Lords Sitting of 26 July 1983

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

Lord King of Wartnaby
Sir John Leonard King, Knight, having been created Baron King of Wartnaby, of Wartnaby in the County of Leicestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Grimthorpe and the Lord Manton.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Fluoridation of Water
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the judgment by Lord Jauncey in the Scottish Court of Session that water fluoridation is both safe and effective, but that the law does not permit it, they will now introduce legislation to permit water fluoridation.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Government are at present considering the implications of Lord Jauncey's judgment. Until this consideration is completed it will be premature to reach any conclusion about legislation in respect of fluoridation of the public water supply.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that Lord Jauncey's examination of fluoridation, which extends to a 600-page report, convinced him that this is the best tried public health measure in the history of the world; and that, although fluoridation of water is beneficial, nevertheless the law does not permit the addition of fluoride to water? Bearing these facts in mind, is it not essential that the position of local authorities be confirmed as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind also that over the past 15 years the Government themselves have spent £3 million on assisting local authorities to fluoridate water?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is entirely entitled to his own opinion about the benefits of fluoride as a public health measure and the noble Lord has clearly gone through the whole of Lord Jauncey's report (I understand it runs to only 400 pages, but there might be another 200 pages that I have missed) and believes that fluoridation is of benefit to public health. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and your Lordships will agree that the main thrust of Lord Jauncey's judgment—and, indeed, the question upon which he adjudicated—was that the Strathclyde Regional Council had no power to add fluoride to their water supply. Accordingly, he awarded the interdict against them. Indeed, Lord Jauncey based his observations on Section 6(1) of the
1422
Water (Scotland) Act 1980. This lays on the water authorities the duty,
"To provide a supply of wholesome water to every part of their limits of supply".
That is the end of the quote from that particular section. Lord Jauncey was adjudicating on other matters, but mainly on the question of the intention underlying the phrase "wholesome water". Lord Jauncey's judgment had that very much in mind.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, leaving the distinguished gentleman aside for one moment, can the noble Lord say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are in favour of fluoridation of the water supplies of Great Britain? Does he not agree that the difficulty is that there is no national policy in relation to fluoridation and that the decision to fluoridate water supplies in areas of Britain is made by nonelected bodies; namely, by nominated area health authorities? The worry and anxiety that emanates from some areas at the moment is on that account: that at the moment no elected person has a say as to whether or not drinking water should be fluoridated. Can the noble Lord concentrate his mind on those questions and give a short reply?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I will attempt to give a short reply to, I hope, a short question. The Government are indeed considering the whole question of fluoride in the water on a national basis. I will not go into the details of how the policies of successive Administrations in Scotland have dealt with the fluoridation of water in Scotland. It is broadly similar to that described by the noble Lord—which is, of course, applicable to Wales.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that this controversy has been going on for 30 years? When I had the privilege of being in the Ministry with my late right honourable friend lain Macleod, the most exhaustive inquiry was made because of the post-war increase in the decay of children's teeth. The most exhaustive analysis was done, whereby it was discovered that, far from providing impurities in the water, as had been alleged, there were areas such as Anglesey and the Isle of Ely where the amount of fluoride in the water provided far better protection to the locals' teeth. Indeed, the recommended amounts were less than the amount naturally found in water in Anglesey and the Isle of Ely. This has been going on for 30 years, and is it not about time that we started taking action to protect our children?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend's observations on the contents of the water in Anglesey and the Isle of Ely. I shall attempt to take my noble friend with me and we shall sample it, but not in your Lordships' time. I would stress to my noble friend that, among other things, Lord Jauncey found that fluoridation at a concentration of one part per million is not mutagenic. Secondly, no biochemical mechanism has been demonstrated whereby fluoride at a concentration of one part per million is likely to cause cancer or to accelerate existing cancerous growth. There are various other scientific conclusions that Lord Jauncey reached. I am sure that will be of great interest to my noble friend.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will be aware that for the past 30 years the Scottish Office has been urging local authorities in Scotland in regard to the fluoridation of water. I remember the late Lord Stuart of Findhorn—Jimmy Stuart in another place—was quite pleased when Kilmarnock was selected as a test area, where they applied this for 10 years. It is quite wrong of the noble Lord to think that nothing more should be done. The Government have a responsibility to clear this matter up. Can the noble Lord give us a pledge that legislation will be introduced to settle it once and for all?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I stress to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, the second part of my first reply: until the consideration which is at present being carried out by the Government is completed we believe that it is premature to reach any conclusion about legislation. I am interested in the noble Lord's observation about Kilmarnock being a test area. I understood it was for only six years that Kilmarnock had the benefits, or otherwise, of fluoride, from 1956 to 1962.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say why those who want a nip of fluoride should not buy it and put it in their water themselves, rather than inflict it on the rest of us?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me to refer him to a quotation from Lord Jauncey, among the 400 pages, that
"the duty of the water authorities is to provide wholesome water, but they should not use water as a means of passing into consumers' bodies substances which could be obtained elsewhere."
Nevertheless, we will bear in mind my noble friend's most valuable observations.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether he is aware that every drop of water consumed in this House has been used at least a dozen times before, and that is an indication of how wholesome it is? Is he also able to confirm that every standing dental advisory committee and every standing medical advisory committee of the Department of Health over many years has commended to the Government the introduction of fluoride into water? Finally, can my noble friend confirm that he is aware—and here I should declare a non-interest—that the incidence of fluoride, even in toothpaste, is so affecting the dental profession that the dentists in London are grossly under-employed at the moment?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's third question, may I say that she should perhaps have declared another interest; I understand that she is a member of that profession. We are very pleased to see her in your Lordships' House giving us the benefit of such detailed and scientific knowledge. Regarding her second question. I shall certainly take note of that and draw her conclusions to the attention of my right honourable friend. To answer my noble friend's first question, the judgment was given in Scotland and Lord Jauncey could only speak for what was wholesome water in Scotland. So far as I know, no
1424
drop of water flowing into your Lordships' House comes from North of the Border.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord the Minister a very brief question: do they drink water in Scotland?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we manufacture it.
Lord Sandy's: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, even after 30 years, following the publication of the report, this subject is highly controversial, as this discussion this afternoon shows? Will my noble friend agree that the wisdom of Kilmarnock in banning fluoridation precedes Lord Jauncey's judgment?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's first question, the answer is yes. With regard to his second question, I do not know quite what he is referring to, the stopping or the starting of fluoridation. But I note his points.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that following the cessation of fluoridisation in Kilmarnock the dental caries rates reverted to those in the control town with which it has been paired and that it lost the benefits it would have had if fluoridisation had continued? Does the noble Lord agree with the judgment of Lord Jauncey that no adverse effects on the health of individuals who drink fluoridated water have been measured? In view of the fact that successive Governments have been committed to this programme over the past 20 years, as the noble Baroness said, will they now hurry along this examination and introduce legislation in the next Session?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the consideration of Lord Jauncey's judgment is taking place. We shall announce any conclusions based on that consideration as soon as possible. The noble Lord, and all your Lordships, will be aware that the entire issue is exceedingly complex. Indeed, 400 pages are not enough to complete the argument.

Immigrants: Special Voucher Scheme
3 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the regulations governing the special voucher scheme for immigrants to settle in Britain in order to permit a woman to be regarded as head of a family.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, a woman is regarded as a head of household for the purposes of the special voucher scheme if she is single, widowed or divorced. A married woman is also regarded as a head of household if her husband is incapable for medical reasons of acting as the head. The Government do not propose to bring other married women within the definition of a head of household.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, have the Government noted the decision by five Law Lords on 7th June that the special voucher scheme is discriminatory against women? Moreover, has he noted that it was only by three votes to two that it was described as unlawful? In view of that, will the Government look again at this matter so as to carry out the principle which Parliament has endorsed of no sex discrimination?
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the case of Amin, to which I think the noble Lord refers, your Lordships found that married women are, indeed, treated differently from married men; but this is not unlawful because the special voucher scheme does not come within the scope of the 1975 Act. To elaborate, Mrs Amin lives in India and is married to an Indian citizen. She did not come under any pressure to leave India and therefore this is not the kind of case for which the special voucher scheme is intended.

Regional Policy: Quinlan Review
3.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will say what progress is being made by the Quinlan review of regional policy.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I understand my noble friend is referring to a review by officials for Government. Further work on the matter will then be considered in detail. We will make a Statement in due course.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall that in the party manifesto and during the election campaign the Conservative Party made much of its support for regional development and the jobs that would go with that? Can my noble friend give the House some indication of how much money is currently being spent on regional development, and also some indication of whether the Government announcement on regional policy is likely to come during the current year or next year?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he says. We did say in our election manifesto that we would continue to maintain an effective regional policy. I can assure my noble friend that we are firmly committed to promoting industrial and economic development in the regions. The amount of money spent last year was £912 million. I am afraid I am not in a position at present to say when the promised Statement will be made.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government regional aid was cut by about 44 per cent., with consequent difficulties for Scotland, Wales, the North-East and other affected parts of England? Will the noble Lord tell the House a little more about the Quinlan review, with which we
1426
are not too familiar? Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us what were the terms of reference and who comprised the Quinlan Committee, or whatever it was? May I further press the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friends in the Government to make a Statement about this fairly soon in view of the implications of high unemployment, especially in the areas affected?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the important fact about regional aid is to ensure that the money available is spent effectively, and it is that to which we are turning our minds. As regards the present consideration, what my noble friend has in mind is advice tendered to the Government by officials. It is not the practice to publish such advice. I note the point that the noble Lord makes about the desirability of an early Statement, and I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to that.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on the issue of how early this Statement should be? Is it not the case that we are now in a situation, and have been for some time, in which there are some areas suffering from high unemployment which have no grants to offer incoming industry and some areas in the assisted areas, with much lower unemployment, getting automatic grants for incoming industry? In other words, the policy is to that extent out of date and has been so for two or three years. Therefore, is it not important to get the matter cleared up soon?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am aware of the criticisms which the noble Lord makes about the operation of regional policy. Indeed, that is the reason why the Government have been considering the matter in detail. It is important to get this right. I note the noble Lord's view, which is the same as that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that an early Statement is desirable, and I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to that.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the regional policy in that part of the country from which I come—the North-East—is totally inadequate? Ship repairing and shipbuilding are being decimated; and unemployment is 18 per cent. When are the Government going to do something for the North-East of England?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have already made the point that it is important to ensure that the money available is spent effectively, and that is what the present review of policy is directed towards.

Wheel Clamps: Police Instructions
3.8 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what guidelines have been issued to the police on the use of wheel clamps.
Lord Elton: My Lords, a comprehensive instruction on the operation of the experimental wheel clamping scheme in force in parts of central London was issued by the Metropolitan Police on 12th May this year. I understand that since the scheme came into operation the commissioner has obtained legal advice which suggests that wheel clamping contravenes the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. A further instruction was accordingly issued on 28th June that wheel clamping of identifiable diplomatic vehicles should be discontinued. The position on this is, however, being examined further.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before these instructions were issued was there any consultation with the motoring organisations and with the GLC? In the light of some reports of unfortunate incidents, which would appear to have been better treated by fixed penalty notices, can there be some interim discussions with those organisations without waiting for the final report? Does the Minister appreciate how disappointed the House was when his noble friend replied to a supplementary question last week concerning diplomats and their cars? The question which I put, and which was not answered, was: if it is not permissible to put wheel clamps on diplomatic cars, does that mean that such cars cannot be moved even if they are in a very dangerous position?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the first part of the noble Lords's supplementary question, if he feels that the consultations were in any way inadequate I can say that I am certain that the views which the organisations wish to put forward on what is an experiment will be taken careful note of. On the second part of his supplementary question the answer is, No. Where a diplomatic vehicle is causing an obstruction or is a danger it can be towed away.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is any evidence that these cumbrous engines of inert frustration contribute in any way the the movement of traffic in the metropolis? May I further respectfully ask whether on present experience there is any evidence that this candle is worth the price of the tallow?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this is an experiment. The purpose of the experiment is to answer both my noble friend's supplementary questions.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that these clamps give the police a right to impose a pretty heavy penalty on arbitrarily selected members of the public who park their cars on a yellow line or something of that sort? Does he also agree that this ought to be watched very carefully? The instructions as to the circumstances in which the penalty is used should be published and made available to the public. It should be confined to the kind of case in which the motorist is defying the public. For example, a gentleman who has had half a dozen parking tickets and simply burnt them, or others like the man who the other day when going away on holiday found that the cheapest way to park his car for a tenner was to put it in a public parking
1428
meter place. This penalty should not be applied in the ordinary case of a motorist who has left his car parked for a bit too long.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the actual penalty is a fixed penalty of £10 to which is added the cost of the operation at £19.50. As to the arbitrary nature of its imposition, the penalty is imposed only on those who are breaking the law. It is not possible for the constable or traffic warden to indentify cars for which six parking tickets have already been torn up. I recognise that there is a good deal of feeling about the issue. This is why it is an experimental exercise which will be reviewed next spring.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his statement that the position of diplomats is being looked at further will be widely welcomed? Is he also aware that in some cases these wheel clamps are imposed on the cars of people who have simply overstayed on a meter, and that surely is an exaggeration?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not wish to comment on individual circumstances but I shall certainly take my noble friend's concern to my right honourable friend.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite the hard cases that may come out of this device, the general idea of imposing some further means of deterrence on motorists who consistently break the law in this respect is very much in the interests of the general public in helping traffic flow? Will my noble friend therefore persist with this experiment and, despite any criticism that may come, wait until we have had at least 12 month's working before taking a considered view of its value?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend—as always—gives very wise advice.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, the Minister has referred to advice received that putting clamps on the cars of diplomats contravenes the Vienna Convention. Is he prepared, first, to tell the House from what source the advice was obtained; and, secondly, to put a copy of it in the Library so that lawyers in the House, among others, may study it to decide whether or not it is good advice?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the legal advice came from legal advisers. I am confident that it is sound.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are good legal advisers and bad legal advisers? Will he face the point that some of us, bad and good, would like to look at the advice to see whether or not it is misconceived?
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Elton: My Lords, the more legal advisers we have, the more likely it is that there will be a conflict of views. I can assure the noble Lord that the advice I have is coherent among advisers. As to the protocal—if I can use such a diplomatic term in these

1429
circumstances—of placing a copy of the advice in the Libray, I would have to take advice on that.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, as the Minister cannot answer my questions today, would he kindly write to me and give me the answers?
Lord Elton: Indeed, my Lords.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, would it not be wise for diplomataic cars to be clamped until the driver can come to prove his identity and his immunity? Would it not be probable—perhaps I am being ironical—that on discussing the matter with the police he, being a diplomat and a responsible person, would move his car to some sensible and legitimate place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, apart from any legal consideration, one of the difficulties would be keeping somebody by the motor car until the diplomat returned to it. There is considerable concern about the whole question of diplomatic immunity in this area. It is the practice for the details of every alleged offence to be brought to the attention of the appropriate head of mission. This is done every month. I do not doubt that the members of those missions will be aware of the concern that your Lordships have expressed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the organisation of public transport in London. This will be followed by a Statement on the European Community Steel Council meeting on 25th July which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Belstead.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening of 7.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord is speaking on business, may I ask him a business question. Can he tell the House why the Statement by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to the effect that he intends to sell the state's capital assets in order to finance the Government's current expenditure was not repeated in this House?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to answer that Question. It was decided at a late time in the other place that this Statement should be repeated after representations from the Opposition Front Bench. I regret that by the time that was done there had been no arrangements made to repeat it here. Perhaps there should have been. If that is so, I take the responsibility for it. But it did come very late in time.

Business of the House
3.16 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the order paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with this day to enable the Finance Bill and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through all their stages this day.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the order Paper.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
standing order 21A
Insert the following new Standing Order—
"Lords attendance at Commons Select Committees—Any Lord requested by a committee appointed by the Commons to attend as a witness before it or before any subcommittee appointed by it shall have the leave of this House to attend, if his Lordship thinks fit."—
(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Value Added Tax Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [12] as printed by the Commons.
In the Schedules: Schedule 6, page 72, line 7, at end insert—
GROUP II—WORKS OF ART, ETC.
Item No.

1. The disposal of an object with respect to which estate duty is not chargeable by virtue of section 3(3) of the Finance Act 1953, section 34(1) of the Finance Act 1956 or the proviso to section 40(2) of the Finance Act 1930.

2. The disposal of an object with respect to which capital transfer tax is not chargeable by virtue of section 32(3)(a) or (4), 34(6)(a), or the words following paragraph (b) of section 34(6) of the Finance Act 1975.

3. The disposal of property with respect to which capital transfer tax is not chargeable by virtue of section 78(4) of the Finance Act 1976.

1431

4. The disposal of an asset in a case in which any gain accruing on that disposal is not a chargeable gain by virtue of section 147(2) of the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979.".

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their said amendment. This is the amendment to which I referred in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I explained that it would be necessary to make the amendment to take account of a change in the existing law made by the Value Added Tax (Works of Art, etc.) Order 1983—which I think was then within the time of Prayers or possible Prayers. That order exempted disposals of works of art of national importance from VAT in circumstances in which such disposals were already exempt from capital transfer tax or capital gains tax. As I explained on the earlier occasion, it is necessary for the provisions of that order to be incorporated in the present consolidation Bill, and that is now achieved by the present amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, since this amendment complies with the suggestions and proposals of the noble and learned Lord when we considered this matter in this House, on behalf of my noble friends and myself I approve of what has happened.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered. I may say that I am going to move in each case that they be agreed to.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[References are to Bill [11] as printed by the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 40, page 32, line 43, leave out "(5)" and insert "(2)".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. I. This simply corrects a printing error. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Schedule 6, page 64, line 17, after "in" insert "the repeals made by".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is a drafting correction to paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Bill, which contains a saving for registrations, entries and notes made under the Acts repealed by the Bill. The present wording of the paragraph is too wide for its intended purpose, and this is rectified by the present amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, on this occasion another place has been performing the function which it normally falls to this House to perform.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 6, page 67, line 29, leave out "this Act" and insert "the 1956 Act".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. This amendment simply amends a drafting error in paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 6 to the Bill. This ought to refer to the Medical Act 1956, and not to the present Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Bill
3.24 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Expenditure powers of local authorities]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("() The power conferred on a local authority by this section shall not apply to expenditure associated with the publication of a free-distribution newspaper.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and it may be for the convenience of the House if, with Amendment No. 1, we take also Amendment No. 2:
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
("()The power conferred on a local authority by this section shall not apply to expenditure associated with the publication of a newspaper.")
I make that suggestion because, clearly, the two amendments cover precisely the same ground. I do not begin my speech in any spirit of feeling it necessary to express an apology for the fact that we are returning to this matter once again, having last debated it on Thursday. Given the fact that we have been allowed only nine days to discuss all stages of the Bill, this was perhaps inevitable.
As no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be reminding us in a few moments, the Bill has limited objectives; that is entirely true. It amends Section 137

1433
of the Local Government Act 1972 to enable local authorities to make grants and loans and to give guarantees in respect of land acquisition and building work. As the House will know, Section 137 enables the local authority to spend up to a 2p rate on projects which it believes will be of benefit to its entire community, or a section of its community.
Section 137 has been with us for a very long time, in one form or another. Certainly I can remember as chairman of a local authority finance committee using the section, or a similar power, in the past. It has I think been a considerable benefit to local authorities generally and—to give only one example—to many voluntary organisations, which as a result have been able to obtain financial assistance for some very worthwhile projects. I think that all of us, wherever we may sit in this House, are firm supporters of this provision.
However, as we heard last week, the sums involved are very considerable. The Greater London Council—to take the largest authority in the country—can raise up to £38 million a year as a result of this provision, and some of the larger London boroughs can raise over £1 million.
Having said that one is a firm supporter of Section 137, it is also true to say that in recent years there has been increasing concern—and I am sure that this has been shared by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—about the use, or the misuse, of the section by some local authorities in this country. This has been a fairly recent development, certainly within the last five or six years—not further back than that.
I do not propose to discuss today the situation regarding the Greater London Council and Mr. Livingstone's behaviour and his use of this particular power. In any event, the Greater London Council is by no means the worst offender in this respect. Sometimes the objective of the minority of local authorities which misuse the power has appeared to be to reward their political friends and to punish their enemies. That seems to be—and I think that this view will be shared on all sides of the House—a wholly objectionable use of the powers of local authorities.
That brings me to the issues identified in the amendments which my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock and myself have tabled today. As we pointed out last week, what I have described is precisely what is planned in the London Borough of Islington. The power under the Bill, or the Act, as it will then be, will be used by the London Borough of Islington to reward one's friends and to punish one's enemies. As we pointed out last week—I dealt with this matter at some length, and I certainly have no intention of repeating it today; it was reported at column 1259 of the Official Report—the London Borough of Islington has been advised by its borough solicitor that once the Bill is passed, it will be able to make substantial sums of money available to an organisation called the Islington News Co-operative. This co-operative intends to produce a weekly give-away newspaper in the borough. The councillors have been told by their borough solicitor that, unless the Bill is passed, they will not be able to subsidise the co-operative and thus it will not be possible to produce the newspaper.
I should like for a moment to discuss what the project is going to cost. I draw on the views of Mr. E. W. Dear, director of finance for the London Borough of Islington, in a paper submitted to the council on 21st July this year. This is an indication of what will be done in one London borough: acquisition of premises, that is, for the Islington News Cooperative, £75,000, the money to be provided by the borough council; refurbishment of premises, a further £17,000, the money, again, to be found by the ratepayers; rent grant for two years, a further £17,000; and equipment grant, a further £20,000. Then there is to he a loan for working capital, which is to come from the Greater London Council. Then there will be a bank loan, £4,000 of which will be guaranteed by the London Borough of Islington. There will also be a £20,000 bank overdraft, all of which will be guaranteed by the London Borough of Islington. To put the figures at their most modest, what is involved here is expenditure of public money of about £200,000. How much, one might ask, are the local co-operators going to provide? The answer is £8,500 out of £200,000 for this newspaper. Mr. Dear, the director of finance says:
"The summary above shows that there is a very high proportion of public funds being invested in the project".
He goes on to warn the councillors that there is at least a risk that the enterprise could fail, placing public funds at risk.
That is the scale of what is involved, I repeat, in one London borough. While, in many respects, it is true to describe the Bill as a technical Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, did last week, it is also clearly a technical Bill that has substantial implications for local rateborne expenditure.
There are, however, other reasons for concern. No one on the local authority in Islington is seriously pretending that this give-away newspaper, publicly financed, is other than a newspaper created to support the present majority on Islington Council. I have seen the names of the people who are members of the co-operative. All of them are well-known supporters of the present majority party in Islington. It goes without saying that a provision of this sort would be equally, or just as, objectionable if any other political party was concerned. What is wrong is that public money should be used for what are clearly political purposes.
If anyone has doubts about the accuracy of my statement, they have only to examine a publication that I must admit I do not read regularly, the Socialist Worker, that came out on 15th January this year. It contains an interview with the present deputy leader of Islington Council, a lady called Mrs. Val Veness. It is a long and quite interesting interview in the course of which Mrs. Veness makes her views clear. She said that the Government of the kind that she wanted
"has got to take on the people who obstruct it, arresting them if necessary—arm the workers if necessary".
Our judicial colleagues will be glad to know that at least the judges, in her view, would be elected. That is the personal political commitment of Mrs. Veness, who went on to comment in the interview on the Islington News Co-operative. In talking about the need for the council to be able, perfectly reasonably, in many respects, to put over its case, she stated:
"There's no counter-propaganda to the media whatsoever".
She makes clear that the journal in Islington is to be a competitor of the local newspaper, the Islington Gazette. So far as she is concerned, she sees it as a vehicle for partisan propaganda on behalf of the party of which she is a leading member.
I have again, as I did last Thursday, mentioned the Islington Gazette. It is only right, for the benefit of those colleagues who were not here on the last occasion, to point out that there has been a longstanding dispute between Islington Council and the local newspaper. For 14 months there was a boycott of the newspaper. The council's officers were instructed not to speak to its representatives. There was an advertising boycott, and various other punitive steps were taken by the council against this newspaper. I am glad to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, pointed out last Thursday, that there is some indication that, at its meeting this week, the council will cease its boycott on news that has been condemned both by the Press Council and by the local government ombudsman. But it is also clear that there is to be a continued advertising boycott directed against the newspaper by the Islington local authority.
I think that the House is now in possession of all the facts of the matter. What is involved is, first, that the present Bill—there is no difference of principle between myself and the Minister or anyone else on what is a perfectly reasonable measure—will undoubtedly do a number of useful things. But it will also make it possible for local authorities to advance these very substantial sums of public money. It is also clear, in my view, that these will be used for partisan political purposes.
Secondly, it will create an opportunity for the local authority in Islington to take action, which it might, later this week, should the Bill go on the statute book in the next 24 hours that could be followed by other local authorities of similar disposition. These authorities would be able to use their power and the substantial financial resources at their disposal to take on local newspapers which they find objectionable for one reason or another. I do not believe that it is right to give them the opportunity of doing so. Accordingly, my noble friend and I have put down amendments which seek to exclude payments of this kind from the Bill and so ensure that local authorities cannot undertake this type of conduct.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will say, as he did last week, wholly sincerely, that the Government are very concerned about many aspects of the conduct of a minority of local authorities. It is certainly a minority that we are talking about. What worries us is that this minority will be given the opportunity for further misuse of their considerable powers. I beg to move.
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows that I am very sympathetic to what he has been saying about this matter and towards his motivation in putting down these amendments about which in due course he will have to decide what to do. These amendments take us back to the substance of
1436
the debate during the Committee stage last week. What the noble Lord describes is indeed an appalling attitude by an authority whose antics are bringing local government into ever-growing disrepute. I, for one, resent that very much. I know that there are many within local government, on all sides, who feel the same.
I emphasised last week and have to repeat that this Bill is of very limited nature and relates only to an extension of local authority powers to use Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 to finance land acquisition and building work. That is what this is about. The noble Lord, through his amendment last week, and now, wishes to qualify this extension. I explained then at length why this limited technical Bill was not the place to seek to deal with these general abuses that are taking place in the use of Section 137.
As for the Islington Borough Council proposals with regard to the Islington News Co-operative, I have since last week discussed this matter personally with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Indeed, they drew my attention to a document giving the views of the Islington borough solicitor that a grant by the council could not be made to the co-operative towards the cost of acquisition or the cost of work until the Bill became law. Indeed, the noble Lord was kind enough to give me a copy.
I make no comment on the borough solicitor's view, but I should say yet again that the purpose of the Bill is restricted and limited. Part of Islington's proposals to support the co-operative clearly includes a grant for building works. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said during the Committee stage in moving his amendment that the borough solicitor was in no doubt that the council would be able to make a grant to the co-operative and much else besides, as soon as Parliament had passed the Bill which we are now considering. The "much else besides" is part of the wider problem and one which I have to say again, with some reluctance, I think cannot be dealt with in this Bill because it requires a careful and comprehensive approach if the Government come to the view that action is necessary.
The borough solicitor's advice, as I read it, relates only to the present area of doubt whereby the council is prevented from making a grant for building works. The council's general discretion under Section 137 as to whether or not payments to the co-operative are in the interests of the area or all or some of their inhabitants, is not affected by the Bill.
Yet at the same time it is fair to say that it is arguable that such a grant is open to objection: the issue is not as clear cut as it might seem. My department has had a number of dealings with the council on this proposal. It was the intention originally that the editorial advisory board of the paper should contain a local representative from the local Labour Party. This has now been withdrawn—they have gone back on that point. But the issue of financial support for the cooperative is perhaps not as clear and not as black and white as it might seem. In my view it is a matter which requires the most detailed examination.
As for the amendment itself, I can only repeat what I said during the Committee discussion. There are large and complex issues here. As with so many of the

1437
cases mentioned in discussing Section 137, there are other powers which are available to councils. I am not going to go over them now, because I do not think that this is the place to do so. However, I must say again that this is still largely a technical Bill and it is not the vehicle to tackle what are becoming, I readily concede, major and controversial issues. That is not to say—and I hope that your Lordships will have no doubts about this—that the Government are not alive to these difficult questions. I shall not weary the House with repetition. I am fully cognisant of the real concern that this misuse is causing, and therefore I say that we are conscious of the problems; we are watching the situation very carefully indeed; and we are considering the need for action. Beyond that, if your Lordships will allow, I do not want to go today.
Before I sit down, and perhaps on a happier note, while we are talking about urban development grants, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and all of your Lordships to bear with me for a moment, because this is a good opportunity for me to announce, very shortly, approval in principle to a further six schemes for urban development grant representing total investment of some £14 million secured—and this is the point—by just £2 million of public expenditure. I am placing details in the Library.
This latest batch of schemes highlights the important role which urban development grant can play in bringing new life to the inner cities by taking existing buildings which have fallen into disuse and disrepair and adapting them to the changing needs and circumstances of our inner urban areas. We have approved Wakefield's £400,000 scheme to convert a disused factory into small industrial units; West Yorkshire's £1·1 million project to turn an old school building in Bradford into managed workshops; and Newcastle's £1·6 million project to provide nursery industrial units, offices, shopping and leisure facilities in a former motor showroom.
Today's approvals also include major redevelopment proposals for derelict and unused sites in Dudley where 100 small industrial units will be built in the enterprise zone at an estimated cost of £5·8 million; and in Lambeth where up to £4·6 million will be spent in developing industrial warehouse units, recreational space and road improvements at Vauxhall Gardens.
Finally, there is a particularly encouraging housing initiative in Walsall where the Abbey National Building Society will be refurbishing six run-down houses as show houses to publicise the availability of building society funds for home improvements. As a result of this project Abbey National will be making £¾ million available for these purposes in areas where in the past building societies have been reluctant to lend.
The projects announced today bring the total number of schemes so far approved for urban development grant to 99. These schemes represent some £45 million of public expenditure generating about £185 million of private investment—about £230 million new capital investment in all.
I thank your Lordships for bearing with me while I made that announcement. I hope that your Lordships will feel that it is good news. I hope that the noble
1438
Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, will accept from me my sympathy with what they are seeking to bring to light. It is a matter which will not lie on the table as long as this kind of thing goes on. But I hope that they will feel able, perhaps, to withdraw their amendment and allow the Bill to do what it has to do as quickly and as effectively as it can.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I gained the impression that, despite his normally sunny nature, my noble friend Lord Bellwin in the earlier part of his speech was less happy than he usually is. He seemed to move rather enthusiastically over to the second half of his speech when he dealt with a number of excellent measures—excellent in themselves—but, of course, wholly irrelevant to this amendment.
I am bound to say that I was disturbed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I felt that what he said was entitled to very serious consideration in this House. It is well known that a number of local authorities in London—notoriously the borough of Islington—are using their financial powers in a way which many of us think involves abuse and which certainly involves political partisanship at the expense of the ratepayers. With very great respect to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, it is not a complete answer to that case to say that this is a technical Bill into which it is difficult to fit this provision. I have every sympathy, from my own past experience, for my noble friend. I have often in the past been in the situation which he is in this afternoon of getting near the end of a sitting and wanting to get a Bill through without amendment because otherwise the Bill will be delayed. That is a very real fact of ministerial life. However, if my noble friend is going to rely on that, then one could, I think, ask him to go a little further.
If his argument is that what the Islington Council are proposing to do with these funds is an abuse, but that this Bill is not the right machine with which do deal with it—which is what I understood his argument to be—then surely it is up to him to go a bit further and to indicate that in some early, future measure the Government will deal with this situation.
It is apparently generally well known that the Government have in mind a series of measures to deal with the abuse of local authority power and local authority control of finances both in London and elsewhere. It is common knowledge that Green Papers, White Papers and legislation on this matter are all queueing up in the pipeline.
If my noble friend were to say that in that future legislation it is at any rate probable that steps will be taken to prohibit the Islington Council in future from doing what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, says they are doing—which my noble friend did not contradict—then I should feel a good deal happier. However, simply to rest on the basis that, although what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, proposes is sensible and will restrain an abuse, this is the wrong piece of legislation to stop it, is, if he will allow me to say so, a somewhat mechanistic approach which carries awfully little conviction to me and I suspect to a number of other noble Lords. Therefore, I put it to my noble friend that either there is something to be said for his telling his departmental advisers not to worry too much about the timetable for

1439
this measure and accepting the amendment, or at least to say, "for these reasons I cannot do it in this Bill, but I will do it in another Bill before very long".
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I very much welcome funds becoming available from a building society for the kind of project that the Minister has in mind. But can the noble Lord also say whether funds will also become available from the building societies to assist first-time buyers to buy old terraced cottages in the old industrial valleys—cottages with outside toilets—for which it is extremely difficult for first-time buyers to obtain a building society advance? Will facilities be available from the building societies to assist such borrowers to buy such properties?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As I understand it, the Minister has seen the borough solicitor's legal advice. Presumably he himself has received legal advice. It may be that some lawyers are not always right; it may be that the advice which he has received does not coincide with that given to the borough. However, I should also like to hear a more certain statement from my noble friend that, come what may, attempts will be made to deal with what is without doubt an absolute public scandal.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will welcome the measures which the noble Lord took the opportunity of announcing. It is a pity that they should be marred by activities of the nature which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has revealed. I moved an amendment at Committee stage which was designed to limit the "political causes" usage of Section 137 money, and I thought at the time it could be improved upon and that with the noble Lord's help we might do it together. The noble Lord very courteously received my noble friend Lord Harris and myself, but he again made it clear that he saw no way forward in this Bill. At the same time he indicated that—and I divulge no secrets because he said it to your Lordships in the debate in Committee on 21st July at col. 1258 of Hansard:
"The authorities involved should not assume…that the Government do not have the will or the ability to rectify the problem".
That surely means that the abuses by certain local authorities might well bring eventual retribution on the heads of many. This was a point that also exercised the noble Lord, Lord Spens. It is on these grounds that we are still unhappy with the agument that this is not the time or the place, because we fear an eventual holocaust from which all local authorities will suffer, most of them quite undeservedly.
That is why we still believe that it is well worth trying to limit the scope for abuse within the present Bill. It was, as I have already said, difficult to define "political causes", and now the amendment of my noble friend Lord Harris reduces the limitation even further by confining it to newspapers. On balance I now favour Amendment No. 2, which simply uses that word. I thought at first that free newspapers might be
1440
preferable on the ground that a broadsheet distributed free of ratepayers' expense would be likely to be of a propagandist nature; but there could also be free broadsheets for leisure activities, and indeed for other purposes. So it seems to me that the word "newspaper", tout court, would cover all eventualities.
Most newspapers, whether free or otherwise, are likely to have some political tinge—in fact they would be rather boring otherwise—and, if assisted from public funds, would be in unfair competition with other realistically priced newspapers, as is the case with the Islington Gazette. If they are put together within the local political apparatus by people who are on or closely associated with the council, and distributed at no charge by volunteers, they are not likely to add significantly to local employment, which we understand is one of the main purposes of the urban development schemes at which the Bill is directed.
In case it should be thought that Islington is the only case in point, there is of course already a free newspaper circulating in Lambeth very much on the lines of that which will be produced in Islington if this Bill is passed in its present form. I understand from Lambeth that that paper is being distributed under Section 142 of the Local Government Act, but that the Lambeth authorities are unhappy that they may not be properly covered by Section 142. If this Bill is passed I think that they will immediately seek to shelter their newspaper—like the Islington Co-operative's newspaper—under Section 137. On all those grounds I think that newspapers of whatever kind are particularly unsuited for Section 137 treatment.
Finally, if my arguments seem to be at all antilibertarian—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accused me of this in relation to a different amendment in Committee—I should like to remind your Lordships that failure to contain this particular abuse at this stage is likely to bring much more anti-libertarian legislation upon local authorities in the not so distant future. On those grounds I support the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, with leave of the House, first may I answer my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and say that perhaps what I said was irrelevant to the amendment, but it was certainly very relevant to urban development grants as a whole, which is really what we are discussing today. I am sure he would welcome the statement I made as to that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear!
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should also like to commend to him the Hansard of the debate on this matter on the Committee stage, if he has not already read it, because at that time I perhaps spoke more fervently than I did today in expressing my agreement with the underlying motivations both behind this amendment and the amendments that were moved on that day by the noble Lord, Lord Spens. It is absolutely true that unless there is some relief from the kind of abuse of Section 137 that is taking place, the pressures build up and then a Government have to look to see what else is being done under Section 137. The danger to local government is that an opportunity to act in this discretionary way becomes restricted, fettered, or whatever.

1441
That is why—and this applies to so many things that are happening in local government today—it has to be said (and I avoided saying it last week, but in view of the concern of my noble friends I should say it so that they know my feelings about it) that this minority of extreme Left-wing dominated councils is bringing much of the reputation of local government into disrepute in a way which appals most people of all political complexions in local government. If they do not stop doing this, then the challenge to Government to take action becomes unanswerable in the end. We must make sure that we do not act precipitately; that we are as patient as we can be; that we try to bring to the notice of those concerned just what they are doing to local government. Perhaps, above all, we must make sure that we can plead to the associations themselves at least to try to speak out and say something about this so that it is not always the opposition to them which has to speak out.
Having said all that, the fact is that for reasons which I explained before this particular Bill is needed quickly. It is to enable these very many good schemes to move on quickly. If we have to wait, if we have amendments and delay, it means that several months could be lost. I do not think that anybody wants that, least of all the movers of this amendment—I know, because I have spoken to them. I simply repeat to my noble friends in particular that we really are alert to what is happening. We are deeply concerned and we will not sit idly by for ever and watch it happen. But I appeal to your Lordships to let this measure go forward now as it is within this Bill and then we can look at it again to see—as we shall—where we can go from there, but on a carefully thought-through basis.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify one point? He will remember that we had a debate on this matter when we were discussing the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill, I think it was. Would he clarify the position of the district auditor in connection with matters of the kind complained of by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, yet again by leave of the House, the fact is that, as the noble Lord pointed out, the advice on this matter to the local authority by their solicitor is that with this Bill they would not be acting ultra vires; they would be, if you like, within their legal right to do something. That is something that concerns us, and that is why we are not pressing it. The point that the noble Lord is making, however, is that it may well work within the boundaries and yet be doing things which really are outside the conventions, if I may put it that way; outside the bounds of (dare I use the word?) morality in the context of what local government stands for, what it has always meant and what many of us hope it will go on meaning. That is what this concern is about.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in replying briefly to this interesting debate I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for two things: first, for having received us at such short notice and for having had with my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock and myself such a helpful discussion yesterday;
1442
secondly, for having come back to the House today at some considerable personal inconvenience from a visit outside London in order to deal with the issues involved in this debate.
I do not think there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and myself and many others in this House, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, save for one thing: that is, that if this Bill is passed in its present form the one thing that we know as a matter of cold certainty is that the London Borough of Islington will within weeks be making these large sums of public money available to the Islington News Co-operative; that is quite clear. They have made their position wholly clear. I would deplore that. I would deplore it because it will be financing a party newspaper. I would deplore it because it could do grievous damage to a small weekly newspaper run by honourable men who have simply had a disagreement with the present majority party of the London Borough of Islington. I think that would be deplorable.
All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is that I have no doubt about his stand on this matter—he has made it clear on a number of occasions—and I regret the fact that my noble friend and I propose to divide the House. We propose to do so because (without, I hope, overstating the case or allowing any form of self-indulgence) we say that not only is there here an issue of propriety so far as public expenditure is concerned but also that a question of press freedom is involved.
Are we really going to have a situation in which politicians can in fact spend monies of these dimensions to support their political friends in this fashion? I think that that would be wholly wrong. Though I regret that we have to do this, and while also recognising that the prospects of success are extremely limited, because these are matters of high principle we believe that it is right to divide the House, and we therefore propose to do so.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 105.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Amherst, E.

Hayter, L.

Amulree, L.

Hunt, L.

Banks, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blyton, L.

Jacobson, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kagan, L.

Byers, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Caccia, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chichester, Bp.

Lawrence, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Ezra, L.

Mayhew, L.

George-Brown, L.

Molson, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Plant, L.

Hampton, L.

Porritt, L.

Hankey, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

Reilly, L.

1443

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Seear, B.

Walston, L.

Somers, L.

Whaddon, L.

Spens, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Willis, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winstanley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ironside, L.

Allerton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Alport, L.

Kilmany, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Bancroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bauer, L.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Mansfield, E.

Berkeley, B.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Bolton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brentford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Minto, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelwood, L.

Moyne, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cockfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Cromartie, E.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Daventry, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Reay, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Donegall, M.

St. Davids, V.

Dormer, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandys, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Savile, L.

Eccles, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Effingham, E.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swansea, L.

Glanusk, L.

Swinfen, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gore-Booth, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ingrow, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
4.13 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I should like to say very quickly a thank you to those who have taken part in the discussions on this short Bill. I am sorry it was all done at such relatively short notice, but the need was for that, as has been expressed so often. It is a good thing that we have aired this matter at some length. I hope that good
1444
results will come forth from it. If they do, it will have been worthwhile. I am grateful to those who have taken part, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I shall be brief but we on this side of the Chamber would not wish to impede the passage of the Bill through the House. We see it as an attempt by the Government to ensure that local authorities do not fall foul of the law when making grants involving land acquisitions. We see it as an attempt to help local authorities still further to assist industry, as the Government are doing with the excellent urban development grant-aided schemes. We also welcome particularly the information which the noble Lord has given about the increased aid which is being given. Speaking personally, I am grateful that the West Midlands have been included in those extended schemes.
The problems of the inner cities are very serious and have been enumerated many times in this House. Unemployment in our cities is of the greatest concern because it is in what were known as our large industrial cities that the greatest unemployment is now taking place. Therefore we hope it will be sufficient for the next step forward by local authorities. We shall have to wait to see whether it makes any impact on the unemployment figures, but it is true to say that all the local authorities concerned will be looking forward to a greater push to try to help the unemployment situations in their areas. If that impetus takes place we shall all welcome it.
The Opposition hopes that any possible cutbacks which the Government might be thinking of making in the autumn regarding local government spending will not be at the expense of this type of expenditure. We welcome the proposals in the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed.

Public Transport in London
4.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"I am today publishing a White Paper on Public Transport in London. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"The White Paper sets out our proposals for fundamental changes in the way in which public transport in London is organised and financed. The present system has served the travelling public and the transport operators badly. Since 1970 costs in London Transport have risen way beyond inflation; public subsidy has risen thirteenfold, and fares have doubled in real terms. Last year the all-party Transport Select Committee unanimously recommended that the improvement of transport facilities in London should be regarded as a matter of national priority, and that responsibility for transport should be moved from the Greater London Council.

1445
"The Government have accepted this need. As the first step we intend to re-form the London Transport Executive into a new body on the pattern of a holding company with separate subsidiaries for bus and Underground services. This new body—London Regional Transport—in addition to control of these subsidiaries, will have a wider responsibility for securing efficient public transport for London. It will be required to encourage other private or publicly-owned operators to provide services where these can be offered more efficiently and cheaply. I shall myself establish new liaison arrangements between British Rail and London Regional Transport to secure the maximum benefits from closer co-operation between them. Our proposals also include a reserve provision for London Regional Transport to take over responsibility for grant allocations to British Rail's London commuter services at a later stage, if experience shows the need for it.
"I would emphasise three points. While the Government's proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council would in any case have required new arrangements for transport, these proposals are right in transport terms. They will end the inefficient arrangements under which British Rail and London Transport serve two different masters. The key elements in our proposals are to get the different public transport operators working together and to encourage the provision of new, competitive services.
"London's ratepayers will be protected from seesawing rate demands for public transport. London Regional Transport will instead receive a grant direct from the Government and a compensating adjustment will be made in the financial support arrangements for London.
"Responsibility for granting concessionary fares will in future rest with the London boroughs. The Government will be consulting representatives of the boroughs to discuss how best to continue the operation of the scheme.
"These new arrangements are designed to improve efficiency and to get a better deal for the London traveller. I am publishing this White Paper at the earliest opportunity in this new Session as a basis for consultation with interested parties on the details of our proposals. I shall then be able to take such views into account in preparing the legislation which I hope to bring before the House in the autumn."
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Lord for repeating this Statement. Naturally, I have not seen the White Paper to which the Statement refers. There will be a general desire to have the best possible system of public transport for London, but I must remind the House that the transport systems of most capitals in Europe have far greater revenue support than does transport in Greater London. The 1983 Transport Bill, on which your Lordships spent a considerable time, made provision for financing transport in Greater London and the metropolitan counties, and provision for annual reports spread over periods of three years. It seems as if your Lordships wasted a considerable amount of
1446
time in the light of this Statement. Why do the Government not give their own Bill and their own proposals the opportunity to work out?
This Statement is a further sorry blow at local government. It seems that the Government's only answer to problems such as transport is that the Secretary of State knows best. Reference is made in the Statement to the recommendations of the Commons Select Committee on Transport. That Select Committee also recommended that a new regional transport body should comprise representatives from the local authorities concerned, the GLC, London boroughs and the shire district coucils. Why have the Government, in their Statement, made no reference to that? How will the new transport body be appointed? Will the members be appointed directly by the Secretary of State?
The Statement refer to separate subsidies for buses and Underground—and this at a time when London Transport and the GLC have only recently started to develop an integrated fares and tickets scheme between Tube and bus. The Statement refers to the introduction of private operators. With all due respect, when will the Government learn that private operators will only come in on profitable routes at the most profitable time, and that any intervention must have some repercussions on other services run by the authority? It is proposed that the Secretary of State should take over liaison arrangements between British Rail and London Transport. Presumably, again there will be no local authority input into such integration talks.
I would ask the Minister whether the Government are not aware that there is a British Rail/London Transport Liaison Group which, only in November 1982, published a statement, Working Together, in order to proceed with steps for integration. The Secretary of State, in his Statement, criticises present arrangements under which British Rail and London Transport serve different masters. I have not seen the White Paper, but I must ask what master the British Rail commuter services will now serve. Will it be British Rail or the Secretary of State, or the new authority? Then the Statement says that London regional transport will have a grant from the Government. We must look at this in the light of the provisions of the 1983 Transport Bill and of Government statements in the course of deliberations upon that Bill, when the Government rejected every consideration of social benefit in connection with public transport. If that is to be the Government's attitude, then a policy of grant from central Government must mean deterioration of transport services in London as a whole.
The Statement refers to concessionary fares becoming the responsibility of the London boroughs. Does this mean that there could be different schemes of concessionary fares in the different boroughs, or does it mean that the present, generally appreciated concessionary fares scheme could be weakened in order to meet the desires of the minority of the London boroughs? We regard this Statement as an unhappy one for local government, and we shall watch very carefully consultations upon it and any legislation arising.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I thank the Minister for the Statement, but, also like Lord Underhill, I fear that I do not altogether welcome it. As he said, we spent a considerable amount of time last year on the Transport Bill, when I remember that the Government worked very hard to get it through without amendment. May I say that I hope that opportunity will be given not only for consultation (which is referred to in the Statement and in the White Paper itself) but for a debate on the White Paper before the Government move into hasty legislation on this; because it is going to be contentious. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put his finger on a number of items that will be contentious, even if I do not necessarily agree with the direction in which all his points lead.
I also note the point of the recognition in the White Paper and within the Statement that transport in London extends outside Greater London as it is presently constituted. The references to British Rail Southern Region are encouraging, although the mechanisms by which British Rail activities are going to be integrated seem a little mysterious. I am worried that, as Lord Underhill said, this is another case where the Secretary of State is going to take everything unto himself; because the only way that I can see the thing working at the moment, having had a very brief look at the White Paper, is that the Secretary of State will dispose and there will be some sort of quango beneath that. Certainly, from these Benches, we had looked for a more direct democratic control of a Greater London passenger transport authority.
The item on concessionary fares seems to be confusing. We are going to have a hotch-potch of different types of concessionary fares, it seems, if the individual boroughs are going to be allowed to go their own way. It seems to me, on a brief reading of the Statement and the White Paper, that, on the one hand, we have centralisation and, on the other hand, we have a sort of fragmentation of the system. I hope that we can have some assurance that there will be plenty of time to consider these matters before we finally come to legislation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, for their remarks with regard to this Statement. If I could respond to a number of points which I see as particularly pertinent, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the waste of time during the passage of the 1983 Bill. Noble Lords will recall that that Act will still apply to the metropolitan counties. London is different. The Select Committee acknowledged that it was different. Some 1·3 million people come into the centre of London at peak hours every working day. They come from as far afield as Milton Keynes in the north, Brighton in the south, Reading in the west and Colchester in the east. This is a huge area. The Select Committee recognised that it was of a totally different nature; so I do not think the 1983 Act was a complete waste of time.
The Select Committee came up with certain proposals to which Lord Underhill referred. That was their mix. The Government gave careful consideration to the Select Committee's report and concluded that a different mix was desirable for this transport system in
1448
a unique capital city. That mix is reflected in the White Paper which is for discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked who is going to appoint the London regional transport body. The Secretary of State will appoint the London regional transport body. As far as private operators are concerned, there are a number of ways in which private operators can be encouraged further to serve the needs of London transport users. It is not only in the operation of routes, although that will certainly be one of the spheres in which we shall be encouraging private operators.
So far as liaison with British Rail and London Transport is concerned, the arrangments will be chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It will undoubtedly help to get a much closer arrangement between these two bodies than there has been hitherto when there have been rather more informal arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to "two masters". There will be one master: the Secretary of State. That is his term, not my term. The grant would come from the London Regional Transport making their bid, as do other pubic sector bodies. That bid would then be considered by the Secretary of State, discussions would take place and a grant would be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, spoke about the area of influence, and I think I have answered him on that point. So far as this being a quango is concerned, it will not be a quango. London Regional Transport have a firm remit, and, even were they to become more closely involved with British Rail, that would not constitute anything like a quango.
The noble Lord ask about democratic control. As regards that, I can think of no better democracy than Parliament itself, and since the Greater London Council's ward members' areas are covered almost precisely by London Members of Parliament, and since London Regional Transport will be responsible to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament, I suggest that there is an even greater area of democracy.
On the question of democracy, the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, both asked about consessionary fares. These fares, as both noble Lords will know, are the responsibility of local authorities and the cost is met in part from the rate support grant. That will continue. Of course it is hoped that all boroughs will come together with a common scheme, but that is up to them. It is certainly an area of local democracy which local people and the local boroughs should be able to satisfy perhaps more adequately than central Government.
4.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for having repeated the Statement made in another place, but is he aware that, if informed discussion is going to take place on these proposals—and I have only had time for the most cursory glance at the White Paper—it will have to be on a good deal better basis from the Government than any information we have either from the White Paper or the Statement at the moment?

1449
For example, is he aware that the essence of what is being proposed is to take back the funding to the Secretary of State, exactly as it was taken away 14 years ago? Will he recall—I am sure he will—that it was the Government who were so anxious to get rid of the financial control of London Transport because at that time it was obvious to everybody that public transport was no longer going to be able to run at a profit in our major cities? Again, will he recall that the evidence of that was that the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone, (as he became) was then able to hold the Government to ransom by insisting that all the old London Transport's capital debts were written off before the Greater London Council would take control of the finances of London Transport? Is the noble Lord really saying that the Government want to get back into the position where central Government will have to foot the inevitable bill for public transport in London?
If his answer to these questions is in the affirmative, then will he please take us line by line through paragraph 19 of the White Paper, which seems to be the essence of the matter? It simply states baldly that there will have to he arrangements made for the financing of public transport: first of all there will have to be bridging arrangements and then:
"arrangements to maintain the relative position between London's ratepayers and those elsewhere who continue to contribute directly to their local public transport services".
Will he tell the House what that means? Unless the Government can explain those arrangements to the people, there cannot be meaningful consultations and this will not be a true White Paper for discussion.
Finally, the noble Lord in his reply said that there would be local democracy through London Members of Parliament. Would he not agree that the White Paper refers to British Rail as the analogy? Would he not also agree that there is not the opportunity, other than possibly in the form of adjournment debates, for democratic control over British Rail under existing arrangements? The analogy therefore breaks down and London MPs will not have the opportunity to represent Londoners as regards the running of their public transport system as they have done in the past.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said at the outset that he had not had time really to study the White Paper—and of course I recognise that he has had a cursory view. I feel quite sure that when he has studied it very much more carefully he will find that many of the answers to his questions lie therein, and there will be adequate opportunity for consultation with everybody who has an interest between now and when my right honourable friend puts legislation before the House in the autumn, as is said in the Statement.
I do recall the situation some 14 years ago, although I must confess that I was not particularly interested at that time. The noble Lord will recall that, prior to 1969, London Transport worked under the Ministry of Transport. It then went to the GLC under the 1969 London Transport Act, and that was a Labour Act. It was at that time, so I was reminded earlier today, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—not then the Prime Minister, of course—said, "Oh, I shall want to see if it works." My Lords, it does not work;
1450
and that is exactly why these proposals contained in the White Paper have been put before us today.
So far as paragraph 19 is concerned, I do not feel it is perhaps right on these occasions to read out entire paragraphs to the House. The White Paper is available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us whose experience goes back to being at the Ministry of Transport under the old system, when London Transport was answerable equally with other transport undertakings to the Ministry of Transport, are delighted to hear the Statement he has just made? Is he aware that many of us think that the transfer of London Transport to the Greater London Council was a very great mistake and that there are very great practical and administrative advantages in London Transport being answerable to the same higher authority (the Department of Transport) as are the other transport undertakings in the country, such as the railway and coach services? Is he therefore aware that many of us are prima facie delighted that this change is now being made?
Would my noble friend clear up one question of fact which I did not wholly understand from his Statement? I apologise if that failure was mine. Do I understand that fares on London Transport will now be settled in the same way as those on British Rail, under the supervision of the Secretary of State for Transport? Also, is my noble friend aware that on general principles of administration, quite apart from the fact that the present GLC has demonstrated its incompetence to run a fried fish shop, there is an overwhelming case for what he proposes and that many of us hope to see this change in effect as soon as possible in order that the people of London may have an efficient transport system and a lower rate burden?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. All noble Lords will recognise that he has unique experience in this area, covering, indeed, a very long time. I am glad that both my noble friend and other noble Lords expressed delight that at long last we are going to take London's transport system away from the political arena and provide a national service for a national city. We looked at the transport systems in a number of continental countries—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—and found that they did not fit the unique situation in London. I believe my noble friend will agree that it is a unique situation.
Fares will be a matter for London Regional Transport, but they will have to be related to the resources they receive. With both London Regional Transport and British Rail liaising directly with the Secretary of State, there will be very much greater opportunity for improving the through-ticket system: interchanges and things of that nature. There was no way in which that could happen when there were two authorities. There is no doubt in the mind of the Government that within a reasonably short period of time these arrangements will provide a very much more satisfactory London transport system.
Lord Diamond: My Lords—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord to answer my question about the possibility of a debate on the White Paper before legislation.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I personally cannot do so. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, recognises that the usual channels will have to be used.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I rose at pecisely the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to ask precisely the same question, knowing that the noble Lord the Minister would not be able to answer it, but I still propose to pursue it because it is quite impossible to deal with a matter so serious as this on the basis of question and answer on a Government Statement. We are most grateful to the Minister for making the Statement. It is highly appropriate that a Statement should be made at the time that a White Paper of this importance is being introduced. Clearly we have had no opportunity to read the White Paper. Clearly there can be more than two views.
If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had continued in one of the offices which he fulfilled with such distinction, namely, that of Chief Secretary, at the time that this transfer was made, when I happened to be Chief Secretary, his views would have been slightly less precise than they are this afternoon. In short, there is a series of very important issues. I realise that the Minister cannot give the assurance which I am seeking, but I very much hope that others will take the point that it is quite impossible for this House sensibly and seriously to consider these very important issues purely on the basis of question and answer now, and that there ought to be an opportunity in Government time for a full discussion before legislation is finalised.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I meant no discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in answering the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, just as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, rose. I am sure he will recognise that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that a matter so important as this can hardly be well satisfied by a question and answer session. We have now had some 27 minutes of that, and we have not got too far down that particular road. I can give no other answer than that which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. However, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will recognise that my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House is here. I have little doubt that he has taken on board the seriousness of the noble Lord's point.

EC Steel Council
4.44 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about yesterday's meeting of the European Community Steel Council.
1452
"My honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry and I attended the Council.
"The central issue was whether to prolong the arrangements made under Article 58 of the European Steel and Coal Community for mandatory production quotas. Ministers were agreed that in order to provide the Community with market stability, it was desirable to prolong the quota arrangements to the end of 1985.
"The Italian Ministers, however, representing a caretaker Government, felt unable to impose such a long term legally binding obligation on future Governments. Because of that the Council's formal decision was to prolong the arrangements to 31st January 1984, with a unanimous declaration of political intent to agree a further renewal to the end of 1985.
"The Ministers accepted the need for member states to use this period of market stability to restructure their steel industries, in accordance with the Commission's decisions of 29th June. Those decisions recognised the British argument that we had made the major contribution to reducing European steel capacity and that it is now the turn of others to match those achievements.
"The new production quotas also recognise what the British steel industry has already achieved. Our quota is to be increased by 380,000 tonnes of steel per year, and that will benefit both the British Steel Corporation and the private steel companies.
"Ministers also agreed to greater flexibility for private producers who face difficulties as a result of severe quotas. That should help our wire rod sector particularly. We also agreed to more effective monitoring and policing of the quota system.
"The commission will apply its price rules more firmly so as to tackle unfairly low priced imports from other member states.
"Another benefit to Britain is that we have been able to safeguard British steel's exports of heavy steel sections, which might otherwise have been cut down by quotas.
"While in Brussels I raised the Port Talbot investment project with Vice-president Davignon, and I am pleased to tell the House that he gave me a categorical assurance that approval for it would be given at the end of this week.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government have little love for market cartels, but there is little doubt that a failure to reach agreement yesterday on the quota regime would have led to damaging uncertainty in the steel market. I believe that the outcome of the Council is a very satisfactory one, which will help both British Steel's progress towards financial viability and our private sector steel industry".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement being made in another place. Although it was due to be made at some convenient time after 3.30, I should perhaps inform the Government that the Statement did not come into

1453
our hands until 22 minutes past three. Seven or eight minutes does not really give adequate time for us to refer to the data in our possession relating to the various matters which are raised in the Statement.
We should like to express our appreciation to the Government that on this occasion, at any rate, they have dug in their heels. And, if I may say so, high time, too. There have been many occasions over the last three years when from this side of the House, both here and in another place, the question has been raised as to why, although we ourselves have complied with the requirements laid down in the original plan, our fellow member states on the continent have not behaved with the same alacrity. We should have greatly preferred to slow down the process in this country—thus avoiding much unemployment—in order to match the progress that has been made in other member states. During the past 10 years, 100,000 jobs have been lost in the British steel industry as a result of conforming to a plan which has reduced our capacity by some 65 per cent. as against a loss of capacity in France of approximately 47 per cent. In Italy, which was also committed under the original plan to make reductions, steel production has increased by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years—this is despite Italy's commitment to reduce. Apparently, Italy has now reduced capacity by a mere 2 per cent.
So while we are appreciative of the stand that has at last been taken on this matter, we must recall how correct we were during the past three years in drawing the attention of the Government to the necessity of being far firmer than we have evidently been in the Council of Ministers in the past. We welcome the fact that some extra 380,000 tonnes have been added to the quota—but doubtless the noble Lord will know that that figure represents approximately 4 per cent. of the output we have lost since 1979. It is welcome, nevertheless.
We note that the Commission will apply its price rules more firmly in the future. We are very grateful that the Commission are at last going to behave more firmly. Let us hope that the firmness is universally applied and is not accepted by only one or, at the most, two states. Great Britain is very often accused of being non-cummunautaire, as I believe the term is. It is high time that some of those who accuse Britain of not co-operating with the European Community started to pick the beam out of their own eyes. We are very grateful indeed that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has taken a stand.
The Statement refers also to the fact that we have been able to safeguard British Steel exports of heavy steel sections. We are very pleased about that—but can the noble Lord, while he is about it, inform us what has happened about the duty of 49·3 per cent. which the United States were imposing on certain exports of specialised steel to the United States? This does not appear to be one of the first canons of "Reaganomics" so favoured in Conservative circles, which I believe are addicted to the principle of free competition.
Finally, as to fines, can the noble Lord the Minister give some indication of the efforts being made for the Community—which is proverbially short of funds—to obtain the £50 million fine recently imposed on the German Government because of their breach of the regulations relating to steel? Is that fine being
1454
enforced? Will the Community be able to collect it—or will Germany, in common with the Italian Government, flout Community rules when it suits them? These are matters about which the British public, who are becoming increasingly disenchanted with certain aspects of EEC matters, would like to be informed.
We note also that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has been given a categorical assurance by Vice-President Davignon, no less, that the Port Talbot investment project will be approved by him. My immediate riposte to that is, that is mighty good of him! How much longer are we to subject valid projects in the United Kingdom, designed to assist the British economy and to gradually regain the goal of full employment, to Vice-President Davignon's entitlement to veto them? Had such an assurance been forthcoming from the whole Commission, as distinct from a mere member of it, it would have been more satisfactory. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to give a suitably robust response when attitudes of that kind are taken by individual commissioners.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement, although I support the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in what he had to say as to its timing. We have always acknowledged the need for rationalisation of this country's basic industries, including steel, so long as due regard is paid to the effect on the people involved. Moreover, although we have no greater love than the Govenment for cartels, as good Europeans we recognise that problems of the kind which have now arisen are best dealt with on a Community basis.
We naturally welcome—as did the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—the decision to increase current United Kingdom output by 380,000 tonnes per year. As the Statement says, this represents well-justified recognition of the major contribution we have made to reducing European steel capacity. Indeed, in terms of numbers employed, our contribution has been, relatively, even greater. It remains the position, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has already said, that the effect of the decision which is now being taken will be to increase our capacity by only 4 per cent. compared with earlier reductions of nearly 20 per cent.
I have just a few questions to ask the noble Lord the Minister. Allowing for the relatively greater overmanning that earlier existed in the United Kingdom, are the Government now satisfied with the position following the latest agreement, or do they feel that if quota arrangements are extended before 1985, still more needs to be done to achieve an equitable outcome as between ourselves and our European partners?
The Statement refers also to more effective monitoring and policing of the quota system. Can the noble Lord the Minister tell us in a little more detail how this is to be achieved, to ensure that countries such as Italy do not in practice produce more than their newly allotted quota for steel? Reference is also made to the firmer application of price rules so as to tackle unfairly low priced imports from other member

1455
states. Here, I should like simply to echo the question already asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to what further action is contemplated by the Government to ensure that the United States do not, contrary to GATT agreement, continue to impede British Steel exports to that country.
Finally, is the noble Lord the Minister able to give any preliminary indication of the new options that will now be open to the British Steel Corporation and to the private sector of the industry in terms of increases in capacity at specific plants—other than those in the rod sector, to which the Statement refers?
4.59 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lord, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Rochester, for their replies to my right honourable friend's Statement. I must apologise to both noble Lords about the Statement being somewhat late. I believe it was drafted while my right honourable friend was travelling back from the Steel Council in the very early hours of this morning. Although it did come very late, fortunately we are taking it about one and a half hours after it came into the hands of both noble Lords. Nonetheless, the noble Lords' remarks are valid as a general matter of principle and I will, of course, draw what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Both noble Lords agreed that in this country we have made very considerable progress on restructuring —far in excess of the progress which has been made in other member states. I think it is worth my making the point in reply that the decisions of the commission, recognising our argument that we have made this major contribution and that it is now the turn of other member states to match ours, will now require the Germans to contribute 22 per cent. of total capacity cuts at the end of the structural cuts, which of course should be in 1985; the Italians to make 21·7 per cent. of the total cuts; the French to make 19·9 per cent.; and at the end of the day the United Kingdom's share, even with an additional capacity cut of 500,000 tonnes, which was agreed yesterday, will only be, in comparison, 16·9 per cent. I think that really is a recognition of what this country has done.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about the policy of the United States. I am afraid I have nothing to add to what was said by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place on 20th July. This was not a matter which was discussed at the Steel Council yesterday. It is a matter in which, on behalf of the Community, the European Commission has already taken up with the United States Administration the difficulty presented by American policy. The commission propose to seek consultation in GATT and to raise the issue in the OECD, and the Foreign Affairs Council strongly support the commission's proposals in this particular matter. I am afraid I cannot take that any further today.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked me about arrangements to enforce a fine so far as German
1456
production was concerned. My information is that that was a penalty imposed on a German company, and the commission is still seeking to collect the money in that particular case.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, finally asked: how long are we to be subject to what in effect is a veto decision by the commission so far as important developments at Port Talbot and other steel plants in this country are concerned? My answer to that is, of course, that, as my right honourable friend's original Statement said, the Ministers in the Steel Council agreed that in order to provide the Community with market stability it is desirable to prolong the quota arrangements, and there is a need for member states to use this period of market stability to restructure their steel industries. Therefore, under the state aids decision of 1981, under which the restructuring powers of the commission are used, and under Article 58 of the Treaty, under which the quota powers of the commission are used, we in this country shall continue to abide by what is decided in the Steel Council and by the decisions of the commission, believing that, as our record has shown, if we do what we believe is necessary so far as restructuring quotas are concerned then at the end of the day we will receive our reward. Indeed, we have done so on this particular occasion, as is proved by the statistics which I read out earlier comparing the structural cut which has to be made in this country with the structural cuts that are going to be required from the Federal Republic of Germany, from Italy and from France.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about over-manning and the Government's view as a result of the latest agreement. The answer is that this agreement for an additional quota will, we hope, safeguard (but it will not increase) jobs in the steel industry. The noble Lord asked me about the monitoring of the agreement, the policing of the agreement, and how this will be done. This is a matter for the commission, and I am advised that the details of this are not yet settled.
The noble Lord also asked me about any preliminary indications, as he put it, of new options for the steel industry, and I think my final word must be on this. The only thing I can say is that we have this additional quota. It will be split, I am advised, 240,000 tonnes to BSC and 140.000 tonnes to the private sector. I believe this is going to help the British Steel Corporation, and I am very glad that it is also going to help some of the hard-pressed private companies.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in putting a point to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the Statement, I would declare an interest as I am chairman of the British Iron and Steel Consumers Council. I should like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in welcoming the increase in the quota, which I think will be of benefit not only to producers but also to users. I was particularly pleased, however, to hear that there is a likelihood that the Port Talbot investment will now go ahead.
I was down in Port Talbot a few days ago and I saw the very great success they have achieved at the strip mill there with the continuous casting process. If any of your Lordships should be in the vicinity of Port Talbot in the near future I should like to recommend,

1457
as they do in the Guide Michelin, that you make a little detour and have a look at the quite remarkable achievement of this continuous slab of steel coming out of this continuous casting process. The investment which is now projected, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, is to replace the fairly aged hot rolling mill which is alongside the continuous slabbing mill. This will undoubtedly add considerably to the efficiency of the whole operation.
The point I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister is this. Now that British Steel have been through this very substantial rationalisation process, and now that they have shown that they can introduce investment which is really worthwhile, could he tell us whether the Government will he encouraging them to look around and see what further investments of this sort can be made elsewhere within the corporation, and indeed in the private sector, in order not only to provide additional and much needed employment but also to increase still further the undoubted levels of efficiency already achieved by the British steel industry?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his intervention. I think my answer to the final point the noble Lord put to me is that the future of individual plants of the British Steel Corporation must depend on the market and on the performance of the plant. It is in the light of those two criteria that investment decisions will be planned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, may I briefly follow on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and say how much we welcome the statement about the Port Talbot investment, for which we have been waiting for quite a considerable time. There will be satisfaction and relief, especially in South Wales, at this news, because it gives a guarantee of production into the indefinite future in an area which is dependent on steel.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to enlarge on what he has said about employment. My noble friend referred, quite rightly, to the de-manning which has taken place, and over the last few years the steel industry has suffered more than any other from redundancies. Could the noble Lord be quite categoric in saying that as a result of the present decision, there will be no further redundancies, and could he say whether it is possible that there might be increased employment in Port Talbot as a result of the investment he has just announced?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is very much my hope that there will be no question of any further de-manning as a result of the present decisions made by the Steel Council. But as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, my understanding is that as a result of the increased quota there should be preservation of jobs, but not an increase in jobs.
I absolutely understand the concern which prompts the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to ask his question and I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. In the very final analysis, of course, it must be for the British Steel Corporation itself to decide upon specific manning policies.

Finance Bill
5.10 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. As your Lordships will be well aware, this is, in effect, the second part of the Finance Bill originally introduced in March to give effect to the Budget proposals. When the election was announced it was important to enact the Finance Bill without delay. This could only be done by agreement. The Opposition refused to agree to implementation of all the tax reductions then proposed. As a result the Bill was truncated. We pledged ourselves in our election manifesto to restore the tax reductions the Labour Party tried to take away. This we are now doing.
The kernel of the tax reductions proposed in the Budget was an increase of 14 per cent. in all the income tax thresholds. This did not in any way confer a special benefit on the higher paid. On the contrary, the personal allowances which determine the point at which people begin to pay tax and the thresholds for the higher rate bands were increased by the same percentage amount. The present Bill restores the increases in the higher rate thresholds which were removed from the original Bill in the circumstances I have described. The threshold for the investment income surcharge is similarly being increased.
The limit for mortgage interest relief is being increased from £25,000 to £30,000. The deletion of this proposal from the original Bill reflected the Labour Party's opposition to home ownership—a matter also not overlooked during the election campaign. The present limit was set by the then Labour Government in 1974. Had it been increased in line with prices generally it would now stand at £80,000. As it is, the Bill proposed increasing the limit to £30,000 only.
The Bill also provides for an increase in the profits limits for the small companies rate of corporation tax from £90,000 to £100,000 and from £225,000 to £500,000. This benefits many thousands of small and medium-sized companies and improves incentives to expansion.
Finally, as far as the main provisions of the Bill are concerned, provision is made for an increase in the threshold and rate bands for capital transfer tax slightly above the statutory indexation requirement. This provides a more sensible gradation of the rate scale, primarily benefiting small estates.
The total Revenue cost of the measures in the Bill is £236 million this year and £403 million in a full year. This is not in any sense a new or additional cost: these are Budget measures, and their costs were taken fully into account in the Budget arithmetic.
It was suggested by the Opposition in another place—and the same criticism may well be voiced here—that the measures on pubic expenditure announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th July would be unnecessary if the present Bill were abandoned. This is a wholly mistaken argument. The present Bill gives statutory effect to tax reductions which have been in force since the beginning of the present tax year. To attempt to claw them hack now would be a selective

1459
increase in taxation falling not on the very wealthy but primarily on professional and managerial people in the middle income groups, including small businesses. As a practical matter a substantial proportion of the tax could not be recouped this year: so that abandoning the Bill would make little or no contribution to our present problem. That problem, indeed, is essentially a public expenditure problem. Expenditure has been running ahead of the totals set out in the February White Paper. It was necessary to rein it back on track.
This argument illustrates very clearly the fundamental difference in approach between ourselves as Government and the Labour Party as Opposition. We believe in restraint in public expenditure and lower taxation. The Labour Party believe in unrestrained public expenditure and high taxation. The electorate have delivered their verdict on that and I have no doubt will do so again.
There is another aspect of the Bill to which I should refer. The Bill does not contain all the matters which had to be dropped from the original Finance Bill. The present Bill deals with those important matters which need to be settled before the Recess. Because of the constraints of the parliamentary timetable it has not been possible to include other changes which would require detailed parliamentary consideration. Thus certain of the oil taxation provisions of the original Finance Bill will now be contained in a special Oil Taxation Bill in the autumn. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in another place yesterday by way of Written Answer how we intend to proceed on these matters not included in the present Bill.
The Bill before your Lordships, therefore, is a short practical measure which implements the policy announced in March and honours our election commitment. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Cockfield.)
5.18 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having reiterated substantially the contents of the speech that he made shortly before the election which dealt with the Government's determination to proceed ahead with those parts of the Finance Bill which it was not possible to get through before the election.
The House will, in a day or so, be embarking on a well-earned recess. I feel the utmost sense of benevolence towards the noble Lord: so much so that I shall try to help him to prevent his obvious mastery of metaphysics from protecting him from the realities of life. The noble Lord has been kind enough to refer to the Government's expenditure plans and I wish to refer not only to the Finance Bill now before your Lordships for purely technical reasons but also to the Finance Bill which preceded it: in other words, to take them as a whole and, indeed, to take the Government's expenditure plans in conjunction with what the noble Lord has just said.
The reality of the matter, no matter how the noble Lord's quadratic equations work out, is that the rich
1460
are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. One of the matters that we ought to consider during the time for reflection that we may have during the ensuing 12 weeks is whether this continued trend—and it has been a trend ever since the noble Lord initially came into office in May 1979—has been exactly for the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer.
Sometimes I think when the noble Lord refers to the Government's determination in accordance with their various election manifestoes to reduce taxation, that they never have value added tax in mind. Value added tax, for some mysterious reason, although it is settled in the normal currency of the realm, goes into the Exchequer and is in fact spent by the Government, is itself a tax. Therefore when one refers to reducing taxation, value added tax has to be taken into account. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the burden of tax that has been inflicted on the country since the Government came into office has been very considerably increased, particularly also if one takes into account the increase in national insurance contributions—on the employees' side entirely, with corresponding reductions in the employers' contribution. These things are the realities.
It sometimes is not grasped that a very significant part of public expenditure is in the hands of a very large number—some millions of the population—as part of the social wage. It is a way in which this country over many decades now has sought to iron out some of the grosser—almost obscene—disparities of income and capital resources as between individuals by devoting part of its taxation to various social measures that are in the main designed to benefit a large, but again limited, section of the population. Notably among those of course is the National Health Service and also the various social security provisions.
Mathematically, the noble Lord is able to explain—as indeed his right honourable and honourable friends do so from time to time in another place—that overall expenditure on various social services has gone up by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. more this year than it was last year and therefore how good they are being in maintaining, and perhaps slightly increasing, expenditure as a whole on various social services—part of which goes as social wage—in comparison with their predecessors. What the noble Lord neglects to say. and what perhaps the country at the moment does not realise, is that precisely owing to the extra £8; billion that now has to be spent—or is the total impact of expenditure, bearing in mind the shortfalls of revenue as well as expenditure—on unemployment benefit, the whole of the social security provisions have become very severely strained.
Moreover, as was pointed out by the Committee of your Lordships' House which dealt with the question of unemployment, in sharp contradistinction to the contentions of the Government, the effect on health of unemployment in this country has been such that the resources of the health service itself have been grossly overstrained and subjected to far more strain in monetary cost terms than the perhaps slightly increased cash resources that have been devoted to it.
For a very large sector of the population the social wage, on which a very large number of the population rely when they come to consider their total standard of

1461
life, has suffered a severe diminution under this Government and has borne very heavily upon them. When this is taken in conjunction with the particular form of wage control that is now in force, then it will be seen that what I said is perfectly true: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer so far as normal wage earnings are concerned.
The Government from time to time—and, as I see more recently, the CBI—have been urging, ostensibly for the sake of the country, that wage demands should be moderated and kept down. Perhaps it would be wise and a little more fitting if those who made the wage restriction demands—the keeping down of percentage increases below the rate of inflation and matters of that kind—bore in mind that the example is not invariably set by those who make the proposals. Many of them refer from time to time in terms of the utmost eloquence to the sacrifices that have been made in this country over the past four years. What is for sure is that they have not made the sacrifices. Those have been made by others.
I have a list in front of me of a fair selection of the various pay increases of the top paid during the past year. I have the names here but it would not be appropriate if I read out to the House the names of the recipients or indeed of their companies. Their salaries over the previous year in some cases show increases of 78 per cent., 76 per cent., 73 per cent., 39 per cent., 37 per cent., 30 per cent., and so on. I can supply the names. The increases have not been paid to people earning £50 a week but to people earning between £30,000 and £50,000 a year.
Is this right? Is this really what we want to see? Surely it is agreed that we are in a state of recession. Opinions as to the reasons for going into that recession, and the Government's responsibility for the whole or part of it, are a matter for argument which I do not propose to enter into here. But, if we are in such straits, is it morally right that the burdens should be so unevenly borne? Is it something that we can live with as individuals within our own consciences? Can we say that it is right that in such a period the rich should become richer and the poor should become poorer?
Your Lordships may have seen recently some features concerning the working of the agricultural policy in the United Kingdom. Your Lordships may recall a feature on one of the broadcast media which showed a farmer, replete with a few thousand acres, boasting that, owing to the EEC intervention in agriculture and the automatic purchase of the cereals he was producing, it was a licence to print money. If one looked at The Times for the same day one found a description of a nurses' home in the United Kingdom showing conditions of squalor which ought not to be endured by anybody, let alone the nursing profession to whom tributes are so often paid. Is this the kind of society that we want? Is it justifiable that this should take place? Is it something with which society is to be condemned to live for four or five years? What kind of cohesion is there to be within society if this trend continues? Is it right that it should continue? Should there not be an endeavour to make equal, or comparable, the sacrifices that have to be made by various sections of the community?
If there are 7 million people on supplementary
1462
benefit, is it not perhaps time that others who are very comfortably placed made their appropriate contribution, instead of growing ever richer in a country where fear of unemployment is beginning to become the dominant factor in determining wage levels? The rich and powerful, who are the people whom the party opposite really represents, have no need to fear: they have both their capital and their income.
As your Lordships know, we are getting perilously near to George Orwell's 1984, and it is interesting to see that we are already getting "double think". We are already beginning to express sacrifices in two terms. The Government have two types of expenditure. The expenditure of which they approve and which they want the country to approve, is always seemingly minimised by reference to its percentage of the gross domestic product. Your Lordships will recall that when it was decided to award Lazard Freres £1,500,000 for the benefit of Mr. MacGregor's services the £1,500.000 was not called taxpayers' money. It was said—which was correct—that it represented only 0.0028929 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Yet when it comes to a question of, for instance, providing books for schools—and at the moment there are in the country thousands of schools in which pupils have to share books—the expenditure is not expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. It is expressed as perhaps £20,000 or £30,000, and the Minister gets up at the Box and very much regrets that owing to the very considerable shortage of funds—and it is taxpayers' money—it is not prudent that the sums should be spent. So educational standards are rapidly declining in this country.
When it is pointed out that approximately £1 million is payable in respect of each inhabitant of the Falklands, arising from our obligations there and from the principles for which we fought, it is said that this is approved expenditure. So it is immediately expressed not in terms of £1 million per inhabitant, but as 0.0019 per cent. of gross domestic product. This is "double think".
The most important cuts of all that are in prospect, about which the noble Lord knows only too well, are those relating to the National Health Service. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to recall that I was in another place when the National Health Service Act was passed in 1947, and I am amazed by some of the folklore that has since grown about it. On listening to noble Lords opposite, and sometimes members of another place, one would almost think that the NHS was their invention, and that they are sworn to protect it. I remember those days very well indeed. I sat through the debates in the House of Commons, and I was in the Ministry of Health at the time. I must tell your Lordships—this can be proved by reference to the records—that in the Commons the Conservative Party fought the Bill on Second Reading, it fought it clause by clause and line by line in Committee, it fought it on Report, and it fought it on Third Reading, because it hated it. It represented a breach of Tory politics. It represented the first illustration of the belief of which the Conservatives continue to be afraid: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Now that service is threatened, too.

1463
Noble Lords may say that in matters of this kind they are just as compassionate as is anybody else and that this is reflected in the Finance Bill and in their expenditure plans. Human sympathy seems to ooze from them on these occasions. Might they reflect that it is not the expression of the sentiment that is important. Nobody questions the sincerity of noble Lords opposite when they express compassion for the great mass of the people of our country who are far less fortunate. Nobody does that at all. But what they say should he matched by deeds.
I cannot say in any truth that the Conservative party itself, or its members. lack the ability to express their anger and indignation at injustice; they do not. I have in front of me a report from The Times of 15th July. The Times states—and it expresses it in most moderate terms:
"At a packed and stormy meeting of the backbench 1922 committee in the Commons, MP after MP rose to accuse the Government of incompetence, cowardice…".
That shows that Conservative Members of another place have a capacity for being indignant. My only regret is that on that occasion it was an indignation and a sense of injustice where their private affairs were found to be in conflict with their public duty.
I repeat that these are moral questions. Everybody must make up his mind whether the country is going to continue on this course of permitting legislation and governmental action under which the poorer will continue to get poorer and the richer will continue to get richer. If there are in this House any noble Lords who are prepared to cross their hearts and support policies that have that as either their avowed end, or as a perceived and possible end, we on this side of the House cannot be angry any more. We can only express our pity and. as your Lordships know, pity is composed of sorrow and contempt.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Diamond:My Lords, I wonder whether I may beg your Lordships' pardon for seeking to take up your time for a very short period, notwithstanding that my name is not on the list of speakers, and in the hope that, having regard to the length of the list—that is to say, only one noble Lord apart from the Minister who introduced the Bill—you will be willing that this discourtous intrusion should he made. I should like to apologise for this and to explain the only why my name, or the name of one of my noble friends on the Liberal Front Bench, was not on the list. It arose because we tried to comply with the courtesies of the House which suggest that if one does not expect to be able to be present throughout a debate one should not try to participate in it. But matters have altered during the course of this afternoon and that is why I seek this privilege. I wanted to make it abundantly clear that, although no name was put on the list from us, both the Liberals and we ourselves take considerable interest in this and regard it as a very important issue.
The noble Lord the Minister who intoduced the Bill drew attention to the distinction between what is immediately before us, namely, the provision of finance out of taxation, and the allied matter of public expenditure. The Minister was, of course, quite right in drawing that distinction. He was also right in saying
1464
that the Conservative Party made it abundantly clear during the general election that, immediately on being returned, if it was, it would reintroduce those parts of the Finance Bill that had been excluded as a result of the impact of the election. There is no question therefore that the Government have the democratic right to reintroduce those sections. There is also no question that the Government act under certain difficulties in regard to the timetable. which we recognise fully. Again, there is no doubt that your Lordships' House works under very appropriate restrictions in discussing details of taxation that belong properly to another place.
For those three reasons, I would not seek to dissent from the Minister's distinction but to say that we arc very unhappy about the situation that is revealed. We are rather unhappy that the Minister has not been able to give us the information that is generally forthcoming from the ministerial Bench on the exact impact of the proposals that the Government are making. Is it right, as the Minister says, that the impact of the Bill bears mainly on middle managerial salary levels? Or is it right, as the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, says, that the impact of the Bill is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer? No one knows better than the noble Lord, from his previous experience in the Inland Revenue, that there are well tried formulae that enable one to give, at all events, a general indication, with a comparative shortage of words. of the impact of alteration in taxation levels both as to thresholds and as to personal allowances. I believe that the House would have been better informed if the noble Lord had been able to give more detail than he did and some figures to support it.
The Government are exercising their democratic entitlement. Nevertheless, we are unhappy about a combination of circumstances under which taxation is being reduced and public expenditure is also being reduced—and that public expenditure is being reduced partly on the ground that it cannot be afforded. Although the noble Lord certainly has my sympathy in his difficulties in being required to get the Bill through before the recess, I want to tell him in the plainest of terms that we are very unhappy about the public expenditure aspect. We shall be returning to this issue in full measure after the recess.
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, yesterday I was assured by the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, of his support. Today I am unfortunate enough to be the recipient of his benevolence. I neither need the first, nor do I solicit the second. I was even more interested when he based his moral philsophy on a quotation from Karl Marx's manifesto of Gotha. That is very significant indeed. He talked a great deal about the rich being richer and the poor poorer. In a sense the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, was pursuing the same point when he wanted to know what the position was.
There is one fact of great importance to which I must really draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It is the simple fact that real disposable income of those at work has increased in recent years. What has been happening is that earnings have increased faster than the rate of inflation. This has meant that those at work have enjoyed a higher, not a lower, standard of living. One of the effects has been to

1465
increase the uncompetitiveness of many sectors of British industry, to slow down the rate of improvement, to reduce output, and therefore to increase unemployment.
One of the most worrying features of the development of our economic life in the last few years has been the way in which those at work have pre-empted a larger proportion of the national income to the detriment of those not at work. This is a very serious problem to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, might well turn his attention rather than repeating fairly empty slogans about the rich being richer and the poor being poorer.
The present Bill increases the thresholds for the higher rate hands. the starting point of the higher rates and the subsequent bands, by 14 per cent. That is the same percentage as the thresholds themselves; that is, the points at which people begin to pay tax were increased under the original Budget proposals. If you look at the previous Bill which was enacted and the present Bill together, they form two parts of a whole. The effect of that whole was to treat everybody from the bottom to the top in exactly the same way. Very detailed information was published at the time of the March Budget. There was, of course, the Financial Statement and Budget Report, sometimes referred to as the Red Book, and also extensive tables were produced showing the impact on particular income ranges. If the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, refers to those, he will find the answers that he is seeking to his questions.
So far as this Bill, looked at in conjunction with the previous Bill, is concerned, the effect is that it treats everyone in exactly the same way. At the same time, child benefit in November rises to £6·50, which is the highest figure, in real terms, at which it has ever stood. We are protecting the poorest people, the poorest families, at the same time as we are alleviating the burden of income tax on the great mass of the people of this country. This effectively disposes of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the policy has been one of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It has been nothing of the sort.
It is also necessary to remind the noble Lord of something else. In so far as we can improve incentives in this country, this will lead to a recovery and ultimately to a higher rate of growth. It is the increasing prosperity of the country as a whole that will ensure that the standard of living for everybody, the rich and the poor alike, increases. A policy of deliberately trying to tax the rich out of existence ends up by reducing the national product for everybody. The rates of tax that we introduced in 1979 on the higher incomes are, in fact, only comparable with those that are found elsewhere in the industrialised world in Europe generally. They are, in fact, not as generous as those to be found in the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also raised the question of VAT and said that when we spoke about reducing taxation there was never a word about reducing VAT. There are two points to be made here. First, we believe as a matter of general principle that it is better to reduce direct taxation as the main objective and that the balance between direct and indirect
1466
taxation in this country, as it developed in the 1960s and the 1970s, put undue weight on direct taxation; it is that direct taxation which has the most immediate effect on incentives. Therefore, we have directed our efforts to reducing direct taxation.
But, more importantly, one has to look at this from the overall point of view of economic policy. Our objective has been to reduce the total proportion of the national product absorbed by taxation and that in turn involves reducing the level of expenditure in relation to the total national product. After a period in which the proportion of the national product absorbed by Government expenditure has been increasing—and it is still, frankly, significantly higher than it was in 1979—it is now on a path which is set gradually to reduce, and we hope to see in the years ahead a reduction of the total proportion of the national production which is pre-empted by Government.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
5.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July last, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to enable the housing benefits schemes in Northern Ireland to be reformed from November 1983. The reasons for the proposed reform are the same as they were for the reform of housing benefits in Great Britain. At the present there are two separate systems for assisting householders on low income with their housing costs, the first being supplementary benefit and the other the rent and rate rebate and rent allowance schemes. This means that claimants have to choose between the two systems, which creates the problem of deciding under which system they would be better off. They also have to look to different agencies for assistance with their housing costs, depending on whether or not they are on supplementary benefit. Another problem is that a considerable number of people who receive supplementary benefit for their housing costs fail to pay them, and this in turn leads to administratively expensive direct payment arrangements.
The proposed reform tackles these two problems. First, the main cause of the "better-off" problem will disappear because claimants will no longer have to make the difficult choice between receiving either supplementary benefit or a rebate. Instead they will be able to claim both and, where appropriate, will be advised to do so by the bodies responsible for operating the schemes. Secondly, most householders on supplementary benefit would have their rent and rates rebated at source, and this is likely to lead to a reduction in default amounting to well over £600,000 a year. I am sure that the House will agree that it makes sense to extend the practice of rebating to

1467
people on supplementary benefit as well as to those who are not. It will be a more economical way of doing things and will eliminate much of the present wasteful duplication of administrative effort by the DHSS in recording, verifying and paying money for rent and rates which in turn has to be paid over to the Housing Executive or rates office. However, the reform is not confined to dealing with these particular difficulties. For the first time, for example, claimants will be able to have their housing benefit determinations reviewed by independent review boards.
As in Great Britain, the underlying basis of the proposed reform in Northern Ireland is that overall it will cost roughly the same as the present arrangements. This will mean some redistribution of available resources from the relatively better-off to the poorest group of beneficiaries. In general the gainers will be pensioners on relatively low incomes, claimants with dependent children and householders with non-dependants under 21 or over pension age. Some people not on supplementary benefit will receive less help with their housing costs than at present because of changes in the taper percentages and non-dependant deductions. In the main, the changes will affect those whose incomes are above their needs allowances or who have non-dependants living with them; for example. grown-up sons and daughters.
During consultation on the proposed reform, particular concern was voiced by the Northern Ireland Assembly and others about the number of existing beneficiaries who would receive less than at present. I am pleased to say that the Government are prepared to modify their original proposals in two ways to protect losers. First, it is proposed to allow more generous protection against losses arising from changes in the taper percentages which, as your Lordships may know, are used to calculate housing benefit awards. Originally, it was the intention to limit such losses to 60p a week for roughly four months and to £1·20 a week for the remainder of the first year of the reformed schemes. Instead, the Government now propose to protect beneficiaries against losses in excess of 50p a week from November 1983 to November 1984, and in excess of £1 a week from November 1984 to November 1985.
Secondly, the housing benefit child's needs allowance will be increased by £1·50 from November 1983. This is £1 more than will apply under the Great Britain schemes from November 1983 to April 1984. The net result of these changes is that some 32,000 beneficiaries will gain from the reform; the number of losers will be reduced to some 20,000; and the amount of individual losses will be substantially reduced in some 5,000 cases. Those who will gain will be pensioners at the lower end of the income scale and families with children. The additional cost of these enhancements—amounting to some half a million pounds over three financial years—will be met from within existing Northern Ireland resources.
I should add that as a result of representations from the Assembly a number of other changes are proposed in the administration of the reformed schemes. These will provide for greater equity between different categories of claimant and for earlier payment of housing benefits following a claim.
1468
I shall deal very briefly with the substance of the main articles in the order. Article 3 empowers the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of the Environment, acting jointly, to make regulations governing the rebate and allowance schemes. The schemes will be operated by the Department of the Environment for owner-occupiers and by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for tenants in both public and private sectors. The proposed uses of regulatory powers are described in considerable detail in the explanatory document which accompanied the proposal, although some of the original provisions will be modified in the light of representations received during the consultative period.
Article 4 provides for uprating, and Article 5 requires the bodies operating the schemes to take appropriate steps to publicise them. There will be extensive publicity both in the period leading up to November 1983 and thereafter. Article 6 contains financial provisions; Article 7 deals with regulatory matters; and there are supplementary provisions in Article 8.
The general effect of the order will be to rationalise the present schemes of assistance with housing costs, thereby removing anomalies and dealing with the long-standing problem of people not knowing whether they would be better-off claiming a rebate or supplementary benefit. The concept of unifying the present dual system has received general support. It was endorsed by this House when a Bill providing for corresponding changes in Great Britain was approved following debate by your Lordships in 1982. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
6 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the provisions of this draft order. In effect, it seems to me that the order is an enabling provision in so far as it needs to be considered with the proposed regulations. The regulations comprise a massive document of nine Parts—51 regulations and four schedules—and your Lordships will be pleased to know that I do not propose to cover them, except to say that the Explanatory Note about the proposed regulations is rather limited.
First, would the Minister elaborate a little upon Article 7 of the order? Does it mean that the regulations have to be laid before the Assembly and also approved? If that is so, how does that relate to paragraph (5), which says that regulations shall be subject to the negative resolution? I am certain that, with his legal knowledge, the noble Earl will be able to satisfy me on that point.
I note that detailed consideration was given to this order by the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly, and that consideration wa given by the Assembly to that committee's report. I also note that the main recommendation of the Assembly in their report was that the revised scheme should not be introduced. In other words, they rejected the proposal for the order. We on these Benches can see the advantage of dispensing with the dual system, but

1469
Ministers have argued—and the noble Earl has argued tonight—that one of the main causes of complainants' difficulties will disappear; they will no longer need to make the difficult choice as to which system will be better for them. That sounds reasonable, but Ministers in the other place and the noble Earl tonight have said that some beneficiaries will be better off under the proposals and some will be worse off.
We heard today the net result after making some changes as a result of the criticisms made in the Assembly, and I would comment that the Assembly seems to have proved its value, if only in the way in which it has discussed this and the next order. The Minister has said that the net result is that some 32,000 will gain from the changes and the losers will he reduced to about 20,000. I ask, why should there be any losers? I note that on 20th July the Secretary of State said at column 517 of Hansard of another place:
"Bringing the two separate schemes together in a unified scheme makes it unavoidable that some people will gain and others lose if the books are to be balanced".
The last few words seem to indicate, as the Government have already made clear in the other place, that no more money will be available to allow a "no loser" scheme.
The Assembly urged that the Government should introduce a "no loser" scheme, and they considered a statement that the estimate in Great Britain for the cost of a "no loser" package would be £70 million—2½ per cent. of total housing benefit payments. The Under-Secretary of State said in evidence to the Assembly that the estimated cost of a "no loser" package in Northern Ireland would be £1.9 million; that is, 3 per cent. of the cost of housing benefit payments. The Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to meet £1.9 million in order that there shall be a "no loser" package.
I note that the Assembly considered the argument that the poorer recipients are being shielded from losses and even enabled to gain under the proposals, but it expressed concern that to permit this the paymasters will be other low income households. This is something at which I hope the Government will take a serious look. People who are already on low incomes are the people who are to be the paymasters in order to permit other persons to gain. That seems to be a competely wrong principle, and it may be linked to the debate on the Finance Bill, of which I heard a part when I listened to my noble friend Lord Bruce.
Persons would not at present be in receipt of rebates unless they were already adjudged to be sufficiently impoverished to be a recognised need for state financial assistance. The committee expressed concern to the Assembly—and I do so tonight—that under the proposals some persons will be caught in the poverty trap. The Under-Secretary of State (and again I quote from column 517 of Hansard of another place for 20th July) said that the vast majority—that is, 97 per cent.—of supplementary benefit beneficiaries will be unaffected, but:
"The remaining 3,000 or so claimants who transfer completely to housing benefit will gain from the reform but lose their automatic entitlement to passported benefits".
This refers to additional benefits available to those who are on supplementary benefit. That is a very
1470
important consideration which has not been fully dealt with by the regulations.
The Government say that another important aspect of the changes is that, in order to avoid default on arrears, rebates will in future be paid direct to the landlord. I recognise that this will save administrative costs, but I must echo what Members said in the other place and in the Assembly. Is it desirable that persons should no longer be personally responsible for paying their own rent direct? The implication is that persons in receipt of supplementary benefit are to he considered incapable of running their own affairs. On this I should like to refer to paragraph 5.5, which the Assembly approved. It says:
"The Committee are very concerned at the erosion of individual liberty which rebating at source implies and we regard the Government's intention to deprive individuals of an important responsibility as both demeaning and insulting".
That is a decision of the Assembly. They were not condoning defaults, but they were stressing—and I stress it tonight—that there are adequate legal and administrative arrangements to deal with that problem.
I am pleased to note that, although determination of a claim for benefit will be considered by the appropriate authority—that is, the DoE or the Housing Executive—the person involved will be entitled to a further review board which will be appointed by the DoE and set up on an independent basis, as provided in Schedule 4. The Minister has said, and Ministers in the other place have said, that the new scheme should result in more householders taking up their full entitlement. It has been pointed out in the other place that some 20 per cent. who are entitled to claim do not claim. I hope that the Government's intention to publicise the new arrangements will be carried through thoroughly, so that that 20 per cent. can be considerably reduced and so that all those entitled to claim will do so. As one will see, there are aspects of the order with which we are not happy, but as it has been approved by the other place we shall not resist it.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order but, although we shall not oppose it, my party also is certainly not altogether happy about its introduction at this time. I understand that it has been held in some quarters—and I quote from the News of the World of 10th July—that:
"hundreds of thousands of Britain's poorest families are suffering even more appalling hardship because of a botched Government plan to help them";
and that the Northern Ireland Assembly put forward quite a number of criticisms in debate earlier this year (as has already been mentioned) which have been ignored, although the Minister did state that the Government would concede some points.
We have the impression that, instead of taking stock and learning from experience on the mainland, this order will now impose essentially the same scheme on Northern Ireland with all its attendant problems of complexity—and it is very complicated in parts—losses to individuals (and we have heard something said about this) and rushed implementation. I ask the

1471
Minister therefore whether he considers that the introduction of this order may be premature and carried out really for cosmetic purposes.
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome—if that is the right word—to this particular order. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, first asked me about Article 7. So far as the Assembly is concerned, one has to realise that Article 7 of the order does not refer to the present Assembly, which has absolutely no legislative powers at all. It is a consultative Assembly in the full meaning of the word. The article looks ahead to the days when power may be devolved to the Assembly and the Assembly will have the powers which Article 7 contains.
The next matter the noble Lord mentioned was the question of a "no loser" scheme. The cost of the elimination of all losses would he somewhere in the region of £1·9 million in a full year, and I have to say to the noble Lord that that sum is just not available. The fact that it represents only a small proportion—I think 3 per cent.—of the total expenditure on housing benefits is really neither here nor there. The resources are not available. The reason why some people will receive less is that resources are being redistributed, within the group of benefit recipients, to those who are on the very lowest incomes. I quite appreciate that those who are in comfortable circumstances will not fall within the scope of this order at all, but nevertheless we should seek to maximise equity within the available resources. This order seems to be the fairest and most logical way of doing so.
Then the noble Lord alleged—and I hope I am doing justice to what he said—that the rebating of rent and rates is in some way a rather insulting method of helping people because it interferes with their right to organise their own financial affairs, and furthermore, that it may be offensive to people who have succeeded perfectly well up until now in meeting their various financial obligations; but there is, in fact, no evidence to suggest that beneficiaries under the existing rebate schemes dislike this method of payment.
As I have said to the House, one advantage of the new arrangements is that people entitled to full rebates do not suffer the inconvenience of having to make periodical payments to the Housing Executive in the rates office, and so will be saved a certain amount of trouble. The order's arrangements are a much more efficient method of administering schemes such as this. The scope for abuse of public money is limited and, above all, it saves a great deal of money which would be much better spent in helping people.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said that really this was not the moment to be producing an order such as this. We have to acknowledge that the Northern Ireland departments and the Housing Executive have had the benefit of seeing what has happened since this scheme was implemented in Great Britain. What we have seen so far as the Government are concerned is that the reform will bring significant improvements, some of which I have touched on. There is really no justifiable reason for postponing the introduction of these improvements which will make procedures
1472
much more logical and fair and will bring gains for poorer households. That. in short, is why the order is brought forward in the way that it has been at this time.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to address the noble Earl when he is moving an order from the Front Bench on the other side. It gives me the chance to congratulate him on joining that nearly round dozen now of noble Lords on both sides of the House who have served over there, and lately our group has been distinguished by the arrival of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene? My noble friend has already replied to the order and I do not think he can reply to the noble Lord speaking now. I think that the noble Lord is slightly out of order.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the custom in this House over the last three years has been that the two first speakers are replied to, and that we were discouraged from getting up before the noble Lord had replied to them. Therefore, I am somewhat disturbed to be told that I am in the wrong when I am clear that this is the course of action that we have employed.
I have nothing of importance to say except that I welcome the noble Earl, and that from these Benches we shall continue to carry out our bipartisan policy with the Government so long as it remains more or less the policy that it is now. I should like the noble Viscount the Whip to look this up. He will find that what I say is correct. We have been asked not to make a third speech before the noble Lord has replied, and therefore to say anything we have to say afterwards.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think I am allowed to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his kind remarks about me personally. He and I share many interests and this is a new one. I have been slightly thrown, since the noble Lord was good enough to write to me saying that he was not going to attend the debate. Nevertheless, his appearance may be surprising but it is welcome. There may be a little confusion in the difference between a Government Statement and a Motion. I shall certainly cause the procedures to be looked up.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I beg to move another Motion: That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before the House on 7th July 1983, be approved. The Conservative Government elected in 1979 were committed to major reforms in housing policy, and these were given effect in England and Wales in the Housing Act 1980 and in Scotland in the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which noble Lords might recall the noble Lord,

1473
Lord Ross of Marnock, and myself discussing at length.
The Government have been equally committed to the extension of the same policies to Northern Ireland and this draft order has been the subject of wide-ranging consultations with interested bodies in Northern Ireland, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Environment Committee, and has also been debated recently in another place. The order is lengthy, much of it technical and I shall keep my opening remarks brief; if there are particular points which noble Lords wish to discuss, of course we can go into greater detail.
The order has five main purposes. First, to provide secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the statutory right to become owner-occupiers by purchasing their present homes; secondly, to bring tenants' rights into line with the Tenants' Charter in Great Britain; thirdly, to amend and consolidate the law on renovation grants and introduce powers and a grant to deal with houses in multiple occupation; fourthly, to tighten up the accountability of housing associations and, finally, to implement the findings of the Government's Review of the Private Rented Sector published in March 1981 and introduce the concept of the shorthold tenancy in Northern Ireland.
Part II, Chapter I of the draft order provides the right to buy. Lest noble Lords should think we have been dilatory in bringing forward this legislation, I would emphasise that the Housing Executive has for nearly five years been encouraging its tenants to purchase their homes under non-statutory arrangements. It is only now that some housing authorities in Great Britain are beginning to achieve comparable sales rates. However, the right to buy will go further than the non-statutory arrangements, in that it will extend to tenants living in flats and maisonettes; it is also important that public sector tenants in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same statutory rights as those in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships will note that the right to buy provisions in the draft order do not extend to tenants of housing associations. The voluntary housing movement in Northern Ireland is at an early stage of development and the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations has suggested that this extension of the right to buy could seriously deplete the housing stock of individual associations, thereby threatening their viability. Accordingly, housing associations have not been made subject to the right to buy, but will, of course, be able to sell to sitting tenants on a voluntary basis.
Part II, Chapter II of the draft order contains a code of rights for public sector tenants and this "Tenants' Charter", as it is commonly known, introduces new freedoms and responsibilities for tenants broadly in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. As with the right to buy, many of the benefits to which this part of the order gives statutory force have been available for some time, but we are keen to reinforce the good practice which already exists with regard to security of tenure, succession rights and improvements.
1474
Part III of the draft order deals with renovation grants. The repair and improvement of existing housing is an increasingly important element of the Government's strategy to improve housing conditions, and expenditure on grants has risen from a level of about £1 million in 1974 to an estimated £40 million in the current financial year. These grants have enabled owner-occupiers and private landlords to make a significant contribution towards the improvement of the inner urban areas, but, equally important, they provide a major incentive to individuals to take the initiative in solving their own housing problems. The order consolidates existing provisions, with changes to increase effectiveness and flexibility, to ensure resources are directed to areas of greatest need, and to introduce special grants for houses in multiple occupation.
Chapter II of Part IV deals with housing associations. It extends the powers of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to grant-aid advisory services for housing associations, ensures that there can he no obstacles in the rules of registered housing associations which might inhibit voluntary sales to sitting tenants, and strengthens the financial regimes of registered housing associations.
I should emphasise that these changes do not result from any widespread malpractice by housing associations, which are making an increasing and indispensable contribution towards tackling the Province's housing problems. They will receive this year over £38 million from the public purse and must be seen to be fully accountable: the changes have been welcomed by the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations.
I now come to Part V of the draft order, which deals with the private rented sector. As I said earlier, the majority of the provisions in the Part implement the findings of the review group set up by the Government to carry out a review of the private rented sector in Northern Ireland.
The concept of the protected shorthold tenancy, which allows landlords to let properties without running the risk of taking on a sitting tenant for life, will, I believe, remove a major disincentive to new lettings, and will benefit people, such as the young and the mobile, who are not yet seeking long-term security. The order also encourages lettings by facilitating repossession of dwellings let by temporarily absent owner-occupiers, by owners of retirement homes and by servicemen pending release from the armed forces.
This draft order affects directly the lives of up to a quarter of a million tenants in the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland; it changes fundamentally the relationship between landlord and tenant; it raises the status of tenants and it confers on tenants, particularly in the public sector, the freedom to enjoy their homes in the way best suited to their requirements and ultimately to take the steps towards ownership if they wish. I commend the order to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. Once again I must comment that we have here a massive order which, if it was not for the peculiar position of Northern Ireland legislation, would be the subject of a Bill, in so far as it covers 108 Articles and 12 Schedules which cannot be amended and can only be accepted or rejected. I note that this has been considered by the Northern Ireland Committee of the other place and that a number of criticisms were made. Again I would comment, as I did on the previous order, that there was a most useful discussion at the Assembly which issued an excellent report on this order. That again testifies to the value of the Assembly in regard to the social problems of Northern Ireland.
Generally, it would appear that the Assembly approved the order, but it wanted 28 amendments made and three other recommendations were sent forward. I am pleased to note that the Government recognised the strength of some of these recommendations and have incorporated a number of them in the draft order. Much need not be said about the order because, as the Minister has said, in the main the provisions correspond to the Housing Act 1980.
The principle of the right to buy was fully debated by your Lordships when we dealt with the 1980 Act, but I remind your Lordships of a few arguments because the position of the Labour Opposition is often misunderstood. There is always the problem that the best properties go first, particularly properties with gardens. Those on waiting lists will have difficulty in transferring to better properties. This applies to families with young children and those in high-rise blocks. As one who took part in the deliberations on the docklands special Select Committee, that clearly came out as a problem when families with young children and those in high-rise blocks wished to move. It would appear that the new rent scheme which is proposed could have the effect of pushing the sale of popular houses and reducing demand to buy in the less popular areas.
Ministers have always argued that a pool of housing will remain, whether they are sold or not. But unless new buildings are constructed and renovation takes place in numbers equal to or greater than the numbers sold, inevitably there must be fewer properties available to let.
Nevertheless, I recognise that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland has carried out its voluntary principles for sales already and some 16,000 properties have been sold without this order being required at that stage. Is it clear from the order—I cannot find it myself—whether the Housing Executive will have the first right of repurchase if, within a certain period, the purchaser wishes to sell? Clearly, there will have to be a period laid down for this.
I wish to ask a general propaganda point. If the principle of the right to buy is correct, why is there never any mention of the Government giving the right to buy to the tenants of private landlords? This is not mentioned. In that connection, I notice that the evidence given by Shelter to the Assembly stated that the proposals could lead to a potential loss of 40,000 relettable properties and that the Housing Executive estimate is that the housing deficit in Northerm Ireland is between 30,000 and 60,000 houses. Some
1476
142,000 houses need remedial action. And this is a housing order! Shelter argued in the evidence it gave to the Assebly that the private sector in Northern Ireland comprises some 49,000 dwellings; 10 per cent. of the total housing stock. I quote from Shelter's evidence that Northern Ireland has,
"Traditionally been the most neglected and rundown areas of housing".
It continues—
"conditions of restricted tenancies have been desrcibed in a recent survey as atrocious: 52 per cent. with no mains water, 86 per cent. no inside toilet and over half the private sector houses unfit".
One might ask what the Government proposals might he to deal with that situation, particularly bearing in mind, as quoted on the Appropriation Orders, the heavy unemployment among construction workers in Northern Ireland.
There are only a few points that I should like to ask the Minister. Dealing with the tenants' charter—which, naturally, we welcome—Article 40 provides that before making any decision on housing management the landlord shall consult organisations as it may recognise. Can the Minister give some indication of what those organisations might be? Subparagraph (3) of the same article says that such consultation shall exclude questions of rent or any charge for services or facilities provided by the landlord. Why should such points be barred from consultation with the organisations—particularly that regarding charge for services and facilities offered by the landlord? One would have thought that they would be matters for rightful consultation.
Can the noble Earl also explain—and I can understand if tonight he cannot deal with some of these points and, if he cannot, perhaps he will write to me about them—what is the actual effect of Article 43? Does this undermine in some way the position of divorced or separated women who have custody of children with regard to the possession of a house in such circumstances? Also, on Article 41, in view of the security problems which exist in Northern Ireland, do the responsibilities which are placed on the landlord—which is the executive —where a secure tenancy is abandoned present problems? I have a number of other points which could be raised, but as this Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 in general follows the pattern of the 1980 Act I will leave it by asking just those few questions.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order which, once again, is designed to bring affairs in the Province into line with the mainland. I should just like to ask the Minister whether any major differences will remain.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, perhaps I could deal first with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. If he will forgive me, I will read what he says about Article 43 and write to him because it is a technical article. It refers back to the 1978 Act and particular: y to the Second Schedule. I shall have to do a little bit of homework with the help of officials. If I might come to the more political part of what the noble Lord said, what I think he said, in so far as the

1477
right to buy is concerned, is a variation on what the Opposition have said at intervals ever since the proposal first saw the light of day in another place. If tenants did not buy their own homes they would remain as tenants—that, I think could scarcely be gainsaid—unless they gave up their tenancy and moved to the private sector.
The fact of the matter is that, at least in Northern Ireland, the executive is fully seized of the problems. It is also a fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made housing an absolutely top priority as far as the allocation of his block funding is concerned and it will be the fact that the Housing Executive will be able to devote the cash that it receives from the sales to improving and increasing its housing stock. The long-term effects are not easy to predict. In Northern Ireland there will be changes in the pattern of housing demand. That will occur as our economic circumstances change and it will occur probably over the next generation.
But, as I have said, the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland are continuing a major programme of building and that will be likely to balance the loss of any re-lets that there may be. The Government are convinced—and I think this is becoming more and more appreciated by the population at large—of the social and economic benefits which accrue when tenants are permitted to buy their homes; and the spread of home ownership certainly outweighs any theoretical disadvantages which have been put up against a policy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, if I may use a homely term. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive have been willing to sell homes to their tenants, and in fact the tenants in the last live years have been very happy to take up the offer.
Of course, one must bear in mind that the stock of housing remains in demand and that therefore it will remain a charge on the Housing Executive—and this is one that they are eager to continue; they should maintain an enhanced housing programme to look after the needs of those who will continue to look to the public sector.
Then, asks the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, hot from the hustings last month: "Why are tenants of private landlords not given a similar right?" Really, it would not be proper for the Government to interfere with the property rights of private individuals. Public sector houses are provided from public funds, from the taxpayer, and it is entirely a different matter if in these circumstances the tenants are invited to buy their homes using such funds as they can raise on mortgage.
Then the noble Lord asked, in effect, whether there will be a right of pre-emption on the part of the Housing Executive if the erstwhile tenants decide to sell the houses which they bought. The noble Lord will have seen that there are discount arrangements. Under the terms of those arrangements tenant purchasers can be required to repay all, or at least part, of the discount if there is a resale within five years. Apart from this, tenant purchasers are as free to deal with their homes as any other private owner occupier. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked under Article 40, about the organisations which will be consulted about matters of housing management. The answer is that the Housing
1478
Executive will be free to consult with whatever organisation it recognises as representative of its tenants. There is no fetter on its discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked whether there will be any major differences as between policy in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain. There are, of course, minor differences as between Scotland and England and that will be reflected; but on the right to buy, the tenants' charter, the line is broadly going to be the same on each side of the Irish Sea. On the private rented sector, Northern Ireland has its own legislation which is designed to meet its own peculiar problems. Nevertheless, as far as this order is concerned, the law will broadly be in line both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1983
6.40 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this order makes amendments to the Housing Act 1980 in consequence of Article 87 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order which has just been approved by the House. For technical reasons they are dealt with separately in this order in Council under Section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. All the provisions under this order are consequential upon the housing order, and therefore, as a formality, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act,

Finance (No. 2) Act,

Companies (Beneficial Interests) Act,

International Monetary Arrangements Act,

Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers) Act,

Car Tax Act,

Medical Act,

Value Added Tax Act,

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust Act,

Associated British Ports Act,

Commons Registration (Glamorgan) Act,

Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina &c.) Act,

London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act,

King's College London Act.

Sheep and Goats (Removal to Northern Ireland) Regulations 1983
6.42 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these regulations provide for the enforcement of the Community requirements governing the levying of a charge equivalent to the

1479
sheep variable premium (known as "clawback") on slaughter sheep and sheepmeat removed from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The background to the regulations, as your Lordships may be aware, is that the sheep variable premium ceased to operate in Northern Ireland in May 1982. This step had to be taken because substantial numbers of lambs were being smuggled into the Republic of Ireland across the land border, in order to evade payment of' clawback, and this put at risk considerable amounts of FEOGA money. Farmers in Northern Ireland now receive support (to the same guaranteed level) only through the annual premium on ewes, and there is no longer any need to enforce clawback on the Irish land border.
Because of this change, clawback is payable on slaughter sheep or sheepmeat removed from Great Britain, where variable premium is still paid, to Northern Ireland. In practice there is no such trade at present, because of Northern Ireland's higher animal health status. Nevertheless, the framework of control provided by the regulations is necessary, both because of the possibility of eventual changes to the animal health rules and also, more immediately, to deal with illegal movements of sheepmeat from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This second point is an urgent one, since there have been a few cases where meat has been smuggled and discovered by the authorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are concerned to put a stop to smuggling both in order to safeguard FEOGA revenues and to prevent a potential threat to Northern Ireland's animal health status. These regulations will provide controls in Great Britain which will reinforce those already provided by animal health inspectors in Northern Ireland.
Should any legitimate trade arise, these regulations will allow the intervention board to require notice to be given of intended shipments and to require a security against clawback in accordance with the Community rules. The immediate value of these regulations will be in helping to counter illegal trade by providing officers of the Intervention Board and the agriculture departments with preventive and investigatory powers when they have reasonable suspicion of an illegal' movement. By "an illegal movement" I mean an illegal movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Offences are created of failing to comply with the regulations, and the appropriate maximum penalties are set.
In the ways I have sought to outline, these regulations will help to prevent the illegal movement of sheepmeat from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to evade clawback, and will also permit the effective operation of the clawback arrangements in the event of any future change in the animal health position. With these regulations in place, we shall be able to ensure that we will do all we can to prevent illegal traffic. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th May be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, for explaining the reasons for these regulations. It is very obvious from Northern Ireland's long border with Southern Ireland and the difficulties that have arisen in the past
1480
that the regulations are necessary, although the noble Lord said there might not be too much need for them but if a trade did arise they would be there to control it.
May I ask the noble Lord one or two questions regarding the regulations? On page 3 it says:
"No person shall remove, or attempt to remove",
without

"(a) a removal declaration; and

(b)the security".

What does "the security" mean? Is it financial security? It is mentioned again on page 5, and I should like to know exactly what is meant by "the security". Also, will this give a lot of extra work to officials? It would appear that a great deal of extra work might be entailed for officials in the Ministry. As we know, their number is being cut down as it is, and I wonder how much extra work there might be. The noble Lord mentioned that there has been quite a lot of avoidance of the clawback, and, of course, with the variable premium having been stopped, I wonder whether he could say how much this has cost in the past.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as extra work is concerned, I am not aware this will cause an addition to manpower although for some hardworking members of the public service it might create some extra work. But, of course, it really is necessary, as I sought to point out and as the noble Lord was good enough to accept in his opening remarks, if the Community status of the sheepmeat regime in Northern Ireland is to work. Therefore, if there is to be extra work because of this I think it has to be faced. I trust it will not lead to extra manpower.
The noble Lord asked me specifically about the use of the word "security". Security to cover the clawback charge is required by the European Community regulations, and I think I referred to that towards the end of my opening remarks. The noble Lord asked me whether I could give an estimate as to what this had cost in terms of losses. I am afraid I have not got a figure for this at all, but I think the noble Lord would agree with me that it has been most undesirable that this state of affairs should have existed. Where there may have been losses of funds in the past, sometimes those funds have got into the wrong hands in Northern Ireland, and I hope very much that this particular set of regulations will put us on a much better financial basis as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (Variation) Scheme 1983
6.50 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 30th June 1983 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 21st April this year, the Government announced their intention to make help available towards the cost of veterinary inspections in meat plants producing meat for export. It was made clear at that time that the necessary funds would be found from savings made elsewhere in the agriculture departments. The purpose of the two

1481
statutory instruments—if your Lordships will give leave, I shall speak to both of them at the same time—is to provide those funds by reducing, by 10 percentage points, the rates of grant for grain drying and storage facilities where the grain is to be sold or used off the farm.
The first of the two orders is the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation (Variation) Scheme 1983; this amends the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme, whose purpose is to encourage the formation of co-operative ventures for the production and marketing of agricultural produce. Under this variation scheme, the new rate for buildings, facilities or land improvements for co-operatives will be 22½ per cent; for new plant and equipment installed off-farm, it will be 15 per cent. and the rate for new plant and equipment installed on-farm will be 5 per cent.
The second order which, with leave, I am speaking to—the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1983—amends the national grant scheme, which is familiar to farmers and the purpose of which is to encourage investment in the modernisation or upgrading of farm businesses, particularly when the farmer involved is not able to take advantage of the community scheme. The new aids in all areas for the scheme under this order will now be 12½ per cent.
I should also make it clear to your Lordships that the community scheme, which attracts grant at a higher rate than the national scheme, is also to be treated in the same way so that rates offered under the community unity scheme—the European Community Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme—will be in future 27½ per cent. for less favoured areas and 22½ per cent. elsewhere for cereals storage for sale off-farm. The regulations for this are, however, not subject to affirmative resolution by your Lordships' House. The new rates will also apply to existing development plans which may be varied to provide grain storage facilities.
Many of your Lordships will be aware of the circumstances which have led up to these changes. The pig industry has during the past few months been going through a severe cyclical price trough. Consumer demand for all meats has been weak during a time of plentiful supplies of pigmeat, and, with rising feed prices resulting from high prices for cereals, many pig producers have found that their operations have been bringing them considerable losses.
I am sure that your Lordships will recall the representations made to Parliament on 17th March of this year by the farmers' unions, when a list of requests for assistance for pig producers was presented. We have already taken action which I believe substantially meets those requests. This entailed negotiations in Brussels for assistance under the common agricultural policy.
The unions requested an increase in the level of export refunds, and a substantial increase of about 60 per cent. was achieved in Brussels on 18th April. The unions requested increases in the rates of private storage aid. These were agreed in Brussels from 1st June. The farmers' unions also requested aid for the pigmeat processing industry, and a special allocation of about £6 million from FEOGA funds under
1482
Regulation 355/77 was secured in the price fixing agreement in May. But one request, the only one wholly within the competence of the United Kingdom Government, asked the Government to take on board the costs of the special veterinary supervision required by European Community rules in connection with exports.
I am pleased to say that the industry has already improved its position in the home market, especially in the bacon sector. Of the bacon consumed in the United Kingdom, the proportion which is home produced has increased this year from around 41 per cent. to around 46 per cent. The industry now needs further to develop exports to the Community, whose 270 million consumers form the largest market for pigmeat in the world.
Veterinary supervisory charges, which in some circumstances could be as much as £2 per pig exported, are known to be a disincentive to the development of exports. It is known also that in other member states charges for these inspections are not made, or in many cases are considerably less than they are in the United Kingdom. The Government therefore decided to accept the pig industry's request and to pay the charges for the veterinary supervision of pigmeat in export-approved slaughterhouses.
However, in addition to pigs, most slaughterhouses also handle cattle and sheep. It is thus not possible to allocate the costs with any accuracy between the three species. Since exports are also very important to the well-being of those sectors, it was decided that cattle and sheep also should benefit from the relief from vetrerinary charges. At the same time, it was thought right that the poultry industry, which with the pig industry was equally hard-pressed, should be included in these arrangements as regards the veterinary costs in poultrymeat plants which are eligible to export. Therefore we announced on 21st April that the Government would pay these charge also on and from 1st June.
It is estimated that the cost of the significant aid to the pig industry and to the other industries which I have just mentioned will be £1·6 million in the remainder of this year and £2·5 million a year thereafter. The farming industry would of course like to have this increase without recourse to savings being made elsewhere, but it is Government policy to exercise firm constraint on public expenditure and we therefore looked for offsetting savings in other areas of agricultural support.
I do not suggest that this comparatively minor adjustment to the support given to the cereals sector represents a significant shift in the balance between cereals and livestock, but I do say that, given the problems of livestock producers, it is reasonable to look for the savings from the more buoyant cereals sector rather than other areas of support for livestock. In the special interests of livestock producers who have to have bulk storage for their feed grain, whether it is purchased or whether it is grown on their farm, we have drawn a distinction in this order between those who consume grain on the farm and those whose primary product is grain which is sold off the farm.
I should also mention that because the changes are being introduced some way into the current financial

1483
year the grant rate reduction will not provide sufficient funds to meet the expected costs this year. The shortfall of £0·9 million for this year alone has been found by a small reduction of 2 to 3 per cent. in the provision for aid to English drainage authorities for arterial drainage. In fact, in 1982–83 the provision for arterial drainage was underspent. The impact on the arterial drainage work which is planned for this year is therefore likely to be negligible. Legislation is not necessary for the savings in aid to the drainage authorities in England.
I hope your Lordships will agree that in all the circumstances it was right to give this extra assistance to the livestock sector to improve its export possibilities in line with the requests made to the Government on 17th March, and that it was also right to look to the cereals sector to find the savings. I commend both of these orders to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 30th June 1983 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
6.59 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, again the noble Lord has given a very full and fair explanation of the Government's thinking about a section of the livestock sector which requires more help than the cereals sector. The noble Lord gave the figure of £1.6 million for the remaining portion of this financial year and the figure of £2.5 million for a full year. The noble Lord said that it is not a big figure. However, it is rather peculiar to choose the storage of grain as a subject for making cuts.
As the noble Lord knows, the three major surplus items in the country are cereals, milk products and sugar. There is no doubt that dairy products are giving both the European Community and this country the biggest headache. Grain is cheaply and easily stored. To cut hack support for the storage of grain might hurt small farmers who want to store their grain for a reasonably long period. Most big farms in the areas where cereal profits are the highest have grain stores, and I feel that for more grain storage not to be put up in smaller farms might hurt them more than meets the eye. However, the whole situation of the storage of surplus products is one that one could go into at some length, and I do not wish to do that now. I do believe that one should look at the question of which of the three products having the biggest surpluses should be dealt with. I should have thought that it would be much better and fairer to the whole farming community—leaving out the pig and poultry producers—to have spread it evenly and not just have fixed it on the cereal producers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, as this is my first opportunity, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Belstead on his new job on the Front Bench. As he is a farmer, I am sure he will enjoy working with farmers. It is therefore rather sad for me to have to tell my noble friend that I am not very keen about this particular order and the way in which it has been introduced. No doubt it will not be the first time nor the last.
1484
First, I believe that there is a need—as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said—for further improving our grain storage and handling facilities. My noble friend will know that most United Kingdom grain storage is on-farm, as opposed to the Continental grain storage, which takes the form of co-operative or off-farm stores. The result of this is that our Continental partners, if I may call them that, have an advantage over us, because they can grade their grain to a higher standard. This particularly affects our export markets. This could make us less competitive with our partners, and I am sure that my noble friend does not wish to see British agriculture made less competitive.
Secondly, this cut runs contrary to a very recent report by the Central Council in conjunction with Food From Britain. I am somewhat surprised that we have the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Thirdly, and lastly, I fully accept that there may be a need for agricultural cuts in spending in the CAP and by our own national Government. But any cuts which are made should be made only after very careful thought and consultation. Here I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
This particular cut seems to have been made with neither consultation nor long-term thought. When I read the discussion of this order in another place, I came to the same conclusion. I implore my noble friend to recognise that, if cuts are to be made the order of the day—and I accept that they must be made—a complete long-term package should be presented to farmers. The sooner this is done the better.
I cannot guarantee that farmers will like cuts; there may be just the odd one or two who will moan. What I can say is that farmers, by and large, do admire and appreciate people who come straight with them and who tell the long-term truth. This is what I am asking my noble friend and the Government to do, if we are to suffer cuts in the future.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for his remarks about this order, which were thoughtful remarks, and to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for his kind welcome to me, even though he was not able to follow it up with support for the order I had introduced.
I do not believe there really is a conflict between the reduction in grant rates and the conclusion in the reports to which my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley referred concerning the cereals market and the view that was put in those reports. I believe I am right in saying that the grower needs to review the capacity and the state of the storage facilities which are available to the grower in order to satisfy the range of market requirements during the rest of the 1980s. I say this because it is clearly in the grower's own financial interest to improve his or her own storage, if the grower feels that is necessary,
Nevertheless, at reduced rates of Government grant assistance to storage projects, the assistance given will still be quite substantial. Both speakers will forgive me if I make the point that, on a 20,000-tonne store, grant aid to a co-operative would still, under the present proposals, amount to about £400,000 in cash—a very

1485
considerable incentive for a co-operative to continue to take grant aid in order to provide storage. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred particularly to the small farm. Even in that case. there would continue to be the national scheme—it is true, with a 10 per cent. decrease in grant rates—and the European development scheme at the higher rates of grant which both noble Lords will remember are even now, under the present proposals, 22·5 per cent. and 27·5 per cent. for less favoured areas.
Finally, may I respond to my noble friend's point about needing to look ahead and to put forward proposals of this kind as a plan for the development of agriculture? I have to say that the representations which were made by the farmers' unions on 17th March brought home to any Member of either House of Parliament who had not already realised it that the livestock sector of farming in this country was in very great need of assistance. It was because of that that the Government in their turn brought strong views to bear in Brussels for improvements in the pig sector in particular, which I listed in my earlier remarks, and felt they had no option but to respond to the one particular point that was put by that lobby of farmers' unions on 17th March which fell precisely within the scope of national Government action—namely, whether the Government would do something about veterinary charges, which were said by the livestock sector to be such a disincentive to exports.
The Government felt that it was absolutely necessary to do that, and the only way to do it—as was made clear by my right honourable friend the former Minister of Agriculture—was to look for savings in other parts of the agriculture budget. Despite the fact that this has meant a reduction in grant aid for cereals storage provided those cereals are being sold off the farm, I hope that all sectors of the industry will appreciate the need for continuing investment if the benefits of better grain marketing are to be achieved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture and Horticulture Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1983
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 30th June 1983 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mental Health (Hospital, Guardianship and Consent to Treatment) Regulations 1983 (S.I. 1983 No. 893)
7.10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper in relation to Statutory Instrument 893. In what I have to say I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. What I wish to do is to draw the Government's attention to shortcomings which are mainly
1486
adding unnecessarily to form filling by general practitioners in regard to certain forms introduced under Regulation 4 in the statutory instrument to which I refer.
First, Forms 3 and 4. These forms relate to admissions for assessment and relate to Section 2 of the 1983 Mental Health Act. They are changed from equivalent forms required in the 1960 regulations. Both forms are for use when informal arrangements for admission for assessment have not been found to be practicable. Doctors, I suggest, will never need to resort to compulsory admission except when all attempts to achieve informal admission have failed. I am told that often attempts by several GPs in a group practice will be made in order to ensure an informal admission.
Thus I suggest that there seems little point in requiring doctors to spell out on the forms why informal arrangements were not practicable, which is what the forms require. This adds to the work of busy GPs and might indeed be thought by them to call their clinical judgment into question. There is already evidence that patients suffering from schizophrenia and similar severe mental disorders are not readily acceptable on GPs' lists, and it is therefore a matter of grave concern to the families of such patients that the doctors should not be hassled by unnecessary form filling, in order that they may give the attention that the families often request that they should give to these patients. I thus say that it is important that form filling be kept to a minimum, and with regard to these Forms 3 and 4 I conclude by saying to the Government, why do they require the extra information?
The second form to which I refer is Form 7. This relates to Section 4 of the 1983 Act, the emergency admission for assessment. On this form I am advised again by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and in this case their views are supported by the British Medical Association which has written to me, and by the Royal College of General Practitioners of which a representative has telephoned to me.
The arguments in relation to Forms 3 and 4 that I have been putting before your Lordships also apply in this case, only more so. Form 7 calls for a wealth of information. It includes factors such as an estimation of the delay time in obtaining a second doctor's opinion. I would suggest to your Lordships that that is rarely possible to be assessed accurately, and therefore it will he guessed, because under these circumstances of emergency admission doctors will be wanting to get on with it. If it is guessed, why have it there? That is just an example.
There is also a sort of sting in the tail of the form about possible extra information that may be required by hospital managers which the doctors are to indicate they would be prepared to give if asked to do so. This seems to me a very strange way of giving them extra work. I would have thought that that sort of information is of minor importance compared with the essential requirement of caring for the patient's health, and caring for the patient's health does not come through on any of these forms. It could be said that this is well mentioned within the Act—I am not sure it is in fact—hut it is really the emphasis which seems to be upside down.
The BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners, in supporting these points, make strongly the further point that when the regulations were under discussion two example forms for fulfilling the requirements of Form 7 were circulated. One of these was called 5A, which was very similar to the new Form 4 which I mentioned earlier. The other was Form 5B. These two professional bodies, and indeed the National Schizophrenia Fellowship itself, firmly opted for 5A, the simpler form, but the Government have selected 5B as the basis for the new Form 7. I ask my noble friend the Minister why.
Finally, in relation to this statutory instrument there is Form 14. This form records, among other points, that the patient was given information in accordance with Section 132 of the 1983 Act, and that the patient's nearest relative has been informed of the patient's admission on a specific date. It is completed by the hospital management. Subsection (4) of Section 132 of the principal Act requires that the nearest relative also be given a copy of any information given to the patient under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 132. There does not appear to be any other form recording action taken under Section 132(4). Why is such provision not made on Form 14?
The point is that Form 14 merely records that the hospital has told the nearest relative about the patient's admission, but there is no record of their having given the patient the information which is referred to elsewhere on the form under Section 132. This would seem to be contrary to subsection (4) of that section. My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.—(Lord Mottistone.)
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, was extremely active, in the Committee stage particularly, of the Mental Health Act, as it now is, and he has raised certain points, some of which I agree with, some I do not. So far as Forms 4 and 3 are concerned, this really is based on the medical recommendations required before a patient can be detained under Section 2 of the Act for assessment. There are new features of this section, and they are that the patient is admitted for assessment—which includes, of course, the ability to impose treatment against the patient's will in accordance with part IV of the Act—and that the patient now has the right to apply to a mental health review tribunal, to be discharged if the tribunal thinks fit, in the first 14 days of his detention.
Form 3, of which we have heard a great deal, is a joint medical recommendation form for the two doctors to sign together, and Form 4 is where the two doctors sign separate recommendation forms. I do not think anyone could really disagree with that. At the foot of the form there is a requirement for the doctors to indicate why informal admission is inappropriate. Strictly, this is not required by the Act, but it is. I must frankly admit, a recognition of an underlying principle of the Act—the least restrictive alternative—that compulsory admission to hospital is the last resort.
1488
This particular sentence is a welcome example of the forms being used as a way of forcing practitioners to think about the fundamental criteria for admission; and that is vitally important.
There has been a great deal of argument about Form 7. I have a copy of it; it looks rather lengthy but it is not extremely so. I do not see quite how there can be objection to it on the part of doctors, but I will come to that in a moment. I will not go into detail about Form 7 except to say this. There is a point which we must bear in mind. Form 7 in its last two paragraphs deals with two things; first, to ensure that the medical recommendation indicates how much delay would result from waiting for a second medical opinion and who would he harmed by this delay. Secondly, it deals with when the doctor was first aware that a patient's condition was causing anxiety. Surely these requirements must be warmly welcomed and commended. I should add that information arising from them would enable the new Mental Health Act Commission, if it so decided, to monitor the use of this section more effectively.
I agree that the BMA and the doctors object to Form 7 mainly on the basis that it is complicated and that doctors are too busy to fill in such forms. On the other hand, I accept that Form 7 is a protection for the patient. When one recommends that a person be admitted, it is a vital and important question for the individual. Therefore, extreme care should be taken by the medical profession in satisfying the authorities that they have a bona fide case. Under the circumstances, I do not object to Form 7.
As regards Form 14, which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. mentioned, I accept that there is a possibility of exception to the form's requirement to record that the patient's right to information under Section 132 of the Mental Health Act has been complied with, not necessarily because objection is taken to this provision but because it should be given when the patient is ready—and I emphasise "ready"—to receive it. The information which has to be given both orally and in writing "as soon as is practicable" includes details under which the patient is detained, the new consent to treatment provisions, et cetera.
It may be argued that this information should not be given as a matter of priority. I must admit that I am concerned that there should be no watering down in the strict interpretation of this section. The words "as soon as is practicable" cover more than adequately those situations where the patient is in no condition to understand the information. Moreover, it can be said that the form does not record if the duty on hospital managers under Section 132, to inform the patient's nearest relative of details about the section under which the patient has been detained, has been complied with. Frankly, I agree with such criticism.
That is all I have to say, except that we understand that the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, in moving that the regulations he annulled, is doing so in order to elicit information from the Government. There is no possibility that these orders will be taken to a vote and perhaps defeated. This is the usual democratic method in this House for eliciting information. Under those circumstances, I warmly welcome the fact that he has raised the issue.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, for giving us this brief opportunity to debate these important orders. In saying that, the noble Lord will perhaps not be surprised if I also say that I do not wholly agree with everything that he said. I, too, have had briefs from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship—an admirable organisation—and I have very carefully studied what they said. I must say—and I say this carefully—that I sometimes think that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship appears to be a little more concerned about the rights of relatives of patients who suffer from schizophrenia than the rights of the patients themselves. So I do not entirely go with the fellowship in the advice it has given to the noble Lord.
I entirely support the advice given by MIND to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and since he read to your Lordships large sections of its brief there is no point in my reading out the same advice. I merely say that I agree with the points made by MIND to the noble Lord, and I am glad that he repeated them so clearly. I shall not weary the House by repeating them again.
May I just add that I am a doctor, and until relatively recently was at the sharp end of medical practice. It is perhaps appropriate to say that I am not now exactly at the sharp end, except occasionally in your Lordships' House when someone requires treatment. In other words, I do not suffer personally from this immense burden of constantly filling in forms. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested, there is unnecessary bureaucracy creeping in to this area which is adding to the burden borne by general practitioners, then it is right that we should look at it extremely carefully. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is to reply will tell us that the Government have had discussions with the General Medical Services Committee, which represents the general practitioners, and that the Government will have had the advice of the general practitioners with regard to these various forms.
I sympathise with my colleagues, the general practitioners, in their regret at having unnecessary forms, particular at a time (I do not believe I am seriously digressing) when we find the family practitioner committee services have overspent. This is hardly surprising since funding for the family practitioner committee services is, as it were, open-ended. Nor is it surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insisted that the overspend must be recouped from elsewhere in the National Health Service budget. As a result of' that overspend by the family practitioner committee services we have a cut of 1 per cent. in hospital services. That will inevitably mean lengthening waiting lists, deteroriating outpatient services and, as sure as night follows day, that next year there will he a further overspend by the family practitioner committee services. Presumably there will then be another 1 per cent. cut in hospital services, so that we go on taking 1 per cent. cuts until there are no hospital funds to take 1 per cent. from.
In short, I am saying that it is important that we should look at ways of limiting the expenditure under the family practitioner committee services which, at the moment as the noble Lord will know, have
1490
exceeded their budgeted amount and are likely to do so in the future.
Form filling, of course, is part of the work that family practitioners have to do. With regard to the specific forms, I am inclined to agree with the advice from MIND on Forms 3 and 4. MIND makes it utterly clear that it recognises the underlying principle of the Act; namely, that we should, wherever possible in regard to detaining patients, apply the least restrictive alternative. In other words, compulsory admission to hospital should be a last resort and never a first resort, or even an early resort. I believe the forms are not unnecessarily elaborate for the general practitioners.
With regard to Form 7, I think there is perhaps a greater case. Information is required which may be useful or necessary for statistical purposes later, so that the Mental Health Commission can monitor the way in which the Act is working; but there is possibly a case for looking again at the elaborate nature of Form 7.
With regard to Form 14, this arose in part as a result of an amendment which I had the honour of successfully proposing in your Lordships' House to an earlier Bill. It brought about the proceedings whereby patients and their relatives are given certain information and have a statutory right to certain information. I certainly should not like to see any watering down of that provision.
However, once again, if the forms which must be filled in are unnecessarily onerous, obviously they should be looked at again. But I should like to hear from the Minister what advice he has been given, not just by the BMA but by the General Medical Services Committee, which is. of course, the body that acts on behalf of all general practitioners irrespective of whether or not they are members of the BMA.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords. I have listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Mottistone has said, and also to what the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Coslany and Lord Winstanley, said. Those who took part in the debates on the Mental Health (Amendment) Act last year will have welcomed this opportunity to consider again the issues that pre-occupied them then. Both the Hospital, Guardianship and Consent to Treatment Regulations and the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules, which we shall come to later, reflect the changes made, and generally welcomed, to mental health law by the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982; and also reflect a desire, which I am sure we all welcome, to make administrative procedures and forms as clear as possible. We consulted extremely widely, going not only to health and local authorities and professional organisations, but also to all the voluntary organisations in the field. We received many comments, and most of those consulted appreciated the changes that had been made.
The consultation process also provided the opportunity for those who disagreed with some of the changes brought about by the Act to express again their disagreement and to attempt to modify some of the effects of those changes. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship was one of the organisations we consulted, and I am glad to say that we were able to accept most of their helpful suggestions. But where it

1491
came to a choice between two different, equally valid, versions we had to take account of the views of other organisations also and decide which was the most favoured solution. While therefore I have listened again to the points made very eloquently by my noble friend on behalf of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, it is my responsibility to make sure that other people's views are not forgotten.
So far as these particular regulations are concerned, perhaps I can preface my remarks by saying that we did accept some of the suggestions made by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship at consultation stage on the regulations. For example, we have, as they asked, removed the requirement for the nearest relative to certify his agreement to an application for admission being made by an approved social worker. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship wrote to us that many relatives would feel unhappy about being seen to "sign away" their relative in this way, and accordingly we scrapped that form.
Other points relating to making sure that the nearest relative knows all his rights were more suitable to be put in the leaflets, and the covering letters to these, that we have prepared. We consulted the National Schizophrenia Fellowship on those leaflets. My noble friend, I think, is saying that it is already too difficult to have someone compulsorily admitted to hospital and that no more safeguards are needed. I can only say that this was not the view taken by either your Lordships' House or another place during the passage of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act last year. Indeed, the pressure was, as I think your Lordships will recall, quite the other way.
Of course, we are all very deeply sympathetic with people who have to suffer the distress of having a schizophrenic relative, and I am aware of the anguish this causes in families. But, on the other hand, depriving someone of their liberty and subjecting them to compulsory treatment because they are considered to be mentally disordered, when they have not broken the law, is a very serious matter indeed, and it is not something that a caring society can do lightly.
Parliament clearly felt that no one should be deprived of his liberty without very serious consideration, and there was a good deal of debate in another place about the use or misuse of the emergency powers of Section 29 in the 1959 Act. This at present allows someone to be compulsorily detained in a mental hospital on an application by any relative and on the recommendation of only one doctor. I think parliament was right to be concerned about the implications of this for the rights of the individual.
It is for that reason that what is now Form 7, the medical recommendation for emergency admission, requires the doctor to specify how many hours delay would be involved in obtaining a second medical recommendation and who would suffer as a result. This form will not stop an admission being made in a genuine emergency: it will take only a few minutes to fill in, and is very clearly set out. Nor will it be a major burden to the medical profession. Most GPs fill in one of these forms only once a year or less.
It is right, as my noble friend has said, that we specifically asked those consulted to say whether they
1492
preferred this form or a slightly shorter one. Views are fairly evenly divided, with the medical profession generally preferring, perhaps understandably, a shorter form; but in view of the division of opinion, Ministers decided that this form was more in keeping with what Parliament had wished. And it will enable the Mental Health Act Commission to monitor the use of this emergency power and see whether there is any cause for concern or not.
The ordinary admission for assessment form has also been strengthened a little so that the doctor has to say why informal admission is not appropriate—as he has done in the past for an admission for treatment. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, and again, totally in accord with Parliament's wishes, to make the forms consistent in this way, and I may say that the medical bodies consulted raised no objection when they were formally consulted on the regulations.
My noble friend has also asked why Form 14, which is the form on which managers record the compulsory admission of a patient, does not require the managers to certify that the nearest relative has been given the same information as the patient. We have tried to keep these forms as simple as possible, and there are several other instances where we have not required people to certify that every statutory duty has been performed. Forms cannot be complete aide-mémoires in this way without becoming extremely lengthy. But I can assure my noble friend that we are shortly going to issue a circular to all health and local authorities in which we shall not only remind hospital managers of the requirement to copy information to the nearest relative, but also provide draft covering letters to the nearest relative which hospitals may find it helpful to use. And, as a matter of fact, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship have been very helpful in drafting these letters, as well as the leaflets giving information to patients.
With what I have said I hope I have satisfied my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Coslany and Lord Winstanley, that we have drafted these regulations in the spirit of the debates we had on the Mental Health (Amendment) Act. I believe that the regulations are generally welcomed and felt to be clear and workable.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am deeply thankful to my noble friend the Minister, and indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Coslany and Lord Winstanley, for their contributions. I do not, of course, agree with the theme of the main argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. It is all a balance of opinion, and I think that he has balanced it the wrong way and differently from me. Of course, I liked the view of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, better. In a good Liberal way he came in between us. I am very pleased indeed to have a full explanation from my noble friend the Minister on the earlier forms, 3, 4 and 7. It is sad about Form 7. I am also grateful to him for saying that, although there is a reason for not including all the information that perhaps should have been on Form 14, guidance from his department will cover this point and deal with what is omitted. I beg leave to withdraw the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1983 (S.I. 1983 No. 942)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper relating to Statutory Instrument No. 942. Once again I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Generally on these rules we would make the following points.
Under the 1960 regulations specific help was given to nearest relatives to understand their rights under the 1959 Act. Rules 7 and 25 of those earlier regulations are examples of that. Although by wading through these rules a nearest relative can discover that he will receive notice of a hearing and may attend and may make representations, and that he may be represented, this information is not put together simply and clearly for him, as I understand it was in the 1960 rules. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that in all these circumstances of dealing with mentally disturbed relations, nearest relatives are anyhow in a difficult position. They are perhaps alarmed, particularly when it happens for the first time. They are not experts at reading Government rules and regulations. Even if they can read them, the rules are difficult to interpret.
I wonder therefore whether my noble friend would agree that the Government might produce a simple aide-mémoire for nearest relatives, written from the point of view of nearest relatives. Ideally it should be in these rules for all to see. Although it could be considered that such an aide-mémoire might be produced by bodies such as the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, it would be doing so only for its own members, and its membership is not comprehensive. At any one time people may have the misfortune to have a mentally ill nearest relative without previously having joined such an organisation. So that is why it would be helpful if the information was contained in a more public document.
Perhaps the leaflets to which my noble friend referred in answering my previous point might be suitable here. Perhaps a special leaflet could be produced for use by nearest relatives. This could be added to the other leaflets and circulated to all the appropriate individuals and bodies, such as GPs, mental hospitals, and so on. That is the general point on these rules.
The second point refers to Rule 8(2), which relates to inviting people to serve as tribunal members. I am sure that the Government are aware of the need to avoid inviting people with extreme views on mental health to serve as tribunal members. I am advised that in this area there are many people who have quite extreme views and some rather strange ones. It would be helpful if my noble friend could tell me whether the Government will be giving advice to tribunal chairmen, who carry out the selection of their members, in order to emphasise this point.
Next I turn to Rule 9. I am told that the meanings behind this rule and some of its details are obscure, whereas the equivalent 1960 rule was not so obscure.
1494
I am told, for example, that paragraph (1)(b), and paragraphs (2) and (4) of the 1983 Rule 9 are particularly difficult to interpret.
I now turn to Schedule 1 of the rules and Part B, which concerns,
"Reports relating to patients (other than conditionally discharged patients)".
This comes under the general heading in the schedule of,
"Statements by the responsible authority and the Secretary of State".
It is suggested that it would he helpful if the social circumstances report (which comes under Part B) could include reports on the following matters: first whether the patient is likely to avail himself of any out-patient support facilities; and, secondly, whether, with all the support which may or may not be available, the patient is likely to be able to care for himself, to obtain the care that he needs, or to guard himself against serious exploitation. This question of guarding against serious exploitation is a reference to the end part of Section 20(4) of the 1983 Act.
My noble friend the Minister will be aware from my recent Questions for Written Answer that there is concern at the lack of provision for effective community care. There is a likelihood that when, or if, this care is provided, some patients, in particular, as I understand it, those with schizophrenia, will not be prepared to make use of any of the community care facilities simply because of the nature of their illness, and the purpose of these additional provisions in Part B of Schedule 1 is to cover that point. I should be grateful for the views of my noble friend the Minister on this matter, since, if we spend lots of money in providing community care so as to enable us to shut down elderly mental hospitals—which we should all like to happen in due course—it is terribly frustrating to think that there will be some patients who, just because of the nature of their illness, will, if they have the freedom that the drift or the movement towards civil liberty tends to give them, will not take advantage of what is being provided. It creats a conundrum of a very difficult kind. Hence the suggestion that Part B could be expanded. I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules be annulled.—(Lord Mottistone.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I should like very briefly to comment on these tribunal rules. One thing worries me. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to a question of balance, and I rather thought that he inferred that I was unbalanced. I hope that he does not really think so. I would very much support the noble Lord about the need to give simple, easily understood, advice to nearest relatives. That is vitally important.
The proposals regarding the trubunal itself must be very welcome indeed, though there are the points which the noble Lord has mentioned. One of the welcome features is that quite a number of categories of patients will be automatically referred to a tribunal. Under the old Act only about 2 per cent. of eligible

1495
patients took up their right to apply. Medication and illness—another word that I have in mind will come to mind later, when my teeth will allow—affect patients and they are not in a position to appeal to a tribunal. Now they can be automatically referred to it, and I think that, generally speaking, one would welcome that.
There are a couple of points that I should like to raise. The first concerns Rule 6 (1)(c). This rule provides for the information to be supplied by the responsible authority to the tribunal when the patient applies to a tribunal. The rule indicates that the social circumstances report should include details of the patient's home and family circumstances, including the attitude of the patient's nearest relative; the opportunities for employment or occupation, and housing; the availabiltiy of community support and relevant medical facilities; and the financial circumstances. These details are to be provided,
"in so far as it is reasonably practicable to provide them".
Those words were not included in the consultation document about these rules, and I suspect that they may have been inserted as a result of representations of certain social service departments. More often than not the difficulties faced by tribunals in discharging detained patients centre around the social circumstances of the patient outside hospital. I am very concerned that this proviso to the requirement to provide information may be used to avoid providing such reports. Perhaps when he replies the noble Lord will explain the position and give me more reassuring information on it.
I turn now to Rule 21 (4), which deals with the privacy of proceedings. This rule replaces Rule 21 (3) of the Mental Health Review Trubunal Rules 1960, which was almost exactly the same, save that it concluded with the words,
"if in their opinion it would be undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons for the patient or such other person to be present".
I am very concerned that the exclusion of those words may be taken as indicating that Parliament agreed that a wider range of reasons for such exclusion is permissible than was provided for under the 1960 rules. I should like to have reassurance on that from the Minister. However, generally speaking, I am on this occasion more in balance with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and once again I very warmly and strongly support his appeal for more information to be made available to relatives.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on this occasion I, too, am perhaps more in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I hope that that will not make the noble Lord think that perhaps he is wrong this time. I should also like to make clear that my earlier remarks with regard to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship were not intended in any way to denigrate the work of that very valuable body. I believe that work on behalf of the relatives of patients who suffer from schizophrenia is absolutely essential. These people are extremely vulnerable and are often in grave difficulties and in desperate need of help of the kind which, I would like to say publicly, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship
1496
provides on a continuing basis to a large number of people. In doing so, it performs invaluable work. I also believe that its advice to the noble Lord in regard to these rules is perhaps more soundly based. I should like to support the noble Lord. What the fellowship has said to the noble Lord and what the noble Lord has said to this House with regard to the rights of nearest relatives to information and advice, seems a matter of great importance. I look forward with interest to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister will say in reply.
I take the point that the fellowship makes about the composition of tribunals. I do not necessarily agree that we do not want people who hold extreme views. I am not entirely sure what "extreme views" are. I might say that I am personally an extremist for moderation. It is difficult to know precisely where to place people. I agree also with the points made about the immense importance of social services reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, opened up another can of peas, if that is not being too colloquial, when he mentioned community care. Here, we are really embarking upon a subject of immense importance not wholly covered in the rules. It is nevertheless the fact that since 1960 we have seen the gradual demolition of the big mental hospitals. During the same period, we have not seen a matching increase in the community care that is necessary for the people who can no longer be cared for in the hospitals which no longer exist. I support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on some of the points that he has made. I look forward with interest to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister will say.
In particular, my reason for speaking is my concern about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, about Rules 21(4) and 22(4) in so far as they relate to the rights of the patient in mental health tribunal proceedings. It appears to me that under the Act, as it now is, and under the new rules, we have virtually abolished the old distinction between the formal procedure and the informal procedure. We now have just one procedure with the rules laid down in Rules 21(4) and 22(4). The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right to remind the House that the rule that they replace—Rule 24(3) of the 1960 Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules—included the words that he quoted. I shall quote them again because they are important. They are:
"if in their opinion it would be undesirable in the interests of the patient or for other special reasons for the patient or such other person to be present".
In other words, the previous rules laid down clear criteria under which a tribunal could decide to exclude the patient.
It seems to me that the criteria are not laid down under the new rules with the same clarity. The importance of the old rules was perhaps illustrated in the case of Royston before Mr. Justice Woolf earlier this month. This demonstrated the value of the old rule. In that case, I understand, a judgment was given showing the value of the particular rule that laid down criteria that had to be fulfilled before the patient could be excluded. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether the omission of those words was due to inadvertence, whether they were not thought

1497
necessary, or whether this represents a change in policy and outlook.
The disappearance of the criteria that existed in the former rules and their replacement with general guidance raises the question of whether Rule 22(4) as modified by Rule 21(4) is intro vires when one looks carefully at Section 78 of the Mental Health Act as it now is. I have no doubt that if it is ultra vires that information would come through to the noble Lord by other routes in due course. I should like the noble Lord to consider whether the new rule, as it now is, is in accordance with the spirit of Section 78 of the Mental Health Act as it now is. It seems to me that it departs marginally from it.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for their views and comments. The new Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules are the result of a thorough review of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1960 which apply at present. The new rules also reflect recent legislative changes made in the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 now consolidated in the Mental Health Act 1983.
In 1977 a committee of experts and officials was set up to review the procedures of the mental health review tribunals in the context of a general review of the Mental Health Act 1959 which was then taking place. This committee, which included among its members two experienced regional chairmen of mental health review tribunals, was working towards its final conclusions as the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 was being passed. That Act made a number of changes in the law affecting mental health review tribunals, all of which had to be taken into account by the Procedure Committee in the course of its task of revising the rules.
In March 1983 the Lord Chancellor's Department circulated a draft of the proposed new rules to many interested bodies including the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. The final draft of the rules was prepared in the light of those comments and, after it had been exhaustively discussed by the Procedure Committee, was submitted to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for signature.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Mottistone's concern tonight is not so much with the rights accorded to a mental patient by the new tribunal rules but the way in which their procedures affect the relatives of a mental patient whose case is coming before a tribunal. In view of this, it may be of some assistance if I outline briefly the provision in the rules which will enable the tribunal to know the views of the relatives in order that it may decide what is in the best interests of the patient.
After an application to a tribunal by a patient, Rule 7 provides for the nearest relative to be given a notice of the proceedings. Thereafter, that relative becomes a party to the proceedings as defined in Rule 2 and, as such, has all the rights of a party under the rules. These rights include the right to be represented under Rule 10, the right to receive notices relating to the proceedings and the right to appear at the hearing under Rule 22 and to take such part in the
1498
proceedings as the tribunal thinks proper. He is also entitled, under Rule 24, to receive a copy of the decision.
Furthermore, under Rule 7, the tribunal may give notice of the proceedings to any person who it considers should have the opportunity of being heard. This would extend to other friends and relatives of the patient. Anyone given notice in this way also becomes a party to the proceedings with all the rights that I have mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone was kind enough to provide me with a copy of a notice sent to him by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Before taking, in turn, the points he made, I can perhaps answer briefly the points raised by noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred in particular to Rule 6(1)(c). I hope that it is sufficient if I say that it will be for the tribunal to decide whether an omission is reasonable. If that is not a sufficient answer, I can perhaps follow it up later. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to Rule 21(4). This rightly leaves exclusion of persons from a hearing to the total discretion of the tribunal, taking all factors into account. It must give reasons and record them. I hope that that is sufficient, but if the noble Lord wishes to intervene—
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the case of Royston, brought successfully before Mr. Justice Woolf earlier this month, was brought under the old rules and could not now be brought under the new rules? To that extent, we are extinguishing a right that has hitherto existed.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can perhaps come back to the noble Lord's question when I have a reply. I do not know it off the top of my head. I was saying that my noble friend Lord Mottistone gave me warning of what the National Schizophrenia Fellowship had briefed him on. I shall take, in turn, the points made in the note which are the source of my noble friend's concern. The first is that there is no longer a form prescribed for giving notice of proceedings to the patient's nearest relative and other interested parties. It is also suggested that the nearest relative should be encouraged to indicate whether any written representations he makes are confidential.
No forms are prescribed by the rules. This is because past experience has shown that statutory forms are cumbersome to change when an improvement is proposed. However, non-statutory forms for the tribunals are in preparation. They will include a form similar to the old notice of proceedings to which I have already referred. It will contain broadly the same information about the rights of the relative as the old form, and will also invite anyone making written representations to alert the tribunal to any of his remarks which he feels should not be shown to the patient. We are preparing forms for use by the tribunals and it is intended to give a number of interested bodies, including the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, an opportunity to comment on the drafts.
Next, my noble friend and the fellowship complain briefly that the rules do not give an opportunity to a relative to address the tribunal. But this is, in fact,

1499
provided for in Rule 22(4). The third point was also made by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship in their comments on the earlier draft of the rules. They proposed an amendment to Rule 8 designed to guard against the danger of persons with extreme views being appointed to sit on mental health review tribunals. The Act gives to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor the responsibility of appointing members to the tribunals in the first place. The rules merely determine which of those members shall hear a particular case. My noble and learned friend can, I am sure, be trusted to act with his customary sense of responsibility in making these important appointments.
The fourth comment is that Rule 9, which concerns the tribunals' power to postpone consideration of an application, is difficult to understand. It may perhaps be of assistance if I explained the situation in which this rule might come into play. The right to apply to a mental health review tribunal arises only once in each of the fixed periods during which a patient is authorised to be detained. Let us suppose, therefore, that a patient applies to a tribunal towards the end of a period of detention and is unsuccessful. He starts a new period of detention and immediately exercises his fresh right to apply to the tribunal in respect of that period of detention. After making proper inquiries, the tribunal may conclude that it would be in the patient's own interest for his case to be considered rather later in the current period of detention when he will have had a chance to make more progress. This rule allows the tribunal to postpone consideration of his case under those circumstances. It thus enables the tribunal to ensure that a patient does not waste his application by making it so soon after an earlier unsuccessful hearing that his circumstances have had no time to change.
My noble friend has referred to three paragraphs in Rule 9. Paragraph (1)(b) protects the patient by providing that postponement of a hearing must not be to a date later than the end of the current period for which detention is authorised. Paragraph (2) makes it clear that the patient's interests are to be paramount. Paragraph (4) entitles all the parties, including the patient and nearest relative, to know the tribunal's reasons for a postponement. This is, of necessity, a fairly technical rule. I think, however, that the importance of setting out in strict detail the circumstances in which the power to defer consideration of a patient's case may be exercised will readily be appreciated by your Lordships.
The final point concerns the reports which are required to be supplied to the tribunal by the responsible authority. These are set out in Part B of Schedule 1 to the rules. It is suggested by my noble friend that those making these reports should be required to state specifically whether the patient is likely to avail himself of any outpatient facilities there may be, and whether he will be able to look after himself if discharged. The schedule is very exacting as to the information reports that are to be prepared by doctors, social workers and hospital authorities. It is certainly wide enough to enable the tribunal to elicit all the information it may require from those responsible in a particular case. Furthermore, the
1500
tribunal is not limited to the information set out in the schedule; it has wide powers to call for further information under Rule 15 and even to summon witnesses, should that prove necessary, under Rule 14.
The rules thus enable the tribunal to demand and obtain all the information it may consider that it needs in making an impartial judicial determination under Section 72 of the Act as to whether the patient should be discharged. That determination—which it is for the tribunal and not for a social worker or hospital authority to make—includes, in the case of a patient suffering from mental illness, having regard to the likelihood of the patient (if that patient is discharged) being able to care for himself, to obtain the care he needs or to guard himself against serious exploitation. The scheduled information does, we believe, give the tribunal the means and basis for making the determination.
In conclusion, let me say that I do not wish to adopt an adversarial approach to my noble friend, nor to appear to be unhelpful. I understand his concern and I am as anxious as he is that those who need help should receive it and that the needs of the nearest relative should never be forgotten. But I do not accept that these regulations, generally acceptable as they have been to professional bodies in the field, will conflict with these aims.
I hope that I have answered all the points that have been raised. However, I am conscious of the fact that I have not answered the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on a specific matter which he raised, and I hope he will be happy if I write to him and answer the specific point in due course. But in the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his opposition to these rules.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, once again I am deeply grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for their support of the general theme of my comments on this particular set of rules. I am heartened by the extent to which my noble friend the Minister has explained the background to the points that I raised, and why things are the way they are. I am also heartened by the thought that there will be, as I understand it, explanatory leaflets for the benefit of relatives, and indeed others, in interpreting these rules and that they will be made available to the appropriate people. I am also grateful to my noble friend for spelling out the rights of the nearest relative, and for carefully taking us through the rules showing us all the things to which they are entitled. That could well form the basis for the type of further information that I sought. With those thanks, I beg leave to withdraw the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

South London Hospital for Women
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the future of the South London Hospital for Women.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise at this very, very late hour to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement on the future of the South London Hospital for Women. But, before I do so, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to thank in advance—because I am not allowed to do so at the end—all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and also other noble Lords who would have liked to do so but who unfortunately are not able to be here this evening. I should also like to thank all those outside the Chamber who have given me and all noble Lords who are taking part, such a great deal of support and help as regards this debate, and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, who will be making his maiden speech. We certainly look forward to hearing him.
For the last three hours I have spent my time tearing up most of what I wanted to say because I knew that it would take me too long to say it. But, in my view, this hospital is not only unique, but essential. It is 70 years old. It occupies an excellent building, which cannot be said of all the new buildings. It is called the "South London" hospital which means, to most people, a geographical area, but it by no means covers only that particular area of London. It covers the whole of London and many patients come from all parts of the country. Along with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, it is unique in that, completely and throughout, the whole of the hospital is staffed by women for women. It is unique also because of the number of disciplines and the number of out-patients with which it deals.
I feel it worth stating the disciplines here because then your Lordships will have some picture of the amount of work done in this hospital. Medicine includes cardiology, rheumatology, gastro-enterology, diabetes and endocrinology; surgery includes a breast clinic; obstetrics includes a GP delivery unit; gynaecology includes cytology, colposcopy and infertility. There are special clinics for dermatology and psychiatry; there is a dental clinic, a clinic for radiotherapy and ophthalmology; there is a dietician, and a chiropody clinic; there is family planning, including psycho-sexual counselling, a day-care abortion unit, and a clinic for venereal disease. I think that that is enough to show your Lordships that it is a vitally important hospital.
However, from all the people to whom I have spoken about the South London Hospital for Women what comes out loud and clear is TLC—tender, loving care—which is given by those members of the hospital to their patients. That come out very clearly indeed.
This hospital is essential because I and many other people in your Lordships' Chamber believe in freedom of choice. We believe that we should be able to be treated and to be counselled by a woman. No one can tell me that if one goes to a general hospital, even if one is lucky enough to be seen by a woman consultant at the beginningg of one's treatment, one will go on being treated by a woman. Therefore, I think that freedom of choice is essential.
It is also essential for the ethnic minority who live in that part of London and, indeed, in many other parts of London, because, as all noble Lords will know, part of the religion of some of the ethnic minorities is that they have to be treated by a woman.
What are the reasons for the possible closure? It seems to me to be entirely financial, but even that does not hold water, because the cost of a bed at the South London Hospital is 57 per cent, the cost of a bed at St. George's, Tooting, where the patients will go if the present scheme is allowed to go ahead. I agree with my honourable friend Mr. Shelton, who said in an adjournment debate in another place on 19th July, at column 353 of the Official Report:
"of course one appreciates the ambitions of those who wish St. George's to be a showpiece and one of Europe's finest hospitals. No doubt there are some who regard the South London as standing in the way of that ambition. However, I think that hon. Members will agree that ambition must not overrule logic, commonsense and financial prudence".
Those of us who have anything to do with vast hospitals know how expensive they are, how soulless they can be, and how quickly they can become unreal white elephants. My noble friend Lord Porritt, a previous president of the Royal College of Surgeons, has allowed me to quote him as saying that he likes small hospitals, and is in favour of hospitals for women. However, he was not able to join us this evening.
At the moment the position is that on 30th June the district Health authority decided on closure next April. The voting was 10 in favour, seven against, and one abstention. That decision was ratified by the regional health authority. But it is interesting to note that the four medical members of the district health authority of Wandsworth work at St. George's, and that by no means all members of the authority have even been to the South London Hospital.
However, the important point is that the Community Health Council, which is the statutory representative of the public, is completely opposed to closure, and it has been backed by many members of the district health authority. Recently I had the privilege of going to the South London Hospital and, on behalf of the staff, the League of Hospital Friends and the GLC, all of whom are optimistic for their hospital, I handed over a laser—a vitally important piece of equipment—which cost those people £25,000.
There is a very great deal of feeling in the country, and, of course, especially in London, about the possible closure of this hospital. Last week a meeting was held in the Grand Committee room downstairs at which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, was present with me. The Mothers' Union was represented and spoke, the Women's Institute was represented and spoke, the Catholic Women were represented and the Leagues of Hospital Friends were represented. It was a very full enthusiastic gathering. It was, of course, also attended by the medical staff, and all the staff of the hospital were represented at that meeting. I have since received a letter from the chairman of the Women's Institute in which she says that all of her 360,000 women members of the institute are behind her in asking the Government not to close this hospital. The Prime Minister has also received some 55,829 signatures.
I said that I would be brief, and I shall be. In conclusion, through my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I would ask the Minister to make whatever financial provision is necessary. I would also ask him not to allow this great hospital to close. Once closed, it can never regain its special, unique and essential position.

1503
I know that he will listen to all sides, but the dedicated staff at all levels hope that he will realise how vital their work is in the field of medicine in this country.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I am sure that all of us in this Chamber and, if they were able to, many thousands of women outside this Chamber, would love to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and thank her deeply for raising this very special and particular issue just before the summer recess. For it is absolutely essential—and I hope that the Government will listen with great sympathy—that this hospital shall not close. It is that for which we are pleading.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has made it clear why the hospital is under threat. I agree with her that it looks as though it is a financial matter, because the Wandsworth Health Authority wants to build this magnificent wing at St. George's. It will cost a lot of money to build and I understand that it will cost a lot of money to run. I think that in the other place Mr. Shelton mentioned that it would cost £13 million per annum at 1982 prices to run. So that health authority is looking round at its holdings to see what it can do in order to have that fine project, and what it can do in its pool of accommodation to save a little money. I cannot think how it could do it, but it has; its eyes alighted on this small hospital for women along Clapham Common, which would apparently save it £5 million a year. For some, £5 million is indeed £5 million; but that is all it is.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, did not mention that the West Lambeth Authority has pointed out that if the South London Hospital is closed then its area will be short of 80 beds. When this issue was referred to the Wandsworth Health Authority they apparently said, according to Mr. Shelton, that it was no concern of theirs. I find that a most irresponsible and regrettable attitude for any health authority to take.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, mentioned the unit costs of South London compared with St. George's. That is something that should be noted carefully. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that small is beautiful. Have we not begun to learn that lesson yet in this country? Have we not seen that we now want smaller schools? The housing estates, great blocks of flats and so on, are not what people respond to. They are not economical; they are not what the nation requires. Small is beautiful.
I use the word "small", but I would make it clear that we are not talking about a cottage hospital, a tiny hospital. This hospital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, made plain, is wonderfully well-equipped. It gives wide services over a wide field. It has four fine operating theatres. It is an excellent, well-equipped hospital which stands on its own. The desire of the Wandsworth Health Authority to build this other wing should have no effect on the South London Hospital for Women at all.
It is a special hospital. It treats only women. It is entirely staffed by women, and it should be kept as a completely separate unit. It has been under threat
1504
before, but any threat to close it should be forgotten for ever as long as it lasts. It should be allowed to stand on its own for the special thing that it is, keeping its own identity, with no question of amalgamating it with anything else at all.
I, too, do not want to speak too long because the hour is late. The main point is that it is a hospital exclusively for women, staffed by women. It is rare and valuable, and I must say I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that it is a greatly appreciated institution. It has enormous local support. I live within half-a-mile of it, so I know. I have also experienced it as a patient, and so I again know from the inside how excellent it is. It is wonderfully well served by public transport. It has a Tube station across the road with a pedestrian crossing to bring people across to it. It is well served by buses, and the building is an excellent and attractive building.
I do not ever count myself as a feminist. I do not join women-only committtees, or anything of that sort at all. I agree that they do a good job of work, but they are not for me. However, there is an essential and strong case for keeping a women-only hospital. Let us be frank: women are physically different from men. We have body rhythms that are different from men. These body rhythms affect women physically, psychologically and emotionally. The best of men doctors do their utmost, I am certain, to understand women's problems, but their understanding must be an intellectual understanding. A woman doctor is a woman, and she understands a woman's problems as only a woman can. In medical matters this is vitally important.
A woman doctor has an innate and intuitive understanding. I am sure your Lordships would all agree that there are things that a woman would tell a woman doctor which, however skilful and sympathetic a man might be, he would never get out of her; things that would reveal hidden problems that were affecting her physically, mentally, and emotionally. Therefore, to have women doctors available for women in a hospital where you know you are going to have a woman doctor is important.
It is not the same to go to another hospital, however good, and to be told, "Well, you can have a woman to see you, but it cannot be guaranteed that you will never come up against a man doing something for you, or seeing you in such a hospital." It is not possible to guarantee that; and it has to be guaranteed for some women, such as the ethnic minorities, which have already been mentioned. This is important. It is important to a woman not to have to go to another hospital and to have to say, with some diffidence, "I would like to be seen by a woman". She does not want to have to do that. She wants a hospital where she knows that she is going to have a woman. Why should she not have such a thing? Are we asking for something extraordinary for women—one little hospital? Not Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, but just this one other hospital. Surely it is not too much to ask; surely it is a proper thing to be granted.
I mentioned that I went to the hospital as a patient. I remember going home afterwards and saying to my husband, "I was most impressed". I know those were the words I used. As a patient I was most impressed by

1505
the reception; by the examination; by the down-to-earth questions that were asked me; by my treatment; by everything in that hospital. I have also been to other hospitals. I go to St. Thomas's, which is a fine hospital; but this little hospital was different, and it was absolutely excellent. I shall not continue any further, but we must plead with the Government to let us. as women, keep our little hospital because it is so first-class.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for putting down this Question. It is well known that we on this Bench and our Liberal colleagues support the principles of the National Health Service in an unqualified manner. We committed ourselves in our manifesto to allow for the growth required by changing age patterns in the population, as well as to provide £500 million for experiments and innovative practices in medicine. At the same time, we are acutely conscious of the cost factor, and would certainly want to seek productivity improvements wherever possible without loss of service.
In this particular case, that of the South London Hospital for Women, we of course understand the genuine concern expressed by the noble Baroness, and so movingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, who has just sat down, over the future of this hospital, with its great tradition and fine record of service. Certainly, also, the "small is beautiful" argument is attractive. That, again, was eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Denington.
It was in fact argued by Mr. William Shelton in another place in the adjournment debate mentioned by the noble Baroness. Lady Macleod, on 19th July, at col. 354, that hospitals with between 100 and 300 beds are usually cheaper to run than those with over that number. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when he comes to reply could comment on that. The real problem surely is that there are too many acute beds rather widely dispersed in and around London as a result of the shrinkage of the population of Greater London by some 10 per cent. over the past decade.
So it seems inevitable that some sort of rationalisation should take place. In this connection I understand that a heavy investment has taken place in the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. When the noble Lord winds up the debate, will he tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to reopen the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital for in-patients if the South London Hospital is closed?
Mr. Patten, the Minister, said in another place:
"I do not comment in any detail tonight on a possible marriage between the South London Hospital for Women and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. That idea is new to me".—(Official Report. Commons; 19/7/83, col. 356.]
That seems strange if such expenditure is being made at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, but it may simply mean that the Minister is new to the job. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is better informed than his colleague and can tell us the position there.
As has been mentioned, there has also been a substantial investment in the St. George's Hospital which, according to my information, has 560 beds,
1506
which puts it in a bigger league. But it could hardly operate with a lower figure if it is to remain a teaching hospital.
But the crux of the matter is the all-important question of the right of access to women doctors for women who so desire it. It has been the great achievement of the South London Hospital to make this a reality since the early days of its foundation, back in 1912. But, at the same time, the Minister argued in another place that the situation has changed since those days. Equality of opportunity for women doctors is protected by legislation and currently nearly half of all students entering medical schools are women. Thus, he argued, it is much more likely that a woman who wishes to be treated by a woman doctor will have that opportunity.
This is obviously the case, but even with a high or higher percentage of women doctors spread throughout the system it must remain something of a lottery, particularly at hospitals and in emergencies. This constitutes a problem, particularly for Muslims and other religious and ethnic minorities, who are inhibited by custom or prohibited by religion from being examined or treated by male doctors. There is the rather alarming prospect of some women or girls refusing to go to a hospital for cervical smears or the other necessary aspects of preventive medicine, if they could not be seen by a woman doctor. It is my firm view that it is incumbent on the Government, before they permit this closure to go ahead—the Minister reiterated on 19th July that no decision had yet been taken—to tell the House how they propose to cater for these legitimate needs and preferences if they permit this closure to go ahead.
Health policy often seems to be conducted in a piecemeal fashion. What is clearly required is a coherent view of how this real problem can be solved, or is best solved, within the wider pattern of the provision for South London. There is a further point which has not yet been mentioned this evening. I gather that the Wandsworth Community Health Council. which is a statutory body, has come up with alternative proposals. We should like to hear the Government's reaction to these.
While we sympathise very much with the noble Baroness's Question—I am asked to say the same on behalf of my Liberal colleagues—our attitude on this issue will depend on the Government's answer to this debate. I look forward to hearing the statement called for in the noble Baroness's Question.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Lawrence: My Lords, it is a great honour that I am allowed to speak in your Lordships' House and I crave your Lordships' indulgence in this my maiden speech. Also may I thank the noble Baroness for asking this Question on the South London Hospital for Women. It might strike your Lordships as presumptious and that it is peculiar for me to choose to make a maiden speech on a subject that is primarily of interest to women; and that it is a presumption on my part to speak on behalf of women; but in view of the composition of this House I hope that your Lordships will bear with me.

1507
It strikes me that the crux of this matter is whether gender is a factor that creates its own special needs; that is, whether men and women differ in their medical and psychological needs and therefore require special services within the National Health Service. Also, some women perceive it to be the case that their needs are different and they think this is the situation, be they adolescents, Asians or shy old-age pensioners. In addition, in a single sex hospital catering to a single sex, they have control over procedures and policies. If they are one unit within a major hospital group, that unit has to follow different procedures and be integrated into a major hospital. This integration process could be in conflict with a single sex policy.
This might seem to be an issue of closing one hospital, but surely this is an issue of choice. If this Government during the 1980s are going to support freedom of choice they cannot justify the closing of this hospital.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, I should first like to make two congratulations; the first is to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, on having the courage to raise this very important Question today, and the other is to the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, who has made his maiden speech.
It is often well known that women like women doctors to look after them, much as some people do not believe that. There are often small medical problems to deal with which only women can understand. Certain small adjustments may have to be made. Women understand these but men do not; it is difficult for men to understand these things.
When a women has problems often the only alternative is for her to go to a specialist to be treated. This is not much fun because it is not the National Health Service she goes to, but to a specialist. That means she pays about £15 for three minutes for a very slight adjustment to be made. That is very unfair. One's own national health doctor has no time at all, as I have discovered myself, to deal with certain problems. There has to be a hospital for women to go to which they can trust, which they understand, which is good and is important. Women cannot pay £15 for three minutes, as I have said.
It is shocking that a good hospital should at this time be shut down. There is no excuse for that. It is not that we are overwhelmed with doctors; we are not. We do not have all the facilities we would like to have, so it is a particular disgrace to find that a good hospital may be shut down, especially as it is solely for women.
I have very little else to say, having congratulated the maiden speaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. The fact is that women like women doctors—much as some people try to deny this. Women like to be dealt with by women doctors. It seems to me heartbreaking that this hospital should be shut down, and personally I am very much against it. I hope that the Government—or whoever has to think about these things—will think again and not do this. It is an attack on women; it is treating women badly if we shut down this hospital. And we are not in a position
1508
to treat women badly. It is not a good thing; it should not be done. I hope either that this hospital will be maintained or that something very, very good will be put in its place.
8.41 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not mind if I, too, congratule the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, on his maiden speech. I feel very guilty because I put him up to it. I did not think that he would make a speech on women's hospitals; and I feel that he has done very well indeed. I do not know whether he or I was the more nervous. The noble Baronesses, Lady Denington and Lady Gaitskell, very adequately made the points that I had intended to make about the need for some women to be seen by women, so I shall not repeat them.
The Wandsworth District Health Authority has given only financial reasons for its proposal to close the hospital in April 1984. By saving the £5 million it costs to run this small efficient, up-to-date hospital, the authority will meet the £3 million deficit in its current revenue expenditure. In addition, the authority expects to improve facilities for priority care groups, provide out-patient ante-natal facilities in the vicinity of the existing hospital and put some of the savings towards its long-term planning strategy—in other words, the funding of Phase 2A of the improvement to St. George's Hospital, Tooting. I am led to believe that the extension to St. George's Hospital is going to cost several million pounds to build and will cost in the region of £14 million a year to run. Even with my pocket calculator and my shoes and stockings off, I cannot work out how the Wandsworth District Health Authority thinks it can balance its books now, let alone in five years' time if it provides all these facilities.
My Lords, I do not want to speak for too long but I have several questions that I should like to ask the Minister. Is he satisfied that the financial proposals tabled by the Wandsworth District Health Authority are soundly-based and feasible and, if so, in the event of the closure of the South London Hospital for Women, can he guarantee that the women in its catchment area will receive the same very high quality of treatment that they receive now? This must include the ability to be seen by female consultants and other staff throughout the period of their need for treatment as in-patients or out-patients.
Will the ante-natal clinic include facilities for X-rays, blood and urine analysis, scans and other diagnostic equipment; or will they be expected to travel to and to wait at either St. George's or St. James' for these facilities? Is the authority able to make up the loss of 100 ante-natal and post-natal beds in either local hospital at April 1984? Are out-patient services at the two remaining hospitals sufficient to be able to cater for an additional 45,000-plus visits a year, including nearly 8,000 venereal disease cases, without detriment to the current two-week maximum between the time a patient asks for an appointment and the time she is seen?
Can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to the proposal by the Wandsworth Community Health Council for a marriage with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital with supra-

1509
regional funding? I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, for raising this Unstarred Question.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, my purpose in speaking certainly is not to make a long speech. Already the points have been very well covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, herself with support from the other speakers. But it is such an important issue that I would wish to identify myself with the debate and also to underline some of the points that have already been made. It has clearly been put forward that the case for closing this important hospital is really financial and that the Wandsworth Regional Hospital Health Authority has stated that the savings that come out of this closure will go into developing the big new hospital at St. George's and that this will provide services for priority groups in the future.
This evening, I think that it is our preoccupation to try to identify some of the reasons for keeping the hospital open. This is why I should like to underline some of the points that have been made already. I think the point that this hospital is a unique one is of great importance. It is, indeed, Britain's only surviving women's general hospital where patients are treated entirely by female doctors. Thus two needs are met. First, with only 11 per cent. of hospital consultants being women, there must be a case for positive discrimination to allow more female doctors the opportunity to become consultants and to gain clinical experience. On the second count, there will always be women patients wishing to be treated by women doctors. I know that this point has been made very often and already this evening; but I think that this is not only so for the women of ethnic minorities: there is also a very strong case for women of all kinds to he looked after by female doctors.
Perhaps this is a little difficult for men to understand. My noble friend Lady Denington has said this. After all, many of the ailments from which women suffer and which provide reasons for wishing for medical attention come from their physical makeup. Thus, one can conclude that these sensitivities and anxieties are better shared and attended to by women doctors. I really cannot see that it is too much to ask. I sometimes feel that, if the male and female roles in life were, through some sublime intervention, to be suddenly reversed, there would be numerous hospitals where men were being attended to by numerous male doctors; and there would be no question of any of those hospitals being closed. I am not saying this from a purely feminist point of view but because I think it is probably the case.
Finally, I should like to mention one or two of the supportive, practical reasons (some which have been given already) for keeping the hospital open. First, it is important that it is so accessible. It is provided with adequate public transport, which is a very important factor as 75 per cent. of its patients come from social classes unlikely to be in a position to afford private transport. How will those patients get to St. George's? The waiting list is short, and the future of its essential family planning clinic and cervical cytology and Well
1510
Women clinics have not been ensured in any way. It is a small and happy hospital as has been stressed.
However, there is also doubt as to whether the savings from the closure will go into development of new medical services. This doubt, I think, can be justified by the fact that no money for new development has been released despite the closure of five hospitals in Wandsworth over the last seven years. Finally, the consultant anaesthetist at the hospital has been reported as saying that transferring patients to St. George's would mean fewer obstetric and gynaecological beds, which would lead to women being sent home earlier after having their babies. And these are women coming from homes where conditions should not allow them to come home early.
Lastly, I think it is an important factor that there has been a public outcry about this and a petition signed by an infinite number of people. It is proof that there is very strong feeling in the community about it. It surely
all adds up really to wondering why we should get rid of something which is both working efficiently and responding to a real need in order to replace it with something which is unproved and unknown. We in this country have always prided ourselves on having a respect for the sensitivities of minorities. Surely, the South London Hospital for Women has been a means of respecting that virtue. It has not only watched over the sensitivities of women coming from the ethnic minorities but it has also helped the group which, although it is in the majority, is sometimes treated as a minority—and that group consists of women generally. So I, too, should very much like to urge the Minister to look at this again and see whether this hospital can be saved.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, first may I add to the congratulations that have been given to my noble friend Lady Macleod, not least for being fortunate enough to get this debate but also for the zeal and effort she has put into the campaign to keep this hospital open. May I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, on his maiden speech, which was, I am sure, a delight to all the Whips—so commendably short, as we are always told a maiden speech should be, and so succinct. I hope that we shall hear him on other occasions. I also have to apologise to my noble friend because it is just possible that time will run out on me as I have to catch a train tonight to the West Country. I assure him that I intend no discourtesy to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, or to other Members of your Lordships' House if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I can also assure your Lordships that I shall read Hansard avidly tomorrow night when I get back.
I must confess that with six years' experience of the Ministry of Health behind me I have some sympathy with my noble friend because I know from experience that you can build at vast expense a beautiful modern hospital with double the accommodation of its predecessor, but if you try to close even a 30-bed cottage hospital you are going to have a petition, a picketing and a demo, no matter what. So I have great sympathy with him; but I believe that in this instance there are certain features about the South London which stand on their own. There is its record and the

1511
use that is made of its capacity. I believe and hope that the Minister will give this matter very special consideration.
I do not think I can claim to be anything like a militant feminist, because I must confess that throughout my life I have always been attended by male doctors. I have never been attended by a woman doctor in my life. But, however much we may deplore it, the complete dominance of many Arab and Asian males, and some Africans, in dealing with the womenfolk in their families is very real indeed. We may deplore it; and I am on record in this House as opposing arranged marriages for girls who never see the man they are to marry until he arrives in this country. I have also opposed female circumcision; but my concern this time is not with men but the fact that women needing medical treatment may be denied it because of religious and male prejudices, which are often shared by the females themselves as a result of their rigid upbringing. It is going to take time, it is going to take new generations of women born, bred and educated in this country, to eradicate that prejudice. In the meantime, we must take steps to ensure that women do not suffer.
The South London area includes a considerable proportion of Commonwealth immigrants. This hospital—not too large and not over-administered—is very fully occupied practically to its capacity, and it is very greatly in demand because, as other speakers have outlined, there is a sense of unity and of loving care on the part of the staff. It is ideally situated, as has been pointed out already, from the point of view of patients and visiting families.
Twice at a great London teaching hospital, while myself a patient, I have seen a poor sick woman, shrouded from head to foot and flanked by two men, held back from her treatment until the husband had assured himself that there were no men in sight in the treatment rooms. I am convinced that, had there been, those two men would have whipped the poor woman off and taken her home without her treatment. I believe this male attitude is quite intolerable, but our concern must be the sick and, in many cases, the very subservient woman.
Strangely enough, my concern is less in respect of pregnant women, because many men will swallow their prejudice in order to get top gynaecological treatment for a wife in the prime hope that she will present him with a son. It is rather in the realm of real illness, as distinct from the natural progression of pregnancy. It is there that the prejudice against examination by a male doctor may bear more heavily on these unfortunate women. A cervical smear test may be involved or a check for breast cancer, a check for diabetes or an abdominal disorder. All these may go unchecked until it becomes desperately acute where there is a rigid prejudice prevailing against the general hospital, with its predominance of male doctors, and these women are not allowed to be seen unclothed by a male doctor. It is a question of time, patience and education; yet if we are to ensure that these unfortunate women. now citizens of our own country, get the medical treatment they require, I believe that the South London Hospital for Women remains a very real need.
8.57 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, may I, too, thank the noble Baroness. Lady Macleod, for her initiation of this debate and for all the work she has been doing in support of the South London Hospital for Women. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to the many points that have already been put in the debate. As many speakers have said, the South London Hospital is now unique in this country in that it is the only hospital solely for women where the medical staff, too, are women only. It is the only hospital of its kind which is providing such a wide range of services in such an excellent way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and others have said.
I do not want to dwell on some of the excellent services this hospital provides. I want to look at it from another aspect, because it has been said that in the 1980s it sounds like an anachronism to want to maintain a single-sex hospital, a hospital for women only. Some may be surprised that, as a former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission concerned with equal opportunities for both men and women, I should he standing up in this debate supporting the continuation of this hospital.
Let me assure your Lordships there is no contradiction here. When the Sex Discrimination Act was going through Parliament it was quite clear that hospitals such as the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital (now no longer functioning in the way it used to function) and the South London Hospital should be protected. Lest that should be doubted in any way, I have checked the Home Office notes on clauses which were published at the time the Sex Discrimination Bill was before Parliament. These notes state quite clearly that the intention was that Clause 7 of the Sex Discrimination Bill—genuine occupational qualification—would apply to single-sex institutions such as single-sex hospitals.
Therefore, although it has never been contested in the courts, it is likely that medical staff in a women's hospital could be women only and that this would be upheld in the courts. Similarly, the provision of a service for a single sex in a single sex hospital would also he lawful under Section 35 of the Act. Therefore it is highly likely, as I believe the Equal Opportunities Commission have advised, that the continuation of this women's hospital is well within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. I regret that Dr. Enid Vincent, the Wandsworth Health Authority's medical officer, is reported to have said that the hospital is an anachronism. I have more sympathy with the hospital spokeswoman who is reported to have said: "A lot of women can't talk to a male doctor—and quite honestly a lot of male doctors cannot talk to women patients on, for example, problems like severe premenstrual tension".
Whatever may be our attitude in this House in talking to doctors of either sex in a confidential and professional way, we must acknowledge that there are some women who find this very difficult indeed. Sometimes women in ethnic groups, as the noble Baroness said, cannot talk to a male doctor because of their religion. There are also indigenous British women who find it difficult to discuss sensitive issues with a male doctor. As a result, many of these women tend to neglect symptoms which need immediate

1513
attention if worse symptoms are to be prevented from occurring.
There are many more women, particularly younger women, who are becoming very much aware of health problems related to a woman's physical make-up: problems relating to menstruation, childbirth and the menopause. They feel that these problems should be given more attention by the medical profession and that they should be discussed more openly. These women come from a very wide cross-section of the community. They are the kind of women to whom the noble Baroness referred who attended the meeting in a room in another place. They feel that they should be better able to understand the functioning of their own bodies and that this could better be achieved by discussion with a professional person of their own sex.
Therefore, for three reasons I support the continuation of this hospital as a hospital for women only. First, I believe it is essential that women should be able to have a woman doctor if they feel that they need one. Secondly, if this is to be a real choice, we need many more women consultants and hospital doctors. Although we are approaching near parity between men and women in the medical schools, still something like 20 per cent. only of all hospital doctors are women. And only 11 per cent. of consultants are women. One of the features of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital and the South London Hospital has been the support and encouragement given to women in a still male-dominated profession. This House should go on record as supporting women in this very important career. Thirdly, I support the continuation of this hospital because it is most important that more attention within our medical services should be devoted to the health problems of women arising from and connected with women's biological functions.
Forty per cent. of the population are women over 15 years old. All of them at some time will be affected by one or more of the health issues associated with this biological function. This is far too substantial a proportion of the population to ignore, or play down the peculiar health hazards associated with it. In the past, we played down these problems and pretended that some aspects of health did not exist. The South London Hospital, in a small but nevertheless very significant way, has been a counterbalance to this neglect. I believe that we in this House should support it in its efforts to continue to serve women.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to the comments which have been made and to the work which has been done by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve.
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak at the proper time. However, I wish to associate myself with the expression of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who has raised this question tonight.
I shall speak only briefly. At this time of cuts and problems in the National Health Service, the policy seems to be to cut down first on women's health care. I have spoken many times about the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. I do not intend to make any party point tonight. Indeed. I have had to fight Ministers in
1514
my own party about the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. But there seem to be people in the Ministry or in the Government who believe that when there have to be cuts the services provided for women should be cut first. That is absolutely wrong.
It is very easy to say that in these modern times you can see a woman doctor when you go to hospital. That is true, but can you see a woman consultant? As my noble friend Lady Lockwood has pointed out, the number of women consultants is very much smaller than the number of male consultants. The worry for many women is that if they go into hospital they may see a woman doctor, but that if they need more sophisticated treatment they will not see a woman. We are still living in a situation where women consultants are very few in number when compared with men consultants.
I do not wish to make a long speech about this particular hospital, but where a hospital is doing a good job, why close it down? I should like to feel we were closing hospitals which were not doing any good, but here we are talking about National Health Service hospitals. If the National Health Service means anything it means that the public are paying for that service. If the public want that service, then they should have it. There should not be some committee or Minister coming along and saying, "You cannot have it". I hope very much that we shall tonight pass on the message, as we did with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, that this hospital, too, is meeting a need, that people want it, that the people pay for it—the public pay for it—and there is no reason why the Government should agree to its being shut down. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that the hospital is going to continue.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, we have certainly had a very good debate, and first I should like to congratualte the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, on his maiden speech. We look forward to further contributions from the noble Lord. One thing of which I am sure is that the noble Lord feels better now than before he made his maiden speech. That is a feeling of relief that one can understand; I having made three, all told.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, faces a formidable task. We have heard many noble Baronesses putting the women's point of view, aided by a couple of noble Lords. Even with all the goodwill evident at the start of the recess, I am afraid that I am unable to help the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I strongly support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. The South London Hospital for Women renders a unique service to women and should be allowed to continue. It is most accessible in a heavily populated area—an area I know quite well. This is a very important factor, particularly in respect of gynaecological cases and in regard to older women. A further factor that cannot be ignored—and one that has been referred to—is that this hospital is situated in an area having a large ethnic population. Noble Baronesses have already stressed the desire of many ethnic women to be dealt with by a woman doctor as part of their conventions: it is not something with

1515
which I always agree, but it is a fact of life which must be faced.
I want to take a slightly different line from most of the speakers tonight because, unfortunately, this excellent hospital is only one of a number facing closure at the present time. A number have already been closed. The situation, already serious, is bound to get worse due to the imposition of further financial cuts by the Secretary of State on South-East England health authorities. The new cuts will wipe out all but £15 million of the £98 million gross money already allocated last April. I have had something to do with this in the past, and the policy of directing money away from the South-East to other health authorities is developing into an impossible situation, leading to a severe reduction of health service facilities in London and South-East England.
The diverting of facilities to larger hospitals—some of them new—as suggested in the case of the South London Hospital for Women, will not improve the situation but will only make matters worse. Such hospitals are already working under great difficulties with lengthening waiting lists. Much of this is due to financial restrictions. To me, it does not seem to make financial sense to close a structurally sound hospital and expand St. George's Hospital mainly to compensate.
New hospital buildings are costly and take considerable time to plan and build. One point of which I am sure is that the phasing of the building of hospitals with rising costs is a most expensive procedure to adopt. I have had some experience of this in the past and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith (who has now left her place) will also appreciate the point I am making. These remarks are relevant to this debate because neither the regional health authority nor the district health authority will have reached the regrettable conclusion to close the South London Hospital for Women had it not been for the acute financial position forced on them by the DHSS.
Personally, I feel a great deal of relief that I am not now involved in hospital administration and so have not to endure the agonising decisions that have to be taken by regional and district health authorities.
The decision to save this excellent hospital, to put it quite bluntly, is squarely in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. The situation facing the South London Hospital for Women is of their creation, and I sincerely trust that they will favourably consider the appeal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and many other Members of your Lordships' House. Not one voice has been raised contary to the appeal made to keep this hospital going. I accept, of course, that women have a right to be treated by women doctors. There is a need in certain circumstances for others, apart from ethnic minority reasons. to be so treated. That right must be protected, and certainly this hospital must not close.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Macleod has spoken with her usual eloquence about a matter which concerns her greatly; I am grateful to her for her remarks, and for the remarks of all those other
1516
Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken so eloquently and in such a moving manner this evening. I am also aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and a number of your Lordships and Members of another place, too, have received representations about the future of the South London Hospital for Women. I am delighted, therefore, to have this opportunity to explain the current position and to clarify a number of the issues which have been raised.
But before I do so, my Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lawrence, on his excellent maiden speech. This is in fact a maiden opportunity for me to congratulate a maiden speaker from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted to do so on this occasion. The noble Lord's remarks were thoughtful, stimulating and also short. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that we look forward to hearing him many times in the future.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod will know, the South London Hospital for Women, which is managed by the Wandsworth Health Authority, was founded in 1912 with two main aims. These were to enable women patients who so preferred to be treated by women and also to train women doctors as hospital specialists at a time when it was often difficult for women doctors to gain appropriate graduate experience and postgraduate training. There have been many changes in attitudes towards women in medicine since those days and it is now possible for any qualified woman doctor to have the opportunity of following the postgraduate medical training of her choice. This equality of opportunity for women is protected by legislation. In 1911, the year before the South London Hospital opened, fewer than 2 per cent. of doctors in England and Wales were women. Currently, nearly half of all students entering medical schools are women. Therefore, it is now much more likely that a woman will be treated by a woman doctor. I also fully appreciate that some women prefer—for religious, cultural or other reasons—to be seen by women doctors. Indeed, it is the policy of most health authorities, including Wandsworth, to arrange for women who so wish to be seen by women doctors unless exceptional circumstances make this impossible. I hope that that to some extent covers the point that was made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
My Ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security and I have received many representations against the closure of the hospital on the grounds that it provides a national service. There is statistical information, however, to suggest that the hospital provides an essentially local service. In 1982, for example, over 80 per cent. of patients at the South London Hospital came from the immediate neighbourhood (Wandsworth and West Lambeth). Fewer than 3 per cent. of the patients who travelled to the hospital came from the GLC area north of the river Thames, and fewer than 2 per cent. of the patients came from outside the GLC area. I hope my noble friend Lady Macleod will forgive me for having spent a minute or two outlining the origins and purpose of the hospital, but I feel that this is important in view of the current proposals about its future.
I should like to take the opportunity now to say that the Government have demonstrated their commit-

1517
ment to the redevelopment of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital on its present site by agreeing to fund the building costs from central reserves. These costs will amount to a total of £3 million over the years 1980–84. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, amongst others, that some form of marriage between the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and the South London Hospital might be possible. I cannot say that that is possible. Services at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital are an integral part of health facilities in the Bloomsbury district. Even if the South London Hospital does close there are no plans to open in-patient medical, or surgical beds at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. However, it will provide in-patient gynaecology facilities, out-patient services and an early diagnostic unit. Another measure of the Government's concern about care for women is their decision to provide extra funds to enable the Royal Marsden to continue providing at their early diagnostic unit a routine breast cancer screening service for women.
Returning to the South London Hospital, the former Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority envisaged the closure of the hospital in the late 1980s before the opening of Phase IIA of St. George's Hospital, Tooting. However, a number of factors have influenced the new Wandsworth Health Authority to bring forward both the consultation programme and the date of the proposed closure of this hospital. These include the need to ensure that the necessary revenue will be available for the next phase of St. George's Hospital before contracts are let next year. All health authorities have been asked to ensure that the extra revenue requirements of a scheme which will call for additional resources can be met before inviting tenders and letting contracts. This is essential if we are to avoid having new and much needed hospital developments which then have beds which can only be partially opened because of lack of funds.
Two main factors have led the Wandsworth Health Authority to bring forward the proposed closure from the late 1980s to 1984. First, the authority is properly taking steps to remain within its statutory cash limit. The Wandsworth District is historically overfunded in terms of national resources and, as part of national and regional redistribution policies, Wandsworth has faced a reduction in its revenue allocation in the current year and has had to take a hard look at all its services to find ways of improving efficiency and making savings. Secondly, the Wandsworth Health Authority is concerned to find ways of improving services for priority care groups within the district, particularly the mentally ill, and has therefore proposed the earlier closure of the South London Hospital partly in order to release resources in the interim for these services. Wandsworth estimate that closure of the hospital would save £5 million annually. In the short term, this would enable the authority to reprovide the services currently provided at the South London, at St. George's and St. James' Hospitals.
The Wandsworth Health Authority is satisfied that the additional workload could be met at St. George's and St. James' Hospitals if the South London Hospital were closed. It estimates that about £1 million per annum would be required to meet the costs of transferring services to St. George's and St. James' Hospitals.
1518
The figure of £13 million, which was referred to, relates to the additional running cost of the next phase—Phase IIA—at St. George's Hospital when this opens in the late 1980s. The health authority plans to meet these additional resource costs by closure of the South London Hospital, closing the old Knightsbridge wing of St. George's Hospital and transferring services for the elderly from St. John's Hospital to St. James' and Bolingbroke Hospitals. The additional cost of providing services now at the South London Hospital in other hospitals in Wandsworth—that is, by using underused existing facilities—is as I said, estimated at about £ 1 million a year.
A number of your Lordships have drawn attention to the financial constraints facing the Wandsworth Health Authority and have compared the unit costs of St. George's and the South London Hospital. I should like to assure your Lordships that we shall look very carefully at this before reaching a decision. We shall certainly have due regard to what my noble friend lady Macleod of Borve referred to as logic, common sense and financial prudence. The savings would also allow the authority to improve services for the mentally ill at Springfield Hospital and to meet the authority's reduction in revenue allocations.
Any health authority proposing substantial changes in the pattern of local services or the closure of existing facilities is first required to undertake very full consultation with all interested parties and, in cases where the local community health council is not in agreement with the changes proposed, the matter is referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for a final decision.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod and other of your Lordships will know, in March 1983 the Wandsworth Health Authority issued two separate consultation documents on the closure of the South London Hospital. They invited comments from community health councils, local Members of Parliament and other interested parties by 1st June 1983. The first document proposed the hospital's closure in 1988–89 as part of the rationalisation of services in the district consequent upon the opening of Phase II at St. George's and to release resources for that development. The second document proposed the hospital's earlier closure in April 1984 to release resources in the interim to help develop services for priority groups, particularly the mentally ill.
The Wandsworth Community Health Council opposed the closure of the South London Hospital in both sets of proposals, although it did not object to the other changes which were proposed following the completion of the next phase of St. George's. At a meeting on 30th June the Wandsworth Health Authority considered the responses received, and in particular the views of the community health council. The authority decided however that the community health council's alternative proposals for achieving comparable savings within the district did not constitute viable options within resource constraints and the timescale envisaged. The Wandsworth Health Authority therefore decided to recommend to the regional health authority that both the long-term and short-term proposals should be supported.
I understand that the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority gave this very thorough consid-

1519
eration at its meeting on 13th July and was satisfied that Wandsworth's proposals were consistent with service and resource allocation policies, that the proposals to improve services for the priority care groups were necessary and had high priority, and that the proposals for redistributing services in other hospitals in the district by making use of underused facilities should allow existing levels of service to be maintained. The regional health authority agreed that the proposals contained in the two consultation documents should be supported, and this will therefore be referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for a final decision.
I think that I have explained the consultation procedure at considerable length, but I want to stress to your Lordships the very full local consideration which has already been given to the proposed closure of this hospital before being referred to Ministers. We shall now need to look very carefully at the district's proposals, the community health council's alternative proposals and the views of all those who have written to us about the South London Hospital before a final decision is taken. I know—and it is quite clear from the contributions that have been made this evening—that the South London Hospital is held in very high regard and that the staff working there are very dedicated and committed to the hospital. I understand the hospital also has a very active League of Friends which, together with the hospital staff, worked very hard recently to raise funds to purchase a laser (which was referred to by my noble friend Lady Macleod) for use at the hospital and to pay for regular maintenance over a number of years.
Finally, I recognise that many sincere views are held on this matter and they have been expressed very clearly. But I should like to stress—and I cannot do so any more strongly than I am going to do now—that no decision has vet been taken to close the South London Hospital. The decision will be further considered by Ministers in due course; it has not yet been decided by them. I should like once more to thank my noble friend for raising this extremely important issue and assure her and the House that her comments, and those of others who have spoken here today, will be taken fully into account before a final decision is made about this hospital.

Greater London Council (Money) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.