Lords Sitting of 12 July 1985

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

M.1 and A.1 Repairs
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To Her Majesty's Government why it was considered necessary to undertake major repairs to several sections of the A.1 at the same time as those on the M.1 motorway, when the two roads provide obvious alternatives for many destinations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, motorway and trunk road major repair schemes are carried out mostly during the summer months when conditions are right for the laying of bituminous materials. Since major schemes often last for several weeks there is inevitably some overlapping in the timing of works on particular routes. The concurrent works carried out on the M.1 and A.1 this year—not all of them repair schemes—were regrettably unavoidable.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he realise that when I went up the A.1 the other day from here it took me five-and-a-quarter hours to get to Hull, instead of the normal three-and-a half? Surely he would agree that his Answer is unsatisfactory in so far as that, while it is difficult to lay bitumen in the winter, there is a large portion of the year when it can be laid? Can he give me an assurance that in future whoever is responsible will try a little harder to produce some other sensible course, rather than close two important and, to some degree, alternative roads at the same time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, wherever possible works are programmed to avoid problems on parallel routes, but this is not always possible. We have a lot of work to do in a fairly short season and the work in progress at Hatfield on the A.1 is not a repair scheme but a major contract connected with the upgrading of the A.1 to motorway standards in that area. There is about one year's work there. However, other smaller schemes were deferred during the closure period at junction 8.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether it is true that the contractor was paid some £200,000 as a bonus for completing the work at junction 8 on time? From the taxpayers' point of view was that a cost-effective move in my noble friend's opinion? If the answer to that is, yes, will he pay more bonuses to encourage initiatives and skills on this basis?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, indeed, it is true. The work was finished five days early and the contractor will gain about £200,000 in bonuses. As
422
regards the cost effectiveness, it is estimated that the delays that can occur on roadworks of this sort cost the road users, particularly commercial road users, £130,000 a day. So for a bonus of £40,000 a day this is indeed good value for money.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as this road leads to Scotland, should not the bonus be higher still?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think the bonus was quite sufficient, and indeed it proved its worth in getting the work done so much faster than we had expected. I take my noble friend's point about the road leading to Scotland, and, indeed, to the North of England!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, since the railways manage to do these things on Sundays, is it not better to travel by rail on weekdays?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we recommended that people should, if they could, use the railways rather than the M.1 during this period. I believe that there was a 15 per cent. increase in the usage of the railway during the period.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is intended to be a serious, not a facetious, Question. In view of the large bonus paid to the contractors, is the noble Lord aware of any of the payment being passed on to the workforce, who must have been partly responsible?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I should like to congratulate the workforce, but I am not aware of the position and it is for the contractor to decide how he does these things.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, bearing in mind that there were about eight areas on the A.1 up to Doncaster which were single lane for stretches of one or two miles, is there really any co-ordination between the different authorities which are repairing the various sections? My doubt is whether there is any such co-ordination, which is why there was such a massive hold-up on the A.1.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the A.1 is a trunk road and so the roadworks on it are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. Where possible we do what we can to improve things. Over recent years we have introduced longer, smoother crossovers at contraflow sites. We have reduced working lengths to a maximum of two-and-a-half miles. We have introduced longer gaps between repair sites, and we normally keep to a six-mile minimum for that. We have also introduced lane rental schemes, which are proving successful.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, with regard to major motorway maintenance repairs, can the noble Lord tell me what are lane rental schemes?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. Lane rental schemes such as were used at the junction 8 works involve the contractor receiving a bonus if he completes the work early. On the other hand, if he goes over the allotted time he has to pay us £40,000 a day.

The Welfare State
11.11 a.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 establish a commission to increase the efficiency of the welfare state in relieving poverty, disease and squalor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): No, my Lords, we see no need for a commission. The outcome of the social security review was presented to Parliament last month as a Green Paper. Review work in connection with primary care and personal social services is also well advanced, and desirable reforms would have to be held up if there were now to be a commission with a general remit.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am sorry about its tone, which is summarily to dismiss the idea of a commission. Perhaps she will acknowledge that the wish for freedom from squalor, disease and all other hateful things is shared by us all. We wish to secure this freedom. Does the noble Baroness not agree that in the field of health, housing and social services, instead of itsy-bitsy examinations now and then it is about time we established an ongoing commission which could probably save the civilised welfare state a lot of money and make it more efficient to achieve the objectives for which it was established?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the wide-ranging nature of the noble Lord's supplementary question is such that it would take a number of Government departments a great deal of time at quite disproportionate cost even to attempt the kind of comprehensiveness invited.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is less squalor now in this country than there has ever been within the memory of most of us who are now fairly old; that further progress would not be enhanced by the appointment of a commission, which would merely divert resources and establish more bureaucratic machinery; and that it is far better that we should continue to make progress with the help of economic growth?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton, with which I entirely agree. He may be interested to know that the Royal Commission on the National Health Service took three years to complete its work, at a cost of £1,570,000 at today's prices. That was only one part of the welfare state. I leave it to your Lordships to hazard a guess as to how much longer it would take and how much more it would cost for a commission on the whole of the welfare state.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that even the figures she quoted for that
424
remarkable commission that was established apropos the Health Service, much of whose work this Government have totally ignored, showed a way of saving money and making things efficient (as with housing); and that if we could only spend 20 per cent. of what we spend on trying to make nuclear weapons we could achieve this? Furthermore, does she not agree that for the good and well being of the nation it is just as important to have a commission to examine ways of ridding ourselves of these evils as it is to see that we have good defence? Does the noble Baroness not agree that there is not much sense in building 35 hospitals—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if I may continue with just two more words—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Government have built 35 new hospitals, for which we are all grateful—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Molloy:—but they have closed 220, which is a disgrace.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, not only has there been a massive increase in spending on the Health Service, on personal social services and on social security during the present Government's tenure, but we have also undertaken radical reviews of many aspects of the welfare state in our search to improve services and attain better care and greater benefits for people. We have a record of which we are proud and to which the Opposition have no parallel.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, with regard to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, economic growth will not abolish poverty and squalor unless it percolates down to the people who created it by their skills; and it certainly is not doing so under this Government.

UK Council for Computing Development
11.17 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 why they have withdrawn their grant to the United Kingdom Council for Computing Development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, for its first three years the Department of Trade and Industry provided funds to help the council become established. It was never our intention to provide support on a permanent basis and the time has now come for the council to convince industry of its usefulness and attract funding from that source.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government assisted in setting up this council some three years ago with great fanfares for the purpose of assisting the British computing industry to sell its wares in the third world? Is it not the case also that this is a matter of only £20,000 a year; and is it not mean at this stage to withdraw it in view of the fact that the French pay out 10 times as much as we do for the same purpose and the Japanese 100 times as much?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government did not in fact assist in the setting up of this charitable, educational, advisory body. They made a subscription for one year of £20,000 which they continued for a second year and then for a third, and then gave notice of their intention not to continue. It is not a question of selling the computer industry's products. A comparison with either France or Japan is not fair or true because international comparisons of this nature do not start from the same base. Secondly, the noble Lord opposite fails to recognise the considerable aid given to the industry through other sources, notably the British Council and our foreign posts overseas.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider his Answer to the Question addressed to him by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby? Is it not true that, regardless of any kind of statistical base in which the noble Lord seeks mathematical refuge, in fact other countries in the world, our competitors, are contributing towards their particular industries in this field on a massive scale which makes any puny mathematical calculation to a decimal point absolutely pointless? Will the noble Lord address himself again to the Question and report to his right honourable friend?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I will not reconsider my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. That is the truthful Answer to his perfectly proper Question. I remind your Lordships that the DTI alone gives over £200 million worth of assistance to the IT industry.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said about France, do the Government intend to make any response to the call made by President Mitterrand during his State visit to this country and his address to both Houses of Parliament for a developing European computer industry so that Europe could be less dependent on the United States and Japan? How does that square with what the Government have just done?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that really is a very different question, but both the Government and the industry are in very close collaborative contact with other firms in that industry in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I make another appeal to the Minister? When this is such a paltry sum, £20,000 a year, is it not symbolic of the Government's assistance to the computer industry in attempting to export its wares and train people to use them in the third world? If the noble Lord wishes to
426
make comparisons, is he not aware that if he makes them with France and Japan (the two countries I mentioned) on the basis of commercial diplomatic representation abroad or subsidies from the DTI, both France and Japan can demonstrably be shown to put a great deal more Government money into the support of such industries than this Government do?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asks exactly the same question but in a different way. I do think that I have answered his Question.

DoE-Local Government Consultations
11.22 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 when it is next proposed that the Secretary of State for the Environment will meet the leaders of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Authorities; and whether they will state which matters will appear on the agenda.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, my right honourable friend will meet the leaders of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Authorities on 23rd July, when he chairs the next meeting of the consultative council on local government finance. The agenda has not yet been finally decided.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the information regarding the next statutory meeting is well known? Is he further aware that last week, as a matter of the utmost urgency, the leader of the AMA and the leader of the ALA asked for a meeting as quickly as possible, even against the background of that statutory meeting? I understand that the letter was sent last week and that no response has yet been received. Will the Minister accept from me that the purpose of this Question is benign and not malignant? We are recognising that at the end of a very difficult period of rate capping or rate setting there is an urgency to begin the dialogue as quickly as possible. In view of what has been said in the press lately regarding the possibility of changes in finance, would the Minister not agree that there is great urgency in this matter? I would simply ask him to ask his right honourable friend to respond to the initiative taken last week.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question because in fact I can discover no trace of such a letter having been received in the department.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my, noble friend, or at least his right honourable friend, when he

427
meets the association of London boroughs, suggest that the two London associations had better once again amalgamate?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the two associations in question wish to see the Secretary of State about matters arising from the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils as a matter of urgency, my right honourable friend would welcome that letter even more than the one that has been described.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there have been complaints, particularly from the AMA, about the inadequacy of some of the discussions at recent meetings of the consultative council. Will the noble Lord bear that in mind and also the fact, in view of the important point raised by my noble friend Lord Graham, that there is need for this other meeting urgently to discuss the points that he mentioned?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the matter in question, I take it, is the matter of rate support grant penalties in particular. The issue was fully discussed at the last CCLGF meeting on 17th April and also in separate correspondence between my right honourable friend and the leaders of the AMA and the ALA. However, my right honourable friend has recently made it clear to the leader of the AMA that he is ready to discuss the matter further. Obviously the association can raise it on 23rd July if they wish, or at a separate meeting.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; but I am also surprised and disturbed at the advice he has given the House. I am sure he will appreciate that I shall make urgent inquiries regarding the letter which I understand was sent last week and of which he says the department has no trace.
May I draw attention to the Freudian slip just committed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because there is a London Boroughs Association and an Association of London Authorities? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the Association of London Boroughs. Of course, that could very well be a new title if the two bodies were to get back together again. So far as I am concerned, there is an anxiety to represent the best interests of the people of London. So far as the AMA and ALA are concerned, there are urgent matters that literally cannot wait for two weeks. Can I ask the Minister, if the original letter can be traced or if a copy is sent, to use his best offices to expedite an early meeting with the two associations?
Lord Elton: My Lords, not having seen the letter, I think the best I can do is to promise an early answer to any copy that may be sent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord opposite for assuming the role of the late Doctor Freud, may I ask my noble friend whether it was not perfectly clear to him—as I think it was to the House—that I was seeking to invite his attention to the ridiculous situation in which in London the London boroughs are in two separate and rival associations
428
and that they ought to be in one, particularly in view of the changes now taking place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, this unfortunate division had indeed come to my notice, and my noble friend now gives me the opportunity to say again that I hope the division will be brought to a speedy end.

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill
11.27 a.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
11.28 a.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to [Bill 79] as first printed for the Commons.]
  1 Clause 1, Page 1, line 9, leave out ("a release (whether or not accidental) ") and insert ("an escape".)
  2 Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
  (" "escape", in relation to substances, includes their release or expulsion by human agency or by any other cause;").
  3 Page 2, line 32, leave out ("release or suspected release") and insert ("escape or suspected escape")
  4 Page 2, line 37, leave out ("release or suspected release") and insert ("escape or suspected escape".)
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, and with the leave of the House I should also like to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 12, 40 and 56.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  12 Clause 4, page 5, line 24, leave out ("a release") and insert ("an escape".)
  40 Clause 12, page 24, line 11, at end insert—
  (" "escape" is to be construed in accordance with section 1(2) above;".)
  56 In the Title, line 4, leave out ("release") and insert ("an escape".)
  These amendments are intended to put beyond all doubt that the powers in Part I of the Bill can be used in circumstances where substances have escaped accidentally. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 and Amendment No. 12 replace all references to "release" in Clauses 1 and 4; and "escape" is defined as including the release or expulsion of substances, whether by human agency or by any other cause.
  Amendments Nos. 40 and 56 are consequential amendments to the list of definitions in Clause 22 and the Title, respectively. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 4.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 2, page 4, line 8, leave out from ("which") to end of line 9 and insert ("appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for that purpose".)
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  6 Clause 3, page 4, line 28, leave out from ("authorise") to ("to") in line 29 and insert—
  ("(a) persons (in this Act referred to as "investigating officers")".)
  7 Page 4, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
  ("(b) persons (in this Act referred to as "enforcement officers") to enforce—

  (i) emergency orders; and

  (ii) directions under section 2 above.".)

  8 Page 4, leave out lines 37 to 40.
  9 Page 5, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
  10 Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(3A) Either of the Ministers may authorise an investigating officer or an enforcement officer who is not an officer of his department to perform any of the Minister's functions under this Part of this Act which he could perform if he were an officer of the department; and an officer performing such functions in pursuance of such an authorisation is to be treated in relation to their performance as if he were an officer of the department.")
  11 Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(3B) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (3A) above may be given subject to such limitations as may be specified in the instrument containing it; and this Act shall be construed, in reference to a person whose authorisation has been given subject to limitations, as subject to those limitations.".)
  13 Clause 4, page 6, line 14, after ("is") insert ("for any other reason")
  14 Page 6, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 17 and insert ("performing his functions under this Part of this Act.
  (2A) An investigating officer or an enforcement officer")
  15 Page 6, line 17, leave out from ("of") to end of line 19 and insert ("performing his functions under this Part of this Act.")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, as drafted, Clause 3(2)(b) might have enabled all enforcement officers to act under any of the provisions of Clause 2 without reference to Ministers once an emergency order had been made. That was not our intention. It is important that the extensive power which would be provided under Part I should not only be exercised with specific authority from the Government but at the same time we would not wish properly authorised local authority enforcement officers to have any less power to act than officers from central government. These amendments would put central and local government officers on a par. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we should like particularly to welcome this group of amendments. We had a considerable amount of discussion on the responsibilities of officers during the passage of the Bill in this House. It gave rise to anxiety and we are grateful for the clarification that has now come. We welcome the amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11.30 a.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 [Printed above.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This amendment goes with Commons Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  13, 14 & 15 [Printed above]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. They go with Amendment No. 5, which we have just discussed.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  16 Clause 5, page 7, line 18, leave out ("in United Kingdom waters") and insert ("within United Kingdom waters, either in the sea or under the sea-bed")
  17 Page 17, line 27, after ("sea") insert ("or under the sea-bed")
  18 Page 7, line 34, leave out ("in the sea within British fishery limits") and insert ("within British fishery limits, either in the sea or under the sea-bed")
  19 Page 8, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(cc) for the deposit of substances or articles anywhere under the sea-bed within British fishery limits from a vehicle which was loaded in the United Kingdom with any of those substances or articles;")
  20 Page 8, line 18, after ("sea") insert ("or under the sea-bed")
  21 Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
  ("(ee) for the loading of a vehicle in the United Kingdom with substances or articles for deposit from that vehicle as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (cc) above;")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 21.
  After those, Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 57 will come with that block.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  23 Clause 11, page 13, line 20, after ("sea") insert ("or under the sea-bed").
  25 Clause 13, page 14, line 6, leave out ("or (e)") and insert ("(cc), (e) or (ee)").
  57 In the Title, line 7, after ("sea") insert ("to make provision for the control of the deposit of substances and articles under the sea-bed;").
  These amendments deal with sub sea-bed disposal, which as some of your Lordships may remember, is one possible method of disposing of radioactive waste. As yet its technical feasibility remains to be proved, and the legal situation under the London dumping convention is also under consideration. Any operation of sub sea-bed disposal would be subject to the same control as would ordinary deposits at sea. That is to say, if the operation takes place in United Kingdom waters, or if the loading takes place in the United Kingdom, or if the vehicle or vessel concerned is British, then a licence will be needed. However, the purpose of bringing sub sea-bed disposal within the Bill as in these amendments is not to permit it but to make it subject to control pending a decision in the London dumping convention.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we also welcome these amendments. I think that I am probably right in saying that this would in the interim, before the final signature to the convention, cover any deposits in fissures in the sea-bed about which there might perhaps have been an argument as to whether they were on the sea-bed or under it. But certainly we also welcome these amendments.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain the difference between "under the sea-bed" and sub sea-bed?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, no, the two mean the same.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  22 Clause 8, page 9. line 19, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where it appears to a licensing authority that an applicant for a licence has applied for the licence with a view to the disposal of the substances or articles to which it would relate, the authority, in determining whether to issue a licence, shall have regard to the practical availability of any alternative methods of dealing with them.")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. This amendment would require the licensing authority to consider alternative means of disposal treatment or elimination of the waste when considering an application for a licence to dump. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  23 [Printed above.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23, which goes with Amendment No. 16.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  24 After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause:—
  ("Enforcement of Conventions
  .—(1) The Ministers may jointly by order made by statutory instrument—

  (a) declare that any procedure which has been developed for the effective application of the London Convention or the Oslo Convention and is specified in the order is an agreed procedure as between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of any Convention State so specified; and

  (b) specify any of the powers conferred by this Act for the purpose of enforcing this Part of this Act as a power that may be exercised, by such persons in such circumstances and subject to such conditions or modifications as may be specified, for the purpose of enforcing that procedure.

  (2) A person who exercises any powers by virtue of an order under this section shall have the same rights and liabilities in relation to their exercise that a person authorised under section 11 above would have in relation to the exercise of any powers for the purpose of enforcing this Part of this Act.
  (3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24. With this Amendment goes Amendment No. 46.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  46 Clause 23, page 27, line 6, after ("them") insert (", other than the reference in section (Enforcement of Conventions) (1) above,")
  This is a new clause. Commons Amendment No. 24 enables Ministers to make orders putting into effect any co-operative procedure between contracting parties to the conventions for enforcement of those conventions on the high seas. It reintroduces such provisions which were in Section 6 of the Dumping At Sea Act but were originally omitted from the Bill because no such arrangement had been, or seemed to be likely to be, made. However, concern was expressed in another place about the effect of this deletion, and the Government accept that there is no harm in retaining the powers.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  25 [Printed above.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25, which goes with Commons Amendment No. 16.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  26 Clause 15, page 15, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  ("(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect—

  (a) with a view to the continuous development of means—

  (i) to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants;

  (ii) to safeguard the environment; and

  (iii) to secure safe, efficient and humane methods of controlling pests; and

  433

  (b) with a view to making information about pesticides available to the public;

  and references in this Part of this Act to the general purposes of this Part of this Act are references to the purposes mentioned in this subsection.")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 to 33, 39, 42 and 58.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30 Page 18, line 28. at end insert—
  (" "pest" means—

  (a) any organism harmful to plants or to wood or other plant products;

  (b) any undesired plant; and

  (c) any harmful creature;")

  31 Page 18, line 29, leave out ("or preparation") and insert (", preparation or organism")
  32 Page 18, line 30, leave out from ("for") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("destroying any pest;")
  33 Page 18, line 40, leave out ("or preparation") and insert (", preparation or organism")
  39 Clause 17, page 20, line 36, leave out subsection (8).
  42 Clause 22, page 25, line 13, at end insert (" "pest",")
  58 In the Title: line 8, leave out ("and preparations") and insert (", preparations and organisms")
  Commons Amendment No. 26, which brings us into Part III of the Bill, makes two main changes. In paragraph (a) it broadens the scope of Part III to the control of pests rather than the control of pesticides and makes it quite clear that one of the purposes of Part III is to facilitate continuing development of new techniques in applying pesticides and controlling pests. In paragraph (b) the amendment adds to the basic purposes of the Bill that of making information about pesticides available to the public. All the other amendments in this group are consequential, either directly or indirectly, upon Amendment No. 26.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to welcome particularly this Amendment No. 26. In it the Minister is honouring a commitment which the noble Lord made—I think at the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, originally—to find a proper wording which would set out clearly the objectives of Clause 15, which was the clause about which we were all most concerned. I think that the wording that has been chosen is admirable and I congratulate those who have devised it. It covers, I think, all the objections that we had to the original clause.
  I should like particularly to welcome the reference to continuous development of means of control. This is something which we had not asked for but we certainly hoped for. I am afraid I have a question on it because "continuous development" means continuous funding. I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to say at this stage how he foresees the funding of this continuous development being made. Is it to be by Government methods or by any other methods? Depending on his answer, we shall have more to say on a later amendment. However, on behalf of these Benches, certainly I welcome the new wording of Clause 15.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make a brief comment on this amendment? I very much welcome it, as does the noble Baroness, in so far as it goes on from an amendment that was proposed in this House and accepted by the Government, I think at Third Reading. Being a rather suspicious sort of person, I have to ask my noble friend, bearing in mind that I think this was somewhat—if I may put the word in parenthesis— reluctantly accepted in the Commons, whether the Government really have their hearts behind it. I have to point out to my noble friend that, in a recent publication which was circulating at the Royal Show, no mention was made of the continuous development which the noble Baroness has just mentioned. Otherwise, I very much welcome it.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the generous remarks that she has made. However, she asked me a direct question, which was: does continuous development mean continuous funding? The answer is, yes of course it does imply that. But if the noble Baroness then asks me to give the House some figures about the trend in our funding, I am sorry that I cannot add to anything which may have been said about public funding for Government support for pesticides development at the present time. However, what the noble Baroness asked was relevant.
  If I may reply to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley at the same time, my noble friend wrote to me a little while ago and he put his question in a slightly different way. My noble friend asked whether the Government's heart was really 'in this, and he pointed out to me that a leaflet which the Ministry of Agriculture prepared for the Royal Show did not seem to reflect the force of this amendment. I have just replied to that letter, saying that there is indeed no question about my right honourable friend's department's commitment to this point, which has now been put into the Bill, provided that your Lordships agree with the Commons amendment. Our reluctance about putting it on the face of the Bill originally was as to whether the amendment was strictly necessary. A great deal of Government research, development and advisory work is in this area.
  But we accepted the mover's point of view in another place and we have developed it further by extending in Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 35—Amendment No. 35 falls just outside this group—the scope of the Bill through the definition of pests to the control of organisms as well as pesticides and other preparations.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  35 Clause 16, page 19, line 10, leave out from ("pesticide") to ("tests") in line 15 and insert ("under this Part of this Act, on making his application, to pay a reasonable fee in respect of the administrative expenses of processing his application.
  (2) A Minister may also require an applicant for an approval to pay a further reasonable fee towards the expenses of carrying out any examinations and").
  Novel techniques in pest control through, for instance, natural predators, could if necessary be controlled under these regulations. I hope that what I have said is acceptable both to my noble friend and to

  435
  the noble Baroness opposite and that it adds just a little to the Government's reply to this amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Page 16, line 16, at end insert ("and to payment of such reasonable fees for furnishing copies as the Ministers may with the consent of the Treasury determine,").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. This is a technical amendment.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  28 Page 17, line 12, leave out ("when consulted in accordance with subsection (9) below,") and insert (", either when requested to do so or otherwise, on any matters relating to the control of pests in furthering the general purposes of this Part of this Act,").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28, and with this I should like to speak to Amendment No. 47.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  47 Clause 23, page 27, line 22, at end insert ("and Schedule 5 to this Act").
  Your Lordships will recall that during the debate on Third Reading in this House, the Government accepted two amendments to the Bill tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, the purpose of which was to specify in Clause 15(7) of the Bill that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should be consulted and offer advice on all matters connected with Clause 15(1) of the Bill.
  Although my noble friend was responsible for moving this amendment, I know that it was the wish also of noble Lords in other parts of the House as well as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. When this matter was debated in Committee in the other place, the Government accepted a further amendment which sought to broaden the range of that advice to all aspects of pest control. Commons Amendment No. 28 achieves all those commitments. Amendment No. 47, which goes with this, is a necessary technical amendment to which I am also speaking.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but I feel that again I must express our pleasure at the inclusion of this amendment, which was, as the Minister said, very warmly discussed here. We feel very deeply about it and we are very grateful indeed that it has been included.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  29 Page 17, line 31, leave out from ("of') to ("or") in line 34 and insert ("controlling pesticides in the United Kingdom").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. During examination of Clause 15(11) in Committee in the other place, the opinion was expressed that in its present wording this subsection might not enable Ministers to collect the information needed to determine whether an approval should be reviewed, revoked or suspended, since it might limit the information obtained to that necessary for the purposes of the original approval. The Government agreed to consider this and, as a result, decided that this amendment would be appropriate.
  Although the amendment is short, it leaves no doubt that the power to require information may be exercised at all stages of pesticide supply and use controlled by Part III, so that Ministers can exercise those controls properly. It therefore ensures that the Government can have both information to approve and information to revoke, review or suspend pesticides.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11.45 a.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30, 31, 32, 33 [Printed above.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 33. I spoke to these with Amendment No. 26.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  34 After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
  ("Codes of Practice
  .—(1) The Ministers may from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned—

  (a) prepare and issue codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance in respect of any provision of this Part of this Act or of regulations; and

  (b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.

  (2) A code prepared in pursuance of this section and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. and the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code, as the case may be, until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the code or the proposed alterations were so laid.
  (3) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the code be not issued, or the proposed alterations be not made, as the case may be, the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code (without prejudice to their powers under that subsection to lay further codes or proposed alterations before Parliament).
  (4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

  (a) where a code or proposed alterations are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the later day shall be taken to be the day on which the code or the proposed alterations, as the case may be, were laid before both Houses; and

  (b) in reckoning any period of 40 days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

  (5) The Ministers shall cause any code issued or revised under this section to be printed and distributed, and may make such arrangements as they think fit for its distribution, including causing copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such reasonable price as the Ministers may determine.
  (6) A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code issued under this section shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind.
  (7) In all criminal proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 45.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  43 Page 26, line 31. after ("k") insert ("(Codes of practice),").
  44 Page 26, line 34, after ("each") insert ("or either").
  45 Page 26, line 42, at end insert—
  ("and
  (f) section (Codes of practice) (4)(a) is omitted.").
  Amendment No. 34 is a new clause to be added to Part III which will enable Ministers to prepare and issue codes of practice to provide practical guidance on how the requirements of this legislation may be met. The Government have already indicated that the control of pesticides must be exercised through both regulations and codes of practice, in order not to overwhelm suppliers and users of pesticides with an over-rigid system of rules. This amendment gives these codes a legal status and also provides for proper public consultation about them and for the participation of Parliament in their adoption. Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 are necessary technical consequential amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may inquire of the noble Lord the Minister whether he is quite happy about subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) reads:
  "A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code issued under this section shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind."
  So a breach of the guidelines does not automatically constitute the commission of an offence. Subsection (7) reads:
  "In all criminal proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question."
  It seems to me a little opaque and I am rising only to ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is quite satisfied that there is no possible ambiguity and confusion likely to arise, or capable of arising, from the framing of the two subsections. I do not have an amendment in mind. I raise the question only to be quite sure that it has received adequate attention.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the codes were to be given legal status. I do not
  438
  think you can give a code legal status. It is just guidance. It is the same point as the noble and learned Lord has raised.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may take first the question of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. All I meant there is that we were making it clear that the code could be used in evidence in a court of law. Perhaps I may now reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. I am advised that subsections (6) and (7) of this new clause are a fairly common form of words which have been used before when Parliament has decided that the code is to be a code which will have legal effect.
  The noble and learned Lord, who knows so much more about these matters than I do, will know very well that codes have different statuses. We seem to pepper legislation now with codes of practice. Sometimes they are simply codes and have no particular standing at all. My official advice is that the effect of subsections (6) and (7) is fairly common where a code is said to have legal status, making it clear that:
  "A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code… shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind".
  But if there are proceedings, this, is the kind of code which can then be called in evidence.
  Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  35 [Printed earlier.]
  36 Clause 16, page 19, line 18, at end insert—
  ("(2A) Where either of the Ministers has given an approval, he may require the payment of reasonable fees from time to time—

  (a) in respect of the collection of information under section 15(11) above and the processing of information supplied under that subsection;

  (b) in respect of monitoring the effect of the use of pesticides in the United Kingdom,

  by such persons as he considers appropriate.
  (2B) Fees under this section shall be determined on principles settled by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with organisations appearing to the Ministers to represent persons who are likely to apply for approvals.").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. The main effect of these amendments is to give the Government powers to include in the fees system charges which must be reasonable. These include a charge to cover the approval process, which includes the evaluation of all the safety and other data provided by applicants in support of an application; an element towards information collecting and processing costs, such as the pesticides usage surveys; and an element towards the costs of monitoring the effects of the use of pesticides, and especially our system of monitoring pesticide residues in food.
  A further aim of these amendments is to add a provision requiring Ministers to determine the

  439
  principles of the fees system after consultation with representatives of those persons on whom the fees will be charged. This last provision is very important because the powers in Clause 16 will not be implemented by regulations but by administrative action. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am a little worried about Amendment No. 36. Having welcomed the idea of continuous monitoring, continuous research and continuous observation of everything that goes on in this field, and having touched very briefly on the funding of it, we now come to a point where it might be considered that those who are either manufacturing or using (or both) the substances in question might be asked to pay for the entire service.
  As far as the farmers, the users, are concerned, it might be a retrograde step to expect them to pay for continuous monitoring. It is very important that the users of new products should be encouraged to innovate and to try out any new product that is on the market, because we assume that these are always improvements on what has gone before, particularly, we hope, from the environmental point of view.
  The danger arises because if we ask the users to take on board the costs of monitoring in the future as well as possibly—who knows—the cost of further research, we may discourage them from taking on the use of the new pesticides. I should like to be a little reassured on how this is seen to be working out. Is the Minister talking about charges to manufacturers or to users? If it is to users, what right will they have in relation to the monitoring? Will it be that somebody can just arrive on their farm to see how it has worked out, to measure the effects and then charge them for that service for which they have not asked? I think it is fairly important that we should clear this up before we go any further on this amendment.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, once again I am on the same side as the noble Baroness. Unbeknown to her, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Belstead on the very point she has raised. I support the noble Baroness on another point. If farmers are going to have to pay for this service—probably by the increased cost of the commodity—will they be consulted on these charges, perhaps through the NFU or by some other method?
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Stanley have asked me very much the same question. When I moved the Government's case in response to the amendment, I outlined three different powers to include in the fees system charges which must be reasonable. This would include a charge to cover the approval process; an element towards information collecting and processing costs; and an element towards the costs of monitoring.
  Both the noble Baroness and my noble friend are saying to me that this could jeopardise movement forward in the whole pesticides field. It was suggested that all this might become onerous for the payer; that
  440
  in the end the producer, the farmer or the grower would be the payer; and that we should hesitate before going along this road. I should like to say in reply that, depending on exactly the components for which one is charging, we are probably talking about between £1 million and £2 million a year. But that is only an estimate. I should like to say to the noble Baroness that, although this amendment is taking power to be able to charge for all costs, we have by no means reached a decision that that is what we ought to do.
  The first people to whom one would turn for paying the costs would be the agrochemical companies themselves. In deciding how much they would actually pass on to the primary producer, I am sure that they would bear in mind that their domestic sales last year were of the order of £350 million and that their export sales, I am delighted to say, were of the order of £480 million. We are therefore talking about £2 million of that enormous sum of money which is coming into the agrochemical companies.
  Nonetheless, let me face squarely the point that some of this would come to the farming community. There are two important safeguards contained in the drafting. First, the principles of the fees system have to be settled after consultation with organisations appearing to represent persons who are likely to apply for approvals, and with no other groups. Secondly, the fees set must be reasonable. That means that they can be contested in the courts to test the basis on which they are being charged.
  My noble friend wrote to me about this and, in addition, he asked me about how the consultation would work out. I have replied to my noble friend that, so far as consultation is concerned, one thinks first of all of the manufacturing companies, but I have no doubt there will be merchants who seek approval for imports or own-label sales. We are quite clear that some farmers will be applying for approvals for imports for their own use and also for approval for off-label uses where they are developing a new use for an existing chemical. The National Farmers' Union would therefore certainly expect to be consulted on the principles of the new system. We shall certainly bear in mind that a good deal of monitoring work is not directly related to use of pesticides either in agriculture or on United Kingdom territory, and that the fees charged should reflect this fact.
  That brings me back to what I tried to say at the very beginning. Although it is true that the effect of this amendment is to give the Government power to be able to make charges for all the services given with pesticide clearance, monitoring and use, we have not by any means reached a decision as to exactly how far the charges should go, because we have to consult first.
  12 noon
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has twice used the expression that the Government have not yet reached a decision. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who is also a farmer, I am always suspicious of the word "reasonable" in anything that we have to pay for. I wonder why it is that an expression such as "a calculated fee of the actual cost" could not be used instead of the words "a reasonable fee". Why not

  441
  insert the words "a calculated fee"? Then one will know exactly what one is paying for.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, for a moment I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, might give me the benefit of his advice on the meaning of the word "reasonable". My own interpretation of the word on behalf of the Government derives from what I endeavoured to say just now, which was that there are some elements of the fees system which clearly it might not be reasonable, or might be held by a court not to be reasonable, for the Government to try to pass on in the form of fees, for the reasons I gave just now. That is why we use the word "reasonable".
  The reason why I say we have not yet reached final decisions is because, under the amendments, statutorily we have to consult.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Following is the text of Amendment No. 35:
  35 Clause 16; page 19, line 10, leave out from ("pesticide") to ("tests") in line 15 and insert ("under this Part of this Act, on making his application, to pay a reasonable fee in respect of the administrative expenses of processing his application.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  37 Clause 17, page 19, line 31, after ("being") insert ("or has been")
  38 Page 19, line 37, after ("being") insert ("or has been")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. The purpose of these two amendments is to provide for a necessary strengthening of the provisions relating to powers of entry for enforcement officers. They have been requested particularly by the Health and Safety Executive, who were concerned that the original wording would not allow them to enter land or premises after a pesticide had been used in order, for example, to investigate a complaint, test machinery or inspect records. The Government were concerned that they should have power to do so and have, therefore, put forward these amendments.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  39 and 40 [Printed earlier.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39, to which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 26, and to Amendment No. 40, spoken to already with Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Following is the text of the Amendments (Nos. 39 and 40):
  39 Page 20, line 36, leave out subsection (8).
  40 Clause 22, page 24, line 11, at end insert—
  (" "escape" is to be construed in accordance with section 1(2) above:").

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  41 Page 25, line 6, at end insert (", other than a pipe-line").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This small amendment seeks to remove an uncertainty as to whether the term "marine structure" includes a pipe-line. The question has arisen in the context of Part II of this Bill, where much of the terminology has been taken over from the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. It has always been understood that that Act was intended to deal with dumping from ships, and pipe-line discharges were never licensed under it. The reason is that pipe-line discharges are fully controlled under other legislation; the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Belstead.)
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, or whoever was responsible, for this amendment. This was a matter of concern which we discussed at the very beginning of the Bill and it is very helpful to have it cleared up.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 [Printed earlier.]
  Lord Belstead: My noble Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42 to 47, all of which have been spoken to.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Following is the text of the Amendments (Nos. 42–47):
  42 Page 25, line 13, at end insert (" "pest",").
  43 Clause 23, page 26, line 31, after ("k"), insert (" (Codes of practice),").
  44 Page 26, line 34, after ("each") insert ("or either")
  45 Page 26, line 42, at end insert—
  ("and
  (f) section (Codes of practice) (4)(a) is omitted.")
  46 Page 27, line 6, after ("them") insert (", other than the reference in section (Enforcement of Conventions) (1) above,")
  47 Page 27, line 22, at end insert ("and Schedule 5 to this Act ")

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  48 Clause 24, page 27, leave out lines 38 and 39.
  49 Page 28, line 2, leave out ("I, II or III") and insert ("II").
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. These amendments are made at the request of the Isle of Jersey authorities, who do not wish to have Part I or Part III of the Bill extended to their territory. These amendments will put Jersey on exactly the same footing as Guernsey and the Isle of Man. They do not affect the operation of the Bill in the United Kingdom.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  50 Schedule 3, page 33, line 24, leave out paragraphs 1 to 5 and insert—
  ("1. If within 28 days of the issue of a licence the person to whom it is issued requests the licensing authority to give him notice in writing of the reasons for the inclusion of any provision in it, the authority shall comply with his request within 28 days of receiving it.
  2. On issuing a licence to a person a licensing authority shall notify him of the effect of paragraph 1 above.
  3. If a licensing authority refuses an application for a licence, the authority shall give the applicant notice in writing of the reasons for the refusal.
  4. If a licensing authority varies or revokes a licence without the holder's consent, the authority shall give the holder notice in writing of the reasons for the variation or revocation.
  5. If within 28 days of receipt of a notice under this Schedule giving a licensing authority's reasons the person to whom it is given makes written representations to the authority concerning the matter to which the notice related, the authority shall constitute a committee to consider his representations.
  6. A notice under this Schedule giving a licensing authority's reasons shall state the effect of paragraph 5 above.")
  51 Page 34, line 29, after ("8") insert (" (b)")
  52 Page 34, line 37, leave out ("for the licensing authority's determination") and insert ("given by the authority under this Schedule")
  53 Page 34, line 41, leave out ("may make a final decision only after receiving and considering") and insert ("shall reconsider the decision of the authority to which the representations relate in the light of")
  54 Page 34, line 44, leave out ("authority's decision") and insert ("result of the authority's reconsideration")
  55 Page 35, line 6, leave out ("the authority's final decision") and insert ("the result of the reconsideration is that the authority")
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 to 55. These amendments are purely for clarification.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  56, 57, 58 [Printed earlier.]
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 58, to all of which I have spoken.
  Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Belstead.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 51–58):

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  56 In the Title, line 4, leave out ("a release") and insert ("an escape")
  57 Line 7, after ("sea") insert ("to make provision for the control of the deposit of substances and articles under the seabed;")
  58 Line 8, leave out ("and preparation") and insert (", preparations and organisms")

Surrogacy Arrangements Bill
12.5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Denning: My Lords, I support the Third Reading of this Bill. It was at the Committee stage that I put down a number of amendments designed to strengthen the Bill. However, I withdrew them because of the importance of getting this Bill through as quickly as possible and made law.
The object of this Bill is, in a way, to outlaw surrogate agencies. I desired to strengthen it. Let me first remind your Lordships what a surrogacy arrangement is. A woman who is infertile or who for some other reason cannot have a baby goes to another woman and for money persuades that other woman—or the other woman agrees—to bear a baby and to hand it over immediately on birth to the commissioning mother. Furthermore, the commissioning mother provides the sperm—it may be her husband's sperm or it may be another man's—and then the surrogacy arrangement takes place. As soon as the baby is born, the real mother—as I call her—hands her baby over to the commissioning mother.
I put down amendments to strengthen the Bill. I will not go further into them, but they received much support. All I will do today is draw attention to some limitations in the Bill as it stands which I should like to see extended. In the first place, the Bill only outlaws surrogate agencies which operate on a commercial basis. It does not prevent in any way the commissioning mother or the carrying mother from paying or receiving money. It does not outlaw the doctors and professionals who charge large fees for the purpose. All it outlaws at the moment is surrogate agencies, often operating from the United States of America, who advertise and arrange these deals between the commissioning mother and the carrying mother.
I put down amendments covering those other aspects but withdrew them because of the time. However, I remind your Lordships and the Government of the urgent recommendation contained in the Warnock Report, which appears on page 47, in black type. It states:
"We recommend that legislation be introduced to render criminal the creation or the operation in the United Kingdom of agencies whose purposes include the recruitment of women for surrogate pregnancy or making arrangements for individuals or couples who wish to utilise the services of a carrying mother; such legislation should be wide enough to include both profit and non-profit making organisations. We further recommend that the legislation be sufficiently wide to render criminally liable the actions of professionals and others who knowingly assist in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy".

445
That is in the report of the Warnock Committee—and how important it is! It is not sufficient to stop at those who do it on a commercial basis. Others may be well intentioned and may want to help women who are infertile. There may be agencies which are non-profit making. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not wait for the final stage of the Warnock Report. Much of it is so controversial that it may take two or three years before we get the final report and decisions on it. I ask the Government urgently to consider whether there could be an interim Bill, brought forward as soon as possible, to outlaw surrogate agencies whether they are on a commercial or a non-commercial basis.
There is another important matter which I should like to see dealt with as soon as possible. I refer to the registration of births. Let me tell your Lordships what happens in the converse case of artificial insemination by a donor. A husband may be infertile himself and his wife anxiously wants a baby. So they get some other man, a donor, to provide the sperm. It is injected into the wife's body and she bears the child. It is not her husband's child; it is the donor's child. It is the donor's semen which has been used. How is that birth to be registered? The Warnock Report said that everything in this field should be anonymous. The mother who gives birth to the child is to know nothing of the donor who provides the sperm. I do not know whether she is even told the colour of his eyes. She does not know whether he is dead or live, because the sperm may have been frozen for some time. She is told nothing of the man who has provided the sperm. Equally, the man is to be told nothing of the woman who has borne a child with his sperm. The principle of anonymity runs through the report. It is the basis if it.
It is a very serious and debatable question whether this theory of anonymity is right. I should like to think that every child has a right to know who his father is. I should like to see that every woman who bears a child knows who is the child's father, with all the particulars. Just knowing that a man's sperm has beers injected is not good enough. The theory of anonymity which runs through the Warnock Report I should like to see challenged in both Houses—but that remains for another day. The immediate and urgent question is: what is to be put down in the official Register of Births so that everyone can know who is the mother and the father?
At the moment, in the cases which I have put forward the baby is registered, more often than not, in the names of the husband and wife, where the wife is not really the mother of the child in a surrogacy arrangement and the husband is not the father of the child in an AID arrangement. Apparently, the practice in registering the birth is to deceive the public and to deceive the child by, in surrogacy cases, putting the commissioning parents as the father and mother and in the AID cases putting the husband and the wife as the parents.
There is another matter of urgency. The Warnock Report states on page 26:
"we are of the view that consideration should be given as a matter of urgency to making it possible for the parents in registering the birth to add 'by donation' after the man's name."
In other words, should not the register be true and represent what has happened? Should we not have
446
legislation urgently to see that in future our registers tell the truth for the sake of future generations and, above all, for the sake of the child, who ought to be able to know who are its true parents?
I mention these matters because they are urgent. The Bill is very good as far as it stands. We cannot go further. We must get it through quickly, as it stands. However, I ask that these other matters be dealt with urgently in another Bill and not be left for the full discussion of the Warnock Report. I fully support the Third Reading.
12.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am one of many who are grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, for the trouble he has taken in analysing the provisions of the Bill so far. We all welcome the Bill and will be glad to see it on the statute book. We are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for his moderation in not pressing his amendments in Committee to the possible prejudice and safety of the Bill by requiring it to be referred back to another place.
There are many matters which need attention, and I have it in mind, if I can secure support, to ask leave of your Lordships early in the next Session to introduce a Private Member's Bill to amend this Bill, which will then be safely on the statute book and cannot be damaged. We can then discuss and carry through, to Divisions if necessary, the various provisions that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke to during the course of the Committee stage. I shall naturally endeavour to draft such a Bill so that it has the maximum rather than the minimum support from the Government. This is merely an opportunity to inform your Lordships of what I have in mind, provided I can obtain support from my noble friends.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, during the course of this Bill it has been necessary for the noble Earl the Minister, with my unusual support, to emphasise that the Bill outlaws commercial surrogacy and does not deal with the principle of the matter. It is a narrow Bill to deal with a problem which, if left uncurbed, might extend rapidly and create a great deal of public disquiet and objection.
We cannot take the Third Reading of this Bill and mount it as a platform (as so often we are tempted to do) in order to do something more, a lot more, and to do it faster, a lot faster. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has been advocating. We know his views, and what we have heard this morning we have heard before, from him and from others. We must keep clear of debating, at this stage on this Bill, the main issues, which still have to be dealt with.
I should like to say a few words on that. Rushed legislation is nearly always bad legislation. In a democracy, time for consideration is desirable. On other matters the Government do not think that three years is too long to spend on dealing with a complex and highly emotional matter. Indeed, on the use of animals in laboratories—which is not unconnected with the issues we are dealing with this morning—the Government have taken the whole of their lifetime to

447
reach a conclusion on legislative proposals; and we are not even in sight of them yet. There is an urgency that is not so pressing as this matter in the mind of the Government or, for that matter, in the minds of many noble Lords in this House. But this Bill raises moral human issues, and they are always foremost in people's minds.
In this connection I should make the observation, too, that we must not overlook the fact that what is done to humans has first been done to animals. It is always well to keep an eye on what is happening to animals as a possible indication of what may be translated into the field of human experience, and that goes for many matters beyond this Bill, though I stress the fact that here we are dealing again with this Bill on a narrow purpose and we ought to keep it at that.
I support this Bill. When the issues come to be debated in their wider, moral and social perspectives we shall require a good deal of time and thought if possible to reconcile differing approaches to this matter. The time for that has yet to come. I shall not seek to dissuade the Government from tackling this matter as early as they feel able to do so, but I hope that when the time comes we shall not be told that the urgency is so great that we must press on. Indeed, it has already been suggested that, if the Government do not have time, it might be dealt with under the Private Member's Bill procedure. We know what problems arise on that, and I dealt with them the last time I spoke on this Bill when that very proposal was put from a noble Lord on the Benches opposite. I ask your Lordships not to have legislation considered under the Private Member's Bill procedure and made under the stress of time, under the urgent plea that if the Bill does not return to another place by a certain date, it will be lost, and that that would be tragic. That is the condition under which all too often this House has had to consider the final stages of Private Members' Bills on matters as difficult and emotional as this one.
I beg the Government and noble Lords to allow this matter to emerge from the Government's considerations and the debate that is going on at the present time on these issues. Let us deal with it as calmly as we can and with adequate time, when the occasion presents itself. In the meantime there is no problem which is of such pressing urgency that we have to legislate further in the immediate future. The main issue is to stop what seemed to be a most objectionable practice of surrogacy under commercial contract. This Bill deals with that and for the moment I think we should rest there and consider this matter further in the autumn and in the course of the coming year.
The Warnock Committee took time to consider its report. We must take time to consider its recommendations. In many respects they are highly controversial, and they have to be resolved somehow or other, but I hope that we shall not be rushed by the urgent pleas of most respected and senior Members of your Lordships' House. There is another point of view about this and I have ventured to express it.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, I, too, support this Bill and rise merely in an attempt to assuage the perturbation expressed by the noble and learned Lord,
448
Lord Denning, in relation to the restriction of the Bill to matters arranged on a commercial basis. Citing the Warnock Report, he would have the Bill apply to non-commercial attempts to arrrange surrogacy. In that context it is worth noting the provisions of Clause 3, which deals with advertisements about surrogacy. It is not restricted to advertisements about surrogacy on a commercial basis; it prohibits and penalises advertisements about surrogacy, with no such limitation at all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had in mind people who, for reasons of benevolence or pity for the childless couple's yearning for a child, enter into some surrogacy arrangement. No concern, no body, charitable or otherwise, can possibly succeed unless it does a certain amount of "advertising" but if it advertises, Clause 3 makes it an offence to do so. In the absence of advertising, how could any appeal or arrangement in relation to surrogacy succeed? With respect, I think that the Bill is wisely framed, and for that reason I do not share the perturbation of my noble and learned friend, who is also my old friend, Lord Denning, in relation to the restriction of Clause 2. On this basis I myself wholeheartedly support the Bill and have no perturbation about it so far as it goes.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I should like respectfully to echo those sentiments from the noble and learned Lord. I much regret that I was unable to attend the Committee stage of the Bill, but clearly it was a most stimulating debate. Perhaps I may say also with respect that I admired the restraint of the participants in not pressing their amendments, though I suspected, and I gather rightly, that they were saving their ammunition for a later, more broadly based attack.
Of those amendments I see that the noble and learned Lord raised but did not press an amendment seeking to clarify the illegality of such arrangements at common law. I have to say that my understanding, from case law at the turn of the century, has always been that any such agreement, whereby a mother seeks to give up her rights over a child, would be held to be void by the courts. As he told your Lordships this morning the noble and learned Lord also sought to broaden the criminal base of surrogacy arrangements, extending them beyond the commercial agencies which are under attack in this Bill. I suggest that in an age when we are perhaps seeking to reduce the stigma of illegitimacy we must be careful in creating what might be seen as a criminal gloss on the already existing stigma.
Generally speaking, if I may echo the phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in another quarter, for the time being we must trust the judges. We must trust the judges to find such agreements void where they are driven so to do, and, above all, we must trust the judges to keep their eyes on the main consideration in these cases, which is the welfare of the child. I am sure we can trust the courts always to approach these matters on the basis that the welfare of the child is paramount.
These problems will not go away. The noble and learned Lord is right of course. Some of them are urgent, but not all are urgent, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out. They are complex questions and must be considered carefully. I suggest that before

449
we rush into any further legislation careful thought must be given to defining the rights and duties of the adults involved and to defining the rights and status of the children affected. I gather that we all agree that this Bill is uncontroversial. It is uncontroversial and therefore welcome. We must speed it on its way, and I would suggest that it is none the worse for leaving this House unamended.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we thank the Government for this Bill. Henceforth it will be a criminal offence to operate a commercial surrogacy agency, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, has very clearly pointed out, it will be an offence to advertise any surrogacy service. These are important developments which have been supported by all those who have spoken in the debates at Second Reading and in Committee and which have indeed been acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Denning, this morning.
Although the Bill leaves this House unaltered and unamended, the debates on its provisions and on the amendments put down in particular by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, have been valuable. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge their significance. They have identified the important issues which are unanswered by the Bill and which are a continuing cause of concern for many Members of your Lordships' House. I very much hope that the Minister can assure the House that the subject matter of the amendments, which it is true were not pressed to a Division, will be given thorough consideration by the Government in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House and, as my noble friend indicated, in the light of the debate in the country at large. I hope that it will not be necessary to come forward with a series of interim Bills. With those few remarks we welcome the Bill and we shall be glad to see it in operation with the minimum of delay.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, your Lordships will by now be familiar with the objective and content of the Bill and my priority today is to express my gratitude to your Lordships for giving this Bill such a speedy passage. The Government announced only in March their intention to bring forward legislation this Session to prohibit commercial surrogacy agencies and advertising of or for surrogacy services. I think that this is a small but useful measure. I say that because one of the commercial agencies operating in this country has already announced that it will cease operations. With due respect, I think that that is the best vindication of this limited Bill. A larger Bill will raise greater emotions and will, as we have heard today, be highly controversial.
I should like just to repeat the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said that the Government aim to introduce a comprehensive Bill as soon as practicable on the matters dealt with in the Warnock Report. In that connection we have found your Lordships' contributions to this important debate over the last 10 months more than just helpful. My noble friend Lady Trumpington and I are very grateful to all noble Lords—I shall not mention any by name—for having taken part in this debate, as that is helping the department to frame its thoughts on the
450
matter. I can assure your Lordships that in framing the legislation we shall take careful account of the points that have been raised. Once again I express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1985
12.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1985, which was laid before your Lordships on 3rd June of this year be approved.
I shall this morning be reviewing the security situation in Northern Ireland because that is the background against which we ask your Lordships to review the powers in the Emergency Provisions Act, and I shall also set out the Government's response to the late Sir George Baker's review of the operation of the Act.
Whatever political and economic developments there may be in Northern Ireland, security will remain the Government's first priority. Our objective is to bring the terrorists' brutal campaign of violence to an end as quickly as possible, though any realist would accept that there can be no short-cuts to achieving this. Steady progress is being made, however, in both deterring violence and in bringing those who perpetrate it before the courts. While statistics bring absolutely no comfort to those who have lost relatives or friends at the hands of terrorists, the figures show that, to date, violence in 1985 is broadly comparable to violence in 1984, which saw less violence than any year since 1970. This is not a cause for complacency, but it sets the present situation in context.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has borne the brunt in recent months. Since January this year 19 RUC officers have been brutally murdered by the terrorists. The force has continued to act with courage and, above all, great professionalism in the face of these attacks, and deserves our respect and admiration. I should also like to pay my tribute to the regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment who give the RUC such valuable support.
The Government and the security forces will strive to eradicate terrorism, but we cannot do this alone. We depend on support from the general public, and we shall continue to look for ways of winning and sustaining that support from both parts of the community. Many opportunities already exist, such as the Government's proposals for a more independent element in the way complaints against the police are examined and the encouragement which is given to both parts of the community to serve in the security forces in local police liaison groups or on the police authority. The Government will continue to keep the criminal justice system under close review to ensure that it is fair and effective and strikes the right balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society to be protected from violent crime.

451
But the Government and the security forces must look to the public, and in particular to political leaders in the Province, to play their part. There can be no room in such a small society, beset with economic and social problems, for inflammatory statements and actions. Both sides of the community must show a willingness to accommodate the other if the Province is to make any real progress.
An area where leaders of opinion can display the imagination and responsibility that is so much needed is in the conduct of marches and parades. These have become a source of increasing tension and friction, and now require the deployment of considerable police resources which could be put to much better use in countering the terrorist threat. The Government fully support the Chief Constable of the RUC in appealing to the organisers of parades from both communities, "traditional" or "non-traditional", to show a greater understanding of the difficulties, and more flexibility over their choice of route. I very much hope that common sense prevails in Portadown today, and that the law is kept.
As for the longer-term, the Government will be looking at Northern Ireland's public order legislation as it affects the control of parades and demonstrations, especially in the light of the recently published paper of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on public order laws. We shall be considering whether there are changes to the present arrangements which would help to alleviate the difficulties we are witnessing at present. But I imagine that, whatever decisions are taken on this legislation, we shall ultimately have to look to the citizens of Northern Ireland to show flexibility and a spirit of reconciliation.
Another area where the Government would ask for more understanding is in the Anglo-Irish talks which are in progress. We are holding these in the hope of security benefits for both communities, not least from a security standpoint. We depend greatly on the co-operation that we receive from the Irish authorities in border areas, and I want to pay tribute to the efforts which the Garda already makes. These efforts have saved lives. But the Government should like to see more intense co-operation at all levels to help counter the border threat, and we hope that ways can be found of extending the present inter-force contacts. We all have much to gain, and the terrorist has most to fear, from better co-operation and a close understanding with the Irish on security matters.
I should like to turn briefly to the recommendations made by the late Sir George Baker in his review of the Emergency Provisions Act. As your Lordships know, the Act gives the security forces and the courts additional powers to counter the terrorist threat. Sir George concluded that there was little scope for fundamental change to the Act, but considered that in some areas it could be adjusted and that some powers could be relinquished. The Government have already made it clear that they accept the broad thrust of Sir George's review, and I shall now set out the main conclusions which we have drawn and which will be incorporated in a Bill to be brought before your Lordships in due course.
452
We do not propose to revoke the detention provisions of the Act, which remain on the statute book though not in force, although Sir George recommended this course. The Government cannot foresee the powers being used in anything other than a major but short-term crisis and we very much hope we shall not face such a situation. But if one were to arise in a recess when we had dropped this power, the Government believe that we would be unable to offer the people of Northern Ireland the protection which they would need. The Government have therefore decided that the prudent course is to retain this reserve power.
Sir George concluded that restoration of jury trial was not possible in present conditions, but he recommended that Schedule 4 to the Act should be amended to increase the Attorney-General's discretion as he put it to certify cases out of the scheduled mode of trial. We accept this recommendation, although it is possible that the list of offences to which such discretion will be extended will not be precisely that proposed by Sir George. The discretion to certify cases out will remain with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Sir George made a number of recommendations in respect of police arrest powers. We propose to meet the spirit of these recommendations by repealing the arrest power in Section 11 of the Emergency Provisions Act. This would leave the RUC to rely on the powers contained in Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984. Under the latter provision, of which the RUC have been making increasing use, a person may be held initially for up to 48 hours rather than the 72 hours allowed under Section 11 of the Emergency Provisions Act. However, the 48-hour period under the Prevention of Terrorism Act may be extended by a period or periods not exceeding five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. So far as the Army's arrest power is concerned, no final decision has been taken on the need for or the form of any modifications to Section 14 of the Emergency Provisions Act, but we intend that a power of arrest should be retained.
The Government, like Sir George Baker, endorse the present practice of the courts in bail applications and propose to recast Section 2(2) to move the onus in bail applications towards the prosecution. Section 2(4) should be repealed as Sir George recommended and Section 2(5) widened to include members of the RUC and RUC Reserve.
The practice of the courts in respect of the admissibility of confessions was endorsed by Sir George Baker. The Government support that view and are proposing to reflect in Section 8 the principles which the judges now apply.
The last of the major changes recommended by Sir George Baker was that the temporary provisions of the Act should be reviewed annually by Parliament and should have a maximum life of 5 years without reenactment. We regard his recommendation as a welcome restatement of the clear responsibility of Parliament and of the Government to consider afresh whether any emergency provisions should continue, and if so in what form; and we accept his recommendation.

453
I should like to touch upon one other set of recommendations contained in the review. We have studied carefully those recommendations of Sir George which relate to pre-trial procedures, including his recommendation for a time limit of 12 months on the period between committal and trial. We are considering this and other possible ways of reducing the length of time between first remand and trial. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided to mount field trials on a system of statutory time limits in England and Wales and we in Northern Ireland will be watching progress with interest to see whether there is scope for applying similar measures there.
12.45 p.m.
We are also giving thought to the proposal by Sir George Baker that some way should be found to increase the maximum remand period in scheduled cases to 28 or 30 days. At present all such persons have to be produced before a magistrate once a week. He—I think that clearly refers to the magistrate—has no power to grant bail and can only remand the accused persons for a further period. Thus the process is largely, in Sir George Baker's words,
"meaningless"
and
"a waste of time, money and resources".
Following the precedent in England and Wales, we are already considering separate legislation which would extend to 28 days the maximum period for which, if he agrees, an accused person may be remanded in custody. There would be attractions in amending the Emergency Provisions Act so far as to remove, in respect of scheduled cases, the requirement for a person to give his consent. Taken together, these two sets of changes would give magistrates the discretion to remand persons accused of scheduled offences for up to 28 days. We believe that this would save a good deal of unnecessary court time and other resources—resources which could be better used in minimising the length of time between first remand and trial. Defendants who did not make weekly remand appearances would still have regular access to their solicitors and indeed to other visitors, and could make bail applications.
In the short spell of time available today I have not been able to do justice to every one of the recommendations of Sir George, but I hope that what I have set out will enable your Lordships to appreciate the broad thrust of our response to his review. The Government believe that these small but important modifications are steps worth taking. I cannot say when the amending Bill will be introduced, but I assure your Lordships that it will be during the life of this Parliament.
The Motion before your Lordships today seeks the renewal for a further six months of the special measures in the Emergency Provisions Act upon which the security forces and the courts rely in responding to crimes of violence. Renewal of the Act is far from an academic process, for Northern Ireland sadly continues to face a vicious terrorist campaign which has resulted and which continues to result in a tragic loss of life. As I said at the beginning of my
454
remarks, some improvement has been achieved, but we are not in a position to relinquish these essential measures, which undoubtedly save lives. Therefore I invite your Lordships to agree to extend the life of the 1978 Act by a further six months. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd June be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, Northern Ireland has lived with emergency legislation for a long time. I well recall my noble friend Lord Fitt telling the House that throughout his lifetime in Northern Ireland he had lived under emergency legislation. I thought that a fairly sobering and revealing observation. Thus this debate on the renewal of the present emergency legislation is obviously not without precedent.
The three core elements of the present emergency legislation are arrest, interrogation and the special Diplock courts. In the three areas the ordinary criminal procedures or processes have been substantially modified by legislation. We often speak of a policy of countering terrorism with the criminal law, but we must constantly bear in mind that terrorism is being countered not with the ordinary criminal law, but with the emergency powers which are above and over the ordinary law of the land.
We do well to remind ourselves that the power of arrest is exercisable even when no specific offence is suspected. I read that one academic writer has discovered that about 90 per cent. of those arrested are not charged. He concluded that the primary purpose of many of the arrests was intelligence gathering and surveillance. When the writer went on to describe this activity as an abuse of the power of arrest, it seems to me that he must have been wrong, because Parliament has decreed that it is lawful to make an arrest even when no specific offence is suspected. That gives us an insight into the nature of the emergency powers.
Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves whether it is desirable or necessary that the police, the security forces and the courts should be given the powers incorporated in this legislation. This was the question that troubled the Labour Opposition in the other place when they were moved to vote against renewal of the emergency legislation. We are in some difficulty in answering the question of whether or not the powers are desirable or necessary. We do not have sufficient material before us to enable the House to form a judgment. That point is made clearly in paragraph 83 on page 75 of the tenth Annual Report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which reads:
"Throughout the years scrutiny of the EPA has been hampered by the paucity of officially published statistics. The general statistics published by the Secretary of State on a regular six-monthly basis offer a general guide to the security situation in Northern Ireland but not the operation of the EPA. If the legislation is to be effectively monitored, the Commission recommend that it should not be left to diligent Members of Parliament to extract this information hut that more material be published in the same way as it is for the PTA following Lord Shackleton's recommendation to this effect".
The paragraph goes on to particularise the information that should be readily available.
That report was published last February. But a year earlier, Sir George Baker had already accepted that it

455
was important that as much information as possible should be made readily available. He recommended that the Northern Ireland Office should attempt to provide the equivalent of the Home Office and Northern Ireland Office PTA quarterly statistics. That, I think, is contained in Recommendation 70 of the Baker review. Perhaps the Minister can correct me, but my impression is that the Secretary of State indicated last October that this recommendation was acceptable to the Government. However, it was not referred to in the Minister's speech this morning.
In discussing the renewal of the legislation we have to place on record that there are complaints that the legislation has compromised the police, the security forces and the courts. This was brought out in one opinion poll. If, however, we have little confidence in opinion polls it was also brought out in the study undertaken by Mr. Walsh when he occupied the Cobden Trust research scholarship at Queen's University, Belfast. Thus, a long period of remand before trial is easily perceived by some people as being a form of internment de facto. Again, the finding that 40 per cent. of the business of the Diplock courts is concerned with non-terrorist cases is worrying. A law that is perceived by a large sector of the community to be unfair may help to fuel discontent, lawlessness and violence. There is a feeling that the EPA may be counter-productive. Even in a case-hardened Province such as Northern Ireland, the feeling that it can be counter-productive because it is perceived to be unfair is another factor that led the Labour Opposition in the House of Commons to vote against renewal of the legislation.
I believe that many Members in the other place voted against renewal as a form of protest against the delay on the part of the Government in announcing their conclusions on all the Baker recommendations and the delay in implementing those recommendations that are acceptable to them. The Minister has this morning stated the Government's conclusions on some of the recommendations. But even now we have to await the Government's response to all the 74 recommendations. Clearly, we shall have to read the Minister's speech carefully; but it appears to me that the thrust of his observations this morning was foreshadowed in the last debate that we had in this House on the renewal of the legislation. I shall give one or two examples. We wish to know whether the Government have come to a conclusion on the need to introduce the tape-recording of interrogation in the police station. Again, is the power of arrest to be amended by imposing a requirement of reasonable suspicion of a specific offence? That would be invaluable because it would potentially increase the scope of judicial review.
The Minister has said that the Government are giving consideration to the need to cut down delay between arrest and trial. I am still not clear, however, what specific instructions the Government are giving to the security forces on this issue. Of course, the Minister speaks of the Government producing their response and legislation in due course. We have been waiting 14 months for the legislation. One agrees clearly that the task is to maintain a fair balance between the need for security and the liberty of the
456
individual citizen. I have no wish to overstate the risks to individual liberty inherent in complex emergency powers. Nor do I wish to under-estimate the difficult and dangerous role of the security forces in their pretty thankless job in the Province. I join with the Minister in paying our tribute to the security forces. One is, after all, conscious of the murders and the killings and the threats of persistent violence. One is conscious that men and women in the Province live in their own homes and walk the streets in fear.
But in making proper allowance for the needs of security we on these Benches consider that we would be failing in our duty if we did not on this occasion give expression to our reservations about the EPA, particularly as the amendments which the late Sir George Baker considered necessary over a year ago to make the legislation acceptable have still not been implemented. The best hope we have is that they will be implemented in due course. If we are concerned about human dignity, we must be concerned that the best offer that we have is legislation in due course.
1 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction of this order. I shall attempt today to outline the reaction of the Alliance parties. As always, we pay tribute to the efficiency and bravery of the security forces. I note the Minister's comments about marches, and I shall not repeat what I said about this on Monday, and I was particularly interested in the proposed Government reaction to Sir George Baker's report, and an amending Bill duly to be introduced. I shall also follow up some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
It must be accepted that the campaign of terrorist violence by Republican and Loyalist paramilitary organisations continues and makes the continued use of emergency powers inevitable for the foreseeable future. Since 1969, we are told, nearly 2,500 people have been killed through terrorist activity (a figure equivalent to 88,000 on the mainland), and some 30,000 people have been injured. At the same time we regard emergency powers as but a part, albeit a necessary part, of an overall strategy designed to secure a political settlement in Northern Ireland and thereby internal harmony.
It is essential that the emergency legislation should not work against this overall strategy, and legislation must be strictly necessary to combat terrorism, and hence acceptable to the law-abiding population in the province. As a protection against the possible abuse of power the Alliance is strongly in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland and some further measures to protect the citizen against maladministration. We accept that there are often propaganda campaigns by terrorist groups designed to discredit the British Government, and it is essential that justice should be seen to be done without cause for genuine grievance.
The two main Acts we see to protect the security of the state are, first, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and, secondly, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. The first was introduced in 1973 and amended in 1978, and it is this that we are considering today. It contains additional arrest and detention powers for the police

457
and the Army together with certain exceptional powers of search and seizure. It provides for the proscription of certain criminal organisations such as the Provisional IRA and the UVF, and allows certain scheduled offences to be tried by Diplock courts—that is, a judge sitting alone.
The second Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned, was a response to the Birmingham bombing. It is concerned with special powers of arrest and detention, for controls at seaports and airports, and for exclusion and deportation orders against those involved in terrorism.
It should be understood that the emergency legislation does not alter the central principles of British justice which continue to be applied in Northern Ireland, and the responsibility rests on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There are, however, some departures from normal judicial standards in the emergency legislation which can interfere with accepted standards of civil liberties. It is essential that these should be seen to be the minimum compatible with the fight against terrorism.
It is with great regret, therefore, that we feel it necessary to accept the impossibility of jury trial for terrorist offences in the near future. The House does not need me to expand on the problems caused by the intimidation of jurors and the impossibility of fully protecting them. Therefore, in Diplock courts trials under a single judge are held without a jury, with all the difficulty of the judge having to warn himself against taking too much notice of uncorroborated evidence.
We appreciate the difficulty of the availability of suitably qualified judges, but can see great advantages where a panel of three judges could preside over trials. This would also bring practice in Northern Ireland into closer harmony with that in the Irish Republic, and this would be a particularly significant contribution to the harmonisation of antiterrorist legislation. I should appreciate the Minister's comment on this point.
It may surprise many people to learn that uncorroborated evidence given by an informer or accomplice is accepted in the criminal courts of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Scotland, and also in the Irish Republic. I do not think we see any basis for denying the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland this weapon in cases of terrorist crime. Nonetheless, an apparent miscarriage of justice can have an extremely counterproductive effect.
We want three judges, if possible, then, and we also seek two further safeguards. First, in what are termed "supergrass trials" the maximum number under trial should be cut from even the limit of 20, which Sir George Baker recommended in his report, to a maximum of six. Secondly, there should be a reduction in the delays before suspects are brought to trial.
In 1983 the average time between remand and trial for prisoners refused bail and charged with terrorist offences was as much as 322 days. This is tantamount to sentence without trial, and there is an urgent need of reduction. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to this. We believe that the aim should be something closer to the ruling in Scotland,
458
where there is a maximum of 110 days custody before trial. We also believe that many cases which have no observable connection with serious terrorist offences should be made once again triable by jury. Again, this has been referred to.
It is essential, I repeat, that so far as possible justice should be seen to be done. We believe that a standard of "reasonable suspicion" rather than "suspicion" should be required before the special powers of arrest or search under the emergency legislation can be used. We believe that closed circuit television is a valuable safeguard against alleged ill-treatment of suspects; that every interview in a police station in Northern Ireland with a suspected terrorist should be tape recorded for use as possible evidence; and that confessions should be admissible as evidence only if it can be clearly shown that they have not been the result of physical violence or threats by the police.
In addition we should like to see members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority given the right to observe the interrogation of suspects and to visit prisoners on remand. We also believe that where miscarriage of justice is later confirmed the person wrongly committed should be compensated as a matter of right. Perhaps the Minister can comment also on that suggestion.
To summarise, then, while we believe that the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act are essential to the defeat of terrorism, we are conscious that it is still regarded in some quarters of the Irish Republic, and among the nationalist community of Northern Ireland, as anti-Irish. We should therefore like to see it replaced by legislative provision jointly agreed by the British and Irish Governments, and applicable in both countries.
We would regard this as an important step towards the harmonisation of British and Irish law, and a welcome co-operation in the fight against terrorism. We believe of course that this emergency legislation should remain on the statute book only as long as terrorist activity continues—and Sir George Baker dealt with this—and we accept the need for the present order.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I do not think that anybody could possibly assert that the order we are considering today is in any way similar to any other Northern Irish order which comes before us. The two noble Lords speaking from the Front Benches for the opposition have spelt out clearly why the powers given by this legislation are so serious. If that were not enough, the fact that the Act has had to be reviewed twice by two separate distinguished judges underlines this contention. I should like to suggest that it is most inappropriate for us to be debating this matter at lunchtime on a Friday. I have written about this to the noble Lord the Chief Whip, and I hope that I shall receive support from the other Front Benches concerned with this matter.
Having made that point, I should like to go on to welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said about the Government's conclusions on the review conducted by the late Sir George Baker. We know that improvements have recently been made over powers of arrest under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hampton,

459
in asking today why all arrests under this Act cannot be subject to reasonable suspicion. What important terrorist has recently been arrested on mere suspicion?
I should like to go on to ask why arrest by the Army in Northern Ireland cannot be limited to terrorist-type offences only. We know what these are precisely; they have been scheduled. Also what is the Government's response to the 21 detailed and reasonable paragraphs in chapter 5 of the 10th report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights? The two rather short paragraphs in the Secretary of State's letter to the Commission of the 21st February 1985 are clearly not enough.
The usual tributes have been paid to the security forces and I join most wholeheartedly in these. I should like to say something about the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This force is well known to be predominantly manned by people of Protestant origin or connection and it is therefore of vital importance that the proportion of serving Catholics should be increased. I should like to suggest two possible methods how this process might, at least, be started. First, could there not be secondment of volunteers to the RUC from Catholic officers now serving with British, Commonwealth or Irish police forces? Secondly, could not encouragement be given to young Catholics now in Northern Ireland to join British, Commonwealth or Irish policce forces with a view to returning later to the RUC with some experience and seniority? In general, the powers and the role of the Northern Ireland Police Authority should be strengthened, as was recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission in paragraph 10.13. In particular, the membership of the police authority should reflect both segments of the community.
A network of public and police liaison committees should be set up, and this, too, was a recommendation of Kilbrandon. Experience over the past 15 years of the very successful committee in Derry shows that it is necessary to have local community organisations represented on the committee as well as elected councillors. It also shows that the most senior local policemen should be available to the committee. This experience has, quite surprisingly perhaps, been borne out by that of the Community and Police Consultative Group in Lambeth.
I welcome the police complaints and discipline Consultation Paper of April 1985, particularly the provision for investigating complaints wider than those against individual officers; but will Her Majesty's Government emphasise ease of access to this procedure and the independence that is needed for any proper complaints procedure?
I now come to the Ulster Defence Regiment, which has obviously played an important part in the security operations up to now. Much has been said both for and against this regiment. I hope Her Majesty's Government will look seriously at the Kilbrandon recomendation that the regiment should be phased out over a period of time, by natural wastage and by transfers to the British Army and the RUC. This would of course have to be accompanied by a major increase in establishment for the RUC.
460
There are a number of changes in the law, not only in the principal legislation, but in other Acts of Parliament that may be required. A new offence of the reckless use of force should be created, because the courts are so seldom willing to convict a member of the security forces of murder or manslaughter. This was another Kilbrandon recommendation and has been further spelt out in articles by Dr. Hadden of Queen's University, in which he cites Australian experience. When will the Government be legislating for Northern Ireland on the lines of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? This I know has been promised, but it would be most helpful for us to know some more about timing. It is most important that this legislation should provide a statutory code of practice for arrest and interrogation, also for the taping of interrogations, as was mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Prys-Davies.
The law on coroners' inquests and the reference of cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions may well require amendment. Disputed killings and woundings always cause bad feeling and inquests are now often held so long after the event, when no prosecution is to be made, that they become almost valueless.
1.15 p.m.
I now come to other measures which will not necessarily require legisation. First and foremost there is the proposed Anglo-Irish Joint Security Commission. This would be most beneficial as was recommended by Kilbrandon. I should also like to see an option for persons accused of scheduled offences to go for trial before a jury court in Great Britain, rather than in Northern Ireland. This might help to deal with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Diplock courts. I should like to see compensation for time spent on remand by persons who were later acquitted or discharged. This would be in line with the letter from the Secretary of State to the Standing Advisory Commission of 18th February which I have already quoted. I believe it would do much to defuse the "supergrass" question and it would be on similar lines to the susbstantial amounts previously paid to persons wrongly held under detention powers.
As to the "supergrass" problem itself, what I wonder is the response of the Government to the paper by Mr. J. D. Jackson of Queen's University printed on pages 83 to 94 of the Standing Advisory Commission's tenth annual report? If his proposed safeguards are not acceptable, why is this and what better ones will the Government provide?
As for the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights itself, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his written reply of 9th July in columns 183–84 of Hansard. It is good to know that the commission will be getting some extra staff, but when will they be in post? And why is this matter of adequate staffing still only at the discussion stage?
So far I have spoken about the police and the security forces aided by emergency legislation in the struggle to protect citizens of all persuasions against terrorism. The other approach to the question is through civil and human rights, both those of the individual and those of groups and communities. The well-known "double minority" situation in Ireland,

461
both north and south, makes this approach one of great importance because the Treaty of 1922 left sizeable minorities on either side of the agreed frontier. The minority question in the south has been relatively calm, but that in the north remains, as we know, acute. This explains why a study of human rights and responsibilities has been mounted with the help of the British and Irish Councils of Churches. This is why the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland recently passed the following resolution:
"The Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should agree a bilateral treaty providing for the protection of human rights in both states including specific provisions to deal with the unique problems of Northern Ireland. They should undertake to incorporate the terms of the treaty into their domestic law and due consideration should be given to means of monitoring and enforcement".
Such a measure would be further strengthened by both countries incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into their domestic law. Since this convention is not drawn in terms of group rights, it would mainly assist individuals by making their grievances justiciable in local courts, thus shortcutting the slow procedures of the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights.
Moves such as those I have just mentioned could well be supplemented by a Bill of minority rights, specific to Northern Ireland and by the creation of Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland. Such a commission could supervise the new treaty and any Bill of minority rights and perhaps act as the local instrument of the European Commission. It could embrace the expanding functions of the Standing Advisory Commission, the Fair Employment Agency, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commissioner for Complaints. It might have responsiblity for the new police complaints procedure.
I urge the Government to think long and hard about human rights and group rights. It is important to remember that the present troubles were sparked off by grave dissatisfaction over basic civil rights. There are some who still feel that these basic rights have not yet been achieved in all their fullness. Others may be beginning to worry about what might happen if the present majority in time becomes a minority. What protects one group now may well in time be of help to another. A major investment now in human rights, with encouragement for their corresponding responsibilities, would be more worthwile than current expenditures on security and prisons, although, obviously, it could not immediately replace them. I hope that it is not altogether too naive and too idealistic to suggest that a new Anglo-Irish Treaty, coupled with the European Convention, a Bill of minority rights and a Human Rights Commission would generate such confidence that Ulster political leaders would be obliged to agree upon a measure of devolved administration.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, it is several years since I have spoken in this particular debate on this highly important subject; and although my noble friend on the Front Bench has made a very clear statement and a very clear analysis, with which I entirely agree, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few rather more general points about the
462
security situation in Northern Ireland. I should like to take the opportunity to stand back and take stock of what changes have taken place in the security of Northern Ireland, of the vulnerability of the position there, of what is being done about it; and, finally, what changes I should like to see put in motion to improve the security situation there.
First, as the Minister and other noble Lords have said, the causes of unrest are still there. At this very moment, the annual celebration of that great Orange victory of 1690 is going on and we can only hope that it is going on surrounded by a peaceful atmosphere. Secondly, a few weeks ago, another forum for dissension and for aggravation was created when the Provisional Sinn Fein achieved the necessary support in the May local elections to install themselves in many of Northern Ireland's council chambers. There can be no doubt that this has provided an additional framework in which the Provisional Sinn Fein can carry on the campaign of disruption which they find a most useful way of stopping the Government's operations in the North.
Finally, as a background to this highly vulnerable situation, we have economic and social grievances which provide a recruiting ground, particularly among the young, for para-militaries of both persuasions; and, at the same time, we face the ongoing problem of how to resolve the political issues that give rise to such a sick and distorted sense of mission in order to isolate those men above. Although some of the factors making up the Northern Ireland scenario have changed, we still face a situation which is highly vulnerable and potentially explosive. It is for that reason that it is so important that we ensure that the measures that we take to safeguard law and order are the right ones and that they may maintain an all-important balance of being effective without at the same time being counter-productive. This is what previous noble Lords have stressed time and time again.
It is in this connection with that vital need for adjusting the measures we use to maintain security that I should like to make a few very brief points. The first point has already been made. It is with regard to the recommendations made by Sir George Baker over a year ago. I am grateful to the Minister for having set them out so clearly. I had the great privilege of meeting Sir George while he was drawing up this report and to discuss the changes that he might recommend. I must confess that, in the same way as other noble Lords, I had hoped very much that he would make a more radical change; and the recommendation that I made, in the same way as the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, was that although the jury system clearly could not be reinstated, at least there should be a panel of three judges and that this should bring it more in line both with Dublin and with our own system of justice. One can never leave the important point that the objective of any legal system is for it to inspire the confidence of the people who it serves. Yet we know there can be no doubt that many members of the minority community do not trust it. In fact, the Belfast Telegraph of 6th February went so far as saying that nearly two-thirds of the Catholic community thought the legal system was unfair.

463
It is for that reason that it is disappointing, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has just said, that after 15 months the Government have still not implemented even the limited amendments to the law which Sir George Baker recommended as necessary. I know that the Minister has promised us a Bill on this, but he has not given us any time at which it will be put forward; so I think that there is every reason for us to show great concern that these important recommendations have not in any way been taken notice of. My other point relates to the same area of concern but it is about the other important development in Anglo-Irish affairs which has taken place in the last year. That is the report that came from Dublin, the New Ireland Forum Report, which was followed by the recommendations made by the Kilbrandon Committee. I was fortunate enough to sit on that committee.
There is no doubt that the New Ireland Forum Report and the Kilbrandon recommendations were not specifically focused on the emergency provisions but they were largely concentrated on building up and improving the security measures of the Province and they made some important recommendations regarding law reform and law enforcement. Although I know that this is not the moment to discuss the details, either of the New Ireland Forum Report or of the Kilbrandon recommendations—although I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton has mentioned them—I think this is a highly relevant moment to express concern that, in the same way as with the Baker Report, there has been no positive reaction from the Government towards any of the ideas which came out of these two very important exercises in Anglo-Irish relations.
As I said at the beginning of my few remarks, no one could place a higher importance to safeguarding the security and the safety of the people of Northern Ireland than I. Therefore, I accept the importance of the special measures taken to do so; but I cannot accept that at the same time we should not work towards establishing a wider framework in which to improve and strengthen our security measures. This leads me to my last point which is in regard to the closer relationship and the greater co-operation that we believe has been put in train between Dublin and London. Here, I should like to stress that with the realities of the present Northern Irish situation coinciding with the Dublin initiative, carrying as it does a greater measure of mutual trust, understanding and co-operation, I really believe that all this seems to provide a vital opportunity to achieve progress in establishing peace in Northern Ireland.
1.30 p.m.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships read an important article in the Sunday Times of 7th July 1985 by Peter Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, having commented on the ups and down over the last year in the relationship between the Governments and Prime Ministers in Dublin and London, stressed the importance of courage on the part of both, and he ended his article in the following way:
"We are inhibited in our dealings with The Irish Problem by a fear of making things worse. Even words can be as dangerous as bombs in Northern Ireland. The risk of a bloodbath of Protestant violence
464
cannot be brushed aside. But nor can the unhappy situation of the north be allowed to continue indefinitely, for the sakes of the poor people who live there and because we are all threatened by the terrorism that breeds there. With the chance of making some real improvement in that deplorable situation the time has come to stop appeasing Ulster. The Protestant majority has been guaranteed time and again that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom until its citizens decide otherwise. But that gives no special entitlement to override the national interest or to prevent us from making whatever arrangements we choose with a friendly foreign power."
That is an important statement made in a newspaper which after all is not known for its terrifically progressive views. I should like to identify myself very closely with what Peter Jenkins said, because unless there is some movement, and a movement which must carry the people of both traditions along with it, we will never get beyond making this cursory examination of the Emergency Provisions Act and making it an annual fixture in Westminster. Indeed, it might still be going on when Lord Fitt's children are getting older. I feel very strongly that that alone would be very much to the detriment of all the people of Northern Ireland and that we must work towards a wider framework in which to achieve the peace and stability that they want to see.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies was kind enough to say in his remarks that during all the years of my lifetime I have always lived under emergency legislation. The Northern Ireland state was created by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act and on its creation it brought with it the 1920 Special Powers Act. That Act was renewed annually from 1920 until 1928, and at the end of 1928 the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland said—and of course I am paraphrasing: "It seems to be a bit of a farce going through this ritual every year and renewing this legislation which is so necessary to bolster and support the Unionist Government, so we might as well make it a permanent fixture on our statute book and at some time in the future it may become necessary to repeal it".
As we all know, that Act had to be repealed by a British Government in 1972 and 1973. It was replaced by the Act we are now discussing. I was a Member of the other House at the time and I instinctively rebelled and voted against this particular legislation when it was originally being enacted in the House of Commons. I did so because I had had the experience of living under the Special Powers Act and I read into the draconian provisions of this particular Act something which I could see would never be conducive to bringing peace and political harmony into political life in Northern Ireland.
I voted against it then and in all the years that have elapsed I have had no reason to regret doing so. Since then we have gone through the ritual in another place every six months—it used to be every year—of continuing this Act on the statute book. Normally in the other place it was done by way of an order, and the orders were normally taken after ten o'clock at night. But there were occasions when this legislation was dealt with on a Friday afternoon and there were occasions, normally in the run-up to a Recess when the business of the House is rather more flexible, when

465
it was debated perhaps on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in the prime time of the House of Commons.
I have to say, regretfully, that on the days when this legislation was being debated in prime time it did not in any way enlarge the attendance. No matter what time of day this legislation is being debated, it is not going to bring in hundreds or even scores of people to listen to the debates. Indeed, I notice that a record has been set up here today. There is a noble Baroness sitting on the Government side of the House—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. She has sat through the whole of this debate. That is something that should be written into the record, because there are very few noble Lords or MPs connected with the other side of the House—indeed, there are very few people in the building—who would sit through what we call Irish debates. It is noticeable also that when Welsh or Scottish Questions are being taken in the House of Commons the Benches are not lined with all kinds of English representatives who are showing an all-consuming interest in what is happening in Scotland or Wales.
I have myself had cause to complain about this, but I am not in the least surprised. Let us face facts: there are about a dozen, if that is not an exaggeration, noble Lords and Baronesses in this House who are interested in the Irish question. There are six at least who have spoken today, and they will speak in the next debate and in the following debate. It may be that we will perhaps enlist a few supporters. That is the way politics work in this building.
I hope that some people in the island of Ireland will take note of my remarks, because there seems to me to be a need for a devolved government in Northern Ireland. I believe that if there were a devolved government reactivated at Stormont in which both sections of the community could participate, at least we could say there would be a much better attendance. It may well be that nothing very much more constructive would come out of debates there, but at least people would be discussing their own destinies in the land in which they live.
I have lived in this part of the United Kingdom for the past two years and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said, my five daughters are now living in England. Fortunately for them, they will not have to live under legislation such as we are discussing now for Northern Ireland. But in fact, like every other citizen in the United Kingdom now, they are living under draconian legislation—the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I have opposed that Act also every time it has been renewed in the House of Commons, and when we forced Divisions I sometimes had five, sometimes 10, dedicated supporters in the "No" Lobby with me. The voting figures that we had then were derisory and I certainly have no intention of putting any figures like that on the record of this House.
However, when we are considering opposition to this type of legislation we must remember what happened two or three weeks ago. I know I cannot go into the matter in great detail because the cases may be sub judice, but the Prevention of Terrorism Act was used to arrest people and they have been charged with conspiring to create a number of explosions in seaside resorts throughout this country. If it were necessary to
466
use that Act to apprehend and arrest those people, then I would withdraw any objections which I ever had to the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
I believe that had those people not been arrested, or had those acts been carried out, great carnage would have taken place in this country—because they are resorts which are inhabited mostly by British working-class people; they are not like the South of France, where members of the affluent society go on holiday; they are working-class seaside resorts. Had there been a number of explosions which had taken place and which killed a number of ordinary working-class English people, as in the Brighton bomb—and we saw what happened there less than a year ago—can anyone contemplate for a single second what would have been the consequences? What would have been the consequences if the British Cabinet had been killed by that Brighton bomb?
Is there any IRA Republican activist anywhere in these islands who does not believe what the consequences would be if there were similar explosions at these seaside resorts? Not only would there he great anger in this island but I would suggest that if those attempts at murder and maiming had been successful the consequences for relationships between these islands would forever have to be put in abeyance. I say to those people who were responsible for the act in Brighton, and to those contemplating other acts, that they should think seriously of the consequences of their terrible actions.
As I say, I have opposed this Act. I can regretfully disabuse the Minister of something he said in his opening remarks. There has been trouble in Portadown today. I listened to the 12 o'clock news on the local radio station, and there have been four or five different riots taking place in Portadown. That does not surprise me, given the high tension and the atmosphere. One can only hope that the riots were not major riots; and, more particularly that when the bands are returning home this evening—because that is the dangerous time—the position will not get out of hand.
One of my great regrets has been that the English people do not have the opportunity to celebrate what happened in 1690, because that was an English revolution. It had absolutely nothing to do with Ireland. It was a family row between a son-in-law and his father-in-law. King William, the son-in-law, was brought over from Holland to boost his father-in-law, who was King James II. Unfortunately, they fought their last battle in Ireland in 1690, and we have had to live with the awful consequences of that ever since. I do not see anybody in Scotland, England or Wales out marching today, and demonstrating about the glorious victory that was achieved in the English revolution of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. We have been left with those consequences.
1.45 p.m.
Whether or not it takes this legislation or public order legislation, I think it is right that in 1985 the Northern Ireland Office seem to be grappling with the problem that we have had with us for centuries—that is, either the re-routing or the banning of marches which can be highly provocative and in fact have been throughout all the years that I have lived in Northern

467
Ireland. Every terrible crisis that we have seen and witnessed over the past 21 years has been preceded by a demonstration or a ban of some description. In 1964 we had the advent of Paisleyism, who said that he was going to ban a march if the Minister of Home Affairs did not do so. That led to the Divis Street riots. In 1966 there was the Republican commemoration, in which I myself took part, which led to a great deal of rioting as well. In 1968 we had the demand for Civil Rights preceded by a march. In 1972 we had the Bloody Sunday murders taking place after a march had taken place; and all the marches that have taken place since. I hope that the Government will persist in trying to grapple with this problem that we have had with us for so long.
On the reinstatement of this legislation today, I can only say I would hope that, irrespective of the sparse attendance in your Lordships' House, and indeed irrespective of the sparse attendance that they have in another place when Irish affairs are being discussed, that should not be used as an indicator to show that the British Parliament, or your Lordships' House, are not concerned about this type of legislation. It is the duty of the Government at all times to be looking at this legislation no matter how many people there may be in attendance. I would hope that the Government would be able to given an undertaking in response to the eminently reasonable remarks which have been made from the Front Bench here today by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I think that the objections that he has voiced would also be voiced by all those who believe in the democratic concept in Northern Ireland.
I would only wish to mention one further point, which I think is a major one. That is about the supergrass trials in Northern Ireland. I have said before that the supergrass trials have taken many dangerous men out of circulation. I realise that it is not the way of British justice to engage in such trials, and I understand the reason for the Diplock Courts. I understand that jury trials could not at this moment in time be re-instituted in Northern Ireland because juries would be under massive intimidation. But there is something wrong with supergrass trials when one solicitor and his wife who is a barrister undertake the defence in a supergrass trial in which there are 29 people involved. I hear from very genuine circles that the cost to the state of that supergrass trial amounted to £500,000 which was earned by the solicitor and his wife in the defence of those charged at that supergrass trial. There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong with the fact that so many accused people could be defended by what was in effect a man-and-wife team. I would agree with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that there should be a limit set on the number of people who can be charged in one case in a supergrass trial.
With those remarks, I would not myself want to divide the House but I would want to put on record my continuing dissatisfaction with this type of legislation. The sooner it can be removed from the statute book the better it will be for all in these islands.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him: does he appreciate that we
468
English will be celebrating our glorious revolution on its tercentenary in 1988; and that some of us hope that the tercentenary occurring in 1990 will be celebrated with equal harmony in Ireland?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am glad to hear that. I wish to God we could celebrate it only once every three hundred years. We do it every year.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as all your Lordships who have attended this debate have seen, we have had a short but, I believe, a very valuable debate, and in the last seconds an excellent and humorous interchange between the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I hesitate to intervene on these tercentenaries. We have had a debate on various issues which are of the very greatest importance to everyone in Northern Ireland.
I believe that it is the people in Northern Ireland that the Emergency Provisions Act is designed to protect; and it is your Lordships' House which shares with the other place the responsibilities for ensuring that effective anti-terrorist legislation is available to the police and, above all, to the courts. Sir George Baker took the view that it was right to ask the question: Is it reasonably foreseeable that repeal or amendment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act may deprive yet another man, woman or child of the right to life or the right to live free from fear? He came to the view that, while there was scope for some modifications, the basic powers were still essential to meet the terrorist threat. The Government agree that, while that threat has receded a little, it would be irresponsible for us to curtail the measures at our disposal just now.
With that opening paragraph, I should like to attempt to answer a number of points which your Lordships have made in the very interesting and constructive contributions this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a number of questions. I think he started with a thought on recommendation No. 70 by Sir George Baker. The noble Lord seems to indicate assent. Certainly, I confirm to your Lordships that the Government intend to publish detailed statistics on the operation of the Act as Sir George Baker recommended. I cannot give any indication about timing, but I give the assurance.
The noble Lord also mentioned one thought in his mind, which had crossed my mind in previous incarnations; that is, the tape recording of police interrogations. We take the view that this is not necessarily something which should be considered solely in the context of terrorism. We are therefore proposing to look at this in the context of a possible amendment to the normal law which follows the precedent of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for England and Wales. I hope that that will be some consolation to the noble Lord.
He also asked about the delays between first remand and trial. This is not solely a matter for the security forces, but it is a matter which concerns my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. They are all concerned to eliminate what I would call avoidable delays. Indeed, I seem to recall mentioning

469
field trials, which were not to be held out in the open, as your Lordships might have thought. We are examining the length of time between first remand and trial in all cases in England and Wales and are seeing what can be done. As a result of these examinations, we hope that we may learn something which will be applicable to the situation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of the recommendation of Sir George Baker that the Royal Ulster Constabulary should arrest on reasonable suspicion. When Section 11 of the emergency powers Act is repealed the RUC will rely on Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This, of course, contains an arrest power which is based on reasonable suspicion, and therefore we hope that that will indicate that the spirit of Sir George Baker's recommendation will be met.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether the powers which we have in the Act are desirable or necessary. I am sure he will agree that Sir George Baker concluded after his extensive review that with minor modifications they were needed, and still are. I invite your Lordships to agree that, in the interests of preserving our criminal justice system against what are clearly seen as threats and intimidation by terrorists, as well as in the interests of protecting the entire community in Northern Ireland, these powers are essential. If the situation were to change, the Government would be delighted to do away with the Act; but I am afraid that we cannot safely do so at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised one or two points. I hasten to add that there was no collusion, but there were at least two points which were in commonality with those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. We are very grateful for her speech and for her support. But the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the question of the Diplock courts and their composition. I think they will find that Sir George Baker believed that what he called a plurality of judges would not necessarily result in a fairer trial. In reaching that view he was echoing the recommendations of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Diplock and Lord Gardiner.
As I have on my little account's hat, may I say to the noble Baroness that 53 per cent. of those who pleaded not guilty to scheduled offences in 1984 in Northern Ireland were acquitted in the Diplock courts, and of those who were tried before jury courts and who, above all, pleaded not guilty, 50 per cent. were acquitted. We believe that that is reasonable evidence that a trial before a single judge in Northern Ireland is no less fair or expeditious than before any other form of court.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a number of very important points, and I am very grateful for the notice that he gave me of them. I hope the noble Lord will accept that I shall not be able to answer them all in detail today. But I assure him that we shall certainly take on board carefully his points and will take them into account, as we have taken into account the point which was made in the Standing Advisory Commission's recent report.
The noble Lord raised, among other points, the question of recruitment of catholics to the Royal
470
Ulster Constabulary. I am sure he will accept that this is a matter for the Chief Constable. All of us know that the RUC are very much alive to the importance of attracting recruits who are catholics. But I do not think it would be appropriate for attempts to be made to recruit only catholics from outside Northern Ireland, because we think that vacancies should be offered to all suitably qualified candidates. If the noble Lord were ever with me, he would find all kinds of accents and backgrounds in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Indeed, in that regard there are three or four people from my old regiment who scare me considerably with stories of my military career.
But the Government share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the police authority should be fully representative of the whole community. We also believe that there should be a regular dialogue between the police and the local community. The Londonderry Committee is not the only forum for such a dialogue, and I know that the police authority is looking at possible machinery for improving liaison between the police and the public.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I stress to him and to your Lordships that without any doubt the Ulster Defence Regiment remains an essential part of the counter-terrorist effort. The Government have no intention of disbanding it in the face of the current terrorist threat. As for any possible changes in the law, the Government see no need to change the present law on the use of force, which seems to us to be capable of coping fairly with all the different circumstances which can arise. I am sure the noble Lord and all of your Lordships will agree that these differing circumstances are very far removed from your Lordships' House on a lovely summer afternoon. I believe the same is true of the law on coroners' inquests. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be pleased to hear that the Government propose to introduce orders in council for Northern Ireland which would have broadly the same effect as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
2 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication at all as to when this will be?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot do so now; but we take the point on board. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance this afternoon. The noble Lord also asked about allowing persons who have been charged with offences in Northern Ireland to be tried in a different jurisdiction—that is, in Great Britain. We see no case for that. As for compensating persons who are held on remand in accordance with the law should they ultimately be found not guilty, again we find no real case for that.
I was interested in the noble Lord's detailed proposals for preserving civil and human rights in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the force of the points that he made about the sense of security to which his proposals might lead. This is, as I am sure he recognised, a long-term task. I assure him however that it is one to which the Government attach considerable priority and we shall certainly take account of these suggestions.

471
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned the composition of the Diplock courts. I hope I have answered her query on that. The noble Baroness also went some way to suggest that we had not taken into account fully all of the recommendations of the Baker Report. We have taken very careful note of the recommendations; but I am sure she will agree that they require a great deal of consultation with all the agencies that will be affected by and involved in the implementations of all of these recommendations. I have the recommendations before me and there are 74 of them. We are working our way through them and I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that it may take a little while. We have now announced the most important of our conclusions. As I announced, the Government will be introducing a Bill when the parliamentary timetable permits—and certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The noble Baroness also raised the interesting question of the New Ireland Forum Report. Your Lordships will know that the Government take the view that a great deal of the report was constructive and helpful but we have to say that none of the three constitutional options which the report identified could be accepted because they would have changed the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the consent for that from the majority in Northern Ireland simply was not forthcoming. But as I am sure the noble Baroness and your Lordships will accept, the Forum Report also makes clear that it was open for discussion of other views, and in response the Government have had constructive talks with the Irish Government over recent months. I am afraid that we do not yet know the outcome of these talks, but your Lordships will without doubt have an opportunity to debate those at the appropriate time.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the Special Powers Act. He also referred to marches. I have some information. I will not say that we play the game of "snap" but my information as to the Portadown situation at 12.30 p.m. is that, as we sit here, 3,000 Orangemen are holding a peaceful demonstration in Portadown town centre. We do not know what the movements of these Orangemen, these representatives of the eight country lodges, will be. The noble Lord referred to some trouble. This may be in reference to so called hooligans who purport to support the Orangemen. I understand that they have attacked a television crew and they have thrown stones and bottles at the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I understand that last night 11 members of the RUC were injured—luckily only in a minor way—in Ballynahinch and that there were further disturbances in Cookstown, Maghera, Londonderry and Belfast.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and your Lordships will be quite aware that many thousands of parades take place every year. Hundreds of parades have already taken place this year or indeed will take place along chosen routes. Only a very few have had to be rerouted or have given any trouble at all. But in every case of re-routeing this has been to minimise the dangers of confrontation and violence. The police are anxious to protect the marchers and members of the local community alike.
472
I hope that I have gone some way to answering the points that have been raised by your Lordships in the course of this debate on the Continuance Order of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will allow me to repeat that the Government's prime objective in Northern Ireland is the eradication of terrorism. We are making some progress, and with the full support of the community in Northern Ireland we can make yet more progress. But that support will continue to depend on measures which are seen to be effective and seen to be fair as well as on the professional and impartial enforcement of those measures.
We believe that the Emergency Provisions Act, and above all the procedures which are followed by the security forces and the courts, meet those demands and that the proposed changes to the Act which I have outlined to your Lordships today will in due course enhance that position. On that basis, I invite your Lordships to approve the continuance order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
2.7 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the Historic Churches (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships this year, be approved.
The order which is before your Lordships is relatively brief and its purpose is to introduce a scheme of grant-aid to listed churches. It would also bring listed churches within the system of listed building control from a day to be appointed.
Your Lordships will know that in Great Britain the scheme for grant aid to listed churches has been in existence on an experimental basis since 1976. At present it is extended to 1986. The proposals before us this afternoon would introduce a formal scheme of grant aid to listed churches in Northern Ireland along similar lines to the model we have in Great Britain.
The scheme stems from strong representations made to the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland by the churches in Northern Ireland, occasioned by rising costs in the upkeep of listed church buildings. Following those representations, my honourable friend Mr. Chris Patten announced on 5th July 1983 that a suitable scheme of grant aid would be introduced. The scheme was drawn up following consultations with all interested parties, including the various churches involved.
I hope that your Lordships will allow me to go through the provisions of the order. They include, first, the making of grants or loans towards expenditure incurred in the repair and maintenance of listed churches currently in ecclesiastical use. Secondly, the expansion of listed building control to listed churches in current use from a day to be appointed. Thirdly, the appointment of committees of the Historic Buildings Council to advise the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) on the operation of the scheme.
Your Lordships will also wish to know about the department's proposals for the administration of the grant aid scheme. The proposals are relatively straight-

473
forward and number six in all. First, the initial annual budget will be the sum of £150,000. Secondly, grant aid will be fixed at 33⅓ per cent. of eligible costs, subject to a limit of £25,000 to any particular scheme in a single year. Thirdly, grant aid will be restricted to repair and maintenance of the external fabric of church buildings and to associated works, such as the treatment of dry and damp rot. Such works as repairing and maintaining bells, stained glass windows and internal furnishings will not be included.
The fourth proposal is that the denominational aspect will not be taken into consideration in any way. Fifthly, claims will be dealt with in the order in which they are received. I hope that noble Lords will not be repeating the comment that minor officials in the department will be taking a lucky dip as to which churches will be fortunate enough to receive a grant. Applications will be dealt with, I hope expeditiously, in the order in which they are received. The sixth and final proposal is that the operation of the scheme will be carefully monitored and may be reviewed, if necessary, in the light of the experience which we obtain.
In summary, it is not the Government's immediate intention to bring churches in Northern Ireland within listed building control. Such a step would be taken only after the most careful consideration and consultation. What the order does is to provide the opportunity for listed churches to obtain historic buildings grant aid which until now has not been possible. This is a fairly simple and brief order. I look forward to hearing whatever points your Lordships may wish to raise on this order, which I commend to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House an 22nd May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, with this order we sail into a religious haven, we hope. However, the amount of the fund allotted under the order is very small. That must be obvious to all of us. As demand is likely to be great, the funds are likely to be inadequate. Even though the money will be spent on a religious building, it will not work miracles. We do not therefore expect results overnight.
The order refers to grants or loans. The first question I should like to put to the noble Lord the Minister is this: is the total figure of £150,000 per annum available for both grants and loans, or will the loans be drawn from an additional fund? Will such loans be interest-free, and over what maximum period of time will they be repayable?
Some concern has been expressed in the House of Commons about the failure to provide in the order a satisfactory procedure for processing the applications. The Minister has said that applications will be dealt with on a first come, first served basis. That basis is likely to be difficult. One hopes that with the passage of time the department will give further consideration to that aspect of the order and will develop broad guidelines that will be seen to be fair by all applicants.
Again, in the other place the Government were pressed to make part of the funds available for repairs and refurbishment of fittings inside the churches as well as to the church buildings. When I think of nonconformist meeting places in Wales—and Wales is
474
probably the most densely chapelled province in Britain—I see very clearly the need to preserve the interior fittings as well as the external fabric. On the other hand, as the funds are very modest, one hopes that the parishioners will continue to see their way clear to being responsible for the maintenance of indoor fixtures and fittings.
We welcome the order even though the sum is modest and even though it will not, therefore bring great relief to the churches. But it is important that the state acknowledges the principle of financial support for historic churches. That is significant. To be fair to the Government, I do not think that one can fairly attack them when they recognise the principle even though they cannot provide the funds necessary. Experience shows that once there is a heading in the estimates for a certain item it is usually there to stay. One's hope must be that, given an improved economic climate, Governments in future years will top up the fund so that this order can play a more substantial role in the life of the Province. With those few remarks it gives one pleasure to support the order.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the general tenor of the order and note, too, the inadequacy of the money which has been pledged. We understand some of the reasons why more money has not been given, but I must add that I would have welcomed from the Government Front Bench this afternoon an acknowledgment that it is inadquate as well as not merely a hope but a firm intention that the money will be increased as soon as possible. We had an acknowledgment of that inadequacy in another place and I think I am right in saying that, unless I nodded off, we did not have that acknowledgment this afternoon. I hope that before the debate is over we shall have that acknowledgment from the Government. It is extremely important.
I go along completely with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in saying that it is important to get the heading on the estimates and that from there on one can hope that having got a foot into the doorway, one will be able to insert more and more of one's body until one is firmly inside. Nevertheless, I think that it is important that the public in Northern Ireland, and the churches in particular, should have the feeling that the Government are well aware that what they are doing at the moment, although helpful, is not helpful enough and ought to be increased in the near future.
The Irish Council of Churches, writing to the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter on 25th January 1985—a copy of this letter is reproduced in the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly—said:
"Church representatives are opposed to the abolition of the ecclesiastical exemption from listed building consent as it would place a particular burden on those Churches who will not benefit from grant aid (some 80 per cent.) but will still have to face the full rigours of listed building consent. Grant aid has been made available in Great Britain for historic churches without the abolition of the ecclesiastical exemption. Churches argue that already internal controls exist for the vetting of alterations and extensions to Church buildings and that Churches themselves will be particularly sensitive to any change in the character or quality of their buildings.
"Churches feel that at the very least there should be no abolition of the ecclesiastical exemption in Northern Ireland before it is abolished in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Churches involved in the discussion with the Department of the Environment therefore

475
welcome the Department's undertakings not to introduce listed building consent at present (even though preparing the legislative ground work in the order) and that it will consult with the Churches before doing so".
There is a basic reservation about the direction in which the Government are going. Probably there is a feeling that it is inevitable and there is no great resistance, but there is some reservation. I believe that we should have a statement from the Government about what is the likely timetable. We are told, and the Northern Ireland churches have been told, that the Government will not go ahead with the general extension of listing until there is an overall step forward in Great Britain. What is the timetable for that? We know that the churches have been asked to produce a scheme on the matter, but what do the Government foresee as the timetable and the future of these particular orders? They must have something in mind or they would not have gone so far as to include the possibility of the general listing in this particular order that we have before us. I am in no way opposing what is happening, but I think we should be kept closely informed of what the Government see as their timetable and their programme, and I hope that they will take rather more opportunity in replying to this debate than they did in opening it to tell us what they think is going to happen.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, this is one of the non-controversial orders that has come before your Lordships' House in relation to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be acutely aware that churches and those who attend them, and those who go to them on marches and for commemoration services, can be very controversial in Northern Ireland. I know that when this order becomes known in Northern Ireland there will be many religious sections who will want to have their churches listed as historic buildings of some kind. It may be that some of them will be genuine and some of them less genuine, but I know that there will be quite a number of churches which will want to come in under the scope of this legislation.
I am also very fully aware of the position regarding a number of Protestant churches. I think of Carlisle Circus in Northern Ireland where I formerly lived, where three churches of different Protestant denominations have closed down within the past 10 years. I do not know what was the reason for it, but it seemed to be that people were failing to attend services at those churches. I only hope that they had found some other church where they could go on the Sabbath. I should not like to think that they had been stopped altogether from going to church. There is one church that springs particularly to my mind in relation to the debates which have been taking place in both Houses over the past few weeks, and that is Drumcree parish church outside Portadown. This is where the Orange march has been taking place, as we have heard, for the past 170 years and latterly, over the past 50 years, in circumstances of great trouble-making and provocation.
When replying to the earlier debate, the Minister said that there were 3,000 Orangemen having a sit-down protest in Portadown this afternoon because they were prevented from taking this traditional route
476
to Drumcree church. I only hope that the weather over there is as good as the weather is over here—
Lord Lyell: It is cold and wet, my Lords.
Lord Fitt:—because some of those old Orangemen who must be taking part in this sit-down protest are as old and decrepit as I am and I should not like to think that they were sitting down for very long at Portadown on damp ground this afternoon. It would be no good for them as regards their future marches.
So far as Drumcree church is concerned, if it is listed—and I have no doubt that there will be great claims to have it listed—would it not be possible for it to be taken down stone by stone and shifted into a more suitable part of Portadown? Such things have been done before. I am sure that if the Minister needed any labour to carry out this task, he would find that it would be all too readily available from the Obin Street part of Portadown. Men would very willingly and lovingly carry every stick, stone and statue from this Drumcree church to place it right in the centre of Portadown, and that would render it unnecessary for 3,000 of those old fellows to engage in a protest such as they are making this afternoon. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I shall certainly take into account the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his concluding remarks. However, we must remember that an afternoon like this in your Lordships' House is a family occasion and perhaps we had better not go into all the things that he gets up to and the exercise that he may take of an afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to warn me about at least one of the points he would raise—the question of funds. I am able to assure him and all your Lordships that the 150,000 covers loans and grants. He will be interested to note that loans will be available on conditions in line with those set by the Public Works Loan Board. They will generally be over a period of up to 10 years with a rate of interest depending upon the duration. Currently the rate is in the region of 13 per cent. In view of the interest rates and the limited budget, the department would not anticipate an appreciable demand for loans, especially when grant aid is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised a number of points. We are grateful to him for his interest in the order. He asked us to acknowledge the paucity of funds. I think that my honourable friend in another place used the term, "a small crock of gold". I have given the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the scheme will be kept under careful review, and that includes the funds available.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, also inquired about listing. Ecclesiastical exemption would be removed only after the most careful consideration and consultation with churches and certainly not before abolition in Great Britain. He may be interested to know that we hope the completion of listing powers in Northern Ireland will be in the fairly near future, but the department's resources are under considerable

477
pressure. I stress that it is prepared to carry out a review of those churches which on present listing would not necessarily be eligible for grant aid.
However, that requires the advice of a committee of the Historic Buildings Council to be appointed under Article 5 of the proposed order and the provision of additional architectural resources. I am afraid that that cannot be undertaken immediately. I understand that it is currently proposed to offer grant aid at least at the outset only to churches of architectural importance of grade A and grade B-plus. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of Drumcree. The noble Lord is not in the Chamber, but I understand that it is grade B and so would not be eligible for grant aid at the outset.
The noble Lord remarked on what he called the Orange sit-down. I understood it was a peaceful protest, but he has considerably more experience of these matters than I do. When I left the Province this morning it was considerably cooler and damper than it is here. The advice given to everybody going to and taking part in the marches was to bring a raincoat. I share his concern that anybody who sits down might suffer from a painful complaint, but perhaps not. Certainly I understand that the weather is not as favourable as it might be. We shall take note of what he said about Drumcree, but I do not invite him to spend his afternoons in a dismantling operation. Indeed, I hope he will not.
We are grateful to your Lordships for the concern expressed about the order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Industrial Base: Reconstruction
2.30 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they are taking to plan the reconstruction of the United Kingdom's industrial base by encouraging the provision of the most up to date equipment, the training and retraining of employees to provide a labour force with the necessary skills, and the development of new technology.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This Unstarred Question has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. Ever since it has appeared on the Order Paper I find—and I am sure this is simply by chance—that Her Majesty's Government and indeed Her Majesty's Opposition have become interested in the Question. They have established all kinds of inquiries to find out precisely what is the situation. I do not know whether I can claim that that is because of my putting this Unstarred Question down on the Order Paper. If it is merely a happy coincidence, then it is a worthwhile one and I find it most gratifying and encouraging.
What we are talking about is the future of our nation. Our recent past has not been particularly encouraging, particularly in so far as we are the land which led the Industrial Revolution of yesteryear and when one realises that in nearly four-fifths of the world wherever there is a railway track laid that is because the English thought of the idea first. I could give a long,
478
long list of what the English have invented and produced—right down, even, to the rubber band. Regrettably, they have often left others to exploit it. However, I happen to believe that the innate genius is still there.
I want to ask straight away the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to reply to the debate in his capacity as Minister, this question. What burdens on industry have the Government removed to try to revitalise particularly the manufacturing industry? We hear a good deal about those burdens. I am sure they exist. However, I should like to know a little more precisely what they are.
Our industrial base is the foundation of our future. It urgently requires enlarged provision of up-to-date equipment. We must maintain the capacity and perspicacity to constantly update. In the disciplines of modern industrial equipment, technical and technological advance in the, to many of us, bewildering world of computerisation is inevitable and now urgent. The changes in a decade almost deny comprehension. No doubt some of us in this Chamber who may have had some experience in some of the great craft industries and who have been apprentices, or even scientists, find it difficult to understand this massive advance in the past few decades, which I believe is only just getting underway. America has shown the way. It is only just getting underway and there is more to come. I am desperately anxious that this nation shall not fall behind. We have to design and improve equipment at all levels of industry. It is true that we are doing so but I believe without the full drive that the urgency of the situation commands.
In relation to employees, I believe that more schemes of training and retraining must be undertaken. There must be permanent links forged between the shop floor and universities; between technical colleges and training centres. They must no longer be looked at as little empires on their own, little islands of contribution. They must have bridges or links between them to take full advantage of why they were created.
We must make a reality of our high tech vision. The Government funded the MEP, the Microelectronics Education Programme. I praise and laud them for it. It has indicated our route. However, when one realises that, after having done this, we have only trained via it 25 per cent. of our teaching force, this seems to me a very serious form of myopia. The variations that exist among our schools are too great. Some schools use computers a great deal and others not much. These variations between standards of teaching science, technology and computerisation are too great to ignore. They are a danger, and we must do something about it. The monopoly of maths and science seems to be breaking down. That is a particularly good thing. I happen to be among those who believe that vital imagination is much more than having a detailed knowledge of maths and science. The ideal situation is to link them both together.
Domination of the economy by new technology is now inevitable. So, too, is the encouragement of the expansion of technology and a science-based industry. Great Britain has not yet acquired a science-based industry. We have talked about it a great deal. There has been much about it recently in the newspapers and

479
other forms of the media. But it is always talked of as happening in the future. One never hears that within three, four or five months we shall have taken a giant step towards establishing a science-based industry. That is vital. It is exactly what the United States of America has done. We have to emulate that performance.
I believe that the encouragement of expansion of technology is also vital in all forms of teaching. The start must be made in our primary schools. I have raised this matter previously in the House. I have seen how young children in the state of Minnesota are able to use, even as a toy, a computer that baffled me. I am not particularly dull, but that is what happened. My granddaughter can teach me how to use it. We have not yet advanced to this stage. I agree that there are dangers, and I shall come to these later. I wish, however, that we were facing these dangers and that they were not absent because we are not giving the priorities to computerisation that we should be giving.
I believe that experience with computers must begin at an early age. Jack and Jill must control the robot to fetch the pail of water. They should not be humping it themselves. There is no future in that. The future engineer, musician, fitter and poet will have to learn to work with a keyboard and terminal. It is the job, I believe, of the Government in collaboration with the CBI and the TUC to see that we avoid waste of talent among boys and girls. Our watchword must be that current shortages of microskills will not be tolerated. That is vital to the quintessential submission that I make.
Adaptation must be speeded up. Open tech units must be increased. I also believe that the quality of instruction must be improved. It has to be realised that youngsters entering our technical colleges or universities this week will be the instructors in 18 months' time. We have to see that they are geared to the most up-to-date methods not only in what they are teaching but in what they pass on to other technicians. A new breed of scientists must be assisted to emerge.
The great companies of the CBI and the vast coverage of the TUC must be brought together to provide a permanent joint new technology scientific computerisation board. This should not be a one-off operation and they should not have to wait for the Government, of any complexion. They are essential to this idea of mine becoming a great success. I believe that if the TUC and the CBI and those involved in similar aspects of our industrial and commercial life wish to contribute they should be allowed to do so, in establishing this new technological scientific computerisation board. Its purpose in the first instance will be to serve its members. Inevitably, however, it will also serve our nation. Young people leaving school today will retire in the second third of the next century. This by itself demands massive improvements in teaching and training. It must be our top priority investment.
One word of warning. Educational specialisation can also be a great danger. We must never allow the arts and the humanities to drop below the science and technical world. They are of equal importance. Basic skills must be taught in a manner which avoids the essentials being outdated. I shall say that again because
480
it has been part and parcel of the United States' approach to the whole problem. Basic skills in the United States are taught in a manner so as to avoid the essentials of that teaching being outdated. They catch up all the time. We can learn a great deal from that, and we ought to emulate it.
I should like to give the House an example of what the United States has gained from this. When we look at the American record on jobs we see that there are numerous comparisons which show that United States' employment creation outclasses that of Europe. While Western Europe has lost an aggregate of 2 million jobs in the last decade, the United States has added 20 million (and five million of these since the recession in 1980–81) in a formidable display of economic power. Altogether in 1984 the United States' economy generated 3·5 million private sector jobs. It is interesting to note that this big advance was to a great degree assisted, aided, and supported by the publicly-owned sector of the United States of America. The high rate of United States' job creation is not a new phenomenon. They have done it before, and, just as important, so have we.
With regard to the development of new technology, the application of microelectronics involving computers, telecommunications, the automation of equipment and genetic engineering is spreading in Japan and in the United States. We to a degree are making an effort, and so are other parts of Europe. It follows that information technology will herald the new industrial age.
Just as we created a new industrial age a few centuries ago with our Industrial Revolution, now this new industrial age has been created by the United States of America. But they could not have created the second industrial revolution if we in Britain had not created the first. The sensible thing is that we ought to get together. We ought to invite here United States' businessmen and scientists and not just foreign secretaries and presidents, and all those important people. We ought to get these equally important people to come to this country and talk with our scientists and technologists, and to help in the seeking out and teaching of that technology which will herald the new industrial age.
One of the main worries of Europe is that information technology in the broadest sense—that is, everything from computers to telecommunications—is a strategic industry, but in this particular field (and it is difficult to have to say this) Europe has practically nothing. That is why a moment ago I urged seeking the collaboration and full co-operation of our colleagues in the United States of America.
I am firmly convinced that all parties, professions, and craft skills in this country would support the quintessentials of my submission. I also believe that we still possess one of the greatest assets of all time—the determination, courage and willpower of our British people.
In my maiden speech in this House—I am drawing to a conclusion—I thought it right and proper in regard to the subject matter to quote our great poet Milton. I shall quote him again briefly this afternoon. Milton said that we are,
"a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit; acute to invent; subtle and sinewy in discourse; not beneath

481
the reach of any point—the highest that human capacity can soar to"
I conclude with this: the way ahead for our country will present a formidable challenge, but it is not new to this nation. We have faced challenges before and overcome them. I should like to see us garner the best of Britain today, to train our nation for an even finer and better Britain for tomorrow, not merely for the sake of Great Britain and its people but also for what we shall then be able to give to the less fortunate parts of the world.
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak, but I feel that this is an extremely important debate. I am sorry that it was set down on a Friday as an Unstarred Question because it raises so many matters of real importance to the nation. I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes, certainly not more than five. I should like to make one or two points.
First, there is undoubtedly a shortage of certain types of artisan and technical grades that our industry urgently needs. We should do everything we can to make good that deficiency. Secondly, there is a shortage of technicians and university graduates who are trained in engineering and the other skills that are required in industry and who are willing to go into industry. It was pointed out some years ago that in Germany perhaps 80 per cent. of first-class people, not necessarily from university, but able people, went into industry, whereas only 30 per cent. went into our own industry. That is a desperate shortage and is the shortage from which we now suffer. There are insufficient really able men in our industry.
The strange thing is that the Robbins Report long ago tried to help us to catch up with the number of graduates in Russia and elsewhere, always with the idea, apparently, of producing more people who would be useful to society as a whole. But what a tragedy it has been! From an industrial point of view we wanted more people trained in science, engineering and management. But what did we get, my Lords? We had a lot more rubbishy, third-rate art courses, and at that time it was even believed that it did not matter what was taught at university and however badly it was taught; because it was taught in a university, it was self-justifying. This is a disaster.
An even greater disaster was the technical colleges which had been producing a useful outtake of students, but they tried to ape the older universities and we lost out by producing a large number of new universities which were unable to produce the skills needed by industry; nor were they able to produce what was needed by society. The latter is a very important point.
I say, and I say again, that the best training of a mind that I ever received in my life—and I was up at Cambridge—was the Army Staff College. It taught me to think, and many of the disciplines in university do not do so. Furthermore, we found that for many going to university, if they had reasonable capability, was an escape from going into industry.
All that is changing; but it is difficult to change. It is not possible to change suddenly from a lot of arts courses, which may not be very useful, to something more practical. It takes time. That is happening. But of
482
course what we never seem to realise at all is that the strength of this country has always been in its engineers; and latterly we have been bad at the development and production stages. Our research work and our scientists were, and still are, excellent. What we simply fail to do is to produce the product. That is where we are failing.
It is very unfortunate that the status of our engineers, who are responsible for just this, has declined. Many attempts are being made to increase their status and to get more really able people into that profession. But we have a very long way to go. That is one of the things that we must do for the future: hut it will take time. That, my Lords, is my five minutes.
2.51 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend and colleague Lord Molloy on choosing this very important subject for a debate, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who has just spoken in saying that it is a pity that the debate could not be held at a more prime time in the House. As my noble friend Lord Molloy said in his opening remarks, we are of course discussing the future of ourselves as a nation and what plateau of social structure and life our children and their children will have to endure or live on.
I remember that some weeks ago a similar debate took place in this Chamber. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on that occasion who used terms such as, "We have had jam yesterday and jam today but unless we get this right there will be no jam tomorrow". I know that he will forgive me for repeating those terms. I think that they encapsulate what we are talking about. The last Labour Government, with all their faults, identified the problem that was then assuming large proportions. They had already taken decisions in conjunction with the TUC that if re-elected they would give absolute priority to sustaining and developing our manufacturing base because, without that, we have very little future or no future at all.
People ask, "What immediate measures can be taken?" I am not speaking in isolation, because it is on record quite recently, when I say that pillars of business (certainly not pillars of socialism) such as the CBI are asking for a reduction in interest rates in order to allow the money to be invested in industry, in some of what I think they term our sunrise industries, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth has spoken. I do not know whether any noble Lords present were able this morning to take on board an interview with somebody from one of the universities which is engaged in developing robotics. It was quite fortuitous that I was able to listen to what he said, because that also underpinned something that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said. The person interviewed said that people assumed that this country comes a very poor third in robotics and technical developments, compared with America and Japan. He went on to say that that is not the case and that in certain areas we are doing as well and in some cases better.
However, when the initial process has taken place and things should be made available in a marketable sense to attract investment or to make money, we fall

483
down. The money is not available; or, if it is available, it is not finding its way to doing that very job. And, of course, the people who are taking advantage of it are the Americans and the Japanese, almost exclusively, and not the rest of Europe. Therefore, in my opinion we are exporting some wonderful expertise from this country, trained over here almost at market rates.
If I may digress for a moment, I should like to say a word about one part of the admirable speech made by my noble friend and colleague Lord Molloy. He talked, I think, about the humanities and the arts, referring to our future educational needs and the system in the universities. As an ex-shop floor engineer, I take the view with some reluctance that in the language of priorities I do not want to see, any more than my noble friend does, the arts and the humanities suffer. But if we do not get this right there will be an ever-diminishing amount of resources to sustain education in those things. It may well be that the arts and humanities may have to decelerate for a while in order to get the industrial base and the future of the economy right so that funds can be provided for those purposes.
One thing has benefited us. I know that the pound has dramatically fluctuated over a number of years, but I do not think there is any question that the devaluation of the pound, mainly against the dollar (because it has pretty well held its own against most other currencies and has done rather better than some of them), and the opportunities so created, while they benefited us to some extent could have benefited us a little more. I am glad that this debate has taken place in an objective atmosphere, because there is no point in just getting up and repeating criticisms of the Government. But I do have to say that—and it is not being said only by me and my party—that I wish more opportunity had been taken to plough the huge funds gathered since 1979, when the last Labour Government went out of office, into the very things that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, have talked about: that is, the huge sums of money that have been gathered in from our oil revenues.
I know it is not easy to transfer money into jobs, and sometimes one can invest a lot of money and create only a very few jobs; but I believe that a substantial part of the money that has been spent on increased social service benefits and unemployment payments because of unemployment would have been better spent at an earlier stage on retraining and on reinvesting in some of these industries. For instance, Inmos should quite clearly have been developed and underpinned by increased Government funding at the right time. I do not take the view that the Government are doing any service to us in just indulging in privatisation for the sake of privatisation. I do not believe in nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. Where an industry is doing well, its workers are happy and it is developing, it should be left alone. I think the Government are going a little too far in that situation.
I should like in the next few minutes (because I do not intend to detain the House for very long on this) to take the opportunity of looking at what happened to our industrial base in the ten years from 1971 to 1981.
484
In industry, the figure for men in full-time employment is minus 1,576,000; in services the figure is increased by 200,000. The balance is obviously shifting the wrong way, certainly dramatically, even though one has to accept that the service sector in a developing society will have a bigger role to play. In regard to part-time men in industry there is no change, but in the service industry there has been 124,000 extra jobs created for men on a part-time basis.
With regard to women in full-time employment, 534,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industries in the same 10 years. In the service industries in the same period there was an increase of 322,000 jobs in the women's sector. In regard to part-time jobs for women, in industry the figure is minus 76,000, and in the service industries it is plus just over a million.
Once again these are dramatic figures that compound what has been happening; there has been a tremendous erosion of jobs in our manufacturing base. Some of those people, such as skilled engineers and those from wool working and textile industries, have borne the biggest brunt of those losses. There may have been some training, but it should have taken place before. However, I have to have regard obviously to the fact that the Government have a very substantial retraining programme.
Since 1981 up to the time of the current figures the manufacturing industries alone have lost 652,000 jobs, while jobs in the service industries have gone up by 377,000. That is another indication that the growth which is taking place in the service industries in terms of wealth creation and the GNP is vastly outstripping the number of jobs that are being lost in the manufacturing sector.
As an ex-Member of another place who represented a northern constituency and as an indigenous northerner myself, I am disturbed by one thing. Perhaps I may read this brief paragraph before I conclude:
"Engineering and textiles manufacture have been notoriously badly hit. Between 1981 and April of this year the number of people in manufacture has dropped by three-quarters of a million. In Northern Ireland and the North and West the percentage of industrial jobs lost since 1978 runs at 30 per cent. The equivalent figure for London and the south-east is just on 15 per cent".
The source of this is the Employment Gazette. It also states:
"Great Britain is fast becoming a new Italy with an economic divide North/South that will soon be irreversible".
In closing I should like to put a point to the Minister. I mentioned this a few weeks ago when we debated the statement on Stansted, or the airports policy. The people in the north, irrespective of what Government Ministers say or what their representatives say, are firmly of the opinion that they have a Government who care more for the south than they do for the north. All the figures on employment and investment, whichever way one looks at the situation, certainly reinforce this view. I do not expect the Minister to take that on board and to reply immediately because I appreciate that this is a very complex subject, with a mass of figures to prove the argument. But I hope that the Minister will take note of what is being said with increasing frequency—and not just by members of my party, his own party or the Alliance. It is coming across

485
to the broad spectrum of the people in the north that they come second on every issue.
I should like to say once again that my friend and colleague Lord Molloy has done us a great service in enabling us to debate this very important subject. If we do not get this situation right, we shall not have a future. I hope that eventually we do get it right. My Lords, we must move in the right direction.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, like a number of noble Lords, particularly those coming from an engineering background. I rather regret that we are spending a beautiful sunny afternoon in July in discussing such an important subject, because the importance of industry is in no doubt at all. Despite the hour and the number of contributors to our short debate this afternoon, its importance is in no way undermined. A number of speakers have mentioned the importance of industry as part of our economic stability and also its importance in other areas.
I remind your Lordships of the most interesting debate that we had only a few weeks ago which was initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on the subject of Industry Year 1986. I should like to say again, as I said on that occasion, that we welcome the initiative of the Royal Society of Arts, supported by the CBI, the British Institute of Management and the TUC, among others, in making 1986 Industry Year. Again, I remind your Lordships that the object of that is to encourage a better understanding of industry, its essential role and its service to the community. The Goverment, and indeed your Lordships, gave this initiative unanimous support when we debated it in May.
We are committed to a healthy, vigorous and competitive manufacturing sector, but at the same time we have to recognise the integral role of the services in our economy. Government do not design a difference in importance between the manufacturing sector and the service. This is how the relationship between the two has effectively evolved in the changing domestic and world situation.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the employment figures in the service sector increased by 504,000 between March 1983 and December 1984. There are nearly 13½ million peple usefully and properly employed in that sector. Therefore it is important that we deploy all our resources in the service sector and in the manufacturing sector to the best effect. We have to recognise that the decline in the share of manufacturing in total output is a trend which has been evident for many years. Manufacturing output accounted for 40 per cent. of GDP in 1955 and for 25 per cent. in 1984. In employment terms, yes, I recognise what noble Lords have said, because the share of manufacturing has declined from 40 per cent. to 26 per cent. in those years.
However, this is not a development peculiar to the United Kingdom; it is common to many industrialised countries. What causes more concern is that there has been a very long-term decline in our manufacturing productivity relative to that of our competitors. One indication of that is the decline in our share of main
486
manufacturing countries' exports from 20 per cent. in 1955 to 15 per cent. in 1963, to 9 per cent. in 1979 and to 8 per cent. today.
Underlying this decline were shortcomings in both price competitiveness and what have been collectively know as non-price factors—quality, design, reliability and delivery. And to the other symptoms of poor performance was added an absolute decline in manufacturing output of 4 per cent. Since then I think we would all agree that we have seen a remarkable improvement in major aspects of industrial performance, particularly in productivity and profitability.
In the years prior to 1979—I do not pick these to match the 10-years span of 1971 to 1981 of the noble Lord, Lord Dean—we thought the specific solution being offered to these ills was too often to prop up sick and ailing enterprises with an injection of taxpayers' money. Such injections become addictive—a convenient way, as drug addicts find, of avoiding the difficulties of a fiercely competitive world.
Regulation and intervention were seen as substitutes for enterprise and initiative. Not the minimum regulation necessary to ensure smooth working of the market, but regulation and intervention to insulate and protect producers from the signals which the market conveys. Such measures can succeed—and perhaps did—in the short term in protecting an enterprise and its workers from the consequence of change in demand and a failure to adapt. The difficulty is that, when the adjustment comes, it is even more painful than one envisages.
The failure of past measures has been all too apparent. The general solution added more to inflation than to performance and competitiveness. The specific solution contributed to a belief that reality could somehow be indefinitely avoided. If all else failed, the Government could be relied upon to find taxpayers' money in support. The willingness to take a risk had little place.
We do not believe in answers of this kind. We do not believe that industrial performance can be improved by restricting dividends, denigrating profits and preventing overseas investment. We do not believe that protection is the answer. Protection of industry too often means protecting industrial inefficiency. Nor do we believe that subsidy is an answer to managerial or market weakness. Subsidy itself breeds inefficiency, and its inevitable partner—taxation—stifles incentive and blunts the competitiveness of the successful enterprise.
Our overall solution to the problems caused by this long history of substandard performance has been to create a climate in which industry can compete and flourish, and to direct Government assistance towards helping industry to acquire the ability to compete, rather than insulating it from the effects of its failure to do so. A prime requirement in restoring competitiveness is the control of costs. It is therefore to help the recovery of manufacturing industry, as well as in the interests of the nation generally, that the Government are determined to continue the fight against inflation.
But industry itself has a responsibility. If inflation is to be held, if it is to be reduced further, wage

487
settlements have to be lower. A second requirement is to reduce the burden of taxation on those who work and invest in industry. We are now well into the staged reductions of corporate tax announced in the 1984 Budget. Beginning next year the rate will reduce to 35 per cent. from a figure of 52 per cent. at that time. Rates of personal taxation are particularly relevant to those who work in and who finance small firms. We have, moreover, introduced specific measures to encourage the flow of capital to small firms, notably through the Business Expansion Scheme. I would also say, not in particular answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that we have brought a new spirit of enterprise to some of our largest industries through the return of firms in the public sector to the private sector, and those results are reported in the newspapers as the weeks go by.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made some very interesting and wide-ranging comments on industry. He will forgive me if I say that interesting though I found his speech, I could not agree with much of it. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand because sometimes we approach these matters from a different viewpoint.
The noble Lord asked me particularly about burdens on industry. Specifically in this Administration we have abandoned price controls, factory building controls, dividend controls, hire purchase controls and foreign exchange controls. That is a fairly long list. I remind the House that those controls were in place in the late 1970s and not the late 1940s. As well as removing those burdens, we abolished the national insurance surcharge, which in its heyday amounted to a burden of some £3 billion on industry's costs. We are not going to stop there.
The Burdens on Business document published last March reported on the work of an inter-departmental study of regulatory burdens. My noble friend Lord Young of Graffham is leading further work within the Government to consider the options. His report is anticipated quite shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, also spoke of—if I may encapsulate his remarks—the American example. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has referred to the success of the American enterprise in the reduction of regulations and in ensuring freedom and encouragement for small businesses to establish themselves. However, I must give one word of warning to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Much as he may extol much of American industry, it is of some little disappointment to Her Majesty's Government that the Americans appear to be seeking the introduction of protectionist policies to sustain growth. I can only say that were they so to do, that would cause a great deal of damage not only to themselves but also to their trading partners across the world. Protectionism does not add to worldwide trade, upon which our economy, the American economy and the world's economy depends.
I turn now to some of the more specific measures that we are taking to encourage the development of our industrial base. I remind the House that a comprehensive range of support is available to industry. Much of that is administered by my own
488
department, the Department of Trade and Industry. We have found a repackaging of assistance measures necessary, largely in response to complaints from industry that the schemes and services offered were so numerous that business people found it difficult to establish what help was worth having and where they could obtain it. I shall briefly but not exhaustively run over four main heads.
The first is business and technical advisory services, embracing a wide range of general advice, grants for consultancy work to improve works and processes, and grants towards feasibility studies of employing new technology. Another is support for innovation. Selective financial support is available for research and development, leading to new products and processes and for longer term applied research projects. Thirdly, there is support for investment. The general objective here is to improve competitiveness, to encourage the growth of employment and investment. The final category of DTI assistance that I want to underline this afternoon is the help and support given in the area of exports, but I shall not expand on that aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, also said in his speech that he placed as a top priority further expenditure on training, particularly in engineering. He went on to say—as so many people do—that equally he wanted enough money spent on the arts and humanities. Each of us has our top priority. It is our job in Government to balance the priorities, and I think that we have perhaps got that balance about right.
The Question on the Order Paper this afternoon quite rightly refers not only to industry's equipment but to its labour force and to the need for training and retraining. The Government believe that it is essential to our economic survival that we have sufficient people with the skills to meet the demands of new technologies and to cope with continuing change. The Government's objectives in the training sphere were set out in the White Paper A New Training Initiative. I accept, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that training starts with the young. Their initial training should instil both the necessary skills and the flexibility to adapt to change. Let us not forget, when we are thinking of the young and introducing them to modern technology, that through the micros in school scheme we have an average of 10 micro computers in each secondary school, with many more in primary schools. We are ahead of all our major competitors in that area. I, too, have seen youngsters using these. I was giving prizes at a school recently and a class of four-and-a-half-year-olds were demonstrating to me what they can do with writing simple programmes and directing pieces of machinery across the classroom floor. That is very impressive. We lead in that respect.
I have always believed that traditional apprenticeships are costly and often hidebound by institutional obstacles, such as time-serving. We are emphasising the need to modernise that. The training and retraining of adults is equally vital—certainly something not recognised until a few years ago.
In using the expression "labour" I do not mean only operatives but professional staff such as engineers, of which we do have a shortage and where Britian has lagged behind countries such as France and Japan. We

489
must retrain people into those engineering skills, which are in such high demand. Similarly, I believe the educational institutions have not always recognised training needs. Perhaps industry has not been able to explain to the educational institutions what it is they really want. Those two elements, which have been underlined this afternoon, have pointed to a widening gap between those in industry and those involved in the provision of education. Therefore, the Government have been concerned to improve the links between industry and those who provide for the training and retraining of its workforce. Through measures such as the teaching company scheme and through our increased funds to further and higher education, we have devoted our energies to this.
However, a key element to this strategy is its recognition that the prime responsibility for training must rest with employers because, at the end of the day, they are the direct beneficiaries. In balancing these demands on public expenditure the Government can only afford to fund a fraction of the needs. We have, of course, MSC's role as a catalyst and pump-primer in convincing employers of the importance of investing in training. It is an interesting fact that, of all those people applying for jobs who have recently undertaken retraining programmes, 58 per cent. sought and obtained employment, whereas two years ago only 51 per cent. were successful.
I can offer only the briefest outline of the support for industry which the Government provide. In the vital areas of research and development, innovation and technology transfer, we have doubled our expenditure on support in real terms and our policies here have produced an industry which is altogether fitter, as indeed is our manufacturing industry, more competitive, more efficient and more in tune with the needs of the market. We intend, and we will ensure, that there is a climate in which industry itself can continue to build on those strengths. It is a policy which is clearly working.
I say that on the strength of these few facts. Gross Domestic Product is at its highest-ever level. We are entering our fifth year of uninterrupted economic growth. In the first quarter of this year manufacturing output was 10 per cent. above the trough of early 1981, and in 1985 as a whole it is forecast to increase by 2½ per cent. Productivity growth in the United Kingdom's manufacturing industries has been among the highest in the major industrialised countries in recent years. In the three months to April this year it was over 29 per cent. up on the final quarter of 1980.
Profitability is improving. For non-North Sea industrial and commercial companies, the net real rate of return was around 7 per cent. in 1984, the highest since 1978. Business investment increased by 13 per cent. in 1984. Our current account was in surplus for the fifth year running in 1984. Exports of manufactured goods grew 10 per cent. by volume in that year. The number of people in employment has risen by over 600,000 since the spring of 1983. The CBI have reported a significant increase in business confidence since January. Their monthly trends in surveys of manufacturing are reporting the best results
490
on total orders since the survey was introduced in 1977.
It is from evidence such as this that our policy draws its strength. Your Lordships will understand that I make no apologies. I am confident that the Government's present policies meet the three points that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, put so interestingly in his Question this afternoon.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is one point which worries me, though I did not interrupt him. He seemed to say (and I may have got it entirely wrong), that he equated the manufacturing and the service industries as equally important. I am not sure how he defines a service industry, but surely it is only the manufacturing industry which contributes to the health of the nation and the balance of payments. Surely on that ground it is wrong to equate them or consider them as equal.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I did not seek to equate anything at all. What I sought to underline was the importance of the service industries, and there is no doubt that modern technology, the making of things, in fact may be assisted with such programmes as CADCAM. CADCAM needs servicing: telecommunications need servicing, need selling, need financing. These are the service industries. To an extent they go hand in hand. There is certainly no equating nor equalising. But when we talk of industry, as the Question does, I seek not to draw a blind across the importance of the service industries and their contribution to our economic strength.
House adjourned at half past three o'clock.