Lords Sitting of 19 December 1985

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

The Arts: Business Sponsorship
Lord Gainford: 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 are prepared to encourage business sponsorship as a means of creating a flourishing environment for the arts.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, successive Conservative Ministers for the Arts have actively encouraged the growth of business sponsorship as a supplement to official funding of the arts. Sponsorship has risen from £ ½ million in 1975 to around £20 million this year. This figure includes £4 million of new sponsorship raised under the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme set up a year ago by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, which offers matching grants for new sponsorship. This scheme is proving so successful that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has just announced an increase of £ ½ million in the funds available for the scheme next year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging reply. Has he had information about the work done by organisations such as the National Westminster Bank? As regards grants, would finance matters be at all assisted by the possibility of tax relief to companies which sponsor the arts?
Lord Belstead: My noble friend mentioned one very well-known bank. Perhaps I ought to answer by saying that I am advised that 150 first-time sponsors have been attracted by the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme, including 112 which were attracted by the pound-for-pound matching offer which was introduced on 1st April this year. So far as tax relief is concerned, I am sure my noble friend is aware that direct tax reliefs for charities, including arts charities, are now worth about £400 million a year.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, arising out of what he said, that the purchase of works of art by business companies is not deductible as a tax expense, although office furniture and other equipment of that kind is? Will he do something to persuade his right honourable friend to change this, so that businesses can be encouraged to patronise the arts?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said on this matter.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is very great scope for more business sponsorship in the South-East of England—that is in the prosperous area—and more scope for public sponsorship of the arts in the provincial centres which are not so well endowed with business?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that about 75 per cent. of the sponsorship money which has been generated by the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has, in fact, gone outside London.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, although business sponsorship is very welcome, it leads to rather random benefit largely to prestigious bodies, which is very understandable? Can he therefore assure the House that the Government will not use industrial patronage as a substitute for a more generous arts budget, which is essential if young talent is to be nurtured, experimental work undertaken and the less immediately popular art forms supported, since all these are vital if we are to maintain our unique leading position in the international field?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, in essence, asking me whether the Government expect business sponsorship to replace official and metropolitan funding. I am very ready to say to the noble Baroness that the answer to that is certainly, no; that the Government will maintain their level of funding. But we believe that business sponsorship provides for growth.
Lord Somers: My Lords, while I agree that the noble Lord's Answer was most encouraging, may I ask whether he agrees that there is a great need not only in London but in all major towns for more concert halls of a sufficient size to cater for orchestral concerts? Can he give any indication whether there are plans to build some such halls?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that supplementary question goes a little wide of the original Question, because one is getting into more general funding matters through the Arts Council and in other ways. I shall draw the point to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts. However, I repeat—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will be pleased to hear this—that a considerable slice of the additional money which has been generated by the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme has, so I am advised, gone outside London.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what percentage of the total funding of Arts Council clients last year was attributable to business sponsorship?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot answer that off the cuff. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. But speaking from memory, we are talking about an Arts Council budget of, at that time, just in excess off £100 million. Of course, it has gone up as a result of the announcements made by the Minister for the Arts and we are talking here of what will, in the forthcoming year, be a Government contribution of some £1¾ million for business sponsorship, which it is

891
reckoned will generate about £6 million in sponsorship under the Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme. As I said in my original reply, we calculate that total sponsorship is running at around £20 million a year.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the position in America is that their equivalent of the Arts Council produces 250 million dollars, but that industry produces four times that, which is 1 billion dollars? I wonder whether my noble friend is in favour of that sort of ratio and, if so, what he is doing to encourage it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the United Kingdom the public fund the arts through taxes and subsidies and in the United States it is done largely through tax incentives. The systems are different.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, with reference to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will the Government look carefully at the American experience, lest the system may lead to fiscal abuse?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall most certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what is being said about the American experience; I have heard this view expressed before in your Lordships' House, and I shall certainly do that. But I think that the noble and learned Lord would wish me to make the point again that, as I understand it, in the United States the majority of money to support the arts comes from private donations, foundations and companies, but with the vast majority of it coming from private donations, whereas here the system is rather different. The public are to a very considerable extent providing support for the arts through taxes and subsidies.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the American system is extremely costly in physical terms, since so large a part inevitably comes from the public purse in tax remission, and that the Americans are slowly but surely moving in our direction? It would ill become us therefore to adopt a method that is haphazard. While business sponsorship is a valuable addition, it is, as I think the noble Lord himself has said, no substitute for public funding of the arts.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, says in this matter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I accept what my noble friend says about the systems being different, may I ask whether he will encourage his colleagues to look very carefully to see from which system the arts might get the most benefit?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly take on board the wise words of my noble friend Lord Peyton and I repeat that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what has been said on tax incentives for business in this particular respect.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that artists' models are properly remunerated?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sure that they are very well looked after.

The European Fighter Aircraft
11.14 a.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 progress has been made towards the European fighter aircraft project.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, excellent progress has been made since agreement was reached in the summer between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain to proceed with the further definition and refinement of the EFA programme. Work on the project definition phase is now well under way and a report is expected from industry next summer.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging remark. Is he aware of the very considerable satisfaction with this pan-European project? It is hoped that it will be as successful as the Tornado project. Can he assure the House that if the Americans and the French do take a small interest in this project our advanced technology will be adequately protected?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is right that both the Americans and the French have expressed interest in the project recently. For our part, we shall need to be certain that no new arrangements in any way cause the project to slip, particularly in time terms.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in view of the very long time it has taken to achieve this agreement—I make no complaint about that, having started it in 1978—does the noble Lord think it feasible in the short time that now seems possible for Westland to secure a similar European consortium, something which I am sure many of us would have liked to see happen? I think it ought to have been started a little earlier.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not get dragged into the Westland matter at this moment. But the noble Lord is certainly right that an ambitious timescale will now be necessary if the EFA project is to come to fruition in a timely way. Nonetheless, we are satisfied that that can be achieved.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us anything further about the choice of engine in this project and also about the likely number of jobs involved for British Aerospace in the British input in this European project?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the number of jobs will depend upon the work share, and the details of that have yet to be determined. With regard to production, the work share will depend upon the number of aircraft ordered by each of the participants. With regard to the development phase, it has been agreed that the United Kingdom work share will be 33 per cent. On the question of the engine, the United Kingdom objective is to ensure that, whatever engine is ultimately chosen for the EFA aircraft, it will be compatible in size and other factors with the existing RB 199 engine fitted to the Tornado.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say a little more about the nature of the agreement that was made on 2nd August? Bearing in mind that the French were one of the original five partners, can he say a little more, first, on why they are dragging their feet; and secondly, on what is required as an inducement for them to participate fully in the matter? Would the Minister care to say anything about the employment prospects for the United Kingdom arising from this development? To say that they are good or excellent does not quantify the possibilities of employment. Would the Minister care to say something about the firm design proposals? What progress has been made towards them and when will actual building begin?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a rather comprehensive supplementary question, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so. What we are now engaged upon is the project definition phase, to define exactly what is required by all the partners concerned. With regard to French participation, the noble Lord will be aware that up to now, anyway, the French have taken the view that they wanted a rather smaller aeroplane than the one that is now proposed. It is for that reason that they have not so far felt able to join in the project.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is it not the case that we have for the first time created a really strong industrial base for EFA, and that the Americans have, again for the first time, come to us asking, "Can we do a deal with you?" Bearing in mind that the American defence industry is usually rather protectionist, is that not unprecedented good news for Europe? Furthermore, have not the Americans done a similarly encouraging thing with our multiple launch rocket system?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly we are most interested to receive whatever approaches the United States wish to make to the United Kingdom and to the other partners in this project. Whatever they have in mind will be most carefully studied. It is true, as my noble friend has said, that the Tornado project has established a very good basis for pan-European cooperation in this matter and that it is now coming to a successful fruition.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if American involvement in the project comes about, will it still be referred to as the European Fighter Aircraft project?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the basis upon which American participation is currently being discussed is a fairly modest one. I do not anticipate any fundamental change in the programme resulting from it.

Radioactive Waste: Discharge into Thames
11.21 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 make a Statement on the discharge of radioactive waste from Aldermaston into the River Thames.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the liquid waste produced by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishement at Aldermaston is treated to remove as much of its radioactive content as is reasonably practicable. The amount of radioactivity remaining is very small indeed and is well within the limits agreed with the Department of the Environment.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the radioactive effluent being pumped into the Thames from Aldermaston comes from a plant that itself has been shown not to be observing the safety standards laid down? Is he further aware that the leukaemia rate in the Aldermaston area and in the surrounding area is double the national average? Is the Minister aware also that in children under 10 it is five times the national average? Did the noble Lord see the Yorkshire Television programme on this subject? Does not this matter demand at least a public inquiry?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did indeed see the Yorkshire Television programme since I played a major part in it. The fact of the matter is that there is no scientifically-based evidence to support the assertions made in that programme relating to the incidence of the distressing diseases to which the noble Lord has referred and which attempted to establish a link between that incidence and the presence of nuclear facilities in the district. As for the safety regulations, the noble Lord is mistaken in his view that there is any current breach of those regulations at Aldermaston.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the past 10 years there has been a dramatic improvement in the cleanliness of the River Thames? Today, much of the river is used by the public for swimming—certainly it is in my part of the world—and for fishing. Is it not about time that we paid tribute to those who do a magnificent job in keeping this wonderful river clean?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his assertion, and nothing done by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in any way detracts from what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, when my noble friend speaks of a small amount of radioactive material still going into the Thames, can he say how it compares with the natural radioactivity that is already there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, sometimes it is very misleading to quote figures whose basis may be difficult to understand in scientific terms. However, I shall try to help my noble friend in this way. The radioactivity level of the waste that is discharged into the Thames from Aldermaston is something like one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the permitted level.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understood the Minister categorically to deny the assertion that there is a higher incidence of leukaemia in the parishes around Aldermaston. My question therefore is this: in view of the assertion that there is a higher incidence of leukaemia in the parishes around Aldermaston, would the Minister care to tell the House how that incidence compares with the national average? If there is indeed disquiet in the area, and I understand that there is, then surely the best way of satisfying public concern would be to hold a public inquiry or at least to make an authoritative statement on the matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have endeavoured to make an authoritative statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: What an actor, my Lords!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I had the pleasure of seeing him on television, and that his performance on that programme was described in the press as being urbane and unconvincing? Is he further aware that that is not entirely unaligned with the nature of his replies in this House? In the circumstances, will he initiate a public inquiry into this matter? Is he not aware that only in that way can public disquiet be put at rest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said before—both on the television programme and on other occasions. There is no scientific basis for the allegations made in the programme. But if the noble Lord has any further information that he would like me to consider, then I shall be happy to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend take all the steps available to the Government to make widely known his statement that the discharge is at the rate of one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the permitted level?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Government will continue to take every opportunity to allay the unjustified public disquiet that has been raised by the television programme and on other occasions.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I feel he has been unfairly criticised by my noble friend in respect of his television performance? I think he is to be congratulated, especially on the tribute he paid to the workers at the naval dockyard at Rosyth for their efficiency (and at a later date I shall quote his very words) and their safety records. It is a
896
tribute that will be remembered in view of the Government's plans in respect of that dockyard.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as someone who at the present time lives in the area under discussion, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his attitude. There is a good deal of disquiet in both Burghfield and Aldermaston at the present time, to the extent even that property values are being affected. Will the Minister also say—because there is worry about this too—whether there is any problem in Reading? Reading is the first point of extraction of water from the River Thames, and 12 million gallons a day are taken. Therefore, public concern goes wider than Burghfield and Aldermaston. I urge the Minister to allay the fears of those living in those areas by holding some kind of inquiry, if not a public inquiry.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the unjustified fears that have been raised by the television programme to which the noble Lord refers are the responsibility of those who made the programme and not of Her Majesty's Government. I can only say again that there is no scientific basis for the allegations that were made in the programme. The level of radioactivity in the discharges made into the River Thames—at a point downstream to that from which the water supply is taken—is, as I have said before, only a tiny fraction of the percentage allowed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the Minister address himself to the question of the leukaemia rates? Is he aware that in Rosyth, for example, the rate is three times the Scottish average?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware of the allegations made in the programme, including that to which the noble Lord refers. The fact is that if one makes allegations one must have a scientific basis for them—and I have seen no such scientific basis.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in so far as radioactive waste might affect human beings, we would be suffering too because about 70 per cent. of the water we drink comes from the Thames—and radioactive capacity is of course persistent? Is my noble friend aware also that in the many years I was responsible for these matters we knew that the percentage of radioactivity in the discharge from Harwell in particular was less than that in the water before it arrived at Harwell? So, far from there being any danger, the natural radioactivity of the water had been decreased by the cleaning process before it was discharged.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend's observation only underlines the success of the efforts of the people at Aldermaston, and elsewhere, to ensure that their discharges cause no danger to the public at large.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, for those who may be rather slow at doing their sums, will my noble friend confirm that one-tenth of 1 per cent. is, in fact, one-thousandth, which is very little indeed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I dare say my noble friend's mental arithmetic is better than mine, in which case he is probably correct.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, if I lived in the area which is now being complained of I think the questions that are being asked today would scare the wits out of me. Is it not about time the Government made a statement to reassure these people by way of writing direct to the borough councils, and so on? Quite frankly, Questions of this kind put down in this way create much mischief.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that those who make unfounded allegations without any proper scientific basis at all carry a heavy burden of responsibility.

Bypass Construction on National Road Network
11.30 a.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: 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 progress they have made in constructing bypasses to remove through traffic from towns and villages on the national road network, and what further plans they have.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, good progress has been made and continues to be made in the provision of bypasses. Between 1st April 1979 and 1st December 1985 Her Majesty's Government completed 60 bypasses and relief roads in England, 20 in Scotland and 13 in Wales. Also at 1st December 1985 there were 31 such schemes on the national road network under construction and a further 213 in the forward programme.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that helpful reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that as this is the last Question from the Back Benches before the festivities I should wish my noble friend and all on the Front Bench and in all parts of the House a happy Christmas?
Will my noble friend confirm that we are putting enough resources into the national programme?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his yuletide felicitations and we reciprocate them from this Bench.
With regard to the national programme, Her Majesty's Government intend to invest £744 million on new construction in the national network in Great Britain. In England for 1984–85 the out-turn on
898
capital spending had increased by about 30 per cent. in volume terms since this Government took office in 1979, and we intend to see that the present momentum is maintained.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does the Government not agree that in putting into practice this admirable policy of making bypasses it is necessary to pay some attention to economy in the use of land? Bypasses often pass through valuable land. Does the Government not agree that the verges very often seem to be unnecessarily wide? Is this due to a national regulation or is it the fault of the local planning authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord specifically but my understanding is that it is part of a national policy and that the verges are necessary for the maintenance of the carriageway itself.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that none of these new projects will go through a national park?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot assure the noble Baroness on that front because, as she knows, there is one project that House has lust considered, at a place called Okehampton which the noble Baroness knows well, and we are awaiting Royal Assent later today.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on the width of verges, can my noble friend confirm that fairly wide verges on these roads are essential, in the event of snow, in order to make snow clearance possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving a better answer than I did.
Lord Underhill: Does the Minister not recall that the provision of bypasses in the towns and villages on the trunk and primary roads was part of the Armitage package dealing with heavy lorries? Does he not also recall that in 1983 both the Civic Trust and the county council survey showed that about 70 per cent. of those towns and villages were not bypassed? About half of those will not be by passed until 1991–92 and there are no plans whatever for the other half. Can the noble Earl tell me whether there has been any change since then?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the fault that they were not bypassed lies in the dramatic reduction in the capital spending undertaken by the last Labour Government. As I said, we have increased by 30 per cent., in England particularly, in volume terms, and we are now spending a record amount of money on bypasses. This year 84 miles of new motorway and trunk road have been opened; that is 23 more miles than last year. As the noble Lord knows, the Autumn Statement increased spending by 10 per cent., 14 per cent. and 19 per cent. respectively on the 1985–86 period.
Lord Underhill: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Hayter!
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I want to follow up this point. I refer to 1991–92 and beyond. If the Minister cannot tell me now, will he write to me on the possibility of clearing up that outstanding 70 per cent. of villages and towns that are not bypassed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I gather that there are 240 towns of special historic interest in England, of which 147 have been bypassed and 72 have bypasses planned. The remainder will be considered in the light of that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while I accept that my noble friend has some ground for satisfaction on the progress that has been made, will he, before he disappears under a wave of pleasure for what has been done, please apply his mind to the immense delays which are involved in our horrible, costive and congested statutory procedures? Far from just ensuring fairness to everyone, too often they afford an opportunity for tedious and tiresome objectors simply to make use of procedures from which it is hard to see any benefit flowing.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I will certainly pass my noble friend's remarks to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. While under the glow of what we have done, I can assure my noble friend that although our planning procedures may be rather slow many of our schemes are being completed ahead of schedule—as he will know from the opening of the M.25 junction today.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, further to the question raised and the noble Earl's answer on the construction of roads through national parks, or otherwise, can he confirm that in designing roads which will bypass towns his right honourable friend the Minister for Transport will in future do so only after the closest consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of the environmental interests concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe there is very close co-operation between the two Secretaries of State at the moment. As the noble Lord will know, the Whiddon Down stretch just before Okehampton has been taken out of the national park. This is of great benefit and shows that we are trying to solve this problem.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether in drawing up contracts for the construction of bypasses and motorways there is an incentive to complete the work on time? For instance, there is the opening this very day of the M.25/M.4 crossover connection six months ahead of time. Does this provide a bonus for those engaged in it? Are there penalties if the contractors fall behind the target? Is it not a good idea to include incentives and penalties in contracts to give every encouragement to get on with the job?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think it very much depends on the contract involved. On road maintenance as my noble friend knows, we have in the very recent past made tremendous progress on incentives and we are looking at ways in which this can be taken forward.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the standard forms of contract are in use for these purposes, and in particular whether the ICE conditions of contract are used?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, they are, but if I am wrong I will write to my noble friend.

Consolidated Fund Bill
11.39 a.m.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th December), Bill read a second time: Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill [H.L.]
11.40 a.m.
Bill read a third time; and an amendment (privilege) made.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not intend to speak for very long at this stage of the Bill, but I should like to say that during the Second Reading and Committee stage we were able to probe the Government's thinking, particularly in regard to their future intentions relating to privatisation, and we were very glad to receive some of the assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, gave us. Indeed, I feel that we have now firmly established that the Government are in complete agreement with the Opposition that the AEA, by the nature of its operations, is quite unsuitable for privatisation and therefore in the foreseeable future there is no intention to privatise the authority in whole or in part. I would certainly welcome confirmation of this from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, when he winds up the debate this morning.
I am not entirely satisfied with the financial arrangements, which we believe may put an undue strain on the AEA's resources and its ability to undertake a proper level of underlying research. However, I was encouraged by the noble Lord's assurance that the Treasury itself had no intention of making predatory raids on the AEA's reserves and that surpluses earned would be ploughed back into the authority itself and

901
its work. We have taken those assurances very seriously indeed and I can assure the noble Lord that we shall remember them for the future.
At Committee stage we had some interesting debates, particulary on questions of public dividend capital and worker participation, and though we did not press the issue of public dividend capital, I hope that the Government realise that it is a serious issue to which they should give continuing attention in the future. I myself believe that it was unfortunate that the House felt unable to agree to the modest amendment which I moved, which would have given the AEA's workers some rights of participation in the running and future planning of the authority and the authority's programme, because there really is a crying need for greater involvement of working people in the running of the industries which they serve. It is only in this way that people will feel part of the organisation and committed to it. Again, we believe that deep thinking is necessary on this subject, not only on the part of the Government but from all sides of the House.
In connection with the staff of the AEA, I believe that they remain unsettled and fearful of the future, particularly in regard to future staff levels, salaries, pensions and conditions of service. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, can assure the House that consultations will continue and that every endeavour will be made to reassure the staff on these very important matters.
Finally, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debates on this Bill and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for his patience and courtesy in dealing with our questions and amendments. I regret that we have not been able to agree on a number of issues and I cannot really wish the Bill well—and I am sure the noble Lord will understand this. But at least our disagreements have been conducted with courtesy and good humour and we must all be thankful for that, particularly at this festive time of year.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I share the misgivings about this Bill, which I fear is leaving your Lordships' House imperfect in many respects. I understand the underlying philosophy behind the Bill. In fact I and my colleagues on these Benches agree that it is right that there should be more public accountability by the Atomic Energy Authority and that where it is commercial it should be carrying out its business on a more commercial basis. But we are most regretful that the initial capital could not have been in the form of some sort of public dividend capital. I remain unsatisfied with the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, gave me and particularly with his claim that the operations of the Atomic Energy Authority are not and never will be cyclical in the same way as other public enterprises that have public dividend capital. I feel that this is a matter for people in another place to look at at this stage.
I still think that the Government have got it wrong in putting ceilings on the amount of borrowing, the borrowing limits which this Bill affords to the Atomic Energy Authority—if, that is, they agree with me that
902
what we are trying to do here is to produce eventually an Act which will last as long as the previous Atomic Energy Act. Here again I feel that possibly people in another place may have another look at this Bill. I still think—and in this I very much share the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—that the Government are missing a golden opportunity to encourage effective participation in planning with the workforce of the Atomic Energy Authority. I think that the size of the vote in favour of the amendment speaks for other people's feelings on this subject.
I still feel dissatisfied with the explanation which was given, that in fact the staff and the trade union side are to be kept informed. What the amendment was asking for and what we on these Benches were asking for was participation in planning—not for people to be informed about what has been planned. I think it was a golden opportunity to have included this concept in the Bill and I am sorry that we missed it. I still worry whether the Atomic Energy Authority will have enough money to hold on to their expert teams and to carry out the pure research which they have so successfully carried out in the past.
The AEA has enjoyed a special status in the minds of many people as an expert and dedicated body of scientific thought which is most useful in monitoring and foreseeing the uses that might be made of atomic energy and scientific advances and which is still the Government's main source of advice and expertise on this important subject. I fear that in an unfavourable climate under the financial arrangements it might find itself short of funds which would stop it from doing the work it has done in the past. I hope I am wrong.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gray, for the patient way in which he has dealt with all the matters that we have raised throughout the discussions on the Bill and for the most useful and informative letter which he wrote to me and which I referred to at the Committee stage. I am also grateful to him for his usual friendly disagreement across the Floor of the House. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in wishing him, and indeed everybody else in your Lordships' House, a merry Christmas and a good New Year.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for their generous remarks and also for the constructive approach they have taken throughout the stages of this piece of legislation. I particularly appreciate their reference to courtesy on my part. But in my political career I have found that courtesy is generally a two-way function and so I am grateful to them for their courtesy throughout our deliberations.
Having said that, none of us would be doing our duty if we agreed on each and every topic that was discussed in your Lordships' House; and so I was not surprised that there were certain times during the progress of the Bill when noble Lords opposite took a different view from the Government's. But we have been able to discuss matters in a civilised way and with a degree of good humour. At the end of the day we are

903
sending to the other place a Bill which, although unamended, will give Members there cause to read our deliberations and see the useful contributions that have been made.
We have had a number of interesting discussions. At Second Reading and Committee stage I sought to explain the background to the Bill and some of the details of the financial framework that we are proposing for the authority trading fund. We have perhaps gone further into the financial aspects than is usual in this House, and that was referred to by the noble Viscount during the Committee stage, but our debates here have of course been without prejudice to the discussions which will follow in another place.
The purpose of this Bill is to enable the authority to operate on a trading fiund basis with powers to borrow. Our approach has been to make the minimum additions necessary to the legislative bedrock of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954. One of the main themes running through our debates has been the revised capital structure. Both the noble Lord and the noble Viscount referred to that again today. Noble Lords opposite have emphasised that the move to a trading fund provides an opportunity for settling a new financial framework for the authority, bringing it up to date and providing a sound basis for the future. The Government agree with that. We consider that the structure we have proposed, whereby the authority's capital employed will comprise debt, reserves and provisions, is a sound and sensible structure.
We have had an interesting debate on alternatives, particularly the proposition that capital employed should include public dividend capital rather than commencing debt. As your Lordships know, we regard a commencing capital debt as a sound element in the revised capital structure and see no need for equity.
Another key point raised during our debates is the need to ensure that continued independence of the authority, particularly in the field of nuclear safety research. I have been glad of the opportunity to confirm the importance we attach to this and to point to the Government's intention to continue funding a substantial programme of safety related research.
More generally, the authority trading fund expects to have a range of customers. These will include, as well as the Department of Energy, other government departments, the CEGB, British Nuclear Fuels plc and other private companies. The authority will therefore not be beholden to any particular interest group. The Department of Energy will be making a very significant contribution to the funding of the authority's underlying research programme; other customers will also be contributing, but programme content will remain firmly under the control of the authority. The Government consider that these arrangements will ensure that the authority pursues a vigorous and independent programme in keeping with its reputation for scientific and technical excellence.
Noble Lords have also been concerned to know whether there will be any reduction in accountability to Parliament for expenditure on nuclear R & D. The short answer, I repeat again, is no. Expenditure by the Department of Energy on nuclear R & D by the
904
authority will continue to be funded from money voted by Parliament through the Estimates procedures; and the AEA's accounts will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The department will answer on policy and overall programme specification and the authority will answer on its technical advice and efficiency of programme execution. There will thus be the same opportunities as at present for questions and debate.
Finally, I should like to repeat two assurances. The first is that the Government have no plans to privatise the authority. We consider that placing the authority's operations on a trading fund basis, with the Department of Energy as one of its principal customers, is a good way forward. It will bring to bear increased commercial and market pressures for efficiency and continued technical excellence, while safeguarding the role of the authority as a key source of independent research and advice. We consider that these arrangements will provide an incentive for all concerned.
The second assurance which I give to the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, who both raised the matter, is on the role of the trade unions and their relationship with the authority, and whether there will be an opportunity in the future for participation by the trade unions and consideration of their views in decision-making. The noble Lord went a little further and included future planning. I assure noble Lords that discussions are taking place at the present time. That was one of many reasons that I gave for not accepting the amendment which both noble Lords supported at Committee stage. The trade unions are involved in discussions at the present time, and I felt that it would be inappropriate for us to do anything which might prejudice the outcome of the discussions.
The national joint council and others who are participating in the discussions are very experienced, and I felt that it was better that we should leave such deliberations to them. It is the intention and certainly the wish of the Government that those discussions will lead to a satisfactory conclusion between the unions and the authority, and I have no doubt that that will be the case.
We consider that all the arrangements that I have described in the Bill will provide an incentive for all concerned. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
12 noon
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendments of Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved the following amendment:
Page 2, line 37, leave out from ("(3A)") to ("and") in line 40 and i n sert—
("Immediately after any guarantee is given under subsection (1A) above or any sum is issued for fulfilling such a guarantee, the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the guarantee or, as the case may be, a statement relating to that sum before each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a small technical amendment. It concerns the ways in which financial transactions concerning the Secretary of State's guarantees of borrowings by the Commonwealth Development Corporation's subsidiaries are reported to Parliament. At present, under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1978, the Treasury may guarantee the borrowings of the corporation itself. The Treasury has the duty of laying a statement of the guarantees so given before Parliament immediately after the guarantees are given and of laying before Parliament a statement relating to any sums issued in fulfilment of such guarantees as soon as possible after the end of the financial year in which the sums are issued, and of any subsequent financial year during which any liability in respect of the sums so issued is at any time outstanding. This requirement, which stems from the fact that any monies needed to finance these guarantees may be issued directly from the Consolidated Fund, will continue in respect of any guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of the corporation's borrowings.
Under the terms of Clause 1(5)(a) of the present Bill, the Secretary of State is empowered to guarantee the borrowings by a subsidiary of the corporation. It is intended that this clause will make it possible for a subsidiary to borrow at lower interest rates than would otherwise be possible. However, subsection (5)(b) of Clause 1, as at present drafted, provides that the Secretary of State shall inform Parliament of guarantees given and sums paid out to meet a guarantee, in exactly the same way as the Treasury does in respect of funds provided from the Consolidated Fund.
This is inappropriate. The Secretary of State's funds are those provided by Parliament for his own statutory purposes and are therefore subject to the normal Supply procedure. Nevertheless, in this particular case we consider it proper for the Secretary of State to inform Parliament as soon as he has either given guarantees or provided funds in support of those guarantees. It is, of course, most unlikely that such guarantees will be called. But if they are, this clause ensures that Parliament will be told at the earliest opportunity and will be able to question the Secretary of State about the circumstances leading to the provision of public funds. I beg to move.
Lord Oram: In view of the cordial nature of the exchanges on the previous Bill, I am glad that there is nothing in this amendment that causes me to detract from the atmosphere then generated. It is, as the noble Baroness has explained, a technical matter. I assure her that it is completely non-controversial so far as this side of the Committee is concerned. I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the matter so clearly. It is
906
obviously a good thing that Parliament should be informed and that this amendment should so provide. As the Bill stood originally, that would not have been proper, as I understand it. Clearly, anything that enables Parliament to call such guarantees into question, if necessary, is a good thing. I accept fully the amendment as moved.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill
12.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Your Lordships may see that this is a straightforward financial measure of a technical nature which simply increases the limit of £1,000 million on the total amount of loans which may be outstanding from the National Loans Fund to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The money borrowed is for on-lending to public bodies outside central Government for authorised capital expenditure, and the principal recipients are the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland electricity service, district councils and voluntary schools.
It is normal practice for a ceiling to be imposed on loans from the National Loans Fund, with the intention that Parliament should have periodic opportunities for debates. This practice differs from that in respect of many loans from Votes, where the annual Estimates procedure provides control. The Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 is amended by the Bill to set a new limit of £1,700 million on the total sums which may be outstanding in loans, and this limit may be raised by order, subject to affirmative resolution in another place, by £300 million.
The Bill has already been debated in another place, and your Lordships will see that it has been certified by the Speaker as a money Bill. Clearly that will register to the cognoscenti in your Lordships' House. It may be helpful if I make the point that it does not authorise any expenditure but merely enables funds to be made available for capital expenditure which has already been approved. I have stated that we see the Bill as fairly simple and uncomplicated. In that spirit, I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation of the Bill, which amends the 1975 Act. The Minister described it as a technical financial measure; but it is also of the greatest importance to the economy and the life of Northern Ireland. The increased borrowing limit of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund will be used for on-lending to the beneficiaries named by the Minister. I should like to refer briefly to two or three of the beneficiaries.

907
We are constantly and rightly referred to the important role which the housing executive plays in the life of the Province. Although the number of unfit and substandard houses is decreasing, such housing is still substantial. The Simon Community has again reminded us that the homeless figures are high and that they are sobering. Many people should therefore benefit from the additional borrowings by the housing executive to finance new housing development.
Another recipient of the money to be borrowed will be the electricity service in Northern Ireland. Electricity charges in Northern Ireland are very high. There is a need for cheaper electricity to meet the requirements of industrial and rural Ulster. Expenditure on new plant and electrification schemes which help to develop the economy is obviously a policy of which we approve wholeheartedly. The Province requires increased investment in manufacturing industry. The noble Lord the Minister was silent on this issue. The Minister told the House that another beneficiary of this Bill would be the district councils. Regrettably there is every reason to suppose that the relations between central Government and the district councils will become increasingly difficult in the short term.
We have read in the newspapers that some district councils propose to adjourn business generally; and some have adjourned their business in protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In addition, according to the Belfast Telegraph of 16th December the Unionists will on 1st January next resign their seats on a range of Northern Ireland bodies, including the Northern Ireland Housing Executive which has a key role to play in the life of the people in Northern Ireland.
Given the threat of non-co-operation, we hope that the Minister can assure the House that even if the district councils effectively stand adjourned generally during the forthcoming year, and even if such a body as the housing executive is without a quorum, nevertheless their capital programmes will not be retarded or put at risk. Can the Minister give that assurance to the House? It would indeed be an odd consequence if a policy of non-co-operation by councillors and others were to lead to the postponement or cancellation of capital works which are designed for the people of the Province, councillors own electors.
I have one final comment, or expression of hope. The noble Lord explained that the loan will be drawn on the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. On the threshold of a new year our hope must surely be that before too long it will be possible to transfer the Consolidated Fund to a Northern Ireland Assembly operating within the framework of the Government of the United Kingdom. After all, the Consolidated Fund belongs naturally to such an assembly.
With that one question, and those few comments, we are pleased to welcome the Bill.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Enoch Powell spoke earlier during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. He referred with no great compliment to those Members
908
who were then in their places as flotsam on the beach, cast up accidentally, he implied, after a major Division shortly beforehand. We are perhaps luckier in your Lordships' House that this business comes up early in the day, but Christmas looms before us. This is a money Bill which we are powerless to amend, and I shall therefore be brief.
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his introduction and I shall avoid the temptation to go off at a tangent and re-examine the merits or otherwise of the Anglo-Irish Agreement recently signed. I see no reason to object to the aims of this Bill which, as we have been told, raise the limit on loans which will be made from the national loans fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, from a present £1,000 million to a maximum of £1,700 million, with a possible further booster to £2,000 million at a later date. I should have thought that the proposals in this Bill which look forward to continuing the loans procedure at present in force for some years to come should do something to convince the Unionists in Northern Ireland that the Government are definitely not working for a united Ireland at an early date, or even at any date at all. I understand that the principal recipients will be the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland electricity service, the district councils, and voluntary schools. This prompts me to support the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he asks what will be the procedure if the Unionists are successful in disrupting the work of the district councils, as they threaten to do.
We are told that loans under the Bill are not in any way a subvention, since a full rate of interest is paid on them. My second question is therefore to ask what is that rate of interest.
We agree that this Bill is part of the procedure through which essential investment in Northern Ireland is financed. We have no hesitation in supporting this.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, for their welcome and very constructive remarks on the Bill before your Lordships. Both of them have noted my comments and the points which I brought out. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised three points with which I shall attempt to deal.
The noble Lord raised, quite rightly, the question of investment in manufacturing industry. I shall take his points in reverse order, if the noble Lord will bear with me. The industrial development programme continues to be given the first priority in allocating public expenditure in Northern Ireland after law and order, which I am sure the noble Lord and your Lordships would agree is the correct priority. But I am able to tell him that industrial development is funded from votes. Industrial development does not arise from lending from the Consolidated Fund for capital purposes, which is the matter before us today.
The noble Lord also asked about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. He will know that the expenditure of the housing executive is supported by income from rents and capital receipts from the sale of both land and dwellings and mortgage redemption. Indeed, the balance of the expenditure is funded

909
through a combination of grants which are paid by the Northern Ireland Department of Environment and borrowing from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. The noble Lord will be interested to note that the executive borrows from the Consolidated Fund to finance the balance of its capital expenditure on new building, rehabilitation and improvement, land acquisition, home loans, office accommodation and the like, after applying receipts which are mainly from the sale of dwellings. This is therefore a net figure which is balanced from the Consolidated Fund.
The noble Lord also raised a question about the Northern Ireland electricity service. As he is aware, there is a valuable subsidy to ensure that the charges of electricity and power in Northern Ireland are not higher than those on the mainland. That is a separate point, but I am sure he will be aware of it.
I note the comments of the noble Lord on the Assembly and will certainly pass them on to my right honourable friend. I am very grateful for them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for whose remarks I am particularly grateful, struck the correct note when he said that the increase, from £1,000 million to £1,700 million would cover a number of years. I am assured that that is the time scale which we have in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton asked about the interest rates. The noble Lord will be glad to know that in practice money which is borrowed from the national loans fund is lent to the Northern Ireland funds at the current Government lending rates. These are struck each week by Her Majesty's Treasury and published in the London Gazette. The Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland uses the same rate for its on-lending to Northern Ireland bodies.
I am afraid that I missed one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He wished to be assured, with regard to the capital programme, about the housing executive and, above all, the district councils. I cannot give a categoric assurance. I do not think that the noble Lord would expect me to foresee what course non-co-operation might take. However, I want to assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that services are being maintained, and the situation will be monitored very closely at regular, very brief, intervals. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will also be interested to know that executive responsibility for the continuation of services which are relevant to district councils, which in the main are burials, recreations, and disposal of waste, together with a number of other functions which apparently cross my desk, such as dealing with dogs—a matter which arouses considerable emotion—has been left with the chief executives of the district councils. I do not think that your Lordships' would expect me to speculate further than that.
I hope that I have given satisfactory answers to the two noble Lords, and indeed to your Lordships, in relation to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is quite right—it is an important Bill. I am very grateful for the noble Lord's attention and scrutiny and indeed for that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th December) Bill read a third time, and passed.

Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
12.22 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, be approved.
The order consolidates the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and the subsequent amending provisions, the principles of which are contained in the Education (Northern Ireland) Orders of 1976, 1978, 1980 and 1984. The order before us today consolidates all the measures contained in those four orders and also those contained in the original order of 1972. It was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 4th December this year. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the Committee was satisfied that the order is a purely consolidating measure. Therefore, they were satisfied that it makes no changes of substance to the existing law but it brings it together in one order In that spirit, I commend the order.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the order is a consolidation measure, this is not the opportune time to raise substantive points relating to the subject. Therefore, we are pleased to approve the order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, we, too, approve this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
12.24 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
These draft regulations which apply throughout the United Kingdom amend the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1984. They bring into effect the increased rates of hill livestock compensatory allowance to be paid from 1st January 1986 and the related increases in the financial ceilings, which my right honourable friend announced in a Statement on 28th November. They also make certain changes to the detailed rules under which the allowances are paid.
The European Community have this year adopted a new structures regulation—No. 797/85—which now provides the basis for headage payments on beef, cows and sheep in the less-favoured areas. However, the broad objectives of the payments remain the

911
same—that is, to ensure the continuation of livestock farming in the hill and upland areas, thereby helping to maintain a minimum population in the less-favoured areas and to conserve the countryside. The Community continues to contribute 25 per cent. of eligible expenditure.
For some years now the agriculture departments have, each autumn, carried out a thorough-going review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands, in conjunction with the farmers' unions. This year's review was held against a background, in many areas, of exceptionally bad weather conditions in the summer, a situation which has left many livestock producers with serious fodder and cash flow problems. As a result, the Government have set aside some £16·9 million in the form of exceptional weather aid to assist the livestock farmers most seriously affected, and my right honourable friend gave details in his statement of 28th November of how this money would be paid. However, the economic review undertaken this year revealed an underlying picture which, in our view, justifies significant increases in the rates of compensatory allowances, despite the constraints on public expenditure.
The draft regulations now before the House therefore provide for increases for breeding cows and sheep in both the original less-favoured areas, referred to in the regulations as "severely disadvantaged land", and last year's extension to those areas, which is referred to as "disadvantaged land". Thus, in the original less-favoured area, the allowance for breeding cows will be increased by £10 to £54·50, for hardy breeds of sheep by 50p to £6·75 and for other breeds of sheep by 25p to £4·50. In the new less-favoured area the allowance for cows goes up from £22·25 to £27·25, and that for sheep from £2·12 to £2·25. In addition, we are increasing the maximum payment per hectare from £60 to £62·48 in the original LFA, and making a corresponding increase from £45 to £46·86, in the new LFA. These increases are in accordance with the revised maxima specified in Regulation 797/85.
We believe this to be a very fair deal in all the circumstances. The overall value of the HLCA award is some £10·9 million in a full year and amounts to a rise of about 11 per cent. on the existing annual HLCA payments, which are currently running at about £98 million per annum. And if the cost of the exceptional weather aid being given in many of the less-favoured areas about which I have spoken is added to the £10·9 million we arrive at a figure for the coming year to help farmers in the less-favoured areas, in excess of £25 million. These overall increases show clearly the Government's considerable commitment to the hill and upland livestock sector, and they have already been widely welcomed.
Furthermore, we recognise that many farmers in the less-favoured areas are facing cash-flow problems following the exceptionally bad weather in the summer. On 3rd December my right honourable friend therefore announced that, as a further measure to assist many farmers, all HLCA claimants in Great Britain will receive about 75 per cent. of their 1986 claim very shortly after submitting their applications, with the balance being paid as soon as possible after 1st April 1986.
I should like to make one reference to a change which is being made to the rules under which the HLCAs are paid. It is a new provision which affects an HLCA applicant, who, after 1st January 1986, afforests land previously taken into account for the purpose of calculating his allowance. This will enable newly-afforested land to continue to be counted in the HLCA calculations for up to 15 years. It is an optional provision in the new European Community Structures Regulation, but the consultations we carried out earlier this year showed that there was a good measure of support for its introduction. It means that farmers will have the opportunity to carry out afforestation while still having the land involved counted for the purpose of determining the overall financial limit of their allowance.
If I may say so, I think that these substantial increases in the rate of allowance, the exceptional weather aid, the arrangements being made to speed up payments under both schemes, coupled with the annual premia which many hill and upland farmers receive separately on suckler cows and sheep, will together add up to a very substantial package of assistance. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
12.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the spirit of goodwill which always pervades this place is very prominent today. My noble friend said earlier that he has no wish to alter it, and neither have I—especially when we are looking at an order which gives something to my fellow farmers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for explaining the order, most of which is very welcome indeed. The early payment is welcome because cash flow not only in the uplands but elsewhere is going to be difficult before this financial year ends.
There are two points I should like to make, I am no economist and I have no great knowledge of international payments, but the order says pounds or ECUs, whichever is the less. How does this work? If the ECU is of less value than the pound does that mean that we reduce? If it is greater do we not get the benefit? Is it always going to be the lesser, whatever the value of the pound? That would seem a little unfair.
The other point is on forestry, which the noble Lord mentioned last. If land is taken out for forestry after 1986 it still counts for the payments for 15 years. The peculiar thing is that it is after 15 years, when thinning begins to start, that the forest becomes more use to the arable land. In many cases farmers put sheep into these forested areas for shelter, and as the trees get bigger not only for shelter but for grazing. It seems strange to stop the payments after 15 years when at that point the land is becoming more used for grazing rather than the other way about. With these points, we welcome the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on the ECU point I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I am sorry about that, but he has bowled me out on that point. I would simply repeat that so far as the maximum payments

913
allowed per hectare—that is the absolute ceiling, as the noble Lord knows—we are now giving the opportunity for farmers to claim up to the ceiling in both the old less-favoured areas and the new less-favoured areas. I believe that this is right considering the difficulties there are in the hills at the present time.
I should also like to take away the point which the noble Lord put to me about thinnings and the 15-year period. The noble Lord has almost unrivalled experience in your Lordships' House of forestry, and clearly this is a serious point. I would say two things. First, of course this is a permissive power which we have made available to ourselves here in the United Kingdom. We need not have done so, but we felt it was again for the good of the upland areas. We have made it available, and of course it can run only for the period that this structure's directive lasts.
I must consult my papers to find out whether that is the reason for the 15-year period—I ought to know this, and I do not—or whether the 15-year period is something that we could have prolonged had we wanted to do so. Either way it is a factor that would need to be reviewed after a period of time. But in essence the noble Lord is saying to me that that may be so, but the 15 years may not be the right period of time because of the thinnings point. May I take that point away and look at it?
There is one other point about afforestation which is of some importance. I realise that there may be a reservation on the afforestation point: that it is possible that this provision could result in over-stocking densities in the residual grazing areas. If one says that a new area of 40 hectares is being afforested on a hundred hectare farm, and that is allowed in from the point of view of the ceilings which are being paid, I can see that worries might be expressed that this would lead to over-stocking. My right honourable friend has made clear in the Statement he made on 20th November that we shall be undertaking checks to prevent over-grazing in these areas, and various provisions are built into the rules to guard against over-stocking generally.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the reply. He has a real point about the size of the area that is taken out rather than the size of the whole farm. That is an important point which I missed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): 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:

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act,

European Communites (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Act,

Northern Ireland (Loans) Act,

Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act,

Fraserburgh Harbour (No. 3) Order Confirmation Act,

Okehampton Bypass (Confirmation of Orders) Act.

Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985
12.36 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 26th November, be approved.
These regulations will have the effect of protecting house buyers from the danger of finding that a road which has been paid for in the house price has not been provided because the developer has gone bankrupt or has defaulted in some way. They provide that, prior to starting construction of private house development which includes new roads, developers will have to lodge a security with the local roads authority to cover the cost of these roads. Should the developer then fail to construct or complete a road, the authority will be required to do the work and may utilise the security for that purpose.
The provisions under which these regulations are made were generally welcomed when the Roads (Scotland) Bill was before this House. Comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on behalf of the building trade about keeping the bond to the minimum necessary have been taken into account. I may say that all parties who have been included in the working group are in agreement on the regulations, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for explaining the order. He will realise that when I saw on the Order Paper a reference to Scottish roads I rather groaned because we had spent so long on it. However, on examination I found that it was fulfilling a promise made during the long Committee stage of that Bill. It is something which will be of great help to people in Scotland, where there are very many examples of unfinished roads and people having great inconvenience in getting to their houses, for which they have paid a great deal of money they also having paid for the road.
There is one point about which I want to ask the noble Lord. The working party examined this matter, and while we were all anxious that the sum he made as low as possible I hope we can have an assurance that the sum will be a realistic sum, so that even allowing for perhaps a prolonged building period, which sometimes happens, and even for a long period of bankruptcy while it was going through the courts, the householder who had already paid would not be disadvantaged because of it. Otherwise, in the spirit of Christmas and New Year's Day, I should like to wish God speed to this order.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his words and for the welcome he has given to this order. I think I can assure him on the point he raised. Provision is made to ensure that the security will be enough to cover the cost of constructing the road to a satisfactory standard,

915
and that the sum will be based on the estimated cost of all remaining work required to complete the road in accordance with the construction consent. In calculating the amount of security required—and this is the point about which the noble Lord was concerned—the local roads authority may allow for increasing costs arising from, say, inflation, since the bond must be capable of covering the cost of completing the road at any time during the validity of the construction consent, which runs for a minimum period of three years or such longer time as the local authority roads department may specify in the consent (Section 21(4) of the Act).
In the event of a dispute between the authority and the developer over the amount of security required, Section 17(4) makes provision for arbitration on that and on any other matter arising from the regulations. But we believe that in practical terms the experience of the local authority roads department will be such as to ensure that an adequate sum is set aside for the various contingencies, such as, as the noble Lord suggests, a prolonged period due to bankruptcy. The point that the noble Lord is concerned about is well covered in the regulations. I hope that will satisfy him. Perhaps I may reciprocate his good wishes for the festive season.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Summer Time Order 1985
12.40 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 23rd July.
The purpose of the order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, is to continue for a further three years the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time, so that summer time will continue to start on the last Sunday in March and continue to end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October.
It may assist your Lordships if I comment briefly on the text of the draft order. It is proposed that the order should be made under Section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1972 which provides among other things that Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify a period of summer time other than the usual period provided for by the Act.
Article 1(2) of the order provides that it shall have effect in the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. I should explain that the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man propose to follow suit, but are not provided for in the order because they have their own legislation on the subject.
Articles 2, 3, and 4 provide for the proposed starting dates of 30th March 1986, 29th March 1987 and 27th March 1988. The finishing dates of 26th October 1986, 25th October 1987 and 23rd October 1988 are those which would occur through the ordinary operation of the 1972 Act. The changeover time of 1 a.m. contained in the Summer Time Orders of 1980 and 1982 is retained, and is to ensure that summer time starts at the same time throughout the European Community.
916
As noble Lords will have realised, the draft order simply represents a further continuation of existing arrangements for the next three years and is, to that extent at least, uncontroversial. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1985 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 23rd July. [31st Report from the Joint Committee (Session 1984–85).—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I from these Benches take this opportunity to wish the noble Viscount the Minister a happy Christmas time and to wish a warmer summer time for us all in 1986?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his good wishes. I should like, as some people say, to reciprocate them in full measure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I add to the good wishes, particularly to my noble friend who has so gallantly recently taken up the quite serious burden of ministerial duties, which I think the House as a whole would agree he has discharged to the great satisfaction of the House.
Having said that, I want to say something which may be less uncontroversial. This order, as I understand it, continues the system of the timing for summer time for the next three years, but I should be glad to hear from my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government have given, are giving, or will give thought to whether this way of handling this matter is right and whether, in particular, it is in the general interest? It is our common experience that summer time ends just at the moment when, from a practical point of view, it is most useful. Quite suddenly towards the end of October darkness is brought on before five o'clock instead of before six o'clock, which has the practical effect of meaning that very large numbers of our fellow countrymen get home only after darkness has fallen.
As some of your Lordships may recall, I was for a number of years a member of another place, representing the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. In that area, as in many other areas, large numbers of people return from their work, from their offices in London or from their other avocations generally between five o'clock and six o'clock. Until summer time ends when they reach home there is still left a bit of daylight which they can, and in many cases do, use for the purposes of taking exercise, working on their gardens, or whatever they may do. Towards the end of October when summer time is perhaps at its most valuable for that reason quite suddenly it stops.
The same is true of the commencement period. If summer time began at the end of February or the beginning of March, these people would be able to get home in daylight. This raises two questions: first, whether we have the timing of the conclusion and the starting of summer time right; and, secondly, whether there is not a case for making it continuous throughout the year, as some of your Lordships may recall was the case during some of the war years. I understand that it was introduced then for the purpose of saving energy, for saving electric light and for facilitating

917
production. I believe the general impression was that from that point of view the system was not unsuccessful. Certainly those are objectives which in our present economic situation are not wholly to be disregarded.
Therefore I want to ask my noble friend whether some thought is being given to the system. I should say in fairness that I have always understood—and this is a decision on a balance of advantage—that there are two sections of society who on the whole would rather we did not have a summer time at all or would prefer it to cover a shorter period. These are the farmers and those people who have the good fortune to live in the beautiful country in the north of Scotland. I have never quite understood the farming objection—though I see that there is at least one noble Lord who is more capable of understanding it than I am—because I have never really understood why one cannot adjust the timing of work by the clock on a farm to counter any ill effects from the fact that the clock generally has been artificially altered. After all, the cows do not have any built in chronometer in their equipment.
The north of Scotland involves a more difficult question, for there one is faced with the fact that in the north of Scotland in mid-winter, whatever is done to the clock, most people, including, most importantly, the school children, find themselves going to and from work in darkness because there is just not enough daylight during the period in those latitudes. Therefore great weight should be given to those interests.
I wonder whether they weigh in the scale quite as heavily as the substantial benefit to much larger numbers of people, particularly those who work in our urban areas. I have quoted London because it is the area with which I have been connected and because I represented part of it in another place, but what I have said applies equally to other great urban areas. The opportunity to get home in daylight at a time that enables one to exercise or to do something to the garden is of real importance. I am afraid it is a fact that it is just the point when summer time has not started or has finished that that becomes most acute; in mid-summer, particularly in the south of England, it does not matter much one way or the other because daylight is so long anyway.
I do not expect my noble friend to give a great statement of Government policy, on what is almost a routine order. However, I should like him to take it back and perhaps say that he will be good enough to consult his noble friends as to whether we have this quite right. If we have not, there are two alternatives. One would be to continue the system but to make it perhaps, instead of an October-March operation, a November-February one, On the other hand, one might argue that for so short a period it really was not worth the dislocation of change and that therefore perhaps we should go back to the wartime system of continuous summer-time. I should not like to stick my neck out particularly far on either of those alternatives. The sole point, and the sole reason for my intervention this afternoon, is to ask my noble friend to realise that there is a considerable body of opinion in this country that is not wholly happy with the present system and I think is entitled to ask her Majesty's Government,
918
without commitment, to consider carefully what the future pattern should be.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks about my new position here. Perhaps I may say that I have considerable sympathy for what he has said. My noble friend will recall that in 1970 the Government of the day published a document entitled Review of British Standard Time. That document dealt in considerable detail with the effects of having summer time all the year round. The Government's inquiries at the time showed the arguments for and against the system to be fairly equally balanced. However, the House of Commons decided, on a free vote, in December 1970, by 366 votes to 81, that the system should not be continued. The desirability or otherwise of having a system on the lines of British Standard Time continues to be a matter on which conflicting views are held. The system was, however, rejected by a decisive majority in the House of Commons in 1970 and the Government at the moment have no reason to suppose that there has been a substantial change in the balance of opinion since that date. However, I can assure my noble friend that I shall make a point of drawing his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1985
12.53 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1985, which was laid before Parliament in draft on 19th November, be approved. The Joint Committee on statutory instruments has considered the order and has made no comment.
This draft order introduces the Government's proposals for changes in the rules governing the facilities which may be provided in licensed betting offices. The order envisages that people should in future be allowed to watch television and buy a cup of tea in betting shops, if the licensee wishes to provide these services.
We see these changes as a modest progression in the rules on betting shops, which is justified by the way cash betting shops have fitted into our high streets. When the existing rules were introduced in 1961, there were fears about the problems cash betting shops might cause. In fact betting shops quickly became accepted and their introduction has not led to any significant problems. It is perhaps not entirely surprising, therefore, that there is now felt to be room to relax some of the present restrictions without disturbing the overall system of licensing these premises, and that is the view reflected in this order.

919
The order follows a wide consultation exercise. A paper was issued in February this year to which over one hundred interested organisations and individuals responded. This process has led to a number of important refinements. The order lifts the prohibition in the existing rules on television in betting offices. There are some people who believe that if punters can see the events on which they can bet, they will do so to excess and cause misery to themselves and their families. We have carefully considered that point of view. We have also considered the understandable wish of the majority of people in betting shops to be able to see the outcome of their bet on television, rather than being obliged to go to other premises if they want to watch the race. And we have also taken account of the fact that people who can afford a credit account can already watch the race on television in the comfort of their own home. We have concluded that television should be treated as an incidental facility, which a person can reasonably expect to find in a betting shop. The ban, which looked right in 1960, now looks very restrictive in the light of the widespread availability of television today.
We have also noted that television coverage of racing is available in a number of premises such as pubs and clubs which have traditionally been associated with illegal betting. Although I should not suggest that the ban on television in betting shops is the only reason behind illegal betting, we certainly had this consideration in mind in framing our proposals.
The order introduces some important restrictions on the use of television. First, pictures of sporting events only will be allowed. This will rule out beauty contests as well as general entertainment programmes. It was suggested in another place that we might be in for bouts of topless mud wrestling on television as a result of the reference to sporting events. The order refers to sporting events in general because we did not want to get into the business of picking and choosing between the variety of sports on which bets take place. But it may be of some reassurance if I say that we know that the plans of those aiming to provide a television service for betting shops centre upon the more conventional sports of horse and greyhound racing. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will retain the power to bring forward another order if—contrary to our expectations—there are undesirable and unforeseen consequences from this one, and I hope noble Lords will accept that this would give us enough scope to deal with the rather more exotic sports it is possible to imagine.
The new rules also limit television screen sizes to 30 inches and provide that television and video will be permissable only if the same service or video is available to other betting office licensees. This last restriction is designed to meet the concern that the development of cable and satellite television might lead to private arrangements with one or other major betting office chain so that a service was available exclusively in their shops.
The proposals for light refreshments also reflect our intention to allow facilities which are incidental to the main business of a betting shop—which will continue to be the placing of bets. We share the view taken by the Royal Commission on Gambling which reported
920
in 1978 that the only effect the present ban on all refreshments has is to cause irritation among licensees and punters. But we are also conscious of a risk that if betting shops provide food and drink they could attract people who would previously have had no interest at all in placing a bet. There is no question of licensees being able to provide alcohol in betting offices. Moreover we are not prepared to see betting shops providing a cafe service, perhaps encouraging shoppers in with the prospect of a snack meal. I know that some noble Lords are a little anxious about the narrow list of refreshments included in the order but I hope our intention of preventing this kind of facility getting out of hand in betting shops will be understood. The distinction between biscuits and cakes may look a little harsh: we took the view here that we were just allowing basic refreshments. Some cakes would go beyond that and we felt that this was a reasonable point at which to draw the line. There will always be room to consider an extension of the list in the light of experience, although we detect no desire to see betting shops able to sell a wide range of refreshments.
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1984 introduced an important new power in enabling us to change the rules on betting shops from time to time by order. We will be looking at the effects of the present order and if we are persuaded that the rules could be still further improved, on refreshments or television, in any direction, we shall be able to bring forward fresh proposals in due course. For the present, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the order strikes the right balance between allowing some new incidental facilities and imposing appropriate safeguards to ensure that the betting shop remains a place where people go only if they are interested in having a bet. I ask the House to agree to the Motion before it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.)—(Viscount Davidson.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Viscount the Minister for the felicitious way in which he described the terms of this order. There was a Schedule 4, paragraph 5, of the Act of 1963, which prohibited certain things, including refreshments. Since I have no point on the general purpose of the order, with which we are in agreement, perhaps I may say that I was very interested to hear the noble Lord the Minister expatiate on the question of light refreshments. I must say that when I read this order, I pictured the civil servant advising the Minister of what ought to be defined as light refreshments. Looking at the order, I saw, as did the noble Viscount the Minister, "biscuits, not including cakes". He has explained the reason for the difference. I hope that he feels that generally the distinction between biscuits and cakes is so clear that no offence will be committed when a cake is served instead of a biscuit.
But there is such a heavy weightage in favour of all products from potatoes that I ask the noble Lord the Minister to declare if he has any interest at all in the potato industry because, under this commission in subparagraph (3) of paragraph 10, one is entitled to serve
"potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch".

921
At first sight, it really does seem as though there is a heavy favouritism in favour of all potato products.
My last and possibly least significant comment is on salted or roasted peanuts. I ask why it is, since presumably one is thinking here of light refreshments to be served with a drink, all other nuts except for peanuts are presumably excluded and that solitary, salacious and extremely seductive little olive is presumably omitted. I ask the Minister, why?
1 p.m.
Lord Peyton: My Lords, I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, noted the fact that cakes were not to be permitted. I suppose that your Lordships can take comfort from the fact that the Government are proceeding with care and that they have received some solemn warning about the dreadful consequences that might flow if cake was made available in betting shops. I am bound to say, however, that they are not immediately clear to me and I should be very grateful—as I am sure would be the rest of your Lordships—if my noble friend would be kind enough to explain a little more than he has already explained what dreadful dangers would flow from the selling of cakes in betting shops which would be avoided by the presence or availability of biscuits.
My eye was also caught—and I hope that your Lordships will pardon me if I read it out—by the legislative gem in paragraph 11. It reads:
"Paragraphs 1 and 4 above shall be construed, subject to the restrictions in paragraphs 7 to 10 above, as not prohibiting the provision of the facilities permitted by paragraphs 7, 9 and 10(2) and (3) above.".
Why any court should be tempted so to construe this order, I cannot understand for a moment. But again the Government may be wishing to receive congratulations on their resistance to rashness and to making assurance doubly sure.
When the betting shops were originally established—and there are one or two points of substance that I should like to make on the order—the Government of the day proceeded in a typically British fashion. They said, "We've got to have these things but let us compromise. Let us do something to satisfy those who don't want them by making them as unpleasant, as uncomfortable and as discouraging as possible". I welcome the Government's decision to modify that previously stupid position. But I would invite my noble friend's attention, now that the Government have decided to make life more comfortable for those who go to betting shops (where at least it has always been dry), to apply their minds to the conditions for those who go to race courses and to consider whether or not they could not do something to improve the comfort of those who do.
Racecourses are obliged to attract customers, but the customers when they get there are too often met with low-grade accommodation and with little or no protection against bad weather and overcrowding. Added to that, racecourses are obliged to have fixtures at times when they do not want them and inhibited from having them at times when they do. I would remind my noble friend that about a quarter of our racecourses in this country made less than £5,000 profit during the whole of last year.
922
I do not think that it would be adequate to say—and I am sure that my noble friend would not be tempted to give this kind of answer—that is it is up to the racing authorities and to the racing industry generally to put their own house in order; because that is only part of the truth. The Government could help, and in my view the Government most certainly should help.
I myself do not believe that there is any justification whatsoever for retaining the 4 per cent. on-course betting duty which is much more onerous than it seems because it is levied not just on winnings but on total turnover. Then there is the question of Sunday racing. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are alone in not allowing Sunday racing; and I believe that New Zealand are to modify their position on that shortly. We have, whether legal or not, tennis, cricket, motor racing, snooker, and rugby league fixtures in this country on Sundays.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be courteous enough to give way. I wonder whether he would explain to the House the relevance of what he is now talking about in such an interesting way to this particular order.
Lord Peyton: My Lords, I shall be very willing to explain, but of course it will prolong my remarks. What I am seeking to encourage the Government to do, now that they are showing their concern for the comfort of those who attend betting shops, is to be more concerned with the comfort of those who go to racecourses. I am suggesting that that comfort could be materially assisted if, for instance, racing on a Sunday were permitted or took place in the same way as some other sporting functions to which I have already referred.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is not for me to make any other than the point that I did. But is it not as relevant as saying when we considered the Summer Time Order that we ought to have considered the regularity of clocks?
Lord Peyton: My Lords, I am so sorry that we did not have the opportunity of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on that. I am very grateful to him for his advice. But I am afraid that the net effect of his advice, if he will forgive me for saying so, is to prolong my speech, which I would not have wished to do.
There are two more points that I would wish to make here. The result of our legislation is to inhibit racecourses from holding fixtures at times when they do want to have them, not only on Sundays but in the evenings, and also to oblige them to hold fixtures at times when they do not want to have them because the public simply do not go to them. I hope that my noble friend will give some consideration to that.
My final point as to where the Government can help in improving the comfort available to racegoers is on the question of the rating of studfarms where now an important decision of the Court of Appeal has been postponed until late next year at the earliest. I hope that my noble friend will consider these points very carefully because in my view the action to improve conditions—and it is within the power of the Government to do this—for those who sustain the

923
sport and industry of racing on the course itself has been neglected for too long.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, at the risk of seriously irritating the House—for which, if I do, I apologise, as the clock is advancing—I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Minister for the many assurances he has given to the House. I should like also to say that I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has just said. I feel that this Order is going to make betting shops more attractive and therefore it will lessen the number of people who might like a day out at the races. Conditions on our racecourses really are getting nastier and people generally are not very well catered for there.
The point I should like to make is that the Government really ought to try to do something about increasing the grant or levy, which at present stands at 9 per cent.—that is 9 per cent. of £3 billion, which I understand was the total revenue received by bookmakers last year and which is paid towards the so-called maintaining of Britain's racecourses. In France this figure is over 6 per cent. and in Hong Kong it is considerably more. In both those places the race-going public go to racecourses with a great deal of pleasure; but going to a racecourse in the United Kingdom these days is rather a dull experience. I think this order will result in British racecourses being reduced to a state of perpetual mediocrity. I would ask the Government to consider very carefully the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which I think are absolutely right and which deserve serious consideration.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this order for their welcome of it, although it was perhaps somewhat qualified in certain parts of the House. I must admit that when I first read the order and looked at "biscuits (not including cakes)" my first reaction was that this could not have been drafted by Marie Antoinette. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Peyton that I appreciate it may look odd that paragraph 10(3) says that cakes are not included. In drafting this part of the order we were guided by the definitions used in previous statutes and found it convenient to follow the terminology of Schedule 5 to the Value Added Tax Act of 1983. That, to avoid any doubt, specifically refers to "not including cakes" when referring to biscuits and confectionery. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would like to know that.
On the question of potatoes, I must declare that I have no interest in them whatsoever. I do not grow them and I eat them as seldom as possible, and indeed my wife tells me not to eat them at all. Their inclusion could have something to do with the fact that the Irish are very keen on betting, but I do not know whether that is the reason behind it. I cannot immediately call to mind the reason for olives being omitted, except possibly that this order may have been drafted before Spain joined the Common Market. I am afraid I cannot give any further answers on that part of the order.
924
In reply to my noble friend Lord Peyton, who I would respectfully suggest was going slightly wide of this order, I would say that we have taken the view that it would not be right to deny a limited measure of relaxation of the rules on betting shops because of the fears that have been expressed by the horseracing fraternity. We have taken comfort in our approach from the fact that the sport concerned has stopped short of seeking to oppose the order and our consultations have revealed a general acceptance that it would be right to introduce a measure of deregulation in the present (and now outdated) rules which apply to the facilities in betting shops.
Clearly, the horse racing interests and also the greyhound racing interests have ideas for responding by seeking to make their own sports more attractive. I should have thought that that would mean making their own grounds and comforts more attractive. But this issue is not without its complexities. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking forward to receiving the report of the Jockey Club's working party in order to assess the current state of opinion within the racing and bookmaking industries. I know that the racing interests expect to derive some benefit from the new opportunities which will arise from selling the rights to coverage of racing, whether shown by statellite, video or cable. I will in any case ensure that my noble friend's remarks are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1985
1.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order withdraws the exemption in the Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order 1976 for certain agreements relating to the supply of banking services in Northern Ireland. The effect of the order will be to require that existing and future restrictive agreements relating to the provision of banking services in Northern Ireland must be furnished to the Office of Fair Trading and entered on a register. The Director-General of Fair Trading will then consider whether an agreement contains restrictions which are of such significance as to call for investigation by the Restrictive Practices Court. If there are no significant restrictions the Secretary of State, acting on a representation from the Director-General, can give a direction that the agreement should not be referred to the court: otherwise, unless the agreement is terminated or the restrictions in it abandoned, it must be referred to the court for a judgment as to whether or not the restrictions are in the public interest.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Act has applied in this way to banking services in Great Britain since

925
services generally were brought within the scope of the Act in 1976. The decision not to apply the Act at that stage to banking services in Northern Ireland was taken against the background of the traditionally close relationship between the banking systems in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those relationships had led to a degree of harmonisation of banking services on both sides of the border. In particular, the Northern Ireland banks had entered into agreements on such matters as interest rates and closing hours which mirrored those in operation in the Republic of Ireland. It was then argued by the banks concerned that application of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act would lead to the dismantling of those arrangements, with a consequent risk to the financial stability of the banking system in Northern Ireland.
The Government share the concern expressed by the National Consumer Council in its 1983 report on banking services, that the cartelisation of banking services in Northern Ireland denies consumers in the Province the advantages of greater choice and more efficient and innovative service that have accrued in open competition between banks elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We believe that the exemption of restrictive banking arrangements from registration and judicial scrutiny under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is no longer justified. In the Government's view, there are no compelling economic reasons for the banks in Northern Ireland to agree one with another on the terms on which each does business. The building societies in Northern Ireland and the Trustees Savings Bank of Northern Ireland have offered banking services outside the cartel arrangements for some considerable time. Indeed the banks themselves have now voluntarily abandoned their agreement on interest rates, and other agreements are under review.
We believe, therefore, that withdrawal of the exemption will reinforce the steps taken towards a more competitive banking system and those already taken by the Northern Ireland banks. Any risk that open competition between the banks will have a destabilising consequence is now less than it was in 1976, and it will be further substantially reduced by the measures proposed in the Government's White Paper, Banking Supervision, which was announced in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Belstead earlier this week. The Government have given the Northern Ireland banks a long period of notice of their intention to bring them within the scope of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The Northern Ireland Bankers' Association has consulted the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading over the past year, so as to clarify the effect of the Act on the residual agreements of its members. We believe that the banks concerned are now reasonably prepared for the withdrawal of the exemption.
Moreover, when the order has come into effect there will be a three months' period of grace within which existing agreements which have become registrable must be furnished to the Office of Fair Trading. The banks will be able to continue to operate those agreements after registration, unless and until any of the restrictions in them are struck out by the Restrictive Practices Court. I should inform the House
926
that the order was considered by the Joint Committee and was passed without comment.
In conclusion, I would emphasise that the order does no more than extend to banks in Northern Ireland the competition disciplines that have applied to banking services elsewhere in the United Kingdom for the last 10 years. It is a modest measure which reinforces the Northern Ireland banks' own efforts to operate on a more competitive basis and is likely to be of benefit to consumers and industry alike. I commend the order to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we should like to thank the noble Lord for having explained the reasons that lie behind the laying of this order and also its practical consequences. The noble Lord will, of course, understand that our consideration of this order must be without prejudice to our consideration at a later stage in the current Session of the Banking Bill, which we have been promised, and also the Financial Services Bill, which will come before your Lordships in due course.
But in the meantime we see no objection whatsoever to this order. We entirely support its passage through your Lordships' House. Since this is the last time that I shall be confronting the noble Lord opposite in the current Session, may I offer him my personal felicitations for the Christmas celebrations, tempered by perhaps warning him that we are due for very arduous labours on other matters in the new year.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his reception of this order. Of course, I appreciate that we are dealing this afternoon with the order as it stands, without prejudice to any current or forthcoming legislation. That takes me very neatly into being able to thank the noble Lord very much for his kind good wishes for Christmas, which of course I reciprocate. As for the new year, shall I say that he and I will both enjoy debating—because that is what he and I do—those measures and those matters upon which we do not always have total agreement. But we have never failed to come to some kind of agreement at the end of those debates, and I shall look forward, as he does, to next year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
1.26 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which were laid before the House on 13th November, be approved.
These regulations make detailed amendments to the main regulations governing cosmetics and are not themselves of very great importance. But I make no apology for this, for I believe that measures that are going to be given the full force of law, however minor,

927
ought to be at least briefly considered and approved by this House.
These regulations bring up to date the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984, which ensured the safety of cosmetics in this country by prohibiting certain ingredients, restricting the use of others and prescribing appropriate warning labelling. It is necessary to regulate cosmetics in this way because each member of the public uses cosmetics—which, one must remember, include soap, toothpaste and shampoo—every day of his or her life, and so we have to try to ensure that they are completely safe.
The proposed regulations implement the latest EC Directive 84/415, which we are required to implement. They amend the list of prohibited and restricted ingredients and the warning labelling required and also make some clarifying amendments to the principal regulations. We supported in Brussels the directive that we are now implementing and would have made these changes in any case. We have consulted the industry and representatives of the medical profession, consumers and the enforcement authorities, who are content. These regulations are not contentious. They concern a few detailed additions to the list of regulated ingredients of cosmetics. However, as I said, since the regulations will become law it is important that Parliament should approve them.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject of enforcement of these, and indeed other, regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, quite rightly raised at Question Time yesterday. The levels of safety set by these regulations provide clear direction to manufacturers and other suppliers. Most traders, being reputable, will comply, but there will always be a minority whose goods will need careful checking by enforcement officers.
Local authorities have the duty to enforce all these regulations. There is no reason to think that they will not enforce them adequately, but the level of enforcement inevitably varies with the enthusiasm of, and the importance placed on them by, individual local authorities. I need hardly remind noble Lords that, of course, the enforcement authorities liaise closely with the Department of Trade and Industry on enforcement matters. We plan to introduce the measures proposed in the White Paper Safety of Goods, including the general safety requirement and the measures for more effective enforcement, as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
Trading standards officers already have powers to seize and detain goods for the purpose of ascertaining, by testing or otherwise, whether safety regulations have been contravened. But these powers are limited to the taking of samples for the purpose of testing etc., and they do not permit the authorities to halt directly the sale of goods, even where there are strong reasons for believing that the general public is at risk. We are therefore proposing to strengthen the existing powers by enabling enforcement authorities either to require suppliers to retain in their possession goods which are suspected of contravening safety requirements, or, if necessary, to seize such goods. This is an important part of the proposals in the White Paper on the safety of goods, which, as I say, we intend to implement as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
928
In Great Britain safety regulations are enforced by local authority trading standards departments. There are 98 of these. The number of officers employed is about 1,500, but it is not possible to estimate the overall proportion of resources devoted to consumer safety, because the level varies between local authorities. I would also remind your Lordships that a supplier of goods prohibited by these regulations is liable to a fine of £2,000 and up to three months in gaol. With those remarks I invite the House to approve these regulations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th November be approved. [5th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabzon of Tara.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, and I am obliged to him, too, for having given certain other information which applies not only to this order but also to the succeeding orders that we are to discuss. It will perhaps be convenient to the noble Lord and to the House if I discuss the enforcement aspect of the regulations not on the consideration of this order, but on the consideration of the orders that are about to be discussed by the House. But so far as these regulations are concerned, we on this side are happy to facilitate their passage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asbestos Products (Safety) Regulations 1985
1.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.] The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are fairly important regulations for the safety of the consumer and are part of the package of safety regulations on asbestos in the workplace and the home currently being enacted to implement the EC directive on the marketing and use of asbestos. The regulations prohibit the supply in the United Kingdom of blue asbestos (crocidolite) and brown asbestos (amosite) and products containing them, and prescribe warning labels for white asbestos (chrysotile and others) and products containing them. They apply to second-hand goods as well as new. Similar prescriptions for the workplace will be made by separate legislation.
In fact little, if any, blue or brown asbestos has been used in this country for some years now, but because they are potentially so dangerous it is important to ensure that they are not used again in the future. In banning brown asbestos, we are in fact going beyond the requirements of the directive, but we have found brown asbestos to be almost as dangerous as blue. The House will notice that at the request of the motor industry, torque convertors and intermediate brake

929
bands for cars are exempted from the ban on blue asbestos. This is possible because they are sealed up, are serviced only by specialist engineers who know how to take precautions and would be very expensive to replace; but industry is gradually phasing them out.
The House will also notice that the use of blue and brown asbestos is permitted for research and development, since for experimental work there may be no alternative to their use, and research and development workers can be expected to take special care. The labelling requirements for white asbestos and products containing it are based on the existing labelling that the industry has been using of its own accord for several years now. The effect of the regulations is therefore to ensure complete coverage for the existing scheme.
The principal purpose of the labelling is to warn members of the public servicing or repairing products containing asbestos to take the necessary precautions. But on most consumer products the warning labelling will be carried on the outside, so it will also have the effect of warring purchasers that the product contains asbestos and enable them to avoid it if they so wish. Both the product and the packaging will normally be labelled.
We have attempted to make the labelling provisions, which are set out in the schedule, as simple and easy for industry to follow as possible, while giving ample warning to the public. The logic of the labelling is straightforward. All products or their components which contain asbestos must be labelled, and, if they are packaged, the packaging must also be labelled. If it is not practicable to label a product component because of its shape, it must have a tie-on label or, failing that, a warning handout. But those too small to be labelled are exempted on the grounds that they are unlikely to emit large quantities of asbestos fibres.
As a concession to industry, the regulations give a period of grace of three months until 20th March 1986 to give them time to label their products. More generally I should add that at the Government's request, the British Standards Institute have removed asbestos from all their standards and industry is phasing out its use in favour of substitutes. But this is not always easy since asbestos is very good at its job, and substitutes, if in the form of fibrous material, can themselves be harmful. My honourable friend the Minister for Corporate and Consumer Affairs has asked me to repeat his assurance to the average householder that he faces little or no risk from exposure to asbestos from household products, provided that he disposes of them once they become worn or degraded.
The ban on blue and brown asbestos comes into force on 1st January, in line with the ban on the supply to the workplace under the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations enacted last June. As I said, the labelling requirements for white asbestos will come into force on 20th March to give industry the minimum period of grace to label products containing it. My honourable friend has consulted the industry, representatives of the consumers, the medical profession and the enforcement authorities, who are now content. I therefore invite the House to approve these regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st November by approved.—(Lord Brabazon to Tara.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the regulations. I prefer to deal with the general question of enforcement in the next order that we are due to consider. I should like nevertheless to ask the noble Lord this question. What will happen to persons or companies or organisations who do not comply with the labelling provisions here? How easy or how difficult is it going to be for the appropriate enforcement officer to discover whether the labelling has been done correctly or not? It is one thing to pass regulations—I have no quarrel with their content; we on this side of the House entirely support the whole drive behind the regulations—but have the Government seriously considered the practical difficulties that arise? Have they considered the degree of concealment that may be adopted by certain unscrupulous persons or firms in whose interests it is not to comply with the regulation?
We should like some indication of the process that is going to be adopted for discovery and enforcement, of the adequacy of the number of persons who are charged with the enforcement of it, and also some indication as to the degree of penalty that is involved for an infringement, bearing in mind, in spite of the very welcome reassurances that have been given by the noble Lord, the very real dangers that are associated with the handling of the substance or its presence in any quantity where it can be inhaled or touched by anybody happening to be either inadvertently or otherwise in the close vicinity of it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his general reception of the order. We have consulted the industry and suppliers and they should be fully aware of the terms of this order. Therefore we expect them to comply with it as from the date I mentioned. It will of course be for the trading standards officers to enforce the order. I have outlined how that takes place.
It must be made clear to suppliers that an asbestos product or a product containing asbestos must be labelled, and, if it is not, the supplier is liable to prosecution under the terms which I mentioned in the previous order—that is to say, a fine of up to £2,000 and/or three months' imprisonment. As I said previously we are ready to give any advice that local trading standards officers require from the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition these orders are publicised in trade journals and so on. I very much hope that everybody will be well aware of the orders and of the consequences of breaking them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985
1.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]

931
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the very real dangers associated with the flammability of nightwear have been the subject of legislation for some period of time. I am sure that noble Lords will readily appreciate the desirability of keeping the legislation up-to-date and wherever possible improving the level of protection afforded to the public in general, and especially the young.
There have been regulations governing the rate of flame spread in children's nightdresses since 1964. The current regulations—the Nightdresses (Safety) Regulations, which were made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 and have been in force since 1967—make two main requirements. First, children's nightdresses must meet the flammability requirements of British Standard 3121. Secondly, adults' nightdresses which fail that test must carry the warning label "Keep away from fire". However, while those regulations have helped reduce the number and severity of accidents, their provisions have been largely overtaken by developments in the intervening years. They include the passing of the Consumer Safety Act 1978, with its wider powers of enforcement, and the development of a newer and slightly more stringent flammability standard—BS 5722—that is capable of producing more reliable test results over the wider range of fabrics now used in nightwear.
As required by the Consumer Safety Act 1978 the department has consulted a large number of trade, consumer, medical and enforcement bodies on the scope of the proposed new regulations. As a result, some changes were made. In particular we have brought pyjamas into the scope of the regulations in response to well-argued representations by consumer bodies and have lengthened the period before the regulations come into force to 15 months, to allow the trade to make preparatory adjustments. The draft before your Lordships therefore, commands a wide measure of support from trade and consumer bodies alike.
The main features of the draft regulations are that they use British Standards that are more relevant to today's fabrics; children's dressing gowns as well as nightdresses will have to meet the flammability criteria; all other nightwear will have to carry a label indicating whether or not it meets the flammability requirements; they tighten up on the use of threads and trimmings, which can affect the flammability of the garment; and they require newspaper and magazine advertisements as well as mail order catalogues to carry information about the flammability of the nightwear shown.
The proposed new requirement that children's dressing gowns, like nightdresses, will have to meet BS 5722 should not cause undue problems for the trade. It is broadly in line with guidelines that were issued in 1970 on the use of fabrics in gowns. We have however exempted children's cotton terry towelling bathrobes from mandatory compliance since that would require them to be treated with a flame retardant chemical that would affect their absorbency—an essential feature in a bathrobe.
The labelling system we propose to adopt is similar to that which is currently in force for upholstered
932
furniture. All nightwear—with the exception of children's nightdresses and dressing gowns that must meet the test—will have to carry a label indicating its fire performance. Nightwear meeting the test will be entitled to carry a label stating "Low flammability to BS 5722". Nightwear failing the test will be required to carry a label warning "Keep away from fire". This will enable consumers wishing to purchase safer nightwear to identify it easily. It will also be of benefit to the elderly, who are more vulnerable to fire risks.
The use of threads and trimmings can seriously affect the flammability performance of even resistant fabrics. The 1967 regulations banned the use of higher flammability threads and trimmings below the waist and elbow in children's nightdresses. We now propose to extend that requirement to the whole garment, so that children's nightdresses and dressing gowns will have to be manufactured totally from low flammability materials. Similarly for children's pyjamas and adult nightwear, suppliers will not be able to use low flammability label unless all materials are of low flammability.
Requiring mail order catalogues and newspaper advertisements to carry information about the fire performance of nightwear shown is a new idea, and one that we intend to use in the future where regulations allow consumers a choice. Recognising that mail order traders operate an excellent on-approval scheme, we gave very careful consideration to whether they should be required to include that information in their catalogues. However, we felt it important that their customers should be able to register their preference at the outset.
The proposed regulations will therefore ensure that consumers are better protected and informed. The cost to trade will be small. With better information, consumers may in the longer term alter their buying patterns in favour of safer nightwear. In this respect, the regulations are an important step forward. I invite your Lordships' House to approve the regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [3rd Report front the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for giving an explanation of this order. In the course of his remarks, he has taken pains to emphasise that the regulations themselves ought to impose the minimum inconvenience on the trades involved. Indeed, he said that he was satisfied by consultation with the trades concerned that the regulations would not unduly inconvenience them.
While agreeing with the thrust of the regulations as a whole—and your Lordships will know that the procedures of this House and of another place do not permit of their amendment—and although the advantages gained by passing them are significant, they are not in the ultimate degree decisive. We feel that in this area in particular, the time has come for the interests of the consumer and not those of the trade to be dominant.

933
Every year—and perhaps we shall hear the same again this Christmas—fatalities and serious injuries are caused by reason of presents purchased in good faith and given to children and to adults, without the consumer knowing that they are seriously flammable under certain conditions. Every year we hear the same stories of serious injury and fatalities, particularly during the festive season when such articles are given as presents. The time has arrived when the interests of the consumer must be dominant, and those of the trader must be subordinate, to the safety of the consumer and the individual.
In that connection, I am bound to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the amended regulations themselves do not come into operation until 1st March 1987, which is some 15 months from the end of the current year. I must protest against that. I must protest at the delay before the regulations come into force.
As the Minister has said, there is a long history of progressive improvement over the years of regulations concerning the sale of nightwear in particular and of similar wear. It cannot be that people who trade anywhere in the United Kingdom are unaware of the hazards that are faced by the individual through the sale of garments that can be lethal under certain circumstances. There is therefore no case to be made for continued postponement of the regulations.
When it comes to enforcement, the noble Lord, when discussing a previous regulation, said that the Government were bringing out a White Paper so that in future enforcement officers would not only have the right to seize goods for testing but would also have the right to seize the goods themselves and prohibit their sale—a power that they do not possess at the moment. That is of course the defect of these regulations. I am amazed that it has taken so long for that point to be appreciated.
It is not sufficient for a law enforcement officer going to a place and upon inspection finding there flammable garments, or garments that he has every reasonable cause to believe are flammable, to have the power to remove the garments for testing. There should be the power, and quickly, for him to seize the lot and to ensure effective prohibition of their sale regardless of the effect of that action on the particular trader concerned.
Trade is the means by which vast numbers of our citizens live, and nobody wants to restrict trade as such. But the considerations of trade and the fortunes of a particular entrepreneur measure nothing when compared with the fate of children, adults and older people who purchase items of nightwear in good faith, without realising, in spite of the fact that there has been a publicity campaign on this subject, the hazard they present.
I observe that the prohibition does not apply to second-hand nightwear. This brings us into a very difficult area because these days there is an ever increasing number of impoverished people who tend to buy second-hand apparel. Why should they not be protected in a similar way to people who buy new garments? That is a defect in the regulations.
Finally, I come to the question of enforcement of even these regulations. The noble Lord said, when we
934
were discussing a previous item, that these matters are in the hands of the local authorities and that some 1,500 people throughout the United Kingdom are engaged upon them. Has anybody made an assessment of the number of retail outlets in the United Kingdom habitually marketing goods of this kind? Has anybody considered whether 1,500 people represent an adequate number to ensure surveillance, not only of these regulations but of a whole series of similar regulations related to safety? Are the Government really satisfied, even on the assumption that the powers of the enforcement officers will eventually be adequate, as to the number and the facilities?
We are in an era of severe limitation on local authority expenditure. Indeed, we learnt yesterday that the percentage of government grant related aid given to local authorities has reduced substantially over the past six years, and it is still reducing. Is the noble Lord satisfied that local authorities in the various areas concerned have adequate funds to pay for these very necessary services? Those are the questions that arise.
In this country we have a habit, which has developed increasingly over the years, of passing legislation—some of it excellent legislation—which lays down the law with admirable clarity. For example, Sections 68 and 69 of the Companies Act 1980 prohibit insider dealing, but the powers of enforcement are apparently nil. Exactly the same applies to regulations of this kind. The thought is excellent, the text is excellent, but what is very often lacking is the will and the means to enforce the legislation. I hope that by drawing attention to this particularly sensitive area of nightwear the Government may be persuaded to learn their lesson and make quite sure that the regulations are enforced, and enforced in time; and in this particular case a long time before March 1987.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, to save time I should like to say that we support both the nightwear safety regulations and the regulations concerning pushchairs which we shall deal with later.
It is a very good idea to tie some of these regulations to British standards, but we must remember that many British standards are really the lowest common denominator. Manufacturers and the standard-making process are dominant. It may be that in many cases an acceptable compromise is reached. There are, of course, areas where this does not occur and where the consumer's voice is not strong enough to secure what ought to be done. I do not say that this applies with either of these two regulations, but I recall—I think it was at least 10 years ago—when I sat on the BSI committee which dealt with pushchairs. We waited for the regulations to come out and, looking at the dates, I think it took the Government some five years to get round to it.
There is another aspect we should remember. The regulations and the standards are bound to be capable of improvement as time goes on and so these amending regulations, introduced with speed, are very important if the consumer is to get the best deal possible.
Finally, I again emphasise the importance of enforcement. Of course, our present enforcement is

935
totally inadequate. It is no good sitting back and saying, "Life is wonderful. We have the regulations." This applies particularly to electrical safety where unsafe goods come into this country and there is simply not sufficient manpower in our enforcement services to pick them up quickly. People introduce and sell dangerous goods, make a quick profit, and off the market they go. I earnestly say to the Government that it is no good hiding their heads in the sand and imagining that enforcement procedures are adequate or even sufficient to keep out the worst examples.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for their contributions to the debate on these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and, to some extent, the noble Viscount said that consumer interests should be dominant in these matters. Of course, we take a considerable amount of advice from the consumer associations. Indeed, they have a very important role to play.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked why we could not bring in the regulations less than 15 months ahead. I have to tell the noble Lord that obviously the industry must be allowed some time to adapt. One cannot just condemn stock on the shelves—at least, I hope the noble Lord would not encourage us to do so—and not allow it to be sold. I must also point out that these are amending regulations to the 1967 regulations, which will remain in force until the new, improved standards become operative. The 1967 regulations are already quite stringent in themselves. All we are doing is making them even more effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked why second-hand nightwear is not included in the regulations. The answer is basically very simple. Each item of second-hand nightwear would have to be regarded as an individual item unless it retained its original labelling which, over a period of time, I hope would happen. But the test for these items is by means of fire to destruction and so it is not practical to test every item of second-hand nightwear by destroying it by fire.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked how the number of enforcement officers compares with the number of retail outlets. I do not know how many retail outlets there are selling these items, but I must tell the noble Lord that our first aim is that such goods should never reach the retail outlets. That is why we take every possible step to inform manufacturers and importers of these types of goods, so that they do not reach retail outlets in the first place.
The noble Lord asked whether I was satisfied that the local authorities have sufficient funds to maintain their forces of trading standards officers. It is, of course, a matter for the local authorities as to how they allocate their funds. I see no reason why they should not have them.
The noble Lord also said—as did the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, but perhaps not to the same degree—that powers of enforcement are apparently nil. I do not agree with that. As I have said, we hope that, on the whole, these goods are stopped
936
before they even get to the shops. Having said that, obviously a few will slip through. It is up to the local trading standards officers to make sure that they are discovered. As we well know in these matters the public has a part to play, as do the media. If anybody suspects that a shop is selling goods of this kind then they should of course inform their local trading standards officer.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made the point that the British Standards were indeed capable of improvement. This is precisely what this regulation does: it brings in an improved standard for nightwear. If I may go slightly ahead (because the noble Lord mentioned the pushchairs order, which is coming up next) that regulation, too, has exactly the same effect.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he realises that probably one of the biggest problems in the safety of goods concerns goods which are imported? At the moment it does not seem that anybody can take sufficiently quick action on goods which suddenly come in for some firm which makes a quick profit and then disappears overnight. Will the noble Lord take this particular point seriously?—because that is how the worst of the unsafe goods arrive on the market.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right, and I am glad that he has pointed out that most of the problems come from imported goods rather than from domestically produced goods. I certainly take note of what he says. The Customs and Excise have powers, and I know that they do their best to stop the importation of this kind of merchandise.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry that I must press the noble Lord a little further. Is he saying that the Customs and Excise will be adequately staffed to enable this particular interception to take place? The noble Lord will recall that over the past few years the number of Customs and Excise officials has been reduced. This seems to be another instance, aside from the drug problem, which cries aloud—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suppose that the noble Lord does not realise that he is out of order.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble Lord. I am not aware that in asking a further question I am out of order, but if I am then the Chair will no doubt draw my attention to it and I shall immediately comply. I still ask the question.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken about that, too. It is for the House to regulate itself and not for the Chair to act. The fact is that the noble Lord was speaking for a second time during the course of this debate without the leave of the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Then, my Lords, if I may ask the leave of the House to put these questions, I should be obliged if the House were to accord me that facility. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to answer those particular questions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord says. I draw his attention once more to the White Paper on the sale of goods, which proposes new powers to seize and detain unsafe goods. I take the point that he is making about the numbers of Customs officers. I cannot give him the figures at the moment. The White Paper proposes that the Customs and Excise should be given powers to supply details of imports to the enforcement authorities. We must hope that we can find time to legislate on the White Paper as soon as posible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pushchairs (Safety) Amendment Regulations 1985
2.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pushchairs (Safety) Amendment Regulations 1985, laid before the House on 7th November, be approved.
I come now to the last of these orders. Noble Lords may be able to find some connection between cosmetics, nightwear and pushchairs, but I have had to take the orders separately, and they really are not that closely connected. Your Lordships will know that we already have safety regulations on pushchairs—and on perambulators—which were made in 1978. Those regulations—the Perambulators and Pushchairs (Safety) Regulations 1978, made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961—set requirements for pushchairs relating to parking devices, stability, harness attachment points and locking devices for folding pushchairs. The requirements referred to are contained in British Standard 4792:1972, Safety Requirements for Pushchairs.
For some considerable time anxiety has been expressed by enforcement authorities, consumers and the media that these requirements are inadequate to deal with the problems exhibited by the more modern lightweight pushchairs. Since the 1978 regulations were made, the emphasis on the design of pushchairs has shifted from the heavyweight and robust type to the adaptable, convenient but lightweight version. In practice this has meant that many pushchairs cannot withstand the wear and tear of everyday use. Common failings include failure of welds and rivets, shearing of cross-bars and other metal parts, and wheels dropping off. Moreover, parking devices on some swivel-wheeled pushchairs have been found to be inadequate.
A major revision of British Standard 4792's safety requirements was, therefore, undertaken and a new standard was published by the British Standards Institute on 31st May 1984. It sets endurance tests and additional strength tests which experience has shown to be essential in the interests of safety, and it contains new proposals on parking devices, marking, construction and materials, and instructions on safe use and maintenance. The Government announced their intention to make new pushchair safety regulations calling up the whole of this new British Standard for the technical requirements. A consultation process was carried out, which confirmed that there is general support for the new regulations from all United Kingdom interests, including suppliers, consumers,
938
local authorities, medical experts and the media, and I am glad to be able to propose them to the House. They will come into operation on 1st June 1986. The existing perambulators legislation will remain, as a revised British Standard for perambulators is still being formulated by the relevant technical committee of the British Standards Institute.
These new regulations have not been introduced earlier because of the intervention of the European Commission, which suspended their making for 12 months. However, despite the commission's views that these regulations could constitute a barrier to trade, the Government maintain that because of the known accidents the regulations are fully warranted under Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome and should be made without delay. I invite this House to approve the regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th November be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are happy to support the introduction of the regulations and to fortify the Government's resolve to resist the Commission in any endeavours that it may make to interfere in the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom with regard to this vital safety factor. The remarks that I made about enforcement on the previous regulations that we considered apply with equal force to these regulations, but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to repeat them and nor do I propose to extend the proceedings.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his welcome to the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Specified Diseases) Order 1985
2.9 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved. With your Lordships' permission, I should like at the same time to speak to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1985. These instruments are to be made under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979. The specified diseases order adds two additional diseases to those covered by the Act. The payment of claims regulations increase by 5 per cent. the amounts of compensation paid under the Act to those who first satisfy all the eligibility conditions on or after 1st January 1986. I shall be glad to answer any detailed questions that your Lordships may have on these instruments. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in the general climate of Christmas good cheer I should like to thank the noble Lord for his explanation, in particular of the first order that we have to consider, which we fully support. Let me also say, since I think that I heard him say during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that he had been reduced to second-hand nightwear, that I hope that he gets some for Christmas. We have no point to make on the first order. On the second matter, the regulations, I should like to ask the Government from where they get the 5 per cent. What is the basis on which there will be an increase in the payment of claims maximum of 5 per cent.?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have to strike a balance between the ability of employers to make those payments—and it is generally for them, of course—and the desirability of meeting the increase in costs in other areas. I may add that I understand that my right honourable friend has it in mind to review those amounts on a more regular basis in the future, which I hope will reassure the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1985
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1985
2.11 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to speak at the same time to the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1985, which was also laid before your Lordships on 2nd December.
The Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1985 has been laid before your Lordships in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 which requires the Secretary of State for Employment to carry out an annual review of the level and duration of guarantee payments to workers on short-time and temporary lay-off and the weekly earnings limit for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal and certain debts in relation to the insolvency provisions of the Act. The current weekly earnings limit is £152. The draft order provides for this limit to go up to £155, which is an increase of 2 per cent. The draft order also provides for the daily limit on guarantee pay to be
940
increased from £10.50 to £10.70, which is a 1.9 per cent. increase.
We have decided not to increase the other limits—namely, the specified number of days in any relevant period, now five days, and the length of the relevant period, which is now three months. The reason for the decision was given in the report laid at the same time as the order, and is that the maximum number of days for which payment is required to be made still seems to strike a fair balance between the employers' obligations and the employees' rights.
The second draft order, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1985, has been laid before the House in accordance with Sections 73(4B) and 75A(7) of the 1978 Act as subsequently amended. These limits apply to the basic and special awards for unfair dismissal for trade union activities or membership or non-membership of a union, which were introduced by the Employment Act 1982 and became effective from 1st December that year. The Government propose that the limits on the basic and special awards should be increased from £2,100, £10,500, £21,000 and £15,750 to, respectively, £2,200, £11,000, £22,000 and £16,500. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
2.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the mystery deepens. The noble Lord has told us that the increase under the pneumoconiosis payment of claims regulations is 5 per cent. To my question, "Why?", he says that it has something to do with the fact that the Government take into account the ability of industry to pay. I do not regard that as a satisfactory explanation. I would have thought that it should be based on the retail price index and the movement in that index in order to ensure that the receivers of these benefits maintain the real value. Indeed, if that were the reason, the pneumoconiosis payment of claims regulations and the 5 per cent. increase might be said to be in line with requirements.
But then we come to the first order that the noble Lord has now moved—the Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order—where a number of increases are made. I agree when he says that some of them—at least we agree on the arithmetic—involve a rate of increase of 2 per cent. while for others the rate of increase is 1.9 per cent. I have to ask him why this is so. Why, if it depends upon the ability of industry to pay, can industry afford to pay 5 per cent. in respect of the regulations, but 2 per cent. on some of the increases and 1.9 per cent. on others in the order?
Then again let us come to the other order that is before us—the unfair dismissal basic and special awards. The noble Lord did not tell us so far as I was able to understand him—I may have missed it, but I do not think so—what was the rate of increase involved in that order. The increase that I have been able to work out is 5 per cent. So, when it is a question of the closed shop and people being dismissed unfairly from unions or jobs because they will not join unions, then industry can afford 5 per cent. If it is a question

941
of the pneumoconiosis payment of claims regulations, industry can afford 5 per cent. But if it is just the basic guaranteed pay for lay off, industry cannot afford more than 2 per cent.
And now we come to the strangest thing of all. We come to the order that failed to arrive—the dog that failed to bark in the night. The dog did not bark of course because he saw his master. I suggest that the order that has not come forward has been, in fact, murdered. I refer to the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation) Order which normally comes forward at this time of year. For most people, it is far more important than the unfair dismissal orders and the employment protection orders that we have considered today. It fixes the maximum compensation for the ordinary person who is unfairly dismissed, not the closed shop case. This is the situation in which the Government apparently do not propose to make any increase at all.
I wish that the noble Lord the Secretary of State had been here to move the orders and to answer questions. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton asked in a Written Question published in the Official Report of 10th December, at col. 199, whether the Government intended at this time or indeed in the near future to complement these orders with the missing order, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation) Order. The answer that the noble Lord the Secretary of State gave my noble friend was that the limit was increased by £500 to £8,000 with effect from 1st April 1985—that is to say, last year. The order was laid in December last year. The noble Lord continued:
"We do not consider that a further increase is justified at the present time".
I regard that—I wish that the noble Lord the Secretary of State had been here because I could then have said this to him—as disingenuous. That is to suggest, and an innocent might believe, that there was no particular reason why the Government should introduce the order this year because, after all, there had been an increase in April 1985. But, as we all know, orders come in and are laid in December in this field in order to be effective in April 1986. I have to ask the House and the Minister why the Government, since 1979, have been lax and slack in increasing the limits in this particular invisible order, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation) Order. In 1979 the limits were increased by 10·5 per cent. and in 1980 by 8·7 per cent. In 1981, there was no increase. In 1982, there was a 12 per cent. increase; in 1983, a 17·1 per cent. increase and in 1984, no increase. Last year, it was 6·7 per cent. which presumably will be needed to last for two years.
In other words, over a seven-year period there has been something like a 45 per cent. increase in a period when the RPI has moved by 67·6 per cent. I would ask the Government again what is the rationale, what are the reasons and the justification, for all these varying degrees of increase. Surely, the principle is simple. It should be to maintain the real value of the payment, not just for people who are dismissed from jobs because they will not join unions but for everyone.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord
942
Trefgarne, for having explained these orders to us. I have some sympathy with one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
However, there is one other point which is relevant to these orders. I cannot let this opportunity pass without deploring once again the decision which the Government took last month to end for all but the smallest firms the system under which they at present share with employers part of the cost of statutory redundancy payments by granting employers a rebate from the redundancy fund which at the moment (I think I am right in saying) amounts to 35 per cent. of the cost.
I realise that this change will not in any way affect the employee's entitlement to redundancy payment. But companies are still having to make employees redundant in very considerable numbers, and I find it very difficult to reconcile the effect that this move by the Government will have on employers' costs with the need, emphasised most recently by your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade, for manufacturing industry in this country to remain internationally competitive.
I shall not develop this theme now, not only because this is the season of good will but because we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter more fully, I understand, when the relevant legislation comes before us later in the Session. Subject to that qualification, we on these Benches are content to approve these orders.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I might reply to the points of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. First, the noble Lord is quite right when he says that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the important matter which he raised when the relevant legislation comes before us later. But may I add to that the fact that for the past 20 years the rebate system has provided an element of insurance for employers needing to make people redundant. This may have been justified in the conditions of the 1960s and 1970s, when there was concern about overmanning and a need to encourage a shake-out of surplus labour, but in present circumstances there can be little to be said for a policy which amounts to the subsidising of redundancies. We therefore think that the public expenditure provision can be better allocated to direct job creation measures, leaving employers to make their own judgment about when to hire and fire people and to meet their own costs. An exception is being made for the very smallest employers, for whom the cost of redundancy may he disproportionately onerous.
Perhaps I may then turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I think that I may have inadvertently misled him in my response to a point which he made earlier about the pneumoconiosis order. The costs there will fall upon the state and not upon employers, as I think I suggested. The fact is that the costs which fall upon the state in that order are being increased by a figure broadly in accordance with the increase in the retail price index. In the one area where we are not increasing it by that amount it is indeed the case that the costs fall to an extent, anyway, upon employers. Indeed, in the case where employers are having to lay people off or to put them on short

943
time, they are presumably less well able to meet the higher costs that might have been incurred if we were to have to increase the figures by a greater amount.
I hope that the noble Lord would agree with me that the proposition that the figures should therefore be increased by a smaller amount is an appropriate one because it means that the amounts of money which employers have to meet in a somewhat difficult situation for them are clearly rather less. However, the other figures in that order are being increased, as I made clear, by an amount broadly equivalent to the increase in the retail price index.
I hope that reassures the noble Lord, and that your Lordships will give these orders a fair wind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1985
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985
2.26 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985 be approved.
These draft regulations amend the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 so as to add one further item to the purposes for which my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales may pay grant. The additional purpose is:
"securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday".
My right honourable friends have consulted the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Welsh Joint Education Committee about their proposals. Those associations raised no objections to the amendment effected by these draft regulations.
The Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 gave my right honourable friends power to pay specific grants, known as education support grants, to local education authorities. Grants may be paid on any class or description of expenditure prescribed in regulations made under the Act, being expenditure for or in connection with educational purposes which it appears to my right honourable friends that local education authorities should be encouraged to incur in the interests of education in England and Wales. The Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 prescribe a variety of purposes for which education support grant may be paid. The draft amendment regulations will empower my right honourable friends to pay education support grant on expenditure incurred by local education authorities on the arrangements for supervising school pupils at midday.
944
The Government's purpose in seeking this amendment is to be able to use education support grants to assist local education authorities to achieve their longstanding objective of securing reliable and adequate supervision of pupils at midday in the interests of the orderly and efficient conduct of schools. To this end the Government have announced their intention to make available additional resources to local education authorities of up to £10 million this year and £40 million next year.
The payment of education support grants for midday supervision should enable local education authorities to secure more effective arrangements, bringing clarity to a long confused situation for teachers and removing one source of difficulty from our schools. That is in the interests of all concerned with education—teachers, parents and especially pupils. I ask the House to approve these amendment regulations.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th November be approved. [4th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Swinton.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to express our thanks to the noble Earl the Minister for introducing and explaining these regulations. I assume the House will be aware that these regulations must be seen in the light of the Education (Amendment) Bill which is now going through another place. The Minister's statement raises a number of questions about the relationship between the regulations and the Bill which I think should be made public.
First, the Minister said that there would be additional funding of £10 million this year and £40 million next year for the purposes of securing the supervision of pupils in school at midday. In the context of the fact that the education support grant in general is to go down by £65 million in money terms and, therefore, by 4·5 per cent. in real terms, does the Minister agree that this is merely a drop in the ocean? Are the Government prepared to give a guarantee for the future that expenditure under this heading will be in addition to any other Government support for education expenditure? I ask that question because if that is not to be the case, teachers will feel considerably aggrieved in that the money which is now being set aside will come from funds which could be available for increases in teachers' pay.
I am also somewhat sceptical about the timing of this. Is it really the right time for us to introduce regulations of this kind in the middle of a teachers' dispute? Should not the Government's priority be to resolve the teachers' dispute, on which they have signally failed to take any action, rather than to deal with something which is a symptom rather than the cause of the justified discontent of teachers over remuneration and standards? In accordance with tradition we would not wish to oppose these amendments, but we must be excused for a certain amount of suspicion as to the motives behind them and as to the financial provision for them.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl for explaining these proposed regulations. We have no objection in

945
principle to the provision of extra funds for mealtime supervision; the question really is the source. The noble Earl referred to additional funds. If I understand the situation rightly, there is enough left in the ESG fund this year to provide £10 million during the rest of the financial year—that is before we get the further legislation which is proposed in the New Year—in other words, to look after the rest of this financial year. But is it not the case that this is money which has been withdrawn from local education authorities for the purposes of the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984, and that those purposes were originally intended to be pilot schemes of an educational nature, curricula improvement, and so forth? If this method of funding is to continue in the future, would it not seriously dilute the purposes for which the Government brought in the Education (Grants and Awards) Act last year?
I have also seen it suggested that this mealtime funding might be taken from the £1·25 billion so-called "envelope" that the Secretary of State is reserving for teachers' pay. Is it not the case that, whichever course is taken, this money is going to be used at the expense either of teachers' pay or of the sort of scheme for which the Education (Grants and Awards) Act was passed by Parliament?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for welcoming these regulations, albeit with certain qualifications. Perhaps I cut my original speech a bit short in the best tradition of your Lordships' House on this last day. I can now give both noble Lords the details they want on their worries about the financing of the scheme.
I can assure both noble Lords that this will be new money for local education authorities. In this financial year the Government intend to increase relevant expenditure for local authorities in England and Wales by £10 million. Subject to parliamentary approval of these amendment regulations, my right honourable friends will invite local education authorities to bid for approval of expenditure of up to these amounts in total. Education support grant will then be paid at the rate of 70 per cent. on approved expenditure. The aggregate of grants to local authorities from the Exchequer will be increased by up to £7 million to cover the cost of the 70 per cent. expenditure to be reimbursed through education support grants.
In 1986–87 approval of additional expenditure for midday supervision is subject to the passage of the Education (Amendment) Bill which was introduced in this House earlier this week, and has completed all its stages in another place. That Bill raises the limit on expenditure which my right honourable friends may approve for education support grant purposes in any one year. I think this probably answers the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It is going to go up from 0·5 per cent. to 1 per cent.
Subject to that Bill receiving the Royal Assent, my right honourable friends will approve expenditure of up to £40 million on midday supervision for education support grant purposes in 1986–87, and the aggregate of Exchequer grants to local education authorities will be increased by up to £28 million. Therefore, it is new money.
946
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, asked about timing on this Bill. This has been a matter which has been worrying the teachers probably above all for many years. We are seeking swift action because we believe that the problem in our schools has reached the point where something must be done quickly. I think that to wait would have been far worse than to proceed like this. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fisheries Council
2.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will arrange for a Statement on the Fisheries Council meeting on 16th and 17th December that is to be made in another place this afternoon to be reprinted in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Fisheries Council which I attended with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Scottish Office on 16th and 17th December.
"I am delighted to be able to report that, for the second year in succession the Council was able to reach political agreement before the start of the year on a package of total allowable catches and quotas for the Ten in 1986. This was subject only to a waiting reserve by Ireland. As last year, we agreed to the packaging on a temporary basis pending a debate in this House, which I hope can be arranged shortly after the Christmas recess.
"The agreement covers all the stocks for which TACs and quotas are currently set and we were able to achieve a package which was highly satisfactory for the United Kingdoms The TACs had to be based for the joint stocks on the agreement which the European Commission had reached with Norway and I was critical of some aspects of that agreement, notably on herring. But in general the package of TACs, quotas and third country arrangements which we negotiated offers a particularly attractive range of fishing opportunities for United Kingdom fishermen. On North Sea whitefish stocks, the package contains significant increase in our haddock and saithe quotas and improvements in the quotas originally proposed for cod, plaice and sole. We successfully resisted Danish pressure for continuation of the special allocation of cod to them outside the TAC. On North Sea pelagic species, we obtained from the agreed proposals and some further bilateral exchanges an increase of nearly one-third in our herring quotas in the important Northern and Central North Sea areas and a very useful increased mackerel quota in the North Sea.
"In the case of the Western pelagic stocks, the original quotas for mackerel and herring were increased, but in the outcome were still, as they should be in view of the scientific advice, below last year's levels. Sole and plaice stocks are of particular importance in the South West. I am glad to say that as a result of the package negotiated and the associated quota exchanges we were able to secure

947
increases of about one-third in the availability of sole in Area VII and about 10 per cent. for plaice. We also obtained an immediate increase in our current quota for plaice in the Bristol Channel which will allow the fishery to be reopened for the rest of the year.
"This adds up to a very satisfactory settlement indeed, but it was all overshadowed by the danger of the Commission proposal for an increase in the Norway pout by-catch derogation which could have done immense damage to our industry. We have fought against this for the past six months and I am relieved and delighted to report that this proposal was excluded from the package and the Commission has now withdrawn it.
"Lastly, the Council also agreed a series of improvements to the regulation on the control of fishing activities which should provide for better enforcement of logbooks and landing declarations as well as better control of transhipments to receiving vessels. This is further evidence of the importance which all fisheries Ministers are now attaching to more effective control of the fisheries.
"I hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate this settlement, and the arrangements for TACs and quotas for Spain and Portugal, which will be discussed at a further council tommorrow, very shortly after the Christmas recess. I have no hesitation in commending this package to the House."

Motion for the Adjournment
2.38 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, before I move the Adjournment I should like on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches to wish all noble Lords in all other parts of the House a peaceful, restful and non-controversial Christmas and a happy New Year. On behalf, I am sure, of the whole House I should like to express our gratitude to all those who serve us so well in all parts of our end of the Palace of Westminster and to give them our best wishes for a happy Christmas and a very happy New Year.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I echo the words of the Government Chief Whip in wishing all of those who look after us in the House a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. We think particularly of the people who are very visible—the attendants, the messengers, and those who serve us in the restaurant and bars—but we should also be thinking about people like the cleaners. I certainly notice very quickly if something has gone wrong in that line of business. That is an essential task, done when most of us are not here, when the building is cleaned up and all the mess of the previous day is cleared away. That is a particular category of staff whom we sometimes tend to ignore.
We on this side of the House should like to join with the remarks made by the Chief Whip in wishing everybody a peaceful Recess. In some ways it has been an odd Session up to now. The House has debated a number of highly contentious issues which have divided
948
the House on other than party lines. We shall return, I have no doubt, re-invigorated for what is ahead of us in the New Year. Finally, I should like to take the opportunity of wishing noble Lords in all parts of the House a happy Christmas.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I apologise particularly to the Chief Whip for not being in my place when he stood up, but having lately returned from the South Atlantic I had been tidying up and had not realised that we had got through the business with such great despatch—as the Chief Whip normally does when we are not looking! It would be appropriate for me to say, on behalf of everybody in this House, how much we wish a happy Christmas and a peaceful New Year to those people in the British Forces overseas and also to anybody who is working on behalf of this country in foreign parts. They certainly deserve it and I wish them a peaceful New Year.
I cannot wish the Government a peaceful New Year since Lord Grimond tells me that it is our job from these Benches to harry the Government. In that I speak of the Government collectively and not individually. It is with great pleasure that, from the Liberal Benches, I wish all noble Lords a very happy Christmas. I also wish the staff a happy Christmas and all of us individually a very happy and peaceful New Year.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, normally on these issues the Alliance speaks with one voice, but I think that at Christmas time it might, perhaps, be allowed two. On behalf of the SDP I should like to wish noble Lords of all parties and none a very happy Christmas and an enjoyable Recess. This Session to date has provided the Whips with a fairly easy life as so much of the business has been concerned with issues of conscience on which traditionally we in the Opposition parties have a free vote. However this has not meant that debates have been any shorter because many of your Lordships, quite properly, have extremely active consciences. There have thus been some fairly late nights, which our admirable staff have borne with their usual fortitude. I should therefore like to extend to them our grateful thanks and warmest wishes for a very well earned Christmas break. We really depend on them so much that no occasion should be missed for acknowledging this debt. As the Chief Whip said, we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude, and this is one occasion on which we agree with the Government 100 per cent.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at nineteen minutes before three o'clock until Tuesday, 14th January next.