Lords Sitting of 5 March 1981

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

Africa: Co-ordination of Famine Relief Work
Baroness Vickers: 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, in view of the fact at least 2 million people in four African countries are facing starvation owing to drought, continuing civil wars and political unrest, what action is being taken to impress on the United Nations relief organisations the need for an operation to co-ordinate the many relief organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the United Nations and the voluntary organisations concerned are co-operating closely in the organisation of relief for those suffering in the Horn of Africa. Recent publicity over the supply of food for Karamoja has obscured the remarkable achievement of all concerned in saving three-quarters of a million people from starvation. Ministers have discussed co-ordination of current relief work with the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. Co-ordination of humanitarian assistance in general will be considered by the Economic and Social Council in July.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, is it not a pity that in the past there has not been better co-ordination? Can the noble Lord let me know how many voluntary organisations are working in this field and also the average number of deaths per year?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid I have not got that last figure in front of me but, on the noble Baroness's other point, I can say that the Government have now contributed over £800,000 to the British voluntary agencies for relief work in Uganda. Of that, £500,000 was given to the Disasters Emergency Committee to be used principally for food, medicines and transport. We have also made a grant of £160,000 to assist the Save the Children Fund food transport operations in Karamoja. In addition—this is not quite what my noble friend asked me, but perhaps it will be helpful—the United Kingdom's share of European Community emergency aid amounts to a further £290,000.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I, though I appreciate the wonderful work which has been done by the voluntary agencies and the co-operation between them, ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government
1500
will support still further co-ordination when the subject is discussed in July? May I further ask whether the Government would support an international relief organisation with all equipment, so that it could act for the whole world under the United Nations, not only in Africa but in emergency cases like the earthquake in Italy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the first point put to me by the noble Lord, we shall of course support any proposal to improve the arrangements for the response to these situations. On the second point, such an organisation already exists, I would suggest, in the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation, whose primary concern is to co-ordinate the response to sudden natural disasters and other emergencies.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, will the Minister take note that, as the last supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, indicated, there is very strong support on this side for the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and particularly as regards her inquiry about the extent of the suffering—indeed, the terminal suffering, as I understand her to say—arising from famine and related diseases in very many districts in each of these four countries? There is evidence that the situation is getting worse. May I therefore put this question: July is some time away and may result only in discussion and possible resolutions. Will the noble Lord therefore in the meantime press upon the Administrator, who is in turn supported by the Secretary General's special committee for this purpose, the need to co-ordinate and act even more effectively than has been done so far in anticipation of any decisions which may be arrived at by the July meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to the first of the noble Lord's points, there were about 2 million people at least in the Horn of Africa who were thought to be at risk, and very nearly half those have certainly been relieved of the worst excesses of their plight. On the noble Lord's second point, we are considering urgently whether there is anything further we can do in the very short term, and an announcement is expected to be made shortly.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, have we not reached the rather tragic situation in which the United Nations has so committed itself to various ideological and political positions that the most useful service it could do would be to dissolve itself and get out of the way in order not to prevent help being given by other people who could then be organised to deal with these real and terrible grievances?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot believe that that is a serious supplementary but, if it is, I would want to say that the record of success of the United Nations in the matter we are discussing this afternoon is a very fine one.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that in the long term it would really be for the betterment of these people if the United Nations and all the aid organisations interested

1501
would get together on a long-term plan for providing water? If that were done we should not get these perpetual droughts in the various countries and it would be the greatest service that we could give to the nations concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the availability of a clean water supply is a vital feature of the development programmes of many of these areas and it is certainly uppermost in the minds of those involved with the British aid programme.
Lord Ritchie-Calder: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that one of the most important contributions we could make would be to reinforce the United Nations disaster agency? We have had the complaints. Why do we not see whether we can repair these complaints?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United Nations Disaster Relief Organisation is primarily concerned, as I said earlier, to co-ordinate the response to sudden natural disasters, but it does become involved in longer-term emergency needs, such as this one, when it is specifically requested to do so by the UN Secretary-General. We think it is doing a good job so far.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the United Nations voluntary fund, to which this country is the second biggest contributor, has done extremely valuable work in encouraging small projects which will prevent the starvation conditions? Does he also agree that we should continue to press other nations, as well as taking an interest in this project ourselves?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, following on from the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, it is certainly the case that we support the United Nations in projects of this kind, and things would be very much easier if other countries would give as much money as we do.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent he believes that these recurrent disasters are the result of bad weather, and to what extent they relate to local political inability? Can he also say whether helping to improve local political ability would be a great contribution, as well as giving relief?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith put her finger on the problem when she referred to the water supply in this part of the world. Certainly, the lack of water is what seems to be the cause of so many droughts.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, may I intervene once more? We should be careful to press upon the Economic and Social Council the need to go forward with the essential long-term policies mentioned by the noble Baroness, while, at the same time, seeing to it that in the interim the essentially emergency nature of the disaster in these four countries is attended to with
1502
even greater enthusiasm than has been shown in the past.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would certainly agree with both of those points. We certainly look forward to playing our part in the consultations in July, to which I referred. We are also considering, as I said earlier, what we can do urgently in the short-term.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think we should move on. We have been on this Question for nine minutes. But the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has tried on several occasions to get up and it might be appropriate for him to put his question.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, arising from the discussion which is taking place this evening, would it be agreed by the Government that now, having partially met the immediate and urgent need, we should turn our attention to the long-term needs of this area which have been so badly neglected in the past, and should take an initiative in advance of July, through the United Nations development programme, for a long term project in that area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the problems of Karamoja, apart from the climatic problems to which I referred earlier, stem from the long years of the Amin régime in that country. I cannot think that the problems will be solved overnight, but we shall certainly be ready to play our part.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I think it is the feeling of the House that we should move on to the next Question.

Retraining Programmes: Adult Education
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 part the adult education system plays in retraining programmes, so as to provide people of all ages with new skills and trades.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, educational institutions provide opportunities for adults to continue their education at a variety of levels, from the most basic to postgraduate. Some are designed to develop attitudes, skills or qualifications of value generally in preparing to enter or re-enter employment; some to prepare more directly for particular types of employment; and others to extend or update the knowledge and skills of those already in employment.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from my noble friend that this is a popular subject. I wonder whether there is anything more that can be done, because I have a feeling that this kind of training is very useful and that adult education colleges and classes are the ideal place for this to be done. I hope very much that more encouragement will be given to people and that more classes will be provided, if they are really wanted.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we recognise that educational institutions have a very important contribution to make in providing adults with the skills necessary to meet the needs of industry and commerce. We also recognise that, sometimes, they have not responded as quickly or as effectively as they might. We therefore issued for discussion last October a paper which sought to identify the problems and to suggest solutions, with a possible programme of action for improving the situation.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some university departments of education are doing something quite positive about this? The Manchester department of adult education is setting up courses for professional people who have become unemployed, and the Nottingham department of adult education is also setting up short courses in new technology. Can it be hoped that the Government will give financial aid to these places, because adult education has been so appallingly treated in the way of cuts over the last several years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the points that the noble Baroness made about the universities. I can confirm that we have maintained, in real terms, the level of direct funding to the WEA, to the extramural departments of universities, to the national associations of the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds and to the long-term residential colleges, all of which contribute to adult education.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that yesterday this House had an excellent debate on the problems of unemployment in the regions? It was made clear by both sides of the House, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others interested in education that there is great concern about training for new skills. Will the Government take note of that debate, during which constructive ideas were put forward, in the light of the question which has just been asked by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Young: Yes, of course, my Lords; we shall take note of the debate which took place yesterday in your Lordships' House. We are very well aware of the need for institutions to respond more readily to the demands of employers and also employees to update their skills and to retrain. It is partly to identify the best way forward that we have issued our consultative document.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, would the Government consider whether greater use could be made of the
1504
Open University, which has done such remarkably good work in recent years?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; the Open University is used and is a valuable contributor.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the fees for Open University courses have gone up considerably, which makes it very much more difficult for the unemployed to take advantage of courses?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the adult education sector is suffering more severe cuts than any other sector of the education system, and that in some local authority areas it has virtually disappeared? Does not this make nonsense of all the things which the noble Baroness has been agreeing to in this series of questions?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords; the formal programmes which are offered on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission are provided free of charge to the student, who also receives a significant allowance for undertaking the course. As the noble Lord will be aware, many of these courses take place in educational establishments. It is for authorities to determine the level of the fee that is charged for the general non-vocational courses that are provided for adults. Some courses are free, particularly those in basic skills such as literacy; but qualification-bearing courses, such as O- and A-level courses, have to charge a small fee, as also do courses with a direct vocational relevance. Other authorities charge what they believe to be appropriate for other non-vocational courses, and those charges can vary. But the average cost to the individual remains in the current year 41p per hour.

Home Affairs: Report of Select Committee
3.23 p.m.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude to the First Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Home Affairs (H.C. 23).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will shortly be publishing their reply to the Select Committee's report.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him first whether he accepts the facts stated in the opening of the report; namely, that during the past 10 years more than 40 reports by Royal Commissions or other committees appointed by the Government, and some 17 reports by Select Committees of the House of Commons, have

1505
been published on a variety of subjects falling wholly or partly within the responsibility of the Home Office? Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the statement made in paragraph 20 of the report, in which, referring to certain reports, they say that a great deal of time and effort as well as public money was devoted to the inquiries on which they were based and to their preparation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly accept the first part of the noble and learned Lord's supplementary, so far as it goes. But none of the reports quoted by the noble and learned Lord was commissioned by or reported to the present Government. None the less, the action taken on these reports has received the close attention of my right honourable friend. All these reports raise matters of major public policy, of concern to Parliament. As the House will know, pressure on parliamentary time is one of the main determinants of the speed at which action on reports can be taken. So far as the second part of the noble and learned Lord's supplementary is concerned, of course the Government appreciate the very great deal of time which is taken on preparing reports of committees which are set up, but I do not think we should forget that in appointing committees of inquiry Governments do not commit themselves to implementing those committees' proposals. Still less can one Government commit their successor.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment on the statement in paragraph 3? After referring to four particular groups of reports they say:
"The evidence we received"—
which I take it was from the Home Office—
"gave us a disturbing impression of the character of the department's response to the work of committees, which we can only describe as dilatory and complacent".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that part of the report is based on a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that the report appears to criticise the Home Office as though it were in some way separate from the Government of the day. The present Government have accepted full responsibility for the handling of these matters since May 1979.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, in addition to overlooking the advice they have received in the numerous reports referred to by the Select Committee, they are also cutting themselves off from future supplies of advice—as, for instance, by not reactivating the Advisory Council on the Penal System?
Lord Belstead: That is another question, my Lords.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply to the original supplementary of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, confirm the impression given by this report from the Select Committee, that the Home Office suffers from the "not invented here" syndrome: that any proposals which are made from outside for reforms within the department's area of
1506
competence are virtually ignored or rejected? In particular, if we take the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would not the Minister agree that going back as far as 1974, before the original Select Committee inquiry, there were representations from practically every major organisation in the voluntary field that this law needed to be reformed because the boundaries were so totally arbitrary and that many organisations had to devote substantial intellectual resources simply to making sure that they kept within the narrow boundaries, which were laid down, of the definition of a charity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may pick from the fairly long supplementary which the noble Lord has asked me what in fact he is saying, as I understand it, it is that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is inactive in these matters. There have been two recent reports which have very much affected the Home Office—that is to say, Ministers in the Home Office—under the present Government. The first was the Committee on Police Pay under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. Within a few days of its going to the Home Office, my right honourable friend implemented in full all the recommendations of that report and put them into effect. The second report which I have in mind is the report of Mr. Justice May on the future of the prison service. On the very day that that report was published, my right honourable friend accepted many of the recommendations and accepted in full and without question all the recommendations on pay and allowances for the prison service.
The noble Lord, however, mentioned one report which is referred to in this report of the Select Committee; namely, the report of the Goodman Committee—not, incidentally, a report made to the Government but a report made to the National Council of Voluntary Service. That report made certain recommendations on fiscal matters relating to charities which were, as many noble Lords know, put into effect by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Finance Bill of 1980.

IATA and Cheap Air Fares
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 British Airways can make a recommendation to the International Air Transport Association about the rules governing the availability of cheap air fares; and, if so, whether Government approval is necessary before any such recommendation can be made.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the International Air Transport Association is a trade association of airlines. Member airlines are entitled to make such proposals to the association as they wish. Her Majesty's Government's prior approval is not necessary.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government's approval would be necessary if a recommendation were accepted by IATA before it was put into operation? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware of the difficulty that, whereas he told the House yesterday that the international community must break down its own bulwarks of protectionism, IATA has told the Government that it can do nothing in this matter because this Government will not use the law to deal with this particular practice. What does the Minister suggest that we should do?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would say to all that that the noble Baroness is a little confused in her mind. So far as the adoption of IATA recommendations and the subsequent approval of Her Majesty's Government are concerned, the question of whether or not we would have to approve such a recommendation would depend upon what that recommendation was and whether it affected our international agreements, to which I referred at some length yesterday. As for IATA suggesting the cure to the problem which the noble Baroness has brought to my attention on so many occasions, the long-term cure to that problem, as I have said to her on, I think, each and every one of those occasions, is that we persuade our international partners to agree to a more competitive and realistic regime of air fares.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, if I am confused, he is very dilatory in this particular matter? Is he aware that some 44 major airlines deal with this matter through their own bucket shops? And as these airlines would like the matter to be put on to a proper basis, so that these tickets were available to all travellers everywhere, what does this Government propose to do to help to bring that about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the recommendation from IATA for a new régime of air fares, particularly on the European routes, is one that I have no doubt the Government would hasten to approve.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why there is this hold up? Every time he very kindly gives an answer it is always the same one, namely, "We are waiting for IATA". Why cannot we, as members of IATA, as leaders in Europe, call a meeting of the IATA members to deal with this subject straight away, so that people are not breaking the law? What is so irritating is that people are breaking the law and one cannot do that in this country without being prosecuted, but in fact nobody is being prosecuted. Why cannot Her Majesty's Government call an IATA conference and get this matter straightened out once and for all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government are not a member of IATA. We have no power to call a meeting of IATA, as my noble friend suggests. That is for the member airlines to do—British Airways, for example, as a member of IATA is entitled to do that, and indeed does—but the problem is that, once a meeting of IATA is called, for any conclusion to be effective
1508
there has to be a consensus within IATA and that has proved difficult to achieve.

Civil Service Dispute
3.33 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a Statement about the Civil Service dispute.
I want to take this opportunity to explain to the House and to the country the present situation regarding the threatened Civil Service strike on Monday. The Government have offered to non-industrial civil servants an increase of 7 per cent. from 1st April, together with a clear statement of our desire and intention to establish for the future a new, ordered and agreed system for determining Civil Service pay.
For 1981–82 all the public services are operating within cash limits set on the basis of factors of 6 per cent. for pay and 11 per cent. for prices. For the Civil Service, where the Government is the direct paymaster, it will be possible, albeit with considerable difficulty, to squeeze a pay increase of 7 per cent. from the resources available within the cash limit. That is simply as far as we can go. Other groups like the local authority manual workers and the teachers in England and Wales and in Scotland are settling at about the same level within the constraints imposed by the cash limit. It is evident from this that there is no question of discrimination against the Civil Service.
There are many people in private industry who would feel that such an offer at this time could be classed as a good one, given the general economic climate and the relative job security that civil servants enjoy.
I know that civil servants are concerned as much about future arrangements for determining Civil Service pay as they are about this year's cash offer. In August last year I explained to the union leaders that, given the overriding need in the broad national interest for increases in pay to be very restricted, the emphasis in 1981 would have to be on cash limits, reflecting what the Government felt the nation could afford. It was not therefore possible for the Government to operate the existing pay research arrangements in the normal way and in October I suspended them.
A further cause for concern is the pay research system itself, which is now more than 25 years old. Over the years it has become top heavy and cumbersome and somewhat mechanistic in its operations. It no longer commands general confidence. What is now needed is a thorough overhaul—and this is something I believe to be recognised by the unions as well as by ourselves.
I recognise that civil servants fear that the imposition of increases based on cash limits this year, coupled with the suspension of the present arrangements for pay research, could mean that the Government intend that Civil Service pay should be imposed by fiat each year. But this is not the case. I told the union leaders on 23rd February—and I quote:
"The Government intend to review the arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practicable an ordered and agreed system which takes account of all relevant factors and which will command the widest possible acceptance".

1509
Evidently that review has to take place before we can see clearly how the new system will be shaped. We have made every effort to clarify the Government's position and, so far as possible at this stage, to explain our intentions to the union leaders. Recognising their concern about such matters as independent fact-finding, comparisons with terms and conditions of service outside, and arbitration, we have made clear to them that these as well as other relevant factors like job security would be covered in the review. We will welcome further discussions as the review proceeds.
The Government therefore find it hard to understand how in these circumstances the union leaders justify their recourse to the extreme step of recommending industrial action to their members. I hope that the union leaders will think it in the best interests of the Civil Service for them to concentrate on making their contribution to the thinking on the new system rather than calling for industrial action from which the country is bound to suffer.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Statement. I agree with his latter remarks but I should like to put some questions to him. When I was in that position, in charge and with the same responsibilities, I was always ready to answer questions which came from the Benches behind me. First, why are the Government, who are opposed to pay policy, imposing one on one of the most reasonable and responsible groups in the country? I deplore the action that is being taken but I still believe that common sense can prevail if there are more meetings and negotiations. Then I should like to know what is the new and ordered and agreed system for determining civil service pay? How is it going to differ from pay research and a principle of fair comparison? That was the system which we built up over a long period of time. Finally, will this review and the new system be operative for the 1982 Civil Service pay settlement? Those are the few questions to which I should like to have answers.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having made the Statement. Our main feeling is one of great regret that members of the Civil Service should be contemplating strike action, in view of their very special responsibilities to the state. We are anxious, as always on these occasions, to say nothing that would make the situation in any degree worse. On the main issue of the overall increase in pay to be granted, I think that on behalf of my noble friends I should offer the Government our support and join with them in their plea to the union leaders, even at this late stage, to withdraw the recommendation that their members should take industrial action and instead ask them to join with the Government in trying to work out some new arrangements for pay determination within the service.
There is just one question which is somewhat troubling us. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the salary structure within the Civil Service in terms of differentials within the various grades is altogether appropriate, and to the extent that he may not be satisfied can he assure us that this matter, too, is receiving his urgent attention?
Lord Soames: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their, on the whole, welcome for the Statement I have made, and particularly Lord Rochester for his support for what we have said. To answer him first, on his question about differentials, I do not think differentials are ever altogether right, and this situation has not perhaps been helped by the fact that there was a pay research system which recommended pay levels for the Civil Service as a whole and then there was the TSRB, a different body, which recommended the pay levels for the higher echelons. This is the same problem as exists in the Services as well. Differentials have been a problem, and it is something which undoubtedly we must consider.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, he says that we have been strict in imposing pay limits on the Civil Service and asks why have we done that. As I think I said in my statement, we have imposed cash limits upon the pay of not only the Civil Service but also the National Health Service, and, where the Government are concerned with their rates support grant, on local authorities as well. This is, of course, because we believe it to be in the national interest. Pay is a very high proportion of total Government expenditure, particularly in these fields. Further, I am sure it has not escaped the noble Lord that pay increases generally in this round since September have been on average under 9 per cent. So again I say I cannot see sufficient of a difference here. There have been many settlements indeed well below 7 per cent., and many have been very glad to have any at all. I think it was the Government's duty, and their responsibility to the country in the present economic times, to keep pay increases to the public services within strict limits, and that is the answer.
The noble Lord asked whether the new system will be in place by 1982. This was a question the unions asked me. I hope the House will understand when I say that we are launching ourselves into a review of the present system. The noble Lord says it has served us well over 25 years; but it has become frightfully technical and mechanistic. I think everybody, the unions and the Government and indeed the country as a whole, has slightly lost confidence in the system as it is. We need to take a fresh look at it and how it works. The last thing I want to do is to give any assurance that I could not live up to by assuring noble Lords that the new arrangements would be ready by 1982; but we will not let the grass grow under our feet.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, during my noble friend's discussions with the Civil Service, did the Civil Service ask why they should be set cash limits when the Armed Forces and the police were not set any such limits?
Lord Soames: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is that this question did arise. I think it is recognised generally that the Armed Services and the police are a special case. They run considerable personal risks and dangers. Also the Armed Services and police are required to abide by a discipline code and to obey orders. This is a different situation.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is it not also the case that they are both considerably under strength?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am not sufficiently cognisant of the exact figures to reply to that point at the moment. I am not sure about the police. I think the Armed Services certainly are.

London Transport (No. 2) Bill
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

European Assembly Elections Bill
3.44 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, after ("shall") insert (", until 1st May 1984 or such earlier date as a uniform electoral system is adopted throughout the European Communities necessitating different procedures,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and with the leave of the Committee to speak also to Amendment No. 2. Both these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and myself are in similar terms. The Bill provides for a review of European constituencies by the Boundaries Commission to be carried out after a review of Westminster constituencies and not simultaneously, as is the case at the moment. The first amendment qualifies the provision for a general review of European constituencies after a general review of Westminster constituencies, and the second amendment qualifies the provision for a review of affected European constituencies after a review of particular Westminster constituencies.
The amendments would ensure that the provision for the proposed review of European constituencies would in each case cease to operate from 1st May, 1984, that is just before the next European elections, or at such earlier date as a uniform electoral system throughout the Community is adopted. As I said during the Second Reading debate, we on these Benches object to a European Assembly Elections Bill at this time which completely ignores the commitment entered into by all member countries that the next elections to the European Parliament should be by a uniform system throughout the Community. The Labour Government in 1976 signed a Council of Minister's decision providing that the directly-elected European Parliament should draw up a uniform system for 1984. Both the Labour and the Conservative Members of Parliament on the Select Committee in another place put forward as the first argument for using the first-past-the-post system in 1979 in Britain that:
1512
"If the United Kingdom were to change the electoral system for the first round of elections of the European Assembly the electoral system would have to be changed twice within a comparatively short period".
That is in paragraph 16 of the second report of the Select Committee on Direct Elections, published in August 1976.
The single-member European constituency was clearly regarded as a temporary expedient, and a pretty disastrous one it turned out to be. The single-member European constituencies of the size involved were bound to lead to gross distortion, and they certainly did. The Conservative Party with 50 per cent. of the votes got 77 per cent. of the seats. The Labour Party with 33 per cent. of the votes got 22 per cent. of the seats. The Liberal Party with 13 per cent. of the votes got no seats. The Labour and Liberal Parties together with 46 per cent. of the votes got 22 per cent. of the seats. This not only distorted the United Kingdom representation; of course it distorted the whole balance of the party political groups within the European Parliament. It was, therefore, a matter of concern not merely in this country but in other member countries as well.
This must not happen again. The case for a proportional system for Europe is overwhelming, and that is agreed by many of those who still continue to oppose proportional representation for Westminster. I am aware that it is for the European Parliament to propose the new uniform system and for the Council of Ministers to approve it. The Government may well say—and it seemed to me that this was what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was saying during the Second Reading debate—that they must wait and see what is produced by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. However, I hope that the Government's attitude will be more positive than that and that they will not be content with a passive attitude.
Mr. Brittan, the Minister of State at the Home Office, said in another place on 3rd December 1980 at col. 534 of the Official Report:
"We are in favour of a uniform system".
I welcome that. I wish that he had added, "and we believe that it should be based on proportional representation". But at least he said that the Government were in favour of a new uniform system. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will confirm that this afternoon when he comes to reply to the amendment.
These amendments take account of the commitment to have a uniform system for the 1984 elections. Accordingly, they would necessitate fresh legislation dealing with the review of European constituencies from 1st May 1984 or from any earlier date upon which a uniform system is agreed and adopted. The amendments would oblige the Government to come to Parliament before the 1984 elections to secure fresh legislation to cover the procedure for the review of European constituencies under the new circumstances. More important, perhaps, if by any chance there were no uniform system agreed and adopted, the Government would still be obliged to come to Parliament and to explain to Parliament why that was so and where the blame lay. I think that there is a case for placing this obligation on the Government and I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: I do not know whether it is customary for a co-sponsor of an amendment to speak before the Front Bench. If that is not so, then I apologise. I am a little confused because I am speaking for the first time as a Social Democrat and students of parliamentary ecology among your Lordships will have noticed that the new fauna has not yet established a habitat! We do not know where to sit and we are slightly scattered around. I am afraid that that must be an inconvenience to everyone else and, as much as we intend to create inconvenience for the major parties in two or three years' time, I should like to assure the Committee and the House that we do not wish to create inconvenience now by sitting on anybody's favourite perch because we did not know that it was his favourite perch. We hope to get this all sorted out tidily as soon as possible.
I should like to say that it is a pleasure for me to have the chance of taking part in the first joint Motion between the Liberals and the Social Democrats in this House, indeed, I believe—unless something surprising has happened in the House of Commons this afternoon—in either House of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has expressed the reasons for this amendment with sufficient clarity for the whole Committee and I should like to add only a tiny bit of background.
The Bill binds the Boundary Commission—even if later than originally intended—to come back with proposals for the improvement of single-member constituencies for the European Parliament which will, by the decision already taken by this Government and all the other Governments in the Community, be out-of-date by that time. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, put the situation very politely. He invited the Government to do what they could to ensure that the uniform system would be one based on PR. There is not the least chance of it being based on anything else. We are the only country out of the ten which has an electoral system which is not based on PR. Therefore, if there is to be a uniform system among 10 countries it will resemble that in use in nine of them more closely than it will resemble that in use in one—so much is obvious.
We may perhaps ask whether there is not a trace of provocation in the way in which the Government have drafted this Bill in saying, "We do not care about the obvious fact in the future that European PR is coming. We shall go blinding straight ahead with British first-past-the-post single member constituencies. Even if we have to legislate to change the details of the single member arrangements we shall do so in such a way as to preclude the adoption of PR at the next European election even if all the other nine have it". I know, of course, that the Government would never knowingly or purposely adopt a wrecking posture towards any European Community initiative. I think that the way out of the possible appearance of that as being what is happening would be if the Government were able to adopt this amendment. Without the amendment the following events must happen; a Boundary Commission report on the Westminster constituencies, as usual; and later a Boundary Commission report on the European constituencies which will be single member maxi-constituencies like the last time round. If we adopt the amendment there will be a Boundary Commission report on Westminster con-
1514
stituencies, as usual; and a Boundary Commission report on the single member Euro-constituencies if—and only if—by bad luck there is no uniform provision yet available at that date.
What are the chances? It is true that things have not yet gone very far in the Community. There has been one report which has been submitted to the Political Committee of the European Parliament, which is the agreed procedure. It was drawn up largely with the help of M. Jean Rey, formerly President of the Commission and it is, I understand, very vague and seeks laudably but perhaps implausibly to combine the single member system, to please Britain, with a transferable vote system, to please everybody else. Indeed, I believe that the transferable vote element could have been pitched under his proposals anywhere between 5 and 50 per cent. and that is hardly rigid. Vague as it is, even that is not going forward very fast and has not yet come forth from the bosom of the Political Committee of the Parliament to the Parliament itself in Strasbourg.
One can only wish the European parliamentarians luck and hope that they do come to an arrangement which will prove satisfying to the Nine—and that should not be too difficult. One can only wish that the British Government of the day—which I hope will be this Government because I think that we should all want a uniform arrangement before the next election in this country—will have the imagination, the friendliness and the flexibility to go along with what comes out of the European Parliament for the proposals the next time round.
Lord Underhill: It is not for me on behalf of these Benches necessarily to help the Government with the passage of this Bill, although as was made quite clear on Second Reading, we shall not oppose it because the principle of the Bill—and it is really only a one-clause Bill—has been approved by the other place. If my memory serves me correctly, only a few noble Lords were present when we discussed this matter on Second Reading, but what was said on that occasion will have been read in the Official Report. Therefore, I shall not go into all the arguments as to why we were critical of the Bill. The main point concerned the decisions taken and the views expressed when the original Bill was carried in 1978 and also we regard the shape of the European constituencies as equally important as the shape of the parliamentary constituencies.
However, I must say that it would appear that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is frankly—to put it colloquially—jumping the gun. Parliament made quite clear that it wanted the last elections on the basis of first-past-the-post with single member constituencies. At this juncture we do not know what the European Assembly or subsequently the Council of Ministers will decide. We have no idea whether they will agree on a uniform system. The Council of Ministers has been known to fall out. Therefore, nobody can be sure about what will come out eventually. It could even happen that the Council of Ministers might eventually decide that discussions for a uniform system should be put off until the elections after the next ones—in other words, to 1989. Nobody knows.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that he

1515
did not wish to inconvenience certain groups in this Committee, this could inconvenience the Parliamentary machine. First, if there is to be a change in the present electoral system, there will need to be primary legislation. It cannot be dealt with in this Bill. There will have to be a new Bill. Parliament will have to decide on what will be the form of the new electoral system if the Council of Ministers should recommend a uniform system. But if this amendment were passed and there were no recommendation from the Council of Ministers for a uniform system, then we should be in a jam because this Bill would say that after May 1984 there would be no more reviews by the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission. Therefore, there would have to be another amending Bill to put the position right. Considerable inconvenience would have been caused to the legislative machine. For those simple reasons, we could not support these amendments.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I appreciate the wish of the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kennet, who have moved this amendment and are speaking to both amendments that a new electoral system for the election of United Kingdom representatives to the European Parliament should be introduced. But I think it may be of assistance if I just describe the procedures which might be involved in the introduction of a uniform system. Article 138(3) of the European Community Treaty provides that it is for the European Parliament to,
"draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
The Treaty provides that the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, shall,
"lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, really referred to that, but I venture to do so again in a little more detail because the noble Lord gave it as his opinion that we must not take a passive attitude in the United Kingdom. With respect, I do not think that there is any question here of taking a passive attitude on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The Treaty of Rome provides in simple terms for a uniform system, but the Government must await any proposals which the European Parliament may put to the Council of Ministers on that uniform electoral system. That really is why the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that the amendments are jumping the gun. I cannot of course anticipate the Government's attitude in advance of any such proposals, but I can assure the Committee that we shall give them full and careful consideration and will take into account opinion in this Parliament and in the country. I should certainly expect that there would be wide-ranging debate on any proposal to introduce a system of proportional representation into our electoral system. This would clearly be a radical change, and one which would require careful study.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke of the Government appearing to be going ahead with their arrangements for voting procedures without having regard to the future machinery for bringing in a uniform system.
1516
Here again I do not think that that is quite fair. If a change in our procedures for electing representatives to the European Parliament were thought to be appropriate following the recommendations coming from Europe, substantive primary legislation would be required. This would at least give Parliament a further opportunity to review the procedures for boundary reviews set out in Schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, as amended by this Bill.
At this stage—and I am really repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—it is impossible to predict when any such major legislation would be brought forward. But I can say that the introduction of new voting arrangements would be subject to very tight timing considerations if it were intended to operate them for the next election of representatives in June 1984. Incidentally, in case there is any misunderstanding, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, quoted my right honourable friend, Mr. Leon Brittan, at the time when he was Minister of State at the Home Office, and the noble Lord construed Mr. Brittan's words as being in favour of a uniform system. I think that my right honourable friend was at that time referring to the Government favouring a uniform system for the election of representatives from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He was not using those words in quite the context that I think the noble Lord believed.
Having said that as an aside, I shall go on. In the meantime—in other words, between now and 1984—the Government think it right, for the reasons that I have been giving, to continue to make proper arrangements for the conduct of elections under the existing systems; the simple majority system in Great Britain, and the single transferable vote method of proportional representation in Northern Ireland. But this is not, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because we are refusing to look at any other proposals. The proposals have not yet come from Europe.
As I understand the amendments, the effect of them would be that the review of European Parliament constituencies consequential on an Order in Council giving effect to revised Westminster constituencies need only be considered by the Boundary Commissions until 1st May 1984, or until a uniform electoral system were adopted throughout the European Community, whichever was the sooner. Under the provisions of this Bill as it stands, the Boundary Commissions will consider the composition of European Parliament constituencies after Orders in Council have been made giving effect to changes in Westminster constituencies, and will submit their reports to the Secretary of State as soon as may be thereafter. Irrespective of any progress towards the introduction of any new electoral system, it is certainly the Government's hope that the next European Parliament elections will be fought on the basis of new boundaries revised to take account of changes in the Westminster constituencies.
But, if the Boundary Commissions' work is not completed and the appropriate Orders in Council have not had time to be made, the next European elections will have to be fought on the existing boundaries, defined by reference to the present Westminster Parliament constituencies. I believe that it will be necessary to take a view considerably earlier than May 1984, which would be just one month before the next general election of European representatives, as to the bound-

1517
aries which are to be used. A month hardly leaves sufficient time for the constituencies to be promulgated by Orders in Council, and for the parties to select their candidates and fight proper campaigns. The Government will need to take a view in the light of the progress of the Boundary Commissions some time before then, and advise Parliament, the returning officers and the political parties accordingly.
Having said that, I repeat that it is very much the hope that the work of the Boundary Commissions will be completed in good time for the next European Assembly elections. While, therefore, this has been a useful exchange of views and may have helped to clarify certain aspects of the Bill for the benefit of the Committee, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the amendments could create difficulties and will perhaps consider withdrawing them in the end.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this amendment is, in a measure jumping the gun, which was rather confirmed by my noble friend in what he said. Anyone who has carefully studied the report of the Hansard Society's Commission on Electoral Reform will recall that the final recommendation is that there should be some form of electoral reform. I entirely agree with that—I am not suggesting there should not be electoral reform—but I question whether this is the moment to forestall any debate such as my noble friend indicated and which is bound to come when we talk about future electoral reform.
There are many varieties of proportional representation. They differ in the ways your Lordships know, and there is a large body of opinion in the country which is not in favour of PR, and in a rather pragmatic way I feel that, if many people do not want PR but if everybody wants electoral reform, we should perhaps give some attention to the double ballot system which in some measure is accepted in other parts of Europe. Could we adapt it to our needs in a satisfactory way, in that, unlike some measures of PR, it insists on the single member constituency, which in my view is a main essential of our electoral position? For that reason I feel with respect to the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kennet, that it is not the time to accept the amendment but that it is the time when thought might be given to some measure of electoral reform which is not necessarily proportional representation—namely, an adaptation of the double ballot system. For that reason, I shall oppose the amendment.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion of what I believe is an important and urgent matter. I welcome the cooperation to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred between these Benches and Benches not yet quite identified but to which he gave the name Social Democrat, and we are pleased to have been able to produce the first act of co-operation between the two in your Lordships' House today. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, spoke about the progress being made in the European Parliament and made it clear that, although that might be slow, it was nevertheless important to
1518
make provision for the uniform system which at present we are all committed to produce before 1984.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, thought we were jumping the gun by putting forward this series of amendments, but if they were put into practice it would not prevent the present system from continuing; it would only prepare for the possibility of the uniform system, and since we are committed to a uniform system it seems sensible to prepare for what we are actually committed to now rather than to assume that that will not happen, as seems to be the implication in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked whether we should do anything because nothing might come out of all that is going on at the moment. It is true that nothing might come out of it, but I repeat that we are committed to it and it seems sensible to work on the assumption that the things to which we are committed will happen, and to make provision for them. I would remind the noble Lord that it was a Labour Government who signed the decision of the Council of Ministers in 1976 that Parliament should be asked to produce a plan on the uniform basis for the 1984 elections.
I do not think there is any reason to suppose the council will go back on that decision. If they did, there would then be a new situation of which we should have to take account, and we should not have got ourselves in any difficulty by adopting these amendments. Nor do I think we should be in any jam if there were no uniform system. It would, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, involve a further amending Bill, but this one has not occupied your Lordships to any great extent and I do not think your Lordships' House or the other place would be unduly inconvenienced if we had a new amending Bill in a few years' time.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, worried me rather when he seemed to be back-pedalling on what I had taken as a firm commitment from the Government, that they were in favour of a uniform system, but in view of his reference to the decision of the Council of Ministers at an earlier stage, I understand that the Government would not wish to depart from that decision, that they uphold it and that to that extent they are committed to a uniform system. The Minister referred to the difficulty of being left with only one month, if the amendment were put into practice—between 1st May and the beginning of June 1984—in which to make all the alterations. Of course, that is merely put in as the last date; it is not a reasonable time for a Government to make the provision, and they could make the provision at any time that the uniform system was introduced.
There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about proportional representation. I took part in that, I certainly believe the uniform system should be proportional and I am glad we had a discussion about that, but that is not implied in the amendments; they refer to a uniform system on whatever basis that might be. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the double ballot system which is used in Germany. That produces a form of PR, so that would not be ruled out if we decided that the uniform system should be proportional.
It was important this afternoon that the commitment to a uniform system in 1984 should be underlined, and

1519
that has been done. From what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, we can deduce that the Government are still fully committed to that. It is important too that the need for a proportional system, although not immediately related to the amendments, should once again be stressed, as it has been in this debate. Bearing in mind that those two points have been driven home, and bearing in mind the various difficulties which the Minister foresaw if the amendment were accepted, I will not press it but beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981, be approved. If your Lordships approve, the effect of this order and its associated administrative guidance will be to ensure that doctors, dentists and nurses from the European Community cannot practise in the National Health Service unless they can communicate effectively in English with patients and with colleagues.
I must stress to your Lordships that the change here proposed—from a registration to an employment-linked language requirement—has neither the intention nor the effect of departing from the principle that people in health professions must be capable of accurate and vital communication with each other and with patients. We do not regard that as negotiable with any body, whether national or international. We simply propose changing the point of its application in respect of a small minority of practitioners.
The Government accept that the proposed new arrangements are necessary to meet their obligations under Community law. Essentially, the formal view of the Commission of the European Community is that the Treaty of Rome bars us from making knowledge of English an absolute condition of continuing registration of European Community health professionals, because this constitutes a restriction on their freedom of movement. However, the Community regulation of freedom of movement of workers, which has direct effect in member states, does permit employers to impose:
"conditions, where appropriate, as to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled".
Thus health authorities and private employers in this country do not need new powers in order to carry out the responsibility. Nothing in Community law
1520
relieves them of it, nor prevents them from carrying it out. They have not in the past needed to exercise the competence that they have to ensure that prospective employees have the necessary knowledge of English, because they could rely on the link between linguistic ability and registration. Nevertheless we intend simultaneously to issue firm comprehensive guidance to employing and contracting authorities advising them of the administrative arrangements which will ensure that Community obligations are reconciled with the even more vital commitment to maintain the highest possible safeguards for patients. The order before your Lordships will not stand alone.
Statutory provision is, however, necessary to cover NHS general medical and dental practitioners. Despite their contractual status within the service, we have indicated to the Commission that their position resembles that of employees rather than of wholly independent self-employed professionals to whom the Community regulations that I have already mentioned could not apply. As I have said, the Government accept that the measure before your Lordships is necessary to discharge our obligations to the Community, but let us keep a sense of proportion about what is involved. It will affect only a small minority of professionals who come here to work. The scale of migration from countries within the European Community is very modest: since 1977 to date, 449 European Community doctors (other than those qualified in Ireland) have been registered in the United Kingdom. The equivalent figure for nurses in 1979–80 was 35—that was for nine months of that year—and for dentists it is only seven since June 1980. There is no reason to suppose that the present order will lead to any increase in numbers.
We have of course consulted the health professions on the proposed changes, and I know that in general they would prefer that language requirements should continue to be linked with registration for all who come here to work. I respect that view. The virtue of a standardised objective and comprehensive procedure administered by a central body is self evident, and these are just the arrangements that will continue to apply to the vast majority of overseas qualified doctors who wish to work in the NHS. I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that, notwithstanding its preference for treating all practitioners alike, the General Medical Council has agreed to make its central language testing facilities available to health authorities in respect of doctors from member states, and that is one of the points that we shall follow up in the administrative guidance to authorities to which I have already referred. The cost of such tests should of course be borne by the people who wish to come here to practise; they would not be a charge on health authorities.
Before turning to the order itself, I should like to make some remarks on two points which have already caused comment in another place. The first concerns the difference in treatment between those who qualified inside the Community and those who did so outside it, and the second relates to private practice. I have already pointed out the limited scope of the order, in that the employment-linked language requirements will apply only to Community nationals—necessarily, because of the power under which it is made. For other people from overseas the registration link will continue to apply. For doctors, this link was finally achieved

1521
by common consensus in the Medical Act 1978, and change would require primary legislation. I really would not expect the public, nor the profession, to welcome its wholesale abandonment when there is no need for doing so. I have already mentioned the evident virtues of a centrally imposed requirement. For European Community practitioners, we propose some changes—in method, but not in objective—in pursuance of our obligations under Community law. That does not mean that the safeguards imposed in respect of other overseas qualified doctors are rendered less necessary, nor does it prove that they should be abolished.
In practice, the new arrangements offer no significant advantage to Community nationals, since all overseas qualified doctors wishing to work in the NHS will still be subject to a language requirement. In fact there is even a tightening-up, since a European practitioner will no longer have the six months' period of grace after registration in which to satisfy the General Medical Council of his knowledge of English—a concession not available to other overseas qualified doctors. There was always an outside chance that a European Community doctor could enter NHS general practice in an open area during such a six-months' period. Now he will have to demonstrate his knowledge of English at the outset. Many would see the existing registration-linked requirement as an advantage, since, once it is satisfied, a doctor can move between employment without on each occasion having to prove his linguistic ability.
Finally, we are making efforts to reduce the administrative burden on health authorities. To impose on them the onerous task of applying employment-linked language requirements to the very much greater number of overseas-qualified practitioners would, especially when there is no need to do so, be most irresponsible.
As for private practice, it is quite true that it is our obligation to our Community partners to allow any suitably qualified practitioner from another member state to establish himself in the United Kingdom without creating any obstacle to registration. By the same token, however, we expect other member states to accord that treatment to our own suitably qualified nationals. Certainly, European Community practitioners coming, or proposing to come, here will be advised of their professional responsibility to acquaint themselves with the language and of the consequences of failure to do so. In reality, it is unlikely that a practitioner who could not communicate effectively would be accepted into a private partnership, and, if he planned to practise alone, his employers would be his patients. It is even less likely—and this is, I understand, a view shared by other member states—that he would succeed in attracting fee-paying patients in competition with those practitioners who could communicate effectively.
Turning to the order itself, this is a United Kingdom measure, made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It arises from our obligations under Community law, and its scope is restricted to Community nationals. Article 1 is formal, and Article 2 repeals enactments which require European Community nationals who qualified in a member state as doctors, dentists or nurses to satisfy the appropriate registration body as to their knowledge
1522
of English on or within six months of registration in the United Kingdom.
Article 3 inserts a new subsection 1A in Section 30 of the National Health Service Act 1977. I should perhaps explain that at present family practitioner committees are obliged to forward all applications for inclusion in the medical list to the Medical Practices Committee, the central body which decides on the distribution of general practice. But the Medical Practices Committee is not itself the contracting authority and therefore, in respect of doctors from the Community it is the family practitioner committees and not the Medical Practices Committee, which need to be satisfied that potential practitioners have the knowledge of English which is necessary in their own and their patients' interests. The new subsection precludes a doctor who is a national and who qualified in a member state from having his application for inclusion in a medical list forwarded to the Medical Practices Committee unless he so satisfies the relevant family practitioner committee. A consequential amendment is made to Section 33(5) of the Act precluding a right of appeal against refusal of an application by the Medical Practices Committee.
Article 3 goes on to add a new subsection (2) to Section 36 of the 1977 Act, so as to provide that a dentist who is a national and who qualified in a member state, shall be included in a dental list only if he satisfies the family practitioner committee as to his knowledge of English. Articles 4 and 5 make for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively similar provision to that made by Article 3 for England and Wales.
The purpose of the order before your Lordships is to meet the requirements of Community law by practical measures involving the minimum of bureaucratic fuss, consistent with the well-being of patients and the professions. I have said that the measures are twofold. There is the order, and there will be firm administrative guidance to the National Health Service which will make clear to the employing and contracting authorities the extent of their responsibilities within the changes that are proposed. Health authorities have well-established appointments procedures, which they will need to adjust so as to require European Community applicants to give evidence of knowledge of English, and to ensure that they demonstrate it at interview. Family practitioner committees will need to make similar arrangements, and this subject will be included in the guidance which is at present under discussion.
This implies some additional work for the authorities, but, against that, by highlighting the language element in the selection of staff the right of authorities to choose people best suited to the local environment and needs is reinforced rather than diminished. With regard to our own United Kingdom doctors and dentists, I am advised that to confine the effect of this legislation to Community nationals other than our own would constitute discrimination in the latter's favour. The practical effect of this in my view is insignificant, since it will be for family practitioner committees, or their Scottish and Northern Ireland equivalents, to determine how to satisfy themselves about the applicant's knowledge of English. They will therefore be free to accept evidence of a United Kingdom or Irish qualification as sufficient.
My Lords, I have devoted much of my time to reference to the medical profession; but the order also applies to dentists and nurses. With regard to the former the numbers affected, as I have already indicated, are small indeed, and the General Dental Council does not at present impose a standard language test on European Community dentists, but relies instead on interviews and relevant qualifications to provide evidence of knowledge of English. In future it will be for health authorities and family practitioner committees to conduct such interviews and to apply any more formal language test in addition, if they so wish, in respect of European Community dentists who apply for a post or entry to a dental list in this country. In respect of the nursing profession, I understand that the General Nursing Council for England and Wales is now finalising a test that can be applied to all overseas qualified nurses, and it is envisaged that the test will be available to NHS authorities in respect of nurses from the European Community.
In conclusion, I can assure your Lordships that NHS authorities will be encouraged to apply standards no less exacting than registration bodies now apply to them. They will even be free to impose a tougher standard if they feel the job requires it. Flexibility to fit people in particular jobs may in some circumstances be helpful to employers who need bilingual staff. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th February be approved—(Baroness Young.)
4.33 p.m.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, we are obviously very grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for introducing this order in some detail. It is an order of some importance, although I am inclined to say that it perhaps tends to conceal more than it reveals. We on this side of your Lordships' House are not very happy about it. I do not want to go into it at very great length because I happen to know that two or three of my noble friends will want to make a contribution, and I have some idea of the field that they may cover.
We on this side of your Lordships' House are agreed that it is of supreme importance that doctors and nurses and dentists coming from EEC countries must be able to speak English and be understood, and be able to communicate with patients and with colleagues. This is obviously a matter of very great importance. What concerns me at the moment is that, although the order is called the European Communities (Medical, Dental and Nursing Professions) (Linguistic Knowledge) Order 1981, I do not see in the order where in fact it refers to nurses, except in what I would call Article 2, which deals with the repeal of English language requirements for medical and dental practitioners and nurses. Unless I have not been reading it correctly, there seems to be no reference to nurses anywhere else apart from that particular article; and this seems to us to be of supreme importance.
As the noble Baroness said at the very beginning, we had an order, which was known as the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977, under which a doctor or a dentist coming from any of the
1524
EEC countries could register for a period of six months, and during those six months he or she had to satisfy the General Medical Council that he or she could speak English sufficiently clearly to be understood and able to converse with colleagues. If at the end of six months the doctor coming from the EEC country was not able to do that, I believe I am right in saying that the registration lapsed.
We have a situation now where this matter has been cleared up in this order, I think from the point of view of the doctors and dentists in a satisfactory way, except that we have had to concede to the EEC that we have no right to impose a linguistic test at the point of registration. But apparently we have found a way round that, because the noble Baroness said that it could be linked to employment. Her honourable friend the Minister of Health said in another place on 24th February 1981:
"However, the Community regulation on freedom of movement of workers, which has a direct effect in member states, permits employers to"—
and then he himself quotes—
"'impose conditions, where appropriate, as to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled'."— [Official Report, Commons. 24/2/81; col. 836.]
So it can be applied, presumably, outside the medical profession. But I should like to know (and I know that my noble friends would like to know) where that quotation is taken from, because he gives no indication as to where it comes from.
As I say, I am not really concerned with the position of doctors and dentists because I feel that this regulation, from our point of view, ties it up very firmly and without any (shall I say?) difficulty at all. But what does concern me is the position of nurses coming to this country. The noble Baroness, as did her honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, said that the scale of migration from countries showed that since 1977 there had been only 449 EEC doctors other than those qualified in Ireland, and then went on to say that so far as nurses are concerned, in the year 1979–80 the number was 35, and for dentists, since June 1980, only seven; and her honourable friend in another place (I am trying to remember the exact words he used) I think said, "We have got to keep this in its right perspective".
This is precisely what I want to do; because, while it may be true that in 1979–80 the number of nurses who came from EEC countries into this country was only 35—and, as the noble Baroness said, it was only 35 in nine months—the fact remains that we are led to believe that there is not going to be a great influx of nurses from EEC countries, whereas in fact in the full year of 1980 there were no fewer than 203 nurses coming from Belgium, Denmark, Eire, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. That means that in this country we have at the moment coming from the EEC approximately one nurse in every 70. I should like an assurance from the noble Baroness the Minister that nurses are going to be subject to the same kind of linguistic testing as are doctors. I have already said that I may have misunderstood the order; but, reading the order which is now before the House, I am not clear that it lays that down.
I will not say that it is more important that a nurse

1525
should have a good knowledge of English than that a doctor should, but as one who in recent years has spent many months in hospitals I will say that I had more to say, and wanted to say more, to the nurse than to the doctor. The nurses are on duty 24 hours a day looking after the patients and it is tremendously important that there should be no difficulty at all in communicating with the nurses. When it is said, "Let us keep what is involved in proportion", I think the situation of the nurses is very important. I want to ask the noble Baroness the Minister what really is the position with regard to the nurses.
I know that the General Nursing Council have been very careful about the ability of nurses coming from the EEC to speak English clearly and distinctly. I accept that the 203 who came here in 1980 were able to satisfy the General Nursing Council. Are the General Nursing Council going to be able to apply a linguistic test on the nurses? As I have said, it is not clear to me from the order. I should be grateful if it could be pointed out where it explicitly says so. I do not wish to take up any further time other than to say that I think this is a matter which must be cleared up. I know that a number of my noble friends will want to add their contributions.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I shall not keep the House for very long but I should like to underline what my noble friend has just said. Recently I was in an hotel restaurant, an experience which many noble Lords will have had, where four of us were attempting to order. It was an expensive restaurant. Since none of the waiters spoke English, the outcome was that the only kind of order which was effective was the kind attaching to the numbers on the menu. If you wanted "No. 42", that was splendid. But if you wanted roast potatoes as opposed to sauté potatoes, that was not understood. It was an irritating and frustrating experience. Anybody who, as I do, spends time on the No. 74 bus knows how entertaining it can be. Even this morning a bus conductor was trying to explain to somebody that that particular bus was the right numbered bus but it was not going as far as the individual wanted to go. This held up all the workers and resulted in some irritation.
Neither of these incidents was serious or dangerous, but if one has been into a casualty station and seen people brought in in a state of stress or shock trying to explain to a young nurse who they were and what had happened, one knows it is absolutely essential that nurses can understand patients and that patients can understand nurses. I cannot underline this too strongly. I think this is an example of what we are seeing constantly with Community orders. I recently went to meet somebody returning from Canada, a good British subject who, having taken out Canadian citizenship, had to come through the "Aliens" entrance while people from the EEC entered quite freely. I am not against people coming in, but there is a total nonsense in this situation if one looks at it objectively. We welcome the nurses, the doctors and the dentists, but it is essential that they speak English clearly and can understand the English of the patients. I am not now emphasising the situation of their professional colleagues. It is not important, perhaps, if a surgeon
1526
cannot speak English. He can probably indicate by sign language which instrument he wants. But to the patient it is absolutely essential.
The General Nursing Council are concerned about the matter and have written to a number of noble Lords. I notice that the Minister again repeated that this order will affect only a small minority of the professional people who come here. These were the words used by the Minister in another place. This is the particular phrase which the General Nursing Council, not exactly a revolutionary body, have objected to. My noble friend has pointed out that the numbers were incorrect. Above all, we must have the records straight when we are talking about an important order like this. I should like to say to the Minister that I am sure that the General Nursing Council has communicated with her right honourable friend saying that they continue to believe that proof of linguistic competence linked to registration is logical and necessary. It must be linked with registration. There is no use in having nurses here and then discovering, when they are actually in operation, that they do not have this competence. I feel that this order may go through quietly and unobtrusively if we do not make it clear that it is contrary to the beliefs and wishes of, certainly, the General Nursing Council. As my noble friend pointed out, the medical profession and the dental profession have not made the same overtures. But this representative body of the nurses have approached us, and I hope that due notice will be taken of their fears.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I am associated not with the General Nursing Council but with the Royal College of Nursing, and I have had a very interesting letter which was received also by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, putting the points which have been put already by him and by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should like to say that, while I am a strong supporter of the EEC—and I realise that it is important that there should be freedom of movement between the EEC countries—I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that this freedom of movement is useless if members of the nursing profession or doctors or dentists come into the country but cannot make themselves understood. Not only can they not make themselves understood but the people they are attending cannot make communication with them. Fortunately, I have been in good health all my life, but when I have been ill it has been absolutely vital to be able to talk with freedom and understanding to the nurse or doctor looking after me.
I feel that this proposal which has been suggested to Her Majesty's Government by the General Nursing Council is one which it is difficult to refuse. On the other hand, I think it is equally important that we should just not accept it without being certain we can make some alteration if we want to or put in some of our own views in order to protect the patients and the profession. As the noble Lord has said, 203 nurses came from the EEC last year and perhaps there will be a good deal more this year or next year. If we are to have coming in a lot of nurses and members of the medical profession who cannot speak the language, that will be very awkward indeed. I hope that the

1527
Government—while in the difficult position of not being able to disagree with this—will realise that there is something which might go wrong and be detrimental to the patients and the nursing profession. I hope they will not just accept it with open arms.
Like the noble Lord opposite, I think this a very doubtful order, one which I wish we did not have to accept, although I expect it will be necessary to do so. If we do so, I hope that the noble Baroness and her department will be very strict in administering it, so that we get the very best results that we can in the shape of people who learn the language, understand the language and are prepared to spend time being able to communicate properly in the English tongue with their patients. Although I am not at all enthusiastic about this order, I realise that there are complications in the Community and probably the Government have to accept it. It may have very unfortunate repercussions and I hope that the Government will be prepared to make changes if they are necessary.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I speak as the immediate past president of the General Medical Council who was concerned from the point of view of the Council, the regulating and registrating body of the medical profession, with the implementation of the National Health Service Act 1977. It worked very well. I know that the noble Baroness the Minister, and indeed all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken this evening, regret that those provisions cannot, for EEC legal reasons, be continued. I am however concerned about what I see as a gap. We have been talking about National Health Service employees, Government employees, where employers have to decide about the competence of those they propose to employ and how, in the case of doctors, they will use the existing mechanism. That mechanism works and I feel sure that it will continue to work. But what about those who come to this country who are not employed by the National Health Service and whose employers are not concerned to have them tested for their linguistic competence or those who will have no employers except themselves?
I am concerned about patients, and patients are not confined to the National Health Service. There is here a big gap. It may well be that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to tell us that in the past six months, since I ceased to be concerned directly and responsible in some sense from the medical profession's end of these matters, some advances have been made. But I am not aware of them.
Regarding nurses, certainly communication is vital for the comfort of the patients and indeed for their safety. It is as great as with doctors. But with both it is absolutely essential not that the patient should be understood but that the doctor should not be misunderstood by the patient. As we all know, all citizens are much concerned with communication between the medical professions, the healing professions, and the public. This is absolutely vital. We must all try to get it better. But there are gaps in ensuring that at least a proper and objective test has been applied so that people can understand, and in order that gross misunderstandings will not occur. Otherwise people will be at risk of further misunderstanding.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that we have all been very grateful to the noble Baroness for the care with which she has outlined this order. But, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out, there is one gap—and that refers to nurses. Having explained the rest of the order in detail, the noble Baroness pointed out that nurses were also included and indeed that is exactly how it is put down in the order. There is no clear reference to nurses except that they are included in this abolition of the old form of testing.
The noble Baroness said—I am sure she had no intention to mislead the House in the matter—that the General Nursing Council were themselves studying the problem of carrying out the test. This may indeed be true. In fact, it would be strange if they did not study it. However, according to the letter of which I have a copy—and other noble Lords also have copies—the deputy registrar of the General Nursing Council says:
"Dr. Vaughan knows well that this nurse registration authority continues to believe that proof of linguistic competence linked to registration is both logical and necessary, and that it has refused to respond to the attempts of his officials to take a different view".
In other words, the General Nursing Council remains—and this letter to me arrived only today—of the opinion that the proposal in the order is not satisfactory so far as nurses are concerned.
As has been pointed out by several of your Lordships, if one is in hospital—and for one reason or another, I have been in and out of hospital several times over the past two or three months—there is no question at all that the nurse is the most important person. Without the nurse, one receives no attention at all. One may have the best physician and the finest surgeon in the world; but the physician and surgeon cannot come to see the patient whenever the bell is rung. They will only come at certain set times because they have a vast number of other activities to carry out. However, the nurse is there specifically to look after the patient.
It seems to me an incredible suggestion that one can leave the language in which the nurse communicates with the patient to the matter of chance as to what country that nurse happens to originate from. This seems an extraordinary way of doing it. We set out regulations about the qualifications that they have but nothing about the language which they use for communication. Yet, when they are in hospital, their value is precisely in communicating the skill and training that they have, and the instructions that they have been given by doctor, physician and surgeon. They cannot do this without the language of the country.
One would have thought that this was so obvious that it would be meaningless to have any regulations dealing with nursing without making it clear that the nurse must show proficiency in the language of the country in which she is actually practising her job. I implore the noble Baroness to look at this matter with careful consideration. This aspect is not covered by this order. The doctors and the dentists are covered by the order; the nurses are simply thrown in and they are not covered properly by the order, yet they can form a most important part of the whole.
Speaking for myself, I would gladly be dealt with by a doctor who spoke some language other than

1529
my own. I might learn the language or, in any case, I might get some fun out of it. But when one is ringing a bell in bed in hospital it is not for the pleasure of seeing the nurses, great as that might be, but the desire to get immediate attention and to be understood.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee, but of course we are allowed to see only whether the instrument is correctly drawn and are not concerned with the policy of the instrument itself. I should like to raise one point and to quote from what the Minister said during a debate in the other place on 24th February. Dr. Vaughan said this in col. 851:
"I am aware there is a good deal of anxiety about the position of overseas doctors. I mentioned in opening the debate that it would require primary legislation to change the Medical Act".—
I should like to know whether my noble friend can tell me anything about that and say when it is likely to happen—
"… My information is that, in practice, overseas qualified doctors with British citizenship wishing to migrate to other States of the EEC experience no major difficulty in securing registration on the basis of qualifications acceptable to the General Medical Council.
I shall look into this matter again. I hope that the fears expressed today are unfounded, but I understand the desire of overseas doctors to be treated in the same way as other British citizens. I have therefore agreed to meet a delegation from the Overseas Doctors Association and the BMA to look into this yet again".
I should be grateful to know whether this has been undertaken or whether it is to be undertaken in the near future.
I should also like to point out that dental nursing is very important in this respect. When I am at the dentist's I find it practically impossible to communicate even in my own language, and I think it may be very difficult to communicate in that state. So I should be very grateful to have an answer as to whether this delegation has been met and what has been the result.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Baroness because she has raised the question of overseas doctors, and this order seems to me to be another example of the discrimination which overseas doctors experience as opposed to doctors from the EEC. An overseas doctor who wants to practise here has to pass a language test: that is settled. Personally, I think it is right that that should be so; but we now have this new arrangement under which doctors from the EEC can come here. They do not have to pass a language test and they are registered because of their qualification in the EEC. According to the noble Baroness, if they apply for a job in the National Health Service the employing authorities will be given guidelines to ensure that these people speak English properly before they are employed. I would concede that: I think it is quite possible to do that. I would merely hope that the guidelines are tight enough to ensure that all the authorities are strict in observing them.
The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, pointed out, however, that it is not only in the National Health Service that medicine or dentistry is practised and there
1530
is nothing at all in these regulations to prevent any doctor from any EEC country setting up in Harley Street, Wimpole Street, or anywhere else: nothing at all. Whether he learns English in one year, 10 years or 40 years, he will still be free to go on practising.
There is also the question of the private hospitals. There will be nothing to prevent any of these private hospitals employing professional people without bothering about whether or not they can speak English. The noble Baroness pointed out that they have the power to control. I agree that is so, but what they will not have is any definite compulsion to do so. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, pointed out, we may well have a situation in which doctors may be practising even though in fact they cannot communicate. This is something which needs to be looked at because it strikes me that regulations can be made to control certainly the employment of doctors, dentists or nurses in private institutions. I think the Government ought to look carefully at this matter with a view to taking the power to do just that.
I should like also to deal with the point reaised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, because of course overseas doctors are again handicapped when they want to practise in the EEC since the regulations under which EEC members can practise in each other's countries mean that their basic qualification must be within the EEC. Therefore, if a doctor has taken his basic qualification elsewhere he is not allowed to practise and he has not that freedom to practise everywhere in the EEC.
I have never been able to understand why the Department of Health, in its negotiations with the EEC, has not been able at least to get it accepted that doctors who have their MRCP or FRCS or any of the advanced qualifications here, even though their basic qualifications are elsewhere, should not be allowed to practise. As I understand it, the question concerns the basic qualification, and still remains so. I have never been able to understand why it has not been possible for there to be negotiations with the EEC to enable doctors who have senior qualifications to be free to practice within the EEC. I can understand a doctor who has been qualified for quite a few years saying: "I am not going to sit my MB once more in order to be able to go and practise elsewhere"; but if he really wants to go and practise elsewhere—and he could if he had a higher qualification—it would be an encouragement for him to get that qualification. I have never been able to understand why the negotiations have not gone along those lines and why it has not been possible to get that sort of agreement.
I am digressing from the order, of course, but the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, gave me the chance and I took it. Corning back to the order, I think we ought to look at ways of tightening it. I genuinely believe that the loopholes that have been allowed are too many and that the Government can find ways of tightening them.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I feel I should say a few words on behalf of the minority profession, the dentists. I must declare two interests: one is that I am a practising dental surgeon and, secondly, I do speak English although perhaps it is usually a one-sided conversation on most occasions.

1531
We do appreciate the need for this order to be passed because it brings us into line with the obligations of the EEC. However, most dentists and the General Dental Council are not very happy about it because our system of testing language ability in the past has worked very well and this is now going to move the onus of assessment to the area health authority rather than to the central controlling body—in my case, the General Dental Council. However, this must be done to fit in with the order; and we support it.
It is really common sense and quite obvious that any medical or dental practitioner must be able to communicate with his patients, and we really do not see that under this order there will be all that much change. I thought this afternoon's debate was going to be very good-mannered, and we are talking about discrimination now—this was cunningly brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. In order to practise in this country —and again I speak as a dentist—you have to register, and to register you have either to pass a recognised examination or take a statutory examination when you come into the country.
We recognise the qualifications from the EEC countries and also from Australia, New Zealand, Malta and Singapore. In the last four countries, their examinations are based on English so there is no problem there, while those practitioners from the EEC did, and will still have to, demonstrate their ability to speak English in order to work in this country. All qualifications in medical and dental authorities are recognised, and thoroughly checked by visits to universities by our own bodies in this country, so there is no chance of poorly-qualified doctors or dentists coming in and working in our system. Dentists from other countries, whose qualifications are not automatically accepted, have to take a statutory examination. This examination is very comprehensive and it is one that is taken in English. If they pass it, one assumes that their ability to speak English is acceptable and further testing is unnecessary.
Recently, when this order was publicised, we read in the ordinary press, and even in the slightly irresponsible dental press, implications that some patients would be faced with long queues in the waiting rooms, queueing up to see dentists who did not even speak the language. That just is not so. I should also like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about the prospects of private practice, because I do not see that a requirement to speak English is at all necessary. Again, if you are in practice, you have to register and the registration requires taking the necessary degree or statutory examination. In private practice, the employer is the patient and not the area health authority, so an ability to speak the language is irrelevant. Patients will not queue to see private practitioners if no communication is possible. Such a practitioner would not be able to make a living. Finally, I appreciate the need for the change in this order. I do not think it will necessarily be more efficient, but there is no doubt that it will work, and I support it.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like at the start of my reply to this short debate on an important order to say that, of course, I and my colleagues
1532
understand very well those who are concerned that people may not be able to communicate with a doctor, a dentist or a nurse. This is a very serious matter, but we must be quite clear about why this order arises. This is not, in any sense, intended to be some kind of debate on the European Community, of which we are now a member. This is, of course, part of our obligations under the treaty that we are trying to fulfil. I would say to all noble Lords who have expressed concern, that what we are attempting to achieve is the best that can be managed within Community law and that, if we were not to move down this path, we could find ourselves in a far worse position than we have under the order.
Just to clarify the position, I should like to set out the background. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the aims of the Treaty of Rome is freedom of movement of workers between member states. For professional people, whose ability to practise depends on the possession of recognised qualifications, this is covered by directives providing for the mutual recognition of those qualifications. There are two directives affecting doctors, which were approved in 1975. One of them is relevant, in that it enjoins member states to see that migrant practitioners acquire a knowledge of the language necessary to exercise their profession in the host country. It was the intention of the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order of 1977 to implement this directive in the United Kingdom. That order provides that the General Medical Council must satisfy itself about the knowledge of English of European Community doctors on or within six months of registering them.
However, in a formal reasoned opinion delivered in 1979, the European Community Commission requested the removal of this provision, on the grounds that it constituted a restriction on the freedom of movement of professionals and was therefore in contravention of Article 52 of the Treaty. The Commission's objection extends to doctors and nurses, as these professionals have since been the subject of further directives and the European Community recognition orders containing parallel provisions on language requirements. If its view is not acted upon, the Commission may forthwith refer the matter to the European Court, and it is the Government's view that the present arrangements could not be defended before the court with any conceivable advantage to the United Kingdom. We therefore have this order today and which we hope meets some of the anxieties that have been expressed, without contravening European law.
If I may put it in these rather simple terms, there is a very well-known couplet which goes,
"Be sure to keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse",
and, in a sense, that very much applies in today's circumstances. I was therefore very glad of the general welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gave to the provisions governing doctors and dentists, and of what was said by my noble friend Lord Colwyn, who spoke about dentists. That was very helpful indeed.
Before turning to the general points that have been raised, perhaps I may attempt to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who suggested that there might be some discrimination against over-

1533
seas doctors. This is an issue which is naturally of deep concern to us all, though it is rather wide of the order. But I can well understand the desire of overseas doctors to have exactly the same freedom of movement as other British citizens, and I understand that the Minister of Health has agreed to meet a delegation from the Overseas Doctors' Association and the BMA to see what can be done in that regard.
Most noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones—raised points about nurses. Perhaps I may begin on the question of the figures for nurses. The figures which were supplied by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, relate to the calendar year 1980 and include at least half of those who qualified in the Republic of Ireland, who will, of course, speak English. The official basis of the published figures is April/April, and I have given the latest figures that are available.
As regards European Community nurses as a proportion of all overseas nurses, the House may be interested to know that there are about 3,000 overseas nurses who register annually in the United Kingdom. Of those, the overwhelming majority come from Commonwealth or other English-speaking countries, with more than 50 per cent. coming from Australia and New Zealand alone. I was asked whether the General Nursing Council was going to apply a test and the answer is, no. It will be for the health authorities to use the facilities provided by the General Nursing Council, if they so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, both asked why nurses are not mentioned in the order itself, except at the beginning in the repeals. That is because the order covers only contractors in the service—that is, general medical and dental practitioners—and does not cover doctors and dentists who are employed by health authorities. The reason why it does not cover those doctors is that health authorities already have powers to apply a language requirement and they will be given clear guidance as to how they should exercise those powers. I think that that answers the very practical point which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, raised about a casualty department, which would almost certainly be in a National Health Service hospital, and would be staffed by employees of the National Health Service. Of course, guidance will be given to area health authorities to assure themselves, in employing National Health Service doctors, dentists or nurses, that they have this competence in English—
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness carries on, I wonder whether she would allow me to intervene at this stage. Is she saying that health authorities can use their discretion as to whether they will apply a language test, so far as nurses are concerned? I think that is precisely what she said; that it would be within their discretion. May I ask her whether the Government would give an undertaking that health authorities will be asked to see that an English test is, in fact, applied to all nurses if they cannot speak English adequately? One must bear in mind that there are large areas of England today where it is difficult to get nurses. I can see the more
1534
competent ones coming to areas which are already reasonably well supplied, and those who cannot speak English, unless they are compelled to take the test, will be engaged by health authorities where it is difficult to get nurses.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated, at the moment the number of nurses who cannot speak English coming to this country from the countries of the European Economic Community is quite small. My understanding is that area health authorities will be required to satisfy themselves that doctors in the National Health Service have competence in English and that the same will apply to nurses. If I am in any way inaccurate about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
A number of noble Lords asked me about the other issue; namely, private practice. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked what would be the position of patients who go privately to consultants. The position is that doctors in private practice will not be required to pass a language test, the view being that nobody will pay to consult a doctor if he is unable to communicate with that doctor—I think there is a great deal of sense in that—and that anybody who employed a doctor privately would be unlikely to employ somebody who could not communicate with patients.
Those running private hospitals or nursing homes will have the right, if they so wish, to test the language ability of the doctors, the nurses or the other people whom they are employing. This is not the direct concern of the registering health authority. The 1975 Act gives to the registering health authority the power to refuse registration where they are satisfied that the person applying for registration, or any person employed in a home or hospital, is not a fit person. Language ability could be relevant in determining whether a particular member of staff was a fit person—that is to say, could speak the same language as the patients. The person in charge of a home registered under the 1975 Act must be either a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse. The language ability of that person may well be a factor which the health authority takes into account in deciding whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a registered home.
The further safeguard that private employers will be conscious of their legal liability for the consequences of failures on the part of practitioners whom they employ will, I hope, make them very careful before they employ people who might be regarded as unsuitable, not because of any of their medical qualifications but because of their inability to speak the language.
It is extremely important to remind noble Lords that the requirement for registration remains. All doctors coming from the European Community or anybody wishing to practise in this country must be a registered doctor. So one has assurances about their medical qualifications. The only point we have been discussing this afternoon is the requirement that as well as being properly qualified they should also be able to speak English.
I am very well aware of the strong feelings which have been expressed this afternoon in your Lordships' House. I hope I have been able to answer the points

1535
which have been raised but if, on reading Hansard, I find that there are any which I have not answered, I shall of course write to the noble Lord concerned. In any event, I shall draw the attention of my honourable friend Dr. Vaughan to this afternoon's debate, which I am sure he, too, will want to study.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask her whether there is any definition of this linguistic competence? Luckily I am healthy and have not been in hospital, but we have all suffered at hotel registration counters because of somebody who speaks only about 100 words of English. They can understand you, provided you keep within the tramlines of, "I am so-and-so and I wish to register here". But if you ask them anything beyond that they give you a completely blank look because their English is very limited. In a hotel or restaurant this can be frustrating, but in a casualty department it would be absolutely dangerous.
I recall that a long time ago the miners would not have European workers in the pits. They were very much criticised for this but it was because of the nature of the occupation: the danger of being unable to communicate rapidly. I do not like this period of six months. People could come here and might appear to speak enough English to get by. That would be sufficient in many professions but, whatever the EEC feels, I do not believe it is good enough in a profession where there is an element of danger so far as safety is concerned.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness on her last point. The position at present is that EEC nationals who come here to register do not have to take a linguistic test for six months. That will end. This is an improvement. Not only will an EEC national who is a qualified doctor and who wishes to come and practise in the National Health Service have to register; the area health authority which employs him will also have to satisfy itself that he can speak English or can communicate in English.
I understand that the General Medical Council, which at the moment undertakes not only registration but also the language test, will make available for use by area health authorities or, alternatively, family practitioner committees—because a person might wish to be in general practice—their tests. To use these tests requires reasonable competence in English. As the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, quite rightly said, it is just as important that the patient should understand what the doctor is saying to him as that the converse should be true. From the point of view of the patient, the situation is in some respects better now than it was.
I can assure noble Lords that we shall be looking very carefully at the guidance which is to be given to area health authorities or to family practitioner committees about the kinds of test they must apply to satisfy themselves that a person is competent to communicate with patients.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alport, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Amulree, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Banks, L.

Marley, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bellwin, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Benson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caccia, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northchurch, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Darnley, E.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

De La Warr, E.

Reigate, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dormer, L.

Rochester, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Evans of Claughton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrier, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Seear, B.

Gisborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Gray, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathspey, L.

Grey, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teynham, L.

Hankey, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vaizey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vickers, B.

Killearn, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimberley, E.

Wigoder, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Briginshaw, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Collison, L.

Melchett, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Gardiner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rugby, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gosford, E.

Stone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Underhill, L.

Hale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Janner, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Bill [Hi.]
5.37 p.m.
Report of amendments received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "development"]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert ("include—

(a) the removal of material of any description—

(i) from a mineral-working deposit;

(ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or

(iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and

(b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to refer to the fact that there is a printing error; namely, the omission of the word "from". Paragraph (a)(iii) should read "from a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags". Likewise in Amendment No. 3 the word "from" has been omitted from paragraph (a)(iii). In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3, and for the first of a number of times this afternoon I shall speak at the same time to its Scottish equivalent.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, both tabled amendments which extended the provisions of Clause 1 to cover deposits other than mineral-working ones. I think my noble friend's amendment went rather further than that tabled by the noble Baroness. At that time, I said that I accepted in principle the extension of planning control to the removal of material from some of the deposits listed in my noble friend's amendment, and that I would bring forward an amendment today.
I think there was a general welcome to the suggested extension to cover deposits of pulverised fuel ash and various types of metallic slag, and this the amendment now does. What was much more difficult was to consider one or two of the other matters suggested by my noble friend. As I explained in Committee, I do not think it right to include tips of domestic, industrial and commercial waste, for this would bring under planning control various activities (for example, clearing dereliction) which we are trying to encourage. In relation to disused road embankments, I am not aware of any cases where the removal of material has given rise to environmental problems and I have also been influenced in deciding against including these by the reasons advanced in Committee by my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
This leaves us with railway embankments. I have to confess that I am not entirely convinced that such embankments do not always form part of the land and are therefore subject to planning control already. However, I know that some county councils feel very strongly about this, and I have therefore decided, for the avoidance of doubt, that the extraction of minerals from disused railway embankments is clearly subject to planning control. This will cover the case, for example, where such embankments are raked over in the
1538
North-East of England to recover coal, and more generally the use of embankments as a source of aggregate for the construction industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I very much welcome this Amendment. As the Minister was good enough to say, I moved a similar amendment on Committee. The main difference between the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my own was the point about railway embankments and also disused roads. I think this amendment makes the Bill even better and Clause 1 more specific, so I welcome it and thank the Government for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert (", there having been no intention at the time of such deposit to carry out further operations on the deposit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like, as my noble friend did with the first amendment, to couple another amendment, No. 4. With the permission of the House, I will not repeat every time that we are taking the Scottish amendment in parallel. Industry is still concerned that the definition in the Bill will in practice turn out to be too wide, and operators would, therefore, be required to obtain additional planning permissions for any operations not an intrinsic part of the primary extraction of minerals. At Committee stage my noble friend the Minister felt unable to accept the amendment, No. 1 at that time (col. 1314) which I tabled, but he did express his appreciation of the industry's concern. It is still very reluctant to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. This amendment is designed to incorporate in the legislation the focus on the objective agreed by the Government and the industry as reasonable, and hopefully to meet my noble friend's objections, in col. 1315, to my earlier amendment. I accept that an operator would have the difficult onus of proving his intention at the time that the deposit was made. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: May I say a brief word on this amendment because it addresses itself to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, raised in Committee. It is true, I believe, that this part of the Bill is drafted rather widely, and it applies to the whole section. The point I want to make is that the amendment would not tighten up the wording as such but would completely destroy the intention of this part of the Bill. As I see it, as long as an operator, when depositing waste material on a site, declared that it would be his intention to carry out further operations in the future, then any operations on that mineral deposit at any time in the future would not require planning permission. This I find so imprecise that it would effectively exempt working on all deposits, because automatically operators could state that they had the intention at some time in the future of carrying out further operations. This commitment would in no way inhibit or restrain them. They would not have to follow it up in practice, but they would automatically by a simple declaration remove certain operations from

1539
planning control. This surely cannot be a satisfactory basis for tackling the problem of the working of stockpiles which are naturally generated on a working site. I am not really surprised that at this late stage the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should come forward with another amendment on this point. He has courage, I must say, but this is really so patently inadequate. I do very much hope that the Government will resist this amendment as strongly as I am resisting it.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I recognise the reason for this amendment. Our original intention was to bring under planning control only the working of mineral waste, and our sole reason for widening Clause 1 to cover all mineral working deposits has been the impossibility of distinguishing in legislation terms between waste and a stockpile. I do not feel that the amendment provides a satisfactory solution to this problem. The test which is proposed—the intention at the time of deposit—would introduce a great deal of uncertainty, and we are afraid that this would be difficult to resolve without the return to the Secretary of State on appeal. I still feel that the solution we are proposing to this problem—a wide definition in the Bill and granting planning permission in the GDO for cases where planning control is clearly inappropriate—is the most practical way forward. That is why I am unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before addressing myself to my noble friend's remarks, perhaps I could address some remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was, as it were, taking me to task for having the effrontery to come back with a different amendment. I would invite her to look at my closing remarks at col. 1316, where I said:
"Perhaps I might take this away and see if we cannot find a form of words which would satisfy your Lordships on Report".
Having said that to warn the House and the Committee that I might do what I have just done, I do not think it is effrontery to do it. So I trust that, when the noble Baroness refers to her notes from advisers on future occasions, where they have put in what might be described as somewhat disparaging remarks relating to my actions, she will observe that in all cases where I have put down amendments—except in one case where it was not my amendment in the first place—I had a phrase not dissimilar from the one I have juts read out from col. 1316. It was a good-humoured Committee and it is a good-humoured House, but I do rather take exception to being accused of breaking what I understand to be the Rules of the House in putting down amendments at Report stage.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will forgive me, I am very sorry the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was upset. It really was not anything to do with my advisers. Obviously, it was a joke that fell flat; it was meant to be a very good-humoured quip. I was getting sleepy and I felt it was time we woke everything up a bit. Of course, the noble Lord has the right to put down the amendment. I just felt that when he thought it over he would think it not a very sensible thing to do. This is not casting any aspersion on him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a pity about the last remarks. I was about to accept the whole thing. Everything I say in this House I believe to be sensible, including when I pull the noble Baroness's leg.
To return to the particular amendment and my noble friend's remarks, what I see is that he is inviting us to depend on the mercy of an as yet hypothetical GDO. Once again, perhaps I might take away his words and think about this matter. I saw this as a drafting amendment which was going to improve the Bill. It seems to me that others have read it somewhat differently. At this stage of the passage of the Bill through Parliament, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Meaning of "development"]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 22, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert ("include—

(a) the removal of material of any description—

(i) from a mineral-working deposit;

(ii) from a deposit of pulverised fuel ash or other furnace ash or clinker; or

(iii) a deposit of iron, steel or other metallic slags; and

(b) the extraction of minerals from a disused railway embankment.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 23, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) Subsection (3) of section 38 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (limit of duration of planning permission) shall be amended by the insertion at the end of the paragraph (d) of the following words:—
"or
(e) to any planning permission granted for development consisting of the winning and working of minerals.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Boardman as, I think, Amendment No. 12, in col. 1323. My noble friend unfortunately cannot be here today and has asked me if I would take it on again. I should add that not only did I support this amendment in Committee—having a somewhat similar one of my own at the time—but my support is whole-hearted.
With my noble friend Lord Boardman I shall resist the temptation to read to the House Chapter 7 of the Stevens Report, but shall draw attention simply to the fact that an operator, first, can win minerals only where nature deposited them; secondly, can buy mineral building land only when it comes on to the market; and thirdly, can work minerals only after he has obtained planning consent to do so. Stevens, after hearing a mass of evidence, recommended that in respect of mineral planning permissions, first, restoration conditions should always be imposed; secondly, planning authorities should have full discretion to impose or not to impose a limit on the period within which a development must start; thirdly, its life should generally be limited to 60 years; and fourthly, planning

1541
authorities should have powers to review conditions, the operator bearing a reasonable amount of the consequent financial benefit.
The Bill deals with restoration and after-care with a 60-year life and imposes the financial liability on operators. It does not give the recommended freedom for a planning authority not to impose a limit on the starting date. For operators with heavy investments in minerals and plant at stake, that is very serious. It may be that my noble friend the Minister might say; "There is nothing to prevent the authority from putting a date as far ahead as the starting limit. We shall encourage them to do so". But they do not, despite the Department of the Environment's encouragement as in Circular 57/78.
I have with me two planning permissions: one from the East Lothian District Council and one from the Warwickshire County Council. They both bear, in black print on the front of them, a statement. One of them says:
"The development to which this permission relates must be begun within five years from the date of this permission".
The other says almost exactly the same thing. The period of five years is printed on the front. There is no blank so that it reads, "within (blank) years". It seems to me, therefore, that common human nature and (dare I say?) laziness, will encourage people, if they are using this particular form, not to go through the trouble of crossing out "five" and putting something else in. They will leave it as it is, and indeed they have done so.
There are other interesting facts. The East Lothian form consists of four pages of detailed instructions and no doubt the operator has, perhaps reluctantly, accepted them. It gives the authority such enormous control. I must say that I have not seen a form like this before and I think that the degree of control which the planning authority manages to exercise now, before the Bill is enacted, is something to be seen to be believed. If anybody thinks that operators are getting away with things, then they are most mistaken.
I return to my amendment. Both of these orders concern minerals. Both have a five-year starting limit printed upon them. I am informed that they are typical and that it is very rare for an authority to grant a longer starting period. Thus the minerals industry is ensnared in a limit designed and appropriate for normal building developments.
The Minister says that the operator can appeal against conditions imposed or can apply for a new permission if, for one reason or another, a permission expires unused. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister appreciates the expense and effort involved in obtaining a planning consent, let alone in mounting appeals against unreasonable conditions. Some parts of industry (and it is by no means uniform in its needs and problems) have suggested that a permission limited not by time but in relation to the operation of a previous consent—thus giving a planned sequence of consented operations—might help. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister might care to comment on whether that is legal within the terms of Section 41(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and, if not, whether the Government would consider an appropriate amendment of the law.
Finally, the amendment does not remove the power
1542
of the planning authorities to impose time limits, but should give them the flexibility in appropriate cases to allow either for planned development or for the absence of an absolute limit. I hope that my noble friend will be more encouraging this time. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall not repeat today all of the arguments that I advanced in Committee about what we are doing to ensure that adequate provision is being made for the long-term needs of the mining industry. Let me just say that I have not forgotten the promise which I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in response to his Committee Amendment No. 10 at that time, on long-term planning. I said that I would consider whether a provision more narrowly drawn than that amendment would be a useful addition to the Bill. Unfortunately, it is not easy to see how such a provision might be added without having unfortunate repercussions elsewhere in the planning system. But we have not given up hope and it may be possible to introduce something appropriate in the other place, if not in your Lordships' House. Even if we conclude that it is not appropriate for this Bill, I should like to give an assurance to my noble friend that we shall be advising mineral planning authorities, when the Bill comes into effect, that they must ensure adequate provision for the needs of the mining industry.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. I cannot accept that mineral working should not be subject to a starting limit when planning permission is granted. That would inevitably lead to uncertainty and would be extremely harmful to the overall planning of an area. All other main types of development, including housing and industry, are subject to a five-year start period or such other longer or shorter period which the planning authority may specify.
The principle of a start period was confirmed both in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 and indeed in debate on the Mining Regulations in 1971, and on both occasions was accepted by your Lordships and, indeed, by the industry. This amendment which states that nothing in Section 41 of the 1971 Act shall apply to
"development consisting of the winning and working of minerals"
would not only take away the duty of the mineral planning authority to put a time limit on a planning permission, but would also cast serious doubt on whether the planning authority had the power to impose a time limit at all.
I recognise that five years may be inadequate in some circumstances, but the mineral planning authority does have complete discretion to set a longer period if the mineral operator puts forward a convincing case. My noble friend suggests that mineral planning authorities always impose a five-year start period, but I have been advised by the ACC only today that their authorities are always prepared to consider any requests for periods longer than five years—and I am sure that the metropolitan authorities do likewise—and they have provided a number of examples where this has been done. So, with respect, it is by no means a formality which my noble friend suggests.
Finally, I note carefully the point made by my noble

1543
friend about phased workings and I shall undertake to take that away to have it looked at by the lawyers. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Minister as regards this amendment because when it came up in Committee I opposed it on the grounds that it seemed to me that there was no reason why mineral workings should be treated differently from other planning permissions, and also it did not appear that there was any hardship suffered by the operators. Like the Minister, I also have made inquiries. As well as the ACC, the AMA have also done a survey on this. In all the cases where it was examined it was found that the mineral planning authorities were always open to any applications or requests from operators for a longer starting period. In fact, the requests were practically none. As the Minister said, there were, I think, three we know of in the shires. So far as the AMA and the metropolitan district is concerned, only one has come to the surface. In many other areas there have been no requests at all. I will not rehearse the reasons because I am so much in agreement with what the Minister said about this, but I hope that the Government will stick to their last about this. He said at the beginning something to the effect that there may be opportunity in another place, but I hope he will stand firm on this. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not take this personally because I am talking about the subject of the amendment and not because he personally moved it, but if he looks at this and does his own inquiries among the mineral planning authorities he will find that there is enough flexibility. If people require it and can substantiate the reasons for a longer starting date, they will be able to get it. I hope, with the Government, that he will find it possible to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I say a brief word of support for the Minister and ask my noble friend to take this into account. The local authorities have a practical problem just as much as the industry has. Of course, all those who are familiar with this subject understand that the industry needs to plan years ahead in order to keep its very expensive processes going. We fully understand that. On the other hand, the local authority have very sensitive public opinion to handle. Certainly in the South-East region, where so much of this aggregate must be got, the sites being opened now become more and more sensitive. It really is quite an important matter to the local authorities to get the timing of these developments in the most acceptable way—or at least let me put it like this, in the least unacceptable way.
They really have big local considerations to manage in order to get these consents approved at all. After all, it is the locally elected county councillors who have to give the consent. How the hell they are to be voted in again by the local people who would cut their throats if they could get hold of them is quite a puzzle. Timing is a matter of importance, and I am sure that my noble friend can see that the local authorities have a problem here just as much as the industry. I think
1544
the right answer is what my noble friend has offered; the local authority must have power to fix a time limit, but in the guidance that is given to local authorities they should be asked to be flexible and to consider the needs of the industry as much as they can. Having done that, they really have done about all they can to get the balance right in this rather difficult matter.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Nugent on one point only, because I quite understand the gist of what he is saying. It is really a question of whether five years is a short period of time or not. To me things happening in 1976 were but yesterday. Frantic arguments when we were sitting on the other side of the House about the Docks Bill, and the Shipbuilding Bill, seem to have occurred about yesterday. I had been in my present job for a good year by then. It seems but yesterday when I even started it.
If you are a mineral operator with very expensive heavy machinery and a long-term operating schedule altogether, five years is obviously but a short period of your total working plan. It would seem to me therefore that it is just this one point. One almost gets carried away to repeat it too much, but one wants to make sure that all county councils—and some of them are—are fully aware that their time-scale of (what shall we say?) four years for the next election, and perhaps their time-scale in whatever operations or other things they do apart from being councillors, cannot be judged against the measurement of the mineral operators.
Having said all that, I take great heart from what my noble friend the Minister has said because he gave two very guarded undertakings at different points in his speech. We take great heart from this, and hope that perhaps something fruitful might come from it. I hope that he will not have listened too closely to the blandishments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who was rather pressing him to forget at any rate the first of his hopeful remarks, and will press on with that and perhaps see some way to helping us to get something in the area in which this amendment lies to improve the Bill, and make it one of which this House can be proud. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Distribution of planning functions]:
6.5 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) In paragraph 24 of Schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972 (which provides for the distribution of certain functions, including the service of enforcement notices under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and stop notices under section 90 of that Act, between the district planning authority and the county planning authority)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "sub-paragraph (2)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraphs (2) to (4)";

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for the word "Those" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to sub-paragraph (4) below, those"; and

1545

(c) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after that sub-paragraph:—

"(4) In relation to a matter which is a county matter by virtue of any of the provisions of paragraph 32(a) to (cd) below the functions of a local planning authority specified in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall only be exercisable by the mineral planning authority.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 147 in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I recognised the strong arguments for limiting the power to serve enforcement and stop notices to mineral planning authorities—particularly as a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Since then officials in my department have discussed this matter with representatives of the local authority associations, and to the best of my knowledge no objections have been raised. I am therefore delighted to fulfil my promise and I bring forward this amendment today. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should briefly like to welcome this amendment, and to thank my noble friend for having put it forward, and for following up on our previous discussions.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I was not going to say anything, but as I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on this I feel I ought to register it and be able to read it in Hansard. I also am pleased about this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.7 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Periodical reviews of mineral workings]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 40, after ("period") insert ("or
(iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to both this amendment and to its Scottish equivalent, No. 10. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Sandford for drawing our attention to an inadvertent departure from the Stevens Committee recommendations when he moved his Amendment No. 18 in Committee. We have decided that it would be right to follow Stevens and place mineral planning authorities under a duty to review not only sites where mineral working is currently taking place or has ceased within the last five years but also those where working is authorised but has not yet begun.
Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example. We are encouraging mineral planning authorities where circumstances warrant it to impose periods longer than five years within which mineral working must begin. Suppose a 10-year start condition is imposed. We believe that if the mineral planning authority happens to be carrying out a review in, say, the eighth year of this permission, even if working has not commenced they should look at the conditions on the permission and consider whether they still reflect the required environmental standards—which may in themselves have changed in eight years. This amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I also support this amendment, and like the Minister should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for pointing out this omission to us on Committee. It is obviously necessary that the scope of these reviews should be wide enough to embrace this category of planning permissions. It was in order to make sure that the scope of reviews was sufficiently wide that I moved another amendment on 5th February, at column 1336, that would enable local authorities to look at non-operational workings which had ceased work at any time they chose in the historical past.
I have now received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, regarding such an amendment, for which he originally expressed support on Committee stage. He says:
"The important point is that any mineral planning authority can still go back beyond five years if it wishes to do so, and use the powers provided under the Bill, but it will not be under a statutory duty to do so".
I hope this is legally correct; I think there is a certain legal difference of opinion over this—I am not for a moment suggesting the Minister is misrepresenting the position—so I am still looking into the matter and may have to return to it on Third Reading. I hope that will not be necessary.
If the Government's legal advice is that this is generally acceptable, then I shall have to accept that, but in view of the letter, the quotation from which I just read, it would be helpful (in view of this obscure point and the legal difference of opinion on it) if the issue could be clearly expressed in any circular that is prepared on the basis of the Bill in this area of planning permission. Certainly I do not want to raise the matter unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Lord Bellwin: I shall of course consider carefully what the noble Baroness said, my Lords, and just as she is anxious that it should be right, we are equally anxious.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("National review of mineral workings
. The Secretary of State, in conjunction with the minerals planning authorities, shall be required to undertake from time to time surveys of current mineral workings and dereliction created by past mineral workings.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I discuss at the same time Amendment No. 11, the Scottish equivalent, and perhaps I might at the same time comment on No. 33, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. They are all on very much the same point. In Committee, Lord Nugent moved an amendment broadly similar to the one I am moving and to the one he proposes to move later, No. 33. It was designed to ensure that a national survey of mineral workings and derelict mineral workings should be carried out, and at the time the suggestion was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Cross-Benches. At that stage the Minister replied:
"Ministers will shortly be giving very careful consideration both to the need for a new derelict land survey and also for

1547
survey work more directly connected with mineral workings and the provisions of this Bill … This is something which we take seriously, and I am hopeful that we can get certain moves in this direction. I cannot commit the Government today, but there is no doubt at all that the Government are very sympathetic to this".—[Official Report, 16/2/81; col. 519.]
In the light of that assurance, I am concerned because no Government amendment to that effect has been tabled for this stage; I waited to see if one was put down before tabling one myself, and this amendment is intended to fill the breach. It is restricted to mineral workings and derelict mineral land, although I believe strongly that another survey of all derelict land is necessary if we are not to waste precious national resources.
I am pleased to see the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, but I would say, with respect to him, that my amendment is rather better in that it allows, first, for periodic reviews while his refers only to "a survey" of all former workings, which would be a once-and-for-all review, as his amendment does not contain the words "from time to time". Secondly, my amendment contains a reference to a review of current mineral workings, and that would provide valuable information when it comes to implementing the provisions of the Bill, as well as information on the historical dereliction point about which the noble Lord and I, along with other Members of the Committee, felt strongly.
Thirdly, my amendment requires the Secretary of State to carry out such surveys in conjunction with the mineral planning authorities. That is important because it would mean co-operation between central and local government rather than there being just a direction from the centre. Fourthly, my amendment covers dereliction caused by mineral working occurring outside the site for which planning permission, if any, has been granted. Although those are particular points, the basic intention is almost exactly the same.
I cannot stress too strongly that a formal commitment to a national survey must be made in the primary legislation; in this case, ministerial assurances are not sufficient. However sincere and well-meant they may be at the time, they can always be overtaken by events. Further, whichever party may be in power, it is constantly pointed out that spoken intentions are not the same as words in legislation, and of course Hansard cannot be referred to when it comes to interpreting legislation. Whatever may be stated in Hansard, although extremely useful, it is not the same as having a provision in the primary legislation. On an issue such as this, which the Committee considered extremely fundamental—like so much in this Bill which cuts right across party lines—the Government should accept that such an amendment is necessary. I hope the wording I propose is acceptable, but at the end of the day I would not object if the Minister preferred the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. We are aiming at the same thing and we should choose the best wording we can.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I too will, with permission, speak to this amendment and the others to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. Since this matter was discussed in Committee we have given much
1548
further consideration to the need for a survey of dereliction caused by past mineral working to supplement the information in the 1974 Derelict Land Survey. We have also been considering the need for a survey of current mineral working to provide a datum base against which it will be possible in later years to judge how far the provisions of this Bill are proving successful in preventing the creating of new dereliction. We have now decided that it would be desirable to carry out a survey of current and recently completed mineral workings in conjunction with minerals planning authorities, and we shall shortly be consulting the local authority associations about this survey and its possible timing.
I wish to stress that it is our intention that the proposed survey should cover all sites where mineral working is currently taking place and all those where such working has taken place in the past and where restoration is inadequate or incomplete. There may also be a separate derelict land survey similar to the one conducted in 1974, and of course we shall ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between them. As I said, on timing we want to consult the local authority associations, but my present intention is that that survey should begin early next year.
With regard to the noble Baroness's proposed new clause and that proposed by my noble friend, the position in Scotland is different because the agency there operates on an on-going programme of survey and restoration of derelict land and in this context considers specifically the problems of former mineral workings. The noble Baroness is pressing for the imposition of a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake surveys of this nature. She wants such an obligation written into the primary legislation. I seriously question whether that is necessary. Governments undertake many surveys on a non-statutory basis. Indeed, the Derelict Land Survey itself was carried out in just that way, and I cannot see why we should not be trusted once again to do what is needed.
I have given, and I give again, the firmest possible assurance about our immediate intentions, and I have no doubt that we shall wish to repeat the exercise in a few years' time. If the noble Baroness considers that by then it is possible that we shall no longer be in power, I can only assure her that she is wrong. In any event, I am sure she is not suggesting that a Government of her persuasion would be less diligent than we in this matter.
1 should also be a little disappointed if the noble Baroness should press for a statutory obligation of this nature before there had been any opportunity for local consultations with the local authority associations. If the survey is to be undertaken in conjunction with them—and I am sure that this is right—it would be quite wrong to present them with a fait accompli written into the Bill.
I understand the reservations and concern of the noble Baroness. She approves of what we plan to do, but like my noble friend, she simply wants to be quite sure that it sticks and stays. I am sure that she will read carefully in Hansard what I have said—as she always does. My remarks may not satisfy her entirely. I have great hopes that the noble Baroness will be satisfied on the point, but, if she is not, I hope

1549
that at least my noble friend is satisfied and will feel that we have tried to meet his point. Perhaps even the noble Baroness will accept my assurances and not press for a statutory obligation to be imposed on the Secretary of State.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, allow me to confirm that I am quite happy to debate my two amendments, Nos. 33 and 34, with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 9. I thank the noble Baroness for so effectively opening the debate on this matter and for making the points with which we are all concerned, to the effect that there should be a survey of past dereliction in particular. The noble Baroness made the point that my amendment is less strong than hers because I seek only a single survey. I was optimistically supposing that since there is to go on to the statute book such a good piece of legislation, so that effective restoration will be assured, no dereliction will arise in the future from current workings and there will be only existing dereliction to tackle. I am entirely with the noble Baroness as regards the practical end that we want to reach. We certainly want to ensure that no new dereliction arises, or that if by some awful accident it does, it is dealt with.
With regard to my noble friend's reply, I must of course recognise the cogent point made by the noble Baroness to the effect that there is nothing like having the provision in the Bill to make sure that what is required is carried out. I also take the point that what is said in your Lordships' House has no binding force in this regard. One must agree that that is the case. On the other hand, my noble friend has said that the survey is to begin next year. One seldom sees Governments moving as fast as that. My only anxiety in the matter would be that, bearing in mind that my noble friend has had such a brilliant career in his office, he is almost certain to be promoted in the course of the year and therefore we should not be able to attack him and hold him to his word.
However, joking apart, I consider that a commitment to start the survey next year would be effective. The survey would be undertaken within the lifetime of this Parliament. I do not doubt that it will be carried out. My noble friend is perfectly right: the survey must be undertaken by way of a partnership with the local authorities. It will be a big undertaking. It will not be a matter simply of recording the condition of dereliction on the various sites, which, heaven knows! is bad enough. It will also be a matter of deciding what work is needed in order to restore the sites. Some of them will have to remain water-filled. There simply is not enough material to fill them all in. If they remain water-filled, how are they to be used in the future? If they are not water-filled, what is to happen to them? Would they be added to farms, or perhaps put to recreational use? All such questions have to be worked out as part of the survey. Then there must be devised a programme of how to tackle the work over a period of years when the money for doing so becomes available.
Personally I am disposed to accept my noble friend's assurance about the survey starting next year. I regard this as a firm assurance, and it is the next best thing to having a statutory obligation in the Bill. So I should certainly advise my noble friends on this
1550
side of the House that this is good enough. The local authorities will be very pleased to have this assurance—they did not really think that they would be given it—and my noble friend is to be congratulated upon geeing up his department to the point where it is willing to undertake the survey. Carrying out the survey will make considerable demands on high-class professionalism.
So I must thank my noble friend for what he has undertaken to do. My advice to my noble friends—and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel the same—is that if we accept this valuable assurance we would not be chickening out.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is it not true that most of the counties that have large areas of dereliction have already made surveys of the areas within their structure plans? Certainly this has been done in my county. Furthermore, such surveys have in particular been carried out in connection with the 90 per cent. Government grant for the removal of waste heaps.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I have no objection whatsoever to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, but I am slightly alarmed at the amendment of the noble Baroness in relation to current mineral workings. If in what he is to set up the Minister is to be guided by the amendment of the noble Baroness—we have no objection to the principle—rather than by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent, bearing in mind that the Minister said that he will consult the local authorities, can he give me an assurance that he will consult also the mineral operators? It could make quite a difference for the mineral operators if they were to know when they were to be surveyed. It would seem to me that there is nothing worse than a local authority official travelling perhaps 30 miles and back in a large car merely to ask a question or to see whether a gate is closed. I hope that my noble friend can give me the kind of assurance that I seek.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that I am always glad to give an assurance of consultation since, as I have said so many times in the House, it is only through maximum consultation that we can produce the best Bills. I readily undertake to do that. With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, I would agree that much of the work is done by those who carry out the structure plans, but if one considers the country as a whole, rather than a single area, one sees that the need is very great. Without question, the survey will bring out this point, and that is why it is certainly worth undertaking.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister has made a very persuasive speech, and as I said earlier, I have no reason to believe that what he promises will not be done. I am sure he agrees with me that this matter has nothing to do with the question of which Government are in power; rather it is a question of what should be included in legislation to be implemented by whichever Government happen to be in power at the material time. I still feel that the obligation ought to be written into the legislation.
The object that we have in mind here can be expressed

1551
quite simply. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and my amendments seem to be perfectly well drafted, but if a question of drafting arises, I am sure that either of us would be quite prepared for the parliamentary draftsmen to see whether the wording could be improved. We should have no objection to that. What I object to is this sort of resistance to putting into primary legislation something which ought to be there.
I accept the point the Minister made that other surveys have taken place in the past, and that they have been done in this way, but this is a new piece of legislation. I repeat again what I think we have all said either in Committee or on Second Reading, that so far as minerals are concerned it is the first piece of legislation of its sort since 1947, and I really am most anxious that we should make it as watertight as possible and as forward-looking as possible: because we should be "kidding" ourselves if we think we are going to see another piece of mineral legislation at all. There will not be room in anybody's legislative programme for probably the next 20, 30 or 40, or it could even be 50 years. Therefore, I am very reluctant to let it go without trying to make it better than it is at the moment, even taking into account what the Minister has said.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 23, line 24, after ("period") insert ("or
(iii) are authorised by planning permission but have not been begun;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert—
(""aftercare condition" shall also mean a condition requiring that such steps shall be taken, during such period as may be specified for each step as may be necessary to ensure that the land has been made suitable to sustain trees, shrubs or plants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage on 5th February, at col. 1343, I moved an amendment to extend the provisions of the clause on after-care to cover land for use for amenity purposes. Those who spoke on the amendment at that time included the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke; and, although he could not be here, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, sent me a note about his views on it which were supportive of the amendment, which I quoted at that time. So I think one can say that this amendment had support from each of the three parties in your Lordships' House, and also the Cross-Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said then, at col. 1346:
"We accept that there might be a particular problem in relation to community tree planting … while this amendment is
1552
too wide to be acceptable, we should like to see whether we can come up with one which would be acceptable".
Unfortunately, so far the Government have not come up with an amendment and the amendment which I now move seeks to rectify that omission; because I accepted at the time (and I think we all did) that it was extremely difficult, perhaps, for the Government to accept something as wide as "for amenity purposes".
However, I have now received a letter from the noble Lord the Minister which I find generally reassuring on this point, since he gives a commitment that an amendment will be tabled at Third Reading, and explains that the delay is due to other pressures on parliamentary counsel. I must confess I am disappointed, because as I understand it we are now going to be tougher in this House about amendments being moved on Third Reading, although the Government will be able to do so, obviously. But in moving this amendment I should like to have a verbal confirmation from the Minister that the Government are moving an amendment along these lines; and perhaps he could tell me whether, since he wrote the letter to me, he is able to add anything to it. I would be grateful if he could give the House some indication of the lines along which the Government are thinking, because I want the amendment but I also want to save having a long debate on this point, about which so many of us feel so very strongly, on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says I wrote to her to explain why, although we fully intend to make an amendment on these lines, it has not yet been possible to come up with a suitable form of words. I gladly assure the House that it is my intention to bring forward such an amendment on Third Reading; and, of course, an equivalent one to the Scottish part of the Bill.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness's amendment is unlikely to be quite adequate as it stands because of the various references to "after-care condition" in the succeeding subsections of Clause 5 and elsewhere in the Bill, but I hope that with the assurance I have given of a Government amendment being tabled, certainly in time for Third Reading, she will feel able to withdraw her amendent now. While I am speaking I wonder whether I may add that it is also our intention to make one or two other amendments to Clause 5 at Third Reading, in particular to fulfil the promise that I made to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in relation to making subsection (8) of this clause more workable, and to make it clear that after-care provisions can be subject to a scheme agreed between the mineral planning authority and the operator.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with that explanation from the Minister—and may I say how glad I am that the Minister is also thinking of other amendments; and, in particular, the one he mentioned about co-operation and consultaton is one with which I would agree entirely—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("; and
(c) the owner of the surface land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage, at col. 1353, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:
"…the fact that the owner is notified of an application and has the opportunity to make representations to the authority, should cover it…".
He was referring to the question whether the owner should be consulted. He went on:
"If, however, my noble friend feels that there are reasons why that is not so, I should be glad to hear of them".
My Lords, these are the reasons that I should like to give.
While the operator must comply with conditions as to after-care, the owner must not only be able to resume subsequent occupation but may also be required to implement the conditions himself if the operator fails to restore by reason of his going bankrupt. It is essential, therefore, that full regard should be paid to the owner's future interest. It is therefore vital that the planning authority should consult the owner before issuing conditions. The planning authority will be extremely unlikely to have mining experts on its staff, and even the Ministry have inadequate experience of the after-effects of restoration—and they are the people who are needed to advise the planning authority. Meanwhile, the owner will have useful knowledge of streams, local problems of geology and other information like the direction of streams, and so on—information which is vital to good restoration. It is simply not good enough that he should just be informed of the conditions, as it is anyhow by then too late for the conditions to be changed if an error is found without a claim for compensation by the operator.
Further, while the operator is consulted in the very respect of his application and has the ability not to proceed if the conditions are too onerous, the owner, even though he may be called upon to implement those conditions if the operator goes bankrupt, has no say in the conditions affecting his own responsibility. Further, having regard to his ability to make representations, which is more a theory than a practical likelihood, I am informed that some planning authorities will not accept an individual approach other than by written statement.
A further problem is that most mining leases now have the right by the operator to terminate the lease in 12 months, giving further risk to the surface owner. Going to detail, the owner may require, and write in a lease, restoration and, for example, seeding with, perhaps, cocklepark mixture. What does the operator do if the mineral planning authority writes it in that he has to finish off with a clover ley? This is a very important matter, because through a default of the operator the owner is being bounced into a huge financial obligation of restoration without even being consulted. Consultation is the word. No appeal is asked for, no change of intent of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I resisted a very similar amendment at Committee stage, and I regret that I must do so again. We accept that it may well be sensible to consult the landowner, and indeed the operator, as an after-care condition. But there are other cases outside the mineral field where such consultation is equally sensible, but it is never actually
1554
required in the planning legislation. We will commend the practice of such consultation to mineral planning authorities, but we can see no reason for making this the first occasion on which it is required by statute. It should be remembered that the landowner is already notified of the application itself, and in this way does have the opportunity to make his views known. I can understand my noble friend's anxiety, but it is covered in the way I have suggested.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether the other examples that he mentioned also carried with them such a very big financial liability as there would be if the operator goes bust and is left with everything to pay?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when I was talking about planning legislation in general, it covers such a great field that I would not be in a position to say that there were no situations at all. I take the point my noble friend is making and I am sure it is a valid one. I still feel we do not want this to be the first time where we put something like this into legislation. In view of what my noble friend has said, we will have a look at this point and if there is something arising from it that gives cause for concern we will look at that. I cannot go further than that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would my noble friend think that this is something that could start entering legislation? Until the middle of this century nobody would dare not consult with the landowner. He was an important character. Nowadays, landowners are not treated with such great respect by local authorities or by anybody else, and it could be that the time has come, with the move in history and the change of everybody's relevant position, that for the first time since before the Roman time, the landowner is required to be protected by legislation. I throw that out as an idea. I have no brief for the landowners; but to say that it is the first time is not necessarily an excellent argument.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I will have to withdraw the amendment but I hope, if my noble friend cannot find some way around it, that he will find a way of absolving the owner who has not been consulted from the risk of having to restore the land himself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("an") and insert ("a restoration or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak also to Amendment No. 15, to which this amendment is a paving amendment, and to Nos. 19 and 20, which are the two Scottish ones? This relates to an amendment, No. 51, which the Government put down at the Committee stage which I then welcomed as being more than sufficient to cope with the particular tidying up of the Bill that I was seeking with Amendment No. 32. However, looking more carefully at No. 51, as now

1555
inserted in the Bill, we think it could be further improved for complete clarity. After-care has been for some time a natural sequel to restoration conditions and the industry has co-operated accordingly. Now that it is to become the subject of normal statute, the industry is concerned to examine the letter of the statute however much it, and presumably the planning authorities, hope that the letter of the statute will not kill the spirit of co-operation.
These amendments are designed to ensure that an operator can obtain a certificate to show when restoration or after-care conditions have been satisfied and liabilities on that count fully discharged. Restoration certificates will also implicitly establish the period for any after-care conditions. On the understanding that this is to clarify the Bill and to tidy it up, with no hidden sense behind it, I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accepting these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have considered carefully my noble friend's proposal to extend the certification procedure to restoration conditions as well as to aftercare ones, but on balance I do not think this is necessary nor do I think it right to impose this additional duty on mineral planning authorities. The certification procedure has been introduced for after-care because there may be genuine uncertainty as to whether the condition has been complied with during the five-year period, and it is to the benefit of all that the mineral planning authority should state whether or not it is satisfied. A restoration condition as defined in this clause is much narrower, in that it merely refers to the use of topsoil, subsoil or soil-making material. It seems to me that there is much less doubt as to whether or not this has been done to the satisfaction of the mineral planning authority, and, although of course the mineral planning authority has complete discretion to certify that the restoration condition has been complied with it if wishes to do so, I must resist this amendment which would make it a statutory duty. I hope that, with this explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while I accept what my noble friend has said, I should like to read what he said and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill we might return to the charge. I am not sure that the wording here (which is better than it was originally) is yet right to satisfy the situation fully. With those words at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15: not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness White): My Lords, I have to inform the House that should Amendment No. 16 be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 17.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("the") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish
1556
equivalent Amendment No. 22. When in Committee I moved Government Amendment No. 55, it did not quite receive the rapturous reception I had been expecting from my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Accordingly, we have looked at this provision again, as I see my noble friend has tabled his own Amendments Nos. 17 and 23. I hope the House will agree that this will remove an unintentional limitation in the amendment which I moved in Committee so that contracts between a previous owner of the land and the mineral operator are not excluded. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to improve the Bill. I am in the difficulty that I should like, with permission, to take my amendment, No. 17. I think it is better than the Government amendment. To talk in the first place of the Government amendment, we wonder whether the Government intend to tip the scales against the operator to the extent that this clause, even with my noble friend's amendment, will do. A typical arrangement between operator and landowner provides for the operator to extract the minerals, to restore the land to the extent of replacing topsoil and planting grass; and to sell it back to the original owner at a price reduced to take account of its condition. Existing contracts will have been made without the knowledge of subsection (12), which this amendment and my amendment seek to change, and therefore will contain no provision relevant to that proviso which it contains.
It would seem that a landowner, having enjoyed his minerals royalty and bought back his land at a depressed price, may under this provision be able to compel the operator to foot the bill for further improvements which it was intended when the arrangements were made should be for the landowner's account. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me whether that is what the Government intend. As I understand it, furthermore, the mineral operator, under the circumstances that I have just described, cannot claim compensation.
So I turn now to my own amendment, Amendment No. 17, and suggest to your Lordships that the shortcomings which I have just outlined in the Government amendment are, we hope, overcome in Amendment No. 17. I should be very grateful if my noble friend could say whether he would agree with that interpretation of the two of them.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, so far as Amendment No. 17 is concerned, I fear that this is defective in that by removing the words that my noble friend proposes, the following reference to "that person" in line 43 is made meaningless. There is not much that I can add to what I said before. I noted my noble friend's concern, as I said a few moments ago, when I moved Government Amendment No. 55 in Committee. In moving our amendment today to remove the limitation that the contract must have been made between the two parties, I had hoped that my noble friend and the House would feel that this meets the point. Whether or not any other observations that he makes adversely affect this, as he often and fairly says that he will read what has been said and consider it, I shall do the same, but I cannot go beyond that today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in the circumstances I cannot call Amendment No. 17. The next amendment is Amendment No. 17A.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 17A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Agreements
. A Mineral Planning Authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in the land for regulating the development and use of the land of a mineral working site in lieu of the making of a suspension, or supplementary suspension order or revocation order, to secure the future use of the land for amenity, recreation or sport.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the definition of restoration conditions of a site after working is still indefinite but assumes the restoration by use of subsoil and top soil. It is only after-care condition for which planning conditions are attached. This amendment returns to the point made in Committee that agriculture or forestry may not necessarily be the best form of restoration. Apart from an amenity project, it might be appropriate to produce a car park of rolled flat stone, to leave the area as a motorcycle scramble or even to leave a huge hole in the ground for eventual fill by waste materials. The planning authority have great power to force operators or owners to enforce costly reinstatement while all the time there may be easier and less expensive treatments suitable for the site. The Minister said he had an amendment which dealt with the whole question and so perhaps this amendment may be proved surplus. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Under Section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a local planning authority may enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such periods as may be prescribed by the agreement. Mineral working sites will certainly include land and it is of course possible to use such an agreement to cover the future uses mentioned by my noble friend and for it to be used in lieu of an order under some other section of the 1971 Act. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Imposition of after-care conditions on planning permission]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 26, line 11, leave out ("made between him and") and insert ("which is enforceable against him by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Duration of planning permission]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("sixty") and insert ("thirty").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I come back after a great deal of consideration with an amendment which was discussed on Committee. I listened very carefully and read again what the Minister said. I am afraid that I still remain very concerned indeed that workings which may well have gone on for decades and decades will now be allowed a further 60 years' operational life under the provisions of the Bill. This could add up in some instances to 100 years or more. The extraction of minerals, particularly when it is not carried out under the conditions that nowadays would automatically be required, could be, as has been said on various clauses of this Bill, a major disruptive influence on the lives of people in local communities—even those several miles away who have to live with the lorry traffic.
On Committee the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, wanted to remove the 60-year period giving such workings indefinite future life, while I wanted a 30-year period, which certainly has the support of some of the local authority associations. The Minister in reply to this (at column 1362 of Hansard for 5th February) said that this was a case where he held a middle position between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I can see his problem and that the middle position is a compromise; but, after careful reflection, I do not believe that the fundamental issue of the quality of life of the community (which is what this is all about) can be a matter of compromise.
If existing workings which operate without time limit are to go on, it seems to me that 30 years would be extraordinarily reasonable. It would then be possible for futrher permission to be applied for, and for the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to determine those applications. If the minerals industry are generally concerned about their relationships with the community—and they have expressed their thoughts about this on several occasions during consideration of this Bill, and I think it was discussed across the Floor with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—certainly the responsible minerals operators, of whom there are a great many, are concerned with the environmental consequences of their work.
This is an amendment which they could also readily accept. It will introduce certainty in the minds of local people. On a previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred to the anxiety of local people in a community. One has to look at that side as well when talking about local authorities. In this area this is also extremely important. I very much hope that the Government have thought about this again and that the Minister, even if he will not agree to it on the spot now, will have another look at it and perhaps move away from the position where he is trying to keep a balance, a compromise, between the "unto eternity" side and the 30 years that I have proposed, rather than come down in favour of the 60 years. A number of things have come out during our discussions, expressed in other amendments and in other clauses which are very relevant, and, even if the Government agree to 40 years, that is better than

1559
60 years, which seems to me to be a very long time. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear I cannot help the noble Baroness. It is true we were trying to get a balance somewhere and we are still in that same position. It seems to me that that is the right thing to do. I said in Committee that some time limit should be placed on all existing workings so that we are no longer left with mines and quarries with an indeterminate life. However, I am also very conscious of the industry's long-term planning needs, as I have said on so many occasions during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. When operators have received permissions with no time limit upon them in the past, they clearly expected to be able to go on working those quarries to the end of their useful life—and, of course, they would have had a right of appeal when permission was granted had too short a life been imposed. I do believe that 30 years is too short for some existing mines and quarries and that the time limit of 60 years, which was the period recommended by both the Stevens Committee and this Government, should be retained. Therefore I cannot accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
7.2 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 23, at end insert—
("; and
(c) that neither of the following circumstances exist:—

(i) A reasonable prospect that such development will be resumed within a period of ten years; or

(ii) The site of such development forms part of the reserves of an adjacent active and permitted working and there is an intention to work the site during or at the end of the life of that working".).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a rather improved version of Amendment No. 106, which I moved in Committee. There is a very strong reason for this, of which I have made my noble friend aware. I understand that he is sympathetic to the idea of it and perhaps might consider this further. It might be for the convenience of the House that I should not explain to your Lordships in detail why this amendment is a sound one if my noble friend can confirm that that is his thinking at the moment.
Lord Bellwin: Yes, my Lords, we do have some doubts about the precise way in which this should be done, but we are sympathetic. We want to consider this and I gladly give my noble friend the assurance that we will do so if he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should just like to say that I also understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I agree that the way in which it is drafted at the moment is still far too wide and when the Minister is looking at it I hope he will take very clearly into account that local authorities, in deciding whether
1560
or not a prohibition order is appropriate, would take into account the possibility of future working on that site from an adjacent operation. Therefore to place such requirements in primary legislation could prove unnecessarily restrictive in practice.
Again, if we are talking, as we have in connection with previous amendments, about balance, then I think it is very important that, although the principles behind these amendments may be accepted, one has also to be very careful about not restricting the local authorities, and also, to accept that from the way the rest of the Bill is drafted, it does not seem to me that there would be the opportunity or desire for them to exercise this power unreasonably. They would also be subject to the confirmation of such orders by the Secretary of State; so I hope that the noble Lord will take these points into account when he is trying to draft something which relates to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 30, after ("unless") insert—
("(a) all the persons who are required to be notified under subsection (3) of this section have notified the authority in writing that they do not object to the proposed order or supplementary order; or
(b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is another version of Amendment No. 131, which my noble friend agreed had merit. Indeed it had the blessing in principle also of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I have noticed that no Government amendment is tabled and I wonder therefore whether the Government will accept this. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is quite right. I did support this and it still seems to me to be perfectly all right in principle. Regarding the wording or the drafting, perhaps we might hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I certainly welcome, as I said in Committee, a streamlined procedure for the coining into operation of suspension orders, if that could be done without leaving weaknesses. Unfortunately, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. My noble friend's amendment today seems to have two main weaknesses. First, there is no procedure whereby those entitled to be served with notice are actually told that the order has come into effect; and clearly it is essential that everyone should know that date. Secondly, there would be no way of knowing whether all those people who are—
"required to be notified under subsection (3)"—
have actually been so notified and therefore have had the opportunity to write and say they have no objection. As currently drafted, the Mineral Planning Authority could never be certain that everybody who had been required to be notified had been contacted and therefore the streamlined procedure could never be used.
I hope, with that explanation, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, with the

1561
assurance that we will continue to explore whether a legally watertight streamlined procedure can be developed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("by reason of this Act and section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was an amendment similar to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said regarding the definition of land charges that it was unnecessary and that where, in connection with the making of local land charges Section 1 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 applies, it is automatically a charge for the purposes of the 1975 Act.
With respect, this does not seem satisfactory. I believe that one of the objects or advantages of a second Chamber is to make legislation more comprehensible not only to lawyers but also to non-lawyers. The words "local land charge", I am advised, are not in common parlance and therefore not needless of an explanation. Only real estate lawyers will grasp the full import of the term "for owners and occupiers".
Without reference to the 1975 Act the term means little to non-lawyers. It is unacceptable because the 1975 Act materially amends the 1925 and the 1972 Acts. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, it was interesting that during the Committee stage he had down an amendment relating to the 1925 and the 1972 Acts and even with all his knowledge and the backing of the experts behind him they got it wrong. If they can get it wrong, so can anyone else. The 1975 Act also amended the practice and responsibility of local authorities in keeping land charge registers and in the replies it gives to those who make searches of the register. There is no request here for any change of the Bill or change of the law; it is purely a matter of simplification and clarity. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when this matter was raised in Committee I did, as my noble friend said, advise that the amendment was unnecessary. We have, of course, had another careful look at this but, with respect to my noble friend, we do not think it would be right to put into the Bill what would amount to a superfluous reference having, in the opinion of my legal advisers, no legal effect. As I explained in Committee, Section 1 of the 1975 Act provides that a charge or other matter affecting land shall be a local land charge, if it falls within any of the descriptions contained in the section, and is not one of the matters set out in Section 2.
A local land charge includes any charge or other matter which is expressly made a local land charge by any other statutory provision. Thus the 1975 Act applies automatically to such statutory provisions, which will include, of course, the reference in this Bill once it becomes an Act. We looked very carefully at this, in view of the fact that this is very much a matter of legal interpretation, and that is the advice given to me. That is why I feel unable to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend again, and I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a battle between background lawyers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 14, line 12, after ("in") insert ("on,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32, which is the Scottish equivalent. This is a purely drafting amendment and brings this subsection into line with the rest of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders prohibiting resumption of use and orders relating to suspension of use]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 34, line 4 after ("in") insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
[Clause 15 Mineral compensation modifications]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 20, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 37. These are amendments that I moved in Committee and it was the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who replied to them at the time. They are concerned with the regulations procedure. The answer which I then received was that there seemed no reason to depart from the usual procedure and to impose an absolute obligation on the Secretary of State. I never have believed that precedent itself constitutes a reasoned argument, and that is particularly so with reference to Amendment No. 35. No sound reason was given to me in Committee to justify the proposal that the requirement to make regulations should not be mandatory.
I shall be prepared to accept that there are certain consequential matters which flow from the second of these two amendments, but the first is the important one. Without repeating all that was said in Committee, this is basic to the regulation procedure. We do not know very much about what will be in the regulations or how they will work out. Of course we had the consultation paper, which is now getting fairly elderly, but we were hoping at the beginning of the discussions on this Bill—I certainly was—that by this stage we should have more specific information about the regulations and what would be in them. But the mandatory aspect is extremely important, particularly when we are diving into the unknown. It is for that reason, and because there has been no further information in this area from the Government that I

1563
felt I should have another go at, at least, trying to make it mandatory. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I fear that I can do nothing to help the noble Baroness with the first of these amendments. I shall shortly be moving Government Amendment No. 41, which introduces a new consultation requirement, as noble Lords requested in Committee, and, in addition, financial regulations such as these can be made only with the consent of the Treasury. However, I hope it will be of some help to the noble Baroness if I say that I am prepared to consider the second of these amendments, since I recognise that the contents of the regulations should include the two matters set out in subsection (2). Counsel has, however, advised that the wording of the amendment is unacceptable in its present form. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister will accept the second amendment. I hope that counsel will do what is required and that the noble Lord is not relying on me to find words that are acceptable. If he is, we shall go on for ever. But, seriously, I am pleased to hear that. I agree that Amendment No. 41 moved things along a considerable way, but I did not feel that the reply which I had in Committee permitted me to leave the matter as it was. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 20, line 17, leave out ("and 178") and insert (", 178, 237 and 238").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 45, which is the Scottish equivalent, with this one. This amendment is necessary because of the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. Sections 237 and 238 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 make special provisions for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers in respect of orders made under Sections 45 and 51 respectively, and it is likely that these will need to be modified so that compensation provisions similar to those for other mineral operators can be introduced for the National Coal Board. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 20, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) The provisions of the regulations shall not be such that they reduce over a period of ten years by more than the amount specified in subsection (2B) of this section the amount of compensation to be paid.
(2B) The amount mentioned in subsection (2A) above shall be equivalent to 10 per cent. of the calculated Capital Value").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38 and 46, which is the Scottish equivalent, bring me to the real core of the industry's fear of this
1564
Bill. Their fear relates primarily to two interdependent factors: first, the amount by which the compensation payable under the present law is to be abated under powers which this Bill proposes; and, secondly, the frequency with which they can be required to bear this burden. The House may be surprised to hear that, after studying the proposals in the Ministry's consultation paper, the industry concluded that operators could be faced, in effect, with a new tax unique to the minerals industry, equivalent to 20 per cent. of capital assets, and that this tax could be repeated every five years.
Discussions between the industry and my noble friend's department have revealed substantially different forecasts of the potential additional burden on the industry, but the figure deduced, even from the department's forecast which was lower than the industry's, is alarmingly high. I should be most interested to hear what my noble friend considers to be an acceptable figure and how this relates to the industry's liability under the present proposals.
As I understand it, the estimate for 1980–81 tends to indicate a potential cost to industry, on a total five-year programme, at the rate initially of £100 million in real terms. Costs will be mainly on the operations which are consequent upon review. That, as we see it, means that industry writes a blank cheque for up to £100 million on the enactment of the Bill. Can your Lordships therefore wonder that industry is alarmed at what might be imposed upon it by some future Secretary of State? That is the point which one needs to observe: it will not necessarily be the present Secretary of State, who perhaps might take industry's problems into account more closely than somebody else might in the future. In effect, Clause 15 gives to the Secretary of State unlimited powers. Do your Lordships doubt that the planning authorities and the Secretary of State would be under very heavy pressure to squeeze industry to the maximum permitted by the law in certain circumstances and up to limits above which planning authorities would have to make a contribution?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said earlier, the likelihood is that this Bill when it becomes an Act will be in force for many years to come. Though I appreciate that regulations could be changed on the way, this underpinning of the regulations which my amendment seeks to make would seem to be necessary to safeguard us through to the future.
May I make three final points which I hope might help my noble friend in arriving at a decision. First, an important sector of the industry exports over 80 per cent. of its output in a highly competitive market where slight price adjustments can have serious trading effects. Secondly, 60 per cent. of the aggregates industry's sales are to the public sector, which will necessarily pay in one way or another for increased costs. Thirdly, the effect on small businesses such as small gravel pit operators could be disastrous and would be disastrous if the amendments which I hope your Lordships will consider are not included in the Bill.
My amendments would give to operators the assurance that the burden on them and on them alone which this Bill seeks to impose could not exceed

1565
10 per cent. of their capital assets, repeated every 10 years. The industry needs and deserves this assurance. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this amendment brings us once again to the subject of the compensation regulations. My noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee on 16th February that he hoped it would be possible for a statement on the content of the regulations to be made today. Your Lordships will appreciate that discussion of the consultation paper which we issued last autumn is still continuing, and indeed officials in my department have met representatives of the CBI and of mineral planning authorities within the last two weeks to consider the matter further. However, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if briefly I set out our current thinking and its likely implications.
We start from the basic principle proposed by the Stevens Committee that where the conditions of a minerals planning permission are modified or new conditions are imposed, the operator should bear a reasonable amount of any loss or damage incurred by him. This is a principle which has been accepted by the industry, and which indeed is already applied in some cases on a voluntary basis. Rather than allowing what is reasonable in each case to be the subject of argument which might eventually involve the Secretary of State, the Lands Tribunal or the courts as well as the operator and the mineral planning authority, we are endeavouring to arrive at a method which will show how what is reasonable in relation to each mine or quarry is to be calculated. In other words, a compensation threshold can be determined in each case. If the total loss or damage incurred by the operator, assessed in accordance with provisions based on Section 164 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, is less than this threshold, no compensation will be paid. If the loss or damage exceeds the threshold, then the operator will be able to claim the difference between the two figures. So each mine or quarry will have a threshold for the purpose of orders made under Sections 45 or 51 of the 1971 Act. There is likely to be a different threshold for other types of order.
A method for the calculation of thresholds for quarries where planning conditions are being imposed or modified was proposed in the consultation paper. The reaction to this paper leads us to think once again that we have struck a fair balance. The industry feels that the thresholds are too high, while local authorities and those representing environmental interests are concerned that it will not be possible to achieve all that is required without the payment of compensation. So for the present we wish to stick to the proposal set out in the consultation paper.
This proposal is that for most quarries the threshold should be 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value, calculated by means of a specified formula. This asset value is to be calculated from two elements—the entry in respect of the mineral element of the quarry in the rating list, index-linked to current values, which reflects the annual rental which would be paid for the right to work the quarry, and a factor based on the expected future life of the quarry. I would emphasise that, although value based, this is not a capital valuation of the quarry but a readily ascertainable figure which
1566
can be used to determine a threshold. There would be absolute minima and maxima thresholds of £2,000 and £100,000 respectively, and before the maximum is reached, it is proposed that the percentage of the mineral asset value taken into account should be tapered so that the £100,000 level is not reached until the asset value is £1 million or more. This tapering threshold proposal has been criticised as being unfair to small businesses, as we heard my noble friend say. We are therefore considering whether it would not be better to use a straight 20 per cent. of the mineral asset value between the same minimum and maximum figures. It is also proposed that the maximum and minimum thresholds should be index-linked to their values in 1980, and various indices are currently being examined for their suitability for this purpose.
What would be the effect of our proposals in monetary terms? My noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, were among those who asked this question at Committee stage. The Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue have carried out a 10 per cent. sample of surface mineral workings in England and Wales based on the position at 31st March 1980. On the basis of this survey, we estimate that some 30 per cent. of quarries would have compensation thresholds between £2,000 and £4,000. Another 20 per cent. of the thresholds would be between £4,000 and £12,000, and this means that half of our quarries would have thresholds of £12,000 or less. The next 20 per cent. would take us up to £24,000, the 20 per cent. after that to a threshold of £60,000, and the final 10 per cent. of quarries would have a threshold of between £60,000 and £100,000. The 10 per cent. sample was made on a random basis, and involved some 340 quarries.
Of course, it is possible to look at these figures in two ways. The member of a mineral planning authority or an environmentalist may look at a particular quarry in his area, and conclude that not a great deal can be achieved for £4,000—and remember that three out of every 10 quarries are estimated to have a threshold of this amount or less. If the quarry is an old one, which is restricted by few if any planning conditions at the present time, it will certainly not be possible to achieve within a £4,000 threshold all that an authority is likely to consider necessary to bring the quarry to an environmentally acceptable standard. Moreover, the authority will not be able to make a further order and to claim the benefit on the threshold again for at least five years. However, we believe that the costs to be borne by the operator must bear some relation to the value of the quarry if the principle of reasonableness is to be maintained.
I know that the industry, on the other hand, is fearful of the total burden which could be imposed upon it. If we assume that the average threshold is £20,000, and that there are some 4,000 quarries in Great Britain, then in theory the industry would be required to forgo compensation totalling £80 million if every mineral planning authority imposed new requirements at every quarry up to the maximum of the threshold. Indeed, this could in theory happen every five years. However, with respect, this is an extreme and theoretical view of what could occur, and we have no doubt that the actual burden on the industry will be very much less than this. The cost

1567
of bringing modern quarries into line with current planning standards is likely to be well below the threshold level, if indeed any action at all is required in such cases. Nor do we envisage the need for a new order every five years in most cases. The requirement for orders to be confirmed by the Secretary of State provides a guard against unreasonable action, and in practice, orders will require no more than the good operator might have been expected to offer on a voluntary basis. Indeed, the real effect of these proposals is not a blanket charge on industry, but an attempt to bring the less good operator to standards nearer to those of the best.
My Lords, there are other points which I could cover, such as the need to modify the formula to deal with underground mining, the proposals in respect of prohibition and suspension orders, the need for a power to amend the basis of compensation, and the suggestion which has been made to us that we could abandon the formula entirely in favour of standard conditions which would bring a quarry up to the level of an agreed code of good quarry practice. However, I hope that I have said enough to give a general indication of the likely effect, as we see it, of our proposals as they stand at present. We shall, of course, continue to listen to representations which are made before the time comes to bring the regulations before your Lordships, but I hope from what I have said that you will agree that, once again, in this most difficult of all tasks, we are trying to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of industry and the needs of the environment.
I am most concerned at some of the fears that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has put forward, and if it was really felt that they were justified to the extent that he said then, of course, that would also affect the thinking when trying to draw this balance, but I know that he will study carefully in Hansard what I have said. I have gone to some lengths to do it carefully and in detail because I accept that it is an extremely important matter. The very last thing we want to do is anything that will have an adverse effect on industry, particularly in times like these. So with the difficult task of trying to draw a balance, I ask my noble friend whether he will feel able to withdraw this amendment in view of what I have said; and, as I have also said, I am sure he will consider this very carefully indeed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for spelling out so carefully and so fully what he sees to be the regulations and the arguments that have persuaded him of the form that they still may or may not take. Also, I was aware of the fact that in his closing remarks he made the point that in these difficult times for industry it is not the moment to impose great additional costs, particularly when one speaks about an important sector of the industry exporting over 80 per cent. of its output, when exports are so important to this country and so difficult with the high value of the pound. It still is high.
I accept what my noble friend said about the fact that perhaps it may not be the extreme figure at which I arrived of £100 million, or that which he arrived at of £80 million, and that it might not be over a five-year
1568
period and repeated over a five-year period. I accept all those points, but I am sure that he will understand that the fact that it could be that sort of figure and that it could be that sort of rate of repetition makes it very difficult for people to plan.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if my noble friend would give way for a moment, before he sits down I am anxious to get on the record that I recognise that this is a fundamental issue and that some concern about it still exists. If, as I hope, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, I intend to ask the officials to make an attempt to refine our formula so as to meet the industry's criteria while providing threshold levels which will enable the Bill to operate in the way that we intend, and we will discuss the results with both sides in the hope that a measure of agreement can be reached before the regulations come to be made.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful indeed for that further reassurance, and with those remarks I beg leave to—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I take it that we can only discuss the amendments put forward, although the Minister has made a long and meaty statement on compensation which I shall really have to study. I think perhaps we should have had it circularised in advance because it was very difficult to take it all in. However, it was necessary and it came at the right time and we were promised that we should have it. All I can say after a first hearing, without the words in front of me, is that having considered the consultation paper on compensation, and having listened to what the Ministers have said during the passage of the Bill—and particularly what the Minister has said today—I am now largely convinced that the proposals put forward by the Government are reasonable and practicable.
As I understand it, the survey on which the points that the Minister has put forward was based was carried out on a sound statistical and methodological basis, and as I understand it the survey showed that in most cases mineral operators will be expected to pay a reasonable amount towards the costs of meeting orders under this Bill. If anything, it may well be significantly to the advantage of our operators and I appreciate—and I emphasise again—that I think it is absolutely essential that there should be the right balance between the needs of industry and also the demands of the environment and the quality of life. But I think it is important that when a scheme is introduced the figures should be updated from the start to take account of inflation between September 1980 and the coming into operation of the regulations.
I know, as indeed I think we all do, that there have been discussions with the local authority associations and the AMA and others are still considering the detailed findings of the Government survey. Obviously further discussions will be necessary, but if the broad principles are accepted it will still be necessary to make sure that, on the one hand, the local authorities are not inhibited from using their powers by massive financial implications and, on the other hand, that the

1569
operators make a reasonable contribution, but naturally again so that it is in line with their being able to carry out their operations and productivity.
However I am not convinced, before being able to study in detail what the Minister has just said, that the proposals for compensation on prohibition orders are reasonable, although he was not able to go into detail about that. At the moment, as I understand it, it is still suggested that the operators should find the first £5,000 of the cost of the imposition of any conditions on sites related to a prohibition order. That figure is really rather low today, and also it does not appear to relate to the size of the workings. I understand why the Government have adopted a different approach from that which they adopt for a review of conditions—that is the non-availability of grading information, which can be a problem. But to fix the figure at £5,000 means that if local authorities wish to impose conditions on the site so that it is effectively restored, then they will have to foot a massive bill.
It has been suggested that this must be set against loss of minerals which are sterilised by the restoration requirements. However, in these cases the operators have already written off the value of these deposits. They have chosen not to work them, and in fact they may well represent no real value at all because they are very low grade or difficult to work. In many cases they may have been left for years. There have been a lot of sites, and there still are, where prohibition orders will be appropriate where the minerals are effectively of little or no value.
These sites will not be tackled by local government if local government has to foot the total bill. That is why, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, moved an amendment on Committee which he did not repeat today—because of this terrible dilemma of the cutback in public expenditure and responsibility being put on local authorities who do not have the resources to meet it. One, of course, hopes that this is going to be a transient situation, but I think it is going to be quite a long transient period. That is why it is very important that a formula be found that will relate the operator's contribution realistically to the work which still requires to be done on a site, and that as soon as possible resources will be made available to the local authorities. Otherwise, the dereliction on which the surveys are going to be made will get worse and worse, and we are going to get more and more shoddy areas which are going to affect local communities.
I rose to speak on this situation as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was about to withdraw the amendment because there did not seem to be any other way to comment on it. Due to the lateness of the hour I will not comment further on his amendment. I simply wanted to get on the record some of the points on compensation generally.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 40 and to the Scottish equivalents Nos. 47 and 48. These are pure drafting amendments which bring the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) into line with subsection (5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 20, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 20, line 40, at end insert—
("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and

(c) of mineral planning authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like also to speak to the Scottish equivalent, No. 49. When my noble friend Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 213 in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mansfield promised that the Government would consider whether a requirement to consult should be written into the Bill. We have concluded that it would be right to put such a requirement in the Bill, but to specify rather more precisely the "interested parties" referred to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. This amendment does this. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, may I ask about one point? It is now established that owners of land do not get consulted. Here we have an amendment which relates to consultation with owners with interest in the land. Is that not rather an anomaly?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not consider it to be an anomaly. Indeed, with respect, I am not sure I am altogether following the point my noble friend is making. Perhaps he would like to put it forward again.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier, on a previous amendment, that if the owner was to be consulted it would be the first time. He said that on an amendment which I withdrew. Here we have a case of the owner being consulted. It seems to me rather an anomaly.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not think that that is so. I did not say it would be the first time the owner would be consulted. The fact is that owners of land are notified of planning applications, and hence that was the reason why they would not be consulted in that sense. It is a question of what you mean by consultation. If you are notified that an application has been made you then know what is happening and you are in a position, if you wish to do so, to take steps to do something about it. I think that is the difference.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for following up my earlier amendment and including something satisfactory in its place.
Baroness Birk: I, too, should also like to welcome this formal recognition of consultation, particularly as it ties up with the amendments I was moving earlier, Nos. 35 and 37. This seems to me to help the situation along.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 22, line 6, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment and its Scottish equivalent No. 50 to clarify something which arose in Committee. When we were discussing what I might call the five fundamental conditions listed in Section 178C, my noble friend Lord Mottistone seemed to suggest that a condition limiting hours of working might fall within the terms of provision (v). This was certainly not the intention of the Stevens Committee, nor is it ours, and, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said in Committee, we must resist any extension of the fundamental conditions to include such matters as modification of hours. What the Stevens Committee recommended, and we have followed, is that modified compensation should not apply where additional restriction is placed on the total life of the working. This drafting amendment modifies the provision to make it clear that it is the total life which is meant. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, once again I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 22, line 14, leave out ("of") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment which corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Mineral compesation modifications]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 39, line 38, leave out ("and 167") and insert (", 167, 226 and 227").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 40, line 6, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 40, line 7, leave out ("subsection (1) of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
("(6) Before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be representative—

(a) of persons carrying out mining operations;

1572

(b) of owners of interests in land containing minerals; and

(c) of planning authorities.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 41, line 19, leave out from ("period") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("at the expiration of which the winning and working of minerals was to cease,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes
(1) In section 2(1) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 (which so defines ancillary rights that the court may confer as to exclude rights to convey minerals by means of pipes) for the words "or conveyance of minerals (otherwise than by means of a pipe) or" there shall be substituted the words "minerals, or, to the extent provided by subsection (1A) below, their conveyance, or for the purpose of".
(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection:—
"(1A) The rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above are—

(a) rights for the purpose of their conveyance otherwise than by means of a pipe; and

(b) rights for the purpose of their conveyance by means of a pipe, where there was a right to convey them by means of the pipe before 1st January 1963.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to amendments which are consequential upon it. I said in Committee that the Government accepted in principle Amendment No. 189 moved by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and these amendments are the result. This new clause seeks to restore to mineral operators who negotiated ancillary rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals by pipeline before 1st January 1963, a right to apply to the High Court, if necessary, for the renewal of such rights.
Under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1923 a mineral operator could apply to the Railway and Canal Commission (and since 1949 to the High Court) for rights to seek for and work minerals and ancillary rights thereto, provided he could show that it was in the national interest for such rights to be granted and that it was not reasonably practicable to obtain the rights by private agreement.
The Pipe-lines Act 1962 removed the right of the mineral operator under the 1923 Act to apply to the court for the grant of ancillary rights for the purpose of conveying minerals by pipe-line; the reason for that change was to provide under the one Act—the 1962 Act—a single and more suitable method of acquiring compulsory rights in land. In 1966, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 consolidated Part 1 of the 1923 Act including the provisions dealing with the rights of working and rights ancillary to the working of minerals.
I said during the Second Reading that this Bill was part of a package of changes that the Government proposed to make, and explained why we wished to postpone the coming into operation of this primary legislation. But these reasons do not apply to this particular clause, the need for which is pressing, and we intend, therefore, that it should come into operation upon the receipt of Royal Assent. Amendment No. 58 changes Clause 32 accordingly. Amendment

1573
No. 59 extends the title of the Bill. This is necessary to ensure that the new clause will fall within the scope of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like deeply to thank my noble friend for responding to the request that was made during the Committee stage. I am most grateful for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments—England and Wales]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, line 8, at end insert—
("1A. In section 36(5) (provisions applying with modifications in relation to art appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 30(1)" there shall be substituted the words
", 30(1) and 30A".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52 and I should like to speak to the Scottish equivalent, Amendment No. 55, as well. This amendment is consequential upon Clause 5 of the Bill. In paragraph 1 of the schedules, we have already provided that where a minerals application is called in and determined by the Secretary of State he may when granting planning permission subject to a restoration condition also impose an after-care condition. This amendment is the equivalent provision relating to appeals made to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 43, line 18, at end insert—
("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 238 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "51" there shall be inserted the words", 51A or 51B".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53. This amendment and its Scottish equivalent, No. 56, are consequential upon the special position of the National Coal Board as a statutory undertaker. There is, in fact, a printing error in the Scottish equivalent Amendment No. 56 as tabled. It should read, "49A or 49B" so as to correspond with the English amendments and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall move it in that form. As I said when moving Amendment No. 36, Section 238 of the 1971 Act makes special provision for the calculation of compensation to statutory undertakers when an order is made under Section 51, and in line with Clause 14 it is considered right to extend this special provision to prohibition and suspension orders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 44, line 4, at end insert ("or the growing of trees for shelter or amenity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54. During the Committee stage I attempted to broaden the definition of forestry from that of "utilisable crop of timber". The words that I
1574
requested would apparently have also included mushrooms, so they were obviously inadequate. So this is a second attempt to alter the definition to allow forestry which is not necessarily for timber production. The point was taken on board by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who said that he would draw it to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. I do not know whether he can accept these words. If he cannot do so, can he say whether it would be within the restoration conditions for amenity trees to be planted which would, as it stands, be outside the definition within the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. One consequence of my noble friend's amendment would be that the Forestry Commission would be consulted on trees grown for shelter or amenity as well as those planted for commercial forestry. I understand that the commission do not want to take this on, nor indeed do I see any need for them to do so. I hope that my noble friend will feel that, with the extension of Clause 5 to cover making land suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs and plants, the substance of his amendment has already been met.
I listened just now carefully to what my noble friend said. One is anxious to be helpful in this matter because I think that it is an important point. However, I am advised that, in view of the extension to Clause 5, the substance of his amendment has been met, and perhaps in those circumstances my noble friend will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting that point and, if Clause 5 does do the job, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments—Scotland]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 45, line 13, at end insert—
("1A. In section 33(5) (provision applying with modifications in relation to an appeal to Secretary of State) for the words "and 27(1)" there shall be substituted the words ", 27(1) and 27A.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 45, line 23, at end insert—
("4A. In subsection (1)(b) of section 227 (measure of compensation to statutory undertakers) after the words "49" there shall be inserted the words "49A or 49B".).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Commencement]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 42, line 1, after ("except") insert ("section [Rights to convey minerals by means of pipes] above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 59:
Line 4, after ("1972") insert ("and amendments relating to rights for the purpose of the conveyance of minerals in section 2 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966").
On Question, amendment agreed to.