Lords Sitting of 8 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PORTUGAL: DISPOSSESSED BRITISH FARMERS
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 discussions with President Eanes over Portugal's application to join the European Community included mention of compensation for British farmers whose property has been expropriated by the Portuguese Government.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, during the visit of President Eanes last November the subject of compensation for dispossessed British farmers was raised, but not in connection with Portugal's application to join the European Community.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him on what principles Her Majesty's Government rely to safeguard the interests of British nationals in these cases, and, if sometimes these seem to be intractable or difficult, would not a healthy growl from Her Majesty's Government perhaps be more appropriate?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a time and place for healthy growls and for friendly smiles. In this case, with a very old friend and ally—our friendship with Portugal extends back through the centuries—and one whom we should be delighted to see as a member of the European Community, we have had very amicable and construc-
288
tive discussions on this point. Of course, the basis of our approach is the law and practice of the individual member States of the Community as it is. In addition, when the matter was raised during President Eanes' highly successful State visit to this country last November, the President himself said that the complementary legislation on compensation which would enable detailed discussion of claims to take place was in an advanced state of preparation. Therefore healthy growls are by no means necessary in this case.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to confirm whether, in the agreement reached in respect of compensation in certain cases, it has been suggested that compensation would be payable over only 27 years, to be fully paid, and that interest would be charged at 2½ per cent? If so, is that really equitable in the cases to which I have referred?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I could not confirm those details, my Lords, and nor would I attempt on this occasion to pass comment on the equity of the proposal. However, I know that the Portuguese Government have accepted the principle and embodied it in an enactment, and they have told us that the complementary processes are in an advanced state of preparation.

OAK WILT DISEASE
3.3 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: 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 intend to take any action regarding the apparent presence in this country of wilt disease in oak trees.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, no evidence of oak wilt disease has been found in Britain. The disease is known to occur only in North America. Our present wood import regulations are designed to prevent its introduction into this country and they already reflect the controls to be introduced under the EEC Plant Health

289
Directive. The EEC Plant Health Working Group, however, is now discussing a possible extension of the controls against oak wilt contained in the Directive and we would of course put any such extension into effect in this country.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he would agree that a stitch in time saves nine? Bearing in mind the environmental disaster we have suffered in this country through the destruction of our elm trees as a result of Dutch elm disease, would he not agree, despite what he said, that to protect our oak trees—after all, our oaks are traditionally the most famous trees in this country—it might be prudent to ban the import of oak in the round, in trunk form, from those countries where oak wilt is present?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree that if we lost our oaks it would be the greatest natural tragedy of modern times. I am taking a personal interest in this and I am in direct touch with my right honourable friend over it. The situation is that with the regulations, the Importation of Wood and Bark (Prohibition) (Great Britain) Order 1977 prohibits round wood being imported with the bark on and the wood also has to be dried. I am glad to say that the EEC Plant Health Working Party has now agreed that sawn squared wood should be included in the regulations. The next step is that the EEC Commission are considering the draft regulations and discussing this proposal with all the interests concerned. The Forestry Commission has recently written to all the trade and forestry interests in Britain advising them of the latest proposal and seeking their comments as a matter of urgency.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply on that subject, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to risk a 100 to one, a 1,000 to one or even a 1 million to one chance remembering what happened over elm disease, when one log caused the entire situation to erupt? Do the Government not feel that they should extend the ban, if they are considering it, to cover American imported chestnut which is capable of harbouring the fungus as well
290
as the oak species referred to by my noble friend?
Lord STRABOLGI: Home-grown oak plays an important part in our industrial scene, my Lords, but we are nevertheless heavily reliant on imported wood. Some of our oak is not regarded as suitable for all purposes—for the whisky trade and for reproductions of antique furniture—and that is one of the things we are discussing with the distillers and furniture manufacturers before we decide what to do.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, in joining other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for his reassuring words, may I ask whether he recollects that many people made reassuring noises—I agree, not the noble Lord—about Dutch elm many years ago, since when we have lost about 16 million elm trees through that disease? Does he agree it really would be a desperate tragedy not only to the timber trade but to our countryside if the same kind of thing were to happen to our oak trees? Will he ensure that extreme vigilance is exercised by all Government Departments regarding this threat to our oaks?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords. The 1970s saw the extinction of the elm population. I am determined that the 1980s will not see the extinction of the oak population.
Lord DERWENT: I do not think the Minister answered the question about chestnuts, my Lords.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): Was he asked about chestnuts, my Lords?
Several noble Lords: Yes!
Lord PEART: Put them on the fire.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with regard to all trees, the Forestry Commission are at present drafting an order to lay before Parliament seeking the necessary powers to deal immediately with any new non-indigenous tree pests and diseases for all trees, including the oak and the chestnut. That is the other action we are taking, apart from the new EEC regulations.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether his reply, implying that this remote bureaucratic organisation in the EEC is going to do something about it, means that our own dendrologists, and the people who know more about oak wilt disease than anybody else, will do nothing until the Common Market tells us? They are messing about with Welsh leeks already.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, with the present weakness of the dollar, there is a tendency for the importation of oak from the United States to increase? Is he aware that, although English oak is not suitable for all purposes, there are other places besides the United States from where oak could be imported? Would he not therefore give further consideration to Her Majesty's Government acting to prohibit the importation of any oak from the United States until we are absolutely assured that there is no danger of infection to our own white oak trees?
Lord STRABOLGI: That is a matter which will of course be considered, my Lords. One of the difficulties is that Japanese oak which was used by the distillers until recently, has, owing to monetary exchange values, become too expensive for their purpose, and there is also difficulty for them in obtaining Spanish sherry casks. This is of great importance to the distillers' trade, and it is one of the factors which, I am afraid, must be taken into account.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether his considerations extend to the disease which descended upon the beech tree, which is perhaps the most beautiful of all our trees in this country?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should say in reply to the noble Earl that this matter will be covered by the new order which is at present being drafted, and which will shortly be before your Lordships.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether Her Majesty's Government know whether the French Government plan to take unilateral action on the importation of North American
292
oak? If the French Government take unilateral action, will we be prepared to follow them, or would it not be better if we gave the lead and pressed the Commission, under President Roy Jenkins, to get on with the job of preparing a draft EEC regulation, so that the whole Community can ban American imports of oak as soon as possible in order to prevent danger to our oak trees?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the French authorities were considering banning the importation of American oak, but they are not now, in view of the agreement reached by the EEC Plant Health Working Party.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me how one makes antique furniture out of modern oak? I thought that an antique had to be at least over 100 years old.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords; I should have thought that mock Tudor furniture should be made from British oak, but of course this is a matter for the furniture trade.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only reason for the wilt occurring is in the bark, and that North American oak could be imported, provided the bark had been removed? If the bark could be banned, the problem would be solved.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this happens at present with round wood under the existing regulations, as I said earlier. The bark has to be removed, and the round wood has to be dried. We are now trying to extend this action to sawn wood.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether wilt disease applies only to oaks, because there are distinct signs of it in Her Majesty's Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is no wilt so far as I am concerned. Your Lordships are preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I am in direct touch with my right honourable friend. I cannot do any

293
more, but I am not going to rest until the matter is put right.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, will my noble friend consult his colleague, the Secretary of State at the DES, regarding more university scholarships for tree surgeons?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that that is a very useful suggestion, and I shall be glad to pass it on to my right honourable friend.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that living materials—I am referring particularly to nursery transplants of oaks—from North America are prohibited?
Lord STRABOLGI: Not without notice, I am afraid, my Lords.

DELAYS AT DOCKS: LOSS OF EXPORT ORDERS
3.14 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: 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 to what extent have exports abroad been cancelled as the result of overseas import licences expiring due to the delays experienced at the docks and the inability of firms to get their goods transported for export in time.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, companies have notified very few cases of such cancellations. There may be cases which have not been brought to the Government's attention, but the expiry of overseas import licences appears to have had only a very slight effect on total United Kingdom export levels.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that, in some consumer industries, catching the seasonal market is absolutely vital if orders are to be obtained, and that such delays have often affected international trade fairs?
294
Is the noble Lord further aware that the figures which he may have implied, and which were apposite to that moment of export, relate merely to the exhibits in a trade fair, from which enormous orders could flow? Does he not agree that it is not completely fair to say that because the bulk or the value—of orders involved was moderate, the eventual loss was not very serious indeed?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, of course I agree with the noble Baroness that we must consider not merely the immediate effects of such a strike, but also the long-term effects. Such occurrences do no credit to our ability to deliver, and I am entirely with the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is it possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider consulting the ECGD (the Export Credits Guarantee Department) on whether it is possible to extend cover to the kind of risk we are discussing?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that that is another question. In general, the liabilities that arc carried by that Department are liabilities which occur overseas. If one changes that situation and starts to include internal liabilities, there will be no limit to where one would have to go, and I am very doubtful whether the suggestion should be considered.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the report or memorandum from the British Chamber of Commerce, France, on this matter? If he has not, will he look at it to consider whether it would be desirable to pass copies to the trade unions concerned?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not seen the document, but I should be very pleased to look at it and bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.

TACHOGRAPHS AND BRITISH ROAD VEHICLES
3.16 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 action they propose to take in the light of the European Court's decision on the subject of the installation of tachographs in British road vehicles.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport stated the Government's position on this matter in another place on 5th March. Briefly, the Government have reluctantly concluded that they must accept the decision of the European Court of Justice that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome. My right honourable friend will shortly open consultations with the employers' organisations and the trade unions on an appropriate timetable to achieve full implementation of the EEC regulation. He will also be consulting the European Commission, and in due course the necessary regulations will be laid before Parliament.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for her reply and her reference to her right honourable friend's written reply in another place, I should like to ask her two questions. First, can she tell the House by what approximate date the Government intend to honour our obligations under the Treaty of Rome by implementing the decision? Secondly, can she confirm what I believe to be the case; namely, that the consultations with the interests concerned will be on the logistics and timing of the matter, and not on the substance?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; the noble Lord is correct. The consultations with the industry and the trade unions will be on implementing the regulations bringing into force the decision of the court. With regard to the timing, it is a little difficult at present, when we have just received the ruling from the court, to know exactly how long this matter will take. We need to consult the industry and the unions, and to give time to the employers to supply and to fit the tachographs to their lorries. I
296
understand that about 500,000 vehicles have to be fitted, and the noble Lord will accept that that cannot be done overnight. We shall attempt to reach agreement with all the parties upon a practical programme of implementation, and as soon as we have completed the consultations the order will be laid before the House.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to direct my attention and that of other Members of your Lordships' House to the provision in the Treaty of Rome which refers to the installation of tachographs? At the same time, if this is a very important subject, can it be included in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, fortunately, or unfortunately, I do not have any hand in drawing up the Labour Party's Manifesto. Article 189 of the Treaty provides that any regulation made by the Commission is binding in its entirety on the member States. This is a regulation which is binding on all the members of the Community; and all countries, except Britain, have so far accepted it. We now have to take the necessary steps to do likewise.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, when the noble Baroness is raising this matter with her fellow Ministers, and when negotiations are taking place with the employers' organisations and the unions, will she please draw attention to the urgent need for action being taken in so far as it has an enormous effect on safety? This is often overlooked.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; and, of course, anything we can do to improve road safety we are happy and anxious to do. We believe that there are some road safety aspects in the fitting of the tachograph, in that it ensures that the drivers are not overtired when they are driving, and things like that. We think it could also prove useful on the grounds of future productivity deals. It seems to have been used with very good results in the Federal Republic of Germany. We have yet to convince our own trade unions that they might have the same benefits from it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, so far as the safety of lorries is concerned, surely the British record is far superior to the Continental record, is it not?
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: And from a purely practical point of view, when the unions, acting in sympathy with the drivers, "black" the installation of the tachograph, what happens?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as our lorries are concerned, yes, our road safety record is second to none in Europe, and we have much tighter control of our lorries on the roads, with this one exception of the tachograph. This now has to be fitted as a result of the decision of the European Court. We are hoping that the unions and the employers, both of which bodies have, up to this point of time, not been in favour of implementing it, are now going to come into consultations with us, and are going to see that lorries are fitted with these machines. I understand that, of the 500,000 vehicles which will fall within the scope of having to have a tachograph fitted, 100,000 are already believed to have it fitted, although at the moment we can only say that about 10,000 of those vehicles are actually using it. They are mostly the ones which are doing trade with the other European Community countries and which therefore have to have them fitted to meet the law of those countries.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us why, in view of her very constructive reply towards the use of the tachograph, in her original Answer she used the word "reluctantly"?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are always reluctant to try to force anything on an industry in which both the employers and the employees are against both the installation and the use of the tachograph. We could see that there would be problems within our own industry which might have a very far-reaching effect on the economy of our country. We can see that, where our lorries go into other European countries, they have to conform with the law of those countries and have to be fitted with tachographs;
298
and that seems to have been acceptable to our drivers. But there was a reluctance among both the employers and the employees towards implementing this particular part of the regulation, because there was a feeling generally, on both sides of the industry, that we were managing with our log books, which kept all the records and everything, and were able to cover the road safety angle and our drivers' hours. But this regulation goes in tandem with the EEC regulation on drivers' hours and working conditions, and this regulation is therefore necessary to implement the other one as well.
Lord JEFFREYS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the tachograph is a very similar instrument to the so-called "black box" which is installed in every international airliner, and that the installation of such an instrument in aeroplanes met with no objection from such organisations as the British Airline Pilots' Association, who have to fly and operate these aircraft, in the interests of their own and the public's safety?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; it has proved acceptable for use in aircraft. We now have to convince our lorry drivers and the owners of the lorries that it would be equally useful to them to have it in lorries.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, aside from the legal responsibility of the Government to conform with Article 189 of the Treaty, will my noble friend bear in mind that this particular item could have been renegotiated when the renegotiations took place in Dublin in 1974, and that it was not done? Will she draw to the attention of both the lorry owners and the trade unions that its implementation is not only now a question of law but is also a question of honour?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. I suppose that, with hindsight, this is one point that we might have taken into renegotiation of the Treaty in the early days. Whether it be fortunate or unfortunate, this was not one of the things renegotiated, and we now have to abide by the law of the Community.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it really the fact that half a million British lorries will have to have these tachographs

299
installed in their cabs? I thought some smaller lorries might be considered to be exempt.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are having consultations with the industry at the moment, and we are looking to see whether there is any scope for exemption in the case of any of the smaller lorries, but our immediate information is that there are about 500,000 lorries which are likely to be affected. We believe 100,000 of them are already fitted with the tachograph, although, as I said earlier, only about 10,000 of them are actually using it.

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [H.L.]
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.26 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have two brief comments to make on the Third Reading of this Bill. The first is a word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, and the second is of complaint. Within hours of the completion of the Report stage of this Bill the other afternoon, my noble friend was kind enough to send me a very full report of all the discussions that had
300
taken place with the Public Services Pensioners' Council and other bodies in regard to the matter that I raised on Clause 11, and I am very grateful to him for that. Indeed, it would have been the more valuable had it not been for the other matter that I must raise, which is one of complaint.
On looking at the Order Paper your Lordships will notice that at the side of the Title of this Bill there is a twiddley mark, a section mark, the meaning of which is given at the head of the Order Paper. It says:
"Bills marked [thus] have been set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages".
Owing to the late sitting that we had the other night, the Official Report of that day's proceedings, containing the debate on the Report stage of the Social Security Bill, was not available until 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon. In moving and withdrawing an Amendment on the Report stage, I said that I wished to have the opportunity to consult with those bodies which had made representations to me in common with other noble Lords, and I hoped that by the time of the Third Reading I would be in a position to indicate whether my noble friend the Minister had given satisfaction to those concerned in the very full statement that he was kind enough to make in this House, supplemented by the written paper that he sent to me.
Unfortunately, owing to the short interval between these two stages of the Bill no opportunity has occurred to consult with those whose guidance I needed to have. There is nothing that can be done about that now except to move that the debate be adjourned, but I do not wish to make trouble in the tranquillity of your Lordships' House. I do, however, protest against the short interval between these two stages of this Bill. I think that when these occurrences take place it becomes us to sound a cautionary note to those responsible for the business of this House, that there are some things we will not put up with. I think that unless there are very strong grounds of urgency behind a step of this kind, it is only reasonable that we should be given a day or two to reflect on the outcome of the Report stage before we are asked to give the Bill a Third Reading and to pass it.

301
There is here a general point. I myself feel that Members of another place seem to regard the Parliamentary process as ended when a Bill leaves their House. Indeed, I think that some believe that the democratic process has ended by the time a Bill leaves their House; that we are merely a constitutional nuisance and that we stand in the way of the speedy implementation of the voice of the people. Since we have a job to do, I think that we should insist on reasonable opportunities for doing it. There are days when we do not sit; there are days when we rise early; there are days when we sit late; and one wonders on what basis the business of this House is determined when one examines the graph of attendances and the time spent here. That is my complaint. Whenever this situation occurs I think it is the duty of those of us who wish to preserve what is left of the dignity and the value of this House to reinforce the views of those here who wish to see it continue and to flourish and to play a useful part in the constitutional processes of our Parliamentary system.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take the point that my noble friend Lord Houghton has made and recognise immediately that there is some validity in what he has said. It would perhaps be useful if I spent a minute or two to explain the situation, as I understand it. It is true that the Social Security Bill corrected a number of mistakes in the Pensions Act which was before your Lordships some time ago and which is due to come into force on 6th April next. Therefore, it was important and urgent that we should deal with those mistakes. I think we realised at the time that there might be some Amendments, and that if there were, those Amendments would have to go back to the other place and that when they had decided on those Amendments the Bill would have to return to this House. We had to make those allowances. Therefore, in consultation through the usual channels, it was decided to fix Tuesday, 6th March for the Report stage and today for the Third Reading.
An additional difficulty arose bearing in mind that the Act must be on the Statute Book by 6th April or well before then, that it also applied to Northern Ireland, and that it would be necessary, once the Bill received the Royal Assent,
302
for the Northern Ireland Office to seek an Order-in-Council to have the Bill applied to Northern Ireland. That was not easy to fix. It so happens that at one time the latest date was about 14th March, so we were running very close to it. We had been able to put it off for a few days but it was essential that we should have regard to the needs of the Northern Ireland Office in this matter. I think that my noble friend is entitled, as are all noble Lords, to a full explanation.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think I should confirm that consultations did go through the usual channels on this and, to that extent, I must bear a certain amount of responsibility for the "wriggly" sign which appears before this Bill on the Order Paper. I agree that this reduction of the usual time between stages should be made as rarely as possible and only when there are very good grounds for such a thing happening. It was my view then, and I think that it is my view now, that there were very good reasons in this case. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree while fully appreciating what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, that this was one of those occasions.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in response to what was said by both the noble Lord the Minister and my noble friend, may I put one further point to the Minister? It may be that the plan to take the Report stage on Tuesday and the Third Reading on Thursday was, in the circumstances he described, not unreasonable; but was not the situation altered by the failure of the delivery of Hansard? As noble Lords who were interested in the measure—as was the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and as were many of us—were not able to get Hansard until late yesterday, the situation was quite different if they wished to take any action and, in particular, the sort of action that is possible in this House, to put down Amendments on Third Reading. I would ask the Minister in considering this situation for the future to consider when—through no fault, necessarily, of the Government; although they are not awfully lucky with their industrial relations—Hansard fails to be delivered, the Government ought to make soundings in

303
those circumstances as to whether to postpone the next stage so that noble Lords who are interested in the Bill may have time to consider whether or not they wish to take any action. I should be grateful if the noble Lord and his colleagues would consider the matter in that light, too.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think the best thing I can say to the noble Lord is that I will take up this matter personally with my noble friend the Leader of the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS BILL
3.38 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I am glad to be able to introduce this Bill to this House after its rapid and unopposed passage in another place. Although it is a Bill designed to provide considerable benefits for a small number of people, it is in my view a very important and very humane measure. It will provide for the payment of a lump sum of £10,000 to persons who have suffered severe disablement as a result of vaccination in accordance with routine public policy vaccination programmes since the inception of the National Health Service on 5th July, 1948. The Bill sets out in detail particular criteria which must be satisfied before a payment is made, since clearly we must give precise guidance to the people who will be making these payments, but I will go into those in more detail later on when I consider the individual clauses.
This Bill then sets out to provide a measure of financial support to these very severely disabled people, and to their families and others involved in looking after them. There can be no doubt that for the vast majority of people vaccination is a beneficial and highly effective aspect of the public health programme, and has been so for a good many years. But for some, and I must emphasise that we are talking about a very tiny minority, vacci-
304
nation has without warning caused damge leading to the most severe mental and physical disablement. In view of this there is a strong case for the provision of financial help to those who suffer in this way as a result of routine vaccinations given as part of a public policy programme. I am convinced that all noble Lords will go along in regarding this as a most humane and just measure.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I give a brief description of the origins and history of the scheme itself, which this Bill seeks to implement. Noble Lords will be aware that there has been for some years now a call for the Government to give direct financial aid to people damaged by vaccination; and here I must pay tribute in particular to the work of Mrs. Rosemary Fox, who organised and led the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, and to my honourable friend Mr. Jack Ashley, whose fair-minded persistence in another place on behalf of disabled people is well known. Their work in assembling and publicising the evidence about damage caused by vaccination has been instrumental in persuading the Government to take action, and they can be justly proud, if I may say so, of the success of their efforts.
The Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, known as the Pearson Commission, considered the question of vaccine damage and, after consulting them, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced, in advance of the publication of their report, that the Government accepted in principle that there should be a Government scheme of payments in connection with vaccine damage once the full report of the Pearson Commission had been published. We decided to await the publication of the report because at the time it seemed likely that the Commission would make detailed recommendations about payments for vaccine-damaged people which we would need to take into account when the scheme was designed.
The report was published in March of last year and in fact the chapter on vaccine damage contained only a general recommendation about a system of strict liability in tort for vaccine-damaged people. It was apparent straight away that the Government would need to give detailed

305
consideration to all the various recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his colleagues, including the one about vaccine-damaged people, and that this would inevitably take some time. In view of the urgency of the need to provide a substantial measure of help to vaccine-damaged children and their families in particular, we decided on an immediate introduction of a scheme to provide payment of a lump sum of £10,000 in respect of those severely damaged as a result of vaccination under a routine public policy vaccination programme.
My right honourable friend was able to announce the broad outlines of the scheme on 9th May 1978, and to give further details and formally begin the scheme on 2nd August last. At the time he said that a Bill to enact the scheme would be introduced as soon as Parliamentary circumstances permitted, although in the interim the scheme would go ahead because of the urgency of the need. This time has not been wasted; the Government have set up a unit—the Vaccine Damage Payments Unit—to receive and process claims. Over 2,000 claims have already been received, and initial decisions have been made in respect of about a quarter of these. I have pleasure in announcing to your Lordships that the first payment has been made to a young lady in Lancashire. Payments in a further 50 or so cases have been delayed over difficulties in agreeing a satisfactory trust deed, but I understand that these problems have now been resolved after discussions between Mrs. Fox, whom I mentioned a short time ago, and officials. Trust deeds are now being sent to the parents involved for signature, and the payments will be made as soon as they are returned. Thus it is very likely that a significant number of payments will have been made, my Lords, before this Bill becomes an Act!
In the meantime, we have introduced some minor beneficial alterations. The scheme initially included the requirement that claimants were "normally resident" in this country. This has been dropped, because we recognised that in these cases our responsibility as a community to provide help to people who have suffered as a result of vaccination does not stop just because they may have moved away from the United Kingdom. At the same time we have provided in the Bill for payments to be made in certain additional
306
cases, including damage suffered before birth as a result of the mother being vaccinated during pregnancy, damage suffered as a result of a person of any age being vaccinated during an outbreak of the disease in question, and damage caused by polio vaccination at any age. Before turning to the details of the Bill, it may be helpful if I say a word or two about the method of handling cases.
There is, I understand, some doubt among the medical profession about whether whooping cough vaccination can or cannot lead to brain damage in very young children. The difficulty is that childhood convulsions or even encephalopathy can occur without any apparent cause, and some experts would argue that there is no clear evidence that this vaccine has ever caused such conditions. Others, however, believe that a minority of cases can definitely be attributed to vaccination.
We asked our expert advisory body, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, to review the available evidence, and they reported in May 1977 that it was impossible to distinguish between those cases of brain damage caused by vaccination and those attributable to some other cause. At the same time, they found that there was a risk, a very small risk, that this vaccine could produce adverse reactions which might on occasion be extremely serious. Their report has been published and I understand that a copy has been placed in your Lordships' Library.
This then is the difficulty. There is no absolute test, in the legal sense, of determining whether a particular vaccination for whooping cough has caused particular convulsions which have led to brain damage. This is why the Bill introduces the idea of using the balance of probabilities to determine whether a payment should be made, and this will mean that the Secretary of State will have to consider the medical evidence and the disabled person's present condition as a whole in each case, to see whether it was more probable that the initial damage arose from vaccination than that some other, unrelated, cause is involved.
Each case has to be considered individually, in detail. In some cases the decision will be relatively easy; the medical evidence will show that severe convulsions

307
and brain damage occurred soon after vaccination, and unless the evidence of some other cause is very persuasive indeed, the claim will be accepted. At the other end of the spectrum there will be cases in which there is strong evidence pointing to a congenital condition, or some other cause, or in which the symptoms have first shown themselves a long time after vaccination. Many cases will fall somewhere between these two extremes, and I must emphasise that although the initial determination of claims on the basis of the balance of probabilities will be carried out by the Department's medical advisers, drawing on expert opinion in cases of doubt, the final decision does not rest with them. We have provided in the Bill for an independent review procedure by which any claimant who disagrees with the initial determination by the Department can have his claim considered by an independent expert tribunal and I regard this, as I am sure your Lordships will, as a most important aspect of the scheme. It ensures that a fair and objective assessment can be made in every case.
I now come to the detailed provisions of the Bill: the first two clauses constitute the essence of the scheme. They provide for a lump sum payment of £10,000 to be made to any person whom the Secretary of State is satisfied has suffered severe disablement as a result of vaccination. For the purposes of the scheme, such a person must satisfy certain criteria before a payment can be made: he or she must have suffered 80 per cent. or greater disablement as a result of vaccination against certain specified diseases; must have been vaccinated in the United Kingdom or the Isle of Man after 5th July 1948, when the National Health Service came into existence; and must, except for vaccination against rubella or poliomyelitis, have been vaccinated before reaching the age of eighteen. This reflects the fact that, except for rubella and polio, routine public policy programmes are for the vaccination of children. These clauses also provide for people who have suffered disablement either because their mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy or because of contact with someone else who had been vaccinated to receive payment, and allow for children vaccinated abroad while their parents were serving with Her Majesty's Forces to be included.
308
Clause 3 sets out the procedure by which claims will be submitted to the Department and determined, in the first instance, by the Secretary of State. It provides for the question of whether severe disablement has been caused by vaccination to be decided on the balance of probability in the manner I have already explained. The Secretary of State will have to notify the claimant as soon as possible of his decision and, if the claim is disallowed, explain why. In the case of a disallowance because the disabled person is not considered to be severely disabled as a result of vaccination, the notice of disallowance will explain the way in which the claimant can have the case reviewed by an independent medical tribunal.
Clause 4 provides for medical tribunals to review cases disallowed by the Secretary of State because he is not satisfied that severe disablement has resulted from vaccination. The details of procedure and appointment of members for these tribunals will be laid down in regulations and are unlikely to differ greatly from those already applying to medical appeals tribunals under the Social Security Act. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State to reconsider a determination made on his behalf because of a change of circumstances since the original decision was made, or because of ignorance or a mistake regarding some material fact at the time of the initial decision. I should add that only in the case of a deliberate attempt to mislead will any money be required to be repaid by a claimant subsequently found not to have been severely disabled by vaccination.
Clause 6 sets out the procedure for payment, which will be made either direct to the disabled person, if he is over 18 and capable of managing his own affairs or, if not, to trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. In most cases the trustees will be the people responsible for looking after the disabled person, generally his parents or some other close relatives. We have taken steps to ensure that the trust deed will be as widely drawn as possible in line with the need for the money to be spent for the benefit of the disabled person. But the trustees will have considerable discretion in spending the money, even to the extent of using it to pay for holidays for themselves to enable them to be able

309
to cope more readily with the often onerous duties of caring for a severely disabled child. This clause also makes it clear that the payment does not in any way prejudice the right of the disabled person to seek compensation through the courts. This would be wrong since, as we have maintained throughout, this is not a compensation payment. At the same time, the payment wil be taken into account in determining the scale of any award for damages.
Clause 7 ensures that those who have claimed before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and whose claims have not succeeded, will be able to ask for their cases to be reviewed by the independent medical tribunals. Clauses 8 to 12 are of a technical nature, covering the provisions for financing the Scheme, for making regulations regarding procedural details, and so on. I do not think it is necessary for me to weary your Lordships with a detailed exposition of this.
This Bill then represents the means by which a significant measure of support can be provided by the community to those of its members who have suffered, tragically and unexpectedly, from a procedure which has provided only beneficial protection for the great majority of their fellow citizens. Having spent some time describing the problems associated with identifying those occasions when vaccination has led to serious damage, it is appropriate for me to make it clear that we are convinced that the overwhelming benefits of routine vaccination far outweigh the minute risk of damage. It is right for us to continue to provide protection for our children and for the community as a whole as part of the overall public health programme and at the same time to provide financial aid and support for the tiny minority who suffer serious disablement as a result.
This Bill must be viewed in the context of the whole range of benefits available to the disabled. Many of the people who will be helped will already benefit from mobility and attendance allowances and, when they are older, from the noncontributory invalidity pension. On the wider questions of the implementation of the Pearson proposals for a general disablement benefit for children, and for strict liability in tort in respect of vaccine damage, I can only echo what has been
310
said recently by other members of the Government: these recommendations are being considered carefully in consultation with the medical profession, but, as your Lordships will appreciate, there is a great deal of ground to cover.
Finally, I hope I can feel confident that this Bill has the unqualified support not only of your Lordships but, I would also hope, of a great many people in this country not themselves directly affected by its provisions. Although it may not go as far as some noble Lords would wish, I am sure I am equally right in believing that it will receive support in your Lordships' House. It is a badly-needed measure of urgent relief for people who have suffered greatly through no fault of their own; and on that basis I do commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
4 p.m.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. It is, indeed, a timely recognition of the suffering caused to families by vaccine damage. We are grateful for the admirable exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on the history of the Bill and for the explanation of its various clauses. We, too, should like to pay tribute to those who brought this issue to public notice, and who have been responsible for this Bill today.
There are two points on which the noble Lord the Minister might like to comment. The first is on the question of compensation. We understand that this is a sum given as an interim payment; that this is an immediate and, I may say, very welcome gesture to ease the suffering of families. Can the Minister assure the House that this will not in any way prejudice either the acceptance of the Pearson recommendations, on the whole, or the timing of putting these recommendations into effect? It is so easy to shelve a report on the grounds that something has already been done. We on this side cannot stress too much that the ready acceptance of this Bill is on the basis that active work will begin in parallel to assess the Pearson Commission recommendations, and what

311
the Minister has said has, in some way, eased my thoughts on this point.
The second point which I should like to raise concerns legal aid. May we have an assurance from the Minister that this interim payment in no way jeopardises a person's ability to draw on legal aid? In fact, will the noble Lord agree that the interim payment should in no way discourage persons from using the courts for compensation in this field? It might be as well at this point to underline how strongly the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury reported on this topic. In Chapter 25, paragraph 148, the Commission states:
"Where vaccine damage can be proved to have followed from medical procedures recommended by the Government or a local authority, those who suffer serious and lasting damage should be entitled to bring an action in tort for damages against the Government or the authority concerned".
The paragraph continues:
"This would normally apply only to children, but we think that adults should also be included in order to cover those exceptional circumstances in which a Government or a local authority might recommend adults to be vaccinated in the public interest".
The final paragraph of this chapter, paragraph 1413, reads:
"We recommend that the Government or the local authority concerned should be strictly liable in tort for severe damage suffered by anyone, adult or child, as a result of vaccination which has been recommended in the interests of the community".
I do not deem it necessary to quote more from the Commission. I have done so only to stress how much further the recommendations go than this Bill, and the need, therefore, to accept this Bill only as an interim measure.
There are debatable issues in the Bill; for instance, is £10,000 the right amount? The noble Lord touched on this. Of course, many people would say that it is not. Another question is whether 80 per cent. disability is the correct percentage at which to start paying. In the other place, there was quite some comment on this. Should there be an age limit? Should not all the children of people serving this country overseas be covered? Finally, there was the moving case reported in the Sunday Observer last month, of a family that falls outside the
312
commencement date of July 1948. We understand the need for a commencement date and why this commencement date is there. But I wonder whether it could be possible to include these families. I understand that there are only 12 such families. If this is done now, while the Vaccine Damage Payments Unit is in operation, the administrative cost would be negligible. One wonders whethe. the Government would like to consider these 12 cases anew. I know hat there will be red tape, and perhaps a little redrafting, involved but this might be a case where compassion could come in, too, and I feel that if this could be done at this moment it would save a lot of suffering.
I had a number of questions on statistics which I intended to ask the Minister, but, luckily, in his opening remarks, he has more or less set my mind at rest and I am delighted to hear that the Vaccine Damage Payments Unit has made its first payment. It may be a little sub judice, but I understand that at the moment there are over 2,000 cases in the pipeline, whereas in the other place claims in the region of 600 to 700 were talked about. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to say at this stage what the final figure is likely to be. I do not want to embarrass him by prejudging this issue. As I said at the beginning, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. I am hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pesten, may set our minds at rest about the Bill being an interim measure, that the recommendations of the Pearson Commission will not be prejudiced but will be looked at in a positive mood, and that legal aid and legal proceedings will in no way be jeopardised. That being so, we shall be very happy to support this Bill.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I must at once join the noble Earl in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the clarity with which he explained this very necessary and welcome measure to us. Also, I should like to thank him in particular for outlining the history of the melancholy events which led to the need for this Bill. Perhaps in saying that, I may go on to take up the point made by the noble Earl, and say that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will confirm that this is of the nature of an interim ex gratia measure,

313
without prejudice to any other steps which these unfortunate people may feel inclined to take in order to get full compensation of the kind to which, very understandably, they feel entitled. It is not necessary for me to say much on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches with regard to this Bill, save that we support it and hope that its provisions will be very speedily implemented. Indeed, I would thank the noble Lord for concentrating on and emphasising in his speech the urgency and speed with which the whole matter is to be tackled.
There is just one other point which I should like to take up with the noble Lord before I sit down. I am afraid that the length of time which this whole business has taken and the arguments about it—and the noble Lord has referred to the work of people, such as Mr. Jack Ashley and others who very rightly aroused the public conscience with regard to people who have suffered tragically as a result of a public health programme—and the campaigns over so many years, before justice has finally been done, have also done something to undermine public confidence in our immunisation programme as a whole. I know the noble Lord explained that the number of cases in which it can clearly be shown that children have been damaged as a result of a vaccination process is, first, very small and, secondly, is in part speculative, in that it is very difficult indeed to prove that any one case is precisely due to the vaccine and to nothing else. I think all are agreed that there are very few cases indeed. Nevertheless, all are also now agreed that it is possible for a child to suffer as a result of a vaccination programme.
The melancholy fact is that, in the minds of ordinary young mothers taking their children along to the doctor's surgery for their first programme of immunisation, there is no ready ability to discriminate between one form of immunisation and another. With the paper filled, at one period of time, with rumours and blood-curdling stories of the dangers of pertussis immunisation, many mothers did not discriminate between pertussis immunisation, diphtheria immunisation, tetanus immunisation and so on, and there really was a danger that the whole standing of immunisation would be imperilled in the minds of many people. I would merely
314
urge the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to do what he can, through his Department, to see that in any publicity which goes out—and much must when this new Bill and its provisions come into force—every effort is made to emphasise the important need for the maintenance of the immunisation programme as a whole, and to underline the extreme rarity of dangerous consequences such as those for which we are providing under this Bill.
I need hardly remind your Lordships' House of what could happen in this country if, for example, public faith in the diphtheria immunisation programme suddenly became impaired, as for a time it looked to be impaired. It was difficult to get all mothers to agree that their children should carry out the whole programme. They had heard that immunisation was dangerous, and they therefore did not want to bother with immunisation at all. It was not merely that they would do without whooping cough and have all the others, but that they thought, "It's dangerous, so we won't have any of it".
To go back to the days immediately prior to the introduction of routine diphtheria immunisation, we in this country had something like 72,000 cases every year of that extremely dangerous and indeed often fatal disease; yet within a year or two of the introduction of the general campaign of immunisation against diphtheria, that number of 72,000 a year was brought down to single figures and was maintained in single figures for many years. May I remind your Lordships that we must never allow those figures to go up again, as they would, as sure as night follows day. If the number of our children who are immunised against diphtheria and so on fell, then we would have a recurrence of something which we have almost fully overcome.
With regard to pertussis, this is a difficult question. Parents must be given a choice. They must be told that there are possible although very remote dangers but that there are also very great dangers from whooping cough in very young children. Therefore, I think that, so far as they can, doctors will conscientiously explain to parents their view—and it is my view—that on balance it is safer to be immunised since the possible dangers of immunisation are so very slight while

315
the potential dangers of whooping cough in a very young child are so great. Nevertheless, the decision is the mother's. Every assistance, however, must be given to mothers to realise that the kind of alarmist things which have been said about the pertussis vaccine do not apply to the diphtheria vaccine or to some of the other vaccines which are so desperately necessary.
Before I sit down, may I say that we on these Benches fully support this measure. We welcome it and hope that it will proceed very rapidly indeed to its full implementation. However, in carrying out the various necessary steps, I hope that everything possible will be done to restore public confidence in the immunisation programme as a whole and to repair any damage which has been done—and I think some damage has been done—to the reputation of immunisation in the public mind as a result of the long period of delay before finally settling this matter of the compensation of those very rare victims of the immunisation process.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him, in view of his kindly references to the Pearson Commision, of which I had the honour to be a member, and his insistence upon this being treated as an interim, ad hoc measure, whether I am right in assuming that the Liberal Party are in favour of the long term and comprehensive solution proposed by the Royal Commission and whether this might form part of the Liberal Party's Manifesto.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I can confirm that we are in favour of the long term proposals, but we also understand the extreme difficulty in this whole area, the kind of difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred regarding the precise relationship of any particular case to a particular causal effect. Broadly speaking, however, I can, for what it is worth, confirm that the Liberal Party is in favour of the provisions contained in the report and would support their implementation in the long term.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.
4.13 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has very graciously agreed to give way, although his name appears on the list of speakers and mine does not, for reasons which I readily acknowledge and which will become apparent, I hope, in the next few minutes. In order to ensure that this Bill receives support from all sides of the House, I should like to add my voice, from these somewhat attenuated Benches, and say how very warmly we welcome this long overdue measure. It is perhaps an instance of rough justice and may in some cases prove to be a measure of inadequate justice. On the other hand, as so many speakers have already emphasised, it is important that no backlash results from this Bill.
So many measures passed by both Houses of Parliament with the highest of motives have had totally unforeseen results. It would be unfortunate indeed if the passing of this Bill were to result in any diminution of the general acceptance of vaccination against whooping cough and in an increase in this most unfortunate disease. Having said that, may I say again how very warmly we on this side of the House welcome the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, although this is a modest Bill, it is at least very much a step in the right direction. With his characteristic lucidity, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has presented the Bill in a most convincing manner. The Bill will bring some consolation to the very small number of children who will have been grievously brain damaged by the use of certain vaccines. One has only to see some of these children, as I have, to know how very sad is this small number of cases. The fact that this has happened is the fault of neither the medical profession nor anybody else, because these vaccines are very thoroughly examined. Having visited a number of pharmaceutical companies, I can vouch for this. One can only hope that in the future more stringent tests will be applied to these vaccines to prevent even the very small number of tragedies which take place.
Clearly it was the thalidomide tragedies which had some bearing on the presentation of this Bill. Two weeks ago on television there was the quite incredible story

317
of the first mother, who herself was a thalidomide victim, to have borne a child. The way in which this mother coped with the child, by using her feet and her toes because she had no arms, was wonderful to watch. Those of us who grumble about the disabilities from which we may suffer can take a lesson from this quite incredible programme and from the cheerfulness with which this mother undertook her tasks. I mention this case because, although thalidomide did not necessarily result in brain damage—as I understand it, it resulted in most cases in the very serious deformity of limbs—nevertheless it caused a fearful handicap. The results in the case of this small number of vaccine damaged children are far worse.
One of the main controversial topics of the Bill is the amount of compensation and the degree to which a child has to be disabled before that compensation is paid. One must sympathise with any Government who have to bring in legislation of this kind. There must be a yardstick. Amendments were moved in another place by the honourable gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who is such a great champion of the disabled and who is himself disabled. I happen to know him because he lives near me in Surrey. I wonder whether in fact more consideration could be given in the later stages of this Bill to this particular Amendment.
It is difficult, of course, as I have said, to conceive a realistic figure, but one has to remember that, hopefully, some of these children will be able to cope in life with some kind of work and eventually be, at least in part, self-supporting. A child with 80 per cent. brain damage is unlikely to meet with any of these requirements, for obvious reasons. It is easy to trade in figures, but if one were to start at a figure of, say, 50 per cent. and arrange some payment, one would have the advantage, if that is the right word, of perhaps an even smaller number of children who are still badly disabled but who might manage to hold down a simple job and be of benefit to themselves and to their parents. Because it is the parents and dependants who are going to have a very tragic and difficult time in looking after these children, and no amount of compensation, be it in six figures, can really make up for the grievous condition in which many of these young people will
318
find themselves. But this is a matter which could perhaps be considered at a later stage.
Bearing in mind that, as I understand it, the £10,000 will be a lump sum, I wonder whether a further sum could not be put into some form of trust because even in these inflationary times—and of course one has to bear in mind, even in tragic cases like this, that no Government can pay completely over the odds, so to speak—some amount can be put into a charitable trust for future years. I accept that, as I understand it, £10,000 is no mandatory sum. This is a sum which has been conceived for the purposes of this Bill, and as such it is very welcome.
The other point on Clause 4 concerns the composition of the tribunals. The idea of an independent tribunal is admirable, but I would hope that such cases as appear before these tribunals are dealt with both speedily and humanely. Those who administer these tribunals are all men and women of humanity, but even those, like myself, who are not in the legal profession know only too well that tribunals can take a very long time to come to a decision, and these are cases when a clear and quick decision is very much needed.
I should like to join in the tributes paid to Mrs. Fox for her unstinting efforts with regard to this Bill and also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others have said about the vital importance of vaccinations taking place. These are a small number of cases, highly tragic as they are, but the lack of vaccination, particularly against diseases such as poliomyelitis, can have terrible effects later on. Having said that, my Lords, I think this is a humane Bill; it is a Bill which is perhaps rather late in coming about, but certainly if ever there was a case for the words, "better late than never"—bearing in mind that there are some aspects of the Bill which need looking at—these words are most opportune.
4.26 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I apologise, first, for not having put my name on the list. Like other noble Lords, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, but there is one point on which I should like to comment and which has already been mentioned

319
by the noble Earl, Lord Avon. That is the hard and fast dateline which is drawn for the beginning of these payments, in 1948. I think it was the year just before that when there was very widespread publicity by the Government of the day, advising parents to have their children vaccinated against diphtheria. There are some cases—and like the noble Earl I do not think there are more than a dozen or so—where that had a very serious effect. There arc children of those days, who are now of course in their thirties, who have the mentality of children of the age of about three or five, and their parents have had to devote their entire lives to looking after them. But, my Lords, think what one would feel like as a parent of such a child in realising that one would not go on living for ever and would have to make some sort of provision for the child.
I understand that when the right honourable gentleman the Minister was consulted about this he said that he had to draw a line somewhere. One can understand that, but I hope that in the interests of humanitarianism he will feel that even a rule like that can sometimes demand exceptions.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, while welcoming this Bill wholeheartedly I beg leave to ask the Minister a simple question: is the £10,000 index-linked? I personally am not in favour of universal indexing but in a case of this sort it would appear to me to be simple justice that it should be done.
4.29 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part for their support and approval of the Bill. I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Segal for interrupting him, but I did not realise that there had been a private arrangement between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. In your Lordships' House it is customary, if there is any change in the order, for both Front Benches to be informed and then we do not make that mistake. Nevertheless, I apologise.
With regard to the interim payment, as it has been called, I pointed out that under the present legislation it is an award which would have to be taken into account
320
in just the same way as any other capital sum if the person decided to bring proceedings in the civil court. It is very clearly set out in Claude 6(4), which says that it:
"does not prejudice the right of any person to institute or carry on proceedings in respect of disablement suffered as a result of vaccination against any disease to which this Act applies".
Therefore, there is nothing to prevent people from bringing action if they believe that they are justified in so doing or that they have a case. I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is considering the effect of a payment made under the Bill at present before us in any future application for legal aid by or on behalf of any vaccine-damaged child seeking redress in the courts. I do not know what the outcome of that will be. I know that, in fact, my noble and learned friend is very concerned about this and in due course we may hear something from him.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, raised the question whether adults should be included. I do not think that we can go further than we have gone. He raised the matter of those damaged before 5th July 1948, as did the noble Lord, Lord Somers. My understanding of what the noble Earl said was that there are some 12 cases. However, I think that we must have a starting point. The 5th July 1948, when the National Health Service came into being—for which the Government were wholly and solely responsible—seems to be the right date. Certainly from that date the Government have some responsibility for encouraging people to be vaccinated against a whole range of diseases.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I briefly interrupt the noble Lord. Surely the Government also have a certain responsibility for those who obeyed their instruction to be vaccinated and who, as a result, were hopelessly damaged. I cannot believe that they are suffering any less because it was done before 1948.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not for one moment suggesting that they are. I am saying that in a matter of this kind, when we are trying to redress a situation by means of a payment to people who have suffered as a result of subscribing to public policy,

321
there must be a starting point. If we start two or three years earlier, then a situation could arise in which someone said, "You should start earlier still". The 5th July 1948 seems to be quite a reasonable time to commence.
The noble Earl also raised the question of the Pearson Commission. I do not think I can add anything to what I said in my opening remarks, that we are fully aware of the recommendations, that we are studying them and giving them a great deal of thought. If there is anything further that we can do in the matter, we shall do it. The evidence of good faith is the fact that we have brought this particular scheme before Parliament in order to try to do something, albeit perhaps not enough. If there is anything that we can do in the future we shall certainly do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, raised the question of the severity of the disablement which, under the Bill, qualifies a person for payment. We conclude that the 80 per cent. is the right point at which to draw the line for severe disablement. We took a good deal of advice on this. This is not a decision which was arrived at merely by Ministers or by people in the Department. A great deal of consultation took place. It coincides with several requirements for other benefits and, rightly or wrongly, we believe it to be the right percentage.
The noble Lords, Lord Auckland and Lord Robbins, raised the question of index-linking this amount. This is a payment of £10,000. It is intended that this should be put in trust. That is why there is a trust deed. It is perfectly true that money can be drawn from it at any time; those administering the trust think it desirable. However, if invested, £10,000 brings in quite an appreciable amount per year, without the capital being touched. It certainly is not index-linked, and so far as I know there is no intention of doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised the question of future claims which may be brought in the civil court, with which I have already tried to deal. However, he expressed himself far better than I could on the importance of continuing the immunisation programme. Of course, the Government would wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord said about that. I hope that in his capacity
322
as a doctor he will use whatever influence he has with his colleagues to ensure that they themselves add their weight and their voice to the importance of vaccination and immunisation; because, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, we hear only of the failures; we do not pay very much attention to the successes.
The only other point I want to make is the one again made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, about tribunals. We have tried to follow the pattern that has been established and which works very well in the social security Acts. In this particular case there will, as the word indicates, be a tribunal of three. It will comprise a lawyer as chairman, who, I believe I am right in saying, will be appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That is the normal procedure and I have no information which suggests that we shall depart from that. The other two members will be doctors, and being doctors, I should have thought that they are not likely to take an indifferent view of the situation. They will be able to look at it from a medical point of view. In the last analysis, perhaps that is the best way of looking at this particular difficulty.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was not suggesting that they would take an indifferent point of view. In fact, I am sure they will take a very human point of view. My main concern was that this procedure should be carried out as speedily as is reasonably possible. I think that the answer which the noble Lord has given satisfies that point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I sat on a mental health tribunal for some time and the decisions were very speedy. From my own personal knowledge, I know that tribunals of this kind are able to report very quickly. Having regard to the circumstances of the person with whom they would be dealing, they would not lose very much time. Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS REGULATIONS 1979
4.39 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move, That the draft Regulations, laid before the House on 6th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient for your Lordships if I speak to the two sets of regulations together; that is, the regulations which will concern the conduct of the election by the simple majority system of Great Britain's 78 representatives to the European Assembly, and the regulations which will concern the election by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation of the three representatives to the Assembly from Northern Ireland. As your Lordships will no doubt have discovered, there are close similarities between the two sets of regulations. My noble friend the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office will be on hand to answer any detailed points which may be raised about the conduct of the election in Northern Ireland, especially on the single transferable vote system.
Before describing to your Lordships some of the detail of these regulations, it may assist if I sketch in their background and set them in context. The United Kingdom Parliament last year made provision in the European Assembly Elections Act for the basic framework of the elections: the number of representatives to be elected; the method of electing and the procedures necessary to draw up constituencies; the qualifications of those who may stand and those who may vote.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act gave the Secretary of State power to draw up regulations for the detailed conduct of the elections based on the existing Statutes governing parliamentary elections. Following representations, it was agreed that these regulations should be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament. As part of the procedure for consultation before the regulations were laid before Parliament two drafts, one by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the other by my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary, were pub-
324
lished as White Papers in August last year.
Copies were sent to all those concerned with organising the elections, including the local authority associations, the returning officers' representatives, the broadcasting organisations and the political Parties. Comments were invited and the Government are most grateful for the very full and informed response which resulted from those consultations.
Although, as I shall explain later, the Government have not changed their proposals from the draft on some of the most important political questions—the size of the deposit, for example—a substantial number of improvements have been made. In this context I should add that we owe a debt to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which noted and drew to our attention an omission from the regulations regarding the declaration of secrecy to be made by the officers charged with verifying ballot papers.
The regulations, which were originally laid on 29th January last, were withdrawn and relaid on 6th March in order to take account of the point made by the joint committee. On behalf of the Government, I should like to thank the joint committee for their vigilance in this, and also add my thanks to all those, including the officials of my own party and of the parties represented opposite, who commented with great expertise on the drafts.
It may also be helpful for me to review briefly the other necessary preliminaries to the holding of the elections on 7th June. As your Lordships know, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions made their reports at the end of 1978 on the composition of the constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland forms a single constituency. The Orders in Council to give effect to the boundaries were laid before Parliament in draft in December and were approved. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now appointed returning officers from the Parliamentary election returning officers within the European elections constituencies. He has signed an order fixing 7th June as the day of the election. So far as the political parties are concerned, candidates are now being selected and local arrangements are being made to

325
organise campaigns. It is now necessary to seek the approval of your Lordships' House and of another place for these regulations so that the administrative machinery can be fully set in motion.
As I have said, it was the intention of the Government—from the publication of the White Paper on Direct Elections in 1977—that these elections should be contested on lines closely similar to those of our own Parliamentary elections. Accordingly, the regulations are set out in a form which shows how the existing parliamentary Statutes have been adapted. This was the practice followed in the orders regulating the conduct of the EEC referendum in 1975 and the recent referendums in Scotland and Wales.
So far as the elector is concerned, in most respects the European Assembly elections will follow a precisely similar pattern to a Parliamentary election. He will generally vote in the same polling station as for Parliamentary elections; the procedure in the station will be the same and he will have the same type of ballot paper. In Northern Ireland the elector will vote according to a system which is well tried there in local elections.
So far as the returning officer and his staff are concerned, they will have very similar responsibilities and they will umpire the election using much the same rules as apply at Parliamentary elections. There will be broadly the same offences and the same punishments. For the candidate, there will be the same entitlements to free postage and the use of meeting halls, and so on, as he has under the Parliamentary election legislation.
There are, however, significant differences to which I should draw the attention of your Lordships' House. These largely derive from two aspects of the decision of the Council of Ministers on direct elections dating from September 1976. One was the decision to allot 81 representatives to the United Kingdom, so making it necessary to have much larger constituencies and higher levels of maximum election expenses, a higher deposit and a greater number of signatures to a nomination; and the other was Article 9(2), which provides that counting shall not begin in each Member State until the close of poll in the last Member State to
326
vote during the period 7th June to 10th June, as determined by the European Council.
This means that, while we shall be closing our polls at 10 o'clock on Thursday evening, 7th June, we shall not be in a position to begin the count proper until the Sunday evening. The exact timing of this has yet to be determined. The effect will be that our first results will not be known until late on Sunday evening. In order to ensure that there is no risk of malpractice when there is such an interval between the close of the poll and the count, there will be a separate verification stage taking place in all constituencies on the evening of the poll. At this stage, the number of ballot papers will be checked against the ballot paper accounts. They will then be sent to the returning officer for the whole constituency and the result will be announced centrally.
One other aspect of the election which has attracted great attention and on which it may be appropriate for me to make some comment is the level of the deposit to be sought from candidates. As noble Lords know, the Parliamentary election deposit has been fixed at £150 since 1918. There has never been a consensus of view as to the proper level of the deposit (or even as to its purpose) but if we assume that it is to deter frivolous candidates without hampering the right of any serious candidate to stand for election then it could be argued that the deposit is now too low. The Government believe that this matter should also be considered by a Speaker's Conference. In the meantime, we have had to arrive at a view as to what level of deposit to prescribe for these elections, weighing the considerable free postage facilities and other publicity opportunities available to candidates, as against our desire not to do anything to prejudice the level of the parliamentary deposit. We believe that the figure of £600 is a reasonable compromise between the extremes that were pressed upon us. It will be returnable once a candidate achieves l22½per cent. of the valid votes cast in a simple majority election, and one quarter of the electoral quota at any stage in the count during the single transferable vote election.
To summarise, my Lords, I believe that both these sets of regulations are well-precedented. They apply to the novel

327
constitutional feature of direct elections to the European Assembly systems of election which are well-tried and well-known. They complete the long and I think often difficult parliamentary procedure preparatory to the elections themselves. I believe that both sets of regulations fully deserve the support of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 6th March, be approved.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
4.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his full explanation of the contents of the draft regulations before the House in connection with the elections to be held throughout the European Community between 7th and 10th June this year. Lord Boston will understand if I say that we also understand, but do not particularly admire, the reasons for which the word "Assembly" is used rather than "Parliament". Any body which chooses for itself a name is generally, both by tradition and courtesy, known by that name, but apparently not so in this case.
As for the contents of the draft regulations, we too wish to express our gratitude for the vigilance of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who spotted what was obviously an anomaly in the draft regulations, and we are pleased that the Government accepted the amendments so that we have been able to discuss the draft regulations today and that there has been no hold-up in the procedures. In this case we can thank all those concerned in that the documents have been printed quickly and made available so that we are able to carry on as arranged.
The draft regulations, published in August of last year in Cmnd. 7233, set out certain provisions with which, as Lord Boston said, some people did not entirely agree, and we in our Party indicated our disagreement on certain aspects of the provisions. Our Party chairman, my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, wrote to the Home Office on 6th October of last year proposing certain changes and specifying clearly the grounds for those proposed changes, and therefore on this side of the
328
House there is some regret that the Home Office has seen fit to disregard those proposals, except for one minor amendment.
The two proposals to which I wish particularly to refer, to one of which Lord Boston referred, are in regard to the bona fide and serious intentions of a candidate and how that was to be tested. Lord Thorneycroft made it clear that we did not think the deposit of £600 was realistic. Even the argument which Lord Boston put forward—that in no way did the Government wish to compromise the Speaker's Conference—is not tenable considering that the figure chosen is £600, which would indicate there were only four Westminster constituencies in a Euro-constituency, whereas I believe there is not a single Euro-constituency which has less than six Westminster constituencies.
Therefore we felt that £900 was a modest proposal and we are sorry the Government have not accepted that. If one takes into account the fact that the expenditure made by the Government per candidate will be in the region of £35,000—due to the free postage given per elector within the Euro-constituency—£600 is a very small deposit in relation to that potential expenditure, and of course bears no relation to the comparability of a £150 deposit to something like the £5,000 to £7,000 expenses which exist within the Westminster constituency.
My noble friend objected to the number of signatories which would be required to validate a nomination paper, which in the draft regulations is only 30. We considered that at least 10 from each Westminster constituency would be a more reasonable figure because, as my noble friend pointed out, it would not be difficult for anybody to go into a public house and collect 30 signatures in one evening, and in our view that was not conducive to seriousness in the nomination of a candidate.
I have some points I wish to put to the Minister and I apologise in that I have not had time to give him prior notice of them; I shall therefore understand if he is not able to answer them all now. If he cannot, perhaps we will let me have a written reply in due course, "in due course" meaning not a long time but fairly soon. The first is in regard to the position of citizens of the Irish Republic. Under our

329
Representation of the People Act and our electoral law, citizens of the Irish Republic have a right to vote in our General Elections, and they are also being given the right to vote in this European election. Could the Minister say what will be the position of Irish emigrants from the Irish Republic?—because some States are giving to emigrants resident in the European Community the right to vote in their own national election within the Euro-election. Therefore, will Irish citizens have a right to vote both here and for a candidate in the Irish Republic?
Secondly, I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in date form the timetable set out on page 15 of the draft Regulations referring to Great Britain and on page 12 to Northern Ireland, assuming, as the noble Lord confirmed, that the date of the European election will be 7th June? It would be helpful for all those concerned if we knew exactly what date was the latest date for the publication of the notice of the election, the delivery of nomination papers and so on. It would be particularly helpful for prospective candidates.
Thirdly, perhaps Lord Boston could give further particulars about the declaration of the results of the poll. The Minister said that counting would not start until the evening of 10th June, at some time to be decided presumably taking into account the difficulties of summer time throughout the different member States of the Community. Can he say how the results will be declared? He said it would be done centrally. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will make announcements on television, or that they will be published in the newspapers, if there are any newspapers on the days following 11th June? How will candidates be informed, and how will returning officers be able to inform the public of the results?
Fourthly, may we know what modifications, if any, would be required to these draft regulations if a General Election were to be held on the same day? He mentioned that the same polling booths and the same form of voting paper would be used. Is there anything in the draft regulations which would prevent a General Election being held on the same day? If so, what legislation would be necessary to enable that to happen?
330
With those few comments, we on this side of the House recommend the approval of these draft regulations which, in our opinion, lay the basis for an election of historic significance, both in this country and in the other member States of the Community, when about 180 million electors will go together to contribute to forming the first ever internationally-elected body.
4.58 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his thorough explanation of the draft regulations, and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in asking the question she put about the possibility of a General Election being held on the same day as the direct election to the European Parliament.
The noble Lord explained why there are two draft regulations; one is required for Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote will operate, and the other for the rest of the United Kingdom, where the majority system—the first-past-the-post system—will operate; and of course we on these Benches regret that there is not merely one Instrument applying the single transferable vote to the United Kingdom so that all substantial minorities could be assured fair representation in all parts of the United Kingdom.
We support the greater part of these draft regulations, but we have some reservations about them and I shall mention three briefly. We do not agree with the provision of a deposit of £600. We feel that this country should fall into line with other member countries and dispense with a cash deposit. Instead, we would rather have an increase in the number of assenters required for a nomination—perhaps an increase more substantial than that suggested by the noble Baroness. We should have thought in terms of an increase from perhaps 30 to 500. If the cash deposit is to remain, we still believe that there should be an increase in the number of assenters, but we advocate a reduction in the deposit-losing limit from 12½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—a figure used in elections in other countries within the Community. We consider that these provisions would be more than sufficient to deter frivolous candidates. At present in parliamentary

331
elections in this country many candidates who could not posibly be described as frivolous candidates are nevertheless penalised through the operation of the deposit system.
I turn to another reservation. We should prefer to dispense with the individual communication sent in an envelope to each elector, and have instead an election communication from each Party delivered to each household. This is the kind of arrangement which the Post Office are happy to undertake for commercial organisations, and there is a precedent for its operation in the EEC referendum of 1975. We believe that the adoption of this proposal would save considerable unnecessary effort and labour which could be diverted to other, more profitable, forms of campaigning.
Furthermore, we believe that the legal maximum for election expenses is too high and will give an undue advantage to wealthier Parties. We accept the basic figure of £5,000, but we would have preferred the additional 2p per elector to be reduced to 1p per elector. I have stated three objections which we have to the regulations, and they are our principal objections, but for the greater part we are happy that the regulations should operate.
5.2 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for what they have said about the general terms of the regulations, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the joint committee and the way in which it enabled us to put matters right. I also wish to thank her on behalf of the other people concerned, to whom she very kindly made reference. I appreciate, too, what the noble Baroness said about certain unsatisfactory elements, from her point of view and that of her party, in the final form that the regulations have taken, in regard to the particular points she has mentioned. There have been certain difficulties. All the representations which were received, particularly those from the political parties and the other bodies I have mentioned, were studied very thoroughly, and thereafter the final decision had to be made as to what to recommend
332
in the regulations to be put before your Lordships.
I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern regarding her point about "Assembly" or some other term being used. The term "Assembly" is used in the Treaty of Rome. It is also used in our own legislation, and therefore we feel that it should be used in the regulations. With regard to the question of a deposit, I understand that there was a reduction in the recommendation of the noble Baroness's own party from the original figure which they put forward and which I believe was £1,500, but as the noble Baroness said, the firm recommendation which she and her Party made was for a figure of £900. I appreciate that there is clearly room for argument here. One has already mentioned how out-of-date the parliamentary deposit may be. I feel sure that the points made by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the question of the deposit will be noted at the appropriate moment if and when Mr. Speaker holds a further Speakers' Conference on Electoral Law. The points that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have mentioned are the kind of arguments which could usefully be decided upon there.
With regard to Irish citizens, my noble friend is on hand here, but, subject to anything he may wish to add when the further order is formally moved, I believe that I am in a position to deal with this question. I understand the position to be that if Irish citizens are registered as electors in our constituencies, they can vote here, but double voting is in fact an offence both under Community law and under our own European Assembly elections law. I think that that probably crystallises the position on that matter.
The noble Baroness raised a very valid point regarding the timetable, and on this I should like to take up her suggestion and write to her. I agree that it would be very useful for all concerned to have a clear timetable set out in written form to which they could turn for guidance.
The noble Baroness also raised the question regarding the count. Apart from the verification which will be done, as it were, on the night, the count proper will be dealt with centrally. The detailed physical arrangements will to some extent

333
be left to the discretion of the individual returning officers, but the count proper will be dealt with centrally; that is, centrally in each of the European constituencies. Therefore, for that purpose, a European constituency will be rather similar to our own parliamentary constituency, and the declaration will be made, again at the discretion of the returning officers in regard to the precise moment, in the same way as it is made for parliamentary elections. One assumes that some returning officers will go ahead and hold the proceedings as soon as possible after 10 p.m. on the Sunday night, while others will deal with the matter on the following morning, the Monday, in a way similar to what is done in some country constituencies in parliamentary elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned his concern about the distribution of candidates' election addresses or manifestoes. I recognise that there is room for argument in this matter, and I can quite understand the point of view he has put forward. The view we feel bound to take in recommending the regulations to your Lordships is that, aside from the practical problems with which the Post Office would have to deal if they had to handle material which was not specifically addressed to an elector, it would not be appropriate to make regulations for the European Assembly elections which differ from those which apply to parliamentary elections. Again, as in some of the other detailed features of the regulations, we have recommended sticking to the practice which is familiar. One cannot anticipate what might happen at a conference called in due course by Mr. Speaker, but this is one of the matters which might then be taken into account.
I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in emphasising the historic nature of the event which is now approaching. Having said that, I commend the regulations to the House—
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to comment on the question which both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and myself put to him—namely, would the regulations have to be amended if a General Election took place on the same day, and, if so, in what way?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that point. I think that I am armed with an authoritative statement on this matter which I can give her.
Of course, my Lords, this is not a question which really arises on these regulations—the noble Baroness will no doubt be with me so far as that is concerned—because these are concerned only with the European Assembly elections; but, in fact, we are not aware of any constitutional or legislative obstacle to the holding of the two elections on the same day, should that be desirable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS 1979
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 6th March, he approved.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Report received.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
5.12 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Order, laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order deals with two very important companies in public ownership in Northern Ireland—Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff. Its purpose is to establish a sound framework for the relationship between the two companies and the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce, which holds all

335
the shares in Harland and a majority of the shares in Short Brothers. The draft order in fact sets out the arrangements which already exist or have been developing since control of the companies passed to the Department of Commerce. The Department already gives financial help to both companies under other powers, of course; and the Department is also kept fully informed of their performance and is consulted about major policy issues. The new order will not change any of that, but it will provide a firm statutory base for Department/company relations, and make clearer what is expected to each side. It will also result in Parliament receiving more regular information and being better placed to comment on the affairs of both companies than in the past, because under this order funds for the companies will be sought through the normal supply procedures, but separately from other funds for industrial use in Northern Ireland.
There is an immediate need for new legislation because on 31st March 1979 the powers of the Department of Commerce to give financial help to Harland and Wolff expire. As noble Lords know, the shipbuilding industry throughout Europe, and indeed the world, is having to rely on Government help to bring it through the current slump in demand, and this is true of Harland as well. We have therefore taken this opportunity to draw up new legislation which brings together and regulates all important aspects of the Department's relations with both companies. This more permanent framework should increase the confidence that customers have in the companies.
Looking at the current position at Harland, employment has fallen by about 1,500 over the past two years and seems certain to fall still further, despite the help which will be available under this order to enable the shipyard to obtain new work. The company is diversifying its production as much as it can, to safeguard the jobs of as many of its employees as possible, but there are limits to the number of new uses to which shipbuilding facilities can be put. The next few years are going to be difficult ones for shipbuilding in Europe, and Harland is no exception; but the financial provisions of this order should give Northern Ireland's shipbuilding industry a fair chance of
336
survival. The Government's detailed proposals for assistance to Harland and Wolff over the next two years are currently under discussion with the EEC Commission, and I regret to say that the discussions arc not proving easy. I am therefore not yet in a position to make any definitive statement about our proposals. The negotiations are continuing, and we shall, of course, try to ensure that the company can adapt to current conditions, and that its capacity to respond to future improvement in the market is maintained.
The past five years have not been easy ones for Short Brothers, either. It has made losses in each year since 1974, partly because it has been incurring a heavy outlay on the development of new products. on the development of new products. However, these products (notably the SD3-30 commuter aircraft) are beginning to sell well, and the company's longer-term position looks hopeful, provided it can deliver the goods on time and remain competitive in price. However, in the short term it will need further finance to re-equip, to meet operating losses and to continue with essential development work. The company has drawn up a five-year corporate plan, which shows that a return to profitability is expected in 1981, and the Government have agreed this plan as a basis for future funding of the company and for monitoring the company's performance. The plan sets demanding targets for the company, but they are achievable, and if the company can meet them its future should be secure.
Substantial sums of public money will be needed by these two companies over the next few years, and the Department of Commerce will monitor this expenditure very carefully. Close monitoring is already carried out, but it is given formal legislative status in the draft order. The order also empowers the Department to give directions to each company, and these directions will be binding upon wholly-owned subsidiaries where appropriate. This is not, of course, a power which the Department would expect to exercise very frequently, if ever; but it is one that, in view of its probable scale of financial commitment to the companies, the Government believe the Department must have available. The power will certainly not be used to interfere in the day-to-day management of the companies.
As I have said, the draft order does not make any fundamental change in the Government's approach to the two companies concerned. The powers of assistance are more or less the same as those already available under the general industrial development legislation in Northern Ireland. The provisions in the order covering information, review of performance and consultation with the Aerospace and Shipbuilding Corporations in Great Britain are all formalising existing practice, rather than new proposals. As I have said, my Lords, these two companies are of vital importance to Northern Ireland's economy. I am sure that this more permanent framework for their relations with the Government, set out in this order, will lead to greater confidence in the future of the companies, and will be widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order, laid before the House on 7th February, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
5.18 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving details of this order, which, of course, refers to the two most important heavy industrial companies in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord referred specifically, among other things, to Article 6 of the order, which enables the Department of Commerce to give directions to either Harland and Wolff or Short Brothers, or their subsidiaries, in relation to matters which appear to the Department to affect the public interest. I accept what the noble Lord has said, of course—that the intention of the Government is that these directions would not be concerned with the day-to-day running of either of the companies—but, none the less, there appears to be no requirement in Article 6 for the directions which the Department may give to be made public. Under the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, the Secretary of State for Industry is required to lay an order, subject to Affirmative Resolution, before both Houses whenever he wishes to prescribe any activities to be undertaken either by the British Aerospace Corporation or by British Shipbuilders, and I should like to ask the noble Lord the reason why there is not a similar provision in this order.
338
I should also like to take the opportunity which this order presents to ask about future employment prospects at Harland and Wolff. There is a phased reduction in the workforce at the shipyard taking place at the present time, I understand, and I should like to check with the noble Lord as to what is the target. The recent document from the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland—the document was called Economic and Social Progress in Northern Ireland—refers to opportunities to diversify production at Harland and Wolff. I very much hope that these opportunities will become realities. I believe I am right in saying that last year an agreement was made between Harland and Wolff and a German firm of marine engine builders which saved about 400 jobs in Belfast. I should like to know whether there is any immediate prospect of any projects of similar importance. Having asked those questions, I accept the general case which the noble Lord has made, that this order is necessary for support for these two vital companies. On those grounds, I certainly support the passage of the order.
5.20 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister a question concerning fair trading in Europe. I understand that under EEC rules all shipbuilders in Europe are supposed to offer exactly the same terms for loans and interest on loans in order to get business for building ships. I saw in the Financial Times that there was a very strong rumour that the Germans were in fact giving an extra year's credit. I wonder what the Government have done in order to investigate that. I feel very much that we British play the rules of the EEC absolutely straight and on the whole do not examine other countries' misdemeanours with the same vigour with which other countries seem to examine ours. I should like to feel that Harland and Wolff were on all fours with firms in any other countries. I am sorry to ask this question now but I did not realise that we were going to discuss it at this point.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for giving a welcome to this order. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked a question about

339
publishing the powers of direction. I should like to have the opportunity to consider that. But one thing which will interest the noble Lord and which I did not mention in my opening remarks is that the position of Harland and Wolff is different from the relationship between a Minister and a nationalised industry. This is a public company where the Department is the sole shareholder in the case of Harland and Wolff and a majority shareholder in the case of Short Brothers. The Government's power of direction does not rest solely on statutory provision but also is available in their capacity as the majority or sole shareholder of the company. There is no exact parallel to be drawn between relations between the Department of Commerce and Harland and Wolff and the relationship between the Department of Industry and the Secretary of State for Industry and British Aerospace or British Shipbuilders. But I will look at the point that the noble Lord has raised and I will write him about it.
The noble Lord also asked a question about the position so far as employment prospects were concerned. The prospects at Shorts are reasonably good. The figure over the past five years has gone up by about 1,000 to something like 6,200 and it is expected to increase by a further 300 by 1982. The position at Harland and Wolff is not anything like as good as that. But Harland and Wolff, at least in the short term, I think it is fair to say, are in a relatively good position—that is relative not to any other shipyard being in a good position in Western Europe or the world, for this is a very depressed shipbuilding industry—in that Harland and Wolff's present order book, for example, has eight ships on it worth £161 million. They are one bulk carrier, two oil product tankers, two LPG gas carriers and three passenger car ferries. The position in the longer run is no more or less healthy than that of many other shipyards in the world, except that Harland and Wolff is building on a reasonable short-term basis.
The noble Lord asked also about the engine works and the tie-up with the German engineering firm, MAN. At present the engine works position is not very encouraging. It is short of work. The works at the moment have orders for three main engines providing work only
340
up to the end of 1979 and for reducing the number of workers as the current year proceeds. The company is hopeful that a recently agreed association with MAN will result in a useful flow of work in the engine works as the manufacturer of medium-speed engines designed by MAN. These have the advantage of being suited to both land and marine use. The number of medium-speed engines on order is up to target for the first year's trading, and this is reasonably encouraging. I think that the real answer to the noble Lord's question is that it is early days yet but that the prospects, so far as we can see at present, for the tie-up with MAN look reasonably encouraging.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, asked about the eye that we keep on various incentives offered by other European countries and elsewhere in the world, and, in particular, about an incentive offered by the West Germans at the moment. I do not have detailed information about that. It may be that by the time we come on to the next order I shall be able to give the noble Viscount more information; but, if not, I will write to him. I can assure him that we do keep a careful and close eye on the range of industrial incentives available in Northern Ireland and in this direction do everything we can—and we have a good deal of discretion. Our success during the last calendar year in attracting new industries to Northern Ireland shows how flexible we are prepared to be. We might not be able to do exactly the same thing but it is often possible to achieve the same results by different means. Last year we had several notable examples of our success in that direction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft order, laid before the House on 20th February, be appoved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is the first in the annual cycle of orders appropriating funds for services administered by Northern Ireland Departments. The order appropriates the spring Supplementary Estimates for the current financial year. Part I of the Schedule contains

341
details of the services for which extra provision is needed, and further information is contained in the spring Supplementary Estimates volume which is available in the Library.
The total additional provision asked for under this order is some £61 million, and this brings the total for the 1978–79 financial year to £1,522 million, some £204 million over the total for 1977–78. About £23 million of this is for expenditure on health and personal social services, and is needed mainly to meet the cost of pay awards and price increases. About £8 million is needed by the Education and Library Boards to cover increased costs and to finance the additional employment opportunities which were created early last year. Some £6 million is needed to cover both price increases and an extension of the roads resurfacing programme, which is helping to maintain employment in the construction industry. The £3 million paid out as £10 Christmas bonuses to pensioners is included in this order. There is also a need for £2 million to provide for benefits under the Shipbuilding Redundancy Payments Scheme, and £1 million to cover an increase in uptake under the Temporary Employment Subsidy.
The second main purpose of this order is to appropriate the sums required on account for 1979–80, so that Northern Ireland Departments have the necessary resources until the appropriation of the balance has been approved by Parliament. The sums on account have, in general, been calculated on the basis of 45 per cent. of the Voted provision for the current year, and £663 million is needed on account for 1979–80. My Lords, I have only covered the main points of the order, but I will, as usual, do my best to answer any questions which noble Lords wish to raise. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order, laid before the House on 20th February, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this order was debated in another place only yesterday. I do not mean to treat it cursorily when I say that for that reason, however, I, first of all, support the need for the order and will refer only to three aspects of it. The primary aspect of any discussion about the Northern Ireland economy must
342
be the future. Although in social policy matters Northern Ireland may be a prisoner of the past, in economic matters it is the fact that Northern Ireland's industry and commerce have shown their readiness to look to the future. I am only too ready to acknowledge the work which Ministers of the present Government have done in this particular respect. But if one looks at the recent report of the Central Economic Service of the Department of Finance, the report called Economic and Social Progress in Northern Ireland, in its third section one reads some pretty grim forecasts of a further substantial decline in jobs foreseen in construction, manufacturing and mining. May I ask how the Government intend to tackle this problem? Do the Government see any way of tackling the problem other than by a constant increase in the public service? At a time when unemployment in Northern Ireland stands at nearly 11 per cent., it is essential to ask this question and for the Government, despite all the difficulties which face them so far as employment in Northern Ireland is concerned, to make clear their plans for the future.
The second question I should like to ask is whether planning has advanced at all so far as the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is concerned. Some months ago in your Lordships' House and also in another place the Government announced a substantial grant of financial aid which is to be given to the Northern Ireland electricity service. What concerns me is the position in which that rather piecemeal approach—welcome though it was so far as Northern Ireland electricity is concerned—leaves the Northern Ireland gas service; and what are the Government's intentions for the Northern Ireland gas service in general so far as the future is concerned?
Lastly—because this order also refers to education and because the noble Lord has personal responsibility for it—may I take the opportunity to question him about the reports of the working parties on secondary reorganisation? I understand that their tasks have been completed and the reports are due to be published very shortly. Is it the intention of the noble Lord that those reports will be distributed widely in Northern Ireland for comments and discussions? Will it be possible for copies to be made available in your Lordships' House? At the same time I

343
would refer to a Bill which is going through Parliament at the moment, the Education Bill for England and Wales, which is now in Committee in another place. That Bill has already been considerably amended since it had its Second Reading before Christmas. No doubt it will be further amended. What recognition has the Department of Education in Northern Ireland taken of the current Education Bill and the Amendments which have been made to it? In particular, in fixing his quotas for grammar schools in Northern Ireland, is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, up to date as to the latest state of play in the debates in another place on the Bill's idea for what are known as planned admission limits?
Are the governing bodies of Northern Ireland schools going to be subject to the new composition for school governing bodies in England and Wales which are proposed in the current Bill which is before the House of Commons? In particular, will the voluntary schools in Northern Ireland continue to be recognised as a most valuable part of the Education Service? I am bound to say that the position of voluntary schools, regarding the part they play in the education system in England and Wales, is very much called in question so far as the Education Bill before another place at the moment is concerned. My Lords, this order, relating to the end of this financial year and, as the noble Lord has explained, making the necessary appropriations for next year, appropriates substantial sums, and these sums are necessary. But, at the same time, I think that the questions which I have asked are relevant at the present time and I put them now to the Government for reply.
5.34 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I also should like to welcome this appropriation order and support my noble friend Lord Belstead in the tributes that he has paid to the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and to the Secretary of State in particular. Both the Minister, the right honourable Don Concannon, and the Secretary of State have done a massive job in attracting new industry to Northern Ireland. I feel at the present moment that America is an important area from which to attract
344
industry, and the Secretary of State and the Government are going to have to make a very much bigger effort in the area of publicity. All the feedback from America suggests that the anti-"H" block campaign is doing us considerable damage. I am not at all sure that it does not need an almost united parliamentary approach on the part of all parties to make sure that the people in Congress in America understand that this is the united opinion of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and that the stand of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is correct on this issue. I feel it is a very serious state of affairs that the propagandists in America are achieving a great deal of success.
In this appropriation order there is money provided for the reconstruction of Belfast Airport. We in Northern Ireland depend enormously on having good communications. We feel very sore that British Airways, reporting a profit of £2 million, are about to approach the aviation authority for a further rise in fares. I understand that on Laker Airways it costs £69 to fly to Toronto. It costs £72 at the moment to fly to Belfast and back. I feel that the Government ought, somehow or other, to investigate the efficiency of British Airways on this system. The shuttle system which we have from London to Belfast is most convenient, but it is a fairly rugged operation for those of us who have to fight our way down through Gate 49. I feel that British Airways should not have the "neck" to ask for a further rise in fares until such a time as the aircrew—because this has a great effect—stop overnight somewhere in Northern Ireland. The last aeroplane at night, the 8.30, flies on to Glasgow where the crew stop overnight. That alone is costing British Airways hundreds of thousands of pounds. I cannot believe that it is not within the bounds of possibility for British Airways to arrange for the aircrew to stay overnight somewhere in Northern Ireland. That is an area where efficiency could be improved.
The justification for the reconstruction of Aldergrove Airport must be the possibility of getting international air links. Cork, a much smaller airport serving a much smaller number of people, has daily air links with the Continent. We have none. To make matters worse,

345
in a very ill-advised way British Airways objected to poor little East Anglia Airways running a trip from Aldergrove to Amsterdam. British Airways did not want to run in competition, they just wanted to stop East Anglia Airways. I feel that was most inappropriate; it gave British Airways a very bad image. I should like to know what, if anything, the Government can do to try to encourage other airlines to establish an international air link with Europe. More and more we are becoming Europe-orientated; our exports are going to Europe and it becomes more and more important for us to have direct routes.
On an earlier Bill, I mentioned to the House that I thought it might be appropriate for the Government or parties to appoint one or two more people from Northern Ireland to this House, men distinguished in their fields—and there are plenty of fields in which we have distinguished men—who could take part in and make more realistic the debates on this particular order. This order is a very important one. It is the budget and the expropriation for the whole of the expenditure of Northern Ireland. If Scotland were separately accounted, I wonder how long it would take to debate the appropriation order for Scotland. Therefore, I feel that my remarks are justified. Except for the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Melchett and myself, I do not see anybody in the Chamber who has actually served in Northern Ireland in the capacity of Minister. I do not expect to get a favourable reply from the noble Lord because I do not think that would be possible.
In Part I of the Schedule, Class VI, we have a reference to money being provided for planning. Because we are dealing with an order in this way, in a small debate, I feel that it is right to draw attention to certain matters with a broad brush rather than go into too much detail. I should like to ask many questions: for example, about the meat industry, the employment scheme, dates for finishing the roads, the Bangor marina and goodness knows what, but I feel that would be inappropriate at this time. However, I should like to raise a subject that I have raised before in this House—that is, the problems that arise in the whole of Northern Ireland because of the struc-
346
ture of local government. Local government was reorganised in Northern Ireland on the basis of a devolved Parliament in Stormont. Practically all the services, as they are known, were removed from local government and centred in Stormont. The result of that, with no Stormont, has been that we have a very difficult situation. I recognise that the Ministers in charge have done their very best to try to mitigate the difficulties caused by the actual structure, but I believe that some changes will have to be made soon, and certainly there should be an examination of what the changes might be.
The problems that arise have been very well illustrated in the last few weeks by the publication in County Fermanagh—my own county—and in the neighbouring county of Strabane of what is called an area plan. The planning officers are centred in Belfast; the whole planning machine is responsible to the Department of the Environment in Belfast, and the Ministers are answerable politically here in Westminster. The district councils have no authority in planning over and above being consulted—and they are very ably consulted by the planners, so what I am saying must in no way be taken as a criticism of the people involved: it is a criticism of the system, which I feel is doing great damage, especially in the rural areas. When councils had their own planning officers, an area plan would be built up over a period with a planning committee and the chairman of that committee exercising influence. Sometimes the chairman may have thought that the committee were exercising a lot more influence than in fact they were, because the planning in some cases has to happen whatever a planning committee may say, but it was being built up and the council had a responsibility for it. On presentation of an area plan, it was fathered by the committee and by the council. The planning officer was felt to be part of the council and part of that community, so there was at least an identity of view.
What has been happening in County Fermanagh? The area plan has been published and there are many parts of it—perhaps even the whole—which are well founded as to the general intention, but, since there is no involvement, it is being hammered everywhere in the county and people are vying with each other to say rude things about it. The great

347
danger is that we are going to get the good things thrown out with the bad. There are bad details in it, but, worse still, I think we are developing a "we" and "they" mentality. The civil servants based in Belfast are "they" and "they" are operating against "us", and this is very bad for a community.
The past record of planners has not been exactly unblemished. There have been plenty of times when there has been local influence on an area plan as it is built up gradually rather than influence being brought to bear after the plan has been published, when somebody has put his head on the block and has had to argue in justification of his case. That has been extremely useful and has often resulted in better planning. This situation in fact applies to other services, such as roads, sewage and water, but the problem with planning is that it is a much more emotional subject because it involves land and it involves an authority saying "no". That is what is most readily remembered by anybody when talking about planning: it is a case of, "You can't build that house there". It is not remembered that the plan may in fact have enabled the countryside to be protected and developed in an orderly fashion. It is the "no" mentality imposed from Belfast that is at the basis of all I am saying.
I was much encouraged when I read the report of a debate in another place, because of the speech made by the honourable Member for West Belfast in voicing his criticism of the Housing Executive—and the housing powers were among those that were removed from the local authorities. He was voicing what appeared to be a fairly widespread feeling of disagreement with the Housing Executive. He was one of the people who objected to local authorities having those powers in the past, and he said he regretted very much the establishment of the Housing Executive. My Lords, it is a mammoth. Somebody described it as "a dinosaur": it is a huge organisation and, no matter how hard people try—and they do try very hard—it cannot be responsive in the way that people would like.
I raise this issue because in the past the Government have had a very difficult job in deciding whether to devolve any further powers to district councils. The
348
opposition to it came from the main political Opposition party—that is, the SDLP—and here we have the leader of that party voicing an opinion contrary to what he has been expressing before. It is all in Hansard—perhaps he was emotional at the time—but the main thing is that something has to be done or else we are going to have a very unhealthy situation in the countryside.
These powers were removed because it was supposed there was a misuse of political power. That is something I would not agree with—at least no more than elsewhere—but the situation in Northern Ireland is now very different from what it was. There are many safeguards for personal freedom. We have the Standing Commission on Human Rights, we have the Fair Employment Agency and we have Ombudsmen—absolutely legions, hundreds of them. I am therefore quite convinced that more power could be given back to the rural councils. The final safeguard of the whole lot is that for the foreseeable future, no matter what people may say to try to persuade us otherwise, we are not going to have a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome these appropriations.
5.48 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think some Members of your Lordships' House may be pleased rather than sorry that there are less people from Northern Ireland here to make contributions tonight, but I hope the noble Viscount would agree that what we lack in quantity we make up in quality with, hopefully, some degree of brevity.
The noble Viscount asked about air services. I can tell him that I battled to and from Belfast on the shuttle yesterday. I had an absolutely appalling journey in the morning but a really marvellous journey back in the evening and, on the whole, I would agree with him that it is an extremely convenient and on the whole a very good service—rather over-maligned by some people, and very much to the benefit of Northern Ireland, particularly to the business people there, because it is so frequent in its flights.
As the noble Viscount will know, the Northern Ireland Economic Council has recently published a statement of views on

349
air passenger services to Northern Ireland. That statement is currently under consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who, of course, has a general responsibility for air services in the United Kingdom. I and my honourable and right honourable friends have no doubt about the importance of air services. I suppose, more than anybody else who lives and works in Northern Ireland, the importance of good communications is borne in on us because of the frequency with which we travel. I can assure the noble Viscount that in the consultations which take place on the Economic Council's statement we will be putting forward the needs and priorities of Northern Ireland very firmly indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Viscount very kindly praised two of my right honourable friends who are most involved in attracting investment to Northern Ireland, and I will pass on those kind words. The noble Lord asked me how we intended to tackle the realistic but undoubtedly rather gloomy prospects held out in the economic document which has recently been published in Northern Ireland. The employment prospects are not good. The current level of unemployment is about double that of Great Britain, and is much too high in anybody's eyes. We do not believe—and I think that the economic document makes this clear—that there are any radical solutions, other than attracting from somewhere billions of pounds of public money which, frankly, particularly at the moment, does not seem to be at all a realistic proposition.
There are no radical solutions that are not already being adopted. We have to plug away as we are going and intensify our efforts, and I think it is fair to say that over the last two years the Government have done this with some success. We have maintained employment. The noble Viscount said that he would not ask me about the Meat Industry Employment Scheme, but there are that and a number of other schemes, many of them extremely expensive—it is as well to remember that—where we have maintained employment in existing industries.
As I have already said, we have had some success in attracting outside investment, and last year there were a number
350
of projects providing several thousand jobs, in the long run, which we attracted. I hope that we have broken through the log jam on that. Certainly the number of visits which are currently being paid by potential investors and interested investors from outside, particularly from the USA, gives grounds for some encouragement. We have, in the area for which I am particularly responsible, increased the number of public sector jobs very considerably in the last two or three years, and the current year will see another major increase in health and social service employment, in line with the needs of Northern Ireland.
This is not something which is being done simply to create jobs, because there are unemployment problems. We have massive problems in the fields of the mentally handicapped, the under-fives and many other areas, where we need more public sector workers and people will be doing, as nurses, health visitors, teachers and ancillary help in classrooms for the under-fives, jobs which are vitally important in many areas, in which we are still behind the level of provision in Great Britain. But we have seen a major expansion and I certainly hope, in my two Departments, to see that expansion maintained and further expansion in some areas over the next few years.
I thought that the noble Viscount was unduly pessimistic about the effects of the propaganda campaign about the H-blocks in the States. As I say, the number of potential investors visiting Northern Ireland for the first time in the last few months does not bear out the idea that this campaign is having any kind of success. The noble Viscount may be interested to know that the recent "Panorama" programme, in which my right honourable friend appeared, will shortly be shown on American television.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the energy position. As he knows, there has been an internal review of Northern Ireland's energy problems involving Departments in London and in Northern Ireland, and that has now been completed. The document outlining the main considerations is now being prepared and will be ready before the Easter Recess. It will, of course, be made available to noble Lords who are interested, as well as being distributed more generally; and when

351
that document is made available the Government will be making a Statement in Parliament as well. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to leave it at that, until we have the published document available.
I should like to take a moment to answer the noble Lord's points about education, because not only is it a particular interest of mine but I think there is some considerable misunderstanding about a number of points that he raised. First, as he said, a number of working party reports—in fact, four—have been made available. Dr. Benn's working party, which is concerned with financing voluntary schools, has produced a final report and that is the end of its job. Its remit was specifically to ensure that voluntary schools can continue to play a part in Northern Ireland's education system, when selection at 11-plus is abolished. I think that that answers one of the points which the noble Lord raised about the Education Bill.
Dr. Dickson's working party, the general working party, has produced three reports but has a number of others to produce and will, undoubtedly, have a number of points referred to it by me for advice. That, in other words, is a working party whose work has only just started, and I should think that it will be in existence for some considerable time, certainly until any legislation which is needed has passed through Parliament, and maybe for some time beyond that until reorganisation is a long way down the line to completion. It will be used as a source of local advice. Apart from Dr. Dickson, who I think it fair to say is a very respected figure in educational circles in Northern Ireland, the working party is made up entirely of representatives nominated by the main educational organisations in Northern Ireland.
The third working party, Professor Astin's on schools management, is hoping to report around Easter. That, again, will be the final report of that working party, and of course it covers areas which go well beyond the reorganisation of secondary education. On that final working party of Professor Astin's we would allow a long period for consultation, because it is a small group of people nominated by me and it is not intended to represent the views of educational interests generally. But on the reports
352
produced both by Dr. Benn's and Dr. Dickson's working parties, where the reports are agreed by the representatives of educational interests, nominated by them, I should hope that we should have fairly short periods of consultation. At the moment, I am hoping that on those four reports we could have completed the consultations by the end of June. The reports will be published in the next week or two.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, also asked me about the Education Bill. I do not think that it reflects the likely future policy for Northern Ireland, partly because many of the things contained in it we are already doing, some of them in a different way, and partly because some will need to be investigated. For example, I have already mentioned school management and the report of Professor Astin's working party. The consultations on it and the conclusions which the Government reach will determine school management provisions in Northern Ireland in the future.
There are a number of provisions in the Education Bill which we already have; for example, the provision allowing education to take place in day nurseries is possible under existing legislation. Similarly, there are a number of provisions about awards and grants. Northern Ireland's basic legislation does not need to be altered to keep us in line with Great Britain on the level of awards and grants. The advanced further education board concerns another provision in the Bill we shall not be taking any action on until we see the outcome of the review of higher education which is currently looking at the whole field in Northern Ireland. The report of the review may or may not make similar recommendations, but that again will be for consultation and determination in the Northern Ireland context.
I suppose that one of the most significant features of the Bill is the control of intakes. In Northern Ireland we are already a step ahead, and a step ahead on a voluntary basis, because we have secured agreement from all the educational interests that intakes to all types of secondary schools, whether voluntary grammar schools, controlled grammar schools, maintained schools or ordinary controlled secondary schools, should be controlled, and that in a period of declining enrolments all sections, grammar and secondary

353
intermediate, should suffer a proportionate decline in their enrolments.
This has been agreed by the Governing Bodies Association, who represent the grammar schools in Northern Ireland, by representations of the secondary schools more generally and by the teachers' unions. This is now being implemented by my Department, but with voluntary agreement there will be no need for legislation; and we do not intend to introduce any legislation unless this voluntary agreement breaks down in some way. There is absolutely no indication that this is likely to happen. I think that that covers the main provisions in the Bill and it will show the noble Lord that we are either doing it our own way or have already done it, which I think is typical of Northern Ireland's educational system.
I promised the noble Viscount that I would return to the German credit question that he asked me about earlier. As I understand it, this support scheme for the shipbuilding industry in West-Germany has not yet been considered by the EEC Commission, as, of course, it will have to be, and no doubt they will wish to determine that it does not represent any unfair distortion of trade within the Community. It might be wise to wait until they have given an opinion before we express any view on it.
Finally, the noble Viscount asked me about powers for district councils. He suggested that my honourable friend the Member for West Belfast had condemned the Housing Executive in the context of returning powers to district councils. My honourable friend certainly criticised the Housing Executive, and I am afraid that that is done by many people in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the suggestion has ever been made by any member of the SDLP that powers over housing should be returned to district councils. This is quite a different matter, as I think the noble Viscount would agree, and one of considerable political sensitivity in Northern Ireland.
We still believe, with the official Opposition at least, that our policy should be to return to Northern Ireland devolved government which is acceptable to the representatives of both communities in Northern Ireland and to Parliament at Westminster. At the same time, however, all legislation that is passed which comes
354
forward in Northern Ireland is looked at very carefully to ensure that, wherever possible and where it is right, functions and responsibilities are allocated to district councils rather than to the regional Government. For example, Parliament approved recently a Shops Order which gave new powers to district councils. Another order which will come before Parliament in the near future is the Control of Food Premises Order.
Therefore, I can assure the noble Viscount that we watch the matter very carefully. Nevertheless, the basic policy of all the main Parties at Westminster remains our determination to see devolved government returned to Northern Ireland as soon as an acceptable formula for it can be agreed. At the moment, this does not, unfortunately, seem to be possible. However, it is important that that goal should remain the one that we aim at and that we should not allow ourselves to be deflected from it, although in the short term we do not seem to be making a great deal of progress.
On Question, Motion agreed to.