".
More recently, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his Budget Statement to the Government's willingness to examine better

1807
methods of ensuring that the implications of higher pay without higher productivity were fully understood by all those concerned with wage negotiation. Noble Lords will not expect me to be able to comment in detail at this stage, but I can say that Ministers are giving careful consideration to all the issues that would be involved in setting up discussions of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, refers.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those expressions of sympathy so far as they go. But is he aware that his inability to give a somewhat more positive reply will be a disappointment to many people who are seeking common ground on which to improve our economic and industrial performance? Is not the need for an educational process of this kind one of the few matters on which there is a consensus among elements in all political parties and between many employers and trade union leaders, on which we could build together?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Government entirely appreciate the importance and the value of the educational process, and we believe that everything possible should be done to improve the flow of information to those who take part in decisions affecting pay bargaining. Ministers have repeatedly made their views on this subject known both in another place and in your Lordships' House.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, may I ask one more supplementary question? Is it not essential for the Government to give a lead in this matter immediately if it is to have any effect on pay negotiations in the near future? Without such a process, how are we to avoid increased inflation, more bankruptcies and even higher unemployment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, we are fully aware of the importance of improving public understanding of economic policy, but when it comes to embarking upon discussions of the kind to which the noble Lord refers it is very important that this should be got right. The issue is a difficult and complex one, and we are anxious to ensure that whatever
1808
measures are taken are effective and successful. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers have already made clear how important it is that increased pay should be matched by increased productivity.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Alan Fisher, of the National Union of Public Employees, said on the radio this morning that Government action would lead to half a million more unemployed? Is this not rather an irresponsible statement coming from someone who is responsible for the public sector; and would my noble friend continue to repeat, as did Ministers in the previous Government—repeat and repeat, again and again—that irresponsible pay increases, whether in the public or the private sector, must lead to reduced employment?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, the Government are obviously not responsible for statements which are made by other people, but we have made it clear again and again that we are determined to stick to our monetary targets. As a result, if there are excessive pay increases they can result only in threatening jobs and in putting firms, on which jobs depend, out of business. This is a matter which we would expect responsible bargainers on both sides to take fully into account.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, bearing in mind the fact that the Tory Party fought the last election on free negotiations for trade unions, can the Minister object if they have fixed their guidelines in the same way as the Government have fixed theirs for the top people, like judges, doctors and dentists, at 20 per cent?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, we are not fixing guidelines, and we have taken great care not to do so. What we have done, and will continue to do, is to draw the attention of everybody concerned to the inevitable link which exists between excessive settlements and jobs and the prosperity of industry.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that, although he is quite right in saying that Ministers of this and the former Government have insisted on the connection between productivity

1809
and pay increases, it is very doubtful whether that connection has yet got home to the general public? Would it be improper for me to suggest that some short analysis of the material contained in, let us say, Professor Henry Phelps Brown's authoritative pamphlet on the subject, or of the most valuable information gathered together by the Diamond Commission, might help in this matter?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am always very happy to agree with the noble Lord. We have endeavoured, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, to impress these facts upon public opinion, and we shall go on doing so. The specific suggestions which the noble Lord makes are interesting, and we shall be very happy to look at them.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that statements by the Government, however correct and however much reinforced by extracts from authoritative sources, do not carry the same conviction as would flow from discussions with the people who are involved—discussions of the kind proposed by my noble friend Lord Rochester?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, Ministers have held discussions with bodies representative of both employers and employees, and they will go on doing so. The Government's views in this matter carry great authority, and we very much appreciate any help or assistance which is given by other people in bringing these truths home to the mass of our people.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that past platitudes will not get us anywhere? Is he further aware that Government policy itself is adding to the possibilities of price increases and other charges, which will in turn add to the wages bill? If he wants an educational process, why not start at No. 10 Downing Street?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, there are no platitudes in the Government's policies. In fact, the Government's policy consists of actions specifically directed to curing the ills of the British economy which were created by five years of mis-management of our affairs by a Labour Administration.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this 19th
1810
century concept of continuously increased production is a concept embracing the period of mountains of butter, seas and lakes of milk and wine and the overproduction of micro-chips? Is he not aware that increased production cannot be entered into modern economics with the automation which is now being introduced all over the world, and that we are getting the results of this situation more than ever in the history of mankind?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reminiscences. I myself was not born in he 19th century. The policies we are following are directed to the problems of the last quarter of the 20th century.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what increase of productivity is expected of the Members of the European Parliament whose salary is being increased from nil to some £8,000 per year, and whether this presupposes a change in Government policy which was to oppose any increase of productivity by that institution?
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I do not think it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to express views about the level of productivity of Members of the European Parliament.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, when the noble Lord tries to assure us that the Government are acting as a doctor in order to cure our economic ills, would he be kind enough to try to assume the tone of a cheerful doctor instead of that of an undertaker?

PEERS AND LOBBY CORRESPONDENTS: IMPROVED CONTACTS
3.2 p.m.
Lord WHADDON: 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 the Leader of the House whether he will consider the establishment of suitable facilities for Lords and accredited Lobby correspondents to meet on an informal basis within the precincts of the House.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, this is a matter in the first place for the Administration Committee. The Committee last considered the provision of a bar for Peers and Lobby correspondents as recently as March last year. They concluded that it was not a practical proposition because of the lack of accommodation and the cost involved. The Committee suggested that journalists and Peers might be encouraged to use the Lords' Bar. Peers may, of course, invite journalists to the Guest Room as their guests.
Lord WHADDON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he not agree that greater access for accredited correspondents, as of right instead of by invitation, would lead to greater understanding by the public of the issues debated in this House? Furthermore, would he not agree that the similar facilities available at the other end of the Palace of Westminster have been of great advantage there?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, as noble Lords know, there are difficulties about accommodation at this end of the corridor. It has been looked at over a long period of time. Would that matters were better! But they are not, and we have grave difficulties. I must say that my experience has been that, if journalists have wanted to seek out noble Lords, they have always managed to succeed in doing so. And, as I say, perhaps the Lords' Bar could be used rather more than it is.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be helpful if he accepted my noble friend's suggestion, because we are going to undergo a number of U-turns within the next few months and it would be helpful if the Government could explain them to journalists?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord need worry on that score. We shall find plenty of means of explaining our policies both to noble Lords and to journalists—for whom they will be so self-evidently right that they will fall on receptive ears.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would my noble friend at least treat this
1812
as a priority? Would he at the very earliest opportunity take advantage of any accommodation becoming available? Is he aware that there are a large number of Members in this House who think that it would be a very desirable development to encourage journalists to visit this end of the Palace of Westminster rather more frequently than they do?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, undoubtedly, it would be nice if it were possible. This has been considered by the Administration Committee, and I have no doubt that, if the House so willed, they would be ready to consider the matter again. It is not for me to give obiter dicta on whether or not this is right. In principle, it would be nice; but we suffer from certain shortages of accommodation and that is a fact of life.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not my noble friend consider that, since the House of Lords now is much more active than it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago and has many more active Members now than before, whereas the House of Commons has remained static in that respect, there is a case for recovery from the House of Commons of such territory as the Pugin Room, which was ceded to them in a period of Lords' weakness and Commons' bombastry?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, it was a considerable time back when this was done. I think that the other place would have some difficulty in giving it up now.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that if some change of this kind could be made noble Lords here could have an entertainment allowance; for without that I do not think they would be able to entertain the Press very much?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, this would be possible; in fact, it is possible. If noble Lords wish to, I am sure that there will be the possibility of so doing.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, returning to the original Question, would the noble Lord not agree with the sentiment that I think has been expressed on both sides of this House: that this is a matter of extreme importance for the future of the House of Lords? Day after day, I sit

1813
here on the Cross-Benches hearing the most expert and illuminating speeches; and day after day I open the quality newspapers—even the newspaper of which I was at one time chairman—and read no evidence whatever of the discussions which have taken place. It really is important for this House and for the country at large that the things which are said in this House should be more broadly reported.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord that one would wish to see greater coverage of what takes place here. I must say that I think that since broadcasting was brought in, what goes on in this House in the way of business and speeches has got to the public ear very much more successfully than happened up to that time. I think that that was an important addition. Unfortunately, the Press Gallery here is not always as full as noble Lords would wish, but this is a matter for the journals concerned. Certainly, the more contact there can be between the Lobby and noble Lords the better. I think that that has always been the case. It is a question of working both ways. It is not only journalists seeking access here but also us trying to put our points over to the media.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, on the subject of getting the work of this House better known to the wider world, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House has read the Hansard of the debate that we had on the report of the Select Committee on Textiles on which both the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and I spoke of the need not merely to publish but to publicise these splendid documents. Even on the publication side there was a poor distribution of this notable report on textiles. I hope that the noble Lord has read it or will read it and will be able to assure the House that some arrangements are possible to make the good work known.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, many efforts have been made, but without the degree of success that we would have wished.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, do I detect in the reply from the noble Lord the
1814
Leader of the House a desire to take this matter away and sympathetically to review it?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the thought that underlies the Question. There are two difficulties from my point of view. One is that the Administration Committee has given a lot of thought already to this and will doubtless continue to do so; secondly, there is not the extent of accommodation that we would wish to have. Subject to that limitation, the point has been well taken, and I hope that it will be well taken not only within this House but also outside it.
Lord TAYLOR: My Lords, could the noble Lord say who precisely is entitled to use the Lords' Bar at present?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, everyone in your Lordships' House.
Lord TAYLOR: My Lords, I believe it is open to many other persons as well. It is in the basement, is it not?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, it is certainly not confined to Members of your Lordships' House. It is open to anyone in the Palace of Westminster to use. It is a bar where such activities as underlie this Question could be carried on.
Lord TAYLOR: My Lords, would I not be right in suspecting that many of your Lordships have never visited the Lords' Bar?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, that may be so. It is very agreeable and has access to the Terrace.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on the issue of accommodation, will the noble Lord take this further point into consideration? At present the Lobby are excluded from the Princes Chamber, whereas they have access to the Members' Lobby at the other end of the corridor. Possibly if the Lobby correspondents were given access to the Princes Chamber, that might have a considerably ameliorating effect until proper accommodation can be found.
Lord SOAMES: I wonder whether the noble Earl is right, because the Peers'

1815
Lobby is really the equivalent of the Members' Lobby in the House of Commons, and members of the Lobby do have access to that.

GENEVA CONFERENCE ON INDO-CHINESE REFUGEES
3.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement regarding the conclusions of the Geneva Conference on the Indo-Chinese refugees."
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is in Brussels today, I shall reply to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
My Lords, in response to the proposal that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made to him on 31st May, and with the support of many other Governments, the United Nations Secretary-General called an international meeting in Geneva on 20th and 21st July to discuss the problem of refugees and displaced persons in South-East Asia. Sixty-five countries were represented. My noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State (Mr. Blaker) attended the meeting together with the Governor of Hong Kong. Each Government stated their views. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Dr. Waldheim summed up.
As my noble friend said in his speech, and Dr. Waldheim confirmed, this meeting was unprecedented. It was also important and could have even more important results. In concentrating international attention on the plight of the refugees and on the urgent need to help them and the countries in which they have sought refuge, the conference was humanitarian. But it was widely agreed that the problem could not be solved unless attention was also given to its root causes and that these have been the inhumane policies of Vietnam.
1816
The conference resulted in a massive increase in offers of resettlement places, from 125,000 to 260,000, and in new pledges of additional financial support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' activities amounting to 190 million United States dollars. The Vietnamese Government indicated that they would suspend for a time the export of boat people, the first time that this Government have acknowledged even implicitly that they control this wicked traffic, and will discuss measures for the safe and orderly departure of those of their citizens who wish to leave. The conference also demonstrated the strength of international concern about Cambodia, the need for a political settlement in that strife-torn country and the even more urgent need for food aid to its starving people.
There was also widespread affirmation of several vital humanitarian principles repeated in Dr. Waldheim's summing-up: the basic right of individuals to stay in their own country or leave as a matter of free will; that when they leave they must have orderly arrangements for departure; a safe journey and an assured destination; that the principle of first asylum must be respected by the countries to which the refugees now flee; and that the international community must work together for their resettlement. In their respect for human values these are vital principles.
None of this would have happened if there had not been a conference. And the conference would not have taken place if Britain had not proposed it. We commend Dr. Waldheim and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for bringing it about in a matter of weeks.
We hope that the world community now has at least a breathing space while it sets about the urgent task of clearing the refugee camps in South-East Asia and so giving new lives to the boat people and land refugees. This is the first priority as Dr. Waldheim repeated in his summing-up. The world community is clearly ready to grasp its responsibilities for bringing order into the human misery which marks the refugee situation in South-East Asia. The world now looks to Vietnam to show the same responsibility as a member of the community of nations.

1817
Copies of my noble friend's speech, and of the final statements by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Dr. Waldheim are being placed in the Library of the House.
3.16 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full Statement. Is he aware that, despite political differences, we would wish to express appreciation of the Prime Minister in initiating this conference which has had such valuable results? Is it not the case that Dr. Waldheim, the United Nations Secretary-General in effect saved this conference when it was in danger of political controversy, and has not the status of the United Nations been greatly enhanced by the service which he and the Commissioner for Refugees gave to the conference? Is the noble Lord aware that we desire to express our tribute to the island of the Philippines and to Indonesia for providing transit accommodation to the refugees, and particularly to Hong Kong which has in a humanitarian way received the refugees at a cost of £13 million a year? Will the Government be making some contribution to Hong Kong to meet that cost?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may we associate ourselves with the tribute which has been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to those responsible for setting this conference on foot, and particularly to the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, who played such a significant and important role in ensuring that the outcome is as successful as it has been? Would the noble Lord consider publishing a table showing commitments already undertaken by various nations prior to the conference, and those now entered into as a result of the proceedings, both in terms of the number of refugees that they are prepared to take and the financial contributions towards defraying the cost of resettlement?
Would the noble Lord confirm that the net emigration over immigration in the United Kingdom over the past eight years has averaged 37,500 and therefore to put the 10,000 refugees that we have agreed to accept in context, they represent fewer than one quarter of the outflow from this country in a typical year. Therefore there is no danger that the acceptance by the
1818
United Kingdom of this number of refugees will make the slightest difference to the domestic composition of the population. In view of the success of this Conference, would Her Majesty's Government take the initiative in convening similar exercises where refugee problems arise in other parts of the world, particularly in the Horn of Africa, to which attention was drawn by Professor Richard Greenfield in a recent letter to the Guardian.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for what they have said. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, somewhat oversimplifies the problems in accepting a large number of refugees in this country from the Far East or from anywhere else. We have offered, as the noble Lord will know, and as my noble friend confirmed in Geneva, to accept 10,000 additional refugees, and the process of accepting those is now going ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to the special position of Hong Kong in this matter. Hong Kong will certainly benefit from the Geneva Conference in two ways: the reduction in outflow from Vietnam and from the speedier resettlement of no fewer than 66,000 refugees who now find themselves there. As the Governor emphasised in his speech, there is a clear need for Hong Kong to be given more resettlement places. This has been fully recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others concerned.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the fact that one of the saddest aspects of this problem is the divided families, and especially the orphaned children, any machinery is being set up to try to trace relations?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the re-uniting of divided families was one of the earliest matters to which the Vietnamese Government agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—I think it was as far back as May.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that we on this side of the House join wholeheartedly with my noble

1819
friend Lord Brockway in his expression of appreciation of the Prime Minister's initiative and indeed of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's actions and statements in Geneva? No doubt the noble Lord will recall that as far back as last November the preceding Government made a similar attempt in Geneva, led by Mr. Evan Luard, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to get a solution of this human problem in its very early stages. We can only hope that the results of last week's conference will indeed prove fruitful.
It is in no sense of cavilling that I raise the question that is indeed implicit in the second paragraph of the Statement, where it is stated that:
"the conference was humanitarian".
It was an attempt to solve the humanitarian problems, the terrible suffering and the loss of life, by drowning and in other ways, of hundreds and thousands of refugees in this area. Certainly the conference was "humanitarian" but, if I may quote again:
"it was widely agreed that the problem could not be solved unless attention was also given to its root causes and that these have been the inhumane policies of Vietnam".
While in no way minimising the results of this conference, which everybody in every party in this country and indeed throughout the civilised world hopes will lead to a solution of the problem, one is bound to say that one hopes. I would ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is considerable concern lest what we are doing on the humanitarian front, measured in terms of money and services—and we warmly welcome what was said about these in the Statement—may be regarded by the totalitarian Government of Vietnam as underwriting the continuation of their inhumane policies: in other words, "We produce the refugees and you rescue them and pay for them"? That, unfortunately, is the way in which many may think. I would ask the Minister to give attention to this, as indeed I know he will, and also to the import of the second paragraph—and none will do so more than the Secretary of State, who is well aware of the dichotomy involved in this policy.
1820
May I ask him also to accept our appreciation of the fact that the terrible suffering in Cambodia has not gone unremarked and unattended? Finally, may I ask him to give us, either today or as soon as due consideration has been given to the matter at ministerial and official level here and elsewhere, an assurance that attention has been given to the follow-up machinery? Here we have nations which are responsible for this situation coming a long way to agreeing with the West as to the courses and the means of redress; but it is necessary that the United Nations, with Britain in the van, should see to it that these decisions, substantial as they are, are in fact practically pursued.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer all the questions together or individually?—because I want to repeat to him a question which I put several weeks ago even before the conference took place. I agree entirely with the humanitarian aspects of the problem—entirely, without any reservation at all—but I asked a question and I want an answer to it, because it is a political issue also. Were the Soviet Government and the Chinese People's Government present at the conference? If so, what guarantee did they give that they will reorientate their political attitudes in order to prevent this disaster from recurring?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the helpful things that he said. He asked about curing the disease as well as the symptoms. I think the conference was very effective in treating the symptoms of the disease but, with regard to the disease itself, the United Nations Secretary-General was authorised by the Vietnamese Government in his final speech to make certain undertakings, the effect of which, if carried through as we hope they will be, will be effectively to control and restrict the outflow of refugees from Vietnam. It was a solemn and formal undertaking given to the United Nations Secretary-General, and we hope they will honour it.
The noble Lord also referred to the follow-up action. We welcomed Dr. Waldheim's undertaking to present a comprehensive report on the refugee situation in South-East Asia and on the

1821
implementation of the action planned for the next General Assembly. This will allow the international community to review the situation, and in particular the way in which Vietnam has fulfilled its undertaking to the Secretary-General, in about three or four months' time.
If I may now reply, more effectively, I hope, to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: yes, both Russia and China were at the conference. We thought that the Chinese contribution was rather more helpful than the Russian one, but, all the same, both were welcome.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what the Americans are doing about this? Has he observed that refugee problems arise when an invader is expelled, leaving behind supporters who are neither protected nor wanted in their home country? Also in this case the Americans, who both recruited and abandoned these people, seem to be doing nothing about them. Would not President Carter's predilection for human rights be perhaps better exercised by recognising his and the American responsibility towards them?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that that is entirely fair. There was, of course, a long and tragic war in which America certainly took part in the latter stages, but the war had been going on for many, many years before the Americans even became involved. Despite that, however, the Americans have accepted, according to my figures, 225,000 refugees.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask a simple question? While thanking the Government for the excellent services in respect of this conference, may I ask what steps are being taken at present to see to it that those who are considering the Helsinki Agreement shall at the next meeting have the fullest possible information about the decisions of this particular conference? Will an attempt be made to make them realise that there are certain sections of it against which some of them are committing grievous errors, and to try to get them to understand what civilised people really want?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Helsinki Agreement related to affairs in Europe and not the Far East.

FINANCE BILL
3.30 p.m.
Lord COCKFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a (Lord Cockfield.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EDUCATION BILL
3.31 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Baroness DAVID Baroness DAVID moved the Amendment:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Transfer
. Those local authorities to whom sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Education Act 1976 applied in whole or in part prior to their repeal by this Act shall have the duty of ensuring that pupils can transfer easily from secondary modern schools to grammar schools and of publishing annually information for parents and teachers detailing the methods and costs of transfer from one type of secondary school to another.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there was a good deal of sympathy for the new clause on transfer that I moved last Thursday. This sympathy, and the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that a clause declaring a general duty of LEAs to facilitate transfer and to provide information to parents and teachers might be acceptable, have caused us to come forward with this new clause.
The noble Baroness the Minister, in rejecting the clause that we put forward in Committee last week, said:
"…were we to put into a Bill a requirement like this, we should be disturbing the balance between central and local government".

1823
And, again,
"because it would go fundamentally against this important but rather delicate relationship between central and local government in education … I cannot accept this Amendment ".—[Official Report, 19/7/79; cols. 1560–61.]
I hope that our new clause will be acceptable to the Minister, as it interferes not at all with the relationship between central and local government. It asks simply for transfer to be made easy.
I have some sympathy with the attitude of my noble friend Lady Bacon, who thinks that any tinkering with a bad scheme is not helpful. But I feel that individual children may suffer badly in areas that are continuing with the selective system, and that great injustice may be done to them. They will not have the opportunities that they should have. This new clause asks for information to be freely available to parents and teachers, and everybody in the local community, and this I understand to be very much a tenet of the Government at this moment. So I hope that the House will be able to support the new clause as it now stands. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady David, to facilitate the transfer of pupils from secondary modern schools to grammar schools during their school career, where this would be right, and to ensure that full information about the admission arrangements to secondary schools is published. I think, however, that it would only be right for me to explain at the outset that this new clause is not germane to the Bill, because the sole purpose of the Bill is to restore to local education authorities and to governors of voluntary schools, where appropriate, their right to initiate proposals relating to secondary school organisation, and to repeal the powers of the Secretary of State to require such proposals under duress.
Section 8 of the 1944 Education Act already provides that it is the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools for providing secondary education that is suitable to the requirements of senior pupils. In order to be sufficient in the terms of that section, the authority must provide,
1824
"… for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities, and aptitudes".
It is on this statutory basis that authorities have provided opportunities for transfer from secondary modern to grammar schools, where they still exist.
The details of such arrangements have always been a matter for local education authorities to determine in consultation with the schools in their area. They have many years of experience in these matters, and I see no justification for introducing a further statutory requirement. So that, so far as the first part of this amendment is concerned, local education authorities already have the power to do what the amendment is asking. Pupils can transfer from one school to another, and we see no need to replace this with a further duty on local education authorities.
So far as the second half of the amendment is concerned, I share the view—and I am sure that this is one which is held by other Members of your Lordships' House—that much more information about schools and their admission arrangements should be published. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that when we said in the gracious Speech that we would introduce legislation to ensure that,
"parents' wishes are taken into account in the choice of schools for their children and that there is a local appeals system",
it is our intention to introduce this legislation in our second Education Bill, which we hope to introduce in the autumn. That being so, we believe that the second part of this amendment will be met in subsequent legislation.
I think, therefore, that a clause about information for parents would be far more appropriate in the later Education Bill, because that Bill will also make provisions covering admissions to all schools and not just transfer between secondary schools. We shall also have an opportunity to debate the clauses on school admissions included in the Bill, and it seems to me only logical that a comprehensive provision on the publication of information should be part of whatever clauses are agreed to on school admissions. School admissions and transfer and information are, as it were, two sides of a very important point and one needs to be balanced against the other.

1825
I have carefully noted the points that the noble Baroness and other speakers made when this matter was debated at an earlier stage. I have read them carefully and I shall take note of what has been said this afternoon, so that all this may be borne in mind in the preparation of the second Education Bill. With that assurance, I hope very much that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
3.37 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I do not think that some of us can really accept either of the points which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is making. On the first one, about provision for transfer between schools, I admit that there is an arguable case on both sides, though I think that in putting forward this amendment a lot of us had in mind the really appalling difficulties that have been found in the past in seeing that this happened. The noble Baroness spoke rather as if everything went smoothly, and children were transferred when they needed to be. We know from speeches made at the Committee stage that the system does not always work well, and the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, gave us an example of that. Back in the days when there was selection universally, many were the horror stories about the difficulty of getting children changed from one type of school to another, when it was necessary. A very great deal of that has disappeared over the years, because of the comprehensive system. But where that system does not apply, there are still difficulties and there is probably still a need for that to be in the Bill.
But much more important is the second half of the amendment. I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that provisions to this effect will be in the second Education Bill which is to be brought forward, and certainly, I, for one, will heartily support them when that happens. But there is a particular point. We are dealing in this amendment with those schools and those education authorities which come under the classification with which this Bill is dealing. These schools will be having problems, making decisions and going through processes during the next few months, and it is not good enough to say that we
1826
must wait for an autumn Bill to include this. With regard to these schools, it is now that this is needed. If it were not that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to be as innocent as a dove, I should suspect that the reason for putting off this Amendment is that, if we pass it, it will wreck either the Government's legislative programme or the programme of another place. However, since I know that the noble Baroness would not approach the problem in that light, I find it very difficult to understand why this amendment is opposed. Therefore, I hope very much that it will succeed.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I must apologise for not being in your Lordships' Chamber when this amendment was moved. However, I was under the impression that there was to be a debate on the Finance Bill and that eight noble Lords were to speak in that debate. That being so, I thought that I had time for a cup of tea before the Report stage of the Education Bill began. It will be remembered that when we discussed the Committee stage of the Bill my name was attached to all of the amendments except the one about transfers. I explained during the Committee stage that this was because it was very difficult to devise any satisfactory method of transfers. I hope that transfers, no matter how easy they become, will not be regarded as an answer to the 11-plus separation which takes place. It was for that reason that I did not put down my name to that amendment. However, this is a rather different amendment from the one which we had before us during the Committee stage.
Although I do not in any way take back anything that I said about this amendment not being an answer to the 11-plus, I feel that I can fully support it because it says that it will be the duty of these local authorities to ensure:
"that pupils can transfer easily from secondary modern schools to grammar schools…".
That is absolutely essential in those few backward and reactionary places where there will still be secondary modern schools and grammar schools.
My experience has always been that it is the number of places available in the grammar schools to which children are proposed to be transferred rather than the ability of the children who are being

1827
transferred which is the important factor. However, it is essential that the suitability of the child whom it is proposed to transfer to the grammar school should be considered, rather than whether or not there are enough places in the grammar school.
Although mistakes are made over the 11-plus, I very rarely hear of children being transferred from grammar schools to secondary modern schools. However, I am sure that, with the 11-plus, mistakes are made both ways. Children who should have passed the 11-plus do not pass, and sometimes it would be better if some children, who have gone to grammar schools, were doing different courses. Of course, all courses are provided in comprehensive schools. That is the beauty of the comprehensive school system. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept this amendment, because it asks that transfers should be made easier—and that, I think, is absolutely essential in those places where the 11-plus remains.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I felt that it went a long way towards meeting the objections which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to the amendment which was put down at the Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady David. As I understood it, those objections were based on her feeling that, as originally proposed, the amendment was upsetting what she described as the delicate balance between the duties of the local education authority and central Government. It was my noble friend, if I may call him so, Lord Beaumont of Whitley who suggested during the Committee stage that the case might be met by a declaratory clause of this kind.
I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has changed her ground. However, she has come forward with two objections to this amendment: first, that the first half of it is unnecessary, because it is already provided for, and, secondly, that the second part of it would do better in another Bill. I am sure that there is a great deal to be said for both of those points of view. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, there is clear evidence that transfers have not been easy and that there have been difficulties about these transfers in a number of areas. Therefore,
1828
it seems to me that there is no harm whatever in repeating something which, as the noble Baroness rightly says, is already the duty of local education authorities.
As regards the publishing of information, I should be prepared to accept the view that if the Government can give an assurance that they will bring something forward in the next Bill, this can wait. There is not, perhaps, a great deal of value in introducing a new procedure and then having to alter it in some detail within six months or a year. On the other hand, I take the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that when there is this difficulty and that when these problems are going to arise immediately in respect of the local authorities which are covered by this clause—and, indeed, by the Bill as a whole—it is desirable to have something put down. And what is put down is not a detailed arrangement but merely the requirement that local authorities shall publish information annually on the lines suggested here. Therefore, on further consideration I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to accept this amendment. If she is unable to do so, I shall advise my noble friends to support it.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I do not want to repeat everything that I said in support of the amendment which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, during the Committee stage. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, what connection central Government can have with the transfer of individual children. How can they know whether an individual child in some remote part of the country is or is not suitable for transfer? The only people who can possibly know about that are the local education authority and, more particularly, the school the child is attending and the patents. They are the people who know the facts of the case. Nothing could be farther removed, surely, than central Government. I hope that the noble Baroness will not make hypothetical difficulties over this amendment.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, could I say two sentences in support of my noble friend's new clause. The first part of it is a vivid illustration of what was beginning to get better under the comprehensive system—as it grew, the need for transfers diminishing

1829
—and the new situation where there is an about-turn, even if, for the moment, only quite a small number of local authorities are going in the opposite direction. Although it is for the local authorities to make these decisions, a word from the centre—which has put them into reverse—might indicate that local authorities should observe that there is more reason now than there has been in the past to be very careful about this point.
As regards the second part of the amendment, we on this side of the House accept the good faith of the noble Baroness; namely, that in due course the kind of thing that is visualised here, in the way of information, will be included in the Government's next Bill. Indeed, I remember that during our long discussions over the 1976 Bill the noble Baroness pressed me very hard and that we circulated a very distinguished circular asking, very politely, all local education authorities to give a great deal more information than had ever been given before.
So I do not accuse the noble Baroness of being unsympathetic to this. On the other hand if we manage to keep this Government's Education Bill as long on the stocks as they kept ours, it may be quite a long time before a decision is made about this and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon suggested, I think that to put something in broad terms in this Bill, making it certain that that information will be available, not from next March or April but from now, will be a very wise thing. On the whole, I think my noble friend ought to press this amendment.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, as one of those who was not a signatory to this amendment and in fact saw it only when he came in this afternoon, I have only one point to make and that is very much in line with what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, had to say in drawing a clear distinction between the two parts of the amendment. I feel quite reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said about the forthcoming Education Bill which will take care of the second part of the amendment. With regard to the first part, I am inclined to support the mover of the amendment, for the reason put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—namely the time factor.
In speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, a Bill which I regard as most
1830
retrogressive, I made the point that it would increase the inequality of opportunity which is to some extent inevitable in different areas. It would increase it because of the freedom given to local education authorities to devise policies according to their political views. In view of the decision which will be made regarding the movement of children under the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act this autumn, it is important that it should be enjoined upon local authorities to ensure that these transfers can be made easily. From all I personally know and from what I have heard, these transfers have not been at all easy in some cases in the past. My concern is to limit the inevitable increase in inequality of opportunity which children will suffer under in the decisions to be made at the 11-plus.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, I also was caught out by the speed with which your Lordships discussed the Finance Bill.
A noble Lord: We did not discuss it!
Viscount ECCLES: I apologise for that, my Lords. Transfers have always been difficult, for a variety of reasons. Of course, in the first place, the grammar schools were building up and they did not want to take a number of boys or girls from the secondary modern schools while it was not possible to shed from the grammar schools the corresponding number of children back to the secondary modern schools. Your Lordships will surely know the ways of parents, as well as I do. Parents rarely mind if their child is promoted, but if their child is, as it were, demoted, they object very much, and that was one of the chief reasons why the number of transfers appeared to be unsatisfactorily low.
Of course, another reason was that the good secondary modern schools developed their own syllabus, and that syllabus did not really bring the children to the point where it was very easy to take them into a grammar school because they had been learning different things in different ways.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way? Is not everything he is saying now the greatest argument that I have heard for a long time in favour of the comprehensive schools?
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, on previous occasions I have said that if all comprehensive schools were good schools I should be in favour of nothing but comprehensive schools. I am taking the attitude on this Bill that I did on the 1976 Bill, because unfortunately I know that a very large number of comprehensive schools are not as good as the good secondary modern schools and for that reason we have a serious problem.
There was another reason that head teachers used to give me as to why it was difficult to make transfers. It was because all the things like having responsibility at the end of your school life, being in charge of something or looking after other children or, if you like, being captain of some sport, are very good for children and, if they transferred to a grammar school, it would perhaps not be so likely that they would have those lessons in responsibility which they could get if they remained. I think that was the reason why many head teachers did not encourage the transfers, but I am entirely with my noble friend Lady Young: we really want to wait to see the whole of this picture, because transferring between comprehensives will be just as important as transferring between secondary moderns and grammar schools.
Now that it is accepted, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, pointed out in his admirable speech on Second Reading, that the large comprehensive school is not viable except in the rarest cases and therefore, because of reasons of management, comprehensives have to be 800 or whatever number may be suitable, transfers between comprehensives will have to be arranged. It is far better that all that should be brought together in a new Bill. I have not seen the draft of the new Bill, but I am hopeful that—
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, did not say that. If your Lordships will read what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, you will see that he did not mention any numbers.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, I never said that Lord Alexander mentioned a number; I was merely saying that 800 is
1832
fairly often spoken about as being the sort of size of school that is manageable in a big city. I do not stand by one number or another, but I think that the problem of how we now sort out children of different degrees of ability, as we cannot have—except in rare cases—a grammar school inside a comprehensive school, is very difficult and requires new thought and, in my opinion, a new Bill. It is looking forward to that new Bill that makes me say that I would not myself accept this amendment today because it does not deal with the whole problem.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, as Lord Lieutenant I should probably remain neutral but as an ex-teacher I cannot do so. I must make a plea that we do not go backwards in time. I taught in the days of the 11-plus, when I can recall that 29 children in a class of 36 in London went to a grammar school, and I taught in a school in Surrey where 2 children out of 32 went to a grammar school. Why? Not because one group was more intelligent than the other but because there were more places available in one place than in the other.
We have passed the point where our children are at the mercy of the geography of the place in which they live for the type of education that they receive. We have got to a point where there has been some level of equal opportunities. I plead with your Lordships not to go back. This must be the most retrograde step that the new Government will take if they move back to a system that all who taught in those schools will deplore.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, I want only to make one short point. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in her speech. In the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, the word "easily" puzzles me. I know of cases where the teacher would willingly take in a pupil in a grammar school by way of transfer but there is not room. That means that more money has to be spent in making more room. I know of an instance of this in a school with which I am connected.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I add one sentence to this discussion. What possible reason can there be for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, not to accept

1833
the second part of this amendment? When great changes are made, such as have been made in the Education Bill, surely the one thing that is needed is to give parents and teachers more information, adequate information, to tell them that this is what is necessary because of these changes.
Lord BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not be influenced by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the great advocate of the status quo. He said that new thinking is required. Where better than at the school itself, where the pupils are, at the school?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, really spoke very well for this amendment. We are asking that the local education authorities should ensure that pupils can transfer freely. I would like to remind the House that there are 59 local authorities affected by this Bill and 383,000 children still in secondary modern schools, so a lot of children can be affected.
I do want to press this amendment. It has had a lot of support. I do think that, so far as the second half of the amendment is concerned, the time gap between this Bill and the suggested new Bill—after all, that cannot be started before November, and I should think it would take about a year if it is a long Bill—will be a lengthy one. A lot of children will be going through the stage of secondary education during that time. So I should like to press this amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, speaking on this amendment said that I had changed my ground from the time that we debated this subject at the Committee stage. Although it may well be that I do not have all the evil thoughts that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has attributed to me in my first reply on this particular amendment, I do, I hope, always look at amendments. If the amendment is different from the one previously moved I like to give a different reply in answering a second point. It does seem to me that one owes it in courtesy not only to your Lordships' House but to the mover of the amendment
1834
to address oneself to the point that is raised. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said in her opening remarks, this amendment is not identical with the amendment she moved in Committee. It is for that reason that I gave a different reply from the one that I gave at Committee.
The general point would still be true. I am not at all certain that local education authorities would welcome a duty imposed on them when they already have a power to do what the first part of this amendment is asking for. I would, however, like to reiterate this about the second part of this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, asked what possible reason I have for not accepting the second half. The reason why I feel unable to accept it is not because I and my noble friends do not agree precisely with the point that it is making. In fact we do. We said so at the time of the general election; we said that we believed in publication of much more information about schools. We said so in the Queen's Speech, and I have already indicated that it is our intention to cover this point in our second Education Bill.
However, the fact of the matter is that publication of information about schools is only one part of the argument. I believe parents need to have the maximum amount of information about schools and I think schools should publish a prospectus about themselves covering all aspects of their activities. But the problem that will arise—and this is the point my noble friend Lord Eccles made—is that where you get very popular comprehensive schools they will he over-subscribed. The more information you get, particularly details of staffing, equipment, examination results and so on, the more some schools will inevitably be thought to be better and will be better than others and will become over-subscribed. Then we have to have—and this is precisely the point the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord Lord Donaldson, made—something about admission limits. If one accepts half of the argument without having anything about admission limits one is accepting something which will not make very good sense legally. After all, we are talking about legislation. Therefore, I think it is important to try to get it right.

1835
There are other defects in this particular amendment, but I have not explained what they are because I do not feel that that is the important issue before the House. However, I should like to reiterate that we shall meet the second half of this amendment in our second Education Bill. As far as the first half of the amendment is concerned, local education authorities still have a power of transfer. There is one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked whether the central Government do interfere with the transfer of pupils from one school to another. I understand that this would be a very unusual event. I would not like to say that it has never happened. The Secretary of State has power to consider admissions under Section 68 of the 1944
Act, where he believes that a local education authority has acted unreasonably. I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Segal): My Lords, I regret that I also was caught by the rapid passage of the Finance Bill and did not call the amendment, because I had no copy in front of me. But an amendment has been proposed: after Clause 1 to insert the new clause as printed.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 133.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Parry, L.

Amherst, E.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L.

Amulree, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Gosford, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ashby, L.

Grey, E.

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hall, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bacon, B.

Hampton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Banks, L.

Hankey, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Barrington, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Ilchester, E.

Shinwell, L.

Byers, L.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Somers, L.

Clancarty, E.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Denington, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Walston, L.

Dowding, L.

Monson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Whaddon, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wigg, L.

Fulton, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Galpern, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cockfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Allerton, L.

Brookes, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buxton or Alsa, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Auckland, L.

Cairns, E.

Crathorne, L.

Avon, E.

Caithness, E.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Chelwood, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Barnby, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Daventry, V.

Bellwin, L.

Clitheroe, L.

de Clifford, L.

Belstead, L.

Clwyd, L.

De Freyne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Derwent, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renton, L.

Digby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Roberthall, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rochdale, V.

Dulverton, L.

Kimberley, E.

Romney, E.

Dundee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rootes, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rugby, L.

Eccles, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sackville, L.

Effingham, E.

Linlithgow, M.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Luke, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Exeter, M.

McFadzean, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Forester, L.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mansfield, E.

Sligo, M.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Soames, L.

Gainford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Spens, L.

Galloway, E.

Middleton, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Garner, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Monck, V.

Strathspey, L.

Glasgow, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Suffield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glendevon, L.

Newall, L.

Trenchard, V.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Gridley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Vickers, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

(L. Chancellor.)

Porritt, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Hanworth, V.

Powis, E.

Westbury, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Hatherton, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Hawke, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to Resolution:
4.16 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. We have spent some considerable time discussing with great care and attention the purposes of this short Bill. Several of my noble friends—and here I should like particularly to refer to my noble friend Lord Swinton—have said that if the Bill were against comprehensive schools they would not be supporting it. If that were so, we would not have introduced it. Conservative Secretaries of State have approved the establishment of many comprehensive schools and I fully expect my right honourable and learned friend to approve further proposals for comprehensive reorganisation during his period of office. What we are against is the principle of compulsion. We do not believe in imposing comprehensive schools everywhere—that is to say, we do not believe that all schools must be comprehensive if any school is to be comprehensive.
1838
We look forward as a Government to securing the best education for all children according to their respective needs. I said on Second Reading—and I regard this as so important that I shall repeat it again—that the real question we should be debating is the content of education, leaving local authorities to consider the form of organisation under which it should be carried out. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House would agree that what makes a school good has much less to do with the type of school that it is than with the quality of the head teacher; the quality of the staff and the ethos that the staff can create for learning and discipline; the range of courses available to the pupils; the social mix of the area which the school serves; the quality of the building and its resources and, not least, the support and involvement of the parents.
My Lords, we have been concerned with this short Bill which has the simple aim of removing the compulsion on local education authorities to reorganise secondary schools along comprehensive lines. We believe that decisions of this kind should be primarily theirs. What we have done is to go back to the position before 1976.

1839
May I in conclusion look forward to the consideration of the second Education Bill—to which I have already made reference—which the Government intend to introduce this Session. Much of what has been said during the passage of this Bill will appropriately fall within the scope of that measure also, and I look forward to the opportunity of further discussions on that occasion. In particular, we are as concerned as noble Lords opposite that urgent attention should be given to the question of admission limits to schools in a period of falling rolls. The very effect of falling rolls will influence the pattern of organisation of secondary schools and I am sure that we shall be grateful for the contribution of noble Lords on our proposals.
Today's Bill returns freedom of choice on the comprehensive principle to local authorities. Without choice, democracy withers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, this Bill makes selection at the age of 11 legal again. We have made it quite clear from this side of the House that we are totally opposed to that. I shall say no more.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PNEUMOCONIOSIS, BYSSINOSIS AND MISCELLANEOUS DISEASES BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1979
4.20 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, I beg to move that the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1979, laid before the House on 15th June 1979, be approved. It may be helpful if I first say something in general about the principal benefit scheme—the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1966—which the amendment scheme alters, before I go on to explain the purpose and effects of the amendment scheme.
Benefits for accidents and diseases due to employment after 4th July 1948 are provided by the main Industrial Injuries
1840
Scheme under the Social Security Act 1975. Workers suffering from accidents or diseases due to employment before 5th July 1948 receive weekly payments under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. But there are some workers who suffer from certain diseases which develop slowly and appear long after exposure to the cause at work. These workers cannot benefit under either of the two provisions I have mentioned. They cannot claim under the Industrial Injuries Scheme unless they were employed in a relevant employment on or after 5th. July 1948; and they cannot claim under the Workmen's Compensation Acts because of the absolute time limit for claims. The principal Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme was therefore enacted, under what is now the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975, to ensure that these workers should not be deprived of benefits. The purpose of the principal scheme is to ensure that they may receive benefits which are broadly in line with those payable under the main Industrial Injuries Scheme. The benefits are paid from the National Insurance Fund.
The principal benefit scheme covers pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and six other slowly developing diseases. The amendment scheme before us today adds a seventh disease to the list of six other diseases covered by the principal scheme: nasal carcinoma in workers engaged in the manufacture and repair of leather footwear. This same disease has just been added to the schedule of prescribed industrial diseases in the main Industrial Injuries Scheme, by means of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1979, S.I. 1979 No. 632, which was laid before Parliament on 15th June 1979 and is due to come into operation on 8th August 1979. The amendment scheme is, therefore, a consequence of that change.
I should now like to say a little about the background to the change which the amendment scheme makes and the effect it will have. The decision to add nasal carcinoma in leather footwear workers to the diseases covered by the principal benefit scheme is based on a recommendation by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council which, as your Lordships may know, is an independent statutory body which advises the Secretary

1841
of State for Social Services on matters to do with industrial injuries benefits. The council based its decision on independent research findings presented to it about the incidence of the disease in the footwear industry. The council concluded that there was strong evidence that the disease was occupational in origin and it found that cases were occurring as many as 40 years and more after exposure. The exact nature of the carcinogen is not yet known, but it is believed that the disease is due to one or more constituents in the dust arising from the working of leather or fibre board.
The disease can be severely disabling and the prognosis is poor but, fortunately, the number of people who suffer from it is very few. It is expected that 20 or so persons may benefit initially under the main Industrial Injuries Scheme with four or five new cases a year thereafter. The amendment scheme is likely to benefit even fewer people, but I hope it will be agreed that, however few, it is right that these people should be entitled to benefits.
Turning now to the amendment scheme in a little detail, Article 1 is formal. Article 2 adds the new disease, numbered 7, to those to which the principal scheme applies. Article 3 brings the new disease within Schedule 6 to the principal scheme which specifies the date, in relation to each of the diseases, after which death must have occurred if the relevant provisions are to apply for death benefit purposes. And the schedule to the amendment scheme contains the description of the disease and the nature of the occupations covered. Finally, I should add that the date of coming into operation of the amendment scheme is 8th August 1979. This is the date to be entered in Articles 1 and 3; and it is the same date as that on which the change in the main Industrial Injuries Scheme also comes into effect. In conclusion, I hope that I have made it clear that the amendment scheme is beneficial—albeit to a relatively few people—and is a consequence of a similar change made recently in the main Industrial Injuries Scheme. I, therefore, commend the amendment scheme to your Lordships for support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June, be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
4.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for what has been a very clear and helpful description and, if I may say so, analysis of the events leading up to this order. It is a wholly good measure and, if there is any criticism at all, it is one which we all bear, that perhaps it ought to have reached this stage some years ago. That has nothing to do with the Government. As I understand it—and the Minister has made this perfectly clear—this particular scheme covers not only pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, but six other slowly developing diseases, all of which, as I understand it, are various forms of cancer.
In some measure this would be a suitable opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hale, because ever since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, which goes back over some years, my noble friend has consistently fought for some measure of this kind. This is perhaps a suitable moment to say that we are glad his efforts have come to this kind of fruition—largely, because of pressure that he has put on successive Governments.
As the noble Lord said, this order adds a further disease to the list, that of nasal carcinoma. It is a slowly but severely disabling disease, which fortunately few people suffer from. But it can take—and this is the point which the noble Lord made—many, many years before it is discovered. It is good that, when we are thinking so much about other matters, we can spend time to put on to the Statute Book a measure which would be of considerable benefit to perhaps only a small number of people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, pointed out, before 1948 there was no compensation at all. As a result, people suffering from this particular complaint were not covered by normal National Insurance industrial injuries benefit. The existing scheme will fill the gap and, as I understand the scheme, the benefits are identical to those available under the National Insurance Scheme. This is a wholly good scheme, and I can do no more but thank the Minister and commend the scheme to your Lordships.

NURSING QUALIFICATIONS (EEC RECOGNITION) ORDER 1979
4.30 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne I beg to move that the draft Nursing Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1979, laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved. The Order in Council before us is designed to make those changes in existing legislation which are necessary to implement the EEC Nursing Directives. The order is made under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act 1972, and in line with the established procedure, is subject to Affirmative Resolution. By this means Parliament is given an opportunity to debate the way in which the Government intend to meet our Community obligations. I am sure that, on a matter which concerns nurses, the House would most certainly wish to have this opportunity.
Although the Treaty of Rome itself aims to encourage free movement of persons and services throughout the Community when rendering those services depends on possession of recognised professional qualifications, member States—quite rightly—want to be assured that any national of another member State wishing to practise within their country is trained to an equivalent standard as members of that profession in their own country. This is essential as a protection for the public. And that is why the Treaty provides for the issue of Directives covering the mutual recognition of qualifications and the right of establishment for various professional groups.
The first health profession for whom Directives were signed was the doctors in 1975. The Nursing Directives followed two years later in 1977, and I think it is fair to say that the United Kingdom played a major part in getting agreement as, in many ways, our system of nurse training is more advanced than anywhere else in the Community. That is not to say that we are perfect—I am sure there are many aspects which could be developed—but it is, I believe, significant that the United Kingdom will be the first country to complete the process of implementation. We are, in short, leading the way.
1844
Although the purpose of this debate is, strictly speaking, a limited one, to approve the order making certain changes to existing legislation, I think I should explain briefly what the Directives are all about. There are, as is customary in these matters, two Directives; the first concerned with the mutual recognition of qualifications and the right of establishment, and the second concerned with the content of the training which leads up to the award of those qualifications which are to be recognised. The aim of the two documents is quite simple: to ensure that nurses responsible for general care—and I must emphasise that we are here speaking only of registered general nurses, not those trained specifically in the care of the mentally ill, or mentally handicapped—will in future throughout the Community have undergone a comparable form of training, covering the same theoretical subjects and including the same practical experience, so that their training can be recognised by all Member States and they can practise freely in any country of the Community. For the United Kingdom, as I have said, this means relatively minor changes in existing patterns of training. It does, however, mean that we have to make some equally minor changes in the administrative arrangements which govern the profession. These are contained in the Order in Council we are now discussing.
Article 1 is a purely technical point, dealing with commencement of the order. Article 2 contains some definitions. The real substance of the order starts in Article 3, which deals with the amendments needed to the Nurses Act 1957, the present head legislation governing the profession in England and Wales. It inserts two new sections to that Act, 3A and 3B and a new Schedule 1A which lists the European qualifications which will give a right to be registered (just as our own nurses are registered) under Section 3A. The new Section 3B deals with an important point. It provides that registration lapses on failure to satisfy the General Nursing Council, the registering body, that the registrant has the knowledge of English necessary to render nursing services in the United Kingdom.
In making this provision we are taking exactly the same line as was taken in the medical Directives, in placing a duty on the

1845
competent authority—the registering authority—to ensure that those wishing to work in the United Kingdom have an adequate command of English. The validity of this approach has, in the case of the doctors, been challenged by the EEC Commission, who have suggested that we are in breach of our Community obligations, as we are, in their view, making language testing a prerequisite of registration and right of establishment, something which is contrary to the Treaty of Rome. Indeed, they have indicated that they might take the United Kingdom Government before the European Court. But we remain firmly convinced that our position on the medical Directives is entirely in line with our EEC obligations and for that reason have adopted the same approach here. The Directives place a specific duty on Member States,
"to see to it that, where appropriate, the persons concerned acquire, in their own interest and"—
more importantly—
"in the interest of their patients, the linguistic knowledge necessary for the exercise of their profession".
It is our contention that the right body to determine that linguistic competence is the registering body, the body which under existing legislation has the responsibility for ensuring that a nurse is competent to carry out nursing services.
Articles 4 and 5 make similar innovations in the head legislation for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, the Nurses Act (Scotland) 1951 and the Nurses and Midwives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Article 6 deals with what is known as "prestation". This is the situation where a nurse registered in another Member State wants to come to the United Kingdom and work as a nurse for a short period—perhaps to accompany a sick person who needs constant nursing attention to see a specialist—but does not intend to work here in a more formal sense. Obviously, in the type of case I have outlined it would be foolish to expect the nurse to obtain full registration here in order to carry out a very limited duty. Far from facilitating free movement, in such circumstances it would be a positive hindrance. A procedure has, therefore, been devised which makes such arrangements possible, but does not leave the system open to abuse by people who might not, in the normal way, be accepted for registration. This involves making a
1846
declaration of the type of services to be rendered and showing proof of qualification in the member State of origin to the registering authority. Article 7 is, I think, also quite an important point. It contains a vital safeguard by providing for disciplinary procedures for those giving nursing services, as under Article 6, while visiting the United Kingdom.
This leads me on to something on which, as it is not specifically mentioned in the order, I think I should give some reassurance. That is the arrangements for those nurses from other EEC countries who are not just visiting the United Kingdom but have exercised their right of establishment and intend to work here. As the amendments proposed to existing legislation make clear, such a person will be registered, if they have one of the recognised qualifications, in exactly the same way as our own nurses. That includes being of good character. And once registered, the "EEC nurse", is subject to the same arrangements for discipline as any other nurse on the register. So that if she is accused of professional misconduct, her case will come before the registering authority in exactly the same way as for anyone else. She may have a right of establishment, but that right carries with it obligations.
So far as the effect of the Directives is concerned, I see the coming into effect as an important step for our nurses, in forging closer links with their colleagues in Europe and in giving them an opportunity to broaden their experience by seeing different patterns of health care in different countries. I hope that they will take advantage of this opportunity—and that nurses from other Member States will come here to see what we have to offer. We can all, whatever our calling, learn from the experience of others working in the same field, and this is as true for nursing as for any other field. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
4.40 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, once again we are grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions of the order so clearly. It is a remarkable order in the sense that I found no difficulty understanding it, a surprising thing for me. It is an

1847
order which everyone should look at because it is of some importance. I have no comment to make on what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said, other than to ask him three questions.
First, I was glad to hear that we are proposing to insist on a reasonable and adequate standard of the understanding of the English language before we allow anybody to practice as a nurse in this country. I am not unmindful of the difficulties, because I am aware of the difficulties we have run into and are running into so far as doctors are concerned. Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that we will not be deflected from that intention; namely, to see that people who come here as nurses in fact speak adequate English?
Secondly, reference has been made to the fact that under the order we will get certain information about the nurses coming here. My reading of it is that most, if not all, of it will be in the nature of some sort of paper setting out the professional qualifications of the nurse. Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance that there will be accompanying that document some sort of report on the nurse as a person and on her general standard of conduct and behaviour? It would be unfortunate if we found ourselves using nurses from abroad who for one reason or another would not be allowed to continue as nurses in their own hospitals because of some offence they may have committed. I should like to know what safeguard there is in relation to that.
Thirdly, the Minister mentioned in the opening part of his remarks that the order would require some changes in—I think he used this phrase—"the existing pattern of training". I do not know whether that is a fundamental or simple matter, but if it were possible for him to tell the House what those changes are to be, it would be helpful for us all to understand.
4.43 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for associating the Opposition with the order. He asked three questions, the first of which was the need to ensure that nurses intending to come to this country had a standard of English which was sufficient to meet the situation. I think
1848
I can give that assurance; we shall not be deflected from our central purpose of ensuring that that shall be the aim of the professions concerned.
His second question was about the requirements. I think that the registering authority in this country would ask the equivalent authority in the other EEC country concerned to provide a certificate that the nurse fulfilled the registration requirements including that of character, and such certificates would have to be produced. If, however, the country concerned did not provide satisfactory certificates, the registering authority here would have to ask for references as to character.
The noble Lord's third question sought information in regard to training, and I can satisfy him to some extent. At present, in a three-year training programme a nurse covers a range of theoretical subjects and practical placements as defined by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales and its equivalent bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland to comply with the EEC requirements. The length of training will remain the same and the subjects outlined in the theoretical curriculum are in line with the present syllabus. It is the practical placements which change. All students currently have experience in medical and surgical nursing as well as paediatrics. In addition, a proportion have experience in psychiatry or geriatrics and obstetrics or community nursing. In future, students will be required to have experience of all these areas of nursing and care.

SOCIAL SECURITY (UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY BENEFIT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1979
4.46 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to remedy an unintended consequence of the Social Security Act 1975, the result of which has been to put students who claim unemployment benefit during the short Christmas

1849
and Easter vacations in a privileged position compared with the general body of contributors.
Under the pre-1975 legislation a person entering National Insurance had to work for at least 26 weeks in order to pay sufficient contributions to satisfy the first contribution condition for unemployment benefit. Students entering higher education straight from school were not usually able to work for long enough to achieve this. Only about 10 per cent. of the students who registered for employment during their vacations qualified for unemployment benefit, and these were most likely to have been mature students.
By contrast, a person entering National Insurance under the 1975 Act can satisfy the first contribution condition after a much shorter period of work. This is because contributions are now related to the level of a person's earnings rather than to the number of weeks he has worked. To satisfy the first contribution condition, a person now has to have paid contributions on earnings in any one year of at least 25 times the weekly lower earnings limit. A student leaving school this summer and finding work would be expected to earn sufficient each week to satisfy the first condition within about 10 weeks before entering higher education compared with 26 weeks previously by paying contributions on total earnings of only £487·50. If he were then to claim unemployment benefit at the Christmas vacation, he could receive starting credits to enable him to meet the second contribution condition, which requires a person to have paid or been credited with contributions on earnings of at least 50 times the weekly earnings limit for the relevant tax year; that is the tax year preceding the calendar year in which the interruption of employment begins.
Starting credits have long been available to new entrants to insurance, but they were made more generous under the 1975 Act. In qualifying for unemployment benefit on the basis of this very limited amount of work, the student could then receive benefit at each vacation throughout his course without undertaking any further employment. This is because claims for benefit made within 13 weeks of one another link to form a single period of interruption of employment, and since
1850
university vacations are usually less than 13 weeks apart, each claim made by the student would be determined by reference back to the same contribution year in which he had received the benefit of starting credits.
In addition to this, it should be recognised that the Christmas and Easter vacations are so short as to make the employment prospects of any student who has not made previous arrangements to work very slim indeed and to make his unemployment at these times a virtual certainty rather than an insurable risk. Taken together these factors place students in an unduly favourable position compared with the general body of employed earners. If the latter lose employment, they may receive initial help from starting credits but thereafter they are likely to have to satisfy the second contribution condition on each occasion that they are unemployed. This is because these earners do not normally experience regular and successive periods of unemployment falling within the 13-week periods.
The previous Administration submitted proposals to the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1977 which would have completely withdrawn a students' entitlement to unemployment benefit in the short vacations, but the committee rejected them as "too blunt an instrument." The following year a majority of the committee rejected fresh proposals requiring students to have paid 50 times the weekly lower earnings limit in the relevant tax year, or the tax year preceding it, in order to qualify for benefit in the short vacations. They held to their previous view that entitlement to contributory unemployment benefit should not be withdrawn from a particular section of the community. However, on that occasion two members of the committee supported the proposals on the grounds that it was fair and proper that those who chose to be full-time students before having had much employment and then claimed unemployment benefit should be required to meet an additional condition compared with the rest of the contributors.
On 30th November 1978 the previous Government announced in another place that they had taken account of the committee's recommendation and would not proceed with the regulations for the time being. They said, however, that

1851
they still considered it important in principle that students should not have such easy access to unemployment benefit, and that they would therefore be considering whether these or similar regulations should be introduced for the 1979 academic year.
We have considered the whole issue very carefully, not least because of the majority recommendations against the proposals by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, whose advice we take very seriously. However, in the light of all the facts, we are forced to conclude, like our predecessors, that regulations are needed to prevent continuation of a situation that is impossible to justify. I think that none of us was aware of the unduly generous effects that the 1975 Act could have for students when we were debating it.
To satisfy the additional condition that would have to be met under these proposals before unemployment benefit could be paid in the short vacations, students would need to have paid contributions on earnings of 50 times the lower earnings limit. Someone claiming for the first time in December 1979 could satisfy the condition if he had earned £750 in the tax year ending in April 1978, or £650 in the tax year ending in April 1977. These amounts could have been earned within about 2½ months by someone on average earnings. "Mature" students, who have always been able to claim unemployment benefit in their vacations, would normally satisfy the special condition, but it would be unusual for a student who had gone straight from school to further full-time education to be able to do so. The additional condition would not apply during the summer vacation.
About 30,000 students qualify for unemployment benefit in each short vacation, and it is estimated that around 6,000 of these may be mature students, most of whom will still be able to qualify for benefit at these times. The saving in public expenditure is estimated at about £4 million a year.
The conditions set out in the proposed regulations are the same as those submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee by the previous Administration. These regulations amend the principal regulations by inserting after Regulation 19 a new regulation, Regulation 20. Regulation 1 is formal and includes provision for
1852
the regulations to come into operation upon the day on which they are made. Regulation 2 inserts the new Regulation 20 into the principal regulations.
With regard to the new Regulation 20, paragraph (1) describes the category of persons in respect of whom an additional condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit is imposed. Paragraph (2) sets out the additional condition whereby a person who comes within the prescribed category is required to have paid contributions based on a minimum level of earnings in the tax years to which the paragraph refers.
Paragraph (3) provides for a student, in cases where the earliest of the two tax years referred to in paragraph (2) is the one ending in 1975, to meet either the condition in paragraph (2), or an alternative condition. Paragraph (4) provides for a student, in cases where both the tax years referred to in paragraph (2) fall before the tax year ending in April 1976, to meet the alternative condition referred to in paragraph (3). Paragraph (5) provides that the additional condition applies only in respect of days between the beginning of the first term starting after 31st August in any one year and the end of the last term finishing before 31st August in the following year, so that the additional condition will not apply in respect of days falling within the long summer vacation. Paragraph (6) provides that once the additional condition has been satisfied, it does not have to be satisfied again in respect of any future claim for unemployment benefit. Paragraph (7) defines "benefit year" for the purpose of these regulations.
These regulations will not affect many students, and the financial savings are comparatively small. But some restriction of students' rights to benefit is necessary in the interests of other contributors, and we do not think it unreasonable to expect a student who may qualify for unemployment benefit at regular intervals over three to four years to show that he has a reaonable attachment to the employment field. I recommend to your Lordships that the regulations be approved, so that they can take effect in the 1979–80 academic year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 5th July, be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is not much I want to say beyond thanking the noble Lord the Minister for giving such a detailed and fairly simple explanation of the position. I do not find myself very much at variance with it, because the principle involved is very much in keeping with the thinking of the last Government, and although the figures may differ a little, what is proposed runs parallel with what we had in mind. Therefore, I approve of the order and give it support.
4.59 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord for his very careful explanation of the regulations. He has made it very clear that since the introduction of the 1975 Act students going straight from school to higher education, because under that Act they are given more generous starting credits than previously, and due to the working of the 13-week rule, can claim unemployment benefit during all vacations of a 3-year course, this being based on only a few weeks' actual employment. As the noble Lord has said, that was never the intention, and he has indicated that it caused concern to the previous Government as well as the present Government, and it led to the previous Government putting forward the suggestion that all students should be debarred from receiving unemployment benefit in the short vacation. The National Insurance Advisory Committee recommended against that suggestion. Then came the proposal from the last Government in similar terms to that before us this afternoon, requiring a longer term of employment in effect, and not affecting mature students—a regulation which would apply only to the short vacations.
During the operation in the last Parliament of the Lib-Lab pact (as it was called) the Minister for Social Security consulted me about this proposal, and at that time I got in touch with the National Union of Students and other student bodies to sound out opinion. At that time no objection in principle was made to me about the possible introduction of a third condition, although, of course, objections have been made subsequently. But there was concern expressed about mature students, because there was at that time the danger that a mature student's entitlement might run out before the
1854
end of the course. I recommended to my colleagues that we should say to the Government that we would support the proposal provided we were satisfied about the position of mature students; and in the order which we have before us I think that point has been met.
This point of view was expressed by my colleagues to the Government; the Government then drew up the order and presented it again to the National Insurance Advisory Committee; and, as we have heard, they recommended against it. They said that students should not be treated separately. As against that, there is the fact that other classes of contributor are treated separately already—share-fishermen and seasonal workers—and I think it is important to bear in mind that we are not talking about supplementary benefit. There are problems connected with the application of supplementary benefit to students, but we are not talking about that here; we are not talking about particular cases of hardship. It is a matter of contributions record, and the question is: Should perhaps two and a half months' employment between school and university be sufficient grounds for qualifying for unemployment benefit through all the vacations of a university course, particularly when you bear in mind that there is a maintenance element included in the student grant to cover the short vacations?
I do not believe that that was Parliament's intention, and I do not really think it is fair to other contributors—a view which, as the noble Lord has said, was sustained by two of the eight members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. But they did recommend by six to two against these proposals, and therefore the question arises as to whether the Government should go against the advice of the committee. I suppose we then ask: Should the Government ever go against the advice of the committee? I think we must say that the committee are a most valuable and important body, and no Government should lightly reject their view—indeed, the noble Lord said that the Government had not done so; but they are advisory, and therefore must expect, surely, that their view will not be accepted in every case.
So, on balance, I support the order which both Governments have thought to be necessary, but in conclusion I

1855
should like to make it clear that I am not by any means satisfied about the adequacy of students' grants, nor about the practice of making some students dependent on a parental contribution. I want, too, to get away from the concept of benefit in relation to contributory record and into an entirely new system of tax credit. But so long as we have a contributory system it should be fair as between different sections of contributor.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. Unlike ordinary unemployed people, if students wish to take a job during their vacations can they at the same time have unemployment benefit? This is a question to which I have never had an answer, and I do not really know what the answer is: but is it in fact legal for them so to do?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: The answer is, no.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, a question, simply to elucidate on what he said? He mentioned a figure of 30,000 students, of whom 6,000 were mature students, and he said that most of them will be able to claim. Was he referring to the 6,000 mature students or to the whole of the 30,000?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should first like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their approval of the order, and I should particularly like to thank Lord Banks for having made such a valuable contribution to the short debate on this matter. I am sure that my noble friend the Secretary of State will read what he has said with great interest. Mature students have never had difficulty in the past; and, of the 30,000 students, the majority will be unable to claim because they will not have had the opportunity to do sufficient work. Before, it was quite easy for them to do about 10 weeks' work, but they would not normally be able to claim; and we reckon the savings would be about £4 million. I may say that the 30,000 students we are talking about are those out of, say, 500,000 students who are at universities, polytechnics and similar institutions.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1978 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
5.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved. In discussing the order the House may find it convenient to consider at the same time the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Amendment) Order 1979. With your Lordships' agreement, following this debate I shall be moving that this order, also, should be approved.
My Lords, the effect of these two orders is to proscribe the Irish National Liberation Army throughout the United Kingdom. They do so by adding the name of the INLA to the appropriate Schedule to each Act—Schedule 2 to the Emergency Provisions Act 1978 and Schedule 1 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. As a result, it is now an offence to belong to, or to profess to belong to, the organisation, to solicit or invite financial support for it, or knowingly to make or receive financial contributions on behalf of the organisation.
The INLA is stated to have links with the Irish Republican Socialist Party, a political group which broke away from the Official Sinn Fein in 1974. INLA have, however, gone beyond the mere expression of political views. They have admitted guilt for a number of shooting and bombing attacks in Northern Ireland, in which members of the security forces have been killed. Your Lordships will also know that INLA have publicly admitted that members of their organisation were responsible for the death of Mr. Airey Neave. He was a public figure, highly respected and personally known to many Members of both Houses of Parliament. The revulsion of feeling caused by that horrible deed was therefore acutely felt in Westminster. Your Lordships will realise that every time a private individual is cold-bloodedly slaughtered by terrorists there is a revulsion of feeling affecting his or her immediate circle of family, friends, relations, colleagues and

1857
members of his community, and that that revulsion is just as acute and just as important.
The Government believe that an organisation which thus invokes terrorism as a means of furthering political ends has no claim to a public platform in the same way as political groups which deploy lawful methods. While there is no doubt that the INLA is a much smaller organisation than the Provisional IRA and is of less significance, public confidence in the maintenance of law and order is nevertheless undermined by the lack of any legal restraint on the existence of such an organisation, or on seeking recruits or financial support for it. Proscription imposes restrictions on the activities of the organisation in terms of recruitment and fund-raising. It also enables the police to prosecute activists on charges of membership of an illegal organisation.
My Lords, this Government, like the previous Administration, have no wish to inhibit the freedom to express political views properly. But a line can and must be drawn between political and criminal acts. There can be no doubt that, by its admitted involvement in terrorism, INLA has crossed that line. Proscription of INLA has the support of the police and Army in Northern Ireland, and of the police in Great Britain. I believe it will also have the massive support of public opinion in the United Kingdom. The Government are satisfied that it is the right course to take, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 2nd July, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
5.10 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the way he has explained the details of these two orders. On this side of the House we wish to declare that we concur with the remarks that he has made and will support the orders.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I think there is little that I should add on this point. We feel that we must support the inclusion of the INLA in this order. It goes against the grain, for we like to support the liberty of the individual,
1858
but we accept that the circumstances are too grave to allow it. We support the order.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should apologise for intervening today. When we had the debate on 9th July on what I might call the principal order I made some remarks which were, no doubt, ill-prepared, unclear and which certainly failed to persuade my noble friend the Minister. I tried then to suggest that there should be drafted one emergency law applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom. This might be either in replacement of the Emergency Provisions Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act or it could be in addition to both of them. I hope that I shall be in order in trying to clarify that suggestion a little.
Such legislation, first of all, would be normally dormant except in "areas of civil disorder". That is the key concept. That concept, I believe, is comparable to the concept in French law of état d'urgence. Secondly, such a law should be capable of rapid activation with the consent of Parliament and subject to any other necessary safeguards. Its purpose would be to enable our constitutional democracy, to cope with violent minorities using terrorism or other illegal means without destroying the very principles of civilisation for which democracy stands.
The aim of the legislation that I have in mind is to make possible a graduated response by the Government. Perhaps I should give some examples. I think that, obviously, a different response is needed to, say, an oil spillage at sea as compared with an attempt by terrorists to take over a nuclear establishment; or, in the Northern Irish context, a different response may well be appropriate in Crossmaglen or the Shankill Road or Ballymurphy from that required in more peaceful and more law-abiding areas. If I could say something about the reasons for introducing such legislation, I would suggest that in the past it has not always been clear to the army which civil authority it should be supporting; it has not always been clear—and probably is still not clear—which police functions the army may assume in cases of need. I gave some examples on 9th July of someareas of military activity of doubtful legality. I accept that all or most of these were not per se illegal but they have

1859
undoubtedly given rise to uncertainty both within the army and within the civilian population.
Enemy propaganda, such as that of the Provisional IRA, has been able to feed on such uncertainty. I submit that we should do everything possible to remove it. I should like to emphasise that I am not suggesting a new emergency law for the reasons given by the Northern Irish Peace Movement in paragraph 6 of their proposals on the Emergency Provisions Acts. An equality of misery, as one might call it, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is not a desirable thing. However, I think that it is very significant when there is substantial agreement between, on the one hand, the advocates of peace and, on the other, distinguished members of the security forces.
In the past I have ventured to ask the Government what would be their view on certain novel security measures in Northern Ireland. I was thinking of, and mentioned, identity cards, widespread finger-printing and access by the security forces to some civilian records. I recognise that there are considerable difficulties in the use of any of these steps. But I urge the Government not to rule them out and to see whether there are lessons to be drawn from the Malayan emergency that may be relevant to the use of such measures in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I should say that I was amazed to find the following statement in a letter from my noble friend Lord Elton, for which I am grateful:
"The Government are satisfied that the effective operation of the security forces is not being hampered by lack of necessary information".
This, I thought, was fine of the most remarkable and surprising statements that I had heard for a very long time. Why, if it is true, have unacceptable violence and armed insurgency been able to continue for very nearly 10 years? Why have the murderers of the late Mr. Neave not yet been arrested? Why is it necessary today to ban the Irish National Liberation Army? Good intelligence, I think it is universally accepted, is the key to successful counter-insurgency. It has been said that one informer is worth at least two infantry battalions. I beg the Government to ponder that remark and to do their
1860
utmost to win over, to use and to recompense, when necessary, as many informers and defectors as possible. This I believe to be the best and surest way in which to defeat the men of violence.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I do not know whether this is the right time to ask a question, but, as we have seen, the other place has rejected, possibly rightly, the possibility of reintroducing capital punishment and I wonder if the noble Lord could say that there was any hope that the Government might introduce in its place a really genuine life sentence for acts of terrorism? We have seen only yesterday the case of an ex-murderer who had emerged from prison and who has already started a new life of crime. I think that a real life sentence would be the only hope.
5.18 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Hampton, for the cautious welcome they gave to this essential measure. I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Hylton for his disquisition on the état d'urgence as it might apply here. I cannot say that I follow him now that he has made the situation clearer. I wonder whether he is not perhaps in some respects under some misapprehension. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is, after all, half of what we are talking about today, already applies to the whole of the United Kingdom—which is what he wants. Indeed, so does the proscription of the INLA, which is what we are having this little debate about. That applies equally to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Much of what he seeks is already to hand. I do not think that it is really prudent for the noble Lord to suggest that we should want the sort of emergency legislation which is necessary in the Province to be ready to hand permanently in the rest of the United Kingdom. I suspect that this is applying equal measures to unequal situations, and I would think that there was something constitutionally undesirable about that. I shall however—now that the noble Lord has declared himself more fully and with marginally more notice than before—undertake to look at this matter; but I cannot give any grounds for enthusiastically awaiting my reply because I do not think that it will be very favourable.

1861
The noble Lord then went on to quote from a letter that I wrote to him in reply to other matters after the last debate. It would have been to the advantage of the House if he had not started the quotation in the middle of a sentence. If I may give the whole passage, it reads:
"As regards your suggestion that the security forces should have access to DHSS census and other records…"
and then it goes on:
"the Government are satisfied that the effective operation of the security forces is not being hampered by lack of necessary information".
The noble Lord was addressing himself in his speech specifically to that area and it was that area in which I replied. I am under no illusions whatsoever about the crucial importance of intelligence in any military operation whatsoever and its enhanced importance in internal security of the type with which we are dealing now. I am not aware that Her Majesty's Government, or any of my colleagues, are less than enthusiastic in pursuing it. I do not wish to deal further with the question of how far supposedly confidential documents are made the subject of public inquiry. I am satisfied that what can properly be done is being done and that, if there are innovations which will improve what is being done, they will be pursued. I hope that the noble Lord will be contented with that reply.

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS ACT) 1976 (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
5.22 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)

APPROPRIATION (No. 2) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
5.23 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which was laid before the House on 4th July, 1979, be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The main purpose of the order is to appropriate the balance of the 1979–80 main Estimates, the sum on account having been appropriated in March this year. The order also appropriates a token amount arising from an Excess Vote for the financial year 1977–78.
Anyone moving legislation that is both complex and important and yet not susceptible of amendment is in something of a dilemma. One can either deal with the matter in detail and incur your Lordships' displeasure by boring them by the length of his speech or he can deal with them briefly, allowing matters to arise in the course of subsequent debate to which he can address himself in reply, and be accused of being superficial in his approach. I have already trespassed in the past on your Lordships' patience beyond the time thought agreeable; I shall therefore on this occasion take the alternative risk and deal with what I regard as the salient points, leaving it to your Lordships to bring to the attention of the House, and to my own, the matters which are felt to be most important.
The total of the main Estimates provision for 1979–80, including the sum already voted on account, is £1,642 million or some £119 million more than the total Estimates provision, including supplementaries, for 1978–79. Details of he provisions sought are set out in the main Estimates for Northern Ireland departments, copies of which are available in the Library. The presentation of the main Estimates volume has been altered from previous years. First, each Vote is either fully cash limited or completely exempt from cash limits control. Secondly, the provision being sought for 1979–80 includes an element to reflect estimated pay and price changes occurring during the year.

1863
The largest increase over 1978–79 is that of £37 million in Class X Vote 3, family benefits. This results from the higher rates of child benefit which have been payable from April 1979. In Class IX Vote 1, health and personal social services, an increase of £30 million is sought over last year's figure. The additional funds will be used to cover pay and price increases, and to finance further developments necessary as a result of demographic and other factors.
For the housing services, Class V Vote 1, an extra £19 million is being sought. Increases in the grant to the Housing Executive and in the recoupment of its expenditure on the renovation of private sector dwellings, account for some £15 million. The balance of £4 million is to be made available to housing associations in anticipation of growth in their activities. Class II Vote 5, functioning of the labour market, seeks £64 million compared with £41 million last year. Technical accounting adjustments account for £15 million of this increase, and of the balance £6 million will be used by Enterprise Ulster and the Youth Opportunities Programme.
The largest decrease is in Class I Vote 2, agricultural support, where £51 million less than in 1978–79 is being asked for. This is because the 1979–80 provision needed for the Meat Industry Employment Scheme, aid to the milk industry and feed price allowances for pig, poultry and egg production schemes is not included. It will be sought later in the year, however, and the reduced figure does not, therefore, reflect any change in Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the agricultural industry.
There is an excess Vote amounting to £10 on the Estimates for 1977–78. Details are set out in the Statement of Excess, copies of which are in the Library. The excess Vote has been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which has recommended that the necessary sum be made available. To a layman, £10 seems to be a remarkably small deviation from the intended target. The provision in this order will enable most existing services to be continued at a level similar to last year.
An appropriation order contains within it material that affects every aspect of
1864
Government activity in the Province of Northern Ireland other than that undertaken specifically by the Northern Ireland Office itself. It covers, therefore, a very wide field the whole of which was under scrutiny in another place and, indeed, until a latish hour this morning. If I was to deal even briefly with each relevant subject I should detain your Lordships long beyond the point of endurance. As I indicated at the beginning of this debate, I have instead sought to pick out only a few matters in a short introduction in order to give an opportunity to your Lordships to raise matters to which you attach particular importance. Of some of these I have already received advance notice, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have thus assisted me to give replies that will be both full and, I hope, satisfactory. I commend this order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order, laid before the House on 4th July, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
5.29 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining the effects of this order. At the outset of my remarks, I wish to indicate support for the proposed financial provisions contained in the order. At the same time, I must express regret that, after almost seven years of the direct rule form of government over the affairs of the Province, we as a community have failed to achieve the establishment of a devolved assembly. When I speak of a devolved assembly, I mean a democratically elected devolved assembly with full, vigorous, positive and constructive participation by representatives of both parts of the Northern Ireland community.
The reason I mention at this time the issue of an elected regional assembly is that I feel a debate on this important order, and the crucial financial implications involved, could be of great effect and indeed all round benefit if it was being considered at greater length and against the immediate full backcloth of regional accountability and consensus. I am stating this view but in no way blaming the present Conservative Government, nor am I accusing the previous Labour Administration for the impasse. I am not blaming any particular individuals,

1865
but I fear that the basic language of party politics in Northern Ireland is still influenced by the political rhetoric of 10, 20—some even say 300—years ago. I think that recent outbursts would almost underline the last statement.
The politics of fear, hate, bigotry, of sectarianism and of division cannot be in the best interests of any of the people of Northern Ireland, especially considering the future for our children. For far too long, intelligent and decent people in Northern Ireland have been drawn away from direct political involvement. Sadly, they have left the issues of government to the politicians. Whatever may be the reasons or the excuses for this, it is totally unfair to the politicians for people to withdraw from active help in the resolution of political issues and then to blame the politicians when things go wrong. We have yet to learn that a healthy political system requires the active interest and co-operation of all thinking citizens.
The order before us deals with the authorisation of the financial provisions under 48 different votes and 12 classifications or departmental categories, as the Minister indicated in the debate in another place last evening—or should I say this morning?—which lasted for eight and a half hours. I shall wait with interest to read the outcome of that debate in Hansard. As the Minister has said, in a debate such as this, I think it would, in accordance with the practices and procedures of this House, be unwise of me, to attempt to deal with anything more than the broad outline or a couple of general matters.
I think the order before us must be considered against the background of the £35 million cut in Government expenditure in the Province and against the continuing inflation. One must stress the very serious nature of the economic and social outlook for the people of the Province and the tragically high unemployment rate—a rate that is twice that of the United Kingdom as a whole. In some parts of the Province male unemployment is as high as 30 per cent.
Perhaps the Minister may indicate to us something of the nature of the Statement made in the other place yesterday in reply to a Question concerning the very important issue of Harland and Wolff. I have had only a glance at the Statement, but I
1866
think it has serious consequences for the workers of Harland and Wolff, and perhaps the Minister could enlarge upon it. If my interpretation of the document is correct, it calls upon the workers, the management and the Government immediately to get together and ensure that the great shipyard of Harland and Wolff is maintained and made competitive in some way. I feel sure that the workers of that company, given encouragement, will rise to the need for competitiveness and production.
There is no doubt that continuing violence and terrorism have increased the difficulties of overcoming the Provinces' grave structural economic problems and geographical disadvantages. We have found through the years that Northern Ireland has benefited from the carefully blended dynamic of public enterprise and finance and private initiative and entrepreneurial skills. Management and trade unions, together with the Government, have enabled the Province to surmount terrible industrial, commercial and social difficulties. I would ask this House to listen carefully to these words which I quote:
"Any Government in the next few years must face the possibility that lengthening dole queues will be an important element in the pattern of violence in the Province".
Those are not my words: they are the words of warning and of concern voiced by the late Mr. Airey Neave, when he spoke in another place at column 873 on 7th July 1978, when a similar order on Northern Ireland was being debated.
I would ask the Minister what immediate hopes he and his Government may have for shortening the persistent long dole queues in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister dispel the fears that are already mounting daily in the Province that unemployment could be as high as 100,000 by January next? That is an increase of something like 40,000 over the next six months. Could he indicate to us how the cuts will affect employment in the various sectors? What are likely to be the levels of unemployment in teaching, in hospitals, the public service, public transport and the manufacturing sectors? I realise that the Minister may not have these figures easily to hand, but I am sure he is aware, as I am, of the concern expressed at all levels by workers and other persons throughout the Province. I have been

1867
inundated with requests for information about the present situation and, as I indicated, during a debate here some 14 days ago, there is already a conference arranged by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to consider the whole aspect of the Government's policy.
I should also like the Minister to be able to deny that there has been a considerable reduction in the numbers being recruited for industrial training and retraining. If I may again quote the late Mr. Airey Neave—because I believe he spoke with great knowledge and understanding of the position—he said this at column 874 in the same debate:
"The attack on unemployment seems to need an overall strategic plan, and I am unclear whether that exists now".
Those were his words. He also said in the same column:
"we want to know a good deal more about the Government's plans for job creation".
I would re-echo those words and hope that the Minister may be able to dispel some of our worst fears about the immediate outlook for employment in Northern Ireland.
I should now like to turn to two aspects of educational policy. One aspect is the action on the Astin Committee Report on the reform of school management. The other concerns Professor Nesbitt's committee on services for adults. To take first the Astin Report on the reform of school management in Northern Ireland, this was a committee set up under the chairmanship of Professor Astin and was one of a number of working parties set up by the Labour Administration in 1977, when a decision was taken to introduce comprehensive education. But, while the other working parties were intended to prepare the way for comprehensives, the Astin Committee had a much wider brief. I think I am right in saying that the prospective change to comprehensives was seen as an opportunity of reviewing the working and composition of school management on the same central lines as the Taylor Committee in England and Wales. Now, of course, the movement towards the comprehensives has been halted and the reports of all the working parties rendered somewhat irrelevant, at least in the short term. However,
1868
there is a great danger that, just as the pre-comprehensive reports have come to nothing, the Astin Report will similarly be pigeon-holed. That is the fear expressed by many people concerned in the teaching profession and by parents in the Province. That would be very sad, because reform is very necessary, and indeed essential, if the school system, on both the State and the Catholic sides, is to be given a more representative and informed base in local school management.
The main recommendation of the Astin Report was that all schools in the State sector and in the Catholic maintained sector, which receives more than 90 per cent. of its running costs from the State, should include four elements on their governing bodies—representatives of the local education authority, of parents, of teachers and of Church trustees. The Committee made two alternative recommendations. One said that, as a first choice, there should be equal representation of these four elements, with 25 per cent. representation from each. The other recommendation, which accepted the difficulties of achieving this by agreement, proposed that no interest should have more than 40 per cent. of the membership.
The present composition of the boards, whose main function is to appoint teachers, has constantly been attacked by the trade unions who, quite rightly, resent the heavy clerical influence. I know that the Minister has already said publicly that he wishes to consult and to have the advice of parents and teachers concerning education matters in the Province. Here, I suggest, is a report which stresses the importance of parent representation, as well as teacher representation, on school management committees. May I ask the noble Lord what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Astin Report?
Concerning Professor Nesbitt's committee on adult services, can the Minister indicate when the report will be completed and whether the findings will be made public? I note that there is a great deal of interest in the work of this committee, and many are concerned that educational and career guidance should be promoted and developed according to the needs of the Province.
I wish now to mention matters concerning the maintenance and future

1869
development of some of the public and voluntary bodies which are at present operating in Northern Ireland. It is true that there have been established a number of statutory bodies which are woven into the administrative fabric and other aspects of public life in the Province. Recently, some of these have been unfairly attacked in an ideological manner. While I agree that some form of continual review of the role, work, effectiveness and attendance of members of these bodies may be necessary, in the absence of a devolved assembly, I should consider it a retrograde step for a number of reasons if moves were made to limit the work or the number of these public bodies. Out of a long but not exclusive list, there are two such bodies which are likely to have an increased workload, and I suggest that every encouragement and assistance should be given by the Government so that those bodies are able adequately to carry out their appropriate services. The two bodies to which I refer are the Fair Employment Agency and the Labour Relations Agency. Whatever may have been the necessity for the services of the two bodies in the past, the requirements brought about by the sweeping changes in the labour market will make critical demands on their impartiality, experience and expertise. I realise that I am raising a number of matters about which I was, unfortunately, unable to get in touch with the Minister. I shall therefore understand if he is unable to give me forthright answers from the Dispatch Box on these issues. But I hope that he will take note of them and give them due consideration.
My attention has been drawn to an anomaly concerning the method of payment of retirement pensions to persons in Northern Ireland. It appears that in Great Britain a retired person may have his State retirement pension paid monthly through a banker's order. In Northern Ireland, this provision is available only on a quarterly payment basis. I cannot understand the reason for this restricted facility, and why the same payment method should not be available to all persons in the United Kingdom. As I said, I was unable to contact the department responsible, and will wait for the Minister to make appropriate inquiries concerning these points.
As the Minister said, the order deals with votes for a number of departments,
1870
under various headings. From the manner in which the Minister put these forward, it would appear that there has been a substantial increase, but, in my view, these are really cuts in public expenditure. While they are all particularly important, I want to single out one, which is in Class XI, Vote 7. It concerns expenditure on the Central Secretariat, including the expenses of Information Services and a grant in aid. I want to take the opportunity to commend—I want to use modest words; the word "praise" is too grandiose—the efforts of the Information Services provided by the Northern Ireland Government Office. There has been a tremendous improvement in the manner in which information is now made available to the public. It is much more acceptable in terms of the needs of a province which does not have information readily available through local representatives, in the sense that we had during the Stormont parliamentary period.
It is in this connection that I want to make my final comment. In my opening remarks, I referred to the impasse reached ill achieving new and positive approaches to political thinking in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt about the depressing aspect of the sterility of political debate. As a society, we have had to face tremendous difficulties. Working people, management and men, have demonstrated that we have the ability to cope with great economic and technological change in agriculture, in textiles, in engineering and in modern industrial construction, yet it is apparent that we cannot adjust to the realities of current political circumstances. I say "apparent", because there are signs that the community in general displays more flexibility and more pragmatism in dealing with issues, than do its elected leaders.
I believe that the institutions designed to provide for industrial and social consensus have proved immensely valuable in the promotion of constructive approaches to many industrial and community problems. I am thinking of the Economic Council, along with other statutory bodies on which management, men and Government get together and try to work out solutions to many problems. I believe that there is a need for a new forum of political public information and discussion that is neutral, independent, objective, constructive and, above all, forward-looking. Such a forum

1871
could be supplied by the establishment of a Northern Ireland Institute of Public Affairs. Even in these dark days of economic stringency and financial constraints, perhaps the Minister may consider grant-aiding such a body. I believe that the monies would be well spent in dispelling ignorance and distrust, in overcoming black propaganda and in creating new political horizons in the Province. My Lords, I support the order before us today.
5.49 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for the way in which he has taken this order. I must say that he has almost given me indigestion with the concentration of his inquiry. I regarded what he was putting before me as a sack of grain to be planted, but I find that it has been threshed already and almost everything that he put forward was a request for information, or an offering of either condemnation or approval. I shall do my best to keep level with this pressure of interest.
I take well the noble Lord's introductory point. How much better, he said, would it have been had we been discussing these matters in the context of an elected, democratic and devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Like the noble Lord, at times I wonder when it was that the clock stopped and, like him, I hope that we can bang it just the right amount on the side to start it ticking again without knocking it over. The great thing is not to allow frustration to give too much strength to the blow. I said in my first speech from this Box what I fear I shall say often again: that the greatest danger we face is too much haste. However, I take the noble Lord's point and I share his impatience that things may move. He can rest assured that we are doing all that we can.
The noble Lord went on to refer to a number of matters. He said that we were conducting this debate in the context of cuts amounting to £35 million in the Northern Ireland account and in the context of inflation, and that he was expecting a very large increase in inflation. I am not in the business of making predictions in this field, and I shall say this again when we look at Harland and Wolff. All I can say is that I believe
1872
that the impact in the Province will be less acute than the noble Lord supposes. When the changes in taxation have worked through, I think that they will have the effect of reducing further that impact. We are not complacent. We are not as frightened as many people are by this problem. The reason for us not being so frightened is not that we are hard-faced or hard-hearted but that we believe that the outcome, while it will obviously be difficult, will not be so difficult as many people suppose. I cannot put a figure on this, and I do not think that the noble Lord expects me to do so.
There are one or two matters upon which I shall write to the noble Lord. One of them relates to the numbers coming in for training and re-training. I should know the precise figure, but I cannot give it off-the-cuff to the noble Lord. In the educational field, the noble Lord went on to refer to the Astin report. That report is not a dead letter. It has been published, and comments on it are invited from all interested bodies. Those comments will be collected, collated and considered by me. Until I have had them, it would be unwise of me to give an opinion on any aspect of the contents of the report.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what methods were used to distribute that document and asking for the appropriate information to be sent back? How wide was that distribution?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if copies of the report have not already reached all those to whom they should be addressed, they will do so in the next few days. This is not a hole-in-the-corner operation. It would be a great waste of Government funds to publish a document, to invite comments on it and then to keep it dark. If the noble Lord is aware of cases where they have not been received I should be grateful if he would draw my attention to them.
The noble Lord then went on to refer to the Nesbitt Committee. The subject of this inquiry is another one to which the department will be paying close attention. I think that the noble Lord's concern throughout what he said was that, as a result of the change in the policy of the Government—in not requiring educational

1873
and library boards to put forward schemes for reorganisation—a great deal of preparatory work would be thrown out of the window.
There are two things which make that not quite the case. One is that a number of committees—and the Astin Committee is the prime example—have done work which is relevant, can be of use and will not be snuffed out. The Dickson Committee is another organisation to which the noble Lord did not refer where progress has been made; and where it remains relevant, its work will be completed. The other is that, contrary to what appears to be the impression of many people in the Province, at no stage have either I, or the Secretary of State or the Government said that comprehensive reorganisation may not take place. We have only said that there is no requirement for it to take place. I believe that some schemes will come forward, and I take this opportunity, gladly, of saying that I shall not allow any doctrinaire assumptions of my own to come between me and the question of whether the scheme is acceptable to the people who are involved in it.
The noble Lord then went on to deal with what is referred to in some circles as the "Quango shooting season". This species, he feels, is more adapted to the pastures of the Province than it is to those of the mainland. I am aware that there are quasi-autonomous non-governmental bodies which perform useful functions. Indeed, as the beaters go through the thickets driving them into the open, one discovers characteristics of which one had not been aware. Naturally, we are still bent upon reducing expensive and unnecessary operations, but we are not bent upon eliminating useful or essential ones, and in some cases the noble Lord will find that bodies which he expects to be knocked on the head have in fact been amalgamated so that a number of functions can be performed by one body. However, it would be impolitic of me to make a further statement because people will start guessing at the category into which their own body will fall before we have sufficiently reviewed the matter.
I do not know the answer to the question which the noble Lord asked about the payment of pensions, but he was kind enough to say that he would be happy for me to write to him. I shall inquire
1874
into the matter and write to the noble Lord. I was glad to receive from such an authoritative source commendation of the work of officials and of all those concerned in the distribution of information. The other half of the struggle that is going on regarding the collection of secret information is the dissemination of public information. This is reassuring, but again Her Majesty's Government are not complacent.
The noble Lord then said, as I suspected he might, that the examples which I had chosen added up to an increase, not a decrease. The main Estimates provision is £1,641,560,000 compared with a total estimates provision in 1978–79 of £1,522,163,550. That is the comparison for which the noble Lord asked. However, when we are speaking about cuts, we are speaking about cuts in planned expenditure. We came in to find expenditure on an accelerating curve. We realised that this would carry us into such stratospheric levels that we should be unable to breathe. Therefore we have had to reverse the process. And, as always, we have an unpleasant sensation as we go over the top of the curve. However, it does not mean that the level of expenditure at one point in time is going to be reduced below that of the immediately preceding point in time.
The noble Lord concluded—and again I must say that it was a very agreeable and polished speech—after so many questions, almost all of them constructive, with a constructive suggestion about an Institute of Public Affairs. That is something which clearly wants to be looked at. Not only shall I look at it myself but I shall see that those of my colleagues who would be most closely concerned with such a project take the idea on board. What the result of that consideration will be I do not know.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the patience with which they have listened to this disquisition. The order is not capable of amendment. I commend it, therefore, as it stands to your Lordships.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL [H.L.]
6 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now

1875
resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Longford.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Right to Compensation]:
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("in the case of a claim by a victim").
The noble Earl said: The object of this amendment is to leave no doubt that this might be a claim made not only by a victim but by a dependant. I beg to move.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 24, leave out from ("loss") to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert ("or a personal loss caused by bodily or mental injuries").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I think it is a more convenient way of making the same point as was made in the original wording. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I think that the personal element is an essential factor in determining loss and therefore I should like to express my agreement with this amendment.
6.4 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("victim") to end of line 16.
The noble Earl said: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 , as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord BELSTEAD: Since this is the clause which provides the basic statutory right to compensation in the noble Earl's
1876
Bill, I should like to make it clear, before I say anything else on Clause 1, that I have no intention of voting against this clause. My purpose is to try briefly to explain the reason why the Government do not consider that the time is ripe for a Bill of this kind, but that is the limit of my intention.
Your Lordships may have read in the Press or heard on the radio of the announcement which was made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as a reply to a Parliamentary Question for Written Answer. My right honourable friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, yesterday published a revised version of the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and announced that the scheme would be made statutory when there had been sufficient experience of the revision to enable any problems to be identified and to be solved.
The revised scheme is based on the recommendations of the interdepartmental working party which, after taking evidence from more than 50 people and organisations with special knowledge of the law relating to compensation, reported on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme last year. I think it is fair for me to say, taking advantage of all that expert knowledge, that the revised scheme arose from a report which obviously needed to be taken very seriously. This is neither the time nor the place to describe in any detail the improvements which the revised scheme announced by my right honourable friends yesterday make, but perhaps I may just refer to two of the improvements as I see them.
The most substantial change is the extension of the scheme to the victims of family violence. They have previously been excluded from compensation for criminal injuries, partly because of the difficulties in establishing the facts in such cases and partly because of the risk of the offender benefiting from any reward. The revised scheme also provides for a new method of calculating the upper limit of earnings on which a claim for compensation may be made, ensuring that some 98 per cent, of working people will be entitled to full compensation for any loss of earnings. On the procedural side the new scheme will allow for the first time the Criminal Injuries Compensation

1877
Board to re-open cases so that where there has been a serious change in a victim's medical condition within three years of the date of the final award, the board may reconsider its previous decision. For the first time the board will be required to give reasons when an award is refused or reduced, and for the first time the board is allowed to admit observers from the media to attend hearings, provided that the anonymity of the applicant and other parties is preserved.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, may well say to me that if the Government accept the principle (as we do) of the statutory right to compensation to which Clause 1 will give effect, therefore the Government should welcome this clause and should table the amendments necessary to enable the Bill to put the new revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme on a statutory footing. It would be perfectly reasonable for the noble Earl to say that, and maybe that is what he will say to me. But it is really not as easy as that, for certainly the Government consider it essential that the new features of the revised scheme genuinely need to be tried out in practice before they are provided for in legislation, and without in any way wasting time it has really genuinely only been possible, so far as the Government are concerned, to make clear our intentions with regard to the future of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Perhaps I may just explain what I mean by that. No one, for instance, has any real idea of how many cases of family violence will be brought before the board. I think one wants to see how that works out to ensure that the rules which the Government are intending to make in the revised scheme for the minimum compensation payable in family violence cases to be £500, will not be too onerous. But we need a little time to see how that will work out. Indeed, everybody needs a little time to see how it will work out.
Secondly, the revised scheme, if legislation is going to be based on that, is really very complex and detailed. Your Lordships will be able to check on the truth of what I am saying by simply glancing in the Library, where a copy of the scheme has now been placed. It consists of 25 paragraphs which cover all aspects of
1878
the board's work, including its constitution, procedures and the basis upon which compensation is to be calculated. To translate this or anything like it into legislation so as to strike the right balance between substantive and subordinate legislation and to tread the narrow tightrope between too great and too narrow a discretion for the board, really is a highly skilled exercise which requires a great deal of time and consideration. I accept that what the Government said yesterday in another place perhaps may not be absolutely to the taste of all your Lordships. We may not have got it absolutely right, but at least the scheme as it is being altered at the moment is not yet being put on the Statute Book, and there is time for everybody to decide whether it is right before the legislation is brought in.
Thirdly, I have to say this. Admirable though the noble Earl's intention is in this Bill, the Bill none the less in its present form could only be made to give statutory effect to the existing or revised scheme by a wholesale replacement of each of its clauses by new and entirely different clauses. If I may confine the examples of what I mean just to Clause 1, on which I am speaking, to base payment of compensation on the concept of loss rather than of injury is, if I may say so with respect, something which is misconceived. To make the compensation payable by the Secretary of State brings such payments, I think mistakenly, out of the legal and into the political arena. The territorial scope of Clause 1 is not as wide as that of the revised scheme which has been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The clause prevents the payment of any ex gratia award of compensation in circumstances when criminal injury is not involved.
Individually, these and other similar deficiences, the noble Earl might say, might be drafting points; but when one bears in mind that these sort of points are in every single clause of the noble Earl's Bill, I really think that to put this into legislation that would be acceptable to all your Lordships would mean drafting almost a different Bill. So I ask the noble Earl whether this is really the way in which he wishes to see legislation enacted in your Lordships' House. The Bill is most valuable in that there is no question but that it has hastened on yesterday's

1879
Government announcement which was the culmination of several months' work on the revision of the scheme. I have no intention of voting against Clause 1; there is no question of that at all. But I ask the noble Earl whether, when this Committee stage is completed, it does not perhaps make sense to wait a little longer, to see how the scheme works, and to wait for Government legislation which undoubtedly will quite genuinely have been contributed to by the Bill which the noble Earl is bringing before us this evening.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am naturally very grateful to the noble Lord for the kind words he has said about the contribution that I and those working with me might possibly have made. It would be wrong not to express at any rate some measure of welcome to the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State, repeated in essence today. Certainly, this is the first time since 1964 that a Government have come forward and really shown some positive interest in victims. It would be very wrong for me to ignore that fact and I am sure, speaking, if I am allowed to for the moment, on behalf of the victims, everybody should be grateful to that extent. The support for the victims' support scheme and other indications of increased interest are extremely welcome.
I am also glad that the noble Lord has said more clearly than was said the other day—though I realise that he was under certain inhibitions—that the Government agree that this scheme should be dealt with on a statutory basis. Where I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Lord is that there is some reason for delay. There will be delay for a few months after this Committee stage before anything else can happen. But the noble Lord is no doubt very well aware that, taking the main change that is suggested by the Government as the inclusion of family injuries in the compensation provision, that was recommended by the departmental committee as something which could be done without legislation; so that it could be put into force tomorrow without legislation, and no doubt will be, and changed without legislation. If we were to introduce legislation, that does not make it harder to alter that, unless you insist that legislation is going to cover all the minutiae.
1880
The noble Lord mentioned the very lavish scheme, but as far as I am concerned there is no question of trying to cover all these points in legislation. On my advice, there is no need to constitutionally. So I differ from the noble Lord if he is implying that a large part of the very detailed scheme now in operation would have to be included in the Bill. I do not accept that, and therefore we differ at that point. I feel that we have to keep on pressing the noble Lord. He has been kind enough to say that our pressure has accelerated the steps that have been taken. Well, perhaps it will accelerate future steps. I cannot fall in with the idea that if we just fold our hands and go to sleep again that will be serving victims.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Claims for compensation]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed, I will be unable to call Amendment No. 5.
6.15 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("within") to first ("or") in line 19 and insert ("three years").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and with it I would, if I may, speak to Amendment No. 6. The effect of these two amendments is to change the time limits which apply to applications for compensation. Under the clause as it stands at present application may be made within a year of the relevant injury or within 6 months of the victim's death, whichever is the later. If the proposed amendment is accepted, there will be a time limit for all appications of three years from the date of injury, subject to a power of the compensation tribunal to allow a longer period in exceptional circumstances. This amendment is in accordance with the revised scheme which the Government published yesterday.
I think that both the noble Earl and the working party, which the noble Earl has already mentioned in our debate this evening, consider that there should be a time limit on applications because of the

1881
difficulty of establishing facts after a period of time. This is clear from the drafting of the Bill. Clearly the chance of a successful application diminishes with the passage of time. I think it would be common ground for me to say that your Lordships would wish to encourage victims to apply as quickly as possible. On the other hand, it may well be that an injury which at first appeared insignificant may later cause grave problems, and someone who in the first instance may have thought it not worthwhile to apply may change his mind. The year which is suggested in this Bill is not really long enough to allow for any such change in circumstances.
There is, of course, no particular magic about three years, but we on this side of the House believe that it is long enough to show the victims of criminal injury that there is no intention of prejudicing their chances of compensation, yet short enough to allow facts still to be established where necessary. It is obviously possible that to apply a three-year time limit might very occasionally operate more restrictively than the noble Earl's proposal that there should be an alternative limit of six months from the death of the victim. But then the tribunal's power, which is in the scheme, to waive the time limit in exceptional circumstances could be brought in to overcome any difficulty of that sort. So in moving this amendment, and in speaking to the other amendment, I am asking your Lordships to agree, if you will, that it is better to have one simple, easily understood time limit for all applications than to differentiate between cases. The amendment is accordingly intended to simplify the clause as well as making it more generous to victims.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am happy to endorse the proposal of the noble Lord. I am very glad that he should, if I may use the expression, incriminate himself in this Bill. I hope that in the end he will regard it as much his Bill as mine. The more amendments he moves which I am happy to accept, the better for both of us.
Lord BELSTEAD: It may be temerity to move amendments to the noble Earl's Bill, but it does not mean claiming paternity.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("made") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("or such longer period as the compensation tribunal may in exceptional circumstances allow").
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 7
Page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This is the only important change which I am bringing forward to the Bill that was placed before the House and discussed on Second Reading. It is an attempt to meet criticisms levelled by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Quite frankly, it is an attempt to produce a Bill which it would be quite easy for the Government to introduce themselves with any amendments they thought appropriate. In other words, it is an attempt to get the Bill as far as possible into a shape which could be adopted by the Government. Although I am not resiling in any way from the idea of the local boards, I do not think that it is such a question of principle as deeply to separate myself from what is obviously the Government's point of view. So we are removing the whole plan for the local tribunals, bearing in mind that, under the existing rules and under any of the provisions that we are suggesting, it would be possible for the main board to meet in a number of places. I gather that that already happens and to some extent the number of places in which the main tribunnal could meet could be multiplied.
Bearing that in mind, and for the reasons that I have given, I wish the removal of this subsection, although two parts of it are inserted later. So far as local tribunals are concerned, they would go out of the Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exclusion of minimal compensation]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I must advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
6.23 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("claim") to ("as") in line 13 and insert ("if the amount of the compensation would be less than such amount").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 and, with the Committee's permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10. The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is Amendment No. 9 and if your Lordships agree to Amendment No. 8 his amendment would not be called. None the less, Amendment No. 9 suggests that the noble Earl realises that unintentionally the Bill makes less beneficial provision for the victim of criminal injury than either the existing or the revised Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The Bill allows only pecuniary loss to be taken into account when calculating whether the compensation payable exceeds £150. That means that if someone who was not a wage-earner was crippled for life, he or she might not be entitled to any compensation because his or her pecuniary loss might not exceed £150. In case that sounds fanciful, let me point out that pensioners, in particular, might be adversely affected. I think that the noble Earl and I have both picked this matter up in our different ways and it so happens that I am moving the amendment.
Therefore, briefly, Amendment No. 8 simply allows the total amount of compensation payable to be taken into account when considering the minimum payment, whether the compensation is for pecuniary or any other loss. It also makes the slight adjustment of referring to "less" than the minimum amount rather than more so that those whose compensation would be exactly £150 would, as at present, be entitled to that sum.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 10, is suggested with the revised scheme, which was announced yesterday,
1884
in mind. Under that scheme, although the minimum payment for most applications remains at £150, the minimum payment in cases of family violence is set at £500. That is partly to ensure that only the more serious cases are included, but mainly to make it easier to assess the impact of family cases on the cost and operation of the scheme. I was at some pains a few minutes ago to explain that one of the advantages of not putting the family violence provisions into legislation immediately is to see how they work out in the coming months before we move to legislation. With those few words I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I support the noble Lord.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("; and an order under this section may make different provision for different cases or different circumstances").
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Reduction in compensation where certain other payments are made to a claimant]:
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, leave out ("pecuniary").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. This is a drafting amendment.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, as nearly as may be, apply the rules of law which would have been applicable if the tribunal were assessing a claim for damages in civil proceedings taken by the claimant against the malefactor for the loss in respect of which the compensation is claimed and shall").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is perhaps the second most important amendment that I am bringing forward. The Bill was

1885
criticised at an earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for not making clear what would be the basis of compensation. I was advised at that time that that was not necessary because it would be understood that the basis would be the basis in civil actions. Anyway, it is now inserted clearly that the basis would be the basis in tort and therefore Amendment No. 12 is trying to meet the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: There is just one small point that is worth mentioning. The amendment rectifies one of the Bill's deficiencies by indicating the basis on which compensation would be assessed. However, as a result of the amendment, the side-heading to the clause as printed in the Bill is no longer accurate in referring only to reductions. I thought that the noble Earl would like me to point that out. If I have not quite made myself clear, what I have said will be accurately reported in the Official Report.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, leave out line 29.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. The effect of this amendment, and one or two others which come later, is to meet certain criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reported at columns 259 and 260 of the Official Report. The amendments as a whole are intended to make it clear that it is to be mandatory for the tribunal to make deductions from compensation, for social security benefits and so on received by the claimant. The Bill was criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for failing to make that plain, so the effect of this amendment and others which come later is to rectify the situation.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 33 and insert ("the claimant as a result").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This amendment is intended to deal with points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, reported
1886
at column 261 of the Official Report. The amendment will provide that a claimant who receives damages must give notice of that fact to the tribunal so as to enable the Secretary of State to claim back the relevant repayment as defined by Clause 9(2) of the Bill.
Lord BELSTEAD: It is not entirely easy to follow what are, at any rate to me, technical matters, but I think I ought to say that the amendment which the noble Earl has just moved, and the previous one, have an unfortunate effect. Although they are an improvement on the Bill as drafted, they reduce the payment of compensation to a dependant by the amount of any insurance money or benefits relating to the injury, instead of those arising from the victim's death. The subsection, as amended by the noble Earl, is also more restrictive than the Government's revised scheme announced yesterday, in that under the revised scheme benefits and pensions which are received as a result of personal payments made by the victim need not be taken into account when assessing compensation. I am not particularly asking the noble Earl to respond to what I have said, but I thought it was right to place this on the record. These are some of the problems which the Government still see in the noble Earl's Bill.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I do not for one moment suppose that perfection has already been achieved. We have to go through two further stages. I shall certainly look very carefully at what the noble Lord said and expect to make the necessary adjustments at the next stage.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Return of compensation where certain other payments are made to a claimant]:
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 21, after ("shall") insert—
(" (a) within twenty eight days serve notice by post upon the tribunal of the receipt by him of any sum in payment of any such damages, compensation (other than com

1887
pensation paid under this Act), insurance money, benefit, pension or gratuity as are or is, as the case may be, referred to in subsection (2) below; and (b)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: This, of course, follows the word "shall", which is a requirement. I am not entirely clear what will happen if a claimant fails to comply with the requirement. I do not mean deliberately to ask a difficult question. This is a genuine question which the noble Earl needs to look at. There is a requirement here and the Bill does not say what happens if the requirement is not met. For instance, will the claimant be subject to ordinary court proceedings, or will the compensation tribunal have some special power further to reduce the compensation as a sanction? Those are the kind of questions which arise in one's mind. The noble Earl may wish to look at what I have just said before we come to the next stage of his Bill.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I would rather read what the noble Lord has said and then make the necessary rectifications.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 19:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38.
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("that dependant by virtue of the victim's death") and insert ("the claimant")
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("question") to end of line 4.
Page 5, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) In this section "insurance money", "benefit", and "pension" have the meanings respectively assigned to them by section 6(2) above.").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are intended to meet points made by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbey-dale. In view of the difficulties that have been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I would rather not move these amendments but table them at the next stage in whatever form seems most suitable.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal]:
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("who") and insert ("and two other members and the president and each of those members").
The noble Earl said: This amendment and the following amendments relate to a point on which my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale dwelt quite considerably. His point was that all members of the tribunal should be legally qualified. These amendments will provide accordingly. It is an attempt to meet my noble friend's point and, indeed, this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—certainly I understood that that was his point of view.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("Chancellor") to end of line 25.
Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("for") to ("shall") in line 30 and insert ("the words "a president" to end of the subsection, the words "a president and two other members and the president and each of those members").
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("paragraph (a) of")
Page 6, line 21, leave out from ("Session") to end of line 22.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to speak to this group of amendments, and express my recognition of the fact that the noble Earl has taken the view that the Bill should be amended so that the members of the compensation tribunal do not need to be medically qualified. It is not that the medical qualifications are not most important with regard to the work of the board, but, as I sought to say on the previous stage of the Bill, the medical advice can be procured without including in legislation the fact that one, or more than one, of the members of the board needs to be medically qualified. Having said that, I cannot see why the members of the tribunal need to be appointed respectively by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President of the Court of Session, when the members of the existing board have been appointed by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for

1889
Scotland for 15 years without any apparent reason for complaint. However, I assume that this is because the noble Earl wishes to emphasise the legal nature of the tribunal's proceedings. I thought I would just raise that aspect again. It is right to raise this particular marker before we say goodbye to Clause 10.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I do not lay great stress on the fact that it must be the Lord Chancellor. I should also like to look at this again.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I ask the Minister whether I understood my noble friend Lord Longford to say that all the members of the tribunal were to be legally qualified? If so, that is a most unusual course. Normally in matters of this kind the chairman of the tribunal is legally qualified. Does the Minister himself believe that all members of the tribunal should be legally qualified?
Lord BELSTEAD: In the revised scheme, which the Government announced yesterday, that is the situation: the chairman and the members of the board will be legally qualified. The reason for that is a matter which occupied the Members of your Lordships' House considerably during the Second Reading of the Bill. It is because the compensation is assessed in accordance with assessment of tort damages. It is necessary to have people who understand the assessment of tort damages—in other words, people who are legally qualified—to sit on the board. Therefore, my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is that it is the right way to proceed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may say so, this is still a most unusual course to take. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord has said, I should have thought it was essential that the chairman should be legally qualified, that he should be a qualified lawyer. But in assessing these matters other considerations must be taken into account, which do not require a legal point of view. I should have thought that we would be creating a very bad precedent. In a matter of compensation for injury there ought to be at least one lay person on the tribunal. I am quite surprised that we should be considering a tribunal all the members of
1890
which are legally qualified. I do not know whether there is a precedent for this. If there is, I cannot think of it, but I think it is a dangerous one. We have always had one or two lay people on tribunals who can bring other experiences to bear in assessing matters of this kind.
Lord BELSTEAD: I have listened very closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said because he has considerable experience of tribunal matters, although not necessarily perhaps criminal injury matters. I would remind him that the present system of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is that, in the first instance, the hearings are held in front of a single member of the board. The Government claim—indeed I have no hesitation in claiming this—that this is a great advantage. It allows for hearings to be held as quickly as possible, although hearings are not held as quickly as everyone would wish; it allows for reasonable informality, and in the event people do not appear to object in any large numbers to the hearing in front of one member of the board.
However, if the applicant feels that the finding of the single board member is a wrong one, then it is open to the applicant to appeal to the board. Therefore, in the first instance, I would submit to the noble Lord that, for the reasons I have gone into, it is necessary for the single member hearing a criminal injuries compensation case to be legally qualified. It is when the matter goes to a three-man or three-men and women hearing that the noble Lord's remarks bite. I do not think I have anything more I would like to say, except that I should like to have another look at this scheme, and, if I feel there is anything else I should like to add, leave myself free to write about this to the noble Lord before the next stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I rather understood my noble friend to say that he was probably prepared to take back Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 to look at. I do not know whether it is his intention to do so, but, if he did and came back with a tribunal consisting of a chairman who was legally qualified and the other two who were not, would the noble Lord the Minister then resist these amendments?
Lord BELSTEAD: This is, in a sense, like putting in a paragraph in the middle of a page. I think perhaps it is a good moment, if the noble Earl does not mind my speaking once again on this, for me to repeat, in case I have seemed over-helpful, that the Government do not believe that the time is ripe (those are the words I used) for legislation. It is not because we do not like Private Member's legislation. We are delighted to see legislation from the noble Earl or any other Member of your Lordships' House, but there were good reasons why I got up on Clause 1 and said we thought the time was not ripe.
Secondly, there are still many things in this Bill which would need to be changed before the Bill could possibly become law. Therefore, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is hypothetical in this sense, because at the moment we have a Bill before your Lordships' House which I am afraid the Government do not support for the reasons I have tried to give, whereas we have the existence of the brand new revised scheme which the Government believe, I hope correctly, is the right way to proceed, at least for the next few months.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I was a little puzzled by what the noble Lord said about the initial hearing before the chairman of the tribunal, because at present in any cases known to me there is no hearing. The single chairman decides with the help of his advisers, and makes a decision on the basis of correspondence. The hearing is not possible until the next stage. That is the present situation, unless there are some exceptions known to the noble Lord and not to me.
I did not say that I was actually taking back this clause. I said I would look at it again—which may come to almost the same thing. I would hope that these amendments could be carried, but I am overwhelmingly convinced by my noble friend, to whom I owe a good deal of allegiance in these latter days. I would come up again, or at any rate make contact with the noble Lord and have a further argument about it. I might not have been so dogmatic in favour of the legal trio if I had heard the views of the noble Lord, but as of now I should like to move these amendments.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Staff and expenses of compensation tribunal]:
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("such local boards and")
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("and local boards")
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are really consequential on the removal of subsection (2). Perhaps in passing, very meekly and mildly, I can express a little sadness that, having tried to meet the noble Lord on all the main points he raised last time, he has dredged up a whole lot of new difficulties. I feel very much like Sisyphus. I suppose if I satisfy him on some of these points his clever advisers will come up with some new conundrums. We thought we had met him on what he called the new fundamentals. These amendments are really consequential on the removal of subsection (2).
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Tribunal's duty to give publicity to rights to claim compensation
. The tribunal shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, call the attention of victims and their dependants to their rights to claim compensation under this Act.
The noble Earl said: As the Committee will be aware, we have removed subsection (2), but that did not only refer to local boards; it referred to two other issues. I attach a lot of importance to this new clause, although its effect is not quantifiable. The new clause would read:
"The tribunal shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, call the attention of victims and their dependants to their rights to claim compensation under this Act".
Although the noble Lord is advised by those who are most directly concerned—presumably the members of the board—that their scheme has always worked

1893
almost perfectly, in fact there is great bewilderment about it. Only yesterday somebody sent in a card to see me. He did not even know about the scheme. He had been injured a long time ago and he wondered how he could get some compensation. He had consulted the police. They did not give him any help. There is a large section of the population—again I cannot quantify it—who do not know about the scheme at present, and if they do, do not know how to proceed, so I do not think that anyone can object to these words being put into the Bill which I hope will lead to more publicity being given.
6.48 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
Right to legal aid
. A claimant, whose financial circumstances are such that he would be eligible for legal aid in civil proceedings, shall be eligible for the like legal aid in claiming compensation under this Act.
The noble Earl said: This provision was also in the original Bill in the now defunct Clause 2(2). This provides for legal aid on the same basis as in civil proceedings. On the last occasion, the noble Lord explained that if and when this scheme is placed on a statutory basis, legal aid is likely to be available. I am not asking for anything extraordinary, because we are proceeding on the assumption that this is going to be a statutory board if this Bill goes through. Therefore, in that case, there ought to be legal aid on the same basis as in civil proceedings.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am not a lawyer, but I do not think it is quite so straight-forward as the noble Earl suggests. Legal aid is not generally available for hearings before administrative tribunals. The Legal Aid Act 1979 provides for regulations to be made specifying the proceedings before tribunals for which legal aid for legal representation may become available. It is also the case that the 1979 Act has not yet been brought into effect, and regulations have not been made yet.
On the same ground—that we await what is to be done—what I have to say is that the Government see no reason for making
1894
special provision for the compensation tribunal in advance of that for other similar tribunals. If provision were to be made for legal aid for tribunals—and I am in no way suggesting that this is to be done—then serious consideration would need to be given to the desirability of legal aid for all tribunals, or none, or picking out certain ones. But there could be no case for suddenly finding that legislation had provided for the compensation tribunal as unique. Apart from that objection, which is an objection of principle, it is a little doubtful whether the provision of legal aid would be wholly beneficial to applicants.
The procedures of the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are designed to be as simple and straightforward as possible, and there is a risk—the noble Earl may think this is special pleading—that a greater degree of legal representation will lead to more lengthy and complicated procedures. Applicants already have access to limited legal aid and advice as to whether to apply, or whether to accept a single member's decision. They can also be given help with the application form. I am not convinced that anything more is necessary; I am doubtful whether it is desirable; and I am very doubtful indeed as to whether we should be able to proceed in this form taking the compensation board in isolation. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me, but I am really registering total and fundamental disagreement with him on this particular point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Although I have no axe to grind in this matter, knowing how many tribunals there are in the country and the fact that few of the applicants have the right to legal aid, I think the Minister is right to say that this is likely to be a real stumbling block. If this particular door were opened, I think there must be, because there already have been over the past few years, many claims from people who have to refer certain matters to a tribunal where no provision is made for legal representation. If legal aid were given in this particular case, I believe it would result in a flood of applications coming which for various reasons could not be met. I am wondering whether my noble friend feels this is a crucial matter at this time. If he feels it is not absolutely crucial then, in the

1895
interests of his Bill—and the Minister has acceded to pretty well all his requests tonight so far as amendments are concerned—he might feel that the amendment could be taken back and thought through again with a view to not pressing legal aid at this stage.
Lord WIGODER: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. Speaking as one who very much supports the extension of legal aid to all tribunals at the earliest practicable moment, to start off piecemeal in this way would nevertheless seem an unhappy way of proceeding. Has the noble Earl endeavoured to cost this proposal? If so, what has been the result?
The Earl of LONGFORD: Does the noble Lord mean the cost of this proposal for legal aid?
Lord WIGODER: Yes.
The Earl of LONGFORD: No, and it is almost impossible to cost any of these proposals. The Government have been quite unable to produce any estimates of cost and it is impossible to know how many people will take advantage of these provisions. That seems to be common ground generally; nobody has any idea, however rough, of how many victims there are who do not at present apply, so it is a completely obscure area.
I am afraid I regard this proposal as crucial, and I could not again raise my head in front of any victim if I were quietly to collapse in front of the eloquence of noble Lords on this subject. Legal aid is, I believe, crucial and, in any event, this is a mild proposal, the amendment simply saying:
"A claimant, whose financial circumstances are such that he would be eligible for legal aid in civil proceedings, shall be eligible for the like legal aid in claiming compensation under this Act.".
I have only once been before a tribunal, although a good many people who have been victims have approached me, and I gave an account of that on Second Reading and will not go through it again. It was a pathetic affair. There was an almost illiterate man faced in the appeal by three lawyers, and of course he did not have a chance. It is really to prevent that sort of situation that I am insisting
1896
on this amendment being made; if it is within my power to insist on anything, I must insist on legal aid. Many people are represented by trade unions, but in so far as every claimant is left to his own devices, where he has no one to help him there can he many difficulties, and I must therefore press with all the strength at my command for legal aid.
Lord BELSTEAD: Perhaps I could ask one question of the noble Earl before we leave this subject. He gave as an example an appeal to a three-man sitting, and he said the applicant was not legally qualified whereas those who were hearing the appeal were legally qualified. He said the applicant did not have a chance. Why did he say that?
The Earl of LONGFORD: The applicant had up against him a high official—I will not describe him more closely than that—from the Criminal Injuries Board, so the real contest was between that high official and the illiterate working man. Thus, whether or not the three people were lawyers, unless they were great humanitarians they would probably have sided with the high official.
Lord BELSTEAD: People who are members of the board are there to do their best to assist, within the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, those who make application to them for criminal injuries compensation. They are there to do their very best for the applicants within the terms of the scheme. There is no question of the people who are on the board in some way being faceless officials; they are independent members of the board once they have been appointed. It is most important that I should make that clear, and should underline the value of the work which members of the board do.
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am not sure who the Minister is talking about when he refers to the "members of the board". The people I was talking about were lawyers who had been brought in to form a tribunal. The man's adversary, so to speak, was a high official who had had a lot to do with turning down the case at an earlier stage. That was the actual situation. I am rather surprised that such an illustrious lawyer, apart from anyone else, should rate so low the

1897
services of counsel. People are paid thousands of pounds—I hope the noble Lord is paid vast sums—to appear on behalf of applicants. Although it is a lovely picture to think of the three lawyers being quite unaffected by high-powered arguments, that is what advocacy amounts to and what advocates are paid for. I am afraid I must take my stand as firmly as I can on the principle of legal aid.
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
(" "loss" has the meaning assigned to that word by section 1(4) above;")
The noble Earl said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
In the Title [An Act to confer a new right to compensation for loss suffered in the course of certain criminal acts; and for connected purposes]:
6.58 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD moved Amendment No. 30:
Line 2, leave out ("suffered in the course of certain criminal acts") and insert ("arising from certain acts of violence").
The noble Earl said: I am submitting this with a sense of diffidence, because I am relying entirely on the very expert gentleman advising me; I have no doubt he is right, but others may disagree. What we are now doing is removing the word "criminal" from the Long Title. It is pointed out to me—I think this is in accordance with existing practice, which is why the amendment has been drafted for me in this way—that it is not intended in our Bill (and I think this is following existing practice) to refer to "crime" or "criminal" because the Bill is intended to cover acts of violence, for example committed by a child or person of unsound mind in such circumstances that no crime or criminal exists, and therefore the word "criminal" is too wide.
Under this proposal, one would, in the Long Title, leave out any reference to "criminal acts" by making it consistent with the Bill in referring to "acts of violence." But we are left with this position—and this is where I feel rather more than usually in the hands of my expert—that it is possible to leave it out of the Long Title but still to leave it in the Short Title, which is what I am proposing to do. If anybody tells me, "That is exactly what you cannot do", my reply is, "Sez you!" I say the opposite, but I do not know who would be prepared to say that this cannot be done.
Lord BELSTEAD: If it is helpful to have the Government's view, I would say that I am a little perplexed, but I do not object.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

GIBRALTAR: BENEFITS OF EEC MEMBERSHIP
7.1 p.m.
Lord SELSDON Lord SELSDON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that Gibraltar obtains full benefit from membership of the EEC. The noble Lord said: The Question standing in my name today is prompted by two separate, and not necessarily related, issues, and I hope to seek to find a way to relate them. The first issue is the cost of British membership of the EEC and the benefits which we receive from that membership. The second issue is the enlargement of the EEC with the joining of Spain. And in the middle I have placed Gibraltar, because this is one territory which takes up both these issues.
The first issue which I raise is one that has caused considerable concern throughout the country, both with the previous Government and with this Government, who with considerable force have pointed out that they object strongly to the high cost of British membership, and in a relatively soft and weak voice have failed to point out that the cost of membership is exactly as was planned and budgeted many years ago, but the benefits that have

1899
accrued from it are substantially less. The reason why these benefits are lower than anticipated is in my view to some extent the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom in that we have failed to respond to initiatives which have been suggested to us by the Community and have grudgingly accepted proposals and made very few of our own. It is surely our responsibility to do what we can to help the regions of this country and territories which are dependent upon the United Kingdom to obtain the greatest benefits possible in both the economic and political spheres from membership of the EEC.
We of course suffer from a disadvantage in that we were one of the late entries, so to speak, and came in with a large number of relationships around the world, probably greater than the rest of the EEC put together. It is therefore not surprising to note that the older members of the EEC, in particular France, have managed to obtain considerable financial and economic benefit for their dependent territories and for their former dependent territories. If we look at the benefits offered under the Lomé Convention, we find that the major beneficiaries are not members of the Commonwealth but former territories of other nations.
Thus, my first point is to ask what responsibility is it of the United Kingdom Government, and what will the Government do, to ensure that our Dominions or Crown Colonies obtain maximum economic benefit from membership of the EEC, for surely since they are dependent territories and dominions, the responsibility for benefits accruing to them rests as much with the United Kingdom as it does with the territories themselves.
I start with the subject of Gibraltar by reminding your Lordships' House that in the Preamble to the new Constitution in 1969 it was stated:
"Gibraltar is part of Her Majesty's Dominions and Her Majesty's Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's Dominions unless or until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides".
Presumably the same principles apply to many other dominions around the world. If we inquire of these dominions directly or indirectly what benefits have they received out of United Kingdom membership of the EEC, we find, first, that they
1900
are somewhat lacking in knowledge of what benefits they could receive, and that more often than not they have never really had direct touch with the EEC.
Gibraltar is a special case at this time for it is a territory which, because of relationships with Spain, is having and suffering economic and political problems. The reasons for that we are all aware of. But we come to the question of the solution, and the solution to the Gibraltar problem must inevitably be related in some way or another to the EEC, for surely it is not practical that when one assumes wider membership of the EEC and Spain joins, there should be a border set up between two EEC countries over which man may not tread freely. That is of course an issue that I know could be resolved; but I am sure that the Government would not hold back support for Spain's membership of the EEC purely on the question of Gibraltar. But surely between now and the time of Spanish entry there are chances for discussions and negotiations on this particular front. Therefore, I would argue that Gibraltar should be entitled to obtain some form of political benefit from membership of the EEC, and that we should use the opportunity of Spain joining to seek further discussions and negotiations with a view to trying to arrive at an equitable solution before the final act of accession by Spain.
I do not believe in this case that the fault necessarily rests with the United Kingdom Government—with this Government or with the previous Government—nor with Gibraltar, for I understand that some time ago Gibraltar took an initiative and suggested that there might be talks between the British Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister. This was agreed, and as long ago as November 1977 talks were held in Strasbourg, presumably an independent EEC centre. At those talks it was agreed that a working group of officials from Britain, Spain, and Gibraltar would be established to study a number of areas, and I believe that the group met twice, once in London and once in Madrid. But I think no real progress was made, and I see no signs of any progress being made at the moment, unless, as I hope, my noble friend can report some initiatives following a recent visit to Gibraltar by one of his right honourable friends. But if no progress is made, I think it is up to Her Majesty's

1901
Government to try to propose and take some form of initiative, which I am sure they would do. Obviously the Spanish-Gibraltar situation is really a bilateral problem, but equally, with impending EEC membership, there is perhaps something that could be done.
So I move now away from the political scene to the economic scene. There is no doubt that the problems with Spain have had an adverse effect upon Gibraltar's economy. Previously she was relatively independent and self-sufficient, but since these problems she has had to rely more and more heavily upon the United Kingdom for aid and support. This support has been both generous and fair, and not for a moment would I suggest that Gibraltar should have any complaints about the way she has been handled in this particular field.
But when it comes to the question of membership of the EEC, one of the objectives of the EEC is to help to some extent the poorer or underdeveloped parts of the EEC territory. Gibraltar does not necessarily qualify as being poor. While she has a growing visible balance-of-payments deficit up to about £28 million, she has in all a moderate trade surplus due to invisibles. She has a relatively low level of unemployment; about 40 people are totally unemployable, and the general level is in the field of hundreds. Thus she does not qualify in that particular area.
However, I am advised that some time ago she made an application to the European Investment Bank for financial support, which was rejected. I therefore thought that I would see what the attitude might be among the Community institutions and the Commission, and I asked informally, as one can do in this world, what their attitude to Gibraltar would be. All those to whom I spoke, of all nationalities, confirmed a willingness to try to help and support Gibraltar if the right mechanism could be found, and all of them seemed to indicate that it was up to Her Majesty's Government to find that mechanism. There were possibilities that Gibraltar could be declared an assisted area, and all forms of technical ways in which Gibraltar could qualify for financial support from one of the EEC institutions.
Therefore I would ask my noble friend whether it is possible that Her Majesty's
1902
Government could take certain initiatives which would then permit Gibraltar to borrow money from the European Investment Bank, perhaps to benefit from the European Coal and Steel Community, from Euratom, or from the Ortoli facility, or from whatever funds or facilities the Community may devise in the years ahead. It is fair to say that, without some form of support of this sort from the Community, Gibraltar will continue to look to the United Kingdom for aid.
Its 1978–81 development plan calls for a total expenditure of around £28 million. I believe that around £13 million of that will be provided in grant aid or other forms of aid in the overseas development administration of the United Kingdom. Gibraltar will be required to find the balance of that finance, and she herself could be relatively stretched, particularly with the recent increase in oil prices. This has two effects upon Gibraltar. First, because of this increase in prices, and for other reasons as well, the pound sterling has risen sharply in value. This may be beneficial to the United Kingdom, but could have a detrimental effect upon Gibraltar's own tourist trade, which is part of her main invisible income. Secondly, of course, there is the cost of energy for Gibraltar, and her need to be self-sufficient and independent.
These are relatively minor sums in the context of the world as a whole, but the same principles as apply to Gibraltar could well apply to other dominions in other parts of the world. Gibraltar has one thing which makes her separate and different, I think, in the financial world. I am not quite sure whether I am totally right in this, but I believe that she is effectively the only territory outside the British Isles which is within the scheduled territories—the Gibraltar pound is on a par with sterling—and under the currency note ordinance Gibraltar notes in circulation have to be covered at least 70 per cent. by eligible sterling assets in a note security fund held and managed in London by the Crown Agents. So she is more closely linked to the United Kingdom than perhaps other dominions in matters relating to finance and the economy.
My Lords, I know, or I believe, that there is this willingness within the EEC institutions and within the new European Parliament to seek to support individual

1903
anomalies, if I might put it that way (because to some extent, in this area, Gibraltar is an anomaly), and before I sit down I would ask my noble friend whether he will do what he can to seek to help Gibraltar in terms of relations and opportunities which can come from its membership of the EEC. My Question does not imply any criticism, but is to point out that I believe there is an opportunity to obtain support which might reduce to some extent the burden upon the British taxpayer and, in the years or months to come before Spain joins, provide a real chance to resolve, independently and in a reasonable atmosphere, the current political difficulties.
7.13 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend Lord Selsdon for tabling this most important and very well timed Question—certainly far better timed than one your Lordships may recall I tabled for Question Time earlier this month. The reason why I tabled a Question on Anglo-Spanish relations was to establish a measure of the priority which the new Administration placed upon this subject. Your Lordships may further recall that the Answer forthcoming, and indeed that to a supplementary put by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was positively brutal in its tartness. Be that as it may, serve me right for having the impertinence even to suggest that this Administration could get its priorities wrong!
My Lords, subsequent developments appear to show that Her Majesty's Government are placing perhaps an even higher priority on these matters than did the previous Administration. At a Press conference on 17th July the Lord Privy Seal said that it was a mistake to sit back and wait upon developments; Lord Carrington would be meeting the Foreign Minister in September. Indeed, the Spanish Foreign Minister, I understand, was in London this week. Furthermore, the Lord Privy Seal stated that Britain supported Spanish accession to the EEC. The transition to democracy in Spain was one of the major political achievements of the 20th century, and should be ackknowledged as such.
My Lords, this is marvellous stuff. It appears that Her Majesty's Government
1904
are following the previous Administration's example of maintaining assiduous and continuous negotiation. Indeed, I believe it would be quite wrong to pour a cold-water douche of disdain over the previous Administration's diplomatic efforts, for two reasons. The first is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said on a previous occasion, foreign relations is a continuing process that flows from one Administration to the other, and partisan politics have no place in foreign affairs. Secondly, the previous Administration's efforts and achievements should be recognised and praised.
What I see as being particularly welcome is that Her Majesty's Government are seeking a positive dialogue for the future and are not dealing in a sterile debate of the past. In a statement on 17th July last, the Lord Privy Seal said:
"During the past ten years, during which all direct communications between Gibraltar and neighbouring areas of Spain have been severed, much has changed in Western Europe, including Spain. There are now new Governments in both Madrid and London engaged in bringing about further change. Spain's accession to the European Community is one of those changes, which should be turned to good account in Gibraltar as well as Europe generally. It is a common British and Gibraltarian interest for Spain to be inside the Community and a normal relationship resumed"
This, of course, must be so, and I believe that in the forthcoming negotiations Her Majesty's Government will be most assiduous in determining that any changes will be turned to good account for Gibraltar as well as for Europe generally.
There is, however, one point which had worried me. It is a point which could be inferred from the Question; namely, whether the question of lifting sanctions, or progress over any matters relating to Gibraltar, should be made a condition precedent to Spain's entry as a member of the European Economic Community. I believe that it should not, for the very good reason that the United Kingdom entry was not so fettered. I was therefore delighted to read that the Lord Privy Seal stated at the Press conference previously referred to that no formal link was made between the British Government's attitude towards negotiations for Spanish entry to the EEC and progress over Gibraltar. The Lord Privy Seal went on to say that it is, however, inconceivable that a border between two parts of EEC territory could remain closed. That would

1905
be out of the question. It was hoped that restrictions would be lifted before detailed negotiation was engaged: if not, the matter was bound to come up. My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to confirm that the lifting of sanctions on the border is being made a condition precedent to the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and Spain in September? I am not so concerned with the strategy but with the tactic of this device should the Minister's answer be in the affirmative.
I am most optimistic for the future. I believe that the lessons of 1966 are being learned. I believe most fervently that the history of the two great old monarchies has reached a watershed. I most respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government that when considering matters of style—namely, of form and timing—they consider very carefully matters of outlook and temperament. May Her Majesty's Government always remember—to paraphrase Yeats—to tread softly, for they are treading on dreams.
7.19 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the House is grateful, I am sure, to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for initiating this short debate, which should give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to reiterate their views on the future of Gibraltar and its people. I think the noble Lord made a powerful and cogent case for examining with great care the future of Gibraltar as an economic entity within the EEC, in view of its special link, economically and constitutionally, with this country, and certain difficulties that may arise if the mainland—that is to say, Spain—accedes to the Community in 1983 with certain relationships between it and Gibraltar still unresolved. I think it is a speech that will bear careful scrutiny in the cold light of Hansard tomorrow morning and a contribution to our thinking on these matters.
Similarly, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, put some very important points particularly in regard to the impact of the Gibraltar question on the long-standing friendship between us and the people and Government of Spain. It is of the utmost importance that we should endeavour to relate proper consideration and, indeed, recognition of the
1906
desires of the people of Gibraltar with a very great British interest in the very best relations with Spain. I agree with him that it is a continuing process—he said an "assiduous and continuous" process—of consultation and co-operation with the Spanish Government.
I am confident that when the noble Lord replies to this debate what he has to say will not substantially or essentially differ from what 1 have said from time to time when I had the privilege of explaining the policy of the then-Government in relation to Gibraltar and to Spain. Our views, and, I think, the views of successive Governments, and of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country and of Gibraltar, are enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of 1969 which, in so many words, says that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any change in the constitutional status—and that has economic overtones, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will agree—of Gibraltar which was at variance with the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Before and after the adoption of the 1969 Constitution those wishes were indeed democratically expressed. The referendum of 1967 produced an overwhelming majority against any change of constitutional status; and in subsequent elections to the Gibraltar Parliament the support given to the two pro-Spanish groups was negligible. Neither the party for autonomy for Gibraltar, a Rightist group, nor the Socialist Party of Gibraltar, a Maoist-Marxist group, won a single seat in the Assembly. All 12 seats were, in the majority, won by the moderate socialists led by Sir Joshua Hassan and in the minority by a centre party, both in favour of the present constitutional and, therefore, economic status of Gibraltar. There can be no doubt, therefore, about the democratically-expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. With a passionate near-unanimity they want to stay as they are in the constitutional sense.
On the other hand, it is true that Spanish feelings run deep on this issue; and it is also true that there are ties of historic, cultural and commercial importance between Britain and Spain and a friendship which was not essentially impaired even by the long night of fascism which estranged the people of the two

1907
countries for a time. Now that Spain, as we have heard, has courageously, and, I think, effectively, re-asserted its democracy, that friendship between Britain and Spain is warmer than ever and even more valuable to the course of Western democracy than it ever was. And it is powerfully reflected in the strong support from the very start given by the United Kingdom to the candidacy of Spain for membership of the EEC. Like our partners in the Community, we wish to see signature by the end of 1981 and entry somewhere at the beginning of 1983. This is British policy; it is Community policy; and it is equally the wish of the people of Gibraltar that Spain should effectively enter the Community in 1983.
But, naturally, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, Gibraltarians of all shades of opinion, all shades of (shall we say?) pro status quo opinion—because there is very little else there—are asking questions. They ask me, they ask the noble Lord, and, no doubt, the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, and the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, who was recently there on a visit: "How will the entry of Spain affect the position of Gibraltar?" There is no simple and instant solution to the dichotomy of interests in the Peninsula. We must respect the intensity of Spanish feeling—and we do! We respect and understand it. Our Spanish friends must equally recognise the intensity of the feelings of the people of Gibraltar. We must earnestly hope that the Spanish Government will lift the vexatious restrictions on contact between the Rock and the mainland.
I think we could agree that, as Spain accedes to the Community, so it may join the rest of us in the Community in cooperatively seeking a modus virendi for Gibraltar in the post-Spanish accession period. This gives point to the appeal made to the noble Lord to tell us about the intention of the present Government, like the last one, to continue with friendly discussions with the Spanish Government about this entire question.
My Lords, we are looking to the future. I spoke of vexatious restrictions on movement; and I agree that it is inconceivable that those should subsist into a post-accession
1908
period, that two territories within the same Community should, nevertheless, be subject to these restrictions on their mutual border. One often wonders how a noble, warm-hearted and imaginative people like the Spaniards can hope that restrictions of this kind can have any other result than to estrange the people of Gibraltar. Certainly, it is difficult to see how this kind of restriction can be carried legally into a situation of Spanish membership of the Community. The Lord Privy Seal's recent visit was, I am sure, undertaken in the hope that ideas about a better relationship between Gibraltar and Spain should arise as a result. His visit and his statements afterwards reflect that purpose, and I see nothing in what he did or said during his visit, and afterwards, to which Her Majesty's Opposition could take exception.
I have intervened to support the noble Lord in raising this matter to give an opportunity for the Government to repeat what we all assume to be their attitude, and to support the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in the reminders that he has ably given to us of the potential for intra-territorial difficulty within the Community unless we are very careful during the period of the run-up to the signature in 1981 and actual entry in 1983. It is a difficult problem which admits of no quick solution, as I said, except the solution of mutual tolerance, respect and patience; an evolutionary solution based on the participation of both Gibraltar and Spain in an attempt within the Community, when the time comes, to seek a way out of this difficulty.
I have only one further point to make: I agree entirely that it would be counter-productive to say the least—possibly dangerous—to attempt any formal linkage in this matter—that is to say, to trade off. One cannot trade off emotions one against the other, and the basis of this—whatever the economic and constitutional results may be—is deeply held feelings on both sides. It would be a grave mistake to be seen to try to barter two distinctive patriotisms; but rather bring them together within a larger entity, that of the Community. It is in the spirit of strong friendship for Spain and absolute assurance to Gibraltar that I hope that the Government, like the last Government, will proceed in this matter.
7.33 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, once again the House has been treated to a careful, thoughtful and helpful speech from my noble friend Lord Selsdon and indeed from my noble friend Lord Morris. May I say that from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, we have had a useful introduction to this difficult subject. My noble friend's Question hangs on the precise relationship of Gibraltar to the EEC. Let me begin by reminding noble Lords of the formal status which we secured for Gibraltar—I might add after lengthy negotiation—in the Accession negotiations between 1970 and 1972.
What we wanted for Gibraltar was that the Treaty should apply, but that certain provisions of it which would have been either irrelevant or unnecessarily and excessively complicated, should not. This was achieved in the following way. Article 227.4 of the Treaty of Rome declares that
"the provisions of this Treaty shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible".
But special provisions in the Treaty of Accession provide that three major areas of Community business do not apply within Gibraltar: the Common Commercial Policy (thus enabling Gibraltar, which has a very narrow tax base, to continue to control and retain revenue raised from import duties); the Common Agricultural Policy (because Gibraltar has no agriculture); and the obligation to introduce a value added tax. I need not go into details of the legal mechanics by which these derogations are given force of law. The effect of the arrangements I have described is, of course, that Gibraltar has not been required to make any budgetary contribution to the Community budget, nor have Her Majesty's Government done so on Gibraltar's behalf.
It may be useful if I review briefly the other main areas of the Treaty as they apply to Gibraltar. All the other rules of the Community apply in Gibraltar and Gibraltar is part of the territory of the Community. Community regulations are given direct force by law by means of Gibraltar's European Communities ordinance; and the Gibraltar authorities have taken steps to implement all Community secondary legislation where relevant locally.
1910
Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes. Gibraltar therefore has had the opportunity to benefit from the provisions of the Treaty covering freedom of movement of persons, services and capital. Among other things, this means that any Gibraltarian wanting to establish himself professionally in any of the other member-States has the general right to do so. Furthermore there are now a number of specific areas—doctors, dentists, nurses, in some respects lawyers, and so on—where there is Community-wide recognition of qualifications. This too provides potential benefit to Gibraltar. But it will be for the Gibraltar Government itself to monitor the extent to which Gibraltarians have taken advantage of these arrangements.
I now come to the three major sources of Community aid, apart from the CAP, to members of the Community. I refer to the Regional Development Fund, the Social Fund, and loans from the European Investment Bank. These were the points raised specially by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. In principle, both the provisions of the Treaty concerning the bank and the acts establishing the funds apply to Gibraltar. There has been careful analysis by the Government over the years of the possibility of securing aid for Gibraltar from these sources. No doubt these analyses—as they are now—took place under the previous Administration.
As far as the EIB is concerned the bank has confirmed to the Government of Gibraltar that there is no legal obstacle to EIB lending to Gibraltar. Applications from Gibraltar for EIB loans would however naturally have to fit one of the three separate criteria set out in Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome. These are: projects for developing less developed regions; projects for modernising undertakings or developing fresh activities called for by the progressive establishment of the Common Market; and projects of common interest to several member-States.
A condition for both the last two is that they are of such a size or nature that they cannot be entirely financed by the means available in the individual member-States. It has not so far been possible to identify a project acceptable to the bank in the light of these criteria. There

1911
are, however, a number of projects still under discussion between the Gibraltar authorities and the appropriate departments in London, although I call give no undertaking as to what the outcome will be. One of the Banks' requirements is that it must have appropriate security for any loans it makes. The Government are currently examining whether it would be possible to provide the necessary guarantee if a suitable project was identified.
One possibility in the longer term is of a project that would meet the so-called "common interest" criterion. With Spain a member of the Community it is possible to think of a number of projects of common interest to both Gibraltar and Spain and that might conceivably qualify for EIB assistance. Although the Regional Development Fund in principle applies to Gibraltar, Article 3 of the regulation establishing the fund provides that regions and areas which may benefit from the fund shall be limited to those aided regions established by member-States in applying their systems of regional aid. Investments may benefit from the fund's assistance only if they fall within the framework of a national regional development programme. Gibraltar has never hitherto been included in areas to which the Government apply their system of regional aid: nor have the Government ever adopted a regional development programme covering Gibraltar. My noble friend Lord Selsdon specifically asked me whether Gibraltar could become an assisted area. I am told there may be some difficulties in doing that, but it is a matter I should like to look into further and perhaps I may write to my noble friend about it.
I am afraid there are similar problems with respect to the European Social Fund. Again, we would of course be willing to consider any projects which the Gibraltar Government might wish to put forward in relation to the Social Fund. They have not so far done so. This is not surprising, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, that Gibraltar has full employment or virtually so. This Government remain constitutionally responsible for Gibraltar's external relations. This includes representing Gibraltar's interests in the Council of Ministers and taking Gibraltar's interests into account in all
1912
relevant matters discussed within the Community context.
Gibraltar's relationship with the European Parliament has been a matter for discussion in this House in the context of direct elections to the European Parliament. Your Lordships will recall that the Government decided that it would be inappropriate for Gibraltar to participate in the direct elections to the European Parliament, given that the territory was not represented at Westminster. No overseas territory of any member State which does not participate in the national elections is represented in the directly elected European Parliament. Accordingly, Annex 2 of the Act annexed to the Council Decision of 1976 providing for direct elections to the European Parliament stated that the United Kingdom will apply the provisions of this Act only in respect of the United Kingdom. This provision was not directed specifically to Gibraltar: it operates to exclude the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man also.
The provisions of the Treaty relating to the European Court of Justice also apply to Gibraltar. This means that in principle a matter coming before the legal authorities in Gibraltar could be referred to the European Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177. In practice this has not yet happened.
May I turn now to the implications for Gibraltar of Spanish accession to the Community. The problem of the Spanish frontier restrictions at Gibraltar, referred to by my noble friend Lord Morris, is one on which strong views are understandably held by your Lordships and indeed elsewhere. The Government's view, like that of successive British Governments, is that these restrictions are unjustifiable and should be removed without delay. We are not establishing a formal link between Spanish accession to the EEC—for which of course there is firm British support—and the Gibraltar problem.
In our view, the best way to find a solution would be through discussion with Spain. It is inconceivable, as my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal said during his recent visit to Gibraltar, that a border between two parts of EEC territory could remain closed. It is therefore best to work on the assumption that restrictions will be a thing of the past by the time this point is reached, and that direct contact

1913
between Spain and Gibraltar—impossible over the past decade—will be re-established before rather than after the Spanish treaty of accession is signed.
As I have said, Community provisions on the Common Commercial Tariff, the Common Agricultural Policy and VAT do not currently apply to Gibraltar. There is a case for considering changing the situation, and it seems likely that the closer integration into the Community which would result would be welcome to Gibraltarians, but there would inevitably be financial problems. In making the contribution to the Community Budget which would result from Gibraltar accepting these obligations, the territory would naturally also expect to enjoy the normal financial benefits of full Community membership.
As I have already indicated, Gibraltar is not currently a strong candidate for the Regional Development and Social Funds. Once Spain has joined the EEC, the European Investment Bank may offer rather more possibilities in terms of finance for projects of common interest to both Spain and Gibraltar; but it has to be recognised that the "resource" transfer from such loans might well of itself not match Gibraltar's own contribution to the EEC budget. The underlying problems involved are under active consideration both here and in Gibraltar.
My Lords, these are difficult and complex matters which need full and careful consideration, but your Lordships can rest assured that the Government have the best interests of Gibraltar in mind and will ensure that everything possible is done to enable Gibraltar to enjoy the maximum benefits from the EEC to which she is entitled.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask just one question? For the last 30 years I have been very interested in the affairs of Gibraltar and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Selsdon is also interested in them. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government cannot by themselves exert sufficient influence on the Spanish Government for the lifting of restrictions between Spain and Gibraltar at the frontier? Will Her Majesty's Government seek the assistance and support of other Common Market countries to that end?—because in effect it is a
1914
crucial issue. For years now the Gibraltarians have been under this shadow of restrictions at the frontier. Would not my noble friend agree that something greater than he has announced this evening should be done?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I really do not think I can go much further than I have done. We do not link the question of Spanish accession to the EEC with that of the lifting of restrictions across the border between Spain and Gibraltar. As my right honourable friend said, it is inconceivable that these restrictions could remain. If Spain were to join the EEC, we think the Spaniards will see the merits of that argument and we hope that restrictions will be lifted long before Spain has joined the Common Market.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.