Lords Sitting of 11 March 1985

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

Disarmament Negotiations
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in their consultations with the United States Government on the content of the interrelated disarmament negotiations to be carried on in Geneva, they will ensure that all Soviet nuclear weapons capable of causing "strategic" damage to the United Kingdom (such as certain sea-launched missiles able to deliver multi-hundred kilo-ton warheads, including Shaddock) will be included in the negotiations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Allies were clear and unanimous in 1979 that the longer-range land-based Soviet missiles such as the SS20 were the part of Soviet INF which posed the,
"most serious and immediate threat to NATO".
We believe that the most effective approach to INF arms control involves a step-by-step process. But we do not ignore the threat from other systems in the Soviet arsenal. We remain in close contact with our allies on these issues, especially through NATO's Special Consultative Group.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the Written Answer given by his colleague, Mr. Luce, in the House of Commons on 20th February of this year at col. 467, in which he stated:
"We welcome United States and Soviet agreement to begin negotiations in Geneva on 12th March on the whole range of space and nuclear arms"?
2
I emphasise the phrase,
"the whole range of … nuclear arms".
Can the noble Lord tell the House which is right? Will the negotiations be about the whole range of nuclear arms or, as he has just indicated, only a part of the range of nuclear arms? Also, for what reason has Shaddock been left out of all arms control negotiations during the last 15 years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as always, both my honourable friend and I are right. The question of Shaddock which the noble Lord raises ought to be considered in the context that it is very much an obsolescent system and probably would not justify a place on its own in the negotiations. Certainly we do not dismiss the idea of talks covering the whole range of nuclear weapons generally, but in terms of reaching agreement in arms control matters we very much prefer the step-by-step approach. No other has proved to have any kind of potential for success so far.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that all these step-by-step discussions over the past 10 years have resulted in one thing—an ever-increasing number of nuclear weapons that can now wipe out all mankind? Is he not further aware that people of all political persuasions with a deep interest in this subject think it is about time that Great Britain and her European colleagues should tell the Americans, just as they should tell the Russians, that we can no longer stand by and watch the scene being dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union and that the voice of Britain and her European colleagues should also be heard, so as at least to stop the present accumulation of nuclear arms and sincerely work out a method whereby they can be reduced?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am bound to share the noble Lord's disappointment about the progress of disarmament discussions generally in years past, but I doubt whether progress would have been any better with one country or another hectoring the superpowers from the wings.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whether one takes this stage by stage

3
or attempts an all-over approach, the essential point is that at the end of the day the all-over approach shall win? In other words, would he not agree that one wants in the end to get a reduction in, if not the elimination of, all nuclear weapons? If that is the object of the exercise, will the Western countries go into the negotiations in perhaps a more flexible frame of mind than is indicated by the use of the term "the allies", indicating the Western nations, with its obvious concomitant that the other side is the enemy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the problem is that we have to face these talks from the point of view of reality, from the world as it is rather than the world as we would wish it to be. I should certainly like to see a world where nuclear weapons are substantially reduced, and even eliminated, but I would countenance that happening only in a balanced and verifiable way and not in a way which exposed us to greater danger rather than less danger.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, as has been reported in the last hour or so, the talks planned to start tomorrow will go ahead as arranged, despite the regrettable death of Mr. Chernenko? Also, may we join Her Majesty's Government in expressions of sympathy to the Soviet Union and to Mr. Chernenko's family?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand—and I must confess that my information on this matter is no more up to date than is that of the noble Lord—that the talks are to go ahead tomorrow. I sought to inform myself on this matter a few minutes before I came to the House and I was given the same information as the noble Lord has. I, too, share his regret at the death of President Chernenko.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm to the House that Shaddock is a thermonuclear delivery means with a capacity of some hundreds of kilo-tons, that there is no defence against it, and that it is capable of hitting this country? I ask again: will he explain why it is less desirable to negotiate away that weapons system than to negotiate away other weapons systems?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question is that the system is negotiating itself away. It is obsolescent and not likely to remain in service for much longer.

Psychiatric and Long-stay Hospitals: Renovation
2.43 p.m.
Lord Auckland: 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 how many psychiatric and long-stay hospitals have been substantially renovated during the period 1974–84, and what plans they have for reconstructing wards and improving services during the next five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, although a substantial amount of such work has taken place during the period in question, we do not hold information centrally on the renovation of individual psychiatric and long-stay hospitals. Of the new hospital building schemes currently at the stage of planning, design or construction and individually costing over £2 million, 51 consist either wholly or partly of accommodation for mental illness, mental handicap or geriatric services.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which is satisfactory as far as it goes. Is he aware that for many years I served on the committee of a mental hospital in an area where there are several of these establishments? Can he say whether there is progress on the "villa" system as opposed to the long, institutionalised wards? Can he also say what provision is being made for elderly geriatric patients who will spend most of their lives in these establishments? Can he, finally, say what provision is being made for employment, particularly through industrial workshops, in regard to these hospitals?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the involvement of my noble friend in this matter. With regard to the last part of his supplementary question, on the industrial workshops, I do not have figures, but I shall certainly do my best to find out and let my noble friend know. I am aware from those hospitals I have seen in the Epsom cluster, which, I think, are those to which he refers, that certainly they do a great deal of good. What I have said does not really cover the whole story because the 51 schemes are only part of health authorities' programmes which are made up of schemes of £2 million and more. Much refurbishment work and the development of community-based schemes has taken place and it continues to do so in projects falling below that figure as well. So I can tell my noble friend that the picture is in fact encouraging.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first Answer, would it not be better if he did have information centrally? But, secondly, is it not even more important that residential accommodation should be made available in the community for many of these long-stay psychiatric patients who no longer need hospital care? Can the noble Lord say how much additional accommodation has been provided in the community under the Government's so-called "community care" programme? To what extent does the noble Lord expect this to be affected by reductions in rate support grant and by rate capping?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the reason it is not possible to get all the figures for which the original Question asked is really a matter of cost. These things are done locally and to have collected all the costs would have been disproportionate to the value in this particular case. With regard to care in the community, the noble Lord will be aware that the recent report of the Social Services Select Committee in another place broadly endorses the Government's policy in this area. With regard to rate capping, I can tell the noble Lord

5
that it will be for the authorities which are affected by rates control themselves to decide how staying within their expenditure limits will affect spending on particular services. It does not follow that reductions will apply equally or across the board and very many authorities have shown that it is possible to protect services for the most vulnerable and at the same time restrain their expenditure.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what is happening to the wards that have been emptied as a result of the number of hospitals being cut down because of community care? Does he not agree that many of the hospitals have large wards that are being put to no use whatsoever?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, in most cases where there is a plan to close a hospital the wards will remain empty until such time as the hospital concerned closes altogether. When such hospitals close altogether, which will happen over a period of years in many cases, the hospitals will be sold and the proceeds will accrue to either the district or the region concerned.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will not the noble Lord take another look at the possibility of exempting from rate capping joint funding arrangements where they apply to the rehousing of the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill in the community, particularly in those cases where the National Health Service contribution has run out and the cost all falls on the local authority?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the health side of joint funding already does not form part of that which can be rate capped under the arrangements to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I suppose that Broadmoor counts as a psychiatric hospital. Can the Minister tell us when the very extensive works which have now been begun there are likely to be completed, and how many patients the new hospital will accommodate?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the hospital is being completely redeveloped over a period of 15 years. I cannot state what will be the total number of patients accommodated when the hospital is complete.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, with joint funding, is it not so that what the noble Lord has said is not the case for time expired schemes?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords; but one has to look to other parts of the country where the policies which the Government are pursuing in this area are proving to be successful. Those that want to make a success of it can make a success of it. This has been shown and I can give the noble Lord several examples.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that if patients are sent out of hospitals into care in the community, they will not be put into only bed and breakfast accommodation where during the day they
6
are not allowed to remain within the walls of the hotel, hostel or wherever they are placed? Such practice has been known. The Minister may know of cases; or, if I know of any, may I bring them to his attention?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords—certainly. If my noble friend has any particular examples, I shall be delighted to take them up. It is essentially a matter for the authorities themselves to look into these particular problems. I can tell my noble friend that it is not the case, as so often appears from the media, that great numbers of people are likely to be discharged from our mental illness hospitals. The majority of those now in such hospitals need to remain there, and there will not be any huge further reduction in patient numbers.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister watch "Panorama" this evening, which will inform him of the figures he is now seeking?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly watch "Panorama"; I saw a trailer for it last night.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that, when area health authorities announce the impending closure of psychiatric hospitals and the views of the authority are not clear, and representations are made by the British Medical Association and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, their views are taken into consideration? If that is not done now, can they be taken into consideration in future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have told the noble Lord on numerous occasions, the views of the BMA and of the Confederation of Health Service Employees are always taken into account.

Zimbabwe: Exchange Controls
2.51 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the response during the Foreign Secretary's visit to Africa of the Government of Zimbabwe to representations concerning the curbs imposed by that government under the provisions of their foreign exchange controls.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, during his visit my right honourable and learned friend stressed once more the difficulties which the exchange controls can cause, and asked that as the Zimbabwean economy improves greater flexibility should be shown both for company remittances and for individual hardship cases. In reply the Zimbabwean authorities made clear, as they have done in the past, that their present restrictions reflect a real shortage of resources, but confirmed that if the economy improved sufficiently they would consider some relaxation.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, can he be more specific? Can he confirm a report published in the Daily Telegraph

7
on 14th January that, when my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary visited Zimbabwe, he specifically brought to the attention of that Government the sufferings of various people who are former residents of Zimbabwe and are now living in the United Kingdom? They are the people who are now suffering under the foreign exchange controls operating in Zimbabwe.
Is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is still impossible for any person who was formerly a resident of Zimbabwe to transfer capital which he may have earned and which remains in that country? It is impossible to transfer such money to Great Britain. Furthermore, is my noble friend aware also that pensionable emoluments are being progressively reduced monthly? That is the present situation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware that there are constraints such as those which my noble friend has described, although I do not believe that the extent of such difficulties is as great as some people imagine. If there are any specific cases which my noble friend would like to draw to my attention, then naturally I will see if they can be examined. I can say that the Zimbabwean authorities are prepared to consider specific cases where genuine hardship exists and where a proper need can be demonstrated.

Teachers' Pay
2.54 p.m.
Lord Beloff: 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 be putting forward proposals to amend the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government have no such plans.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very informative reply. May I ask him whether he does not consider, at a time when very many children are being deprived of important educational opportunities, that the dispute continuing with some of the trade unions in the educational world is a matter of the first urgency? Is it not further the case that it must in the end be established in that as in other occupations that salaries are proportionate to work and endeavour, and that to try to separate contracts of employment from salary negotiations—as the National Union of Teachers has been doing—is inimical to the education service and to the welfare of children in this country?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend is prepared to listen to the arguments for change, and I note those put forward by my noble friend today. That is why he met representatives of the local authority associations at their request on 6th March. At that meeting they made plain their
8
dissatisfaction with the present machinery, and he repeated his readiness to consider the case for change. But before coming to a firm view on the matter, he would want to be satisfied that any new arrangements would offer the prospect of a real improvement on the existing arrangements.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that responsible teachers all over the country are absolutely disgusted at the action of other teachers? Will he say whether it is possible to make the teaching profession a non-striking profession?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I believe that would require legislation.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister how long his right honourable friend is going to retire to his tent in the Department of Education and Science? The situation is a serious one. Teachers have been working under very adverse circumstances with local authorities having so little money, and local authorities are in difficulties because they have no money. It is up to the Secretary of State. After all, he has the veto on the Burnham Committee and he has his weighted vote on the Burnham Committee. Is it not his duty to improve industrial relations and to reach some solution to the present troubles?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend can hardly be accused of retiring to his tent in the DES. As I said in answer to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Beloff, it was only on 6th March—Wednesday of last week—that my right honourable friend met with representatives of the local authority associations. He is considering very carefully what they said to him on that occasion.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite his remarks about the teaching profession, it does not lead itself to contractual agreements? The services given time and time again by members of the teaching profession to the boys and girls and young people they have taught have never been recognised. They did not want paying for those services: they performed them because of their love of their work.
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, and I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said. Indeed, I believe that such did happen in the past but perhaps it is not happening so much at present.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, once this dispute is settled, would not the time be right to scrap Burnham completely and start with new negotiating machinery? I am sure that is long overdue. Burnham is completely out of date and is not satisfactory to anyone at this time.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is fashionable to blame Burnham. I would not have thought that it was necessarily the machinery that was at fault; perhaps it is goodwill that is lacking.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on National Health Service charges.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 7 to 14 and paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 4.—.(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House support this Motion, but I would like the noble Lord to answer one or two questions of which, to use the conventional terms, I have given him private notice.
Will the noble Lord inform the House as to when the Government will be ready with their amendments to Chapter 1, Part 2, of the Bill? We acknowledge the difficulties in which the Government have found themselves owing to the amendments which were passed at Committee stage, but the noble Lord will appreciate that these are matters of some complexity which require very careful consideration—not only by the Government but also by the Opposition and by Members of other parties in your Lordships' House.
Will the noble Lord also give an indication as to when the Government propose to honour their commitment to my noble friend Lord Mishcon to provide replies to the various detailed legal points he made in the course of the Committee stage?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for having given me notice of these two questions. He is quite right, these matters are of great complexity. The Government expect to lay amendments in the Printed Paper Office this week, probably on Thursday.
In so far as the queries of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, are concerned, I have notified the noble Lord that the matter is receiving attention. The last meeting with Messrs. Allen and Overy took place during last week and I expect to give the noble Lord a full response in relation to his questions also before this week is out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 23 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 19, line 15, at end insert—
("Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978
In paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978—

(a) for "Part II of the National Service Act 1948 (reinstatement in civil employment)" substitute "the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985";

(b) for "section 35(2)(b)" substitute "section 1(4)(b)".")

The noble and learned Lord said: I speak to both amendments standing in my name.
Amendment No. 2: Schedule 5, Page 19, line 43, at end insert—

("1978 c. 44

Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

In Schedule 13, paragraph 16(2).").

I hope I need only say a few words, but I am prepared for a longer version should the Committee wish. These drafting amendments follow consolidation practice as to references in other legislation. They have been approved by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to (Bill 73) as first printed for the Commons]
1 Schedule 1, page 17, leave out lines 36 to 37.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. While the Bill was in another place, the Government made the three amendments listed on the amendment sheet. Each arises out of Clause 33 of the Bill (application in Northern Ireland) and is designed to protect the application of United Kingdom legislation in Northern Ireland. The

11
amendments are purely technical and I ask the House to approve the Bill as amended. I beg to move that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Page 18, leave out lines 20 and 21.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Page 18, leave out line 26.
The Lord Chancellor: I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport (Amendment) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: 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.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for having written to me on the leasing of London buses, which was a point raised by myself and a number of other noble Lords in the debate on 4th March. The letter he sent to me explains to some extent the concern of the Government over leasing, but it does not answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who, at column 1126, asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara:
"Is he suggesting to the House that because the GLC had acted in a way which he or the Government do not like, that justifies the Government bringing in retrospective legislation?"
What we have been concerned about all along in this Bill, and which has not properly been explained, is the retrospective effect of this legislation and the firm feeling that the Secretary of State is concerned more with creating a surplus than merely balancing London Regional Transport for the next year.
In fact, on rereading the debate and looking closely at the figures given, it appears to many of us on this side of the House that because of the two-thirds rule, which we discussed earlier in terms of the ceiling which London Regional Transport could ask from the GLC, the ratepayers of London are being robbed of a third of the total value of £50 million. We still believe that it is an unsatisfactory Bill which sets a very poor precedent for the control of London transport by the Government.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we on this side of the House also do not like retrospective legislation. But we should distinguish between legislation which comes out of the blue and imposes obligations or removes rights with retrospective effect and legislation such as this which merely seeks to clarify the law and settle a transaction which has been left, as it were, in limbo as a result of a court decision.
Several noble Lords argued during the debate at Second Reading that the Bill is retrospective because it covers the whole of this financial year, most of which has passed. On that definition some element of retrospection was inescapable. If the Government had sought to make a new direction under existing statutory provision to settle LRT's grant for the year, that direction would have been retrospective. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that we could not simply leave the position as it stood following the court's decision, with no valid provision in place to cover LRT's grant requirements for the year. The matter had to be resolved somehow.
I put it to your Lordships that it does not make sense to condemn this Bill simply because it refers to a period which has now largely passed. One must look more closely at the effect of the Bill. As I made clear when the House debated the Bill last week, the Bill seeks to settle a transaction which was halted part way through the year. It will make no unforeseen demands upon the GLC and nor does it seek to make lawful the original Section 49 direction which was quashed by the courts. In fact the GLC's liability under this Bill will be £23 million less than it was under that direction. The Bill therefore does not deserve the pejorative tag which attaches to legislation which is retrospective in the true sense of the word.
The Bill will resolve the damaging uncertainty which has existed over LRT's finances for 1984–85. It seeks an outcome which is fair and reasonable to passengers, ratepayers, LRT and the GLC. It will ensure that money which passengers and ratepayers have paid for public transport during 1984–85 is used to help finance public transport services. It will ensure that LRT is not left with large unfunded liabilities to carry forward from 1984–85 which will fall as additional charges on passengers and ratepayers in future years. It will not, on the other hand, give LRT more money than is really needed. After adjusting to the loss of grant resulting from the £23.1 million which this Bill concedes to the GLC, LRT expects to have a cash surplus of about £30 million to set against accrued liabilities of some £37 million.
The Government are quite satisfied that this Bill is necessary to resolve beyond doubt the uncertainties left by the High Court judgment, to protect the interests of passengers and ratepayers, and to ensure that the Government's original intentions, as conveyed to Parliament when the London Regional Transport Act was being considered, are satisfactorily implemented. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but since retrospection was the issue that I raised from these Benches last week, I feel that I must. I merely say this. We have listened with interest to what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I shall read

13
it in Hansard very carefully. I hope that in saying what he said he has defused any possibility of this piece of legislation being used as a precedent for any other kind of retrospective legislation in the future—that is the danger that many of us saw behind this Bill; that was my view and the view of a considerable number of other Members of your Lordships' House—on the wrong side of the retrospective divide. We were defeated in the Lobbies and therefore the House as a whole believed that it was not retrospective. But it was the danger of it coming too close to one side or the other of that divide about which I was worried. I hope that the noble Lord's words will be there for all to see, so that this Bill cannot be used as a precedent for much more retrospective legislation in the future.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

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

Industrial Development Bill [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
Read a third time.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

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

Brunei and Maldives Act,

Milk (Cessation of Production) Act,

New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act,

Companies Act,

Business Names Act,

Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act,

Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act,

London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act,

Highland Region (Kinlochbervie) Order Confirmation Act.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
3.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before your
14
Lordships on 20th February of this year, be approved.
As your Lordships may be aware, this order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The purpose of the draft order is twofold. The first is to appropriate the 1984–85 Spring Supplementary Estimates. This is dealt with in Part I of the schedule which covers the issue of a further £68 million out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in respect of the Spring Supplementary Estimates of certain Northern Ireland departments. This sum is in addition to some £2,872 million which has already been approved by your Lordships for the current financial year. It brings the total estimate provision for this year, 1984–85, to just over £2,940 million.
The second purpose, which is covered in Part II of the schedule is to authorise the Vote on Account to all departments in the Northern Ireland Office of £ 1,323 million for next year-1985–86. This provision is necessary to enable all services to continue until the 1985–86 Main Estimates are considered by your Lordships later in the year.
Full details of all the provisions sought in this draft order can be found in two volumes, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. These are entitled the Spring Supplementary Estimates and Statement of Sums Required on Account.
Recent economic indicators show that Northern Ireland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, is experiencing a revival of economic activity. The signs are that this trend will continue. In Northern Ireland the trend for both total industrial production and manufacturing output remains upward. Output for these sectors in the first three quarters of 1984 rose by 3 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, when compared with the same period in 1983. The recovery is broadly based; most sectors now display some improvement. The most recent employment figures provide supporting evidence. The rate of decline of employment has fallen significantly in recent years; employment declined by 660 in the 12 months to December 1984, compared with a decline of 3,110 in the 12 months to December 1983. Indeed, the number of persons employed actually rose by 4,170 in the third and fourth quarters of 1984. Despite these encouraging figures, unemployment remains the most pressing social problem in the Province. The trend is still upwards, even though there are signs of improvement.
Turning now to the Supplementary Estimates, we find that a common feature in six out of the 24 Votes are receipts from the European Community under the Urban Renewal Regulation. The order before your Lordships provides for the receipt of £14·2 million for the second of three tranches of aid which in total amounts to some £19·8 million and which was approved by the European Commission in November. The assistance has been earned by 91 publicly funded infrastructure projects in the greater Belfast area and has enabled the Government to increase their planned expenditure on urban renewal, including housing. I think your Lordships will agree that this positive and practical assistance indicates that, along with the Government, the European Community shares the concern to alleviate the Province's social and economic problems.

15
I now turn to the main provisions of these Spring Supplementary Estimates. Class 2 covers aid to industry, and in Vote 1 an additional £4·4 million is required, the majority of which—£3·5 million—is to fund an increased number of alterations and extensions to existing factories; and under Vote 3 expenditure on standard capital grants will rise from £37·5 million to £54 million. We believe that that indicates improved business confidence in manufacturing. However, we have to admit that part of the increase can also be attributed to investment being brought forward in the knowledge that the Standard Capital Grant Scheme is under review. The Northern Ireland scheme has in fact been reviewed in the light of the significant changes already made in its Great Britain equivalent. My honourable friend in another place hopes to be able to announce the outcome of that review in the very near future.
Perhaps we may move on to Vote 1 in Class 3 which covers energy. A new subhead, B3 is being introduced to enable the Northern Ireland Gas Company Limited to repay loans issued during the financial years 1983–84 and 1984–85. This flows from the Government's decision, which was announced in September 1984, that they would not be proceeding with the Kinsale natural gas project because the project no longer afforded the prospect of economic viability. Provision is being made to enable the orderly run-down and closure of those gas undertakings which decide that they are unable to continue without financial support.
Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the Province will be aware that the Northern Ireland electricity service is heavily dependent on oil for electricity generation. The movement in the sterling—dollar exchange rate has sharply increased the price of that fuel and there has been a consequent increase in electricity service costs. Under Class 3, Vote 2 an extra £5 million is therefore sought to increase the electricity tariff subsidy; now some £90 million. This is, of course, of increasing concern because it restricts the scope for expenditure on other fronts. For that reason the Government are looking urgently at the options for altering the primary fuel used for electricity generation at Kilroot, which would reduce costs and thus the demand for the subsidy. The Government and the electricity service are also actively following up the potential for reducing the cost of electricity generation through the use of indigenous lignite.
The extra net provision of £4·2 million in Class 4, Vote 1 is for capital, operational and maintenance costs on the roads programme. If we continue to look at the schedule, we find housing. This continues to be the top priority among Northern Ireland's social and environmental programmes. The net increase in Class 5, Vote 1 of some £9·5 million in the provision for housing services can be attributed mainly to an additional sum of £6 million to enable the Housing Executive to repay certain building society loans and to an increase in the level of expenditure on house renovation grants in response to rising demand.
In Class 6, Vote 4 a net increase of just over £1·3 million is required mainly for the purchase of
16
computer equipment for the Department of the Environment's rating and Ordnance Survey services.
Moving on to education, we find the supplementary provision sought for the education services in Class 8, Vote 1 of £5·2 million. This relates primarily to the increased salary costs arising from the teachers' April 1984 pay award of 5·1 per cent. However, it also includes provision of just under £1 million for capital grants to schools under voluntary management which will allow further progress on certain essential minor works, such as health and safety schemes; £0·75 million of this figure has been made possible by the new carry-over arrangements introduced last year which has permitted a proportion of unexpected capital funds in the Northern Ireland block as a whole to be brought forward from the 1983–84 financial year into 1984–85. Under the scheme under-spending of up to 5 per cent. of the total eligible capital provision may be carried forward from one year to the next. The carry-over facility has proved to be a most welcome addition to the flexibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As well as the Department of Education, three other Northern Ireland Departments have benefited this year: the Department of the Environment, by £1·6 million; the Department of Economic Development by £2 million, and the Department of Health and Social Services by £0·5 million. These amounts are included in the additional provision being sought now for these departments.
Returning to Class 8 and in particular Vote 4, the supplementary provision of £5·2 million is required for grants to the Education and Library Boards. The bulk of the increase will be spent on recurrent and capital expenditure on this year's youth training programme. This increase will bring the total expenditure on the educational element of the youth training programme to over £10 million and it will allow the further education colleges to offer 2,500 full-time places and 7,500 part-time places.
The supplementary estimate for Class 9, Vote 1, which covers health and personal social services, seeks net additional resources of £3·2 million, mainly to take account of pay settlements the additional costs of which have attracted, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, partial assistance from the contingency reserve.
Your Lordships may have noticed a number of Votes with a token provision of £1,000. Class 9, Vote 2, is one such example and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall use it to explain why they appear in the Supplementary Estimates. In this particular Vote there has been an increase of almost £3 million in the cost of medical and ophthalmic services. However, this £3 million increase is offset by savings brought about by reductions in the provision for pharmaceutical services, and also by higher receipts than expected from the contributions paid by employers and employees towards the cost of the health service. The overall effect of these pluses and minuses—if that is what they can be called—is that the original provision is adequate. However, in order to draw the attention of your Lordships to the significant changes in the costs of these elements within the Vote it is necessary to seek a token supplementary estimate of £1,000.

17
In the social security programme, an additional £2·7 million is being sought in Class 10, Vote 4 for administration and miscellaneous services. Additional provision is required for salaries and wages, charges for agency services and for additional costs with the inquiry into children's homes and hostels.
Finally, under Class 11 provision has been made in Vote 3 for some £2·4 million, the bulk of which is related to the information technology drive within the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The drive is aimed at improving the services offered to the community, and contributing towards more effective and efficient administration in line with the Financial Management Initiative.
In these remarks I have tried to outline, albeit I hope briefly, the main features of the draft order that is before us this afternoon, and, above all, to give your Lordships an appreciation of the reasons for the changes in the provision. I shall listen with great interest to whatever your Lordships have to say on this matter. In my reply I hope to deal with as many of the points as your Lordships will raise. I am very grateful for the kind reception of this order and to all your Lordships who have expressed an interest in raising various points. I hope that I shall be able to answer them as we go along. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I very much regret that my noble friend Lord Underhill is not in his usual place this afternoon. He always uses the debate on the appropriation order to review those aspects of public expenditure programmes in the Province which are of the greatest concern to him. The House will be glad to know that he is making a slow, though steady recovery.
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for explaining clearly the main provisions of the order. I should like to make one or two comments about the provisions and ask some questions on matters which the Minister did not mention. We know that the Northern Ireland Assembly is being consulted by the Government on public expenditure programmes in Northern Ireland. It would be very helpful if we could be told how many of the Assembly's main recommendations or conclusions have been accepted by the Government. I am sure that if I had the services of a research assistant, I would be able to work out the answer to my own question. It would, however, be helpful if we could be given it.
I have read the Assembly's report on public expenditure priorities for 1985–86 published last July, and also its document on economic strategy published last December. Both are valuable reports based on the Assembly's perception of the needs of the Province. Does the Secretary of State go along with that perception? How successfully has he related those needs to what the Government are prepared to spend on public expenditure?
On the issue of Northern Ireland, we face a largely hostile world opinion. It is important for that reason that we should have an Assembly whose status and authority is constantly enhanced. It is also important
18
for the sake of the Province itself that we should have an Assembly that can speak with authority. It therefore matters that the Assembly should be seen to be a strong instrument capable of influencing public expenditure programmes in the Province.
My second question relates to a matter that the Minister mentioned in his speech. It concerns EEC expenditure in Northern Ireland. We on this side accept that European Commission resources should be available to help resolve some of the problems that are of a scale and intensity that can weaken the development of the Community itself. This is the Community dimension to the Northern Ireland problem. I believe that the Commission has responded generously to the needs of the Province. Northern Ireland has benefited substantially from the European Social Fund, from the European Regional Development Fund, from the Agricultural Guidance Fund, from the assistance for Belfast to which the Minister referred, and, to a much lesser extent, from the loans by the European Investment Fund.
I do not propose to ask any questions about the complex issue of additionality. Can the Minister tell the House, however, what were the total receipts in 1984–85 in the Province and how much will be received in 1985–86? Looking to the future, one is mindful of the enlargement of the Community, which will add substantial territories to those designated as Community problem areas. Are the Government satisfied that the Province will continue to be given the highest priority by Brussels for the foreseeable future? We were gratified to learn that there are indications of a revival of economic activity in the Province. But the Minister himself readily acknowledged that unemployment remains the major problem facing the Province. The Assembly has advised that reducing the level of unemployment should be the single, most important objective of Government policy, second only to the maintenance of security and law and order. This conclusion led the Assembly to another conclusion; namely, that the public sector must continue to furnish a high proportion of job opportunities in Northern Ireland.
Side by side with unemployment and redundancy in industry, the whole range of health and welfare services in the Province is still short of manpower. Nevertheless, the entire class of 41 nurses due to finish training at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, on 21st December last faced unemployment. This is surely absurd. One would have thought that there must be a saner solution. Should there not be more spending on the NHS in Northern Ireland so as to improve the quality of life for many of its people? In the Province there is above average reliance on sickness benefit and invalidity benefit, above average incidence of severe disablement, above average infant mortality and handicap, above average incidence of mental handicap, above average congenital abnormality and above average incidence of mental illness. Against this background, the paying of social security to nurses who cannot find work on completing their training has nothing to be said for it. They should be paid for giving their services in hospitals and surgeries, and to the sick who remain in their homes in the community.

19
This leads me to another matter; namely, the role of the Housing Executive. Housing, in the words of the Minister, is a top social priority in Northern Ireland. But it appears to me, on reading the newspapers and reading Hansard, that the Housing Executive is a subject of widespread criticism. There is a demand that its housing programme should be thoroughly reviewed. It is said that it is inefficient. It has been criticised for failing this year to spend all the funds allocated to it, although there is a long housing waiting list. Possibly more worrying, it is also said that it is not undertaking its tasks in a way that retains the confidence of those who have to deal with it. I offer no judgment on those comments. But it is right to draw the attention of the House to the criticism. Can the Minister tell the House whether or not the evidence justifies the criticism?
Finally, I shall dwell on an aspect of the Irish dimension. I have referred to the Community dimension; I shall now refer to the Irish dimension, although a small aspect of that dimension. I refer to the Irish language. I have searched through the appropriation accounts, but nowhere is it specifically referred to. There are over 500 items of expenditure specified in the index of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the Irish language does not merit even an afterthought. I understand, however, that there are Gaelic language or Irish language schools, Irish language periodicals and some Irish language radio programmes. A noble friend has passed me a newspaper cutting which shows that the Irish national teachers' organisation has called on the Government to produce a report on the development of the Irish language and the culture associated with it. Should not the Government give financial assistance to the welfare of the Irish language? If the Minister tells me that this is done and that it is incorporated within Class 8 of the order, that is fine, I hope, however, that he will identify how much money is being spent on supporting the Irish language.
I regret that I was unable to give the Minister advance notice of the questions I would be asking. I therefore do not expect instant replies to all my questions.

NHS Charges
3.40 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on charges to be applied within the health service in the coming year.
"In the next financial year the health service plans to spend an extra £800 million, bringing total spending up to some 17½ billion. That is an increase of over 20 per cent. in real terms since this Government came to power. In England alone the health service will be spending an extra £670 million next year. The great bulk of that extra spending will be paid for from taxation and national insurance.
20
But, as the Government's detailed spending plans made clear, the Government believe that there should be some increase in the contribution from direct charges.
"In the field of prescription charges we are seeking an extra £19 million of income to help offset the cost of the drugs bill, which now stands at £1 ½ billion a year. Because of the exemptions policy almost three-quarters of prescriptions are dispensed free of charge. This means that the retired, those on low incomes, including those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement, children, expectant and nursing mothers and people suffering from certain conditions do not pay any charges. In addition, more than one in five of the prescriptions which are paid for are covered by prepayment certificates.
"It has been suggested recently that we should narrow the range of exemptions rather than seeking other ways of reducing the drugs bill. The Government believe it is right to protect those in need from the impact of charges and we do not, therefore, intend to make any change in the categories which are exempt from prescription charges. However, we do believe that those who can afford it should make a larger contribution. We have therefore decided to raise the basis prescription charge to £2. Even so, the charge will cover well under half the cost of the average prescription, which is now about £4·50.
"There will also be equivalent increases in the cost of the prepayment certificates.
"In the field of dental treatment there are again wide exemptions from charges. The existing range of exemptions—for children, those on low incomes and expectant and nursing mothers—will continue. These exemptions account for almost half of all chargeable courses of treatment. Dental examinations will continue to be free of charge for all. The charges for specific treatments—crowns, inlays, bridges and dentures—will increase by 6 to 10 per cent. The maximum charge for any single course of treatment will increase by just 4½ per cent. We have decided to change the structure of charges for routine treatment such as fillings and extractions and to relate the charge more closely to the cost of treatment. In future patients will pay the full cost of routine treatment up to a maximum of £17—rather than £14·50 as at present—but will they also pay two-fifths of any cost above that level. This new system will come into effect from 1st April.
"In the hospital service we intend to increase the charges for private patients and overseas visitors so that the charges meet the full cost of the services provided including all overheads, some of which have not been fully allowed for in the past. This will mean an average increase of just over 14 per cent. although there will be variations for different types of charge and hospital. These charges will now make a total contribution of over £60 million a year to health authorities' budgets.
"I am today laying the necessary regulations before the House so that these changes will come into effect at the beginning of April. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland will be taking the

21
equivalent steps. A note providing full details of the changes is available in the Vote Office.
"The result will be that the health service remains predominantly funded by general taxation—which accounts for some 86 per cent. of expenditure. A further 11 per cent. is derived from National Insurance contributions. After the changes I have announced today charges will account for only some 3·2 per cent. of total health service spending.
"Mr. Speaker, the net effect of the changes the Government are making to all health charges this April will be to increase total income from charges by some £40 million next year. This will be a contribution towards the extra £670 million of health service spending we are planning for next year. If we want to see more resources going to the health service then charges must make a contribution to that growth, provided exemptions policy protects those who cannot afford to pay".
My Lord, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but I have to say that that is about the end of the thanks that I am going to give him except that I am glad that the Secretary of State is not narrowing the range of exemptions; that is one relief.
It is the view on these Benches that the decision announced in another place is a deplorable one. Yet again the sick are being taxed instead of the burden being spread across the bulk of the taxpayers. Is the noble Lord aware that since this Government came to power National Health Service prescription charges will have increased from 20p per prescription to £2 per prescription—ten times the amount, or an increase of 1,000 per cent.? We have seen a steady but sure undermining of the principles of the National Health Service, particularly taking into consideration increases in optical and dental charges.
The 40p increase is a 25 per cent. increase over a period of 12 months when inflation is running at 5 per cent. I want the noble Lord, in his reply, to say how the Government justify an increase of 25 per cent. at this time, particularly after a series of increases which have also been way above the level of inflation. Why should the burden of extra revenue for the National Health Service be placed on people who are sick and in need of treatment? I believe that it is a callous and inconsiderate policy.
Before I sit down I want to put three questions to the noble Lord the Minister. First, is this inflated tax imposed to replace the £25 million lost by adjustments to the limited NHS prescription list? Secondly, is the Minister aware of the very strong criticisms of both the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association at these further disincentives to people to make the best use of the National Health Service? Does he not realise that it is a serious deterrent to people who are not on supplementary benefit, not on FIS, or people who have not yet retired but who have very modest means, and that there are millions of those people in this country today? The third of my questions is: have these people not already paid for their National Health Service by the taxation which
22
they have contributed over the years? Will the noble Lord accept that in our view this is a deplorable Statement which we shall want to debate and shall want to criticise again in detail?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. Again, we cannot welcome very much of its contents.
Can the noble Lord clarify one point for me? Am I not right in thinking that the expenditure of £17½ billion referred to in the Statement is the projected expenditure for 1986–87 and not for 1985–86, which, according to the Government's White Paper on expenditure, appears to be £16½ billion? As to the £800 million increase, can the noble Lord say how much of this is in respect of capital expenditure and how much is in respect of revenue expenditure?
On the prescription charges, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, we have a 25 per cent. increase, which is five times the rate of inflation. This is on top of the announcement of the limited list. Would it not have been better to wait for the results of any savings which might come from the limited list before making such a swingeing increase in the prescription charges? Further, is it correct to say that exempted categories do not pay any charges? Surely their exemptions will extend only to the limited list. Is it not therefore likely that many old people will quite simply be unable to obtain the products on which they have been relying unless they can pay the private charge?
The dental charges also appear to have gone up above the rate of inflation. Would the noble Lord not agree that a further review of all the dental services is now required? It seems practically to have gone to pieces and to be no longer, in effect, a National Health Service.
Can the noble Lord say a word about the reported abuse of National Health Service facilities by consultants, which is reported today in the Guardian? If there is anything in that, would he not agree that some of this money—perhaps a great deal of this £19 million—could have been saved by a proper accounting for the procedures of consultants with private patients in National Health Service facilities? Finally, can the noble Lord say how much has been saved since the beginning of the scheme to charge overseas visitors?
3.51 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on the Statement. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in a great deal of what he says. He says it is a deplorable Statement and that these sorts of charges should be avoided at all costs. The noble Lord must realise—I am sure he does, if he really thinks about it—that if one wants more resources for the health service then somehow or other they must be paid for. If the noble Lord wants to do many of the things that he challenges me about so regularly across the Floor of the House, then these must be paid for somewhere along the line.
I should like to know—I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me—how the Opposition proposes to raise the sort of money for the many facilities it

23
wants in the health service without the kind of action I have announced. I must stress to the noble Lord that the people who are really in need are those whose exemptions stand and who will be able to maintain the very real benefits they get from free prescriptions. Seventy-two per cent. of all prescriptions which are issued are free. A further 6 per cent. of items which are paid for by pre-payment prescription certificates are also free; so only about 20 per cent. of the prescriptions are charged for. I think it is hypocritical to call for more spending on health but to condemn the means which we have to adopt to raise the necessary money.
The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. He asked, first, whether or not we were aware of the BMA's views that this is a disincentive to health care. I am aware of many views which the BMA and others take on these cases, but the fact is that, as I have said, somewhere along the line more resources have got to be paid for. The noble Lord should bear in mind that three-quarters of prescriptions are free and that almost half of the dental courses are also free. He feels that it is a deterrent to raise charges in this way, but I have to tell him again that the charges raised are for those who can best afford to meet the cost of prescriptions. As I said, the majority are already free.
In regard to the noble Lord's question about the £25 million lost in the limited list, I would say "No". These charges have risen year on year, as he will be aware. That £25 million was a figure that he produced. We estimated originally that the savings on the limited list would be up to £100 million, and at the end of the day we have a figure of £75 million. The fact is that we have to raise these charges if we are realistically going to meet the needs of the health service throughout the rest of this century. It is all very well for the Opposition to suggest perhaps even getting rid of charges. It did so once, but it had to bring them back again when it realised the financial implications of doing without them. Nor does it say how it will find the extra£½ billion to pay for the service should it not have them.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me a number of questions. I am afraid that I cannot give him the breakdown between revenue and capital expenditure on the £800 million, but I shall find out and let him know. In regard to exemptions in the limited list, the charges we are talking about raising—the prescription charges which are being increased in line with the Statement which I have just repeated—refer to all those which can be prescribed, so obviously if a drug is not on the limited list—that is to say, on the black list—it cannot be prescribed, anyway; so it is not covered by the charge. The noble Lord mentioned a general review of the dental service. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Minister for Health continually look at all aspects of the health service. I do not think the situation calls for a particular review, but of course the whole issue is reviewed from time to time.
The noble Lord asked particularly about the possible fraud implications he read about. All I can say here is that we asked the statutory auditors to investigate the position in 37 health authorities; I think we did that some time last summer. There perhaps is
24
some evidence of financial laxity. This is a finding of the report they were asked to provide. We have written to the authorities drawing their attention to it. There may be more information about this that I can give the noble Lord, and if there is then I shall certainly write to him.
I really must refute the charges that this is a tax on the sick. The fact is that in this particular case only those most able to meet the increased charges will have to do so. The bulk of those who really need to get free prescriptions get them free, and they will continue to get them free. The fact is that, even after the increased charges announced today take place, they will continue to account for only some 3.2 per cent. of total health service spending. That reflects the greatly increased expenditure by this Government on the National Health Service, which is what, apart from anything else, the noble Lord opposite appears to want so badly.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are some of us who wish to thank him not only for repeating the Statement but for its contents? Is he aware that in an area in which possible expenditure is all but unlimited any responsible Government have to choose their priorities, as Governments have done in the past, and that it seems to many of us that the present Government have got it about right?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks; I agree entirely with him. He and I can both see that the National Health Service is a pit into which one could pour the entire GNP and still not make everybody happy. That is why some choices have to be made. Nevertheless, the fact that the NHS has improved so greatly in the hands of this Government over the last six years demonstrates our commitment to it.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is exactly what one would expect? Therefore, we are not surprised, and we are not surprised that the noble Lord the Minister himself agrees with it. I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but I should like to go further and sympathise with him for having to make it, because it is at least reactionary and certainly a Statement which can be—I warn the noble Lord about this—political dynamite.
I want to know the average cost of one item on prescription, and how this compares with the charge being imposed. It is true that some items cost less than the £2 to be charged. But I want to go further—this is the most serious part of what I want to say. I think that this is a penal charge on the long-term sick. If a person who is not exempted has to have two or three items—and there are many like this—the cost to him is going to be a considerable burden, because when you are sick there are other charges as well on the household. I am prompted to think of the stance taken by the Prime Minister when she referred to returning to Victorian values. It would perhaps be a return to Victorian values if the Government, in line with their

25
general approach, published a list of old-fashioned Victorian remedies so that these charges could be avoided.
However, I return to the point about the increase in private charges which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. The noble Lord the Minister gave an answer which, to say the least, was not satisfactory. There is far more in this situation than some people care to imagine. When there has been a thorough investigation and a thorough tightening up of procedures. I ask the Government to make a statement which this House and the other place should be able to debate. There is evidence of abuse, some of it deliberate and some due to sheer inefficiency. It is about time that the relationship between the private sector and the public sector is sorted out so that there is a fair exchange in one direction or the other. I have no objection whatever to co-operation.
However, at the moment my impression is—and I am not the only one who has this impression—that the private service is doing very well at the expense of the National Health Service. That is not deliberate, but is definitely due to weaknesses and, to some extent, abuses on the part of health service personnel. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to debate both these orders. Looking back to the start of the National Health Service and looking at the situation pertaining today, in spite of the millions of pounds about which the Government have spoken, the health service is very sick indeed and this increase in prescription charges will certainly not help to improve the service.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me for the average cost of a prescription. I did repeat in the Statement that it was £4.50. Therefore, the figure of £2 is not even half the total cost. As regards the increase of charges being a penal charge on the long-term sick, I should remind the noble Lord of the pre-payment certificates which to some extent meet those charges. Those who require long-term medical care can arrange for those prepayment certificates, which mean a considerable decrease in the amount that they would have to pay if they paid the full amount.
At the same time as increasing these charges we are also making arrangements for refunds to be available in the case of pre-payment certificates purchased from 1st April where the holder either becomes exempt or dies within one month of the start of the certificate. This will apply both to the annual and four-monthly certificates.
As regards private charges and possible abuse, which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised and about which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, is concerned, we recognised that there were these problems, so we asked 37 health authorities to look into the matter.The audit revealed problems in many districts and it was a matter of great concern to the Government. Therefore, on 6th December my right honourable friend the Minister for Health wrote to all health authority chairmen asking for action to be taken to ensure that they have proper arrangements for collecting all income due. The regions are due to report back by the end of March on the action that they have taken. In all 17 cases which have been identified and which were mentioned in the article to
26
which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred, the health authorities must take the necessary action to put matters right. My department will certainly check on that. There is no question of sweeping the issue under the carpet. The health authorities consider audit reports in public session unless it is not in the public interest for them to do so. Therefore, I think that the action we have taken in this case has pre-empted many of the criticisms that have been made.
I repeat that, basically, the burden (if there is a burden in this case) falls on those who can most afford to pay their medical charges, in the form of both dental charges and prescription charges. Those in the exempt categories who most need the free services will continue to receive them.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many people now belong to private insurance schemes?—because surely the vastly increased number must help the National Health Service.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend the figure for which she asks, but I can tell her that the amount of money which comes from contributions by private patients in the case of beds will amount to £62 million. Of course that is a great help to the National Health Service. What the party opposite never tells us is what it would do if it had to replace that money.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept that I believe he made a very good case for the increase in the charges, but I did not quite understand one point. Will it be possible for those who suffer from some chronic complaint and who have to have their prescriptions regularly renewed to have them at a reduced rate or possibly even free?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord,Lord Somers, that there are some disorders for which specific substitution therapy is essential, and those suffering from those disorders are totally exempt. About six or so different disorders are involved. However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I was referring to the pre-payment certificates which last for either four months or 12 months, for which the charges will now be £11 and £30·50 respectively. By purchasing these certificates those who require long-term medication may have what would otherwise be a much more expensive charge substantially reduced.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to ask me a question, which is perhaps strange, but I shall try to answer it. He asked how we would pay if we did not use the method that the Government have chosen. Throughout the period of the last Labour Government prescription charges remained at 20p—nothing like £2 at all. Of course there must be a limit to the total cost, but it should be borne by the taxpayer. I argued very strongly—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's question—that in our view it should not be borne by the sick; it should be borne by the whole population who pay taxes. When the noble Lord said that exemptions cover—
Lord Denham: Speech!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am answering a question asked by the noble Lord the Minister. He was talking about exemptions. Does the noble Lord realise that there are over 1·5 million unemployed people who are not exempt at all? If he hinks that those people are not entitled and are not in need, then he is absolutely wrong. This level of charge is a deterrent and it is silly, for either Ministers or Opposition spokesmen to think that they know better about their patients than doctors and dentists.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course I am aware that doctors understand the particular circumstances surrounding any patient. If I may say so, that is a pretty obvious remark to make. But the fact is that at the end of the day the doctors, the nurses and everyone associated with the National Health Service and the good that it provides must be funded. The noble Lord says that he will impose a blanket charge on the taxpayer generally. I am very interested to hear him make that particular remark and I shall note it with some care.
However, our view is that at the end of the day those who must be in a better position than those who are in the low income groups are those who should shoulder the burden. The noble Lord ought to be aware that among those people there are a great many who can well afford to make sensible housekeeping arrangements concerning their own personal finances to meet this sort of charge. That is why the charges have had to be increased. I repeat, over the years the health service has received a considerable boost as a result of the policies which the Government have pursued. Furthermore, we shall continue to do all we can to uphold the best traditions of the health service.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
4.9 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, perhaps we could return to the appropriation order. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this appropriation order. I am sorry I have not given him full details of the questions I wish to ask. I apologise to him for being late for his opening speech, and I am glad to see him in his place now. On reading the report of the debate in the other place I was very much struck by how true to form matters were running. The Government spoke with optimism, Labour with considerable gloom; but things here seem to be in greater accord.
I should like to start by referring to the Government's claim that the allocation to Northern Ireland departments for 1985–86 is some £30 million higher than originally planned, and their admission that this is a remarkable fact at a time when public expenditure as a whole is being held strictly at planned levels. I find this encouraging, but would like to ask the following questions: first, how much do we expect to receive from the European Community over this period? Am I right in thinking that this is £19–8 million? Secondly, do we guarantee that this money will be used for a specific purpose, and is this housing? Thirdly, has the European Community so far paid
28
what it has promised, or has there been any hold up? Is the receipt of this money why we can plan increased expenditure?
Then there is the Government claim regarding unemployment that additional jobs were created in 1984 and that it was only because of the higher rate of births that even more people became unemployed. I wonder whether the Minister could expand on this. I believe that he may have touched on it before I entered the Chamber, in which case I apologise. It is encouraging to learn that quite a number of those who had left the Province to live and work overseas are now returned or are planning to return to their homeland. Of course, it can mean a bigger strain on the employment market, but let us rejoice nonetheless at a modestly encouraging sign.
To refer more specifically to the terms of the order, Class II, No. 1, refers to payments to the Industrial Development Board. It has been suggested that while the board has had distinct success in creating new jobs it has sometimes done this at the expense of existing firms in the same trade who, without the help of a subsidy, have suffered by unfair competition and themselves had to dispense with some employees, clearly lessening the value of the whole operation. Can the Minister comment on whether this is so, and, if so, what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence?
Class II, No. 3, refers to expenditure on the Local Enterprise Development Unit and also on the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Can the Minister give up-to-date figures for both Shorts and Harland and Wolff? I am mindful of a worry which was forcefully expressed to a colleague and myself when we looked round Shorts two years ago of a possible return to the private sector. May I ask the Minister once again whether privatisation is being considered?
Class VIII, No. 1, refers to expenditure on schools. My noble friend (if I may so refer to him) Lord Blease tells me that I am wandering into a minefield, but I put a question as simply as possible. Can the Minister say whether there have been any real moves towards integrated education apart from Lagan College? And failing that, what steps are taken in schools to see that myths are abandoned and that the other man's viewpoint is considered along with one's own?
In Part II, Class XI, No. 5, £127,000 is granted on account:
"For the expenditure of the Office of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints".
Can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, clarify for me what sort of complaints are acceptable for consideration?
It seems to me that how one sees the present situation in the Province depends to some extent at least on how you want to see it. False hope defeats its object, but there seem to me to be grounds for some optimism amidst the gloom. Whenever I visit Northern Ireland I am impressed with the kind hospitality and the warm welcome with which one is received. But very many people are living on low incomes and, despite a considerable housing programme, I am still depressed by the old-fashioned slums such as are hard to find on the mainland. There is much unemployment, and there is much rebuilding which needs to be done. Somehow, surely, the two should be better balanced.

29
Another point I should like to raise is this. Can the Minister give us any details about the burning of lignite for the generation of electricity? Is it hoped that costs can be cut this way? Some information is just coming through. Finally, might I say that the situation was aptly summed up when it was said:
"The peoples of both traditons have a common interest in finding a better way of ordering their future".
Let us offer them every encouragement.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, after various criticisms that I have made in the past, I think I should congratulate the noble Lord on the Front Bench and his noble friend the Chief Whip for arranging to take this debate on a major Northern Ireland order during prime parliamentary time. I know that the television cameras are not switched on today, but at least we can hope that the members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery have not yet gone home for tea.
I have given notice to the noble Lord of a number of points, and I should like to start with voluntarily maintained schools. It is well known that these schools can reclaim a grant of 85 per cent. of their approved capital expenditure. This, of course, is comparable to the situation in England, and it is satisfactory; but I am informed that at the present time in Northern Ireland there are considerable delays about actually paying out this grant, and the result for schools which qualify can be serious. It means they have to pay the full amount. They may even have to go into overdraft to do so, and they are not quickly able to receive their grant. Can the noble Lord say what can be done to speed up this matter, as even now, despite financial stringencies in England, it is my experience, at any rate in Somerset, that the expenditure and the receipt of grant are more or less simultaneous.
With regard to maintained schools, and perhaps I should say schools generally, it is well known that, particularly in the Belfast area, many schools are contracting in numbers, but there are a few whose rolls are expanding. Can the noble Lord assure me that in these expanding situations it will be possible for the schools to get their needed books and equipment promptly and without long delays? Would he perhaps see whether the Department of Education could look into the question of the pooling of books and equipment as between expanding and contracting schools?
I come next to a programme called Action for Community Employment, commonly known as ACE. It is well known that this has been a considerable benefit to quite a number of voluntary bodies. It has of course also helped a number of unemployed people to get work experience and paid employment. However, it is only possible to have an employee under this scheme for a period of one year, and there are numerous other rules and regulations—and, of course, it is only possible to take on a person who is unemployed at the time.
Would the Government consider reviewing the scheme as it affects the voluntary bodies, to see whether a greater degree of flexibility could be incorporated into the working of the scheme? This would be helpful if it could be done. The Government
30
might like, for instance, to think whether it would be possible to keep people for periods longer than one year, and whether this amount of expenditure which is flowing through voluntary bodies might not be more effective if its terms and conditions were altered and improved.
I come now to the question of the new prison at Maghaberry. This, I understand, is due for completion at the end of 1985. When it comes into use it will very much reduce the present overcrowding in Belfast Prison; it will lead to better conditions for remand prisoners; and it will make possible the closure of the women's prison at Armagh, which is an old building and demands a high staffing ratio. These things will be of great benefit to everybody concerned. Can the noble Lord say whether he has any hopes of the opening date of the new prison being brought forward?
My next point concerns the ancient and historic walls of the city of Derry, which are open to the public for 95 per cent. or more of their circuit and are a popular attraction. The fly in the ointment is that there is a small army post which occupies one corner of the walls and makes it impossible to walk round them completely. This is something which I raised with the predecessor of the noble Lord, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I cannot help feeling that with modern technology it should be possible for the army to remove that blockhouse and to carry out their observations and surveillance by other means. The point is pressing this year because of the reunion or rally of the clan O'Doherty. As the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate is a Scotsman, he will appreciate the importance of this kind of thing and particularly its importance for bringing in overseas visitors and people from the new world. If that post could be modified, replaced or done away with completely, it would be a great benefit.
I should like to mention the public and police liaison committee, to which I have referred before. The city of Derry has had a committee of this type functioning very well, despite considerable difficulties, since 1970. Surely the time is coming when this system should be extended, and reduplicated in other parts of Northern Ireland. Everybody agrees that co-operation between the police and the public is vital. Why cannot it be organised as it is in Derry, with access from the committee to the RUC divisional commander and also access at a lower level from community areas to individual local police stations?
While we are on matters of security and the police I should like to mention joy-riding in stolen cars. This happens mainly at night. Everybody appreciates the extreme difficulties facing security forces in distinguishing between the casual joy-rider doing it for kicks and the terrorist who has some far more sinister intent in crashing through checkpoints. What we are trying to do is to avoid people who are not terrorists being killed and severely wounded. Will the noble Lord and his colleagues who are responsible for security consider the possibility of using spiked chains or other devices which will halt the car without killing the occupants? I look forward to the noble Lord's reply on that.
Finally, I feel I should touch on employment and unemployment, which have been mentioned by several previous speakers. I am particularly concerned

31
because levels of unemployment are considerably higher in Catholic areas compared with Protestant areas. I am sorry to say that it is also the case, taking the population of Northern Ireland as a whole, that unemployment bears more heavily on the Catholic than it does on the Protestant population. There are some historic and structural reasons which explain why this is still the case.
However, I had hoped, as had many other people, that direct rule would bring in complete fairness in these matters, particularly into the recruitment of new employees and the promotion of existing employees. If one considers the reports, studies and surveys of the Fair Employment Agency ever since 1977 and right up to the present, it is clear that all is not yet right in these matters. It is clear that among the offenders are local government, the Civil Service and the Northern Ireland electricity service, all three of which one should have thought would be responsive to the pushing, prodding and supervision of the Government. The present unsatisfactory situation, it cannot be denied, contributes to a sense of injustice among many Catholics. While it may not perhaps create alienation—a word about which there has been some dispute and debate—it does not help things and indeed makes people feel disaffected. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look into this and do everything they can, particularly on recruitment and promotion.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his introduction of the order and also to say how pleased I am to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, because luckily he was almost as out of order as I intend to be. I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Denham and Lord Lyell. I gave them notice that I would be slightly out of order and I am delighted that Lord Hylton has started the rot.
In Part II of the schedule, Vote 1, Class XI relates to the expenditure of the Assembly. Since what I should like to discuss is the atmosphere in which the Assembly has to operate, I feel that that gives me a tenuous right to raise the matter of the 10 murders of servicemen in the last 14 days. First, I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State at Newry that political progress shrinks into insignificance when compared with the job of getting rid of terrorism. My noble friend Lord Moyola and I have been saying that twice a year in this House and so we can only say "Hear, hear" to the statement. I believe that if we could get rid of terrorism, the Unionist majority would be able to accommodate and to adapt to the needs of time in a way they cannot begin to do now and, further, it is possible that the minority SDLP might find itself able to get back into the Assembly. It is totally impossible for that party to do so without violence being reduced.
In the last 14 days 10 members of the security forces have been killed. I do not know whether the House knows it, but four of them were Roman Catholics. All members of our security forces in Ulster are brave men, but especially brave are those members who are Roman Catholics. Last week the noble Lord, Lord
32
Fitt, discussed the double standards of remarks by Cardinal O'Fiaich and no less a person than Peter Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that such statements and those of other Republicans justify the prolonging of the IRA campaign. One could say that they are signing the death warrants of members of the security forces, and in particular, those few Roman Catholics in the services. The cardinal condemned the act of violence, but he never condemns the IRA without equivocation. He was at it again yesterday in the United States of America. Unbelievably to me, with four of his flock murdered—two murdered in the precincts of chapels and one on the steps of his own cathedral—he could not even bring himself to go to the funeral service of one of those four. I think that that is a disgrace.
As for the Irish Foreign Minister, I ask my noble friend to suggest to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that he conveys this message to Mr. Barry. He has taken on board two tasks. The first is to proclaim at every turn the sectarian nature of our Ulster forces. Secondly, he has taken it upon himself to be the spokesman for the Roman Catholics in Ulster. After four deaths of Roman Catholics in our security forces, is it too much to ask of him to give some recognition of the magnificent role played by those few Roman Catholics in the past? Could he not bring himself to face the fact that the proportion of Roman Catholics to Protestants in those forces is due not to their sectarian nature but to the fact that their position is so heroic, so precarious and so dangerous?
What, my Lords, should be asked of the Irish Republic at the moment?—because there are still things that they could do which would help in solving murders and other crimes. The Irish Government should accede to the request which has been made to them by the Garda to allow for seven-day detention as we have in the Prevention of Terrorism Act here. We all know that the proper relationship between the interrogator and the prisoner can be established only after a considerable period of time. Secondly, Dublin should be pressed to allow the presence of a Royal Ulster Constabulary interrogator, under the supervision of the Garda, at the questioning of someone who is suspected of a crime in Ulster. I believe that those modest steps would produce a solution to a lot of crime. They would produce prima facie cases which would allow the Criminal Jurisdiction Act to be effective.
Having got that off my chest, may I turn now to matters much closer to the order. The subject that I should like to raise and of which I have given notice to the Minister is that of agriculture and especially field drainage. Two or three days ago I noticed my noble friend as he crept past our gate and went a few miles away to go and look at drainage, in case he did not really know what it was all about. I rather wondered whether he was not coming down to have a ride on the goat! However, at least I know that he knows what a drain is.
The problem is that in December the Secretary of State for Agriculture gave notice of changes in the capital grants and especially a reduction in the capital grant for drainage and the removal of hedge clearance from the grant-aided category. This is creating very

33
serious difficulties in LFAs (less favoured areas). The reduction of the drainage grant is from 65 per cent. to 35 per cent. and drainage is an extremely expensive operation. I believe that it could jeopardise the future viability of communities in the LFAs. I know that farms which are on the development programme can still have a high rate of grant, but in County Fermanagh, where we have a thousand farms under development, the remaining farms will never qualify to have a development scheme, so that to all intents and purposes the 35 per cent. is the rate which stands.
My noble friend knows the problem. Drainage reduces the disadvantage in disadvantaged areas. In the statement concerned, and subsequent statements, it has been made clear that the real reason for the reduction was the conflict with conservation in the drainage of areas in this country. In Northern Ireland, in an LFA area, there is no conflict. We are not draining lakes and marshes. We are draining clay drumlins. Without that land being drained, cattle and sheep can be supported only by the use of a lot of expensive feedingstuff; and that, too, costs more in Northern Ireland—£12 a tonne more—than it does on the mainland. When the land is drained—and the noble Lord has seen it—it produces very good grass which is either grazed or goes into fodder and the viability of the farm is improved. On one farm, very close to where my noble friend found himself, on land well-drained as a result of the grant, cattle are able to be kept with an input of a mere £20 of bought feedingstuff. So far only 11 per cent. of the whole of Fermanagh has been drained under these grants, so it is to me a tragedy that they should be cut off just when the smaller, less well-able people were making use of the grant.
The removal of hedges is an emotive thing in this country, but with us, even if you took out every hedge on a farm except the march fence, in a lot of LFAs you still would not have a very big field. The environmental problem is not an issue with us. I appeal to my noble friend to have another look at that matter and see whether he cannot persuade his colleague to turn back the clock and give us more grants for it.
I gave the noble Lord notice that I would raise the question of milk quotas in that the outgoer scheme in Northern Ireland has not produced enough quota to be allocated to farms which have special hardship. I should like to know what will be the position. Is it going to be equal misery throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, or is Northern Ireland going to have more misery than other areas?
I want to say one thing about the Assembly itself. I did not approve of the Assembly when it was first proposed, but it has been there, it is in Northern Ireland, and in regard to its inquiries it is producing quite a lot of good work. But the real issue is that the Government must really give that Assembly something to do. The Assembly cannot go on having inquiries without some specific role to play other than just to talk. I appeal to the Government to look at the question of, perhaps, turning it into the top tier of local government. One thing that they should not do is to abolish it, because that would leave a lot of men, some of them quite young, without a platform and they would be pretty discontented if they lost it. I welcome this order.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for introducing this Northern Ireland appropriation order. I must apologise for the fact that I am speaking a little late in this debate. I had put down a series of Questions for Written Answer relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly and received the Answers this morning. If I do not raise the subject now, I do not think that it can be raised until the next appropriation order debate. My Questions to the Minister related to the part of the appropriation order which deals with the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall be as brief as possible. My first Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government how many times the Northern Ireland Assembly has met".
The reply from the Minister was:
"Up to 5 March there have been 162 Assembly meetings".
That figure, my Lords, represents less than one-and-a-half days a week since the Assembly was formed.
Another of my Questions was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average attendance at meetings of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
The Minister replied:
"No record is maintained of numbers of Members present at sittings of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
I would ask the Minister in his reply this afternoon to say briefly why that should be so.
A further Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the maximum allowances at present for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and what is the average amount claimed by each member".
I shall not go through the list given in the reply, other than to quote the end product, which was the average amount claimed. It says:
"The average amount claimed by each Member from the start of the Assembly in October 1982 to the 31 January is as follows: Travelling allowance, £5,193; Secretarial and research allowances, £11,788".
Those are the figures for two years three months. I think I am right in saying that the Assembly Members receive two-thirds of the salary of Members of another place. That indicates—or perhaps the Minister in his reply will debunk the point that I am making—that we have within Great Britain and Northern Ireland an elected assembly the Members of which can draw £17,500 in public money and yet not make an appearance.
I was all in favour, because I remember the battles that took place during the time of the last Labour Government, of Northern Ireland receiving additional seats at Westminster in order to carry the workload. They of course were forthcoming, and they are now better represented than they were. I would not question that they were entitled to those seats, but I find it somewhat disturbing for us to be told that it is so important and so necessary. I do not say that it is not, but what comes across quite clearly is that if the average number of meetings cover one and a half days a week it is not doing very much. It is not doing as much as the GLC, which is being phased out of existence. It certainly is not doing as much as the City Council in Manchester, which I left, or the City Council in Leeds.

35
I know the situation in Northern Ireland is rather different from anywhere else in Great Britain but I find it rather odd that we have two such varying sets of standards. We have people who I think are receiving a rather handsome remuneration for doing a job, at the most, for one and a half days a week on appearance, and there is no guarantee that they have to attend. That contrasts with the situation on the mainland in Great Britain where there are authorities covering a larger population and having almost unitary responsibilities. For instance, I just picked the GLC out of the air and I am not particularly supporting their arguments on every issue, but that authority covers millions of people. Also we have the great cities of the North, and I think that the six metropolitan counties are all bigger in population than Northern Ireland; and nobody thinks for one moment that they are doing such an important job that the people running those authorities ought really to be receiving a greater consideration than they are.
The point I am trying to make is this. How long are we going to accept a situation where the global sum of money must be pretty significant—larger than any other local authority in this country is paying out to its public representatives who, by the way, only get paid if they turn up and do not get paid if they do not turn up? I would take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who said just now that the Assembly is doing a good job. First of all, the major minority party do not see it as a forum at all and certainly do not attend. I think there is a role for a forum in Northern Ireland and I would prefer, as most of your Lordships would, to see an elected one and to see it functioning. But I do not think we can go on indefinitely in a situation where publicly-elected members to an assembly, within the control of another place, and this finally, are able to avail themselves of these sums of money with no move forward whatsoever towards a political settlement.
I think that the whole situation at present smacks of an endless tunnel with no glimmer of daylight where one can see something contructive coming out of it at the end. I make the point, and quite forcibly, that I do not know of any major debate which has taken place in the Northern Ireland Assembly which has had any bearing on any major decision taken by the Government. It may be a sounding board, when people are brutally murdered, for politicians in Northern Ireland to express their dismay, quite rightly, at some of the horrific things that go on. But I am sure that we do not want it to continue just on the basis that every time there is a disgraceful atrocity committed by either side in Northern Ireland—and one has to say that they are committed by either side, although the majority appear to be committed by those following a particular train of thought there—this assembly will meet only on the Monday or Tuesday following a disgraceful atrocity committed over the weekend. I think that taxpayers in this country are entitled to expect a little bit more for the money they are investing in this particular institution.
I hope, since I have to some extent been the devil's advocate, that the Minister will take note of some of the points I have raised. I do not think that the taxpayers in this country will indefinitely accept this
36
type of burden for people who do not have even the discipline of having to show their faces.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for less than a minute to reinforce a point made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies in relation to the situation of 41 young nurses in the Royal Victoria Hospital—and we have not as yet ascertained the figures for other hospitals in Northern Ireland—after the completion of their three or four years' training. I have always regarded nursing as a very noble profession. I may be inclined to be biased because two of my own daughters are nurses, but I think it is very sad to reflect that these young nurses have given more than three years of their lives, in the very difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland, and particularly at the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is the hospital which takes in most of the wounded and those who have been caught up in terrorist offences. It also applies to the Mater Hospital.
Having given of their all for three or four years and having completed their training, they are then told that there is no place for them to continue their employment in the nursing profession in Northern Ireland. They are then subject to the indignity—and it is an indignity so far as those young girls are concerned—of signing the unemployment register in Northern Ireland. I would say that it is a very sad commentary on the administration of the nursing profession in Northern Ireland if those girls, having undergone their three or four years' training, cannot be assured of a place to nurse within their profession.
I do not think it will help the nursing profession in Northern Ireland—it certainly will not help recruitment—if it becomes clear that, after three years of service training to be a nurse, you are then cast on the waste heap, because young girls will then refrain from going into the nursing profession. So I want to reinforce, with all the strength at my command, the point made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
There is another point, which concerns the great turmoil which is taking place in County Down because of the Government's proposals for reorganising the hospitals in that area. I understand, through contact with them, that three or four hospitals which have been there for many generations are now to be closed down and that people who would normally use the facilities at those hospitals will have to travel 20 or 30 miles to Belfast.
They will not recognise that there have to be economies made in the health service. Those hospitals have been giving a service to the whole community in County Down and people will find it very, very difficult to travel to Belfast. Many of the hospitals in question deal with the aged, infirm and geriatric people who live in those areas and the transport facilities that will be needed to transfer them to Belfast will almost equal the cost incurred in closing down these units. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the concern? I am certain that he must be aware, because even I, although I am not an elected representative, receive many communications from people in that area who are very concerned over the prospect of the closure of these hospitals.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies on the Front Bench, particularly in the context of his scrutiny of this appropriation order and the points he has put forward. I also join him in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his presentation of this appropriation order. It has been a very wide-ranging debate covering a number of subjects, and I certainly look forward with great interest to the Minister's attempt to reply to the matters raised.
I was faced with a dilemma in attempting to raise in a scrutinising manner—the manner which the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned—the real issues that are before us in this appropriation order. But I am afraid I must repeat what I have already said in this House: that, so far as the Northern Ireland economy is concerned and so far as the social wellbeing of all Northern Ireland's citizens is concerned, these appropriation orders are among the most important business listed for debate in Parliament. However, it would be foolish to pretend that in these debates we do more than perform a few ritualistic gestures. I would hasten to add that that is not a criticism of the noble Lord the Minister, nor of the previous persons who have held the Northern Ireland brief. Nor, indeed, is it a criticism of the concern about the commitment to Northern Ireland affairs displayed by other noble Lords in this House.
It is my opinion that the present parliamentary procedures for debating these appropriation orders do not allow for the necessary critical scrutiny demanded by the sums required or the policies pursued. Noble Lords will know that the sums for appropriation have been culled from the various proposals, plans and policies, and historical criteria, put forward by Northern Ireland departments. These appropriation measures have, in turn, been influenced, fashioned and tailored by the Treasury in the context of overall United Kingdom factors.
While I fully accept the obligations to uphold the Treasury parity principle, in my opinion there is no good reason to believe that the economic policies which are deemed suitable for the United Kingdom as a whole are in the best interests of Northern Ireland. What Northern Ireland needs at the present time is an economic strategy designed to achieve competitive economic growth and, simultaneously, to reduce its financial dependence on Great Britain. I seriously doubt the effectiveness of some of the appropriation measures and the efficacy of the proposed financial provisions to meet the needs of the Northern Ireland people. These needs were fully outlined by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and by others.
But more crucial and much more important is the remoteness of the decision-making process, which prevents dynamic participation in the Province. So instead of direct involvement, commitment, cooperation and accountability in order to promote the success of decisions, we have this conventional debate with hopeful probing and pointed questions, and sometimes wild stabbing at events as they occur in Northern Ireland, about measures which have already been firmly decided. The appropriation order before us has already been marked down and decided upon.
38
For these reasons, I request the Minister to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the need for more dynamic and meaningful parliamentary procedures to suitably deal with these appropriation orders. I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, that we are now in prime parliamentary time. I do not believe that the proper way to exercise the necessary scrutiny of the policies being pursued is by raising matters by means of questions and answers across the Floor of the House. Indeed, I would support the idea that the Northern Ireland Assembly ought to be given more work.
If this were an appropriate occasion, or were the Committee stage of a debate, I would feel that I could put forward some reasoned reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in connection with the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The fact that the Assembly meets for one and a half days a week on average does not mean that that is the complete work of the persons involved in the Assembly. The committee work of the Assembly is a much more important role. I certainly agree with the noble Lord when he says that the Assembly ought to be given more credence; that it ought to be given more assistance to carry on its work; and that its opinions ought to be adhered to, or at least commented upon, by the Government. In this respect I would draw the Minister's attention to page 8 of the order, Class XI, No. 1.
To support the points I want to make, I should like to give three brief quotations from statements. Last Thursday, 6th March, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right honourable Douglas Hurd, publically declared:
"The Government remains fully committed to a robust and resolute security policy and to search for greater political stability in Northern Ireland".
I totally agree with that, but I do not think it is enough. In November 1984 the Roman Catholic bishop, Dr. Cahal Daly, stated:
"The only effective way to end subversive violence is to tackle the deprivation and alienation on which it feeds".
I am pleased to add my final quotation, which was made on Friday last, 7th March, by the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, which is the representative body of all youth organisations in the Province. It issued a public appeal to all Northern Ireland politicians to "grow up" and start talking to each other. The young people's message was:
"We are sick of violence. Follow our example. If we can bridge social, political and religious differences, so can others in the community".
I have already mentioned the statement by Mr. Hurd, and his commitment to security and his search for political stability. I believe that the vast majority of sections in the Northern Ireland community would strongly urge the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Hurd, publically to voice a third dimension to the two already mentioned by adding a sustained programme of economic development and social justice, and "a better life for all" in the Province. That is a key matter. I am not in any way disparaging the other two, but I think we must go forward with this to unite the people. The three dimensions are an important facet of political life in Northern Ireland. The absence of the third dimension makes a nonsense of the other two.

39
Would it be an acceptable part of the proposed shuttle diplomacy to now invite all members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to join and actively participate in this economic crusade, even if at this stage some members may not feel able to participate in the other aspects of the Assembly's role and functions? The report of the Assembly on economic strategy has already been mentioned from the Opposition Front Bench. This report consists of four volumes, and was forwarded to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 17th December 1984. It contains some 60 recommendations for dealing with the Northern Ireland economy.
When does the Northern Ireland Office propose to provide a considered reply to the report and the recommendations? I think it is crucial that a reply should come forward urgently in this respect, not only because of the manner in which this point was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but also because of the manner and tone in which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, put his questions in connection with the work of the Assembly. It is important for the credibility of the Assembly and for the future of the Assembly that its proposals are commented upon. Otherwise the view will be sustained that Northern Ireland representations are taken little heed of, so far as accountability in Northern Ireland affairs is concerned, in discussions and debates in the United Kingdom.
I will deal now with another aspect of the Industrial Development Board. The Belfast Telegraph on 19th February 1985 and the Belfast Newsletter on 5th March 1985 both featured articles about the IDB's submissions and evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly's Economic Committee and an IDB study paper privately circulated under the title Encouraging Enterprise: the IDB's Strategy Towards the 1990s. Both reports have given rise to considerable anxiety about the present roles, functions and staffing of the IDB. Can the Minister say when the IDB document Encouraging Enterprise will be made available to interested people?
Also, is the,
"aggressive approach of the IDB to job creation"—
to quote from evidence submitted by an 1DB representative to the Assembly's Economic Committee—being inhibited through lack of adequate staffing? Perhaps the Minister can deal with those points and give a short answer.
I will conclude by referring to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also made reference. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, spoke about integrated education and commented that it was a minefield. Minefields can be places of casualties, but they can also be places of gold. The two have some relevance to the issue of integrated education. There can be tremendous benefits, and nuggets of gold can emerge from proper policies in relation to integrated education so far as Northern Ireland community relations are concerned.
For that reason, I welcome the statement made by Mr. Nicholas Scott, Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the Education Committee of the
40
Northern Ireland Assembly on 27th February 1985. I will quote from his remarks:
"There is one other objective to which I would like to draw the attention of the Assembly before I draw my remarks to a conclusion; that of the schools' contribution in fostering good community relations in Northern Ireland. If we believe that education changes attitudes and perceptions—and if we do not believe that, I would have thought, much of the need for education and the basis of education would disappear—and if we believe that it develops young people's ideals and values as well as their knowledge and skills, there is an inescapable responsibility on schools to continue and to increase their efforts to break down the community barriers that we have here in the Province".
He went on to deal with the ways in which schools have been co-operating, and concluded this particular aspect of his speech with this statement:
"I do not seek short-term solutions in community relations, any more than I do in other dimensions of school development that I have described. But let us not lose sight of the long-term benefit that the success of such a policy could bring to Northern Ireland. None of these changes will happen without commitment by the Government, no less than by the schools. I wish to assure the Assembly that the Government have that commitment".
I welcome and support that statement, which has a bearing on education, by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern ireland.
The House may like to know that there is in Northern Ireland the All Children Together movement. I believe it has great potential if it is supported, and if it broadens its horizons to cover more than Lagan College, to embrace the needs of the whole of the Province in Northern Ireland. I am a member of the Belfast Charitable Trust for integrated education. Its activities are based on a planning study for the development of integrated education in the City of Belfast that envisages the opening of a series of integrated schools over the next five years. I hope that we shall have an opportunity in the near future to debate this matter of integrated education. I have today put down an Unstarred Question which may provide such an opportunity.
I have spoken at some length and will only add that the Minister has been very warmly welcomed in Northern Ireland, especially in the agricultural field. He has travelled widely, but I am sorry that he stopped at the gate of the noble Viscount. Lord Brookeborough. I am sure that the next time he travels that road he will call at the noble Viscount's mansion and farm, where I am certain he will receive a warm welcome. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench and this order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure we would all agree with the observation made by the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, at the beginning of his remarks that we are all getting prime time; and that we should use that time, which is so valuable to your Lordships, as effectively as we can. For my part, I believe that we have had an excellent and thorough debate scrutinising the entire order and the estimates. I am more than impressed; I am very grateful for the attention that has been paid by noble Lords to the supplementary estimates. Vote 11 has been mentioned several times, as has Vote 6 and Vote 8. It is very gratifying that we use prime time in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned a number of points. First, he inquired about the Assembly and asked me how many recommendations have been accepted. I hope that, in the course of my

41
opening remarks, I shall be able to give the noble Lord some satisfaction on that particular score. As all noble Lords who live in Northern Ireland or who are aware of activities in Northern Ireland will know, the Assembly has made a valuable contribution in scrutinising the work of the department of the Northern Ireland Office.
Since its establishment in 1982, the Assembly has produced 92 reports. I am not able to tell the noble Lord exactly how many have been laid before Parliament but the topics they covered have gone as wide as industrial development incentives, aid for agriculture, youth training programmes, and of course public expenditure priorities. The Assembly has further considered 24 proposals for draft orders in council. In addition, more than 550 items of subordinate legislation have been referred to the Assembly.
I cannot give an indication—let along a precise figure—of the number of recommendations which have been accepted, but I would stress that the Government's perception of public expenditure priorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred specifically is very much in line with that of the Assembly. We believe that the Assembly, and in particular the Finance and Personnel Committee, has made a most valuable contribution to consideration of where our priorities should lie in the matter of economics in the Province. We find it especially gratifying that both we—that is, the Government—and the Assembly think in a like way. We hope that our ideas will indeed bear fruit.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had one further point regarding the Assembly; he asked about job creation. I stress to him, and to your Lordships, that the Government accept, indeed, endorse, the Assembly's view that the highest possible priority should be accorded to the creation of employment and, above all, to the regeneration of the economy of the Province. To that extent they aim to ensure that the necessary funds are made available to the Province's main job creation agencies—the Industrial Development Board, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, specifically drew attention and, of course, the LEDU. We wish to ensure that the lack of financial resources and other resources will not be allowed to constrain the job creation drive. I hope that that reply will be of some value to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord also asked about receipts from the European Community for 1984–85 and 1985–86. I realised, even as the noble Lord asked me, that there would need to be a considerable amount of digging out of figures and sifting in order to answer him today. I understand that it is even more complex than I had thought and I therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence to write to the noble Lord with that information in so far as we are able to give a satisfactory answer on the specific point he raised.
The noble Lord also asked about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Earlier in the financial year the Housing Executive identified some variation from its housing targets on a number of expenditure blocks which resulted in a projected net underspend of about £11·3 million on its approved budget. I stress to the noble Lord, and to your Lordships, that this does not mean any change in the actual housing strategy.
42
The executive attributes the underspend to slower than anticipated progress on site, though the programme of new starts approved for the year is now broadly on target. It also attributes the underspend to unexpected additional receipts from house sales. All forward estimates in the public sector are monitored during the year and I am sure the noble Lord will accept that there is nothing unusual about adjustments to plans being made to reflect changes which can arise for all kinds of different reasons. The underspend declared by the executive also reflects the improved monitoring of programmes on the ground, which the department has been seeking, and it provides a much firmer base for forward programming and estimating.
As a result of the regular monitoring assessments by all the Northern Ireland departments we found it possible at a later stage in the financial year to make available the increased sum of £6 million to the executive to allow it to repay certain loans from building societies which would otherwise have created a call on housing resources in future financial years. As a result of this, total growth housing expenditure for 1984–85 will be in the region of £520 million.
The noble Lord also asked about the Irish language. As he will see, I might have some problems with this myself in the course of my reply. We accept the importance of the Irish language and, indeed, its culture. It is important that it is fully recognised in the educational activities and, above all, the related activities of that type in Northern Ireland. Irish is studied by more than 25,000 pupils in Northern Ireland's secondary schools. It is developing to a significant extent in a proportion of primary schools. The noble Lord will accept that the curriculum is not dictated or controlled by the Government, nor, indeed, by the Department of Education. It is essentially a matter for school authorities and, above all, head teachers. The Government recognise the right of parents to have their children educated through the medium of the Irish language. On 6th April last year it was announced that Bunscoil Gaelach—and I am sure that the Official Report will be able to ascertain that it is spelled nothing like I have pronounced it—the independent school in Shaw's Road, Belfast, would be recognised as a grant-aided school from 1st September 1984. A special unit in which tuition is provided through the medium of the Irish language has also been approved in Steelstown Primary School in Londonderry.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for missing the first 10 seconds of his remarks. I was battling my way through the throng to get here, but I am sure he appreciates that such things can and frequently do happen in the best of schedules. The noble Lord referred to the IDB's policy of assisting industries which are in competition with others, resulting in some of the latter going out of business. I regret that I am not aware of the specific instances that the noble Lord had in mind, but perhaps he will allow me to arrange for my honourable friend in another place to look into this particular matter and write to him.
The noble Lord also asked about integrated education. It is the policy of the Government, and has been the policy of successive Administrations in Northern Ireland, that integrated education should be

43
encouraged wherever there is a local wish for it. I refer the noble Lord to what I said a few moments ago to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about head teachers and school authorities. The Government will support practical proposals which they are satified reflect the wishes of local people. I assure the noble Lord that there is no question of forcing integration on anyone who does not want it.
The noble Lord referred also to Shorts and the possible privatisation of that company. I cannot add anything to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place on 6th December last year. The noble Lord will be aware that in that Statement my right honourable friend announced that, in principle, Shorts would be a candidate for privatisation and that the Government will be considering the matter on the basis of specialist advice on the feasibility, costs, benefits and other details of disposal, including how best to secure employee involvement. I stress that we hope the advisers will begin their assignment this Monday.
The noble Lord also referred to lignite. The significance of lignite in relation to the generation of electricity is considerable. At present tests are in progress to discover whether a processed form of lignite should be used in the Belfast west power station. I am afraid that the results of that inquiry will not be known for some time. However, the major use for lignite is likely to be the generation of electricity at what we call "mine mouth" power stations, which will require considerable planning and other forms of economic activity. The building of such items as power stations is something that can be carried forward only over a considerable time—indeed, a certain number of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put forward a number of points. First, he asked about the 85 per cent. grant and also mentioned the happy acronym ACE—Action for Community Employment. The noble Lord will be aware, and I am sure your Lordships will be interested to know, that ACE and the community programmes in Great Britain are designed to enhance the employment prospects for those who have been unemployed for over one year and at the same time to benefit the community. I stress to the noble Lord—I am sure he is aware of it—that ACE has been highly successful, that job targets have been exceeded over the past two years, and that the target for 1985–86 is 3,500 jobs. The scheme is continually monitored by the Department of Economic Development to ensure its effectiveness.
The noble Lord also raised the question of capital grants to schools. He will be interested to know that under the regulations governing the payment of building grants to voluntary schools, payment can be made only on approved expenditure already incurred by the school trustees. The Department of Education is conscious of the trustee's cash-flow problems and endeavours to make payments with as little delay as possible, but some checks have to be made to satisfy the Government's accounting rules. I assure the noble Lord that those checks do not go beyond normal accounting prudence.
To assist trustees at voluntary schools with their cash-flow problems, in 1981 the Government
44
removed the previous requirement that 5 per cent. of the estimated cost of the work should be met by the trustees before any grant would be paid. Originally the requirement was that 10 per cent. would have to be paid by the trustees, but that was brought down to 5 per cent. in 1975.
The noble Lord raised a number of points concerning Maghaberry, the city walls of Derry and joy-riders. Of course those matters fall to the Northern Ireland Office but I am afraid that they do not relate to transferred services which we are dealing with in these valuable Supplementary Estimates today. I am sure that he will agree that they do not come within the ambit of the appropriation order which we are discussing this afternoon, but I shall draw all the matters that he raised to the attention of my right honourable friend and my honourable friends in another place.
The noble Lord also raised the question of discrimination in employment. It is illegal in Northern Ireland in all categories of employment—private companies as well as the public service. Your Lordships will be aware that the Fair Employment Agency which the Government set up in 1976 has the task of promoting equality in employment. It has legal powers to investigate allegations of unlawful discrimination and to provide remedies. I stress to the noble Lord that the Government are fully committed to equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland as well as everywhere else.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised several interesting points, one or two of which were on the fringe of relevance but they were nevertheless very welcome. I shall bring my noble friend's compliments on the statement at Newry of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to his notice. I am sure that your Lordships will be interested, and my right honourable friend even more so, in the various messages to Mr. Barry.
My noble friend raised the question of drainage in Fermanagh. He and your Lordships will be pleased to see that I am wearing a Fermanagh tie, which is one of the few awarded to me by a local council in Northern Ireland. I regard it as a trophy not of war but of mere combat, since I survived one and a half hours of close questioning. It was what the French would call an assemblée mouvementée when I was in Enniskillen town hall. That was in July, and afterwards I was given this lovely Fermanagh tie.
I stress to my noble friend and your Lordships that when I am covering drainage in Fermanagh at no time is there any creeping past his gate. I was not aware of any goats in Fermanagh. But there is a slightly interesting double entendre to the thought of goats. From what my noble friend and various other people have suggested to me, I do not think that goats would be applicable to me. First, I am a bachelor. I also understand that there is some aspect of goats in the ceremonies of one or two of the orders in Northern Ireland. Those two matters would be non-transferable, I think.
My noble friend asked about drainage and hedge removal grants in Fermanagh. As my noble friend pointed out, the question of hedge removal grants was covered by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in his announcement last December. The

45
announcement also covered changes in drainage grants, which, as I am sure my noble friend appreciates, apply thoughout the United Kingdom and not just in Fermanagh. The elimination of hedge removal grants reflects not only the Government's aim of achieving closer integration of conservation and agricultural policies but also the need for continuing restraint in public expenditure.
The greater part of Fermanagh will continue to enjoy the rates of drainage grant that apply in Less Favoured Areas. Those were enhanced last year through the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme. My noble friend and indeed all your Lordships will be aware of the considerable public expenditure constraints which have had to be imposed. Unpleasant though the decisions were that we had to make about drainage grants, I believe that we have reason to be proud that we have been able to continue with drainage grants. The cuts do bear hard in Fermanagh, but my noble friend will appreciate that the uptake of the grants in Fermanagh was very high compared to other areas in Northern Ireland, and so any cuts will bear hard there. The way that I put it to farmers in County Fermanagh and indeed in Eniskillen recently is that the Government still maintain their partnership in these matters but, unfortunately, we have had to change the balance of that partnership.
My noble friend raised several points on security to which I listened carefully. I shall draw them all to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I say no more except fully to endorse what my noble friend said about the courage shown by every single member of the security forces in the face of the appalling risks they have to take. Those compliments could not have been expressed better than by my noble friend.
My noble friend also raised the question of the shortfall between the demand for additional milk quota and the amount for allocation or possibly reallocation so far as secondary quotas are concerned. I am afraid that I can go no further today except to say that all this is the subject of consideration among myself and other agricultural Ministers. I hope that he will accept that we are fighting the corner for Northern Ireland, but we shall have to wait to see final developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, raised several questions about the Assembly. I am grateful to him for bringing to the attention of your Lordships, and giving it a wider audience than it might otherwise have achieved, my somewhat humble Answer today to a Written Question from him. I am afraid that right now I cannot go further and amplify the Answer. If there is anything further that I can say, I shall certainly write to him.
The noble Lord mentioned value for money. I am sure that even he would accept that the GLC and (which is possibly nearer to his heart) the GMC—which does not stand for the General Motor Corporation but the Greater Manchester Council—are entirely different bodies from the Assembly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to put a specific point regarding remuneration for people from the
46
Assembly. In his Answer the Minister said no record of attendance is kept. I made the point—it may be hypothetical; I do not know—that somebody could draw £17,000 a year and never turn up. Why is no register kept?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think I recall the noble Lord asking me why. That will be one of the points on which I shall write to him. I am sorry that I cannot go further today on that particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I think the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised the case of the 41 nurses at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Perhaps I may make a general point about the provision of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. I am not able to make a specific comment on that point this afternoon but I may he able to give some indication of the level of spending on all the services of this nature in Northern Ireland.
I stress that the Government are certainly not cutting back on health and social care. Indeed, revenue expenditure on the services over the four-year period 1979–80 to 1983–84 has grown in cash terms from £353 million to £600 million; that is, by 70 per cent. The cost of these services to the economy as a whole has increased by 16 per cent. over this period. The increase in input volume has been 8 per cent.
I take the point that has been raised by the noble Lords but I hope that the figures and the amount of resources that we are devoting to these services provide clear evidence that, despite the country's economy problems, the Government are committed to the maintenance and above all to the development of health and personal social services to meet the needs of the entire population.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised a number of points. The noble Lord was worried about the economic strategy and public expenditure in Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord that the Government share his concern and that our overall economic strategy is designed to create the circumstances in which the private sector will be able to develop, and thus create new job opportunities.
The February unemployment statistics which were issued last week show a small decrease in the number of unemployed. I have to say that the reduction is not as large as we might have expected at this time of year, but certainly there are signs that some progress is being made. However, in the longer term, prospects at both national and local level depend upon the maintenance of sound financial policies. Above all, there is the need for continuation of the drive for greater competitiveness, efficiency and enterprise. With this we have to couple the containment of costs, including wage costs, because this is also crucial if we are to translate lower inflation into growth which is lasting and, above all, lasting jobs. That is an objective that all of us really do share.
So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, of course the Province faces a unique combination of social and economic problems. In recognition of this, the Government have responded, we believe in the most positive way, through the public expenditure allocation in Northern Ireland. Public expenditure for

47
1985–86 will be £30 million higher than had been originally planned. This is at a time when expenditure levels in the United Kingdom as a whole are being held steady. Overall public expenditure in Northern Ireland is somewhere in the range of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. higher—on any basis that one likes to take, but principally per capita—than in the comparable programmes in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that this differential is a good measure of what I have to say has been successive Governments' response to the particular difficulties in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, also raised a further point about the report of the Assembly and the Government's response to the Assembly report on the economic strategy. Work on the response is proceeding and we hope that we shall be able to issue it shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked one more point about the IDB. As part of its new strategy, the IDB will take a much more active approach to industrial development than has been the case to date. The IDB intends to work closely with both new and established firms, not only on individual projects but on the overall development of the client company. To help with this particularly important work, the IDB will be strengthening its existing team of client executives by the recruitment of 10 new staff at executive level over the next few years.
I think that the noble Lord and your Lordships will be impressed by the fact that the new recruits will be subjected to a rigorous training programme. The major feature of this will be the requirement to complete an MBA in industrial development and international business at the University of Ulster, a chair in which the IDB itself will soon be sponsoring. I think that your Lordships will agree that the IDB is absolutely correct in this. Further, the IDB believes that this investment in training and development of its executives is essential if any new strategic approach to helping companies is to be at all successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, mentioned in conclusion the effectiveness of this particular form of appropriation debate as a means of scrutinising public spending in the Province. I should hope that your Lordships will agree that it does not represent an ideal mechanism but it gives your Lordships the opportunity to raise any aspect of the policies which we have before us, or indeed the performance of the Northern Ireland departments whose finance is provided for in the draft order. I think in that respect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will agree, it gives to your Lordships prime time and indeed a unique opportunity to debate public spending in the Province.
I have sought to cover all the questions. I have indicated that I shall be writing to some of your Lordships. I apologise for having taken up a great deal of your Lordships' time. We have further Northern Ireland business to take. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this? He has indeed dealt in great detail with and elucidated many points. He has mentioned that he will reply to matters raised by some individual Lords. Because of the way the debate
48
proceeded, some of us have left aside points we should have liked to raise because they have been raised by other noble Lords. We did not want duplication. Therefore, would it be possible for the noble Lord to give us an omnibus reply? Alternatively, if a reply has gone to one noble Lord, will it be possible for those of us who have taken part in the debate to see copies of that reply?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly take that on board and see if I am able to give what the noble Lord calls an omnibus reply. In any case, I think there are new arrangements which prevail in your Lordships' House. I shall see what I can do. With that, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
5.38 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before your Lordships on 14th February, he approved.
This draft order will, if approved, achieve two objectives which we believe are entirely desirable. First, and most importantly, it will ensure that the next local government elections in Northern Ireland—which take place on 15th May this year—are conducted in accordance with the same provisions against personation which now apply at parliamentary elections in the Province—I am so sorry; I have received a little note from my winged advisers. In the second place, the draft order revises the existing local elections rules for Northern Ireland, with the general effect of bringing them more closely into line with the parliamentary rules.
I should assure your Lordships at this stage that the basic aims of this order are quite straightforward and admirably few in number; even if the legislative means of attaining them is necessarily rather technical and lengthy. It may help your Lordships if I go through the main provisions of the order in a little detail.
To turn first to the provisions against personation, your Lordships will recall, from our debates ealier this year on the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, the main features of the Government's approach. Under Sections 1 and 2 of what is now the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985, voters at parliamentary elections in the Province must produce a specified document in order to receive a ballot paper. A list of the specified documents appears on the face of the Act. Section 3 of the Act creates a new electoral offence in respect of unlawful possession of such documents; and confers appropriate powers on the police to deal with this and related offences.
Provisions corresponding to these two central elements of the Elections Act appear in the order before your Lordships today—first, at Rule 34 in Schedule 1 to the order as regards the requirement for specified documents; and at Article 15 as regards criminal misuse of these documents. The effect will be to ensure that the safeguards which Parliament has

49
determined should apply in Northern Ireland for elections to another place, should apply there equally at local elections. That has always been the Government's declared aim and intention.
The pressing need to bring these measures into force before the next district council elections in May this year also gave us an opportunity to revise the present body of local elections rules. These rules are currently set out in the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, which this order replaces. In common with the 1977 order, this draft order amends and supplements the provisions of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
Most of the existing elections rules are unchanged in substance by the draft order before us, though many have been slightly redrafted for greater clarity or rearranged in sequence. The significant changes provided for by the order are as follows.
Article 3 disapplies the substance of the Northern Ireland (Local Elections) Order 1977, which, as I have said, is replaced by this order. The remaining provisions of the 1977 order—Article 3 and Schedule 1—deal with district electoral areas, and these have been superseded by the District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order, which, noble Lords will remember, we debated on 5th February. The District Electoral Areas Order comes into force on 15th May this year when the 1977 order will be revoked.
Article 4 of the draft order before us, together with Schedule 1 to the order, substitutes the new election rules in the schedule for those in Schedule 5 to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1962. We have already examined new Rule 34 concerning the specified documents. There are four other new rules to which I should draw your Lordships' attention.
Rule 1 of Schedule 1 extends polling hours at local elections which will now be from seven in the morning until ten o'clock at night. Previously, as your Lordships may he aware, polling took place from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The additional three hours thereby made available to voters should prove particularly useful at the elections this May, when voters and electoral staff will be familiarising themselves with the new procedures.
Rule 3 provides that in these rules the term "returning officer" means the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, or a deputy returning officer authorised to act under his supervision. This rule, and its application throughout the schedule, makes it clear that the chief electoral officer has sole responsibility for the fair and efficient conduct of all aspects of local elections, as he does for all other elections in Northern Ireland.
Rule 25 provides that the poll card shall be in a prescribed form; namely, that the back of the card will list the specified documents and make clear the requirement to produce one such document in order to obtain a ballot paper. This helpful addition to the poll card is intended to supplement the Government's major publicity campaign drawing voters' attention to the new arrangements, which began last week. Somewhere, I have one of these valuable blue documents. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, nods in assent. Perhaps one has even come through his
50
door. I understand that they are already starting to filter through in Northern Ireland.
Lastly, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the effect of Rule 41 and, above all, to the hours of polling set out in Rule 1, to which it relates. These follow the Representation of the People Act 1983 in prohibiting the issue of ballot papers after the close of the poll. This contrasts with Rule 46 in Schedule 5 of the 1962 Electoral Law Act, which permitted those present in the polling station at the time to remain there to apply for a ballot paper and cast their vote, and on occasion, I would stress, to profit from the general confusion, and even to cast someone else's vote.
I should like now to explain briefly the remaining articles in the main body of the draft order. Article 5 provides that local elections shall take place on the basis of district electoral areas. Article 6, together with Schedule 2 to the order, makes fresh provision for absent voting at local government elections, to which the grounds for entitlement are similar to those for local electors in Great Britain under the Representation of the People Act 1983. In particular, under paragraph 2 of Part 1 to Schedule 2, all local electors who are also on the standing list for absent voters at parliamentary elections will now be entitled to apply for absent voting facilities for an indefinite period at local elections. Once this order is made, the chief electoral officer will write to everyone who is on the standing list for parliamentary elections to ask them if they wish to be entered on the equivalent list for local elections. In future, applicants for entry on one list will also be invited to apply for inclusion on the other. The establishment of a standing list for absent voters at local elections will be welcomed by many in Northern Ireland, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
Article 7 reaffirms the existing legal requirement that polling in an election year shall be held on the third Wednesday in May. Article 8 extends from three to six months the time within which the chief electoral officer must submit an account of electoral expenses to district councils. It also extends the period in which claims can be made against the returning officer. Article 9 increases the limit on candidates' expenses.
Article 10 deals with costs which may be charged for inspection of certain election documents, and Article 11 retains the existing right of candidates in Northern Ireland local elections to send their election addresses post free. Article 12 abolishes the candidate's deposit for local elections, which has long been an anomaly between Northern Ireland practice and that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Article 13 disapplies, for the purposes of local elections, a provision which applied only in Northern Ireland whereby a person wrongly charged with personation could claim compensation not exceeding £10. Any claim in future can be pursued in the ordinary way through the civil courts as at parliamentary elections.
Article 14 extends certain voting offences in the 1962 Act. More importantly, Article 15, as we have seen, deals with criminal use of specified documents. The remaining three articles make consequential amendments to earlier legislation.

51
I hope that I have not tested your Lordships' patience unduly again in my attempts to try to explain this necessarily technical and rather complicated draft order. I began by assuring your Lordships that the order has two main effects—to apply the new anti-personation laws to local elections in Northern Ireland, and, secondly, to make the generality of local elections rules more consonant with the parliamentary rules. With your Lordships' permission, I will rest my case on my first and, I hope, my best thoughts. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
5.48 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I rise to speak with some diffidence on detailed, technical and important matters relating to local government elections in Northern Ireland. I shall be brief. My message is that the Opposition welcome the order. We are grateful to the Minister for explaining clearly the main purpose of the order. I have read the recent reports of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I note that some of its suggestions have been incorporated in the draft order, but even where they have been rejected, the commission is, I believe, satisfied that the implications of its recommendations have been thoroughly examined.
I appreciate that among some people who have at heart what they perceive to be the wellbeing of the Province and its people there is a strongly held view that the order should have wiped proportional representation off the local government electoral map. It does not do that, of course. That is, for many people, a fundamental matter. The retention of proportional representation is also, for some people, a matter of some anxiety, as they fear that proportional representation might lead to electoral success by Sinn Fein. But we believe that the Government are right in seeking to maintain ways and means of ensuring the representation of minority opinion in the Province.
I must acknowledge that I am a little uneasy about the wording of Rule 22; possibly it could have been clarified. I have read and re-read the criticisms which have been levelled at this particular rule. It is important because it relates to the place of voting; democracy begins at a polling station. If the position, identity or precise location of the polling station is in doubt, the whole edifice may be fractured. I would therefore invite the Minister to give an assurance to the House that he and the department are fully satisfied that the meaning of Rule 22 is beyond dispute. With that caveat, we give full support to the draft order.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this order. Considerable opposition was voiced in the other place to election by single transferable vote, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has just mentioned this and the way in which it may help Sinn Fein. The House will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to labour my support for STV, although I have yet to hear a
52
convincing explanation why it is so admirable in the Province and such anathema to the Government on the mainland.
Harking back to the position of Sinn Fein, it seems to me that there is reason in the suggestion that no party should be allowed to put up a candidate who does not affirm categorically that he is against the use of violence to achieve his aims. We may come back to this.
This seems to me a sensible order. It covers arrangements to prevent personation, and we have already agreed that voters in parliamentary elections should have to produce a specified document in order to receive a ballot paper. It seems helpful to extend the hours of the poll, and no one need object. What has been more open to criticism is the suggestion that those who are present in the polling station at the close of the poll but who have not actually voted should now be banned, and this has been referred to by the noble Lord the Minister. With the extended hours I should have thought that this was a perfectly reasonable rule to prevent possible abuse of the system.
I have not analysed the many pages of the schedule, but I am prepared to accept that the arrangements are satisfactory for the equipment of polling stations, the sealing of ballot boxes, the voting by blind persons, etc. We certainly try hard, and I believe it is admirable to see that the handicapped suffer as little inconvenience as possible. I was intrigued to see on page 69 of the order an example of a special form designed for use as a declaration by a Christian Science practitioner as to the blindness of an applicant.
The order seeks to bring into force arrangements for local elections which have been agreed already for elections to Westminster and in general make the two forms of election as similar as possible, apart from the use of PR at one and not at the other. While regretting that one difference, in general I support the order as logical and sensible.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, since the abolition of Stormont in 1972 when this Government took over responsibility under direct rule for the running of affairs in Northern Ireland, on many occasions I sat in another place and with my colleagues looked at the various orders and Bills which came before the House. We referred to them seriously and facetiously. When we looked at the Bills and listened to the Minister at the Dispatch Box promulgating the order or the Bill, there was a constant repetition of two themes: on the one hand the Bill would bring Northern Ireland into line with other regions of the United Kingdom, and on the other hand we were looking for the longest and most convenient barge pole with which to push Northern Ireland away from the United Kingdom. This order is doing exactly that. I am not objecting to the order because I know and understand the situation in Northern Ireland, and I think that the Government are honestly trying to deal with the situation which has emerged in its most serious form over the last two or three elections; it was always there, but recently it has become very serious.
We have a different set of regulations and electoral practices operating in Northern Ireland from those

53
here. We on this side of the water—and I am now on this side of the water—would not contaminate our electoral process by having a lot of restrictions printed on the back of the polling card. We would not tolerate having to be told that we were not going to get a vote unless we produced the various documents listed in the schedule. We would not accept here lots of policemen and members of the security forces (military personnel) standing within the actual polling stations. The atmosphere in which elections take place in Northern Ireland is totally different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
On the question of PR, I have read the debates of the other place, and during my years as a Member there were some hotly contested debates about proportional representation. I believe that it was right and is right to have proportional representation in Northern Ireland, given its history and the division which exists between its people. But I have yet to be convinced that it would be a good thing for this part of the United Kingdom. I am not absolutely sure whether PR, if it were to be introduced in this part of the United Kingdom, would be to the advantage of our whole political process. I say that because some people will ask: how is it that you accept it in Northern Ireland and you do not accept it here in other parts of the United Kingdom? I think there is a different set of reasons in Northern Ireland for justifying the use of PR, and it does not necessarily have to be justified on this side of the Irish Sea.
A great deal of debate was taken up in another place with many objections from the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, and I think it is right that we in this House who are not elected should at all times listen very carefully to what has been said by those people in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, for that matter, who have to face an election and justify their attitude. Almost all the Members who spoke in the debates in another place objected to the provision which has been introduced into this legislation. The increase in the number of hours was accepted, but there is a very clear delineation, a very clear stop which is placed at ten o'clock—the ballot will close at ten o'clock. I am not a Unionist, and never have been, but I have read the speeches of the Unionist members and I think that there is great validity in what they say.
You could envisage a position where five or six people, maybe more, were queuing up at a polling station, which is, in fact, the ballot box. At one minute to ten one person could be given a ballot paper and go away and sign it. The next person could come and give his name and address or document and the polling card and then the clock strikes ten. Under this order the returning officer will say "Poll closed", and the person will be standing there within seconds of receiving the ballot paper. Indeed, the position may be that the person had the ballot paper already marked and was on his way to put it into the ballot box. Would he be stopped? Many objections have been raised by elected representatives in another place on the grounds that that is likely to happen. I can predict that if it happens, if a number of people are in a queue in the polling station in the last five or ten minutes, waiting to vote, and the clock strikes and the returning officer closes the station, they will not timidly turn round, agree that they are late, and just walk out of the polling station. There will be a riot; that is to put it at its most
54
simple. There will be serious disturbances. The Unionist Members have predicted that, and I have no hesitation in saying it.
I cannot see any great difficulty in having the regulation provide that the doors of the polling station should be closed once 10 o'clock comes but that the people who are inside and are about to claim their vote should be allowed to do so. I have spoken privately to many of the Members who spoke in another place and I think there is total agreement that if people are refused a vote because it is 10 o'clock it could lead to serious trouble at the polling station. I know that in answer to some of these objections the Minister said, "Well, we have the RUC, and the RUC will be able to deal with any trouble that may arise". That is not the way to look at affairs such as this in Northern Ireland. We could say that the police can settle any trouble; but at what a cost! It is totally unnecessary to create a situation like this when it could be done without. I urge the Minister to take note of what was said by elected representatives in another place and to listen to what I am saying this evening.
I do not think the abolition of the £15 deposit really means an awful lot. But it means that if people are wanting to abuse the political process—and certainly many people in Northern Ireland want to do that—100 different people could get nomination papers and put them in to the returning officer, and their names would appear on the ballot paper. The ballot paper would look like a toilet roll by the time it appeared in the polling stations. The abolition of the £15 deposit could lead to an abuse, and more names would appear on the ballot paper.
I believe that most people in Northern Ireland will accept that this legislation is necessary. But we have to be honest and say that it is necessary at this stage only because of the electoral successes which Sinn Fein have had in recent elections: Sinn Fein, who have claimed that they want to fight their battles with an Armalite in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. It is because of the totally illegal activities that have been employed by Sinn Fein since 1982—in fact, since 1981, in the first election which they fought in Northern Ireland and which led to such an abuse of the whole electoral process—that this legislation is necessary. After taking whatever steps we can to eliminate abuse—and most of that abuse will be committed by Sinn Fein supporters—we should not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of people who are legitimately claiming their own vote.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again we are very grateful that after a lengthy afternoon on Northern Irish affairs the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, have found the time to discuss and to examine this interesting, complicated and technical order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davis, raised the question of PR and STV, though not necessarily in those terms; but certainly he raised the question of proportional representation. I have to say to your Lordships that when I see PR or STV it has to be forcefully dinned into me that STV does not stand for Scottish Television, because where I come from that is exactly what it stands for. I find the systems of PR interesting,

55
to say the least. I am learning day by day in Northern Ireland.
I am sure that your Lordships who in recent months have followed our debates on other forms of electoral legislation will not be surprised to learn that the Government remain firmly committed to proportional representation as the most appropriate electoral system for local elections in Northern Ireland. We believe that in the particular circumstances of the Province, where political parties draw their support on a quite different basis from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, PR offers the best way of ensuring adequate political representation of significant minorities at local level. I accept that the draft order before us this evening could in theory have been used as a means of getting rid of PR voting, and that some of your Lordships and indeed some Members of another place might have wished it to do exactly that. But the Government have no intention of changing the present law in respect of the actual electoral systems as opposed to election rules purely of an administrative nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked also about Rule 22. I have to tell the noble Lord that Rule 22 is in precisely the same terms as the equivalent provisions in the parliamentary elections rules which are applicable throughout the United Kingdom. I assure your Lordships that we understand that its meaning is entirely clear. If I can amplify this point any further, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to write to him. I shall examine what I have said and, if it is in any way inadequate or inaccurate, I shall rectify that. I understand the rule is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also mentioned PR. I find it interesting. I was not aware that he had found on page 69 the declaration by a practitioner in Christian Science. It shows how very thoroughly the noble Lord studied the order. As your Lordships will appreciate, I do not want to become involved in the question of whether or not Christian Science is a religion. We have enough complications of this nature in Northern Ireland without going any further. This form of declaration has been requested and I hope that its inclusion will be of some help.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised a question about the close of the poll. He may appreciate that throughout my life, from the age of 21 on, I have not been allowed at any time to enter polls for parliamentary elections, so I cannot see what goes on. I understand that the arrangements that the noble Lord was protesting about already apply, presumably without major difficulty—I stress that—at parliamentary elections, European parliamentary elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. What the draft order is seeking to do is to bring the procedure at local elections into line with that at these other three similar elections.
The noble Lord made a particular point about what might happen at one minute to 10 o'clock. As far as I am aware, it is a question of whether the voter actually has a voting slip in his hand at 10 o'clock; it is not a question of whether he marks it. I think the noble Lord and other noble Lords will agree that we are being not
56
ungenerous in allowing three extra hours for electors wishing to vote. We hope that this will meet with general approval. Without further ado, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business Statement
6.8 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a short business statement. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel should not now be taken this Wednesday but should be taken instead on Monday, 22nd April. The Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill will now be postponed from tomorrow until Wednesday, and this is likely to be followed by two Unstarred Questions. I apologise to the House for any inconvenience that this change of business may cause, but I feel sure that your Lordships will appreciate the circumstances.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for advising your Lordships so quickly of the proposed change of business for this Wednesday. I am sure that in the circumstances the decision to postpone the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, to the later date in April is the right decision. It obviously leaves a problem as to what business the House is to discuss on Wednesday. I think that the proposed Unstarred Questions, which are likely to be tabled for Wednesday, being tabled at such very short notice will mean that many noble Lords will not have notice of the subjects to be discussed in those Unstarred Questions; this may well mean that we shall not have as satisfactory a debate on the matters to be raised as might have been the case had they been discussed on another occasion.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in thanking the Government for coming to the House so quickly with their decision. It is clearly proper that the debate should be postponed and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, is to be thanked by all sides for his acquiescence in this unfortunate situation. One can only hope that by the 22nd of next month certain happenings will have emerged in the Soviet Union which might make the debate even more useful than it would have been on Wednesday.
With regard to the matter of the Unstarred Questions, I do not think that we on these Benches have any difficulty over them. However, I can well understand that other Members of the House may well have difficulty. I fear that this is just one of the facts of life with which we are faced—that at the end of the day an Unstarred Question is an Unstarred Question. If people other than the questioner and the Minister wish to join in, of course we always welcome their participation; but it is a Question asked of the Minister to which he will respond. Therefore, we may have to go ahead with the Unstarred Questions rather than have a complete day off.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords opposite. Although I cannot give the actual wording of the Unstarred Questions, it might be for the convenience of the House if I mention the subjects with which the actual Unstarred Questions are likely to deal. One Unstarred Question is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and is on what success is being achieved in the establishment of an effective internal market within the European Community. The other is in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and is on a meeting of human rights experts in Ottawa in May within the framework of the Helsinki Agreement. I hope that both these Unstarred Questions may be tabled by the time the House rises tonight.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend consider requesting those asking the two Unstarred Questions to change the Unstarred Questions to Motions on short debates of two and a half hours a piece?
Lord Denham: My Lords, the two noble Lords very kindly volunteered to bring their Unstarred Questions forward to this time. I believe that one Unstarred Question already had a date and the other was on a No Day Named. I believe that it would be a change in the normal procedure to change these Unstarred Questions to Motions for debate.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.13 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendments of Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Newall: The Committee will recall that the Second Reading of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill was approved on 15th January of this year. At that time the Government indicated that, while they were in sympathy with the concept of deregulation of the number of betting days for both horse racing and greyhound racing, certain reservations had been expressed regarding some potential problems in relation to the legalising of carry-forward pools for greyhound racing as in horse racing. I am pleased to say that with the most helpful co-operation of the Home Office agreement appears to he imminent to retain the provisions of the carry-forward pools, albeit on a reduced basis, details of which I shall mention in a moment when I move other amendments.
58
As to Clause 1 itself, as I have already mentioned, the proposals which I put before the House on Second Reading made reference to the possibility of having various types of carry-forward pools similar to the present arrangements in horse racing. Those who are familiar with horse racing will probably know them as a jackpot or something similar to that. However, the concept of pools of this type is very important for greyhound racing as it has been prohibited for over 50 years from promoting these pools and has not had the pecuniary advantages applicable to other betting sports.
However, the proposals regarding linkage of these types of pools between various racecourses or transferring a pool from racecourse to racecourse if it was not won, will now be entirely deleted from the Bill due to the reservations which I have already mentioned. A further amendment which I shall propose later will deal with the new proposals for pools of this type and I would ask the Committee to vote "Not-Content" on the Question that this clause stand part in order to remove the present Clause 1.
Lord Chelwood: Before the Question is put, perhaps I may make a brief remark. It seems to me to be a great pity that the original intention of my noble friend Lord Newall to allow inter-track pools and multi-venue pools, as they have come to be known, has had to be dropped. This matter was discussed over quite an extended period of time with the Home Office, and at one stage some of us were quite optimistic that it had quite good prospects. However, that was not to be. This is not the time to discuss this matter in detail because it is something that must be dropped. I think we are fairly sure to say that we are not content with this clause.
However, I should like to put a specific question to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who is to reply from the Government Front Bench. Am I right in thinking—I hope that I am—that this extension to inter-track pools and multi-venue pools has not been ruled out by the Government? I shall put it no higher than that. I realise that there are some real difficulties about this—some of them technical—which would have to be overcome, although where inter-track pools are concerned I do not think that the problems are nearly as difficult as they might prove to be with multi-venue pools. But to drop this clause will still leave greyhound racing at a distinct disadvantage to horse racing, and that clearly is inequitable. Therefore, I hope that these problems can be overcome, and I should be most grateful if my noble friend could comment on this matter.
Lord Mancroft: I should like to offer a few words of support to my two noble friends. Before doing so I must declare an interest by reminding your Lordships that I am chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. I vividly remember the reproof which we received from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill that we must speak only for ourselves and not for any other body. I can only say that that is the view that I hold, and if my board does not follow me at the next board meeting there will be some raised eyebrows.

59
I am sorry that we cannot go as far as I hoped we could on Second Reading, but I would be prepared strongly to support my two noble friends if there was any risk of losing this Bill—and, helpful though the Home Office has been in every respect, I gather that there might be. I hope that we shall continue to have the support of the Home Office not only at this moment but at some future date if we come forward and try to move some other Motion in your Lordships' House to help this sport, which is in such serious need of help as the Home Office has been only too willing to agree. I hope that your Lordships will support the Question that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newall on having obtained a Second Reading for his Bill and for bringing it before us today. The Bill deals directly with greyhound racing but also incidentally with horse-racing. While I claim no special expertise of going to the dogs—although the passage of my noble friend's Bill thus far is broadening my education all the time—I have more than a passing interest in horse racing. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to know that I serve as a local steward at Folkestone Racecourse. I gain nothing financially from my connections with the Folkestone course, but it gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure. That experience has also given me something of an insight into why my noble friend Lord Newall has brought forward his Bill designed to remove some of the restrictions which do not apply to horse racing; or at any event, in the case of the limit on betting days, do not represent a difficulty to individual racecourses in practice.
With regard to Clause 1, we welcome my noble friend's decision not to press at present for carry forward pools involving bets on races at more than one track, or carrying forward money placed in bets to different tracks on different days. For our part, with regard to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, we are not suggesting that the difficulties in the way of those varieties of carry forward pools are insuperable, but because the system of control is locally based, much more thought would have to be given as to whether the controls should be changed to match a different concept of pools. There would also be technical and drafting difficulties involved. The remaining proposal for carrying forward pools from one race meeting to another raises fewer questions and poses fewer drafting problems. The proposal, as my noble friend Lord Newall has indicated, is now covered by the new clause.
On Question, Clause 1 disagreed to,
Clause 2 [Repeals]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 20. leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 23 and insert ("impose restrictions as to the occasions on which betting may take place on racecourses and other tracks, and as to the events in connection with which betting may take place on dog racecourses)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I did not speak during the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am happy to have a chance to join in
60
briefly now—not that my noble friend needs my help! This happens to be a subject which interests me. I suppose that using the word "interests" should remind me to say that I have a small interest to declare here. I was for a number of years a director of the GRA, but that is in the past. However, I in fact own, in partnership with my wife, half a greyhound, and I have high hopes that it will turn out to be a good dog.
Greyhound racing has been discriminated against for many years under successive Governments, and it still is. This is the root cause of the problems which have been facing the industry, including the GRA. I should like to thank the Home Office for the cooperation they have shown to the NGRB; it has been helpful. I believe that this measure will give a new lease of life to dog racing if the Bill, as amended today, becomes law, which I think it has every chance of doing because I have not so far detected any opposition.
Clause 2 will remove the restrictions on the number of days in a year when either horse racing or dog racing can be promoted. At the present time horse racing is restricted, as my noble friend Lord Newall told us at Second Reading, to 104 days in a year, and the reasons for removing that are purely technical. It is an anomaly. Dog racing is restricted at present to 130 days in a year. The amendment I am moving will remove the limit on the number of races on any one day on a greyhound track, which is at present restricted. This accords, incidentally, with the advice of the Royal Commission on Gambling, and these proposals meet the wishes of the British Greyhound Racing Board and the Jockey Club.
If the Committee approve this new clause, I think I can say, that, so far as the number of days racing in a year which can be promoted and the number of races on a day which can be promoted, greyhounds and horses will be on all fours. The only remaining prohibitions will be against racing on Sundays, on Christmas Day and on Good Friday. These prohibitions make a lot of sense to a great many people, and there is no intention on the part of the promoters of this Bill to make any change there in what is a controversial subject with wide implications. I am sure that it is right that here, at any rate, we should let sleeping dogs lie, because this is not in any case a proper vehicle for debating such a complicated and controversial subject.
It is not envisaged that local managements of greyhound tracks will want to promote a much larger number of meetings than at present. They may not promote any more, or they may promote a few more. That will be up to them. What they will get from this new clause is flexibility, and that is long overdue. This new clause and this whole measure will be widely welcomed by the promoters of greyhound racing and by their patrons who enjoy a day at the dogs.
I see this in the context of what we were also told during Second Reading—and it came as perhaps a surprise to some noble Lords—that, in spite of the nosedive in attendances over the last 25 years at the greyhound tracks, greyhound racing remains still the second largest spectator sport in this country. We are talking here about the pleasure and the leisure of a lot of people. It will surely help to boost the profits of the promoters of greyhound racing and thus enable them

61
to provide better facilities and amenities, and I think it will end a period during which the industry has been going through a somewhat thin time, as the figures clearly show.
If this clause is accepted, racing days will be chosen to meet public demand and not the restrictive requirements of the law as it stands at present. This will be particularly helpful for seasonal tracks, particularly seaside tracks, which obviously would like to race more during the tourist season, when people go to the seaside, or when London is full of tourists, than during the winter, when it is not nearly so attractive. Days lost because of foul weather or for other reasons, which is what I am speaking about, will be able to be made up. Horse and dog racing will, in a word, have the same freedom as other betting and gaming activities—and why not? I beg to move.
Lord Newall: I should like to support my noble friend in everything he has said, and to remind the Committee that this amendment will make an enormous amount of difference to the sport of greyhound racing. I hope your Lordships will see fit to approve it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Operation of totalisators on dog racecourses. 1963 c. 2.
.—(1) The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 16(1) (totalisators on dog racecourses which are licensed tracks), after "that totalisator shall" there shall be inserted "on any day".
(3) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 (matters to be specified by operator of totalisator in notice posted on racecourse), at the end of sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "; and
(c) specify such other particulars of the said terms as may be prescribed.".
(4) After paragraph 4 of that Schedule there shall be inserted—
"4A. The terms on which the operator invites persons to bet on any race or combination of races on the track by means of the totalisator may include a condition that, in the event of there being no winning bets on that race or those races, the aggregate amount staked thereon by way of bets made by means of the totalisator (less any deductions made in pursuance of paragraph 4(a) of this Schedule) shall be carried over to a subsequent race or combination of races on the track by being added to the aggregate amount staked thereon by way of bets so made; and nothing in section 16(1) of this Act shall be construed as precluding the totalisator from being so operated as to allow any such amount to be carried over as aforesaid from one day to another.
4B. Where, in accordance with such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 4A of this Schedule, any amount is to be added to the aggregate amount staked by way of bets made by means of the totalisator on any race or combination of races, that amount shall be disregarded for the purpose of making any deduction required by paragraph 4(a) of this Schedule.".
(5) In paragraph 9 of that Schedule (attendance by accountant at totalisator)—

(a) for the words from "on every day" to "1971" there shall be substituted "where the accountant has before any day been notified in writing by the operator that it is intended that betting should take place on that day by means of the totalisator"; and

(b) for the words from "as may before" onwards there shall be substituted "on that day as may be specified in the notification".

(6) After paragraph 10 of that Schedule there shall be inserted—
"10A. The amount which is to be carried over from one race or combination of races to another in accordance with
62
such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 4A of this Schedule shall be determined by the accountant and notified by him to the operator.".")
The noble Lord said: This really is the meat of the original Clause 1, which is important to the Bill. In proposing this new clause I must refer to my earlier remarks, which led to the deletion of the original Clause 1 of the Bill. First, this new clause will legalise the concept of carry-forward pools, or jackpots, operating from meeting to meeting at the same track. Secondly, the operator of a greyhound totalisator will be obliged to add in his notices published at the racecourse setting out the terms on which he invites people to bet on the totalisator additional information regarding the particulars of the operation of these carry-forward pools.
Thirdly, in relation to new paragraphs 4A and 4B to be included in Schedule 5 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the provisions will spell out clearly the authority for the greyhound promoter to carry forward the aggregate amount staked as bets, subject to the statutory deductions both for the on course general betting duty and the maximum permitted percentage for operating expenses. This means that the net units then remaining can be carried forward for the next race meeting. I should like to make it clear that deductions will not be made more than once.
Fourthly, the qualified accountant, who is appointed by the licensing authority and is in existence already, must be given the requisite notice by the racecourse promoter, and the accountant will authorise the amount which will be carried over from one meeting to another. The appointment of the accountant, which has been part of the control of the greyhound totalisator since 1934, is an inherent part of the operation of the tote and is one which has worked extremely well for the past 50 years. The sport of greyhound racing would certainly not wish this arrangement to be amended in any way. The net effect of this new clause will be to restrict the carry forward for individual racecourses, and there will be no linkage, as originally intended, between racecourses. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Lest silence by this side of the Committee be construed as dissent, I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Mishcon had hoped to be present to deal with these amendments, but unfortunately they came on slightly later than anticipated and therefore he is not here. So far as we can see, the proposals being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, seem to be eminently sensible and have our support in so far as individual Peers support them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: We welcome the new clause, which, apart from overcoming the drafting problems of the original Clause 1, embodies some important safeguards. I should perhaps add a word or two. My noble friend Lord Newall has referred to the Dog Racecourse Totalisator Regulations 1967, and to the need to amend those regulations so that the procedure for carry-forward pools as envisaged in the Bill can start up in practice. If the Bill makes progress in another place it will be the intention of the Secretary

63
of State to review the regulations and, in due course, to make such changes as appear to be necessary and desirable to give effect to the purpose of the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title and citation]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Act 1963") and insert ("Acts 1963 to 1984").
Page 2,line 28, leave out ("and 1984") and insert ("to 1985").
Page 2,line 29, after ("(2)") insert ("subject to subsection (3),").
Page 2,line 30, at end insert—
("(3) Subsections (3), (4) and (6) of section (Operation of totalisators on dog racecourses) shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(4) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move these amendments en bloc. If that meets with your Lordships' approval, I should be most grateful. They are straightforward. They all relate to Clause 3(1). The first three need no explanation. The fourth provides for the operation of the carry-forward pools to come into effect when the Home Secretary, by order, so appoints. This is the same procedure as in the 1934 Act, which is now incorporated in the 1963 consolidation measure, which ensures that the construction and operation of greyhound totalisators accords with the statutory regulations made by the Home Secretary.
The last amendment also provides that the Bill, when enacted, will not extend to Northern Ireland. I judge that Northern Ireland has had a good run for its money today, but it does not get one under this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule [Repeals]:
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert ("In section 5, in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (c), and subsection (1A).").
The noble Lord said: I should explain that this amendment is a drafting one. Repeal of the necessary subsections of the 1963 Act is set out more clearly than before, or so I am told. Perhaps the addition of the word "or" is the clue to the redraft or puzzle, whatever one likes to call it. I hope this is clear to the Committee; it is to me. The ways of our excellent parliamentary draftsmen are indeed wondrous. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Newall Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 8:
In the Title: Line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("remove restrictions under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Acts 1963 to 1984 as to the occasions on which betting may take place on racecourses and other tracks and as to the events in connection with which betting may take place on dog racecourses: and to make further provision with respect of the operation of totalisators on such racecourses.").
The noble Lord said: Following the amendments which have now been approved it is obviously necessary to amend the Long Title so that its intentions are clear with regard to deregulation and the operation of the carry-forward pools for the greyhound totalisators. As we are so late, I will not weary the Committee with further explanations. I thank my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Chelwood for being so helpful. May I once again reiterate the helpful assistance we have received from the Home Office at every stage. We also hope that the further stages of the Bill will all go as smoothly as this stage has. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The Long Title proposed in this amendment gives a very good indication of the purpose and effect of the clauses in the Bill. We welcome the amendment. The Government are entirely happy for the present restrictions to be removed on the number of days on which betting at greyhound tracks may take place and on the number of races at each meeting. These restrictions appear to us, as they do to my noble friend Lord Newall, to be outmoded. We all know that one does not have to travel very far to a local betting office. That being so, it is fanciful to see the present restrictions as serving any purpose in controlling the level of opportunities for betting.
The restrictions would have looked rather more purposeful before the advent of lawful cash betting shops in the 1960s. Against this background we agree with my noble friend that there is a strong case for leaving the decision on these sporting fixtures to those responsible in the greyhound industry, itself. We have taken the point of my noble friend Lord Newall that in times of depression in the sport, in particular, the tracks deserve to have the flexibility to arrange their fixtures at popular times. As we understand, it is not the intention to run greyhound races on many more occasions at each and every track. I am sure that that would test the enthusiasm of the most ardent devotee of greyhound racing. The economics of the situation will mean that the power conferred by Clause 2 is used to arrange fixtures on a different pattern. We are content that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Common Fisheries Policy: ECC Report
6.35 p.m.
Lord Plowden Lord Plowden rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Common Fisheries Policy (1st Report 1984–85. H.L. 39).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the revised common fisheries policy was agreed in 1983 by all 10 member states in the Community after prolonged and somewhat acrimonious negotiations extending over a period of some 10 years. The new policy adds a new dimension to the Community's activities. It makes possible the operation of common arrangements for

65
the conservation, management and prudent economic exploitation of the stocks of fish in the waters of the North-East Atlantic continental shelf. Whether or not these benefits will be realised turns on responsible decision-taking by Ministers in the council; on action by the Commission to frame informed and timely proposals for administration of the common fisheries policy; on resolution in carrying them through and, perhaps most important of all, on firmness in ensuring that they are effectively and uniformly enforced.
Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee received evidence from a wide range of fishing interests, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In addition, members of the sub-committee visited fishing ports in Scotland and on the north-east coast of England. They also visited two fish processing plants; the operations room of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Torry Research Station and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland marine laboratory at Aberdeen. Only time and perhaps prudent control of spending prevented us from paying more visits. We are most grateful to all those who came and gave evidence and so much of their time.
The report is therefore based on much information gathered during a most thorough inquiry. The recommendations of the report fall into five main groups. The first relates to the annual fixing of the all-important total allowable catches which are determined for each main stock of fish. These total quantities are then apportioned between member states; and much of the negotiation leading to the settlement of the fisheries policy was concerned with this issue. National quotas for the main stocks are firmly established and the report warns that these total allowable catches should not be re-opened before at least 1991. We believe that if this warning is not heeded, the whole policy will be in jeopardy.
The report also recommends that the annual fixing of total allowable catches should be based firmly on scientific advice and, particularly, that of the Scientific and Technical Committee for Fisheries, which was set up under the aegis of the common fisheries policy, rather than on (how shall I put it?) the political haggling which on far too many occasions has been the case in the past. The representatives of the fishermen told us that it would be most helpful to them if total allowable catches and quotas were to be settled some two months in advance of the fishing season, so that catching and marketing plans could be settled well in advance. We were most gratified to know that this year agreement was reached in good time, and we hope that this will be the practice in future years.
Secondly, the report deals with the subject of industrial fishing. This is something that is mainly carried out by the Danish fishing fleet. The subcommittee had the benefit of evidence from the Danish Ministry of Fisheries on the subject. We are most grateful to the representatives of that department who made a special journey to London in order to give evidence to us. We learned that the present level of Danish industrial fishing is about 1,100,000 tonnes and because, as your Lordships no doubt will know, small-meshed nets are used in industrial fishing, through which virtually nothing can escape, juvenile
66
fish of human-consumption species are taken along with the industrial species. Further, fish of marketable size for human consumption may also be taken as a by-catch. After careful consideration of all the available evidence, the report concludes that unless industrial fishing is most strictly controlled, it is likely to lead to serious depletion of stocks of the species for human consumption.
With this consideration in mind, the sub-committee were most disturbed when on 10th September last year the Fisheries Council proposed that the allowable by-catch should be raised from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. and the British Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food found himself in a minority of one. He secured that the change should be temporary for a trial period coming to an end on 31st May 1985 and that the by-catch figure should be reduced from 20 per cent. to 18 per cent. As a result of this ruling, British fishermen, not unnaturally, appear to be experiencing considerable loss of confidence in the common fisheries policy which, by then, they had come to accept as reasonable. Shortly afterwards, we were in Scotland and we met Scottish and English fishermen at the ports from which they worked and they described the position as tragic. I am therefore asking the Minister this evening for a firm commitment that at the end of the trial period, on 31st May this year, the Government will urge on the council that the essential need is to conserve stocks of fish for human consumption and that that should have first priority in the review of the situation to be carried our after the trial period.
The report considers the possible effect on fishing within Community waters of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. The Spanish fishing fleet is approximately the same size in number as, and 60 per cent. by tonnage of, the combined fleets of all 10 member states of the Community today. Our fishermen and others in the Community view this as a very serious threat. Indeed, one fishermen's representative said to me that he felt that this was the second attempt by the armada to subdue us and he hoped that, with the aid of your Lordships' House, the armada would be repulsed in the same way as was the first one. They themselves had to make sacrifices when the United Kingdom joined the Community and, as a result of the 200-mile limit, the distant water fishing fleets of both this country and of Germany have virtually disappeared. By and large, Spanish vessels have not been free to fish in the waters of the present members of the Community since 1977. We felt that the clock should not be put back to allow Spanish vessels free access to Community waters any more than fishermen of the Community can regain and expect to go back to fish in the former distant waters in which they used to fish. This is another area in which a re-opening of old issues could easily destroy the really fragile equilibrium of the common fisheries policy.
The fourth main point in the report is that if the common fisheries policy is to work, it must be enforced. It is the responsibility of each member state to verify the landings of all species of fish which are subject to quota, to act to control fishing of any national quota, to stop it when the quota has been taken, and to notify the Commission.

67
Understandably, there is suspicion among fishermen of all countries that other member states take this responsibility less responsibly than do their own government; and it is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure that these quotas are properly regulated and enforced. It was the intention of the Commission to appoint some 40 inspectors to do this. They now have some 13. This number, I suggest, must be kept under review and, if necessary, increased; and particularly so if and when Spain, with its large fishing fleet, joins the Community.
The United Kingdom, whose fishery waters are the most extensive and the most productive in the Community, must maintain the capability of policing its waters even though this will fall to the expense of the Exchequer and not to that of the Community. The committee believes that, despite the potential stability of the future of the fishing industry provided for in the main framework of the common fisheries policy, there remains the danger of too many boats chasing too few fish. Licensing arrangements, in collaboration with the fishermen, we believe, should therefore be encouraged.
The committee is convinced of the need for an adequately-enforced common fisheries policy, fully adhered to by all states. All fishing communities tend to be vulnerable, and fishermen undertake work which is often both dangerous and unpleasant. They provide a unique source of skilled maritime manpower for the nation both in war and in peace, and I should like to think that the leaders of the fishermen's communities, when they read about this debate, will know that your Lordships' House stands firmly behind them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Common Fisheries Policy (1st Report 1984–5, H.L. 39).—(Lord Plowden.)
Lord Soames: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I agree so much with the main thrust of what he has said, but I know he would like to be scrupulously fair in these matters. Is it not a fact that when our long-distance fleet had to go by the board that was not because of our entering into the Community, but for other reasons? We could not fish off Norway because of an agreement with them; we could not fish off Iceland because of an agreement with them; and because of the Law of the Sea we could no longer go to Canada and off the eastern seaboard of the Americas. So it really was not that we suffered because of going into the Community. Surely, on going into the Community we suffered by being the one country which had waters that were still prolific in fish.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord misunderstood me. What I said was that it was the result of the 200-mile limit which prevented the distant-water fishing fleets of Britain and Germany from fishing off Iceland, Norway, Canada and so on.
Lord Soames: That is right, my Lords.
Lord Plowden: It was not due to our entering into the Community.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I am accepting the very kind offer of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to change places with him in the speaking order. Like a number of your Lordships, I think, I had been under the impression that this debate was going to be taken rather earlier in the evening, and I have compelling reasons for leaving as soon as possible after seven o'clock—reasons which I assure your Lordships have nothing to do with attending a dinner party. I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, will forgive me for not being here when he replies at the end of the debate.
May I begin by thanking the noble Lord for the tremendous amount of work that he and his committee have put into this report? It is yet another example of the very great value of the work done by the European scrutiny committee and its numerous sub-committees. I think it is well-known in your Lordships' House that these documents have become very highly valued, not only in this country but also in Brussels, as authoritative statements brought out by people who are well qualified to investigate the directives and to take a very great deal of trouble to ensure that sound recommendations are made. For this we thank the noble Lord very much indeed.
I should like very strongly to support the recommendations of this Committee. The subject of fishery is of great importance from a number of different angles. First and foremost, of course (although this has not come out so clearly in the report as elsewhere) this is a matter of very great importance to consumers. Those of us who have to shop for fish have realised the difficulties that arise when there is a very erratic market for fish and when fish, which has previously been a staple and relatively cheap article of diet, suddenly disappears from the slab in the fishmongers. Housewives find it difficult to discover adequate substitutes of comparable value for the articles which they have previously bought. For example, the near-disappearance for a period of the herring was a very serious loss indeed; so there is a consumer angle to the matter which is of the first importance.
It is also of course an ecological question. There is no doubt that if proper action had not been taken a number of species of fish would have disappeared, if not permanently, at least for a very considerable period of time. That was something which needed drastic action in order to halt it.
Finally, of course, there is the whole economic question of a great industry being put very much at risk by what had been going on before these regulations came into force. It is an industry important in itself and absolutely vital in certain areas of this country, where for generations men have been dependent on the fishing industry for their livelihood, with the multiplier effect that that has in all those areas for other people who have depended on the success of the fishing industry for their own livelihood even though they may not have been directly involved with the industry themselves. So this is not a minor issue in any sense: it is an issue of very considerable importance.

69
Perhaps I may underline the point that comes out most clearly from the report: the need for stability. There is also the need, first, for regulation. The fishing industry is not something which can satisfactorily be left to itself and to market forces and all will come right in the end. It clearly does require regulation, and that regulation has been forthcoming from the Commission by the rules that have been laid down.
But regulation by itself is not enough. There must be not only regulation but stability in following those laws. In other words, they must be applied and maintained. I would stress very much two points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. There is the whole question of industrial fishing, the near-disappearance of fish where industrial fishing has developed because of the small-mesh nets and the ease with which small fish are being caught and put into the factory processes of industrial fishing. If that were allowed to continue or if we were to make it easier for industrial fishing to take place than was originally intended in the regulations—and we understand from the report that this is what is likely to happen unless a very serious stand is taken against it—that indeed would undo a great deal of the advantage that has been gained by the regulations that have come from the Commission in the past.
Secondly, of course, there is the whole question of Spain. We on these Benches are second to none in wishing to see Spain become a member of the Community and in wanting a speedy conclusion to the negotiations to get Spain into the Community; but we very much hope that is not going to be settled by relaxing on the question of Spain and the fishing requirement. There must be ways of meeting the needs and requirements of Spain in entering the Common Market without sacrificing the fishing industry to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has made clear, Spain is a very serious threat to the fishing industry, given the size of the Spanish fishing fleet. We must urge the Government to see that in the negotiations, which surely must come to a successful conclusion some time this year, this is not done at the expense of the fishing industry.
In looking as this report, I should like to make one point from a slightly different angle. Many people in this country question the value of the work done by the EEC Commission and of our membership of the EEC. This is surely a very good example of the benefits we can get by being members of the EEC. Is it to be imagined that, without the EEC and the work of the Commission, there would have been the agreement (although after long argument) which has led to these regulations and to the prospect of a stable future for the fishing industry of the members of the Commission? The haggling which would have gone on, and the bilateral basis, would have made it almost impossible to get anything like the kind of satisfactory agreement which has come from the Commission. Surely it is worth while stressing this and publicising the fact that this is the kind of way in which the work of the Commission and our membership of the EEC can be of very great practical value to people in this country earning their living in industries such as this, and to consumers, dependent as they are on the work of that industry.
70
Along with this goes the importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has said, of ensuring that once an agreement is entered into it is in fact enforced. I do not know—and I am sure your Lordships do not know—to what extent the enforcement of EEC regulations is less scrupulously carried out in some countries than in others. I put it like that. There is a tendency to think that we are the only scrupulous people and everybody else is given to evasion. That may or may not be the case but it is of course a corollary of membership that there should be really effective enforcement. Nothing brings the Community into greater disrepute than evidence that enforcement does not follow agreements entered into. So we urge Her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power to use their influence —but, of course, first, to regain their influence—in the European Community and to use it effectively to see that agreements of this kind, which are a very great benefit, are not only made but are effectively enforced.
7.1 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I almost found myself tonight like the Scottish elder who had a reputation for being able to produce a short prayer very quickly. He ultimately admitted that he had it written inside his hat; but one day he duly lowered his hat correctly and looked into it and started, "My Lord"—pause—"this is not my hat". A few minutes before I thought this debate was going to start I looked at my papers and found that I had lost a lot of my notes. It was only the length of the debate on Northern Ireland that helped me to produce a rather truncated version of my original very carefully summed up and written down notes, but this may help your Lordships to get to dinner a little earlier.
There is no doubt that this is a very important report and we must thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, for the way that he introduced it so succinctly and clearly, and for the way that he put the main points to your Lordships. The Commission are making an effort to ensure that the common fisheries policy will work. It all rests on the total allowable catches, the quotas and the policing of the arrangements, and particularly on the correct filling in of the log hooks which we found took about 18 months if not two years to produce which seemed to be a slightly ridiculous situation. But I gather that they are now in the hands of the fishermen.
We were a little worried, and I think we still are a little worried, that there are going to be only 13 inspectors to carry out the work of checking and policing the fishing and the quotas. We should like to think that they will manage to do the job; but we should also like to think that if they cannot do so the situation will be corrected very quickly and plenty of inspectors will be put alongside them. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, emphasised the time factor. It is important that the quotas, and so on, give plenty of time not only for the fishermen but for the trade in general—the processors, etc.—to make their plans. That is very important indeed.
I should like to say slightly more about industrial fishing, which is really very important in many ways. The fishmeal and oil which are produced is a very big industry indeed. Not only does the main body of its raw material come from industrial fishing, but it uses

71
up all the surplus fish and guts from fishing factories as well. We know only too well the importance of fishmeal to all our feedingstuffs and to all our animals which require protein. Most of the oil at the present moment goes into margarine. We all know about polyunsaturated fats—I hope I have the word right—which I gather can be made from fish oil; and the pharmaceutical people are looking into that. There is a big market for this product; it is a big industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said, we cannot possibly ask it to stop because it is one of the main economic sides of the Danish fishing industry.
If one looks at page 90 of the annex provided to us by the Ministry of Agriculture one can see what happened in the 10 years from 1964 to 1974 when the catch for fishmeal and oil was slightly more than half the total catch in the North Sea. What is more, between the years of 1962 and 1970—perhaps a little longer than that—the bulk of that catch was mackerel and herring, and of course we know the result of that. When one looks at the figure—the Danes have 1·1 million tonnes, as the noble Lord mentioned, as their share of that industrial catch of the total of 1·5 million tonnes—one appreciates the situation. We must look a little more carefully at the question of the by-catch. We did not get enough information as to how much of the by-catch of edible fish was from other small fish—industrial fish, sand eels and so on—and put on the edible market. It is a huge amount of fish in total out of the 1·5 million tonnes. If they are allowed to have a by-catch of up to 20 per cent. falling to 18 per cent. by the middle of this year, that still means somewhere around 300 tones of edible fish that is probably going into fish meal.
There are all sorts of plans to try to prevent the edible fish being caught and for the by-catch being much smaller. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, quizzing the witnesses very carefully on the subject of why it had to go up to 18 per cent. The reply was that you could not notice 10 per cent. and that you had to have a bigger amount so that you could notice it. It seemed to me to be a very poor excuse for increasing something which has undoubtedly, as the noble Lord said, made fishermen very doubtful about how serious the arrangements were which they hoped were going to stick until 1991.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said, some Members of the Committee visited various fishing ports, one of which was the marine laboratory in my home town of Aberdeen. There they were experimenting to try to make a double net with the first one in the mouth of the big trawl; a net large enough to let in the small fish but stopping edible fish going in. I thought that this was a very interesting piece of research. Some of the members of the party—I was not there myself—doubted whether it was much more than just an experiment; but personally I cannot see why this double net could not be tried out. There has been suggestion of cuts to research stations, and I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is no cut that would stop the type of research which might solve quite a lot of the problem of the by-catch in industrial fishing. This is an important matter and the fishermen are very worried about it.
72
On the question of enlargement, I never like to mention rumours but there are rumours that Spain is likely to draw out if they cannot solve the fishing problem. That would be a huge mistake. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who said that they were second to none in hoping that Spain would come in—I would doubt that, but still! However, it would be a pity if the fishing situation was to prevent Spain entering next year. One of the MEPs who sits for my home area of Grampian, Mr. James Provan, has presented a very good plan to give Spain more rights around the Falkland Islands and in other areas, which might satisfy them. I hope that this proposal will be examined much more carefully than it has been.
The confidence of fishermen is something which any common fishery policy must have. This was brought out when we discussed this matter with the Danes who came over and gave evidence. We asked what they thought about other fishermen, and they replied, "Just the same—we all suspect each other". I suggested to them the creation of a common fishermen's association: with fishermen from all nine countries getting together in the same way as our own associations. I suggested that that might help the situation, and there was agreement that it could.
The report is a mine of information if nothing else. It is a handbook that we should all keep if we want to discuss fishing because it presents—not only from the Ministry of Agriculture but from other sources as well—a mine of information and statistics which will be very useful to us. I hope that the report will be read not only in the EEC but in this country as well. It is a mine of information and I support all that is reported there.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. On this particular occasion his speech was so splendid that it was just as well he lost his hat, if I may paraphrase his introductory remarks. I, too, should like to congratulate my chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, on his excellent and comprehensive introduction. In fact, it was so good that it will make it easier for the rest of us to make our contributions, without having to repeat the whole basis of each of the points he has made so clearly for us.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on three specific points. I apologise for the fact that they have been touched upon by other speakers, but they are rather important, and I personally view them as being particularly important. The first concerns the conservation of stocks. It seems to me from a practical and logical point of view, apart from anything else, that this must be the most important aspect of them all: hence the paramount importance of adherence by member states to the total allowable catch, and that the catch should be based on the best scientific advice that can be obtained. I gained the impression as we conducted the inquiry that the scientific basis is improving all the time, and it is by no means at its best as yet. One hopes that this will continue to be the case and that there will be no skimping in injecting the money necessary to ensure that the scientific support for this whole programme is the best possible.

73
Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the report make that point particularly well.
As an observer, rather, of the affairs of Sub-Committee D—because, after all, I am a food processor and not a farmer, a fisherman, or anything fundamental like that—it is interesting to reflect that the problems of the CFP appear at first sight to be the very opposite of those of the CAP. In the latter case, the difficulties of the Community are in the production of excessive stocks. In the common fisheries policy, however, the problem is more one of overconsumption of limited stocks. Your Lordships might agree that a closer look shows that in each case, up to now, there have been similar problems for the actual practitioners—the farmers and the fishermen. They have both suffered from an uncertainty by way of threat to their activities by a distant body in Brussels which may apply that threat without any warning. Sadly, I believe that is still a problem for farmers but I like to think that, if it is given the necessary stability to which other noble Lords have drawn attention, the CFP as we have it now should much diminish that threat to fishermen.
My next point concerns the threat to conventional fishing by industrial fishing—and this, too has been mentioned before—which can lead to a serious depletion in stocks of fish for human consumption. In this respect I, too, take the view that the breaching last September of the 1983 and 1984 agreements for by-catches for a trial period was most disappointing. Indeed, I still do not understand from all the explanations which have been given why those concerned were allowed to get away with it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, I hope very much that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to reassure us that when the trial period comes to an end priority will be given to the conservation of stocks and not to the specious needs of industrial fishermen.
My third point relates to the entry of Spain into the Community. One can understand that country, with its vast fishing fleet, wanting to gain increased access to the waters of the existing Community. One can understand Spain wanting to make a great issue of it at this stage as part of a reward to them for coming into the Community. I personally think that the reward is with Spain, if it is allowed into the Community. Be that as it may, one can understand the points made. Such access to our waters could only be at the expense of the rest of the Community—and mainly at the expense of ourselves, with the greatest sea area. The Community has only just hammered out, after many years of discussion, an acceptable agreement. So it is a particularly inopportune time to effect further changes.
I know that there is some similarity, if one examines this point, between Spain's position and our own entry into the Community, when the other members hastily cobbled together a CFP to try to keep us under control before we gained membership. But on that occasion it was a case of cobbling something together—or so it appeared—whereas in this case the Community has, methodically and slowly, tried to produce a good result over many years, and has at last achieved it. The coincidence is not that the Community did that and then Spain wanted entry: the coincidence is that Spain
74
happens to have reached the stage it has just at the moment when the CFP has been thrashed out.
The problem comes back to the available stock of edible fish and the paramount need to conserve. In this respect I very much support the possible solution (which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said was thought up by Mr. James Provan) of doing something with the fishing stocks around the Falklands. As I saw it. this proposal was made by the Marquess of Douro, MEP, in an excellent article in The Times about a week ago. It seems to me that this line of approach could show the Community as being not totally dog in the manger in its attitude to the problem.
The solution that is suggested is that we should get on with declaring a 200-mile fishing limit around the Falklands and their dependencies, which we have not yet done, and invite Spain to share in fishing there. It seems to me that that is a most imaginative proposal. As has been said, after the sad loss of the Icelandic fishing rights our own long-distance fleet has been much depleted. As has also been said, Spain has many craft of the appropriate size. I should have thought that that was an excellent means of giving them a chance of dealing with the problem in a way that does not appear too mean.
To conclude, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I believe that the common fisheries policy is a rare success story in patient, co-operative development in the Community. It has a structure which can withstand all but wanton destruction on the part of several member states. In addition, provided it is not eroded by measures such as the trial period of increased by-catches for industrial fishing, it seems, on the whole, to meet the requirements of the practical fishermen and now we need to give it a chance to work.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has very effectively introduced the report of the Select Committee; and he also presided over the inquiry into sea fisheries with wisdom and skill, which we would expect from him. I am not a member of that sub-committee, but I was paid the compliment of being invited to join it for the inquiry; a compliment because I had received the same invitation, or co-option, four years ago when the subcommittee last carried out an inquiry into fisheries. I can only presume that this is because of long years of some familiarity with sea fisheries and also my continued contacts with the fishermen.
In the report of four years ago, the earlier report, we made a recommendation that a corps of EC inspectors should be established. My right honourable friend Mr. Peter Walker, who was then Minister of Agriculture, took this up and pursued it. Indeed, it was the United Kingdom which pressed for that, and it has happened. In our present report we record that there are only 13 inspectors, which may not be enough, but those inspectors play an important part in the enforcement system. In considering the numbers one must remember that they inspect the national inspection teams. They are not themselves the people who do all the checking on the vessels; those are the national inspectors. That was a significant link between the two Select Committee reports.

75
Most of the fishing boats of sizes which can operate over all the EC fishery waters—that is, within the EC fishery limits—have greatly increased the industry's productivity in recent years; let us recognise that. But the efficiency of modern methods means that large quantities of fish can be caught by comparatively few boats. Therefore, the stocks of fish need protection now more than ever. The requirements of conservation must take first place.
The revised common fisheries policy was agreed after strenuous and lengthy negotiations. Coming to the present, since the report went to print the decisions on national quotas within the total allowable catch for 1985—the present year—appear to have been reached satisfactorily and have been generally welcomed by the British fishermen's organisations. They were based on scientific evidence, as our report advocates. Indeed, some of the fishermen were a little worried because they thought the scientists had been rather too optimistic this year. Those decisions were taken by EC Ministers on 20th December, just before Christmas. In our report we recommend that as much notice as can reasonably be given should be given before the fishing year begins; but may I say that the current situation has been a great improvement on the past.
Coming up to date again, a new addition to the enforcement systems is the EC fishing log book. Our report regretted that at the time of going to print the log books had not yet been issued. They have since been issued to all British fishermen and the scheme is due to start on 1st April. British fishermen will certainly be watching closely to see how conscientiously catches will be logged by the skippers from other EC countries.
I now turn to the question of Spain. Negotiations are continuing and I believe that they are at present at a critical stage. It is hoped that the accession of Spain and Portugal will take place on 1st January; and that is less than 10 months away. The questions which I put to the Government in your Lordships' House towards the end of last year received a response which indicated, in my opinion, a realistic and robust attitude by the Government. Noble Lords will remember that the Ministers concerned said they were not prepared to upset the new common fisheries policy, or to disturb it for at least 10 years, by the accession of the two new member countries. If there is to be a transitional period, I suggest that it should be at least eight years where fishing is concerned, so that there can be no question of disturbing arrangements before the 10 years of the common fisheries policy have expired. I hope that the British Government will win the support of the Governments of the other EC countries in this robust attitude which has hitherto been taken.
There are solutions which should meet the interests of Spain. Solutions are available. First, Spanish boats have habitually fished in southern seas, for example, off the coasts of African countries. This should be encouraged to continue and be increased. If necessary, it would be better for the EC to help with the payments to African countries for this privilege than to allow the revised CFP to go into the melting pot, causing chaos and confusion in EC fishery waters. Secondly, the
76
Spanish fleet has also been catching species of fish in EC fishery waters, but they are those species which are not in demand in the EC, or on quota. That could continue, provided the by-catches are properly monitored and enforced. I shall say a little more about by-catches in a moment.
The other members of the EC may not regard fisheries as so important a matter as we do. British Ministers might find support flagging among partner countries. I hope that the British Government will, if necessary, cause the date of accession to be postponed, rather than leave agreement on fisheries in suspense on accession. To fudge the issues instead of settling them will only store up worse trouble in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby—I am glad to see that he is to speak later on in the debate—knows that I have been in situations of this kind as a Minister in the past and that I can speak from some experience. With respect, but with all earnestness, I urge the Government to reject any proposals to obscure the main unsettled fishery issues simply to meet a date—1st January, 1986.
I should like to recall an article in The Times of 7th September last on the accession of Spain and sea fisheries negotiations. A point was made in the article that a large part of the Spanish fishing fleet is based at ports in the Basque country. It was suggested in the article that a factor in the negotiations might be that of helping to pacify the Basques. I hope not. The reason given was that they are independent-minded and that the Spanish Government, and perhaps some EC Governments, would be willing to recognise them as a special case. I cannot resist reminding your Lordships that about half the British fleet is based at Scottish ports; this is since the virtual disappearance of the distant water fleets which were based at ports in England, caused by the universal adoption of the 200-mile limit a decade ago. Scotland has about one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom and is in a somewhat similar situation to the Spanish Basque country.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend say in that respect that the Scots require pacifying in the same way as the Basques?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend is taking the words out of my mouth. My next sentence was to be that we in Scotland do not need to be pacified—yet. It would, however, be invidious and inequitable to give the Spanish Basques a special status which was not available to Scots and at the expense of Scots.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the noble Lord also include the Welsh and the fishing industry there?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, there is a strong fishing industry in Wales, but if one looks at the numbers, one sees that it is a much smaller proportion of the British fleet.
If there were to be doubts about the aspirations of the Spanish fishing fleets and their intentions, I would recall that about 50 Spanish boats managed to get themselves registered at British ports in recent years.

77
They did everything they could to qualify to be so registered, including having British skippers and mates. Some of us raised that matter in your Lordships' House and others raised it elsewhere. I am glad to say that the Government of the day put through changes to make sure that the qualifications were made more sensible, so that those Spanish boats could not continue to do that. But that illustrates the lengths to which the Spaniards are prepared to go in order to obtain access to EC fishery waters.
I turn to industrial fishing. Last September the arrangement was made, which has already been described, whereby the Danes were for eight months to be allowed to fish for pout with a by-catch of 18 per cent. instead of the previous 10 per cent. That was a shock to British fishermen. They had not realised that such a sudden change of the rules could be made. The United Kingdom Minister was isolated, and he did not receive support from any of the others. Before that the pout box—the prohibited area for industrial fishing—and the 10 per cent. limit had become acceptable conservation measures, to prevent over-fishing of species for human consumption. The British fishermen have the recent memory of the near extinction of the herring in the North Sea, which had to be followed by a total ban on fishing for herring for six years.
I bring up-to-date news learnt from fishermen and the local press. Only a few days ago a Danish vessel was boarded and brought to port by British fishery protection services.A sample was taken from the hold and it was found that the by-catch was 41 per cent.; that is, over twice the new limit of 18 per cent. The skipper went to court and a fine and confiscation of his gear followed. Other Danish vessels are very scarce. They are not pursuing this fishery in the way that they have in the past at this time of the year. That is because they are finding it very difficult to keep below the 18 per cent. limit.
Those incidents confirm that there are many immature, edible fish mixed with the pout. They are the equivalent of seed corn for the British industry in future years. In the review expected after May there may be pressure, because of such incidents, to raise the by-catch rather than to lower it. The false argument may be advanced, with the example of a 40 per cent. by-catch, that there are so many young whiting now—because most of these edible fish are whiting—that it no longer need be regarded as a scarce fish, needing protection. But if that argument were accepted, it could lead to the whiting being decimated. EC Governments concerned with conservation must oppose such arguments. As our report advocates, it is scientific advice which should receive priority.
The Government are engaged in difficult negotiations concerning Spain and Portugal. As regards Spain, I and others have on previous occasions said that we favour the accession of Spain and we welcome Spain becoming a new member of the EC. But a number of fisheries issues must be settled before accession. They should not be left in the air. If necessary, the date of accession should be postponed.
As regards Denmark, I am fully aware that the Danish economy relies on domestic supplies of fishmeal and other products. It is an important matter for Denmark. In winning the raw material from the
78
seas—that is to say, catching pout—there is a danger that they will kill off in their early life huge numbers of fish which are valuable for human consumption when mature.
I trust that we shall all in this House press the Government to take the strongest line to protect fish stocks and to persuade other EC Governments to support it. Such a policy coincides with the long-term interests of millions of consumers and of the large majority of fishermen.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and his excellent team on producing an extremely interesting and admirable report which we have all read with the greatest of interest. I also have great pleasure and some relief in asking the Government to accept my warmest congratulations on a signal economic triumph. I have not done that for a very long time! But their handling of the inshore fishing industry's problems cannot be faulted.
This is a long story. I remember when I first went to East Aberdeenshire we were exporting over a million crans of cured herring to Russia and the Baltic states alone and a lot more to Germany. I saw that industry gradually dwindling away until it was on the brink of destruction. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said there had to be a total ban on catches in order to save it. That was because of the ruthless fishing of immature stocks for industrial purposes carried on mostly by the Norwegians and the Danes. We did not do so much of it, but we very nearly had the herring industry ruined.
Then after the war came a very difficult time and a moment when the whole industry was again threatened with extinction when we joined the Common Market. Under the Treaty of Rome, which we had played no part in framing, we were obliged to allow foreign fishing vessels right up to our beaches. The industry was saved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Without him I have no doubt that there would now be no inshore fishing industry in this country. He stuck out for the 12-mile limit, he won his way in the Cabinet, and, happily, he is here today, hale and hearty, to enjoy the fruits of his labours.
I think one ought also to pay tribute to Mr. Peter Walker, because he brought long and difficult—many of us thought impossible—negotiations with the other European countries to a successful conclusion by brilliant and skilful diplomacy in Brussels. It took him a long time. The agreement is not absolutely perfect, but it is the best that we have ever had with the other European countries so far as fishing is concerned. He went a long way towards persuading the Europeans that some conservation was essential if the fishing industry was to be saved. They have not come completely round. I think the Danes may still give a little trouble. We must squash them politely and assure them that it is in their own interests not to go on fishing for immature stocks of fish to make fishmeal or other industrial substances.
The other point I should like to make is to echo what has already been said. We cannot now throw away all that has been achieved. At the moment the inshore

79
fishing industry in this country is very prosperous, largely due to Government aid and Government action. They cannot allow it to be destroyed by letting the Spaniards impose terms upon us which would wreck it—and they could do that. We should encourage them to go to Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell said, where they are wanted. Also, remember that they are insatiable consumers of fish. That is why they are so hale and hearty, and live so long. They eat twice as much fish as we do. I was even told by a friend of mine who made a tour of Spain the other day and visited a number of their cities that, in conversation with businessmen in Spanish cities, particularly Madrid, he had learnt that there was a market for processed British fish and that they missed not having it because we are not processing as much as we could. Anyway, all I should say about this is that we have had one invasion by a Spanish Armada and we certainly do not want another.
The two problems which have been touched on by noble Lords who have spoken and who still remain are these. There is first of all the problem of processing. I am thinking particularly of fishing towns like Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Lerwick, where, when I first went there, the processing factories were going at full speed. They enjoyed an awful lot of prosperity and processed an awful lot of fish. Now they are closing down, and it is rather alarming. I have Fraserburgh particularly in mind. They will lay off 100 men this week simply because the smaller processing factories cannot any longer hold out against the big firms and, for example, the Russian factory ships to which the fish is sold at sea.
I have no solution to offer to this problem. However, I ask the noble Lord whether he can just give me an assurance that his boss, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the fishing organizations, will look into this problem of processing. That is because, at a moment when the fishing industry itself is enjoying something like a full operation, it is hard that the processing factories—the smaller ones, at any rate—should be closing their doors and laying off men.
I should like to end very briefly by making a comparison which I think it is useful for us all to bear in mind. That is the comparison between the mining and the fishing industries in this country. They are both old industries, the fishing industry older than the mining industry. They are both basic industries. I have been looking recently, as I dare say have your Lordships, at the mining villages on televison. There I saw and we all saw hatred. Never mind the rights and wrongs of the matter. However, you will not get that hatred if you visit any of the fishing villages round our coasts. I represented three of them for over 30 years and visited most of the others in Wales and in England. They do not hate each other; they help each other. Both the mining and the fishing industries are hard professions and not without their dangers. But there is a community spirit which once existed in the mining industry and does not any longer but which has always existed in the fishing industry and is perhaps stronger today then it has ever been.
The lesson to be learnt from this comparison is surely this: there must be consultation—and the
80
Government have consulted the fishermen's organisations at every stage in recent years and secured their agreement. Consensus is better than confrontation. The fishermen are happy, but in the mining valleys they are not happy. I think that to some extent that is due to causes which the Government cannot control but which they should master. Perhaps the basic reason is that the fishermen share profits. They have profit sharing. Wages bear some relationship to production. All the fishermen who are sailing in a boat are partners in it. If the boat goes out to sea and does well, they get a jolly good amount of money, but if the boat does very badly, they get hardly any. They accept that. I think that it is a lesson which we have to learn throughout industry.
Before the war I was a member of a small group in another place which was dubbed "the YMCA". The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, was another member. Our policy was based round a slogan: "a property-owning democracy". That is what we in this country want and the inshore fishing industry shows us the way. I am very happy to think that we have saved that industry and that the Government have been of such great assistance. I am sure that we can get the assurances for which we have all been asking, about Spain in particular, and about industrial fishing.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, may I join in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, for his painstaking and outstanding chairmanship of the committee and also for allowing me to be a member of this particular investigation into the fisheries? I have another reason to be extraordinarily grateful to him, as, indeed, are my colleagues in the south-west. For over 20 years I have sat on various fisheries committees in this House and, even more, in the other place. One would have thought, over that period, that nobody in the south of England fished at all, because never did we see representations, memoranda or requests for delegations. They were just ignored. We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, for his very great understanding. If your Lordships look towards the end of the report, your Lordships will find that both the south-eastern Channel ports and the south-western Channel ports have put in their observations and their apprehensions about the fishing industry.
I am on common ground with all my committee colleagues in my apprehension about the entry of Spain into the Common Market. At the risk of endorsement rather than of repetition, may I say how very much we in the Channel ports are concerned with the enormous fleet available to the Spanish fishermen. They have some of the finest, largest and most modern trawlers, which will undoubtedly brave the rigours of the North Sea and plague our fishermen in those parts of the United Kingdom. But the bulk of their fleet, in the middle, are smaller boats whose happy hunting ground will be the English Channel and the Irish seaboard, where they have already made illicit invasions and have poached from time to time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, mentioned, we in Plymouth, with our association with Drake, have for a year been talking about the advent of the second

81
Spanish Armada. We are concerned at the advent of the Spanish fleet coming in under some controlled degree, because we have suffered their poaching in our waters. We have had some successful prosecutions. We have seen their phoney "shell" companies, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, which required only a British skipper and mate for registration. I have met some of these skippers. The only job that the man was allowed to do was to present the documentation at the ports. Otherwise, he was told to stay out of the way while a Spanish skipper and crew ran the trawler, fished in our waters and depleted our quotas, as British ships. We are grateful to my right honourable friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his very prompt legislation, which to a large degree stopped this racket.
The difficult negotiations on the current fisheries policy which were concluded a couple of years ago produced national quotas aligned to the conservation of stocks and the requirements of a viable fishing industry. Therefore, we have to face the fact that any Spanish quota that ignores this formula will either seriously deplete the existing limited national quotas of the current members of that policy or it will wreck the conservation of our stocks. I am wholly at one with the Members of your Lordships' House who have already said that the fisheries policy as agreed must be allowed to continue through its term of years without its current members within the EEC having their whole estimates and arrangements turned upside down yet again. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne and my right honourable friend the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will require all the support that we can give them in these extraordinarily difficult negotiations.
I now turn, if I may, to the controls on abuse, which, to us, are inadequate, monumentally slow and rarely effective. The United Kingdom has a reputation for honouring the international agreements that it signs and for implementing the legislation or regulations that ensue. Some of our EEC partners too often have not the same sense of responsibility. We have seen the Danes overfish their quota of juvenile herring by 170,000 tonnes in 1983 with no retaliatory action by the EEC taken at all. We have seen the Dutch overrun their mackerel quota by 300 per cent. before any action was taken. We were promised 40 inspectors. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that to cut the number down to 13, with the enormous coastlines that they have to patrol, means that their strength is totally inadequate. With modern aids, the mere sight of a patrol boat sends a message flying through the trawler fleets, "Get out of the area!" It is extraordinarily difficult to get the boats that may be overfishing or, indeed, the foreign boats that are not members of the EEC which are poaching.
The EFP, as other Members have said, introduced logbooks. We have waited two whole years. With the speed at which we can print Hansard, it is a pity that HMSO did not have the job of producing those logbooks a little more quickly. It is an outrageous delay that for two years they have been ignored. Catches have been under-reported when, if there had been a big enough inspectorate or a logbook as a guarantee, we might have had a truer picture of the actual catch. The south-west, the south-east and the
82
Channel protest vehemently against the too-small mesh of nets which, in our experience, in our waters, are used by French, Spanish and Danish vessels and which take in so many of our immature fish. The size of the mesh is the best tool that we possess for conserving stocks. The whole question of the size of the mesh must be re-assessed. Unhappily, the advent of vast trawlers catching for industrial purposes, which has been fully discussed here tonight, whereby immature cod, haddock and white fish are swept up, minced and put through liquefaction in bulk storage tanks, makes it extraordinarily difficult for any inspector to establish what fish have been caught. We believe—I think that this is common to all the fishing areas of the country—that there must be much more stringent control of these vessels.
The fishing industry in this country has suffered savage cuts and setbacks over the post-war years. Trawlermen who put their personal savings into their trawlers found their traditional living gone, heavy mortgages round their necks and their trawlers laid up and fetching only scrap metal prices. Their job—and here I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—is as tough and hazardous as that of any miner. When they lost their boats, they lost their living; they were without jobs. Who shed a tear for the trawlermen? No industry responded so rapidly and so fully to our call during the war for the Merchant Navy convoys. Many of those who responded lost their lives. I hope that our Government will continue, with all their strength, to fight for the rights of our United Kingdom fishermen, to uphold their just claims on quotas and controls. I hope that they will also look sympathetically upon more investment to modernise the fleet and to improve, modernise and bring up to date, as we need to do in competition with some of the most modern fishing ports in the EEC, our distribution, marketing and display of fish in dockside areas.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, for the admirable way in which he conducted the team which in the autumn visited Fraserburgh, Peterhead and Aberdeen. I was one of the lucky people who accompanied him. We spent an extremely interesting four days and probably learnt a great deal. I have had a fairly long experience of Scottish fisheries. I knew that we would be talking to some of the most independent people in Scotland; and we did. They were extremely friendly and anxious to meet us.
I was vividly reminded—the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will also remember this—of how, 50 years ago, when my husband Walter Elliot was Minister of Agriculture, many of the problems were the same as those we are asked about today; the problem of overfishing, the problem of net mesh sizes and failure to keep to the agreed limits for each country. In the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, the Minister of Agriculture was struggling with just the same matters. In those days the size of the fishing vessels was often far larger and the areas that they covered were much wider because there were no limitations. That was all before the loss of the cod war.

83
Today there are more limits and the area is much smaller. On the other hand, the problems, curiously enough, seem to be very much the same. The limitations to which we are now accustomed—the 12 miles off the coast reserved for the coastal states, and six miles off the coast reserved exclusively for the countries concerned—have meant that the huge vessels of the past are something we see no more. But, as many noble Lords have said, one of the problems is still over-fishing, which was best illustrated in 1960 when we had to stop herring fishing altogether for about six years. I hope that that will never happen again.
The fishermen we met all asked that the permitted amount of the catches which they are allocated should be fixed in good time; at least two months before the season begins. This delay in allocating both fishing and agricultural amounts is one of the great problems, not to say failures, I think, of the common agricultural policy, because it affects farmers, of course, and it also affects fishermen. I hope that the Government will pursue this very hard because the Commission simply must realise that if the decisions they take on fishing or farming are going to be as late as they are, it will make the situation impossible for those people who are earning their livings and organising great fisheries or farms.
It is one thing to make rules and regulations and another to enforce them. When I look at a map and see the vast areas of sea covered by the fishing industry and bear in mind the very few naval vessels and others which can police these areas, I think that this problem needs to be tackled hard. We know that inspectors have been appointed; I believe the number is 13. I cannot believe that is enough; I cannot believe that 13 ships can cover the whole of the North Sea, the Minch and all the other areas where our fisheries are carried on.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned the extraordinary way in which the logs were to be put out for all the fishermen so that records could be kept. When we were in Scotland in October there were no log books at all. I believe that they have now come out. It was very slow; it was two years before they could get the log books ready and have them distributed. When sitting round the table with the fishermen of Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Aberdeen we had interesting and chatty meetings, and we learned that they are fairly hostile to the Common Market, to Europe and the other fishing fleets. To overcome this the Commission should make known all that is happening in the fishing industry. Throughout the EEC countries many people said to me "Are you in favour of Europe and the EEC?" I said, "Yes". They looked at me with amazement, as though I must be slightly batty. I am quite sure that they would understand and co-operate, but they are not told anything, and at the last minute some decision is taken which absolutely knocks them out. I think those things are very bad indeed, and I hope that the Government will try—I know they do try—to see that the problems which arise because the EEC and the Commission will not make decisions can by some method or other be changed. The delays and incompetences just increased the opposition, I thought when I was talking to the
84
fishermen, and certainly did no good to the fishing industry.
Many noble Lords have spoken about industrial fishing. We did not talk a great deal about industrial fishing to those we saw because I think most of them were engaged in the ordinary fishing of edible fish and were not concerned with the industrial side. I think it is most important that the regulations which have been drawn up for industrial fishing should be very clearly adhered to and enforced.
I should like to sum up my impressions. We must support our fishing fleet in every way we can, and one way is to see that the waters are patrolled and protected by the inspectors, so that the laws are kept. Secondly, we must see that the Commission publishes its information, its regulations and all the other paraphernalia which is involved in the EEC, at least two or three months before the decisions come into effect. Thirdly, with the advent of Spain and Portugal those fleets must be restricted to the waters agreed with them and must not trespass on the waters which have been allocated as our own fishing areas. Fourthly, we must ensure that the disasters of over-fishing, as in the past, shall never be allowed to happen again.
I think the Minister we have is highly competent and excellent in all these matters. I hope he will realise that this committee and the people who went out are enormously interested and enthusiastic about fishing. We shall watch with great interest what is done by the Government and I hope and pray that they will take the advice of our committee.
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, on his presentation and especially on the way he conducted the inquiry. I think there is quite a contrast between his vigour on this fishing inquiry and the unit pricing; I know I sympathised and agreed with him about the unit pricing being a difficult inquiry.
I should also like to say how much we in the committee appreciate the readiness of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the production of evidence which has been excellent. Throughout the whole of the time that I have been on Sub-Committee D I do not think we could have been better served by any ministry; even at short notice it has produced detailed evidence to us in a most courteous way.
I hope that this debate will really strengthen our Government's hands in dealing very firmly with the problems which face them on the Spanish position, on the question of long-term decisions, on quotas and on proportions of catches, because the committee has gone into these matters in great detail.
I shall not take too long tonight because everything which needs to be said has been said, in an extremely able way. I thought the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was exceptionally valuable.
We have said that we must have stability in the industry. I should like to suggest that we must make sure that there is still flexibility in other matters as well. If I tell your Lordships about what happened in the Irish Sea, it may explain why I am worried about there not being flexibility. I think it was three years ago that

85
on scientific advice the herring fishery off the Mull of Galloway was closed. The British fishing fleet had to go to the Isle of Man to get its quota. For some unknown reason there came into that fishery an awful lot of immature fish; the proportion of immature fish was 90 per cent. This was seen by officials at first hand; they went out on the boats and saw it. Yet it took two years before it was dealt with. We must have that kind of flexibility. The fishery off the Mull of Galloway has been re-opened, with the exception of the spawning area and that is now operating satisfactorily.
Today fishermen are pleading to be allowed to take mature fish off the north-west coast of Northern Ireland rather than fish outside the 12-mile limit where they are at present, because once again immature fish have gone outside the 12-mile limit and the mature fish are inside. There needs to be that kind of flexibility to react to that situation fairly quickly, without affecting the total conservation stock. As noble Lords know as well as I do, one of the problems of the herring fisheries is that herring are very easily killed. They are killed when they are being hauled in, and there is no question that once they are in the trawl they are finished. The only way to conserve in that area is to make sure that they never get in the net.
Mention has been made of the "armada". I think the west coast of Ireland suffered from the "armada" to a greater extent than nearly anywhere else. It completely changed the breed of the people down that coast. There is no doubt that the fishermen in Northern Ireland, with whom I have talked, are extremely worried about this question of the Spanish fleet coming into the Irish Sea. If it were to come in the effect would be absolutely devastating. Other noble Lords have talked about the problems of the Spanish boats and about the extreme methods they will use to avoid the regulations. I can only repeat my hope that the Government will be extremely tough in dealing with the Spanish accession.
We must see that our conservation is right. We must see that the policing is right. We must see that the Commission demonstrates to our fishermen, by publishing the results of prosecutions or inquiries, that the CFP will be operated fairly. There is no doubt that British fishermen believe that our policing is more strict than that of anybody else. I repeat that I support everything that has been said here tonight, and I hope that this debate gives power to the Government's arm.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I speak briefly and diffidently, following so many experts. I have sat at the feet of my noble friend Lord Plowden for nearly 40 years, so he needs no bush from me. I recall that the sub-committee which undertook this inquiry was regarded in some quarters as a posse of gullible Peers being bamboozled by knowing fishermen. Innocent, I have no doubt we are. Knowing, the fishermen certainly are, because that is, after all, the guts of their trade. But although we are innocent, I do not think we are gullible. I think that, of the members of that subcommittee, I am perhaps the one that that epithet touches most nearly, and a quarter of a century in the Treasury taught even me a certain rude scepticism.
If I may, I ask your Lordships to pay attention to the need of those of us in the grip of advancing years for
86
aids to memory. I find it increasingly the case, and I rely on mnemonics. I commend to your Lordships the word "sticese". It sounds a bit like East-End language for comfortable corsetry, but it is in fact not so. It touches on and signifies the seven most important factors in the whole of this area. I add two factors to the five which my noble friend Lord Plowden mentioned. The seven factors are: stability; total allowable catch; industrial fishing; conservation; enforcement; scientific input; enlargement. Those are the factors which seem to me to be the most important.
Other noble Lords have already spoken on all these points. I will speak on only one—stability. I note what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said on this point. Fishing is a rough business, as all of us know. The destabilising factors are beyond count: weather, the mysterious movement of fish stocks, the mortality. The regulatory system should therefore be as stable as may be. Stability, as the report says in paragraph 58,
"does not exclude sensible flexibility on the margins of the policy".
The report is not pleading for an indefinite and unalterable status quo. It is asking for the optimisation of what is already in place; and what is already in place is, on the whole, good. Compared with the CAP, it shimmers with symmetry and with logic. Of course there must be change, but it should be organic change, planned and executed at a digestible rate. I agree with other noble Lords that that is what we must insist on in the CFP. We certainly do not want it breached after 18 months.
The news we have had since the report was published has been, on the whole, encouraging, and we are very grateful to the Minister and his officials for that. I join my noble friend Lord Plowden and other noble Lords in pressing the noble Lord the Minister on the by-catch position following the end of May. There seems to be a shared belief in the importance of stability in order to achieve the common fisheries policy's main objectives; namely, the conservation and proper maintenance and administration of fisheries resources. There is a whole literature about the management of change. May I ask the Minister to consider arranging, either from public or from private funds, the endowment of a university chair on the management of stability? I have a natural hesitation, in present circumstances, about suggesting which university.
I am a north countryman, born and brought up with the sea in my ears and in my nostrils. We owe no conventional debt to the men, and indeed the women, of the sea fisheries. I can remember the great fishing fleets putting into Whitby, not so many years ago. Not so now. Like others of your Lordships, I go from time to time to the garden—that remarkable garden—at Trinity House. It commemorates those who gave their lives from the Merchant Navy and from the fishing fleets. I suggest that we should put a proper value on the fishermen's contribution in peace—as much as, if not more than, we do in times of war. I agree with other noble Lords who know far more about these matters that they are a truly remarkable people.
8.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I

87
should like to congratulate Sub-Committee D on its report on the common fisheries policy, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. Under the noble Lord's chairmanship the committee has produced a detailed and penetrating piece of work which the noble Lord introduced with characteristic clarity and vigour. If I may say so, I have learned a good deal this evening from the very interesting speeches that have been made by your Lordships all round the House, not least the last, brief speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. Obviously all noble Lords who spoke are proud of the very detailed document which has been provided and which is going to he a remarkable source document—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, about this—for anyone interested in this subject in time to come.
In the introduction to the report the Select Committee fully endorsed the common fisheries policy in the form in which it was finally agreed in January 1983 after a very long period of intensive and difficult negotiation. But the committee emphasised that the policy has to be made to work through proper enforcement and sound management, and that the United Kingdom has a major role to play in this. I should like to try to illustrate the efforts which the Government are putting in to achieve just those objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, in his opening speech, emphasised the importance of the fact that the CFP's arrangements for access to coastal waters and for apportioning the total allowable catches are not to he changed for 10 or probably 20 years. We also see this as a great advantage, in that it gives fishermen a secure base from which to plan their activities and investment. It should also prevent a recurrence of the damaging uncertainty and lack of regulation that has tended to go with periods of protracted Community negotiation.
Perhaps I may reply to the specific conclusions of the Select Committee. First, the Government certainly do not dissent from the view that short-term political calculations have sometimes resulted in the bidding up of total allowable catches to levels not fully consistent with the longer-term needs of conservation and rational fishery management. However, the Government really do believe that there is an increased willingness to accept the need to take a sensible long-term view in setting TACs, and I am aware of few instances in the last two years when the advice put forward by the Scientific and Technical Committee has not been adequately reflected in the figures set.
The Select Committee noted that the scientists usually offer a range of options in formuiating their advice for each stock so that fishery managers can be fully aware of the likely effects of different courses of action. Here of course we must strike a balance between the short-term needs and the long-term future, a balance which we try to keep in our consultations with the fishing industry at all times. It should also not be forgotten that the level of TACs for the main North Sea joint stocks has become an important bargaining point in the annual consultations between the Community and Norway. After all, Norway does not catch her share of most of the total allowable catch and that is another factor that
88
must be taken into account in assessing the most appropriate levels to go for.
In setting TACs, the Commission and member states are already very conscious of the need to avoid wide fluctuations in permitted catches from one year to another, a point which the report rightly highlighted, as this creates practical difficulties for both fishermen and the onshore industry. However, as your Lordships know very well, we are to some extent at the mercy of nature here, as the total availability of any stock can vary greatly from one year to the next.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for repeating those points, which I know are familiar to members of the committee and to your Lordships, but I do so because the fixing of total allowable catches inevitably involves a complex scientific and political process. While it is not always possible to set total allowable catches at the optimal level identified by the scientists, I do assure your Lordships that we make every effort to get as near as we reasonably can to those levels.
The report also highlights the need for total allowable catches to be fixed well before the start of each new fishing year when technical considerations make this possible. This is a matter to which many of your Lordships have referred in your speeches. The Community has taken significant steps towards fulfilling this desirable objective, as again your Lordships were good enough to recognise. When, on 19th December last, the Fisheries Council adopted the 1985 total allowable catches and quotas in their entirety, there was only one more step to take, which was that the United Kingdom put on a reserve pending a parliamentary scrutiny by having a debate in another place. Our reserve was lifted following that debate, which took place on 10th January this year in another place, a debate in which my right honourable friend received a wide measure of congratulation on what the Government had achieved in obtaining both a timely and a satisfactory deal. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his words of approval this evening. Thus, for the first time, the Community had effectively agreed total allowable catches and quotas before the start of the year to which they applied.
However, the top priority must surely always be to get the answers right which, in relation to the very important North Sea joint stocks, first involves getting a satisfactory agreement with Norway for the year in question. I would just say here that one rather more welcome aspect of the current unsatisfactory situation in which we do not yet have a solution to the share of North Sea herring which Norway ought to have, is that, unless a further agreement is reached, Norway may not be able to fish for North Sea herring in our zone during 1985 at all, and they will not therefore be directly competing with our fishermen.
The Community has set a total allowable catch for Community fishermen in line with the kind of quantity we had hoped to negotiate with Norway, and this will allow for a United Kingdom North Sea herring quota of 68,890 tonnes, which is 90 per cent. more than it was in 1984.
The Select Committee indicated that industrial fishing is an important element in a balanced common fisheries policy as it spreads the fishing efforts of the

89
Community over a wider range of species. It was the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, who also reminded us that it is a practice which enables stocks unsuitable for human consumption to be exploited economically. Indeed, this is a subject to which almost all your Lordships have referred at some stage in your speeches. I think that it is understandable that the industry representatives who gave evidence to the sub-committee would have had industrial fishing very much on their minds at the time, as the amendment to the rules relating to the Norway pout fishery was at that time very much under discussion in Community institutions. Because of this I wonder whether I may suggest that the Select Committee may have been led to place a little too much emphasis on this aspect of the industry's evidence. From its inquiries, the Select Committee felt that the decision on the Norway pout fishery had undermined the confidence that many of our fishermen had in the Community's commitment to pursue an effective policy of conservation and fisheries management.
While feeling is no doubt still high on this particular issue—and I absolutely accept that the Select Committee was reflecting what was said to it—I believe that the warmth of the industry's welcome for the package of total allowable catches and quotas for the current year, which includes significant improvements in the availability of the main human consumption whitefish stocks in the North Sea, indicates at least some recovery of confidence. This has, I am sure, been reinforced by the steady progress made throughout the latter part of last year in the tightening up enforcement arrangements generally.
Nonetheless, your Lordships may say to me that before I leave this point I must say a few words more about this derogation. I should like to take the opportunity to report on the latest results of the monitoring of the Norway pout fishery which, as noble Lords will be aware, was one of the conditions attaching to the temporary derogation. The results of the sampling carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in a total of 78 inspections since October show that in 80 per cent. of the catches the by-catch has, in fact, been less than 10 per cent. Figures returned to the European Commission by Denmark show that landings in the last quarter of 1984 were 88 per cent. Norway pout. This does not, so far at least, suggest the sort of mayhem which some fishermen seem to have feared.
In the evidence given to the Select Committee, reference was also made to the practical difficulty of enforcing the by-catch rules in industrial fisheries. Because we recognised this difficulty we insisted as a condition of the derogation that a Commission regulation be introduced to clarify the sampling procedure. This regulation was made on 5th December 1984 and establishes for the first time a clear procedure to be adopted during sampling. On the subject of enforcement, in the one instance, which was mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Campbell of Croy, where a Danish trawler was found to have a by-catch in excess of the 18 per cent. limit, proceedings were, of course, brought in the Lerwick Sheriff Court, and the skipper was fined and his net confiscated.
90
The derogation on the Norway pout by-catch limit expires on 31st May of this year. Thereafter, unless the council decides otherwise on a proposal by the Commission, the original 10 per cent. by-catch limit will apply. Any proposals to vary the 10 per cent. rule will have to be considered in the light of the current scientific advice and of the results of the monitoring of the fishery between October 1984 and May 1985.
In answer to the direct question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Mottistone and others, I can give an assurance that the paramount consideration in the view of Her Majesty's Government will be the adequate protection of the juvenile components of the human consumption stock in the North Sea.
The third point on which the committee has made specific observations is the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal. The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, showed in clear terms that Spanish accession presents considerable potential problems in the fisheries sector—the main difficulty for us of course lying in Spain's desire to improve her access to Community resources and current member states' waters to the possible detriment of British, French, and Irish fishermen in particular. A solution to this problem is critical to the conclusion of the fisheries chapter of the accession negotiations, and it is not proving easy. The Foreign Affairs Council will be addressing the remaining unresolved issues at the next meeting to be held from 17th to 20th March.
The Select Committee's report highlighted the need to ensure that opportunities for Spanish vessels should continue to be limited to those species for which there are no total allowable catches and quotas, except where Spain already has fishing rights for stocks that are currently subject to TACs and quotas. Spain does of course have established fishing rights, as we know, under the European Communities/Spain fisheries agreement for certain species subject to national quotas; namely, hake, monkfish and megrim.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said that the Government's attitude so far has been robust, and he expressed the hope that this attitude would continue. May I say that one of the basic elements of the Community's position in the current negotiations with Spain is that where the total allowable catch for a particular stock has already been fully allocated between the existing member states there can be no question of reopening the allocation to allow Spain a share.
This is a point to which the Government attach very great importance. The precise level of Spain's share of the total allowable catches for hake, monkfish and megrim after accession is still a matter for negotiation. Your Lordships will forgive me if at this point I can only say that the Community has so far held firmly to the view that the principle of the "relative stability" of the existing member states' shares of the total allowable catches as agreed in 1983 must be preserved, and that the danger against which the Select Committee has warned—namely, that member states' quotas might be reduced in order to increase the quantities available to Spain, is most unlikely to materialise.

91
The Select Committee also referred to the need to limit the areas in which Spanish vessels will be allowed to fish after accession. One of the main subjects of the present negotiations with Spain concerns the scope, extent and duration of the direct controls on Spanish fishing effort after accession. Again your Lordships will forgive me for not being too precise about the negotiating position of the two sides at the moment; but I should make clear that the Community are rightly insisting that the number of Spanish vessels operating in the waters of the existing member states should continue to be subject to specific and enforceable limits for a very long period, if not for the full duration of the present common fisheries policy.
There is also a determination to maintain the "Irish Box" for a long transitional period, and to ensure that access to waters not currently fished by Spain—if indeed any such access is provided at all—should be subject to the strictest possible controls. Therefore the Government have so far been successful in ensuring that the Community's position is such as to safeguard the present balance of the common fisheries policy and the interests of our fishermen.
May I say just a word about enforcement. While it is right for each member state to be responsible for enforcement in its own waters, it is also of importance to ensure that the rules of the common fisheries policy are properly enforced by all member states. A good deal of progress has been made so far in this area. The Commission's Inspectorate of Inspectorates—for that is what it is—which was set up at the instigation of the United Kingdom, made over 50 visits to member states in 1984 and has uncovered a number of irregularities. As a result, the Commission has opened the procedures under Article 169 of the Treaty in specific cases.
We are satisfied that the number of inspectors is adequate for their present duties; but I can assure your Lordships that we shall not hesitate to press for more if in the future this appears necessary. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood referred to the need for the Commission inspectorate's findings to be published in order that fishermen should have confidence in the system. We have already asked at the Council on 4th December for a report from the Commission, and we trust that this is going to be forthcoming.
The importance attached by the Commission to observance of quotas is demonstrated by the fact that they closed over 40 fisheries prematurely to other member states last year, and have recently written to all member states asking for explanations of why certain quotas were over-fished in 1983 and 1984. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith that we must do everything we can to prevent over-fishing, and we shall continue to press the Commission to take appropriate action on any systematic over-fishing of quotas which is substantiated.
I am also sure that further improvements in quota observance will result from the introduction of standard log books and landing returns in all member states, about which again your Lordships have spoken in not particularly approving terms this evening. But nonetheless at least we are on course, and on 1st April those items are going to be put into place.
92
It is fair to say that this is, to a great extent, due again to efforts from Britain, and not least the efforts put in by the two reports of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. We realise that there is going to be an extra burden placed on our own fishermen so far as log books and landing returns are concerned; but we know that the industry as a whole, which has supported us all along in this, is pleased that this additional measure of control is coming into effect.
Finally, your Lordships' committee also drew attention to the dangers of loss of economic viability in the industry. In particular, your Lordships referred to the use of licensing arrangements to regulate fishing effort and to relate capacity to fishing opportunities. Vessel licensing is in fact the basis of all our arrangements for managing the United Kingdom quotas. Last year, 1984, was the first full year-of managing quotas, and various arrangements were introduced to ensure that there was equitable allocation of quotas among United Kingdom fishermen; that there was sufficient flexibility to maximise fishing opportunities; and that fisheries lasted for as long as possible throughout the year.
Before introducing any measures, we fully consulted the fishing industry in developing quota management arrangements to suit the particular needs of each fishery. But as regards the other use of licensing—that is to say, simply to control capacity—we introduced a system of restrictive licensing last February to protect the benefits of the decommissioning grant scheme and to place a limit on the number of vessels fishing for those pressure stocks where quotas were already insufficient to maintain the existing capacity of the fleet.
I believe that the industry generally have recognised the need for the scheme, and while inevitably it met with some criticism from those who have been unable to obtain licences I believe that we have operated it fairly and have given due consideration to a variety of special cases. The Select Committee—and the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, specifically mentioned this—regretted that other member states have made little progress on the development of licensing arrangements.
If I may say so I do not think the Government feel that it would be in Britain's interest to promote a Community-wide scheme of licensing and all this would imply. Other member states are having to tackle the problem of living within a quota. Some of them have their own arrangements for supervision of investment in new vessels, for example. But it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that we recently received a report from the Netherlands on the introduction there of a system of restrictive licensing for vessels catching quota species which seems in certain respects to have followed the example of this country.
Briefly, I shall answer a question or two. A point was put to me both by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and by my noble friend Lord Mottistone about a proposal put forward by Mr. James Provan, a member of the European Parliament, about Spanish fishing in waters around the Falklands. Just a word of caution here: I would have some doubts about whether increased fishing opportunities in the South Atlantic, if

93
available, would be of great interest to those Spanish vessels based on Spain's northern coast, which are accustomed to looking nearer at hand for their livelihood and which are the vessels which would wish to have their eyes upon the northern waters of the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, made an important point about fish processing. I should like to put on record that the Government provide aid where necessary to enable those involved in fish processing and marketing to qualify for aid from the European Community and, through the Sea Fish Industry Authority, we make money available to small companies for loans towards the purchase or improvement of fish processing plants. On top of this, the Government have recently announced that we are spending nearly £8 million on the Sea Fish Industry Authority's development programme, which should improve all stages of fish handling and marketing. The Department of Trade and Industry also provides grants in the form of regional aid and selective financial assistance; so, in no way contradicting what the noble Lord has perceived from his own experience, we are now trying to do something to reverse the process.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked me a specific question about areas closed for herring fishing in the Irish Sea. I give my noble friend an assurance that closed areas for herring fishing in the Irish Sea was a question raised at the Council of Ministers in December when the total allowable catches and quotas were set. It was agreed then that these areas would need to be the subject of review by the international scientific experts. I am sure my noble friend would agree that it is right in these matters to act on the basis of proper scientific advice.
I hope that I have made it clear that for the most part the Government share the views of the Select Committee and are working actively in the directions recommended by the Committee. I again thank your Lordships for a most valuable report and the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, for initiating this debate this evening.
Lord Plowden: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and in particular to thank Lord Boothby for speaking from his wide experience of the fishing industry. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who took part in our consultations and brought a wealth of experience which none of the rest of us could possibly match.
I welcome the speech of the noble Lord the Minister. I think he felt that we perhaps paid too much attention to the fears of the fishermen's representatives about the increase in the allowable by-catch from 10 per cent. to 18 per cent. and the explanation was given that, with some exceptions, the by-catch had not been very distant from 10 per cent. But the fears were based on uncertainty. The agreement had been reached in 1983–84 and in September 1984 suddenly there was a change. It was only, as far as I can understand it, at the insistence by the British Minister of Agriculture that it was not a permanent change: it was to be a limited change. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will
94
agree with me that it was perfectly justifiable on the part of the fishermen's representatives to feel uncertain about the whole of the common fisheries policy if after it had just been concluded, it could be altered in such a way.
I welcomed the speech of the noble Lord the Minister and his assurances about the Government's intention not to allow the by-catch to be increased arbitrarily. I believe he said that from 31st May it will revert to 10 per cent. from the present 18 per cent. No doubt that will be subject to negotiation. I welcome his assurances about the resolute stand that the Government take on entry of the Spaniards to the Common Market because it was that even more than the by-catch that, as noble Lords have said, alarmed Britain and the other fishing countries in the Community. I thank everyone for the constructive way in which this debate has taken place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British and United States Servicemen: UK Law
8.46 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their attitudes towards the application of United Kingdom law to British and United States servicemen in their relations with British civilians.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask this Question, I want to make it clear from the start that my objective in tabling it is to give the spokesman for the Government an opportunity to clear up a great deal of confusion and concern on a matter of widespread public interest and worry. In the attempts I have made on three occasions to get this cleared up through Starred Questions there seems to have been a certain amount of confusion, particularly between the word "law" and the word "jurisdiction". On two occasions the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, insisted all the way through Question Time that British and American servicemen came under British law, in particular under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. He also insisted that the rules of engagement as issued by the Ministry of Defence also came under that law.
The Minister will know that widespread concern has been shown in a number of cases of American servicemen's actions in regard to civilians and in one case to a member of the RAF and the consequential jurisdiction which was carried out by the American forces under the courts martial. Since I first asked that question I have had letters and telephone calls from all over the country, from Scotland to Cornwall, about this matter. I believe this will give an opportunity to the Minister to make the situation abundantly clear.
I want the Minister to answer three questions, and I wish to try to avoid any of the legal jargon so that we talk directly to the public concerned in this grave matter. The first question concerns the publication in a number of newspapers earlier this year of what at least purported to be certain details of the rules of engagement as issued by the Ministry of Defence. The straightforward question that I should like to ask the Minister is this. Has the Ministry of Defence given

95
authority to British forces guarding nuclear installations to use firearms against unarmed anti-nuclear demonstrators? I may say that a good deal of surprise has been expressed particularly in legal circles, at the report that not just people are concerned; it is not apparently just a question of self-defence that is being quoted in regard to this rule of engagement—which, I think, is Section 7—but also property. And I believe that it is for the first time, if these are reports are correct, that firearms are authorised to be used to protect property.
I am well aware that the Minister will have to say that the rules of engagement are classfied; yes, they are. But would he not agree with me that if there are widespread newspaper reports, such as there were in January of this year, purporting to relate the specific authority given by the Ministry of Defence, it is our task in Parliament to make quite clear not the details of those rules of engagement but at least to what extent they apply and to what extent they do not apply. It is also our task to establish the extent to which those newspaper reports were correct, and if they were correct, then, surely, it is clear that in this instance the Ministry of Defence is overriding the important Section 3 of the 1967 Act.
I think that it is worthwhile quoting that Section 3 so as to be quite sure that it is on the record what we are talking about. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 reads:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders, or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
According to Ministers, this law applies to British soldiers, despite whatever may be within the rules of engagement. But it cannot be held, surely, that the word "reasonable" can be applied to what is reported in the press as the authority given by the Ministry of Defence to British soldiers guarding nuclear sites to shoot demonstrators even if they are running away; in other words, to shoot unarmed demonstrators.
I hope that despite the classified nature of the rules of engagement, the Minister will be able to make it quite clear to this House and to the public that this is not the case; because there is a danger here that if the Minstry of Defence or any other ministry is issuing orders or giving authority outwith the law, this then becomes legislation by the Executive and not by Parliament. In this case, so far as the rules of engagement are concerned, the most that Parliament can do is to censure the Government for what they have done. It has no power to prevent these acts from being carried out or these orders from being issued. As we have the authority of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the dangers of an elective dictatorship with a Government with such a huge majority as the present Government, then this becomes even more dangerous to the whole responsibility of Parliament for the conduct of affairs in our country.
The second question I should like to ask the Minister relates to the powers of United States forces in this country. I should like to ask him, again directly, this question. Can United States forces use firearms when guarding either nuclear or non-nuclear bases
96
without being brought to trial for murder or manslaughter under British law if somebody is killed? Certainly, the American forces believe that they have the right to protect property. But, as far as I am able to discover, the American forces have the authority to shoot demonstrators without, as our forces might well have, and, indeed, have had on a number of occasions in Northern Ireland, having to account to a court on charges of murder or manslaughter. When the Visiting Forces Act is put into operation, as it has been, could it apply to the case of an American serviceman on any kind of military base, nuclear or non-nuclear, who had killed a demonstrator? Would the Visiting Forces Act come into operation, could it come into operation, and would it then be possible, as would seem to be the logic, that the American court would accept the plea of justification and therefore would override Section 3 of the 1967 Act?
This is not a matter which is simply a figment of my imagination. The House of Commons defence committee, in its report published last July, stated specifically as one of its recommendations, Recommendation No. 8, on page 17:
"we recommend that the rules of engagement issued to armed Servicemen at nuclear bases, and the manner in which they are issued, should be made identical for British and American Servicemen".
Then it went on to deal with the question of the differences in English and Scottish law into which I shall not go tonight.
In their response to that report, published in January of this year, the Government had this to say. They first admitted that there are detailed differences in the orders and procedures of British and American guards at nuclear sites. Then at the end of that paragraph (which is paragraph 17 of their response) they said:
"following the Committee's recommendation [the Government] will discuss further what more might be done to align procedures".
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply what further action the Government have taken so far. The concern that was shown by the defence committee over the anomalies between the rules of engagement for British forces and those for American forces based in this country was made quite plain in that report. We should like to know what action the Government have taken. But, as I say, it must not be forgotten that it is not simply a question of the anomalies between the rules of engagement on nuclear sites, because, so far as my information goes, the Americans are entitled under their own regulations to use firearms in non-nuclear bases as well as in nuclear bases.
My third question concerns the relationship between the American forces and British civilians, and I should like to ask: can United States forces based in this country escape the penalties of British law for civilian crimes? I would instance as a civilian crime one that has been termed in American courts-martial "negligent homicide", which I take to be, under British law, manslaughter.
I have two instances out of many to cite tonight, to point up the issue that I am raising and the natural concern that has been, and is being, felt in many parts of the country. The first I would briefly refer to goes back to 1965 when in the town of Dunoon in Scotland an American naval man ran into a mother pushing a

97
baby in a pram. The baby was killed and the mother maimed, and the American serviceman was fined $100 by an American court. That hardly seems to me to equate with British jurisdiction or the application of British law as it would have been applied in a British court.
The second case is much more recent and it has raised a great deal more publicity. I thank the noble Lord who is to reply for the letter that he has written to me following my Question to him last month. His letter I received only today, but that letter does differ in a number of material details from the press report, and I should like the noble Lord to have this opportunity of putting the record straight if the press was incorrect, because it was the Western Morning Herald and the evening paper (both published in Plymouth) which reported this case in January 1980 and gave some details which conflict materially with the account given to me by the Minister.
I do not know whether his letter to me is covered by provisions under which it will be placed in the Library, but we can talk about it here. For example, the press report states that the American serviceman concerned went in a jeep to look for his sweetheart when the false alarm was given, and he drove round the base. The noble Lord's letter says there were some children at large in the base. The press report says that it was the then Home Secretary (now the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw) who stopped the inquest. According to the noble Lord, the inquest had to be stopped by the coroner under the Visiting Forces Act. The noble Lord will remember that, when I asked him about this at Question Time, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was sitting next to him and obviously he knows all about the case. But these are important details, in the sense that a great deal of concern has been shown in the West Country about this case and that has been brought to my attention very forcibly over the last few weeks, both in the press and by private individuals.
It does show—does it not?—that when an American serviceman injures or kills a British citizen, that case can then be taken—indeed, it may have to be taken—into an American court; and in this case the killing of the 17-year-old RAF youth was penalised by a letter of admonition and a fine of $1. Surely no one would argue that that is the application of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
And what of compensation? The noble Lord will know that there was a great deal of anger about the attitude of the American authorities to the parents of this boy; but that is perhaps another issue. However, in this case, can a civil case be taken out for negligence, because the American serviceman had admitted negligent homicide? Can a civil case be taken out for negligence and can compensation be claimed? If so, against whom and by whom? I believe the noble Lord will agree with me that the public are entitled to have these answers, because it is the public in this country who are at risk so far as the activities of American servicemen, in their conduct with civilians, are concerned.
The public are also entitled to know the answers to these three questions when we have a long and honourable history of peaceful protest. The public are entitled to know what authority has been given to
98
British soldiers guarding nuclear bases, what authority is given to American soldiers guarding nuclear and non-nuclear bases, and what is the position of members of the British public if they are damaged, injured or killed by visiting forces based in this country.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, let me say at once that I am grateful, and I am sure that many people outside the House will also feel grateful, to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for asking this Question tonight on an important subject—a subject which could flare up overnight, and one which is a cause of concern for many people. If I may say so, I thought that his speech showed not only his background knowledge of the subject and his grasp of detailed evidence, but also his deep concern that there should be in the country a body of persons who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. This concern of my noble friend has emerged in three questions which he has addressed to Ministers during the past two months. My noble friend is saying that the position is unsatisfactory and he therefore calls on the Government to:
"define their attitudes towards the application of United Kingdom law to British and American servicemen in their relations with British civilians".
It is correct to say—here I am measuring my words—that British servicemen and United States servicemen in the United Kingdom are governed by our law. But that statement could be very misleading, as my noble friend Lord Hatch has already illustrated, because, as I understand the law, the law of the United Kindom in certain circumstances draws a huge distinction between the British serviceman and the United States serviceman in this country. I wish to be as constructive as I can and I shall ask a number of questions. It is possible that my noble friend Lord Hatch has already asked two of them, but I have in mind to ask about half a dozen questions and then, in the light of the Minister's replies to those questions, we can see whether there is a mischief lurking behind the 1952 Act, a mischief which should be removed.
My first question is this: will the Minister confirm that the British serviceman is answerable in our criminal courts for his conduct in the United Kingdom towards a civilian or the property of a civilian? I have always understood that the old conflict in our country between the civil and the military authorities ended just over 250 years ago in a complete victory for the civil courts. So will the Minister confirm that the British serviceman in the United Kingdom, at least in times of peace, has not only his purely military duties to perform but an overriding civil obligation also?
There is a suggestion, or a suspicion, or a fear, that the pink card issued by the Minister of Defence and officially designated Joint Services Publication 386, breaches or is intended to breach the principle which I have just mentioned. We are therefore asking the Minister for this assurance: again, that at least in times of peace, the criminal law always accompanies the British serviceman in the United Kingdom.
I turn to the position of the United States serviceman. I understand that his position is different in a material respect because he may plead successfully that the jurisdiction of our criminal courts be

99
excluded. Where appropriate he may plead ouster of jurisdiction under the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. This Act, building on the precedent established by the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act 1933 and ratifying an agreement among the parties to NATO signed in 1951, was of course a departure from the traditional principle which ordained that all persons, nationals and aliens, who committed a crime against the laws of this country are triable by our courts.
The real kernel of the 1952 Act is to be found in Section 3 which lays down the conditions which, if proved by a member of a visiting force who is charged in one of our courts with an offence against our law, entitles the visiting servicemen to plead successfully that the jurisdiction of the court is excluded. The first ouster of jurisdiction—that is the one with which we are materially concerned tonight—concerns offences committed in the course of duty, and this is established by the production of a certificate to that effect by the appropriate military authority. As I understand it, that certificate cannot be challenged.
Unless the appropriate authority of the visiting forces waives its jurisdiction, our courts in the cases which fall within the 1952 Act cannot proceed to try the individual concerned. So the 1952 Act, although it was building on the precedent of the 1933 Act, is therefore far reaching. Indeed, this was appreciated in 1952. During the Bill's passage through Parliament it was subjected to much opposition in both Houses and in the letters columns of the press.
My noble friend has drawn the attention of the House to the case in Cornwall in 1979 when an American marine killed a British youth and the inquest was stopped under the provisions of the 1952 Act. I confess that I do not know the details of that particular case, but it has occurred to me that the coroner may have stopped that inquest in accordance with the power in the 1952 Act which originally derived from the 1933 Act. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the coroner's action in Cornwall in 1979.
An innovation without precedent is contained in Section 7 of the Act, and this has not been touched upon. Section 7 forbids a coroner, unless he is directed by the Home Secretary, from holding or continuing an inquest if he is satisfied that the deceased person was a member or a civilian component of a visiting force. There is no precedent in the 1933 Act or in any other legislation for Section 7.
Political expediency has often been held responsible for the fathering of undesirable legislative offspring. The Visiting Forces Act 1952 may well be said to be the offspring of international expediency. The 1952 Act introduced fundamental changes in the law. There can be only one possible justification for such changes and that is summed up in one word "reciprocity".
I should now like to ask the Minister four additional questions. First, how often have American servicemen successfully pleaded ouster of jurisdiction since 1952? Secondly, in respect of how many deaths have coroners—under Section 7 of the Act or any other section of that Act—refused to hold or continue an inquest? Thirdly—and my noble friend has touched on
100
this question—how many British citizens have failed to recover compensation in respect of damage to property or personal injury because United States servicemen have pleaded the 1952 Act or have been removed from the jurisdiction of the court?
Fourthly, and bearing in mind my submission that there can be only one justification for the 1952 Act—and that is reciprocity—can the Minister confirm that the immunity granted to United States servicemen under the 1952 Act is no greater than that allowed under reciprocal arrangements operating in other NATO states? Finally, if the law relating to United States servicemen and British servicemen is to be harmonised, will the Minister confirm that there is only one basis for harmonisation—and that is that both be answerable in our criminal courts?
I am grateful to my noble friend for asking his Question, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's response.
9.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has asked Her Majesty's Government to define their attitude to the application of United Kingdom law to British and United States servicemen stationed in this country. I can answer his substantive question briefly. First, both United States and British servicemen must obey our law. Secondly, so far as possible they should be answerable for breaches of the law in our courts. Thirdly, if a United States serviceman commits an offence in the performance of duty or solely against persons or property of the United States forces, it is appropriate for the offender to be answerable primarily to his own authorities. This is the effect of the 1952 Act, which has been running for 33 years, and these principles are accepted by ourselves and our allies in NATO. The arrangement is based on the notion that it is the responsibility of the authorities of the visiting force to establish their own discipline over their service personnel.
As noble Lords will be aware, the 1952 Act was introduced to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the 1951 agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. As has been pointed out before, the arrangement has an impeccably bipartisan record in Parliament and replaced legislation dating from World War II. The 1951 NATO agreement was concluded in London by a Labour Government. The 1952 Act was introduced by the incoming Conservative Government. It gave effect to the provisions of that agreement in United Kingdom law and allowed the Government to go on to ratify in 1954 the agreement made by their predecessors. The arrangements are bipartisan also—and I think this is one of the substantive questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—in that they apply with equal force to legislation covering our forces when they are in other countries which have ratified the agreement. That includes not only West Germany and the British Army of the Rhine, but also the United States and our servicemen on detached duty there. Apart from minor amendments to deal with newly created offences, Part I has been untouched for the past 30 years and has served our country well throughout that period. In our view, it is right that the Act

101
should have remained untouched and, despite the views of some commentators on the subject, I believe that there are very good reasons why we should not disturb the arrangement now.
The 1951 NATO agreement dealt with matters which have to be regulated when service personnel from one country are stationed in the territory of another. Thus, the agreement covers not only matters of jurisdiction but also the settlement of civil claims, entry procedures and customs and revenue facilities. It was necessary to legislate in all these matters and also on the appropriate principles for the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, which is what we are concerned about in this debate. It may, therefore, be helpful if I explain to your Lordships the purposes of Sections 2 and 3 of the 1952 Act and the way they work, as these are the provisions with which we are primarily concerned this evening.
Section 2 enables the courts and authorities of a visiting force to exercise in the United Kingdom the ordinary powers of discipline and administration necessary to preserve the good order of that force. Without it, a member of a visiting force could not, for example, be put in the guard room or even be confined to barracks. I doubt very much whether any noble Lord would dispute the need for a military force to be able to maintain discipline if it is to be in any way effective or, indeed, to conduct itself in a way acceptable to our own community. It is clearly sensible for foreign servicemen visiting a country to serve under their own code of discipline rather than under that of the receiving state. I remind your Lordships again that we maintain forces abroad as well as being hosts to other forces here. The 1951 agreement provides the basis on which we can maintain discipline in our forces serving in other NATO countries.
Section 2 of the Act empowers the service courts and the service authorities of a visiting force to exercise in our territory the jurisdiction which their own law gives them over persons who are subject to their jurisdiction. This jurisdiction will be exclusive when a visiting serviceman commits an act which is an offence only against the service law of his own country and not against our law. The section is silent on the jurisdiction of British courts. It does not, therefore, disturb existing arrangements and it follows that if he commits an act which is an offence against the law of this country but not against the law of his own, the United Kingdom courts have exclusive jurisdiction. It follows also that, if a visiting serviceman commits an act which is an offence against the law both of his own country and of the United Kingdom, the jurisdiction of the courts of the visiting force is normally exercised concurrently with that of the United Kingdom courts. In such cases jurisdiction will be dealt with by arrangements outside the Act, according to the status of forces agreement; but it is also necessary to take account of the special provisions made by Section 3.
It is Section 3, of course, which attracts the least friendly attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. This may be surprising since the effect of that section is that in most cases United Kingdom courts will have jurisdiction to deal with offences committed by visiting servicement which infringe United Kingdom laws. As I have tried to explain, this jurisdiction is regularly exercised under the arrangements to
102
which I have referred. The only exceptions to this general rule (which are specified in Section 3) occur where the offence arises out of, or in the course of, duty or if it is committed solely against persons or property associated with the visiting force. In such cases the primary jurisdiction is given, by Section 3, to the authorities of the visiting force, but the United Kingdom courts retain a secondary right of jurisdiction. This they may exercise if the authorities of the visiting force decide not to exercise their primary right of jurisdiction and deal with the case under their own law.
From this summary it will be fairly clear to your Lordships what happens when an offence is committed by a visiting serviceman. If, for example, he commits a theft, this will invariably be an offence for which there is concurrent jurisdiction, because it is an offence against his own service law and the law of the United Kingdom. It may therefore be dealt with by the United Kingdom courts unless the property in question has been stolen from the authorities of the visiting force itself or from another member of the visiting force.
The Act therefore seeks to balance the needs of the sending state with our proper concern to ensure that United Kingdom law is observed by all persons within the jurisdiction of our courts. No person is given immunity from prosecution: quite the reverse. The arrangements set out in the Visiting Forces Act are designed to ensure that a person answers to the most appropriate authority for his acts or omissions. The effective operation of the Act clearly depends to a large extent on close co-operation between the police and the appropriate authority of any visiting force stationed in their area. If any matter cannot be determined locally, the police will consult the Home Office or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It has been suggested that the practical operation of these arrangements means that United States servicemen are able to regard themselves as somehow above the law and can, or do, act irresponsibly and get away with it. This is not the case: on average, more than 2,000 United States servicemen a year are convicted in the United Kingdom courts, most of them for traffic offences. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will take that statistic as a satisfactory one, although it is approximate, because the specific statistics he asked for are not centrally collected.
It is also alleged that there are serious offences which have been committed by United States servicemen which have gone unpunished or have been punished only in nominal terms by United States authorities who have unfairly claimed primary jurisdiction to deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, referred to a case in Scotland with which I am not familiar, but which I believe relates to a United States serviceman driving to duty. I may be mistaken in that, so I think I had better leave it and reply to him on that matter in writing. I can assure him that that reply will be placed in the Library of this House, as was the reply which I sent him on 6th March and which he saw only today.
The noble Lord next referred to the case of Matthew Chesher, which was a tragic accident which took place in July 1979 during a bomb alert at RAF St. Mawgan

103
in Cornwall, in which Leading Aircraftsmen Matthew Chesher was killed by a motor vehicle driven by a United States serviceman. As the United States serviceman was on duty at the time, the United States authorities were entitled to exercise primary jurisidiction. Two points of particular concern have been made with regard to the outcome of this incident. First, it has been argued that the United States authorities interrupted the inquest on Matthew Chesher. Secondly, it is argued that the outcome of the United States court which dealt with the serviceman was quite inappropriate in view of the gravity of the incident.
In fact, of course, United States authorities did not, and could not, halt the inquest into Matthew Chesher's death. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has already referred to the section of the Visiting Forces Act 1952—Section 7—which made it mandatory on the coroner to stop the inquest into his death, or to adjourn it, as he did, unless he was specifically instructed not so to do by the Home Secretary. The only way in which the local paper could have made that a decision of the Home Secretary is by the fact that the Home Secretary aid not intervene.
The serviceman was tried by a jury, who found him guilty of the offence of negligent homicide and decided that the sentence was for him to be reprimanded, given a letter of admonition and fined one dollar. Before noble Lords form a view of that sentence, I think they should recall that there is, and there was, no suggestion that the serviceman involved was reckless in his actions; he appeared inadvertently to have driven on the wrong side of the road, which, of course, in his home country would have been the right side of the road, in the excitement engendered by the security alert. My information is also that he was going to find some girls (in the plural) who had taken a short cut across the base. That is my reply to the next point that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, raised.
We are, moreover, assured that a reprimand is a very serious penalty in its effects on a serviceman's career, especially with regard to future promotion. Mr. and Mrs. Chesher were upset—and this goes beyond what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has said, but he might well have said it and I think I should reply—at the way they were treated by the United States Navy during the court hearing and at the fact that there was no United States presence at their son's funeral. I mention this only to say that I know that the United States Navy expressed its deep regret directly to the Chesher family at the way that the case was handled and the distress which that caused.
We next turn to the question of the use of firearms by United States servicemen and the claim of those who criticise the jurisdictional arrangements set out in the Visiting Forces Act. I am sorry; I have expressed that badly. It is sometimes claimed by those critics that the arrangements set out in that Act in some way allow the United States servicemen to act with impunity in the event of an intrusion into a United States base in this country. In particular, it is suggested that a United States serviceman might be able to open fire on an obviously harmless British demonstrator without
104
incurring any risk of proceedings in United Kingdom courts. It is right that your Lordships' House should be concerned at the prospect of such an eventuality. If it were ever the case that United States servicemen were in a position to shoot such people, this would certainly be a matter of the utmost gravity. But I must remind your Lordships that this is first of all a purely hypothetical proposition. In considering what is the legal position governing the use of firearms by members of a visiting force, we must recall that personnel of the United States forces in the United Kingdom are bound by Article 2 of the NATO Agreement,
"to respect the laws of the receiving state.
and have a duty to,
"take necessary measures to that end".
For United States as for British servicemen, for both kinds of servicemen, the use of firearms is governed both by rules of engagement which are designed to ensure that fire is only opened, as a last resort, in accordance with the law of the land; and by the doctrine that only the minimum force may be used that is necessary and reasonable to protect life or vital installations. Firearms could thus be used only as a last resort if all other preventive measures had failed and if there was no other way to prevent someone from taking another's life or to protect vital defence installations or a nuclear weapon.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had a phrase which I noted down. I think he asked me whether the criminal law always accompanies the British serviceman in the United Kingdom. I give him the answer, in the context of that point in my speech, and say that the answer is, yes. I cannot, therefore, give a categorical assurance that shots would never be fired. But I must stress that we are not concerned here with what may happen in the course of a peaceful and lawful demonstration, which is the concern of noble Lords this evening.
The lawfulness of the use of force by United Kingdom servicemen is the same as that for any other citizen—and I return now to our own troops. It depends upon whether the force used is of a kind and degree which is reasonable in all the circumstances in order to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest. This obviously depends upon the circumstances at the time and is a matter for the serviceman's own judgment, for which he is responsible, like any other citizen, under the law. Rules of engagement only give guidance to the serviceman. They are not what I think the noble Lord termed an ouster of jurisdiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, raised the question of compensation. Claims against members of visiting forces are dealt with by the United Kingdom Claims Commission. If the claim is admitted and damages are agreed, they are paid by the Secretary of State for Defence under the authority of Section 9 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952. If the claim is not admitted, the claimant has the right to bring proceedings in the courts of the country against the member of the visiting force concerned. Any judgment obtained will be discharged by the Secretary of State for Defence. If a settlement is arrived at without proceeding to trial,

105
payment will also be made by the Secretary of State. Seventy-five per cent. of any award is recovered from the sending state.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked about a specific aspect of the United States rules of engagement. There are, it is true, procedural differences on which the Committee of the House of Commons commented and which the Government have undertaken to discuss with the United States authorities. I should say first that there is fundamental agreement between the rules of engagement used by the United States and those used by the United Kingdom forces. Indeed, in the case of the joint United Kingdom-United States defence force at Greenham Common, they are identical. However, the Ministry of Defence has entered into discussion with the United States authorities about the Committee's recommendations. That is what the noble Lord asked me.
I do not wish to give answers to questions that your Lordships have not asked because the hour is rather late. I well understand the concern that some noble Lords have expressed about the 1952 Act. I do not want to give the impression that we are complacent about its potential abuse. But I must sum up the position that I have outlined by saying that no member of a visiting force is immune from prosecution for any offence that he may be alleged to have committed. He is required to observe the law and may be called to answer for any act before either the United Kingdom courts or the service courts of the sending country. In this respect, he is in a position no different from that of British servicemen whether they are stationed in this country or abroad. The Act provides a workable and satisfactory basis for foreign forces in this country. In passing it over 30 years ago, this House participated in nothing that was not fully reciprocated by the other states that were party to the 1951 agreement.
The United States forces are our allies. If there were the least doubt about any aspect of the administration of the arrangements for jurisdiction under the Act, I can assure your Lordships that we should examine the matter very carefully indeed and, if appropriate, take up the matter with the United States authorities—indeed I have said we have on the narrow point that the noble Lord brought to my attention. We have made them well aware of our intention to take the matter up if a case arose in which we considered that they were adopting an unreasonably extensive interpretation of what constituted official duty.
So let me conclude by confirming that it is and will continue to be the policy of this Government, if circumstances so demand, to make the most strenuous representations to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of the NATO agreement is fully respected. Nothing that I have heard this evening leads me to doubt that this intention is fully shared by the United States authorities or that such representations are now required. Nonetheless, I welcome the interest of the House in ensuring that that remains the case.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.