Lords Sitting of 9 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

EC Transport Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 dates have been arranged for future meetings of the European Community Transport Ministers' Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, meetings of the Transport Council have been arranged for 26th October and 7th December 1987.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether we may take it that the liberalisation of air transport and the necessity for some urgent action will be included in the discussions on those dates? Can the noble Lord also clear up a point from last week? Does the Minister recall that on 2nd April he told the House that the Commission had decided that if the Council of Ministers had not reached agreement by 30th June it would withdraw the exemptions from the competition rules? Has this been done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope that air transport will be back on the Council agenda on 26th October. This must, of course, depend upon whether the Commission and the European Parliament complete the new procedures required for the Single European Act by then. On the second point made by the noble Baroness about the offer of exemptions by the Commission, this is, of course, a matter for the Commission. However, I understand that the Commission does not intend to withdraw its proposal for group exemptions but instead is likely to put all its efforts into a new attempt to secure adoption of the package by the Council including the group exemptions.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I regret that on the last point I became rather muddled halfway through. Is the Minister telling the House that the Commission has done what it said it would do and withdrawn the exemptions from the competition clause or is it still hedging, and has not done so?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, at this stage it has not withdrawn its proposal for group exemptions.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Transport Ministers' Council deals with matters besides aviation, can the Minister tell the House, particularly in the light of our debate next Wednesday on Britain's mercantile marine, whether there is any intention by the Council of Ministers to discuss the policies of certain Community countries with regard to the help that they give to their merchant navies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, indeed there are at the moment proposals before the Commission as part of the second stage. The noble Lord will be aware that the first stage of the shipping policy was agreed last December. The Commission is currently working on proposals for a second stage of the common shipping policy; the proposals are aimed at harmonising aids which are given by Community governments to their merchant fleets and, indeed, strengthening the position of Community shipping industries in world markets. That might also arise in the course of discussions.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten the House as to what steps the Government are proposing to take between now and 26th October, which is some three months away, so that we might hope for some action then? May I return to what the Minister has just said? Is he aware that I find it quite unbelievable, and I hope the House finds it unbelievable too, that apart from making no progress in Brussels, we now apparently have the Commission reneging on what it said before.
May I repeat and ask him whether he recalls telling us on 2nd April that the Commission had said that if the Council of Ministers did not reach agreement by 30th June, it would withdraw the exemptions which it had made to the competition rules? Do I understand the Minister to say that the Commission has done nothing about it, that the Government do not intend to press the Commission about it; and does he wonder that we have got nowhere on these matters after three years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, dealing with the first point made by the noble Baroness, between now and 26th October the Government will be working very closely with the Commission to bring the package back to the Council in its present form. We shall be doing all we can to resolve the problem over Gibraltar. I hope the House will recognise that the room for manoeuvre is limited. We shall also be exploring with other EC countries the possibility of new bilateral arrangements based upon the political agreements reached in Luxembourg.
On the point concerning the Commission not withdrawing exemptions, it has been fairly clearly stated that that would happen if the Council of Ministers failed to reach agreement. The Council of Ministers did reach agreement on the package and the Ministers of all 12 states were behind the package with the single exception of the Spanish position on Gibraltar. The best way forward is to try to get the Gibraltar issue sorted out rather than go into court, which could take two years or longer and with uncertain results.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the House is very patient but what is one to do? Somebody has to go on. Is the Minister aware that it is no use saying that the Council of Ministers reached agreement because they did not reach agreement? I am not concerned with the reason, but they did not reach agreement on this package. I am asking whether the Commission is now going to take the action which it said it would take, or is it not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hate to enter into an argument with the noble Baroness, but agreement was reached on the package with the single exception of the issue of Spain and Gibraltar. Therefore, I think the Commission feels that the best way forward is by agreement with the Council in sorting out the problem of Gibraltar rather than embarking upon court action through Article 89. That procedure would be lengthy and the results uncertain.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since I have been a Member of this very important House, which is just over two years, I have heard nothing but Questions on the same subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry? Will the Minister do us all a favour and kick the Council of Ministers right in the rear place so that we can stop listening to all this rubbish?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot take up the noble Lord on his last suggestion. The noble Baroness and the Government are at one in wanting to achieve liberalisation of European air transport and I am merely trying to explain what we think is the best way forward to achieve that.

Disabled Persons Act 1986: Implementation
3.9 p.m.
Lord Ennals: 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 is the timetable for the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultations and Representations) Act 1986.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled plans to meet the local authority associations shortly to review progress on discussions now taking place on the implementation of the outstanding sections of the Act.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that brief statement and I am glad that he is talking to the local authorities. Is he also going to have consultations with the voluntary organisations, which feel very strongly that they have hardly been consulted at all?
Is the Minister aware that there really is very deep concern among the organisations representing disabled people that such a vitally important
734
Bill—probably the most important since the 1970 Act, known as the Alf Morris Act—has led to such little action, if any, by the Government? Were we not assured by the Government that Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, dealing with disabled school-leavers, would come into operation when they left at the end of this present term? How can the Government justify their failure to take action on a Bill which was so warmly welcomed in both Houses and on all sides?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware that this Act came up through the channel, as it were, of the voluntary bodies. I am also aware that on Second Reading, both in this House and in another place, the Government made it clear that those sections of the Act which have significant resource implications would be implemented only when the necessary funds could be made available. The major consultation must be between central and local government, particularly on costs and implementation arrangements. However, I understand that my honourable friend the Minister for the disabled intends to write shortly to the steering committee established by the interested disability organisations to discuss implementation.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us a little more about the resource implications? Surely, the only requirement in Sections 5 and 6 is that local education authorities should collect certain information and pass it on to their own social services departments to see whether young people leaving school or further education require further service in the community. That does not seem fantastically complicated or expensive. Will he say what the implications are?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has put his finger squarely on the point. It is that the local authorities have changed their minds on this issue. We are now advised that the additional costs arising from the implementation of Sections 5 and 6 would be about £30 million to £50 million a year. There would be a further £20 million in respect of Section 7. If the whole Act were brought into effect, it is now estimated that by the time it was fully operative, it would cost some £150 million a year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the mentally handicapped form the largest single group of disabled people? Will he confirm that Mencap will be kept informed of the consultations as they proceed and given further opportunities to make representations?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I say to my noble friend that I am sure that he is absolutely right about the numbers, but I am afraid that I cannot confirm them. I am already committed to discussions and to telling Mencap what is going on with regard to this issue as a result of a conference which my noble friend and I attended about a fortnight ago.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the National Schizophrenia Fellowship is also informed about what is going on?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I can write letters to particular organisations, but I have said that there will be discussions through the steering committee. I have given a particular commitment on the subject of MENCAP to my noble friend.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister know of any health district which has discharged long-stay patients without full assessment, and does he agree with me that if that is happening it spells disaster?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I most certainly do not know of any health district or region which has discharged patients from long-stay hospitals into the community without making certain that satisfactory arrangements are made in the community. If the noble Baroness or any other Member of your Lordships' House would like to give me evidence, I shall certainly look into the matter because I regard it as a most serious point.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is damaging to the prestige of Parliament if a Bill debated at great length in both Houses, finally receives Royal Assent and then nothing appears to happen to the beneficiaries under the Act? Is it not unfortunate that this nearly always happens in relation to the disabled or the mentally handicapped?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if a Bill receives Royal Assent under false pretences, then I would agree with the noble Lord. But, on this occasion, it was made clear that there were resource implicatons. I do not therefore think that false pretences apply.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's answers that disabled children who leave school this year will not be subject to the Act's provisions and that another year of their lives will be wasted? On the question of resources, how does he justify expenditure of; £164 million on advertising and fees for the privatisation of British Gas—and we learn this week from the National Audit Commission that £40 million of that was wasted—when the total cost of the implementation of this Act is £150 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my honourable friend the then Minister said that he would like that part of the Act to become operative by this summer for school-leavers. I have explained about the discussions with local authorities, and why that has proved to be impracticable. I suggest that the point about different blocks of money is a different question.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, when could a Bill recieve Royal Assent under false pretences? I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that this Bill was an example of that. Can he give us an example?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I could not give the House an example of that. I was pointing out that this Act was not an example.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, does he understand that I find his replies
736
to questions from myself and from other noble Lords grossly unsatisfactory? Does he understand that I am aware that this Act—because it has resource implications—needs to be implemented stage by stage? At present, not even stage one has been introduced. When he talks about resource implications, what sort of priority is set on the needs of disabled people, be they represented by MENCAP, MIND or RADAR? Why does the emphasis in terms of resources go to those who are upwardly mobile as opposed to those who are often immobile?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not believe that that is true, knowing, as I do, that we abolished the invalidity trap benefiting over 50,000 disabled people and that we increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by about 75 per cent., after allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion. I can go on and on. I do not think that the noble Lord has a case.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke about the implementation of the Act depending upon the availability of funds. Can he give any indication what funds are available at present for the implementation of part of the Act?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are in the middle of a financial year. Beyond saying that, I should not like to make any prognosis.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when the Bill was going through the House, the Government must have assumed that some money was going to be spent on it, even if it now proves to be more than was expected. Could not that money be allocated now?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I understand the position, it was deemed extremely unlikely that the Act would be implemented immediately.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do not understand that answer, and I expect that other noble Lords have the same difficulty. Is it not the case that every Bill has on it a notification of the resources involved, and that Parliament is fully aware of that at the time the Bill is passed? Is the Minister telling us that the Government allowed a Bill to go through in the full knowledge that they did not have the resources to carry out the will of Parliament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can only repeat, as I think I have done twice so far during this Question Time, what my noble friend the then Minister said in another place on Second Reading of this Bill: that it would be implemented when resources were found.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is normal for those who wish to get things into a legislative vehicle, such as an Act of Parliament when it is available, to do so in the knowledge, and with the agreement of the Government, that the measure will not be implemented until funds are available, and that what is being pointed out is not an extraordinary matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. With regard to a public Bill he is absolutely right. This was a Private Member's Bill, as the noble Lord will confirm. Therefore the situation, although analogous, is perhaps slightly different.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not unfair to suggest that the significance attached to a Private Member's Bill is different from that attached to a government measure? If the measure is passed by Parliament surely it has the same authority of Parliament.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but that is a totally different matter. I was saying that my noble friend was absolutely right but that this was not a public Bill. That was the only point I made.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is well known in the House that Mr. Alfred Morris, the sponsor of this Bill, had been working hard over a long period of years to get this Bill on to the statute book. Eventually the Bill became law without the opposition but with the approval of the Government of the day. In these circumstances, and in view of the importance of this Bill and of the fact that years have gone by since it became law, will the noble Lord (with whom we sympathise in the difficulties confronting him now in the House) give an undertaking that he will speak seriously to his right honourable friend to see whether some move can be made to enable a certain sum to be available for what is in the view of the entire House one of the best possible causes?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my right honourable friend is already seized of this point. If it is the demand of the House, I shall "re-seize" him.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I give the Minister an opportunity to make a correction in something which he no doubt inadvertently said? if I heard him correctly he said that the Bill under discussion was a private Bill, whereas it is a Private Member's Bill. If he agrees that that is the case, does he also agree that, as it is a public Bill, it has the same status a government Bill? The only difference is that is has been introduced by a private Member. There is just as much obligation on government to implement the provisions of Private Member's Bill as there is to implement a government Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Lord, with all his experience, is trying to tie me into knots, and indeed has succeeded in doing so. However, I am well aware of the feeling on this matter. Both Private Members' Bills and government Bills—if that is the right expression—are sometimes delayed in their implementation while resources are found to implement them. This is such a case.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, it is right to put on record that the Bill was originally introduced by Mr. Tom Clarke in another place and not by Mr. Alfred Morris, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said inadvertently.

EC Budget Deficit
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: 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 is their attitude to the European Commission's request for further budget to be provided towards the deficit in the Community funds forecast for the current year.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government have made it clear on several occasions that there is no question of providing additional resources above the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling to cover this year's prospective deficit. The European Council agreed on 29th and 30th June that the prospective overspend in agricultural guarantee expenditure this year should be offset by adjusting the system for advance agricultural payments from the Community budget. The Budget Council has subsequently established a draft supplementary and amending budget to cover the rest of this year's deficit of some £1.5 billion within the 1.4 per cent. VAT ceiling.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that part of the 1987 deficit envisaged consists of some £527 million inherited from a deficit on the 1986 budget? Is he further aware that the book-keeping device of postponing payments by some three months in order to achieve a book-keeping balance is one that will deceive very few people and has already been condemned by the Court of Auditors? While the noble Lord is talking of budget discipline—and on this we on these Benches most certainly agree with Her Majesty's Government—is he aware that the 1988 expenditure projected in respect of the CAP is some 17.8 per cent. higher than that for the current year?
Lord Young of Graham: My Lords, there can be few in your Lordships' House who would be unaware of the simple fact that we are striving mightily in order to restore a sense of discipline within the European Community budget.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that another record crop for cereals in Europe is now forecast? What positive steps are the Government proposing to the Commission and to the Council to stop people growing cereals? Should not the plan already propounded by the Government be forced into effect to pay people to transfer their land into some crop other than cereals?
Lord Young of Graffham: There can be little doubt that the common agricultural policy is in need of reform. That is a matter which is being discussed at almost every meeting of the Community.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord take this opportunity of reminding his noble friend the Leader of the House that there is a letter still outstanding from him to me explaining the

739
burden on the British Treasury arising from the 1987 budget? It is always such a pleasure to receive letters from the Leader of the House. If his memory were jogged I should like to hear from him.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when I next see my noble friend I shall so remind him.

Housing Benefit: Alarm System Costs
3.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: 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 reconsider their proposal in paragraph 1(c) of Schedule 1 to the Draft Housing Benefit Regulations deposited in the Library, that charges in respect of the provision of an emergency alarm system should not be eligible to be met by housing benefit "except where such a system is installed in accommodation specifically intended for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled persons".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. The draft regulations for the reformed housing benefits scheme to be introduced in April 1988 merely carry forward existing policy for meeting the costs of alarm systems through housing benefit.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government realise that alternative sources of funding for those on low incomes, such as charitable donations and local authority finance, take a long time and are complicated to organise, with no guarantee of success? In view of the fact that the Government are quite rightly committed as far as possible to care in the community for the elderly and disabled—of whom there is expected to be a very large increase in the next 20 years—will they not agree that to cheesepare over the cost of these alarms is a false economy and will also defeat their own ends?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lady is absolutely right. This should be part of community care policy and not part of housing policy. The draft regulations should not result in any loss of benefit, provided local authorities are awarding housing benefit to meet the costs of alarms systems where they are provided because of the type of accommodation rather than because of the individual's personal needs, and those individuals could lose some financial support to which they have never been entitled. In those circumstances we would expect the local councils to make up the difference.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, except in the most short-sighted accountancy terms, to give people alarms so that they can stay in their own houses, which is what a great many of them do instead of having to be moved into public housing, would be a very great economy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I have already said that—but not through the housing benefit.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not right that people who are disabled and elderly ought to be able to feel secure in their own homes? The charge on housing benefit is surely quite appropriate. Does he agree that it is elderly and disabled people who are not living in sheltered accommodation who are the most vulnerable? Usually people living in purpose-built accommodation for the elderly and disabled have some kind of supervision which will make them feel safer. Can he not look at this again? I understand that the regulations do not come before Parliament until the autumn. There is a strong feeling among voluntary bodies about this.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness has answered her own question. The answer is, as she knows full well, that the community care budget is the one that should pay in these circumstances. I have undertaken to use my best endeavours to see that it does.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware—by his answer to the Question I feel sure that he is—that this is an all-important aspect from both humanitarian and economic angles? It is a great way of saving money. It is a way that has been invented just recently and I am sure he will help to see that it is made greater use of in the community.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I have been privileged to open such schemes in various parts of the country and I am well aware of the importance of them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government have pledged help to the inner cities? Will the Minister agree with me that there are many isolated elderly and severely disabled people in the inner cities? Brixton and Tower Hamlets care associations for the elderly and disabled are particularly worried about the problem. Is the Minister aware that a severely disabled person recently left the door open to get help and was murdered?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords; I most certainly was not aware of the last point the noble Baroness made. Speaking more generally, local social services authorities already have a duty under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide disabled persons with various forms of assistance in the home where need has been determined. The House knows that very often in these cases the need would be determined and therefore the provision of an alarm system could be made under these provisions.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, as we know, there is a shortage of sheltered housing and therefore many old people have to live in ordinary homes. Do not the Government think it would be wise to save money and to help those people who live on their own by letting them have emergency alarm systems in ordinary houses as well as in sheltered homes?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I am advised that the department knows of no case where these facilities have been denied to anyone through inability to pay.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is no barrier to prevent people on low incomes being assisted under the housing benefits scheme with expenditure for these alarms? That is what the situation has been until now. Is the Minister aware that people who receive this assistance are very carefully assessed by local authorities and by others who organise these schemes before they are recommended for such assistance?
It would seem to me that this announcement of a cut—for cut is what it is—in this benefit, an attempt by the Government allegedly to close a loophole, could not come at a more inopportune time when all the voluntary organisations, the local authorities, the police and others are at this moment encouraging campaigns deliberately designed to get elderly people to participate in the alarm system and, by the use of the housing benefit scheme, to give them some financial assistance.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, to cut that off now makes a nonsense of community care. Will the noble Lord reconsider the matter, because there will be no opportunity to amend the regulations when they come before this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we must be careful to distinguish between the two types of alarm. As I understood the noble Lady, in her Question she was talking about a neck alarm, whereas I have made it quite clear that the fixed alarm would be eligible under the housing benefits scheme.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on child abuse in Cleveland.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords I beg to introduce a Bill to reduce the period of pregnancy which for purposes of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is evidence that a woman was pregnant of a child capable of being born alive. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:

Beswick, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Cawley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Fletcher, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Teviot, L.

Thurlow, V.

Wise, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 8) be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (H.L. Paper 8) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The Report was as follows:
Appointment of Sub-Committees
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees:

(a) Library Sub-Committee

V. Davidson

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

E. Ferrers (Chairman)

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. McNair

L. Rea

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

743

(b) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill (Chairman)

L. Boyd-Carpenter

L. Dean of Beswick

L. Denham

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Moran

B. Phillips

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(c)Works of Art Sub-Committee

L. Ardwick

B. Birk

M. Cholmondeley

L. Fanshawe of Richmond

L. Gibson (Chairman)

B. Hooper

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(d)Computer Sub-Committee

E. Ferrers

E. Halsbury

L. McIntosh of Haringey (Chairman)

B. Nicol

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(e) Staff of the House Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

B. Seear

V. Whitelaw (L. President)

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(f) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

(g)Administration Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Ampthill

E. Cathcart

L. Denham

E. Ferrers

B. Fisher of Rednal

L. Gibson

B. Hylton-Foster

L. McIntosh of Haringey

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

B. Stedman

L. Tordoff

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

With power to co-opt further Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Before I proceed, I have a word of explanation as to how it comes about that I am doing what I am doing this afternoon and at this time. I agreed to
744
substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whom your Lordships will recall moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 26th February with his customary clarity and skill. I agreed to substitute for him on this occasion at very short notice because a minor medical problem threatened his attendance. I am sure the whole House will join me in being delighted he is in his place. At the same time, perhaps the House is less delighted that I am doing the job that he was expected to do.
I have to pay a warm tribute, and I am sure the whole House will join me, to the Select Committee not only for an obviously carefully prepared and comprehensive special report but also for its labours in sitting for 13 days in hearing evidence and a further full day considering detailed views of the alternative bypass routes, the exchange lands to be given by Hampshire County Council and the village traffic and New Forest environment. It is good that the chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, will be speaking later in the debate, as will the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, a member of the Select Committee. We are indeed grateful to them.
I supported the Bill on Second Reading and during my comments then I indicated my specialist knowledge of the area which is affected by the proposed bypass. I supported the Bill on Second Reading, and on reading the special report of the Select Committee I find that I am reinforced in that support.
Rather than take your Lordships through the special report section by section, I should prefer to pick out a few of the principal features. I shall start at paragraph 5 of the special report, which makes clear that the issue has been one between the village and the forest environment. I quote from the last sentence of that paragraph:
"In short, what is at issue is the difference in interests of the residents of Lyndhurst, who would like to see a bypass route as far away from the village as possible, and the interests of those concerned with the New Forest who wish to see as little encroachment on the Forest as possible".
That is the principal cause of contention in connection with the Bill.
The next issue is covered by paragraph 11. The committee—indeed, even the opponents of the Bill—early in the committee proceedings were at one that a bypass is indeed required, some would say urgently. I quote from paragraph 11 as follows:
"The Committee therefore accepted, at an early stage of the proceedings, that a bypass for the village is required. None of the Petitioners challenged this conclusion".
I come to paragraph 12 which tells us succinctly at its beginning:
"A bypass for Lyndhurst was first contemplated 50 years ago".
At a later stage I may have something to say about that but suffice it for me to say now that since 1971 the county council has been seeking to find an agreed solution to these problems. One route was rejected in 1974 after a full planning inquiry and since there have been at least two further public inquiries into alternative routes and several public consultations or exhibitions. Have we not become slightly sated with consultations, public inquiries and so on? At some stage there must be an end to deliberation, and I

745
think that the time has come for decision. The route in the Bill has planning permission and the implicit blessing of the Secretary of State for Transport in his declining to order a further public inquiry earlier this year.
I do not want to take too long at this stage but I shall direct your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 41 and 47 of the report, which deal with two legal and constitutional matters. I confine myself to saying that the county council has clear advice that any bypass, inner or outer, requires special legislation of the present kind to authorise a bypass that is to be fenced. This is an important point—a bypass has to be fenced. A bypass that was unfenced would be useless in the forest and animal environment in which it will be set and accordingly the Bill is right to set this matter beyond doubt. As to the point in paragraph 47 about the propriety of a Private Act avoiding the veto of the verderers, that has the appearance of being a rather wistful backward glance at preceding passages in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, which clearly indicate that the committee was fully satisfied about the propriety of the Bill, both constitutionally and on the fencing aspect. I shall quote those passages because they are important and deserve to be on the record.
Paragraph 21 states:
"Erskine May states at page 907 that 'No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill is itself an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or seeks for some powers which the general law does not afford'".
I now direct your Lordships' attention to the end of paragraph 22, which says:
"The Committee would merely state that, in their opinion, an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the Verderers without legislation. As for the question of precedence, what is an appropriate course of action in one intransigent and difficult case, may he entirely inappropriate in another".
I come now to the second sentence of paragraph 23:
"Under the provisions of the New Forest Acts, roads other than trunk roads may not be fenced without legislation…In the Committee's view therefore the County Council have acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme in this case".
I know that there is disquiet and anxiety about the propriety of the constitutional origins of this Bill. We heard at Second Reading words of great wisdom from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who will address us again this afternoon. The Select Committee has given as its view that the Bill is a perfectly proper Bill being brought forward in a proper manner.
I should like further to reassure those who are concerned about the question of propriety and the way in which the Bill has been brought forward as a Private Bill by the county council, bearing in mind that it has the support of the New Forest District Council and the parish council. As I stated during the debate at Second Reading, it is an important point that there are here three local authorities in agreement about what is difficult and what has proved to be an intrasingent subject.
I conclude at this stage by conveying to your Lordships three points which have reached me in a letter from the Hampshire County Council. The letter is over the signature of the county secretary. The three points are as follows:
746

"1. If this Bill becomes an Act it will not be regarded by the County Council as a precedent whereby private legislation is used to construct bypasses elsewhere in the New Forest without the consent of the Verderers. The County Council considers that the Verderers perform a vital role in the New Forest and the Bill has only been promoted because of a particular unusual combination of circumstances that are most unlikely to be repeated.

2. The Verderers will obviously wish to be consulted about the detailed design of the bypass and the accompanying landscaping proposals, and the County Council will take active steps to involve the Verderers at early stages in the design process if Parliamentary approval is obtained for the scheme. There is a common objective for the County Council and the Verderers in obtaining the best possible scheme for the approved route.

3. It was acknowledged by the petitioners against the Bill that the County Council"—

the Hampshire County Council—
"has environmental and conservation policies that are second to none amongst local authorities generally (see paragraph 33 of the Special Report). In particular, the strictest planning policies have been steadfastly enforced for many years as respects housing or other development in the Forest. In line with those policies the County Council has recently abandoned longstanding proposals for two bypasses in the New Forest at Brockenhurst and at Burley. However, whilst the County Council believes that the need for a Lyndhurst Bypass cannot be evaded and this can only be provided by private legislation, it foresees no need for any further bypasses in the New Forest.".
I hope that those undertakings will reassure those who harbour doubts and anxieties concerning the question of precedents which is so uppermost in the minds of so many I know. With those comments I shall conclude my opening address. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Congleton.)
3.49 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman reported on 6th May, having, as the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, has just said, taken evidence for 13 days. It concluded that the outer route is the right route for the bypass and that therefore the Bill should be allowed to proceed. We found the questions very hard to decide but considered that the issues could not have been presented with greater fairness and clarity.
I do not propose to go over the report, which many of your Lordships have read, but merely to pick on one or two salient points, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. The Committee did not consider that it was for it to decide whether a Private Bill should be promoted to settle this matter. However, its opinion was that an outer route such as that promoted in the Bill could not be achieved against the wishes of the verderers without legislation.
Moreover, legislation would be required in any event to permit fencing and the exchange of land. If legislation is required for some purposes it is in accordance with past practice to come to Parliament for powers to undertake the whole scheme. Therefore, in the committee's view the county council had acted properly in promoting a Bill for the entire bypass scheme.
I shall now touch on only two points which seem to me to be of particular importance. The committee was particularly interested in and concerned about Bolton's Bench. This, as many of your Lordships will know, is an area of particular beauty. It is a supreme

747
village green for Lyndhurst. It is also perhaps the finest entry to the New Forest itself.
The outer route would pass to the east of Bolton's Bench through a cutting and would not in any way affect the unity of the village and this splendid natural area. It is true that those who are visiting the New Forest and come out from Lyndhurst on to Bolton's Bench, if they wanted to proceed further would either have to go over a bridge or through a tunnel in order to get to the main area of the open forest.
On the other hand, the alternative, the inner route, requires a road immediately to the west of Bolton's Bench, severing it from the village, and over an important stretch bringing in an even greater volume of traffic than exists on any of the roads today. It was the committee's opinion that this was an overwhelming objection to the inner route.
I should now like to mention timing. The alternative route, which was much discussed and was termed 6A as opposed to the outer route, 5A, was at the time of our investigation no more, in effect, than a line on a map. It had not been fully engineered. Even the line itself was not firmly established. If this were to be adopted it would require a full inquiry, with all the vagaries and uncertainties which that would bring. There would be opposition from the residents of Lyndhurst to such a route and it could mean that Lyndhurst would have no bypass for the foreseeable future.
These were the two most important factors in my mind at any rate when the committee recommended, as it did, that the Bill should proceed. I hope that your Lordships will give this favourable consideration.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Manners: My Lords, I am the Official Verderer of the New Forest, and the verderers, together with others, petitioned against the Bill. The Verderers' Court was set up originally by Parliament in 1877 to protect and look after the rights of those living in and around the forest whose main interests at that time were the right to graze animals in the open and unenclosed forest.
In 1949, after an exhaustive report by Mr. Justice Baker, Parliament enacted the New Forest Act 1949, which virtually reconstituted the Verderers' Court and conferred various powers on the verderers to enable them to protect the open forest not only for the benefit of the commoners but also for the general public at large. Even as far back as 1877, Parliament enacted provisions to preserve the forest, and further provisions were contained in the 1949 and 1964 Acts. In consequence, the verderers are regarded by those who care for the forest as its protectors.
Before I refer to the report of the committee, I should like to thank the committee for giving those who petitioned against the Bill a full and fair hearing. In particular I should like to thank all members of the committee for the courtesy they have shown to me personally and to thank them for undertaking a long, arduous and difficult task.
Although there is much in the report that I would certainly not dispute and that is helpful, I cannot
748
agree that the conclusion is right in the interests of the forest. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to members of the committee that a great many people who live in and around the forest, including residents of Lyndhurst, are very sad and disappointed that the committee recommends that the Bill should go ahead.
These are people who love the forest, its beauty and wild life. They appreciate that it is the largest area in the south of England over which the public has unrestricted access on foot and horseback. These people, through their societies or individually, in small and large amounts, contributed voluntarily a sum in excess of £25,000 to enable the verderers and those supporting them to be properly represented by counsel before the committee. This they were willing to do because they see the forest being gradually eroded before their eyes. They realise that unless the forest is given the strictest protection little will remain for future generations.
The committee has acknowledged that the county council in promoting a private Bill has adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway and one which avoids the veto of the verderers, which Parliament, in 1949, regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest. Until 1949 the highway authority had no power to construct roads across the forest.
I accept the committee's view that a bypass on route 5A, being the route included in the Bill, which must be fenced in the interests of road safety, cannot be built without some form of legislation. However, the committee concluded that it was for the House and not the committee to decide whether there was sufficient reason to set aside the provisions of the 1949 public Act passed after an exhaustive inquiry.
The petitioners fear that any weakening of the 1949 Act would lead to further demands on the forest, and this fear has since received confirmation. It was stated on evidence to the Select Committee that the only bypass incorporated in the structure plan was the Lyndhurst bypass and that plans for other bypasses had been dropped.
In evidence I pointed out to the committee that the forest was under severe pressure and that any relaxation of the existing legislation enacted by Parliament would lead to a dangerous precedent. I assured the committee, and again I assure the House, that the forest is threatened on all sides.
Even since the committee sat, three important proposals have come to threaten the forest. The first is a proposed bypass for the village of West Wellow which crosses one of the northern commons within the perambulation of the forest. The northern commons are identical with the forest in all appearances. Because there have been a number of fatal accidents within the past year or 18 months, and because the villagers suffer a continual stream of heavy lorries, the verderers would be reluctant to oppose this bypass. However, they feel that the route should be discussed with the county council in order to try to minimise damage to the forest.
This case is very different from that of Lyndhurst where there have been no fatal accidents. Even the county council acknowledges that the roads through Lyndhurst are not extensively used by heavy lorries.

749
However, the residents of Lyndhurst suffer from traffic congestion at weekends in the summer. I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is severe from now until the end of September.
The second threat to the forest is the fact that the Central Electricity Generating Board has plans to build another coal-fired power station within half a mile of the edge of the forest at Fawley. That is bound to have a considerable effect on the roads on the eastern side of the forest, and some environmental effect on the sensitive flora and fauna of the forest.
Thirdly, British Gas is seeking planning consent to explore for oil at Boldre immediately adjacent to the forest. I believe that bore holes will be running under the forest. If oil is found and exploited the infrastucture that this entails must have a serious effect on the forest. If these proposals go ahead, the verderers, as is their duty, will try to protect the forest and will make use of such powers as Parliament has given them so to do. Should any conflict or disagreement arise, these powerful and wealthy boards will not hesitate to seek private legislation to further their ends, particularly if they feel that there is the smallest chance of success.
In fairness to the committee, the threats to the forest were not mentioned because, at that time, I was unaware of them. However, I feel that it is proper that the House should realise how threatened is the forest, and the difficulties that face the verderers in exercising the duties placed on them by the New Forest Acts 1877 to 1964 to preserve the forest, its beauty and wildlife. After all, the forest is the only true national park because it is owned by the state and the public have almost unrestricted access over it.
The verderers and those who petitioned in their support are saddened that the committee should not have given more weight to the views of the Countryside Commission, which also petitioned against the Bill. This was not a decision of the officers of the commission but of the commissioners themselves, who took the trouble to come down to the forest. They spent two days there considering not only the Lyndhurst bypass but also the problems that the forest faced in general. Perhaps it was easier for them to take an overall view than it was for the committee, which was concerned only with two possible routes for a bypass.
In my view, it is inconceivable that these distinguished and knowledgeable commissioners, appointed by the Government for their expertise, should not have taken into account the effect that an inner route would have had on Boltons Bench, the village and its residents when they decided to petition against the Bill. I agree with the committee that it would be entirely wrong to decide such an important issue as that of a bypass for Lyndhurst merely on the basis of whether a route running along the full edge of the Alder Carr, or whether one crossing it, was less damaging. However, in its evidence the Nature Conservancy Council stated that on balance, and taking into account the damage to the environment of the rest of the route, the inner routes 6 and 6A would be preferable. Again the Nature Conservancy Council, which also petitioned against the Bill, is the Government's independent adviser on conservation matters.
750
The evidence of the county council's nature conservation expert was almost entirely directed to possible damage to the Alder Carr. In its report the committee states that it reached its decision on the basis of what it regarded as the most important evidence; namely, the immediate environmental benefit of route 5A to the village of Lyndhurst. That differs not only from the views of the Countryside Comission but also from those of the distinguished inspector at the 1983 inquiry. He spent weeks in the forest, not merely one day, and heard much of the evidence and arguments put before the committee.
The inspector stated that conservation of the New Forest is internationally important. Protection of its character is a dominant aim in the structural plans and policies. In implementing a proposal to improve the primary road network and to relieve the village centre of adverse environmental effect through traffic, a route minimising the damage to the habitat and least detrimental to the forest character should be preferred, and any enhancement of the village environment arising from such bypass was, in his view, incidental.
I view with a concern shared by the verders and their supporters the fact that the committee should regard village environment as the most important, or only, factor. Other villages in the forest suffer considerable traffic congestion during summer weekends and might be encouraged to seek further bypasses across the open forest. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the committee in realising that it faced an extremely difficult decision. It certainly has my sympathy.
People in the forest have expressed to me their great dissappointment about the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture in whom the ownership of the forest is vested. In 1971 the then Minister issued a mandate, subsequently restated in 1982, in which it was stated that the New Forest must be regarded as national heritage and that priority must be given to conservation of its traditional character. The Minister regarded the conservation of the forest as of great importance. This was welcomed by the people in the forest, who then believed that the Minister was committed to the conservation and preservation of the forest.
The Forest Commission, which managed the forest on behalf of the Minister, has done much that is good and laudable. It is well known locally that its officers in the forest would prefer an inner route such as has been suggested by the petitioners. The Bill not having been opposed or reported against, the people who love the forest feel seriously let down. People are equally puzzled that the committee should have attached such importance to the effect that an inner route would have on one private residence. Are the interests of thousands or even millions of people who visit and enjoy the forest to be rejected for the interests of one individual? I am told that in any event the house is now on the market and for sale.
The inner route as suggested by the petitioners will have the effect of relieving the centre of the village of traffic congestion and will satisfy the needs of the ordinary motorist, who has suffered inconvenience, and would undoubtedly do much to improve the

751
environment of the residents of Lyndhurst. At the same time it would save some 80 acres of open forest.
The residents of Lyndhurst are fortunate to live in an almost unique area where they can wander at will. One can do that hardly anywhere else in the South of England. I admit that, by accepting an inner route, the residents will be making some sacrifice, but those of us who love the forest and care about it feel that it is not unreasonable for them to make some sacrifice for the sake of everyone in view of the advantages that they enjoy.
I wonder whether the routes selected by the county council will be as effective as has been suggested. The people who know Lyndhurst may well not use route 5A, which is far longer and more circuitous, but like myself, they may go through Lyndhurst. In fact, my average time for getting round Lyndhurst is two minutes.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with great sympathy and care to the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and appreciate how difficult it is for the holder of a very ancient, historic and honourable office with great and important duties for the protection of one of our great national assets to deal with the problems that arise in connection with other activities, and in particular with the interests of people who live in villages in the area. It is a difficult feat of balance.
I do not propose to go over the whole argument, first because I inflicted two speeches on your Lordships on Second Reading, but more importantly because, as your Lordships will recall, your Lordships' Select Committee gave this matter the greatest and most careful attention. It heard evidence, it was addressed by learned counsel on both sides, and the matter was fully and carefully thrashed out, as matters always are before your Lordships' Select Committees. Your Lordships will recall that at the end of the day after a very full hearing the Select Committee has recommended that the Bill should go forward as proposed.
I should like to take up a little of what the noble Lord, Lord Manners, said towards the end of his speech about the particular route chosen. Route 5A in the Bill is a compromise. Those whose interests are mainly with the welfare of the 3,000 people who live in Lyndhurst wanted to see the road further out into the forest, taking the traffic well clear of the village or little town. The noble Lord, Lord Manners, wants to take the bypass inside the village a slightly paradoxical description perhaps of a bypass. He wants to go for a route which, while admittedly minimising even more than the route proposed in the Bill any interference with the forest, would create considerable nuisance at times of traffic congestion for those who live and pass their time in the village.
Your Lordships will recall that the villagers of Lyndhurst have been extremely patient. It is some 50 years—before the war—since the first proposal for a Lyndhurst bypass was put forward. Proposal after proposal has been put forward and discussed fully and carefully with all concerned, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Manners, I am sure will agree, the verderers.
752
An enormous amount of work has been done in an attempt to secure the construction of a bypass which causes the minimum of offence to the various conflicting interests concerned. The route in the Bill is a compromise one—not as far out as the villagers would like and not as far in as the verderers would like. That compromise route has stood detailed examination throughout the discussions, including full discussion before your Lordships' Select Committee and examination by learned counsel for the verderers. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that, while no one would say that the route chosen was perfect, there is overwhelming evidence that on the whole it is most satisfactory and causes the least trouble for the various parties concerned.
I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Manners, introduced at this stage the alleged threat of two other incursions—I gather that one was not into the forest but into adjoining lands—which he said were on the horizon. These were never suggested to the Select Committee and have never been suggested to your Lordships. With respect, their introduction at this stage of the Bill is, I think, a rather difficult procedure to follow. In any event, I suggest that your Lordships should not worry too much about them.
Your Lordships will recall that that noble Lord, Lord Congleton, read a letter from the county council that said in plain terms that, if your Lordships and Parliament passed this legislation, it would not be taken as a precedent in other cases. I therefore hope that your Lordships will dismiss from your minds the idea that, if the Bill which has now reached this advanced stage comes to be put into operation, that will let into the forest a whole flood of other dangers.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Manners, that not only the county council, which is strongly behind this scheme, the New Forest District Council, which is strongly behind the scheme, and the Lyndhurst Residents' Association with 1,200 members, which is strongly behind the scheme, but those of us, I think without exception, in your Lordships' House who are supporting the Bill have the deepest affection and admiration for the forest and do not wish to see it damaged in any way whatever. For my part, I have very early memories of it. I was at a preparatory school on the edge of it and I have happy memories of it. I think that is true of many of your Lordships.
Therefore we really have to look at this as a judgment as to whether we should expect the citizens of Lyndhurst to go on under conditions which the noble Lord, Lord Manners, himself admitted on summer weekends—and, I suggest to your Lordships, far more frequently than that—are exceedingly unpleasant from the congestion of ever-growing traffic from which they suffer right up against their homes. The one-way systems which have been introduced make it difficult even to get across the street. Noise, pollution and fumes have turned this lovely village, which perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Manners, is known as the capital of the New Forest, into a not very pleasant place for considerable periods of the year. At long last, after long proceedings and long discussions, legislation has reached the penultimate stage and it

753
would be a real tragedy, which I think would be deeply resented by the inhabitants of Lyndhurst, if at this stage this legislation were to be blocked. That is really all I want to say to your Lordships.
The technical point as to whether the county council should have proceeded as it has, by Private Bill rather than procedures under the verderer Act 1949., is one that I do not propose to touch on as I understand it is going to be dealt with by a far higher authority than I can muster: by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. But it is my understanding, and I understood the noble Lord, Lord Manners, to admit it, that legislation is required if the bypass is to be fenced—and plainly it must be fenced. I suggest it is also required if some compensating land is to be given by the county council to the verderers to make up for the land taken. Both those cases, I understand, require this legislation. Therefore I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the advice given to us by our own Select Committee is the advice that we should accept.

Child Abuse in Cleveland
4.23 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"I will with permission make a Statement about child abuse in Cleveland. The House is already aware of certain action which has been taken by the authorities there in response to the concern expressed in this House and elsewhere. The Northern Regional Health Authority has set up an independent professional panel to provide a second opinion on cases already subject to investigation. It has also established a special group to consider future cases. On Tuesday the Cleveland Social Services Department agreed with the police and the health authority about medical examinations where child sexual abuse is suspected. I hope, as will the whole House, that these steps will go some way to overcome the problems which have arisen.
"However, having studied the reports for which I asked last week from the regional health authority and the Social Services Inspectorate, together with representations by honourable Members and the material they have made available to me, we have concluded that there should be a full inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland in recent months.
"We propose therefore to establish a statutory inquiry headed by a High Court judge. The judge will be assisted by a panel of three assessors: one with medical experience, one with social services experience, and one with experience of police work. It will be necessary to ensure that there is no risk of conflict between the inquiry and litigation presently arising from individual cases. It will be for the judge to determine how best to carry out the inquiry but 1 can say now that its report will be published.
754
"Important as it is to resolve and learn from the situation which has arisen in Cleveland, it is no less important to carry forward the work already set in hand to improve our capacity to tackle the problem of child abuse wherever it may occur.
"Draft guidance on the way in which different authorities should work together in this field was issued last year, covering for the first time the specific issue of sexual abuse. Preparation of the final version of this guidance is being pressed ahead with a view to issuing it as soon as possible after taking account of any relevant lessons from Cleveland and the current inquiries into the deaths of Tyra Henry and Kimberley Carlile. Meanwhile, I am asking the Social Services Inspectorate to check with all social services authorities that proper co-ordinating arrangements have been made in their areas.
"As envisaged in the draft guidance, we shall arrange with local authorities for the collection of national statistics on child abuse. I shall be discussing with the NSPCC, whose director I met this morning, the contribution it can make from its special experience in maintaining child abuse registers in various parts of the country.
"The Standing Medical Advisory Committee has been asked to prepare guidance for doctors on the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse. Practical guidelines are also being prepared for social workers and for nurses, including health visitors. The professional groups concerned are being asked to aim to complete this work by the end of the year.
"The House will also be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, in a judgment published yesterday on five cases from the United Kingdom, has found inadequate our legislation on parental access to children in local authority care. These cases pre-date legal changes made in 1983 and 1986 to strengthen parents' rights, but we fully accept the need to make further changes to reflect the court's findings.
"We shall be studying the full judgment in detail in relation to the proposals of the White Paper on child care law published earlier this year. In framing legislation we shall also wish to take account of the lessons of Cleveland and the other inquiries to which I have earlier referred, but our aim will be to bring such legislation forward at the earliest practicable opportunity".
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first I warmly thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place on child abuse in Cleveland. I have no doubt at all that an inquiry is necessary into those events, although I think it is a matter for question as to whether a further inquiry, dedicated purely to events in Cleveland, is necessary, quite apart from the Northern Regional Health Authority's independent professional panel and the Cleveland Social Services Department's inquiry to which the Secretary of State made reference.
I want to say straight away that I believe a most important opportunity has been missed by not

755
establishing an inquiry with terms of reference much wider than simply to look into the situation in Cleveland. I am aware of the draft guidance referred to in the sixth paragraph of the Statement and the additional guidance that is now being prepared for the medical profession. But so much has happened since the drafts were prepared that I believe it is necessary to have an inquiry that looks across the board at some of the major problems which are disturbing not only the professions, parents and of course the children but also, I think, the whole of society. There is hardly another issue which creates for us greater concern and a sense of moral obligation than this.
There are several groups directly involved. We think of the parents, and I welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State in relation to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Here there were five cases in which British parents were denied access to children who had been committed to local authority care, nor were they informed of arrangements for the children's adoption. It was concluded that such action was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. A disturbing picture is revealed, which could be part of the broader inquiry for which I am asking. It is the essential right of parents to be involved and to know what is happening to their children.
I also have a great deal of concern for social workers who find themselves right in the middle of family problems. All too often, whether rightly or wrongly, the press has most ferociously attacked social workers who appear to have failed in their obligations when they knew, so it is said, about most disturbing situations within the family. Social workers have been criticised for not stepping in and taking action. Now they are criticised because they did step in and take action. The danger, the difficulty or the dilemma facing social workers is that it is easy to dither and do nothing, but that is the worst thing that can be done.
I am aware of the problems faced by doctors and I am concerned about the methods used by some psychiatrists to get alleged victims of child abuse to make confessions. I recognise that sexual abuse is far more difficult to diagnose than is physical abuse and doctors need to be given advice.
The fourth group about whom I am concerned is the children themselves. First, children stay far too long in care. Specifically, however, looking at the present issue, one encounters the problem of the ability of children to draw a distinction between reality and pretence in situations in which they are greatly confused, sometimes very frightened and sometimes inclined to say what they think the interviewer wants to hear. I am much attracted by the proposals for video interviews undertaken privately with children immediately after certain situations, which could be used as evidence in courts without the necessity of the child being present and having to go through the attendant miseries. Let me say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I was delighted to see in the press the support that he gave today to family courts.
756
The Minister will have seen the Starred Question on the Order Paper put down in the name of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. It is only fair to her, and to me, to say that we have discussed this subject and that simple Question in a sense reflects the rather longer proposal that I now make to the Minister following the Statement. I do not believe that the two matters are necessarily in conflict. I am not asking the Minister to cancel the arrangements for this inquiry specifically into the events at Cleveland, but I think that there ought to be a parallel inquiry to deal with the broader issues of which I have spoken and covering not just sexual abuse but physical abuse as well.
I should like to direct to the Minister three questions about the situation in Cleveland. First, when has the Secretary of State asked for the report to be presented? How long must one wait for the report? Secondly, while I very much welcome the Secretary of State's discussions with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, whose work I greatly admire, I should be interested to learn whether other organisations, such as Barnardo's, which has invaluable experience, have been consulted. Finally, has the Minister any idea when we may expect the promised legislation which perhaps flows from the report five years ago of the Social Services Select Committee in another place of which at that time I was a member?
Lord Winstantey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in thanking the Minister for repeating that very important Statement. We on these Benches believe that it is absolutely essential for all these tragic cases to be investigated as soon and as thoroughly as possible. However, whatever form the investigation may take, we support the proposals made in the Statement. I say whatever form the investigation will take, but we believe that we shall never know the full truth behind all these unhappy cases, which must mean that some unfortunate parents may have been wrongfully accused of abominable offences and thus be scarred for life. On these Benches we believe that it is absolutely essential that everything possible should be done to protect children from molestation or abuse of any kind. At the same time we believe that it is equally important to ensure that parents are not wrongfully accused of horrible crimes which could have a lasting effect upon their lives.
We hope that when handling cases of that kind in the future greater efforts will be made to preserve the integrity of the family than seems to have been made so far in some of those cases. In so far as the Statement mentions medical examinations and guidance for doctors, I hope that we can somehow ensure that a child is not repeatedly examined by different doctors, because that too can be a very traumatic experience.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I note with pleasure that the Minister is working closely with the NSPCC whose record in this field is admirable and whose wise judgment can be relied upon. I also welcome the fact that the report of the inquiry will be published. Perhaps on that occasion we may seek an opportunity to debate it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I think that I go straight to the heart of the matter when I pick up the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that what we are talking about is a balance between the rights of children and the rights of parents, usually but by no means always with the social services department in the middle striving to maintain that balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that clearly an inquiry was needed because we want to know what has happened, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, supported him. I agree with both noble Lords that we need the Bill. However, if we were to have the broad brush inquiry requested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, inevitably the time taken would be very much longer. This small specific inquiry, high-powered though it is, has been asked to report by the end of September which means that not only can the guidance to which the noble Lord referred be amended as soon as amendment is proved necessary, but that in the meantime the guidance can be used—as indeed it has been successfully used, so I understand, in many parts of the country, even though it has only been in draft form for the last six or nine months.
The noble Lord also asked about the role of other organisations apart from the NSPCC, which was referred to in the Statement. My honourable friend intends to consider this matter, but the NSPCC is the only voluntary organisation to hold child abuse registers, so it was quite right that he should have gone originally to the NSPCC. I do not know whether he will widen his consultation, but I will, of course, put the point to him.
The judgment of the European Court, as the Statement says, was made on the basis of old legislation. It will clearly be right for the Government to consider very carefully whether the new legislation needs further amendment as a result of that judgment. We have received the judgment only in the last 24 hours, and it would be silly if I were to commit the Government to anything so drastic as that at this moment.
Finally, I say that, of course, we are not talking only about sexual abuse. We are talking about any abuse of children whatever their age. I am sure there will be lessons to be learned from the inquiry concerning physical abuse as well as sexual abuse.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can I put one specific point to my noble friend? While I feel sure that his colleague in the other place is correct to go for a narrow rather than a broad inquiry of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, there is a specific point I should like to put concerning that inquiry. Will my noble friend convey to his right honourable friend that the true episode of this somewhat disturbing series of events may lie outside Cleveland, although it may have given rise to the Cleveland episode? Will he particularly draw to the attention of his colleague, and perhaps ask that the learned judge, when he is appointed to the chairmanship of the inquiry, be briefed, concerning a judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Ewbank earlier
758
this year, which was to my mind very disturbing? There are in fact two such judgments, but one was reported briefly in The Times and I know the Lord Chancellor's department has a full transcript.
The judgment concerned the methodology adopted by a section of the medical profession in seeking to discern whether abuse had in fact taken place. The suggestibility of children, it was very clearly suggested, was taken advantage of with the result that false conclusions of fact were likely to be arrived at. I can put my noble friend in possession of the transcript because I have a copy. I should like that point to be clearly understood and ask my noble friend to see that those in charge of the inquiry have the point clearly in front of them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his wise advice. Most certainly, I shall pass his comments to my right honourable friend. However, not quite answering his question, perhaps I may make the point that the regional health authority has set up a second opinion panel with six doctors from Leeds, Oxford and from the region. The panel is headed by a child psychiatrist. Therefore, the allegations which are certainly around, namely, that there is medical malpractice going on, is something which by no means has been proven. Certainly, the rights of the children in this particular respect are being looked after.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I also thank the Minister for the Statement? Will he agree that there are two issues, the here and now and the future. As regards here and now, the Statement states very clearly what is happening, and that there is to be the inquiry and consideration of the law in the next Session. I look back to the time in 1948 when Denis O'Neil died in a foster home, and the Curtis Committee was set up. I suggest that besides looking at the here and now situation—which must be dealt with here and now—we should also look at much broader issues and the framework under which child care is carried out in this country.
First, I believe that we need a different juvenile justice system. Secondly, I believe that the training of social workers needs to be looked at with much more help being given. Thirdly, there is need for a much improved structure of co-ordination between departments. While the Minister mentioned various people, he did not mention education and the teachers, who have a contribution to make. Not sufficient has been said about their contribution.
Therefore, while welcoming what is happening now and the inquiry which is being carried out, may I also ask that consideration be given not to a Royal Commission but to the whole structure of administration and justice and also how social workers may be helped.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking from the depth of her experience in this matter. Of course, family courts have exercised the minds of two of my noble and learned friends over a considerable length of time. I know that my noble and learned friend currently on

759
the Woolsack is considering this matter in great depth, and I hope at some speed.
As to the inter-agency agreement, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is one of the most worrying factors of the Cleveland situation, and certainly, it will have to be looked at. As regards the training of social workers and a better structure generally, my noble friend knows that we published a White Paper on this subject. We have also promised a Bill—a promise reiterated in the Statement today.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I respectfully ask the noble Lord to reconsider his use of the word "malpractice" when replying to his noble and learned friend in relation to doctors? Surely, "malpractice" is not what he meant when we are talking about faulty methodology. Will the noble Lord consider that matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. It was a bad use of English and I apologise.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I welcome the Statement and the news that there is to be an inquiry. I should like to put one specific question and one general question. I do not understand from my reading of the newspapers why the parents of the children concerned in the Cleveland case were never allowed to put their case before losing their children. My second and more general question is to ask whether the Minister agrees—as, unhappily, more and more cases of child abuse come to light—that the whole procedure following discovery of such cases must be reassessed? Otherwise, there is a real danger that a child will be doubly abused. A child will be abused mentally under the very cruel procedure whereby a child is examined and cross-examined on various occasions before the court procedure takes place.
I hope that the Minister will take notice of an interesting project in Bexley. A video tape is taken of the child who describes the experience immediately after the event once a discovery has been made. The tape will then be used as evidence during the court proceedings. I believe this particular experiment is worth very serious consideration by the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must confess that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I do not understand either. I am advised that according to law the time at which parental rights are actually taken away is not the place of safety order stage but the interim care order stage, which is usually about a month later. Therefore, I do not know the answer to that question. I hope that it is one of the points the inquiry will establish.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is it not the case that we, and particularly the press, should refrain from making accusations in any direction until the reports are published, and until we know the facts? I do not think that we should cast aspersions in any direction.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I go further and say that this excitable reporting has done nothing but damage an already delicate situation.

Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [H.L.]
4.49 p.m.
Third Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend Lord Manners was most enlightening and comprehensive and I should like to congratulate him on it. I hope that the House will consider most carefully the several points that he made. Like my noble friend, and indeed the verderers and others who petitioned against the Bill, I was disturbed that the Select Committee should regard the village environment as the most important factor.
In the course of his speech my noble friend Lord Manners mentioned that the verderers were there to protect the New Forest and thus the interests of those who live in and around it and the interests of those who come to enjoy and visit the forest. The Court of Verderers is an imposing body. It was brought up to date by the 1949 Act. I wish to tell noble Lords something of that establishment. The court numbers 10 verderers; five are elected and five are appointed. The elected verderers are elected by the commoners and it is normal for those elected to possess a special knowledge of the forest.
The verderers are elected for a term of three years at two separate elections; two at one election and three at another. The five appointed verderers comprise one who is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture (the New Forest is vested in the Minister and he is the landowner of the forest); another one is appointed by the Forestry Commission, which acts as agent for the Minister. A further verderer is appointed by the Hampshire County Council, which is the local planning authority. One important verderer—although they are all important—is the amenity verderer, who is elected by the Countryside Commission. The fifth verderer is appointed by the Monarch, who is the official verderer and who is by custom the chairman of the court. That body has a lot of weight and a great deal of knowledge.
I was astonished and rather disturbed to learn that the landowner of the New Forest, the Minister, never consulted his appointed verderer. I queried that and I have seen the Minister's correspondence with the official verderer. I also saw the Minister's reply and I was, to put it mildly, disturbed and rather shocked by it.
As was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Manners, the Minister's reply conflicts with his predecessor's mandate in 1971. As my noble friend said, that mandate was brought up to date in 1982. The mandate stated that the New Forest must be regarded as national heritage and priority must be given to the conservation of its traditional character. The mandate also stated that the wishes of Parliament as set out in the 1877 Act should be carried out.

761
The Countryside Commission spent two days in the New Forest. It was not just the officers of that body who visited the forest but the members themselves. I am uncertain as to how the Select Committee deals out its time, but unfortunately its members spent only one day visiting the New Forest. That means that they virtually spent only a portion of the day visiting the forest because of the travelling time involved. They hardly saw the New Forest. As it is a vast place of roughly 100,000 acres, they remain forcedly somewhat ignorant of the forest. As can be seen from its report, the committee's only concern was concentrated on the town of Lyndhurst and on the house "Oakfield-, which is believed to be on the market anyway.
As your Lordships will know, the Countryside Commission has always argued that the New Forest should be treated as though it were a national park and that the principles of dealing with roads in such areas should be applied to the New Forest. Those principles demand that in the first instance avoiding damage to the countryside should be a major factor in the selection of any route. Accordingly the Countryside Commission argues that the bypass should avoid the open forest; in other words, landscaping the wrong route does not make it the right route. I am of course referring to paragraph 45 of the Select Committee's report, where it states that route 5A (the outer route) can be made into the right route by sensitive engineering and landscaping. Because of the wisdom of the Countryside Commission that undoubtedly is a mistaken policy, on the wrong route.
Again your Lordships need no reminding that the Countryside Commission is the expert on amenity and is appointed by the Government. It is therefore surprising that there is no mention of the commission in the Select Committee's conclusions, when the national importance of the New Forest was one point on which there was agreement between the promoters and the petitioners.
Finally, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the verderers and the petitioners appreciate the need for measures to relieve the traffic at Lyndhurst. They feel that the route proposed by the Bill cannot on amenity grounds be justified and they have put forward a suggestion for an alternative route which could be more acceptable environmentally.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, in this case the report of the Select Committee is much to be welcomed. I express the gratitude of the House to the members of the committee, who have heard arguments presented sincerely and clearly by counsel on either side. As a result the following matters are clear. First, a bypass for Lyndhurst is essential. That I think is agreed on all sides.
Secondly, a decision as to which route it should be is essential. Noble Lords will see in the last observations in the report that the members of the Select Committee have decided in favour of what may be called the compromise route. Paragraph 44 of the Select Committee's report states:
762
"The Committee have, therefore, concluded, on the basis of all the evidence they heard, that Route 5A is the right route for the bypass".
There is the decision made. A decision is essential. I ask myself what the consequences will be if that decision is rejected. It does not mean that the alternative route is accepted at once. Who if you please will promote another Private Bill to put forward this alternative route to Parliament? I doubt whether Hampshire County Council will. I doubt whether anyone would present to Parliament the alternative route with all the expense, investigation and so on that that would entail. I am afraid that if the route which the Select Committee has recommended is rejected by the House today, there will never be a bypass for Lyndhurst.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend permit me to interrupt him? I think that he is wrong in saying that there will be a necessity for legislation if either route 6A or 5A, the inner route, was adopted. That was made clear in the report of the Select Committee.
Lord Denning: My Lords, my noble friend has anticipated me. I am sure that that paragraph in the report is quite wrong. The alternative route would require legislation. The relevant paragraph is not in the findings of the committee but rather in the summary of the petitioners' cases in paragraph 41, which says:
"The final advantage of an inner route was that it would not require legislation".
My answer is that it would require legislation. I say that both as a lawyer and as a Member of this House. I shall come on to that point. One of the earlier passages in the report dealt with the need for a private Bill to deal with that matter. The committee says that that is a matter which it leaves to the House. I have looked into that and perhaps I may tell your Lordships how the legislation came to pass.
In 1949 we had a most important statute, the New Forest Act, which brought the verderers and everyone else up to date. The subject of that legislation was a report of over 100 pages by an expert committee led by Mr. Baker in which the verderers were considered, along with many other things. The roads were also considered. The committee considered the two trunk roads, the one which goes from Cadnam to Lymington and the one going through to Ringwood, and said that they would remain. But it went on to add in that same paragraph that it regarded a north-south bypass to Lyndhurst as essential. When the Bill went through Parliament, it did not include that bypass. The trunk roads were included but the bypass was not included. I suggest that that was done because everyone realised that further legislation would be needed to prescribe the route of that bypass.
The 1949 Act laid down the trunk roads and laid down provisions for roads other than trunk roads. It only laid down provisions for unfenced roads. As we all know, fencing is absolutely essential in these motoring days for the protection of motorists and of the ponies themselves. Section 17 dealt only with unfenced roads. If the highway authority wished to make, an unfenced road, that could only be done with

763
the consent of the verderers. The verderers' consent could not be unreasonably withheld. That was for the protection of the commoners. If a fence was put up, commoners by a right going back centuries could throw it down because it would interfere with the free grazing of cattle and ponies. Section 17 dealt only with unfenced roads. The statute, by design, did not deal with the fencing of new roads. Fenced roads require a Bill to come before Parliament and it must be a Private Member's Bill.
The Select Committee quoted part of the Erskine May Report and perhaps I may refer to the whole of that part. At page 907 it states:
"No rule, however, has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts. A private bill is itself an exception, in some degree, from the general law, or seeks for some powers which the general law does not afford and the fact that it provides for a repeal or an amendment of public Acts is far from always being a fatal objection to its being introduced as a private bill. The provisions of some public general Acts relating to public health are regularly amended, in some degree, with regard to particular localities, by means of private bills".
Your Lordships will know of such public health Bills. We have general Acts and then perhaps a private Bill from Manchester and Merseyside and the like.
As regards the constitutional position, I believe it is perfectly proper and necessary for a private Bill such as this one which the Hampshire County Council has promoted to secure the addition to the public Act in respect of Lyndhurst itself so that there can be a fenced bypass road around Lyndhurst. That is essential. As I said, if it is suggested that the inner route should be used without legislation, so far as I can see that is absolutely wrong. There is nothing in the Act or anywhere else to permit it. Those are the legal points with which I wish to deal.
Paragraph 47 of the report states:
"The Committee conclude by drawing attention to the fact that in allowing the Bill to proceed, they have done so in the knowledge that the County Council, in promoting a private bill, have adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway"—
and that may be true—
"and one which avoids the veto of the Verderers which Parliament in 1949 regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest."
I do not regard the 1949 Act as giving any veto to the verderers in respect of a newly fenced road. In 1949 Parliament left that for further legislation.
I suggest that the report of the Select Committee should be accepted. Otherwise, Lyndhurst will not have a bypass in the foreseeable future.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, it may seem strange to your Lordships that I have risen to speak about Lyndhurst in the New Forest when I normally speak about Scotland. However, my interest in the subject goes back to immediately after the last war when the father of the present noble Lord, Lord Manners, gave to me, as chairman of the National Association of Youth Clubs, one of the most beautiful houses in the New Forest, namely, Avon Tyrrell. It was to be used by young people for holidays, conferences and so on. It has been an outstanding success and has made an enormous difference to hundreds of thousands of young people. Although I am now too old to go there for such
764
activities, I have always been grateful for that marvellous donation and the fact that it has meant that many young people have been able to go to the New Forest to learn about it and to walk and ride about in it.
I have read with some interest the report we are discussing today and I have one or two queries which I should like to make. I do not understand why the county council promoted a Private Bill for the Lyndhurst bypass which make it impossible for the oldest and most important organisation in the New Forest—the verderers of the New Forest—to be consulted. It seems to me that that is a curious way to carry on.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I am informed that there were considerable and prolonged consultations with the verderers; with the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and others. I very much reject the suggestion that there was no consultation.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am very sorry if I have made a mistake, but it seems to me from reading the report that the verderers were overruled.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is very desirable that the House should be told whether there was consultation with the verderers particularly on route 5A. I understand that there was not.
Lord Manners: My Lords, the consultation that I originally had with the county council was right at the outset and the council told me that it proposed to adopt route 3 as being the cheapest and most economical route and the one which best suited the environment of the forest. It was only subsequently that the county council changed its mind, I think at the request of the district council, and then started to press for route 5A. I admit that I had two meetings with the chairman of the county council at which I made representations, but there were no discussions as such.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I think that that perhaps answers the noble Lord. In any case, I was only reacting to what I had read in the report and the conversations with my noble friend Lord Manners. I also understand that in 1983 the planning inspector proposed another route and not the one which the Select Committee is suggesting. I wonder why that advice was not taken.
I have also received, as I expect have most of your Lordships, letters from the Countryside Commission saying that it is opposed to route 5A. The Commission is anxious to support the verderers in their case. The Countryside Commission is a very influential body and it is one that we are all deeply concerned about. It stresses for not only the New Forest but for many other parts of the United Kingdom the importance of the countryside and its preservation. Therefore it is important to take some account of what the Countryside Commission has written, and I am sorry that that does not appear to have been one of the matters which was considered or in any way influenced the decision.

765
This is a debate which many people know more about than I do, and I am therefore only supporting my noble friend Lord Manners and the verderers because I know of the great importance of the New Forest, its preservation and all that it stands for. I hope very much that we may consider this as a matter of just as much importance as the bypass for Lyndhurst, which we are all in favour of. It is the way that it is done that matters, and I understand that the verderers have a better suggestion than that put forward. I am prepared to back the verderers in this matter.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, as the second member of your Lordships' Select Committee, apart from the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, our very able chairman, to speak, I should like to say a few words to your Lordships about our consideration of this Bill.
First, I should like to say, in answer to my noble friend Lady Elliot, that during the 13 days in which we sat in this committee we heard evidence from the Countryside Commission at quite considerable length. Therefore it cannot be said that, in the end, our report did not agree entirely with the Commission; but neither can it be said that we ignored it.
Most of us on this committee, certainly myself, at the start knew very little about Lyndhurst in particular and not a great deal about the New Forest. I certainly did not, However, I believe that to be right because it meant that we had no preconceived opinions about the situation in Lyndhurst and we had no axes to grind. Nevertheless, we very soon became aware that whatever recommendations we made at the end, they would make us very unpopular with a lot of people.
I should like to comment very briefly on and underline the committee's reasons for rejecting the proposed route of the objectors—route 6A. It has been commented upon by my noble friends Lord Manners and Lord Malmesbury that we were only there for a day. In fact, we were there long enough to see Boltons Bench and to stand on it. On the ground, the proposed route 6A seemed to be disastrous to the peace and well being of the people of Lyndhurst and, incidentally, to the people who visit Lyndhurst.
I am open to correction here, but the proposal was for a fenced road with a roundabout about 20 yards or so from Boltons Bench. It would go through, and in my opinion it would effectively divide the village from its principal recreation ground. It seemed to me also that however cleverly designed this road, and however many underpasses and bridges and so on that were incorporated, it would be very difficult for even an able-bodied person easily and without effort to cross from the village to Boltons Bench. Certainly he would be unable to cross without encountering a lot of noise, traffic, and so on.
A little beyond Boltons Bench I observed that the bypass would actually pass within 50 yards of the worst point of congestion in Lyndhurst high street. That does not seem to me to be a bypass at all, or to
766
make very much sense. The proposed bypass is only 50 yards from the present congestion. A further point is that further north the route cuts through a minor recreation ground. I cannot remember whether it is a cricket ground or an athletics ground, but it is called the Paddocks. To the south it would destroy a very beautiful and well-kept private garden and the Okefield. On this point I should like to say to my noble friends Lord Manners and Lord Malmesbury that it seems to be totally irrelevant whether or not this house is now for sale. It was the beauty of the garden itself and of the house that concerned us and not the financial situation of the individual who happened to own it at the time we looked at it.
At any rate, I came to the conclusion that no bypass at all was the only alternative to route 5A proposed by the county council. We established fairly early on that there would be no question of our recommending that there should not be a bypass. In these circiumstances, and after 13 days of listening very carefully to many different opinions, it appeared to me and obviously to my colleagues that route 5A was the only viable option. It is a little late for anyone to come up with something better, and frankly I do not think that anything better could be found.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the officers of Hampshire County Council, who I do not think have yet received any congratulations today. They presented their evidence very well and they were very fair. I congratulate them on carrying out a thoroughly thankless task.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, on the point that it is late in the day to debate this issue? This Bill has to go through another place with all the same procedure. It is important, therefore, that if there are points of disagreement this House should make them known on Third Reading so that when the matter is debated in another House and goes into Select Committee there, it will be realised that this is, as the committee makes clear, a difficult issue.
Although I wish to disagree with the committee on certain matters, I am bound to say that I am immensely impressed by the effort, ingenuity and fidelity that the members of it brought to discussing what is, speaking socially, a very complicated issue in a very difficult part of the world.
My interest is that I have lived in the New Forest off and on for nearly 50 years. I have never exercised common rights, but I have had common rights attached to my house. I am bound to say that the Official Verderers, the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, have had the most difficult job in the world. I know of no area where there is more contention. They are poised among the commoners, the Forestry Commission, the county council and the visitors. They have to preside over the Court of Swainmote. I still remember the problems that arose in 1949 when Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who was the Member of Parliament, tried to get the 1949 Act through the other place, where I was a Member. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, remembers that.

767
It was my view at that time that we had arrived at a settlement, that Clause 17 would provide protection, and that that would be that. It has been made abundantly clear that it is possible for a private Bill to override public legislation when it is considered, in this case by the committee, to be the right thing to do. However, the committee leaves to the House the judgment on whether it is the right decision.
We could get into a semantic argument here. We are strongly advised to take the Select Committee's advice. However, at the same time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has told us that there is one important paragraph in its report; namely, paragraph 41, which is wholly wrong. That is a matter which will need to be further considered. I do not know whether the noble Lord who chaired the committee so admirably wishes to argue with the noble and learned Lord. He is a great friend of us all and he has been kind to me. I know that he likes an argument.
The point is clear. The committee states:
"The final advantage of an inner route was that it would not require legislation. The Verderers had indicated that they would be prepared to agree the permanent loss of certain land from the Forest. Since the land taken out of the Forest would have to be fenced out, legislation would not be required for fencing as was required for the present route proposals. Therefore the implications of a private Act undermining the provisions of a public Act"—
we agree that it does not undermine it; it is correct to have a private Act—
"would not have to he faced".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, he will have observed that paragraph 41 of the Select Committee's report to which he has referred is not part of the committee's conclusions; it is part of the summary of the petitioners' case.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the committee does not go out of its way to disagree with the point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Or accept it.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, that is a point of interest. This is not a Committee stage, though it is tempting to treat it as such. I believe it is the view of the Official Verderer that legislation would not be necessary and that an agreement on fencing could be achieved without difficulty. However, that is a point for further consideration.
Elsewhere in the report, there is a reference to the inspector of the 1983 inquiry who rejected route 3 and found route 5A preferable to route 1. The route which is now recommended is described as a compromise. I do not regard it as a satisfactory compromise. The inspector suggested that another route should be considered in detail. That became route 6, which subject to alterations at its southern end became route 6A, and is the route now favoured by the forest's interests. Was it considered by the county council? I do not believe there is evidence that there was any consideration.
I must now be critical of the county council. We all know that county councils work extremely hard. I know that the opinion of some county councillors is
768
that their county council is not always sufficiently concerned with the very special nature of the New Forest. The New Forest is unique, and only those who understand it realise how-special it is and how important it is to protect it. If I may use a rather far-fetched analogy, it is a little like the Antarctic: we do not want people mucking it up unless it is necessary.
However, the county council was prepared to allow Shell to drill in Denny Wood, a beautiful wood. It was only because the Minister called in the planning application and there was an inquiry that there was a change. There are disturbing proposals. There is a proposal for drilling near Boldre, not far from where I live. However, that does not bother me. The well that Shell has drilled will only be of significance if a battery of wells is drilled. That will be necessary to prove that there is oil. The other place will need to give careful consideration to this matter.
I regret the fact that the committee did not take the view of the inspector that the amenities or environmental interests of Lyndhurst were of less importance than those of the forest as a whole. The county and the committee did not share that view. We are grateful to the committee. I should be interested to know whether it would be possible to have route 6A without an Act of Parliament. It would be infinitely cheaper and would save legislation. That may be something that can be considered in another place.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, may I comment on that point? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, paragraph 41 was part of the case put forward by the petitioners. The committee's conclusions start on the opposite page. The committee concluded that routes 6 and 6A were not a satisfactory solution to the problem. If they were not satisfactory solutions, it does not matter whether or not they need legislation.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, at the risk of making a different point, the noble Lord is saying that legislation would be irrelevant as the committee was against the route. The noble Lord is not saying that it could be done without legislation.
5.28 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships have listened with great care to the arguments on both sides on whether the Lyndhurst bypass should follow the line proposed in the Bill or should take another route. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, who chaired the committee so skilfully, has already told your Lordships, the Select Committee came to the conclusion, after a lengthy hearing and after a visit to Lyndhurst, that the route selected was the best one. I think that your Lordships should give due weight to the committee's decision.
I wish to refer to a matter which is mentioned in the committee's special report and to which some of your Lordships have referred. It is the question of whether it is right that a public Act of Parliament—namely, the New Forest Act 1949—should be set aside by the promotion of a private Bill. I fully endorse what is so clearly set out in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the

769
committee's report; namely, that private Bills often repeal or amend the general law. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord confirm that. I respectfully agree entirely with what he said on that subject.
Lord Shackleton: Hear, hear.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, agree with that point. One of the main purposes of private legislation is to confer upon the promoters of private Bills powers which they cannot obtain under the general law, or to allow them an exemption from the restrictions of the general law.
One of my duties as the Chairman of Committees in the Unopposed Bill Committee is to examine, with the aid of my counsel, all Private Bills which come before Parliament. I can tell your Lordships that many of them seek the amendment of public Acts. The Unopposed Bill Committee examines each case with care but where on the merits it is appropriate that public legislation should be amended that power is certainly granted.
I think that it is very important to put on record the fact that, as Erskine May confirms, it is normal for a Private Bill to amend public legislation. Whether or not it is right to accept such amendment in any particular case is of course a matter for Parliament to decide.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, perhaps I may speak with the permission of the House. I was one of five Members of your Lordships' House appointed to this Select Committee. I should like to stress that the matter of consultation—which has been touched upon but not dealt with in detail—was a matter of great concern to me. We spent almost a day dealing with the question of consultations.
I was in no doubt after hearing the evidence that the county council—over a period of almost six years if my memory is correct—had set up exhibits, consulted with relevant bodies, and placed advertisements in the press requesting submissions. There was also an obligation on bodies which have a statutory duty to inquire into conservation and other matters to submit evidence. We therefore had every reason to believe that every opportunity was given for adequate consultation with all interested persons.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but I was a Member of the Select Committee. Perhaps I may say a few words to try further to explain paragraph 41 which concerns the need for fencing.
The need for fencing arises provided that the animals have access to the roadside. The verderers had recommended an alternative route for the purpose of which they were prepared to give up certain lands. They were prepared to fence the animals out of those lands; the animals would therefore not have access to the route of the road. That would eliminate the need for the road to be fenced at that section.
770
As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, this was only part of the petitioners' case. However, the Committee accepted that it was a fair point. If it had not, it would not have raised the matter in the report or it would have made its own comment about it.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. It deals with a part of the country with which I am not familiar. However, I listened to much of the Second Reading debate, and I have listened to this debate. I read with great care the Second Reading debate and the report of the Select Committee. I now believe that I have a certain affinity with the area, although I have a long way to go to be anything like as familiar with it as almost everyone who has spoken in the debate so far.
Perhaps I may make a minor criticism of the Select Committee report. Coming as I do from an area far removed from the New Forest I should have been happier if the plan appended to the report had been rather more detailed so that I could have looked at the general area of the ubiquitous Bolton's Bench, which is not mentioned in the plan, or The Paddocks, or Okefield private house, or many of the other important landmarks which appear to be so familiar to so many of your Lordships. I went to the Library yesterday and today to try to orientate myself with the area of Lyndhurst and its relationsihip to the New Forest. I was not able to obtain a great deal of material. Since the debate started my noble friend Lord Blease has shown me some of the material that was available to the Select Committee. The whole area is now much clearer to me.
The plan, with its accompanying text, illustrates very fully the dilemma that any committee faces. The noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, was absolutely correct: whatever decision it made would have created enemies. It is not an uncommon dliemma in similar circumstances.
When I read the report of the Second Reading I was struck by the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, both of whom seemed to be familiar with the area as it was a long time ago, long before anyone had thought in terms of the traffic of the late 20th century, although from reports it was beginning to get rather crowded in the early 20th century. The village was never built for such traffic. Any attempt to accommodate this traffic and to make life more bearable for the people of Lyndhurst offends the very ancient rights in the New Forest. The county council therefore had a duty to find an answer, although it knew that, whatever the answer, it would be impossible to please everyone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, we are only at the beginning of this issue. The Bill has to go through the other place, although I do not know whether it will go through exactly the same procedure; I do not know whether they will ask for a Select Committee to look at it or whether they will decide that Route 6 with 6A added, compared with the old Route 3, will be better than the route suggested by the county council. This is an issue which only the other place can ultimately decide.

771
However, I believe that the debate today, and that at Second Reading, and the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, will be of considerable help in assisting the other place to make up their minds.
This is a Private Bill. There is a completely free vote if the matter goes to a vote. Having seen some of the pictures of the very considerable traffic congestion in the town of Lyndhurst, I believe that the quicker we have this bypass—as outlined by the Select Committee and the Hampshire County Council—the better.
5.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene very briefly on behalf of the Government. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made it clear that the Government took the view that it is for the promotors to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified. I was interested in and enjoyed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury. I realise that the verderers have a heavy and increasing responsibility in these days when the pressures upon the area for which they are responsible become greater and not fewer.
I need to answer one point. My noble friend Lord Manners was critical of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture for not becoming involved in this matter by taking a definite line. I should like to say in reply that the Government are convinced that any encroachments on the forest of the kind we have been debating today should be very carefully considered. Given the apparent consensus that a bypass in some form is urgently needed, the Government's view is that in bringing this Bill before Parliament the promoters provide an opportunity for petitioners and others to set out their case fully to the Select Committee. We believe that this procedure provides the best opportunity for arguments from either side to be properly weighed and judged not by the Government, but by Parliament.
Having said that, I appreciate the strong feelings held by the promoters, the residents of Lyndhurst and those who have petitioned against the Bill over the proposed route. The Select Committee has considered all the issues very carefully and we must be grateful to it. The Bill has been allowed to proceed, but with the clear expression of view that the inner route, that is route 6/6A, really will not do. It is now a matter for Parliament to decide.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to conclude the debate on this Third Reading. We have heard a number of extremely interesting views from distinguished minds. Let me say at once that I am not a legal person and I am not qualified to enter into complex arguments or to give a view about what seem to me to be complex legal and constitutional points.
I remind the House that we have heard that the Countryside Commission spent two days in the New Forest and that the Select Committee, to whom we are very grateful, spent a day in Lyndhurst. For 19 of
772
the first 25 years of my life I was a resident, on and off, in the parish of Minstead, two and a half miles from Lyndhurst. Therefore I claim with reason to speak with some knowledge of the area covered by the provisions of the Bill.
We have heard from the noble Viscount, the chairman of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee reported that route 5A was the right one and it was correct because all other routes seemed to converge on Bolton's Bench; routes 6 and 6A, for all that they may or may not need fencing, still converge on Bolton's Bench. That has to be borne in mind and is an important point.
We hear a lot about ecology these days, do we not? When I was an undergraduate years ago, the word "ecology" occurred once in my biological textbook. There may have been a chapter on it and that as the heading, but it did not say much about ecology. It is a new science. If I understand it correctly, the science of ecology is a branch of the general science of biology. It is concerned with the interaction of living species one upon another. It is so often assumed that the only species which matter are the non-human species. We hear about the birds, the fish, the large animals, the small creatures and so on, and the plants. We sometimes forget—and even the scientists are guilty of this from time to time—about the human species upon whom the birds, the beasts and the fish have an effect; and the human species have an effect in the opposite direction. It seems to me that the Bill is very much concerned with trying to decide where the least damage can be done to the natural environment around Lyndhurst. The human environment of Lyndhurst has been so grossly distorted over the last 30 or 40 years as to make life very difficult and pretty unpleasant on some occasions for those who live there. I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind when coming to a conclusion on this matter.
It is perfectly true that minimal damage—it will be minimal damage—is likely to occur if the route of the bypass follows 5A. I am sure we all accept that, but it seems to me that the Hampshire County Council leant over backwards to instruct us, to try to reassure us that the works concerned with the building of a bypass, the route to be followed, the reinstatement work and the monitoring of all these things will be done to the highest degree possible with consultation and advice from terrestrial ecologists and with the verderers. I read earlier today a letter from the verderers which gave that reassurance. It is important to the Hampshire County Council that if the Bill becomes an Act and the route follows 5A there will be close and strict consultation with the verderers who are important.
One cannot have lived for 19 years as I did in the New Forest without understanding the importance of the verderers. The Official Verderer, the noble Lord, Lord Manners, and his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, and my family have been friends for many years. I was disturbed to read a report in The Times on Monday which used the words "acrimony" and "bitterness". Let me assure the noble Earl and the noble Lord that there is no acrimony and no bitterness in my soul on these matters. I take a different view and that is all it is. I

773
am quite certain that that view is reciprocated by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord in terms of acrimony and bitterness—there is none. I see the problem from a different angle. I wanted to make that point because I was disturbed to read the report in The Times that there was acrimony and bitterness. There is none here, my Lords, where we conduct our affairs in a different spirit, and quite right too.
The noble Lord, Lord Manners, mentioned "We who love the Forest's beauty and wildlife" as if the petitioners against the Bill were the only ones who loved the Forest's beauty and wildlife. It is not so. Again I refer to the fact that I lived 19 of the first 25 years of my life in the New Forest and I love the forest, its beauty and its wildlife. I am quite satisfied that what is contained in the Bill will do minimal damage to the area of the forest within the immediate environs of Lyndhurst. It is not only petitioners against the Bill who may be counted among the lovers of the New Forest.
We heard about the West Wellow bypass and my goodness they need a bypass. I use that road two or three times a week journeying from south Wiltshire to Southampton. They need a bypass at West Wellow because the road is dangerous. We heard about the coal-fired power station at Fawley. My mind goes back to 1942 or 1943 when there were proposals to build an oil refinery. It so happened that a member of my family was then chairman of the rural district council in the New Forest. A great fight was put up. The whole thing was called in by the Minister of the day. He is a Member of your Lordships' House, but he has left the Chamber. The refinery went ahead in the teeth of opposition from local interests. I am speaking, as it were, on behalf of my family in the matter because I feel it is possible to take a different view about different things at different times.
I am grateful, as we all are, to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose place I have usurped here today. I apologise to him for that, but it seemed to be the best way of going about it. With his usual clarity and skill he brought out many points in his intervention in favour of proceeding with the Bill.
I have talked about ecology and Lyndhurst. If I do not refer to some speeches it is not because I have no comments to make about them but simply because of the time factor. I turn now to the robust, if I may use that word, address of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He said, and we all agree, that the Select Committee reported that a bypass is essential. There is no difference among us about that. A bypass is essential. He said, and we all agree, that the Select Committee report carries the recommendation that it is route 5A that should be followed. Then the noble and learned Lord asked the question: What is the consequence if the Bill is rejected? Throughout the proceedings on the Bill—the Second Reading, the determinations of the Select Committee and now this Third Reading debate—we have used the expression that "controversy has raged", or something like that, for 50 years. It may interest noble Lords to know that I received a letter the other day from one longstanding resident of the New Forest which makes it quite plain to me that the first acquisitions of land in order to secure a route for a bypass around
774
Lyndhurst—it is the old route through Pike's Hill, Emery Down and coming in at Swan Green—date from 1928. That is 60 years ago bar six months. So I come back to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. What will happen if this piece of legislation is now rejected? Is everybody to hang about for another 60 years?
There is the question of the legal and constitutional respectability of the Bill. That has been thoroughly aired and debated and I think we must accept that the Bill is respectable. But I leave it there. We heard from the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading; the question is dealt with in the special report of the Select Committee; and we have heard again at Third Reading today from the noble and learned Lord. If anybody is still questioning the legality of the Bill, there is nothing that I can say that will dissuade him from an alternate view.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, who said that in his view it was route 5A or nothing at all. It is a persuasive view. I think that I could go along with that. The noble Lord, Lord Shackelton, referred to Route 6A and said that he would like to have another look at it. It would not require fencing, or it would require fencing but it would be legal if it was not fenced—it becomes very complicated at this point. The danger is that this will go on and on. Route 6A converges on Bolton's Bench again. We are back to Bolton's Bench and that is no good. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that it was legally all right—another view about the legality of the Bill.
We have heard many speeches. I invite your Lordships to contribute to a lessening of the—I was about to say "horrors"—inconveniences and discomforts of the people of Lyndhurst who for years now have suffered from an overdose of traffic. I invite your Lordships to contribute to a lessening of the discomforts for the motorists, the car travellers, who suffer on a steaming Saturday or Sunday morning. Go and have a look at them, my Lords. Between 11 o'clock in the morning and 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon families become overheated, cars become overheated, and the language becomes overheated. It is not much fun and no progress is made. It is uneconomic for them and destroys their enjoyment.
I have said enough. I hope that we shall not have to wait another 60 years. I fervently hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EC Fourth Environmental Action Programme
5.54 p.m.
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report Session 198–7, H.L. 136).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There could scarcely be a greater contrast between the debate which I have the privilege to initiate and the debate which your Lordships have

775
just concluded; and yet there is a relationship. The debate which has just concluded dealt with a very precise problem concerned with what should be done in the best interests of the environment and of the social and economic consequences of the proposals made. The debate which I have the privilege of opening here is of quite a different character. It relates to what programme would be appropriate for the European Communities to undertake over the next five years, and that raises broad questions of what views should be taken and what priorities should be accorded to that programme.
This Fourth Environmental Action Programme relating to the period 1987–92 sets out an agenda or programme for action over that period in the same way as the previous three action programmes did. This Fourth Action Programme may be said to continue the policies set out in the third action programme. There are, however, important distinctive features which arise in part from recent developments in the Community. One of these is the ratification of the so-called Single European Act, which constitutes the first amendment of the Treaty of Rome. We thought it would be a convenience to your Lordships if the relevant portion of that Single European Act were set out in an appendix to the report where it may be found.
The Single European Act includes a chapter on the environment. It is particularly significant that one of the provisions—Article 130 R 2—includes the following sentence:
"Environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies".
Thus environmental policy has moved to the centre of the stage instead of being at the periphery, an agreeable "add-on" to other policies. Instead it has become an essential element, a motivating force.
In recent years there has developed within the Community and elsewhere growing public demand for improved standards of environmental protection and for environmentally friendly goods. Public awareness of environmental matters has developed both within the Community and elsewhere. Many factors have contributed to this. The publicity given in Germany to the death of the forests from acid rain deposition had a great impact. Over the past few years there have been a number of major accidents such as that at Bophal and the disaster at Chernobyl; and then of course, more recently still, there has been the Sandoz disaster resulting in extensive damage to the Rhine. So the proposals in the action programme related to nuclear safety, and, more generally, the insistence on high standards of environmental protection reflect widespread public concern.
The original draft Council resolution, which will be found in Appendix 3 of our report, summarises the topics covered in the action programme and identifies 19 priority areas. Initially, the committee thought it might usefully produce an order of priority in which these should be addressed. We concluded, however, that to do this it would be necessary to carry out a study of each of the priority areas. It soon became apparent that the presidency was keen to proceed with the action prgoramme urgently. Accordingly, within the time available for publication of a report
776
which would be useful, this was not practicable. We therefore decided to study three general themes relevant to the proposed action programme—namely, implementation, research and agriculture.
In March, this year, after the committee made that decision and commenced the study, the original list to which I referred was considerably revised and expanded by the Environment Council. It gave greater emphasis to the themes which the committee considers in its report, in particular agriculture which appears on the list of priorities for the first time.
The committee considers that implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority. More than 100 Community directives have been made on environmental matters. Failure to implement them is not only unsatifactory in itself but, where implemented in some countries but not in others, distorts the conditions of competition within the Community. Above all, failure to implement laws which have been made undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates. There is a growing gap between standards of implementation in some member states and in others. The time has come when there should be a complete review of the progress of implementation of existing directives and that there should be restraint in the creation of new directives where these are not urgently required and essential, until the backlog has been cleared.
We accept of course that new directives will probably be required urgently in respect of major new problems such as those arising out of reforms of the CAP. Implementation of directives, is required at two levels: first, by the making of appropriate national legislation in each member state to carry out the objectives indicated in the directive; and, secondly, the establishment of appropriate machinery to implement that national legislation within the member state itself. Priority should be given to identifying the most important directives which have not been embodied in national law and implemented there.
The Seveso directive is a good example. It will be recalled that this directive followed the disaster in northern Italy at Seveso. It requires that manufacturers who handle certain dangerous substances should draw up a plan of action which in the case of an accident would safeguard not only persons but the environment. It required compliance by January 1984. Yet to date only Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom are in formal compliance with it. Luxembourg's legislation is still at the draft stage and proceedings have been instigated at the Court of Justice.
This is an enormously important directive dealing with a matter of the greatest public concern. It has been said that had the arrangements set out in this directive been in force in Switzerland, the Sandoz disaster would not have taken place. Rectifying failures such as these to implement directives which have been made is clearly a matter of the first priority.
There is a close relationship between implementation of Community environmental legislation and the scientific basis for it; for legislative measures to protect the environment fall into disrepute if they are not justified—and appear to be justified—on a clear scientific assessment of need.

777
The committee has in previous reports expressed doubts about the adequacy of the scientific basis of directives and believe it is of the first importance that this should be clearly expressed in the legislation itself.
Implementation by education of the public is bound to fail where that need is not clear, and enforcement through the courts or otherwise inevitably tends to bring the Community into disrepute where the need for the legislation is not manifest. As the committee has indicated in previous reports, there are circumstances where the course of prudence dictates in the light of evidence available that environmental legislation is required as a precautionary measure. Where this is so this should be made clear and the reasons for it.
The committee is concerned that DGXI is not adequately equipped to define the scope of research which it requires, to supervise it and to evaluate its results. The research which is necessary in relation to an environmental programme does not relate only to scientific matters such as investigation of the chemical, physical or biological consequences of certain types of pollution but may also relate to the social, economic and political consequences of environmental programmes.
Whatever the nature of the research required, however, it is in our view essential that those responsible for formulating and implementing environmental policy should be equipped to define the scope of the research it requires to supervise it and to evaluate its results. DGXI must acquire suitable people to take these responsibilities and its resources be appropriately increased.
The committee is much concerned that the profound environmental impact of changes now taking place in the common agricultural policy have received scant consideration in the action programme. The lack of an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the action programme is regrettable. It seems to us that the profound consequences throughout the Community of the reform of the CAP have not been considered in sufficient detail, and we are concerned indeed that they have not been fully comprehended.
During the course of our study some members of the committee visited Brussels to take evidence from representatives of the European Communities. We found much of this evidence was encouraging in that it indicated a line of thought and an approach similar to our own. One of those who gave evidence to us was Mr. L. J. Brinkhorst, director general in DGXI. The main burden of his evidence which is published with our report, relates to the connection between high environmental standards and a competitive economy. He pointed to the success of the Japanese in so many competitive fields of trade and industry while at the same time Japan has over recent years adopted some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world.
I recently came across the relationship between the two on a visit to the United States. Tobacco imported by Brazil from the US was said to contain unacceptable traces of pesticides. The Brazilian authorities wished to reject it on public health grounds. Some months previously I heard about a
778
similar problem concerning the import into the United States of malting barley from West Germany which was said to suffer from the same defect.
A similar problem has recently been encountered in this country in relation to dieldrin, which has been banned for use in this country as a sheep-dip for several years; yet certain rivers were recently found to be polluted by it. It came from washing wool imported from Australia; so the question arises whether those imports should be banned. So high environmental standards seem more and more to be a necessary condition for successful export trade.
It is sometimes thought that the environment consists of wild forests and mountain streams, auks and eagles and hedgerows filled with wildlife and flowers. It comprises all these, but also juggernauts and railways, power stations and coal mines, houses and factories and their processes and products. Between them all there is constant interplay, constant friction. The task of environmental policy is to reconcile conflicting demands of one upon another in the constantly changing scene. That policy and the way we implement it moulds the world in which we live.
This is the context in which the Action Programme has to be considered. I believe, despite the criticisms we have made, that this Fourth Action Programme provides a sound basis for action in the coming years. Indeed, the formulation of such an Action Programme is perhaps a task which Her Majesty's Government might undertake for this country to provide an agenda for the direction which environmental policy should take—a context for determining priorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Fourth Environmental Action Programme (8th Report, Session 1986ߝ87, H.L. 135).—(Lord Nathan.)
6.8 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has introduced this important debate with such an admirably succinct review of our substantial report, and even more substantial Fourth Action Programme. I am going to limit my remarks into one field. It is a major policy statement which the EC produces every fourth year, and it is to be recognised as a document full of enthusiasm for the mammoth task of improving the European environment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, the programme identifies 22 priority aims. That might be considered rather a lot of priorities. It depends of course on changing the mental outlook of the citizens of Europe in the 14 member states and in some respect their way of life. Most of the objectives cost money, and some of them a great deal. As the noble Lord has already said, there are already more than 100 directives dealing with aspects of environmental improvement which member states must legislate. Nobody can doubt, least of all myself, that the immense effort by the Commission is conceived for the benefit of all.
In my short speech I shall refer to only one of the 22 new priorities mentioned in the programme. It is

779
a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already referred: the implementation of existing directives. The noble Lord has made some cogent comments on this matter and I should like to add to them. There are signs that the implementation of some directives in some member states is no more than perfunctory. Our report observes that even a directive as dramatic as the Seveso directive has not yet been implemented in the majority of states. There are strong indications that many less spectacular directives have, in some instances, been virtually ignored.
The action programme suggests that a Community environmental inspectorate might be set up. Our report advises against that solution on the grounds that, in our judgment, the arrival of an EC inspector on the ground of an offending site would be more likely to raise tempers than co-operation. On the other hand, the Commission's innovation of visiting offices of the Commission to discuss with officials of member states at government level the measures being taken, or not being taken, to implement directives is, evidently, a useful and constructive step which our report supports.
However, I believe that the time has come to go further and to make a directive requiring member states to draw up a complete review of all directives already made. Here I go beyond our report; but the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was going some way in this direction. It would require each member state to make a report within a set period of, say, a couple of years, first, of the legislative action taken to implement each of the 100-plus directives which we have already; secondly, the enforcement action taken to ensure observance of the laws, including the penalties; and, thirdly, the measure of environmental improvement achieved in each case. Recently-joined states will need some dispensation before conformity can be expected.
The review may well show a serious measure of failure to implement existing environmental directives. However, it could be the basis for a major effort by all members of the Community to strengthen their policies and actions in this important field. If we continue on the present line we shall reach the position of the Emperor's new clothes. That would be most damaging to all of us; we should be among the naked.
I should like to make three subsidiary points in that connection. The first is a point which has been made already by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but it is worth repeating. It is that the Commission should take even greater care to ensure that the scientific basis for a new directive is soundly based. Evidently, some directives have been based on an incomplete assessment of the problem concerned. I give as a good example the directive regarding the dumping of waste in the North Sea. Apparently that was made without consideration of the major source of North Sea pollution from the River Rhine, which is gigantic, and other North German rivers. It therefore totally failed to carry scientific conviction.
In that connection, our report welcomes the Commission's intention to keep an up-to-date
780
register of scientists in all member states working on particular subjects in order to ensure that the Commission can readily obtain reliable scientific information on all new topics under review. The scientific basis for a directive must be beyond question but at present that is not always the case.
Secondly, it must be learnt that when the Council of Ministers come to consider a directive submitted by the Commission, it is not provided with the scientific basis for the directive laid before it. Our report recommends that that is essential for a proper assessment of the merits of the directive, and that in future the scientific basis should always be laid before ministers.
My third and final subsidiary point is that the economic implications of directives is often substantial; for instance, directives relating to the prevention of pollution of water, both fresh and sea water. At the present time in this country there is a national campaign (which has been in existence for several years) to conform with the directive of water quality on bathing beaches. It costs water authorities in this country several hundred million pounds each year. That is reflected in increased charges for water treatment. That in turn is paid for by industry and all householders. However, for industry it is a significant extra cost to production.
On the other hand, it would be a rare exception to find similar action on the Mediterranean beaches, which some of us know well, of Italy, Greece, Spain or France, where existing effluents are in most cases discharged untreated into a sea where tides are small and currents slight. In those countries industry is spared the additional cost but conditions of competition between states are distorted in favour of the defaulters. Thus failure to implement a directive is given a valuable economic incentive.
I conclude that failure by the Commission to achieve general implementation of directives is not only losing the environmental benefits which each is designed to achieve, but it is having side effects which endanger the credibility and authority of the Commission. It is in the interest of all member states that top priority action is taken to strengthen the implementation of existing directives. If our report helps in that direction, it will have done a useful job.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, as well as providing a most valuable analysis of the contents of the action programme, the report is welcome as a reminder to the European Commission, to governments and to us all of the range of factors which we should have in mind when discussing the environment. I suppose that now we are all environmentalists. Be that as it may, it is easy to be carried away by the sometimes passionate singlemindedness of the environmentalists. That is not to deny the need to take fully and properly into account the environmental considerations when making decisions about industry. All around us we see the results of ignoring those considerations. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has reminded us, those decisions must also take account of the realities of the industrial and employment situations.

781
I was struck by the statement in the action programme that high standards of environmental protection have become an economic imperative. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has reminded the House that it is proposed to amend the Treaty of Rome itself to require that:
"environmental protection requirements shall be a component of the Community's other policies".
Those are high claims indeed for one factor, albeit important, in decisions about industry. Selecting environmental protection requirements for unique treatment comes perilously close to elevating environmental considerations above all else—above output, competitiveness and employment. I hope that Her Majesty's Government in examining the action programme will keep firmly in mind the possible effects on output and employment of conceding all the claims of DGXI and of the environmental lobby.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has referred to the claim made by the Commissioners' witnesses in evidence that environmental measures would generate jobs by increasing competitiveness. I should like to think that that was so. To be frank, I do not find it very persuasive when the only instance quoted was the Japanese motor industry in relation to the effect of improving exhaust emissions. It is of course highly desirable that emissions should be improved. No doubt that makes a contribution to the competitiveness of Japanese motors at a cost. I take leave to doubt whether that factor can carry the weight that the Commissioners' witnesses sought to put upon it.
We need to look rather to market analysis, planning, design, engineering, dependability and the involvement of the workforce in these matters rather than to the improvement of exhaust emissions as the way in which the Japanese motor industry has made great strides in recent years. No doubt it would be possible, as is claimed, to create some jobs by tighter environmental controls. For example, if we decided to pull down or seal off nuclear power stations, that would provide a fair bit of work for a few years but with the consequence of many fewer jobs being available in British industry because of our lack of competitiveness.
The report, at paragraph 18(ii) on page 8, quotes the conclusions of the working party on the environment at the 1982 economic summit at Versailles, which gives a more balanced view of policy development. Even that says:
"long term economic growth is possible only if we protect and conserve the environmental resources which underpin prosperity".
That is fine, but it is at least equally true that we need to recognise that economic growth itself is essential if we are to generate the resources that we need to protect and improve the environment. No growth analysis may appeal to Merrie Englanders. I do not find it a very attractive scenario, nor, do I think, would most employees.
I believe it is crucial, therefore, that these broader considerations be kept firmly in focus by those who make the decisions. That can best be done by improving the consultative processes between those deciding about environmental matters and industry,
782
by which I mean employers and trade unions. The environment starts at the place of work. If we have the right measures to prevent industrial accidents and noxious emissions and to restrict noise pollution, we should already have gone quite a long way to protecting the external environment.
In my view we need the explicit incorporation in Community instruments, including the directives, of explicit requirements for national governments to consult representatives of employers and unions at national level. We need also explicit requirements for the Commission to consult representatives of employers and trade unions at the Community level.
I share the view of the committee and of the Government that implementation is better pursued at national level. So far as I am aware there are reasonably satisfactory arrangements for access by industry to civil servants and to Ministers in our own country, although one might have a look at that in consultation with the inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that there are no gaps.
However, the impression that I get from the evidence given to the committee, and indeed from my experience as a former member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Community, is that access to Community bureaucrats is very patchy and often unsatisfactory. It is so much easier for civil servants to draft directives in the quietness of their own offices or in their own official committees than it is to have to engage in nitty-gritty arguments with representatives of industry about the need for particular measures and about the form that directives can most practically take. If the result of more consultation were fewer directives, there might be a positive gain in present circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, reminded us that more than 100 environmental directives are in operation already.
The director general of DGXI on environment informed the committee in evidence:
"I have been struck to see that DGXI has moved up to the No. 3 position in the number of directives not being implemented".
I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether top or bottom of that league wins most Brownie points in Brussels.
Consultation of the kind that I am urging provides two-way benefits. It gives industry a chance to tell the Eurocrats what is possible within available resources and what are the best and most practical ways of protecting and improving the environment. On the other hand, it gives the Eurcrats the means of putting more effective pressure on industry to make the changes that have been established as necessary.
I very much agree with the Committee's conclusion:
"Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority".
If it had said "top priority", I should have agreed even more strongly.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for introducing the report in such clear terms. I

783
welcome its conclusions and the way in which it has been presented to us. I believe that all of us who are interested in the environment have been immensely heartened by the inclusion in the Single European Act of an environmental policy as a component of other European Community policies. Many of us have been fighting for this for years.
I congratulate the committee on looking at the fourth directive and concluding that its report should be based on three themes, all of them important and having an impact on most activities within the Community.
Like other speakers, I regard the implementation of already-existing directives as the most important of all. I am in complete agreement that member states should introduce legislation within their own nations to fulfil the requirements of the directives. On the whole, this seems to have taken place, albeit sometimes very belatedly or even too late. They have introduced legislation. But the question of enforcement produces a completely different answer. As already stated and as all of us know, the existence of a law which is not enforced puts that law into complete disrepute.
I do not believe that we can expect DGXI, with its limited staff, to contemplate large-scale monitoring of what goes on within each Community state. I would therefore strongly support the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that reports from each nation should be called in to DGXI. At the moment, reports are often inadequate and not always submitted regularly. We should be very careful to avoid the position whereby every time a nation fails to fulfil its obligations under directives it is taken to the European Court. I realise that Luxembourg has been taken to the European Court over the Seveso directive. But one cannot contemplate the Commission taking all the other nations to court in turn. It is one of the great problems of how we manage to enforce legislation as a Community.
I am glad that the report mentions the importance of voluntary organisations. If we go back in time—a long time—it was largely voluntary, non-governmental organisations that began the work of alerting us to the dangers inherent in disregarding the impact of our way of life on the environment. That remains so, and it will fall to a great extent on voluntary organisations within each nation to act as watchdogs in regard to non-implementation. Their contribution to furthering education on environmental matters must not be underestimated. In fact, voluntary non-governmental organisations are admirably placed to take their own governments before national courts when they fail to implement legislation within their country.
I welcome what the report says on the question of lack of research funds in DGXI. I welcome the setting-up of a register of scientists working on particular environmental problems. We all know that voluntary organisations, universities and scientific bodies are engaged in research. A large number of expert scientists all around Europe are working on these problems. It would be lunacy, in my view, to create large sums of money for research at DGXI
784
without first drawing on the research that is already being carried out. This cannot happen without the setting-up of a register to make certain that all the different types of research are pooled in one centre.
That is not to say that I believe it is right that the research money at present available to DGXI should have been reduced. That is a tragedy. Even with a pool of knowledge coming into DGXI, it will have to be analysed. And that has to be done by research personnel. However, it is important when we look at these questions to avoid duplication of work and to make use of the knowledge that already exists.
One point I welcome particularly in the report is obvious to everyone, I think. I welcome the recommendation for closer co-operation between DGVI and DGXI. It is impossible to imagine that someone can believe that the impact of agriculture on our environment is not one of the most important. In view of proposed changes in the CAP, we need to look at the environmental impact of set-aside and large-scale afforestation. I welcome particularly the suggested setting-up of an independent body like the Nature Conservancy Council to advise DGIV and DGXI. I think this report will be a valuable document, and I thank the committee for it.
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as a member of the committee, may I thank the noble Baroness for thanking us? However, really all the congratulations are due to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has so ably chaired that committee for the past four years in a very decisive, clear and helpful manner; and he has turned his attention to the very wide range of different environmental subjects that have been brought before us. I have been constantly astounded by the depths of his learning and the speed with which he manages to research each subject that comes before us. He has served the committee extremely well during his period of chairmanship and there will be many of us who will be sorry to see him "rotated". That happens to the best of us from time to time. I also congratulate him on the extremely capable way in which he ranged over the full scope of the committee's report.
I shall not attempt to do the same myself. I simply want to bring some emphasis to two points. One of them has been repeated by most speakers so far: that is, environmental research. The second is the small but important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has already drawn to your Lordships' attention. It appears in paragraph 103 of the report.
First of all, I want to talk a little about the scientific base of community legislation. During the hearings of the Select Committee, it was somwhat startling to hear Mr. Waldegrave say—as recorded in paragraph 58 of the report—that the scientific basis for proposed directives is not presented to council and that council Ministers do not insist on scientific evidence being made available to them.
It is in the environmental field that this evidence is of paramount importance. Pretty well every environmental directive that is framed by the Commission is based on science and scientific research. Scientific evidence is taken of the damage that pollutants do to the environment, the

785
concentrations at whch those pollutants are damaging and the concentrations at which they are adjudged to be safe. That scientific information forms the very basis of the standards laid down in the directive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, emphasised and as the report declares in paragraph 91, it seems absolutely essential that this information should be available to decision-makers. If I can urge anything on my noble friend who is sitting on the Front Bench it is that he will always insist on having a scientific adviser at his side or accessible when he is in the smoky hinterland of decision-making at the ministerial meetings.
However, I recognise that there are other considerations, as Mr. Waldegrave himself accepted (Question 380). First, no scientist would claim that science itself is free from dispute. On the basis of the most rigorous evidence, scientists can and do disagree. It then falls to my noble friend to make a political judgment. There is also a second set of circumstances, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has laid emphasis in his speech, which I found extremely interesting and thoughtful; namely, that at the socio-economic level there must be other factors that weigh more heavily in the opinion of policy-makers than the straightforward scientific indications themselves.
I think that all environmentalists must accept that there are times when those factors will appear to be of overriding weight and will influence decisions to the detriment perhaps of the environment. However, I believe that in such circumstances democratic government absolutely requires that the conflict between science and politics must be exposed and made explicit. So once again I urge on my noble friend that when a decision appears to be in conflict with scientific evidence, perhaps on grounds which I can broadly call socio-economic, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, it must be openly stated from the very beginning, and pseudo-science must not be used to justify the decision.
I should like to emphasise and draw attention to paragraph 89 of the report which states that the budget for environmental research is too small. The Commission of the European Communities itself wishes to enlarge the budget for scientific research. At the time of the Select Committee's visit to Brussels, what is now called the "framework programme" was in an early stage of consideration—I refer your Lordships to Question 285 in the evidence of Dr. Bourdeau, which is appended to the report. Since that time the discussion has reached the Council, and Her Majesty's Government find themselves in a somewhat isolated position in insisting on a standstill budget rather than an expansion for which the Commission hoped.
I do not claim to speak for all British scientific opinion but it is undoubtedly true that scientific opinion in this country strongly supports the Select Committee is urging the importance of and the essential need for expanded support for research in the environmental field. However, as your Lordships can see by reading somewhat between the lines of the evidence of the Natural Environment Research
786
Council in this report, there is a body of scientists somewhat averse to having extra resources directed exclusively to Brussels for onward redistribution.
One point that was mentioned by the chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council is that inevitably—and one must recognise excusably—there is a certain amount of what one might call financial friction because some of the money is necessarily absorbed in overheads.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the suggestion that there should be a register of scientists, but there are also other ways in which the role of the Commission can be enhanced in improving direct liaison between scientists, national research centres and scientific institutions of member states. I see the role of liaison along those lines as being important in two ways in particular: first, in order to avoid the duplication of research effort in national centres; and secondly to encourage joint programmes of the nature that the Commission seeks, but programmes which are funded by national sources when national interests are clearly identified and seen to he involved in a joint exercise.
Were I to be asked for examples, I should cite the current European Geotraverse, which is organising seismic research from Norway through to Iberia and possibly as far as Yugoslavia, and which is being co-ordinated by the European Science Foundation. I feel that there is perhaps a role for the European Science Foundation or some other body of senior politicaly-uncommitted scientists as a referral and cordination body in overseeing the Commission's environmental research or at least being used as referees for it.
I turn to my second topic which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is clear from the evidence of the senior civil servants—for instance, Mr. Rowcliffe in Question 3 and the Minister himself in Question 371—that there was considerable effort within the Government machinery to assemble a multidepartmental response to the action programme. Inevitably that must have forged links. People who did not normally speak or write to each other must have done so. I believe that when such linkages are established they represent a real and important resource in any administrative machine and should be preserved.
In itself that is one argument for presenting in the form of a published response the Government's own forward programme for the next five years to match the Community's action programme. I believe that the action programme itself deserves a national mirror. It would set priorities for expenditure and establish targets against which progress could be measured. As an example I draw my noble friend's attention to what in the Netherlands is called the "Indicative Multi-Annual Programme", which in effect is a rolling five-year forward plan for environmental action. In that plan the Government's aims for pollution control in all media—air, land and water—are integrated and exposed for national scrutiny. I believe that that is a good model which could be followed to advantage by our own Government.
Evidence from practice in the Netherlands suggests that it has an important additional value other than

787
that which I have already mentioned. It has value to industry in focusing interest on the issues, raising the level of discussion inside big companies and attracting the attention of senior management and those who have to plan the forward budget. Such a rolling five-year forward plan would also be valuable to research councils and other scientific institutions, including universities, which in many cases are also working to corporate plans with a three-year to five-year forward look and whose own planning systems would be strengthened by clear evidence of the Government's intentions.
I believe that that would improve the outsider's perception of the Government's environmental concern, indicate to industry where investment on pollution control should be concentrated, and prepare the scientific research community to put forward its strength at the right time and for the right causes.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee on the excellent report that they have produced, which deals sensibly and sensitively with a wide range of environmental issues. I should like to deal briefly with some of the agricultural issues that arise from the report of the Select Committee and also the Fourth Action Programme.
When I looked at the Fourth Action Programme—and here I enter a small note of dissent from other speakers—I began to feel that the problem of introducing a Community-wide agricultural environmental policy may be even harder, if that were possible, than the problem we face in having a Community-wide agricultural support policy. I notice that the Select Committee noted that there was "surprisingly little reference to agriculture" in the action programme. I wonder, perhaps suspiciously, if those who had to draft the action programme recognised the difficulty that I have just described.
Regarding specific agricultural issues, first, there is a great danger if we mix up the problems of the environment; of social structure and of price policy. Such problems relate to each other and obviously have a knock-on effect. I believe there is a great danger in piece meal solutions which isolate different areas of the problem, and also in attempting, for example, to solve a structure problem through the price policy. This also applies to environmental problems.
I believe there is an overlap between environmental and rural structure problems. There are particular dangers in this for the UK because we have larger farms with a better structure in agriculture than the rest of Europe. We must remember throughout the effect on rural employment. There are references in the Report of the Select Committee to the larger farms. But it is the larger farms which provide the jobs in British agriculture. Somehow the idea of making large farms smaller may sound great in theory, but is almost impossible to put into practice. To pick up a phrase used by my noble friend, Lord Murray, farmers may say "We are all environmentalists now". I am afraid that is not really
788
true. The majority of farmers I know are much too busy earning a living at the moment to worry too much about conservation issues. But it is a fact that it is the larger and more prosperous farms which, in the main, have planted trees and protected flora and fauna and led the efforts in the countryside on environmental issues.
Referring to the problem of pollution mentioned in the reports, we must remember that some farms are victims of pollution. Those who farm on the urban fringe find that their crops and animals suffer from industrial pollution. In some cases, people are also a problem. On one of the farms with which I am connected we farm up to the garden fences of a large urban area. The problems in the part of the farm which is nearest to the houses mean that we are not able to put livestock on the land, and the household items that pass through our equipment are interesting and curious. Obviously, in the report there are mentions of nitrates, pesticides and the handling of organic waste. There is a problem, and it is largely one of definition.
Concerning the problem of nitrates, for example, there is reference to the fact that the polluter should pay, and also to be fair, the report mentions the difficulty of deciding who is the polluter. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a school of scientific opinion which holds that some at least of the nitrates which are now in our water result from the ploughing up of grassland in the War to grow arable crops. It has taken a long period for this to leak out into the acquifers. If that is the case which polluter will pay? I suspect the answer may well be that we will have to install plants for denitrification, to deal with the problem—perhaps that is the only answer. In that case who will pay for such plants? As a side issue, when the Government produces its prospectus for the privatisation of the water industry I shall be interested to see how they propose to deal with this particular problem.
As far as pesticides are concerned we have to be realistic and practical. At the moment farmers are being squeezed unmercifully on prices. If we are asked to restrict the use of pesticides and thereby reduce our yields, then there must be some form of compensation. I shall refer to that matter later.
There is a mention in the report of the ideas for set-aside and afforestation. The Set-aside idea, in my view, is a palliative. It may be only a temporary answer to a long-run problem. I should like to discuss less intensive farming—it is a phrase used in the report. What does it mean? We have had something like 40 years of production-oriented farming in this country. We are used to thinking in terms of producing more and more which is the policy we have been encouraged to follow. But there is a problem of definition for example, I was involved in the organisation of a conference and we wanted to make the title "Low Input Farming". We asked ADAS to help us and to speak. They refused to do so unless we altered the title to "Lower Input Farming", and not "Low Input Farming". It is a connoisseur's distinction, but it was important to ADAS at the time.
In my experience it is not necessarily true that less intensive farming is more 'inefficient'—a phrase used in the report—even in terms of return on capital. I

789
will make a forecast that it will be the low cost farmers who will survive the current recession in agriculture. Successful farmers have an unsophisticated business plan: they intend to be the last one to go broke.
Less intensive farming will be good for the environment; it will mean reduced production and will help to deal with the problem of surplus. However, it is much harder technically. It requires a very high level of technical competence not to reach for the sprayer or the syringe when there is a problem on the farm. Very little work has been done on the techniques and the economics of less intensive farming. A firm direction of research and development is needed to show farmers how to farm less intensively and still remain profitable.
As I said, we have had 40 years' of production-oriented farming. This has fed through into farmers' attitudes. To take a small example, there is the pejorative and slightly contemptuous description used by farmers of organic farming as "muck, mystery and magic".
I am attracted to less intensive and low input farming. I think we should do a lot more work in research in this area, but the problem is actually how to farm less intensively. There is a good idea which the NFU mentioned in their evidence to the Committee of a contract conservation. A farmer would contract to product environmental benefits. For example, on the farms with which I am connected we have had ADAS prepare a land management plan. They have done a superb job of identifying the footpaths, the areas for tree planting, the hedgerows, the flora and fauna and many other aspects of conservation. It would have been comparatively easy to link into that land management plan a conservation plan which showed how to reduce production on our farm. We would not mind doing this so long as we are paid a premium to make up for lost production if we are doing it for the benefit of the community as a whole.
There must be specific research and development directed to low input systems. In my view, most farmers would welcome such systems. Successful farmers have a rooted objection to spending money and they would be very attracted to low input systems and methods.
It is a matter of general agreement in the European Community and on all sides of politics that the environment belongs to us all. I am delighted to note there is now general acceptance of a good socialist argument. Everyone now believes in interventionist policies to protect the environment. As an aside, it will be one of the nicer political ironies in coming years to see free marketeers in this and in the other place queueing up to support substantial interference in the operation of the free market and perhaps agreeing with plans to pay farmers to produce less.
There is a simple point; if the environment belongs to us all then we all have to pay for its protection. We have been encouraged for a number of years to expand production; and we have created a substantial capital base to enable us to do that. The whole community has to share in the cost of adapting to the new pressures. The whole cost must not fall on
790
the farmer but I am afraid that I have a nasty suspicion that it well might. To sum up the argument on compensation, I shall quote from a publication by Green Europe entitled Environment and the CAP:
"The Commission's new guidelines acknowledge that the role played by agriculture in protecting and improving the quality of the environment can and must continue. If this objective is to be achieved, attitudes must develop in two ways. In the first place, farmers must realize that certain constraints on the development of their activities are indispensable not only because of market forces but also because the natural environment in which they work is a vital asset which must be safeguarded for future generations. Secondly, the consumer and the taxpayer must realize that special services are rendered by farmers in the safeguard of the environment and that these services, where they entail constraints encroaching on incomes, must be properly remunerated".
There is another fundamental problem which must be faced by the farmer and the conservationist. It is the problem that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. One might he called in as an adviser to a farm or an estate where the fields are small, the crops are full of weeds, the hedgerows are overgrown, and the land is crawling with rabbits and other vermin, and where the trees which are growing are all in the middle of the fields. In that situation, what would we do? We would make the fields larger. We would straighten out the hedgerows. We would take out trees but for every one tree taken out we would plant two. The two would be planted in the corners of fields or in the hedgerows. We would have to destroy the vermin but, at the end of that period, I would regard the farm as more beautiful and more pleasing to the eye.
I have discussed this matter with some conservationists who take completely the opposite view. They argue that the weed-filled crops contain a variety of species and that the overgrown hedgerows, provide the habitat for a number of species of animals and insects. There is a fundamental divide here which we would do well to face and not to ignore.
I conclude with a true story. Recently, we visited a deprived rural area on holiday. I looked out over the water from a jetty on a lovely evening. On the jetty there was a group of lads who did not have much to do. It was, as I have said, a deprived rural area. I waxed rather lyrical about the beauty of the place and how they were fortunate to live there. There was some puzzlement until one lad said "That's fine, Mister, but you can't eat a view." We might well keep that profound observation in mind when considering these important issues of the environment and conservation.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and his committee for their excellent report, I wish to emphaise the importannce of the European Community as regards legislation which affects all countries of the Community. Surely, in regard to the environment the law should be harmonious and equal throughout all the nations of the European Community. This is the European Year of the Environment. And this very month—on 1st July—the Single European Act has come into force. Article 130 R in the Select Committee's report states the action that the Community should take on the environment. It states:
"In preparing its action relating to the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data; environmental conditions in the various regions of the

791
Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action; the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions".
What a programme for the European Community to develop! The Select Committee has reported on the Community's present legislative machinery and on the weaknesses and drawbacks that need to be remedied. The great value of the report is, I hope, that it will draw to the attention of those Eurocrats in Brussels—that is the right word—those weaknesses and those drawbacks which at present exist so that they may remedy them.
Very few people know the system of legislation which exists in the Community and which applies to the whole of Europe. Fortunately, it is summarised on pages 10 and 11 of the report. However I refer back to Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome which shows that nearly all the legislation is enforced by means of directives which are issued in Brussels. The treaty states:
"A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods".
A directive is prepared and made binding in its result by a department of European civil servants in Brussels. It does not go before any Parliament or any democratic society. Those civil servants have to collect information from all the countries they can on science and research and also on the economic effects of the directive on countries of the Community. Is that done properly?
Already 100 directives have been issued. They are supposed to be implemented within a couple of years. Let us see what the report says in regard to the Seveso programme and all the remedies that should be contained in it. The report states:
"The date set for compliance with the Directive was January 1984, yet only four of the twelve Member States are in full formal compliance with the Directive: Germany, France, Denmark and the United Kingdom".
None of the others has implemented it at all. It is only when we implement it that it becomes binding on the people. That is the next stage. The directives are passed in Brussels but we have to pass them here by regulations or statutes. We have to pass the legislation and implement it, and only four countries have done so at the moment. What about the others? The first stage is important. Not only should the directive be properly prepared after it has been fully investigated by scientists and others but then each member state must pass its own legislation so that the directive is uniform throughout all of them. Every state must do its job.
It is one thing to pass legislation and make our regulations about bathing beaches or pollution to comply with the directive and make them binding on the people. But the next stage, having passed the laws is to enforce them. The European Commission has no possibility of enforcing legislation. The enforcement depends on each member state. The legislation is passed and then we have to have inspectorates, police or constables to implement that legislation and see that people obey the law. How many countries do that? As is pointed out in the report, it is the job of the national governments to take their obligations seriously. Are the laws enforced in all these countries?
792
Those are the drawbacks to which the committee drew attention. Not only must each member state implement the directives but each member state must enforce them on the peoples of its country. That is the whole objective. If countries do not implement the directives or if, when they are in place, countries do not enforce them, the whole structure falls down. There is nothing worse than having a law which is not obeyed.
I have spoken at this length because this is an important matter for the whole Community. I hope that we in England play our part. When there is a directive, I hope that we will implement it by legislation or regulation. When we have the legislation or regulation, I hope that we will enforce it. However, it is also important that other countries do the same. Otherwise we can be free of pollution in England but when we go to other countries we will find pollution because the laws are not enforced.
I have said as much as I have in order to thank the committee for drawing our attention to these important matters. I hope and believe that the measures going forward from this House will enable the people in Brussels and in the Community to see what ought to be done in the future to remedy the drawbacks to implement the directives properly.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the committee for what is a most interesting report. I was particularly interested in the third theme discussed on page 9 of the report concerning the relationship between agriculture and the environment. I speak tonight as a farmer.
I think that there is sometimes too much antagonism between conservationists and farmers. It is true that sometimes their interests clash. More often I think that they can be brought together by discussion and by planning. Whereas in past years the target for agriculture was to produce as much as possible regardless of anything else, today the reverse is true. Some products are largely overproduced; some are not. I was particularly interested in the description by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of farming on lower production rather than higher production.
In paragraph 61 of the report the situation is put clearly:
"The most urgent problem facing agriculture in the Community is excessive production, which results in stockpiling of food and unnecessary expense to the taxpayers of the Community".
That has been hammered home over and over again. The report describes how the 12 nations of the EC are affected by agriculture. In 1985, 10·4 million people were employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. Agricultural employment in the Community accounted for 8 per cent. of civilian employment. The extremes of employment are given in the report. In the United Kingdom, 2 per cent. of the population are engaged in agriculture, whereas in Greece the figure is 29 per cent., in Italy it is 11 per cent., in France it is 7 per cent. and in Germany it is 5 per cent. That variation underlines the difficulties the Community has in coming to any satisfactory conclusions in the matter.

793
However, the report makes various suggestions which I think could be followed up. It suggests changing production to find out what the public want to buy. That is one of the first priorities. How much this is being done in Europe is hard to say. In the United Kingdom, many farmers are experimenting and changing their production. I know dairy farmers who are turning milk into yoghurt and hill farmers who are raising deer for venison; and we all know the success in many places of pick-your-own fruit and vegetables. Forestry is being explored by farmers. In some sheep areas, goats are being raised for mohair and sheep are being raised for merino wool.
All of those things, whether they succeed or not, are efforts at alternative production. The difficulty is how to make money on which to live and preserve the countryside at the same time. Foresty is much talked about at the moment. We import 80 per cent. of our timber. However, one cannot live off trees. There is no return on trees for 20 years or more. Every farmer who gives up selling agricultural produce every year would have to have considerable grants until the timber he is growing becomes saleable. That could take a long time if hardwood and broadleaved trees were planted.
The United Kingdom has inaugurated the environmentally sensitive areas programme. Those are grant-aided and supervised to cover the cost. That policy has been a great success and I think that it will protect both the farmer and the environment. The plan for woodland development can help in cutting down overproduction in agricultural produce in certain ways.
The report has an interesting account of scientific research in agricultural production which could have an effect on environmental policy, economic activity and employment. But this is a very big proposal and I think that the committee was wise to postpone the study until some immediate actions are taken.
Coming back to my original remarks, we need more efforts to find out what the consumer wants to buy and to try to produce it, better marketing of produce, encouragement of farmers to try new production and closer co-operation between the environmentalists and the agricultural community. I think those interests can very often work together. This report is full of excellent suggestions. They affect all the countries of the EC and I hope that the report will have a very wide circulation in Europe as well as in this country.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, the right honourable William Waldegrave, when he was Minister of the Environment, was indefatigable in his addressing of various meetings and lectures. He made his point the necessity for a logical approach if we are to make progress towards the type of improved environment which we all desire. He described that approach as holistic. I think he realised that any sudden change in a particular sphere might well have serious secondary repercussions in another sector and that it would be necessary to make progress slowly.
When the agricultural industry catches a cold, a large number of subsidiary industries get terminal pneumonia. My own experience of over four decades spans the time of tiny fields, manually cultivated by
794
men, women, children and horses, up to the present day where a man and his son operate a thousand acres, barren of hedgerows, using massive machines and huge imputs of fertilisers with regular dressings of chemicals and pesticides to match. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I cannot agree with him that we have created a situation of better or more employment, although I do not think we should go back to the original time to which I have referred.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I did not say that we have created more jobs. However, if we start with the situation as it is now, it is the larger farms which employ fewer workers.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, it would be true to say that where our best soils are concerned—and I agree with the report of the Commission—we have reached the point of saturation. There are very definite fears that we can go no further and we must now think about reversing the situation.
For 40 years the gospel according to the Ministry of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, landlords and the agricultural colleges has been one of more, more and more. Taxation demanded it, higher rents compelled it and the great god economics decreed it. The momentum has been built up steadily and remorselessly and what we are now saying is, "Forget it all and back to the drawing board".
Farming is a long-term process, and if the momentum has to he stopped and reversed the holistic approach, as the Minister stated, is the realistic approach and not jumps of 20 per cent. which will have undesirable repercussions. Realistically, I believe that the programme should be over a much longer period with the accent being on the rehabilitation of the rural areas with proper rotation and conservation as the top priorities. If this step-by-step approach is taken on board, it is the only way that the aspirations of those who wish to see a greener and possibly happier environment may be fulfilled. It has to be tackled.
Finally, I associate myself totally with the words of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his great contribution to this report.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I also begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the way in which he has presented this report. As always, he leaves very little for other Members of the Committee to say. I therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence if I repeat some of the remarks that he made.
In company with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe our greatest concern must be about the implementation of directives. I take as my text the very first sentence of the very first paragraph in the opinions of the Committee and I remind your Lordships that it states:
"Implementation of environmental law already made should be given high priority; for law which is not implemented undermines confidence in the Community and the law which it creates."
I think that that says it all and much of what we have been discussing tonight supports it.

795
I want to take up and develop that theme just a little. What have we all been saying tonight? We have actually said in different ways that the long-term success and acceptance of Community law will depend on the practicality of the laws which are created and their relevance to their subject. This in turn depends upon the credibility of the organisation—that is, organisation with a small "o"—behind the creation of the legislation, about which we have heard a great deal, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Nugent, made clear as did very eloquently the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. It also depends upon the validity of the research upon which it is based and the public perception of the aims and relevance of the whole exercise.
In paragraphs 82 to 93 the report draws attention to existing deficiencies and confusions in the organisation within the Community and attaches great importance to the need for proper research. Paragraph 94 highlights the crucial role of monitoring the effects of directives. This Front Bench agrees with all these opinions of the Committee.
As the report indicates, some member states are not complying with Community law to the detriment of us all; but I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that each member state must oversee its own implementation. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made that point, too. However, to a certain extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that there has, at some stage and in some way, to be an oversight between nations on how the laws are being implemented. I cannot make a suggestion as to how that can be done, but I do not go along with the full-time inspectorate which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, prescribed. That would lead to an unnecessary degree of bureaucracy.
On 27th January the committee discussed with the Institute for European Environmental Policy the desirability of member states acting with awareness of each other's methods and progress. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was eloquent on this point and emphasised the need to avoid duplication between research efforts and other areas of activity. I fear that that desirable situation is a long way ahead. In the meantime, we in this House can do little about those erring members other than to press our representatives to take action when possible and where appropriate. What we can and should do is ensure that our own country meets its obligations under Community law and shows a responsible approach to the discussion of problems at the pre-legislative stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Murray that implementation is best left to member states, as I said earlier, and that anything else is unlikely to be effective, but to begin with we should play a large part in the creation of that legislation.
There is not time this evening to cover the whole range of environmental problems where action is required, but I shall point to some areas where a more positive approach by our Government could have been expected. I make these cricitisms and in the spirit of this debate I preface them by saying that if the Government feel that they are unjustified,
796
perhaps they should look at the lack of real information which is available to us when we ask questions on the Government's actions and overall intentions. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made a plea that the Government should state their intentions ahead and I fully support that. His plea was more eloquent than mine but the end result would be the same. We need more information and we need to be taken more into the confidence of the Government about what it means.
Starting with air pollution, Britain has been persistently unco-operative in the fight to reduce SO2 emissions from power stations, despite mounting evidence of the damage caused. Britain has delayed and reduced action to clean up vehicle emissions to the point where not only must we endure a continuing threat to human health and to the environment, but also an effect on the development of our pollution control industry. We are falling behind the rest of the developed world and we shall pay a price economically as well as environmentally if this is not corrected. It may already be too late.
My noble friend Lord Murray feared that environmental protection may cost jobs, but there are many jobs that can be created in environmental protection. The one I have already mentioned in the motor industry can create many jobs and, in fact, work is already going ahead on catalytic converters and on other measures which are in some degree awaiting the Government's actions. I give another smaller example—water treatment works create jobs; and so does the manufacture and installation of carbon filters and the manufacture of equipment for chemical analysis. Those are small examples which point to the way in which the whole business of environmental protection and pollution control creates real jobs which are ongoing.
Britain has been less than co-operative on the control of chlorofluorocarbons—CFC for short. Questions in this House have failed to produce clear answers. The predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was known to be concerned about this problem. It is a world problem with global effects. In parts of the United States and Scandinavia the use of CFCs has been banned. My latest information is that the United Kingdom has begun to press for a 20 per cent. reduction in Europe. but if, as we hear, West Germany carries out its plan to ban CFCs, this percentage reduction would be achieved within the Community without any concessions from Britain. I hope to be convinced by the Minister when he replies that we would not be party to such a cynical exercise. Can the Minister tell us in plain language where Britain stands on this issue? We know that at the end of April there was a conference in Europe on the matter. I have completely failed to find out what happened at that conference.
I turn now to water pollution. Increasing pollution of our water supply is a mounting anxiety. I should in this context discuss pesticides and nitrates but my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, fully covered the agricultural side of the discussion. Perhaps I can say how right the committee was to regret that there was not an integrated approach to agriculture and the environment in the programme that we are

797
discussing. I firmly believe that the potential for co-operation between agriculture and the environment is as great as the potential for conflict. I hope that given the right approach we shall explore the potential for co-operation rather than conflict.
I wish to highlight the problem of pollution from aldrin, dieldrin and endrin—drins for short—as they are currently the subject of a proposed directive. Those highly toxic substances appear in our waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said, as a result of a number of industrial activities; for example, wood preservatives and the treatment of imported wool fleeces. There are permitted limits which are considered safe to be found in our water although they are sometimes exceeded by accidental discharges. The long-term danger is that the drins are, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in a memo last September to the Select Committee, "Toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative". By the time they have penetrated the food chain by a few stages, they are dangerous to fish, to birds and eventually to man.
I understand that the present method of monitoring drins is to measure their presence in water, with no account being taken of deposits in sediment or the bioaccumulative effect. In response to the comments of Sub-Committee F, which I understand will soon be published, the Minister's predecessor at the Department of the Environment said:
"In implementing the directive, this Department will take careful note of your comments regarding the remaining uses of drins and will be considering what further action might be taken towards eliminating pollution by these substances, with particular regard to inputs from diffuse sources".
Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in his department on those promised considerations? Time grows short, and I have not even touched on the enormous problem of waste disposal or the bathing-beaches directive. Those and other topics must be left for another day.
In conclusion, I want to take your Lordships back to the policy paper on the fourth environmental action programme which is the basis of our report. Paragraph 2 of the introduction states:
"The natural environment is still deteriorating in the Community, as in other parts of the world. Intensive crop farming is sapping the soil. Some water courses are still little cleaner than sewers. Air pollution is wreaking enormous damage. Ever increasing amounts of non-recyclable waste are being generated. Industrial hazards too are mounting. Many inner-city areas need extensive redevelopment. In short, natural resources—the lifeblood yet at the same time the limit for all economic and social development—are not being properly used. Public concern is rising unabated".
The report recognises those concerns. I hope that in his reply the Minister will show that Her Majesty's Government intend to respond to them.
7.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is fitting that the first environment debate in this House in the new Parliament should be on the subject of the European Community's fourth environment action programme, the key policy document guiding the Community's environmental protection activities for the next five years. The concluding remarks of the noble Baroness show what important subjects of
798
concern are raised in this whole general context. A glance at the contents page indicates the scope of the activities covered by it and, to look on the bright side, shows how far we have come since 1972 when the Community first took an interest.
There are now over 100 environmental directives, ranging in subject from water pollution to the protection of wild birds, from the disposal of waste to the control of asbestos. We now have an environment chapter in the EC treaty, brought about by the entry into force on 1st July of the Single European Act, and so for the first time, protection of the environment is explicity recognised as a Community policy. This is an important development which the Government welcome.
Faced with the broad scope of the document and its 19 detailed recommendations the Select Committee might have been forgiven for skating superficially over the whole field. Instead, under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, your Lordships took the eminently sensible view that to do justice to the seriousness of the subject matter, it was desirable to have a selective approach. They therefore concentrated on three main themes—the implementation of EC legislation, the scientific basis for legislative proposals, and the relationship between agriculture and the environment. With infallible judgment, they lighted on the three areas of particular concern to the Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred critically to the insufficient contribution made by the United Kingdom to the Community's legislative process, and asked some questions which I can perhaps come to in a moment. I shall give a rather general answer. Your Lordships may wish to know the state of play in Brussels on the programme. The United Kingdom has played a constructive part.
The Environment Council had a preliminary discussion in November 1986, during the British presidency. At our instigation, the Council adopted a welcoming resolution commending the programme for further study. Discussions continued in the early part of this year and culminated in a draft resolution agreed in principle at the March Environment Council. This resolution, which will be published in due course, emphasises the importance of the effective implementation of environmental measures, and urges the integration of environmental considerations, into other areas of Community policy.
At the United Kingdom's request, there is an explicit reference to encouraging agricultural practices that are environmentally beneficial. I believe that the text reflects the concerns of the Select Committee. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is now appropriate for the United Kingdom to lift its parliamentary reserve. The European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee have both delivered their opinions on the programme, so the resolution can be formally adopted very soon.
The Government agree with the committee that implementation of Community legislation should be given high priority. There is clearly little point in constantly pressing on with new measures if the

799
existing legislation is not being implemented effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and others of your Lordships made the point that it is important to distinguish between formal implementation and practical implementation.
There seems to be a view prevalent elsewhere in the Community that provided a given directive has been transposed into domestic legislation, that satisfactorily completes a member state's obligation. I exaggerate, but not greatly. We should be concerned with improving the environment, not with counting up the number of directives that we have managed to negotiate in Brussels. As my noble friend Lord Nugent added, non-implementation can carry with it on some occasions unfair economic advantages to industry in a defaulting nation. There is a tendency, we feel, in the Commission to take a purist view of implementation. In certain cases they seem to be eager to take infraction proceedings for theoretical reasons with scant regard for the practical aspects of implementation. To give one example, there are a number of directives about the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste. The due date for implementation is long past and no member state has been able to implement the measures because there is no Community definition of "waste".
The Commission, to give it credit, recognises that an agreed definition must be found and has arranged expert meetings to discuss the problem. Nevertheless, it is simultaneously pursuing infraction proceedings against all member states. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in her speech stated that she could not envisage the Commission taking all member states to court. I think that the example I have just given—which is not altogether an isolated one shows that the noble Baroness was absolutely right. It is ludicrous to my mind to have a situation of the kind that I have just related, which to my mind undermines the credibility of the Community in monitoring and enforcing Community legislation. Incidentally, this approach seems also to be at odds with the Commision's evidence to the Select Committee that infraction proceedings are used as the ultimate recourse. I have to say that in our experience that is not the case.
The committee also made a number of detailed points on this theme. Your Lordships want a complete review of the progress of implementation of all existing directives and recommend that the Commission should identify the most important directives and concentrate on them as a first priority. This is a matter for the Commission to consider in the light of the resources that it has available. If it decides to follow this up, I give an assurance this evening that it will have the full support and co-operation of the United Kindgom Government although we hope that any such review could be carried out with the minimum load on member states. A welcome development is the planned meeting of the Commission and member states tomorrow to discuss the implementation of water direct ves. We think that this could be a useful approach.
My noble friend Lord Nugent went further and recommended that each member state ought to
800
review their implementation of directives and report on the results which the member state had achieved. I am due to attend the Environment Council in about a fortnight's time on behalf of the Government. I think I had better find out what effect my noble friend's recommendation has had on members of the council and report back to him when I return home.
The Committee also noted that reports from member states on implementation are often submitted late or not at all. Here I think that the United Kingdom takes this obligation seriously and we have a good record which is, in the Commission's own view, better than that of any other member state. We shall continue to keep up the good work. Without such reports is is virtually impossible for the Commission to carry out its monitoring functions effectively and to ensure that directives are being implemented throughout the Community. This will be particularly important with regard to the Seveso Directive, so rightly mentioned by many noble Lords in the debate this evening.
The Fourth Action Programme touches also on the possibility of a Community environmental inspectorate. I should like to say, although this has not figured very much this evening, that we share your Lordships' view that such an inspectorate is unnecessary and would lead to additional bureaucracy without additional benefits. The committee recommends closer co-operation between national inspectors. This already happens to some extent but we would welcome some further development. We can all learn from each other in tackling common environmental problems and establishing common monitoring standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, advocated not just that, but more communication between those who produce and implement the directives and those who work in industry. I should like to say that we are carefully examining recent Commission proposals for a scheme of demonstration projects in the field of environmental protection which should also have a positive effect on employment.
Perhaps I may move a little further back in the process of making Community laws to the second area of the committee. I welcome the stress laid by your Lordships on the need for Community enviromental legislation to have a good scientific basis. That is a matter mentioned in particular in the winding-up speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, at the beginning, and by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. This means wide consultation of experts and will help to protect the reputation of the Community as an environmental policy-making body. It will also avoid wasteful use of resources in meeting unjustifiably stringent environmental criteria.
I should like to respond to my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Cranbrook by saying that we eventually would wish the Commision to attach to legislative proposals the scientific case for action as well as an assessment of the costs and benefits of accepting or of not accepting its proposals. I believe that if this could be achieved it would go some way to meeting the concerns of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook about avoiding pseudo-science in decision taking.

801
Intimately connected with this is the need for the Commission Environment Directorate General, DG XI, to be closely connected with formulating and evaluating research so that its results are used to inform Community policy proposals. In fact we believe that DG XI ought to be the customer for the bulk of Community enviroment research. This does not necessarily imply any overall increase in staff resources but rather, I suggest, a transfer of resources from DG XII (research) to DG XI as recommended in the evidence to your Lordships' committee of Mr. Waldegrave, my predecessor.
Perhaps I may strike one discordant note. It is about the only one on your Lordship's extremely comprehensive report. I do not think the Government accept that environmental research is underfunded in the Community. The Community programme represents only a very small percentage of total spend in member states. The Community cannot hope to substitute for these national programmes but should complement them. The best way to do this is by co-ordination of national effort—concerted action, as it is called—only funding research where there are gaps in the knowledge needed to underpin Community policy. Better value for money is obtained by contracting-out research to teams in member states than by using the Community's own joint research centre. On specific points raised by your Lordships' committee perhaps I may say that the Community funds research on waste recycling—in the materials programme—and research on clean technology demonstration projects under the ACE (Action by the Community relating to the Environment) regulation which is administered by DG XI.
I should like to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that we should take account of a pool of scientific knowledge in member states before we allow DG XI to set up new machinery which duplicates what is already being done. That is a point on which we feel very strongly in Government. I was very glad that the noble Baroness made that point.
Improvements are in sight in the way that Community research is conducted. I welcome the evidence which I read from the witness from DG XII who pointed the way towards a sharper definition of research needs. Flexibility to reallocate funds to emerging new priorities has been urged on the Commission by the Department of the Environment. Multinational teams are now the norm in Community environment research and this should surely help reach scientific consensus on environmental issues.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned in this general context of this part of the report the framework programme. Perhaps I may say that the framework programme, of which environment is only a small, although very important part, limits the total expenditure and content of community R&D for five years ahead. This was discussed by the European Council on 29th-30th June. Intensive negotiations are now proceeding in Brussels aimed at securing agreement to a programme which will preserve important research, but also respect budgetary discipline.
802
Finally, there is the third area, the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Here I welcome the fact that this third theme was brought out so clearly by the committee. I agree with the two noble Baronesses, my noble friend Lady Elliot and Lady Nicol, when both said that there should not be antagonism between environmentalists and farmers. Indeed in recent years there has been a real attempt to achieve greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies.
Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 now gives statutory backing to the agriculture department's practice of seeking to integrate wider environmental, social and economic objectives with agricultural policy. The farming and rural enterprise package announced by the Government on 10th March comprises a number of new policy initiatives designed to assist the rural economy while conserving the countryside. The agricultural publication in that package sets out the Government's proposals for encouraging farmers to adjust their output to changing patterns of demand. The Government have also been active in pressing for greater integration of agricultural and environmental policies in Brussels. One well known example to your Lordships is that of environmentally sensitive areas, which was pushed through entirely by the United Kingdom. Applications from farmers in the first five English ESAs cover some 78 per cent. of the total area which is considered suitable for participation in the ESA scheme. By any reckoning that is an encouraging start and preparations for an extension of the scheme, as your Lordships will know, are now under way.
But this is only a beginning. Still more needs to be done. I agree with your Lordships' committee that perhaps too little attention has been given in the Fourth Action Programme to ways of integrating environmental and agricultural policies. The committee looked in particular at the socio-structures regulation, now formally agreed, and especially at its provisions for incentives to farmers to reduce production of surplus products. Member states have a fair degree of flexibility on how they may implement the extensification scheme of the socio-structures measure in their territories. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that a good deal of consideration will have to be given to the environmental effects of set-aside. I agree with the noble Baroness and the Government will be consulting widely. But we believe that measures to divert land from cereals production, and which complement a realistic price policy, ought to be able to make a positive contribution to reducing agricultural surpluses, while allowing us to protect the environment.
Meanwhile other things are being done and my noble friend Lady Elliot gave us some interesting examples of different enterprises on farms in the ceaseless search for non-surplus production.
The report of your Lordships' committee raises the question of how in practice the Commission should provide for the integration of policies relating to agriculture and the environment. Your Lordships stress the need for close collaboration between DGVI and DGXI. I agree it is essential in formulating policy proposals that the two directorates work closely

803
together. It is for the Commission to consider how this can most effectively be achieved and the necessary scientific advice obtained.
Your Lordships also referred in the report to the directive on environmental impact assessment. As many of your Lordships will know, the directive will require systematic assessments to be carried out for certain types of major project which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. That directive is due to come into force on 2nd July 1988. The Government are fully committed to its implementation, and our preparations are well advanced for projects such as planning controls. We published draft proposals for consultation last year and have had a helpful response. We shall be coming forward with the necessary draft legislation later this year. Other work is also in hand and I understand that our preparations are very much in line with those of other member states.
I was very interested to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the agricultural aspect of the report. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to the noble Lord's particular plea in his speech for more R&D into low input farming, although I think the noble Lord is probably well aware that a great deal of thought has been put into that in the Ministry of Agriculture, and work is also going on. Nonetheless, the noble Lord made an important point and I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.
The noble Lord also spoke about the problem of nitrates and the polluter pays principle. The Government accept that it is not always possible to apply the polluter pays- principal directly. In considering who should meet the bill for resolving the nitrate problem, we shall have in mind the contributions that can equitably be made by farmers on the one hand and consumers through the water industry on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, towards the end of her speech, mentioned CFCs and the problem of the ozone layer. We are continuing to work closely with our Community partners during negotiations on a CFC protocol to the Ozone Layer Convention. I believe that work will be completed in time for the diplomatic conference which is planned for the month of September. We expect to agree further international controls on the basis of a production freeze to be followed by specific reduction of CFCs with provision for systematic scientific and economic reviews. It is not true, as I know has been said in public from time to time, that the United Kingdom is at odds with our Community partners on this. In fact the truth on CFCs is that we are leading the way.
The noble Baroness said just a few words about air pollution. Perhaps I may equally briefly make the point that we are accepting the need for a continuing reduction on both sulphur dioxide and in nitrogen oxide. I think it is fair to say that we are among the leaders of European countries in taking positive action to try to reduce emissions. We have endorsed plans by the Central Electricity Generating Board to retrofit control technology—a matter which the noble Baroness mentioned in passing—at a cost of
804
some £1 billion. Three major power stations will be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment to remove SO2 emissions.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the very difficult matter of the drins—as they are called. That is, aldrin and dieldrin, etc. The directive on discharges to the aquatic environment of this very difficult group of pesticides (known collectively as the drins) which has been agreed by Community environment Ministers recently is based so far as is possible on sound scientific judgment. It has to be acknowledged however that it is extremely difficult to establish practical and soundly based environmental standards for
these substances.
However, because there are no authorised discharges of these substances in the United Kingdom, the standards incorporated in the directive do not in any case have any practical force here. What is particularly important is that any remaining use of these substances should be very tightly controlled in order to prevent any discharge to water by unauthorised, accidental or diffuse means. I like to think that this is very much in keeping with the conclusions of Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' House in considering the Commission's proposals on the drins. This is something at which the Department of the Environment will be looking further, despite the fact that the directive makes no provision for actions to control use.
Your Lordships made a suggestion (which the chairman of the committee mentioned at the end of his speech) that the United Kingdom might develop its own multi-annual rolling programme similar to the Fourth Action Programme. We shall certainly wish to consider that idea further. Our initial reaction is that it would have the advantage of enabling the Government to set out their objectives for the further improvement of the environment and the steps by which we aim to achieve them. Against that however a large part of the United Kingdom's activities in this area are already bound up with Community action and it might be difficult to divorce the two. But we shall certainly give the recommendation of the committee further thought.
Finally, perhaps I may express my thanks to the Select Committee for a most comprehensive report and for the stimulating ideas it contains. It has been a very great help to the Government in clarifying our own thinking on these important issues and I hope that others will find it equally useful. Our debate today certainly suggests that this is already the case.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, my task at this hour of the evening is to thank those who have participated in the debate and that I do wholeheartedly. Perhaps I may say to those noble Lords who were kind enough to refer to my period as chairman of Sub-Committee F, which was formerly Sub-Committee G, how grateful I was for their kind remarks about the time I had held the chair. It has been an interesting and sometimes exhausting time, not exhausting because of people but because of the subject which was sometimes difficult to grasp. It has been an interesting period of four years. Now the time has expired, I shall watch someone else taking over that burden. I have greatly

805
enjoyed it and I am most grateful to your Lordships for your kind remarks.
In thanking noble Lords who took part in the debate I would point out—I was personally very glad of this—that they included a fair representation of those on Sub-Committee F. They also included a member of Sub-Committee D, the sub-committee of the Select Committee concerned with agriculture; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who assisted us in this inquiry. Three members of Sub-Committee D assisted us and their names are mentioned in an annex to the report. Their attendance and help were greatly appreciated.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is a long-standing member of Sub-Committee F. He speaks with enormous authority on water and on almost anything relating to the environment. The point he was making, I believe, is that each state must report what it is up to and how far it has gone along in doing what it ought to have done. There is one addition to reports by member states on what they have done about adopting national legislation and the enforcement of that national legislation. I refer to the effect upon the environment of having done so. This is enormously important; but it is certainly not done and is extremely difficult to measure. It would be interesting generally to have some indication of whether the effects of our labours are beneficial. I hope so. We get very little monitoring of results.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised an interesting point about employment and industry. It linked closely with that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, relating to the balance between the scientific evidence, which may lead one in one direction, and the economic, social and perhaps political factors, which may lead one in another. I am sure that the answer, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, particularly mentioned, is that we must be clear about what we are doing and not fudge the issue and reach a conclusion without really knowing what we are doing and why. I am certain that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, must be brought into the equation—ostensibly and visibly so.
The Japanese motor industry to which the noble Lord referred is an example. I had in mind in referring to Japan—the director-general Mr. Brinkhorst had it in mind also—that because of the high environmental standards the Japanese have adopted, they have a considerable industry for the development of pollution-control equipment which they are presently licensing—the know-how and perhaps patents too—to European undertakings, including, to my knowledge, this country. So that factor might be brought into consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has so much experience in these matters, spoke of the part which voluntary organisations could play not only in being a goad to implementation, scaring government into doing something, but also, as she pointed out, in educating the public. That point was well taken. To a large extent, many of these matters could be resolved if the public were aware of the consequences, most of all and most obviously with regard to litter where education could have a substantial effect.
I was delighted to hear the response of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to the suggestion I put forward,
806
which was also supported by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, about the United Kingdom environmental programme. I am glad to know that the Minister will give that matter consideration. I was very interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, especially the point about work on less intensive farming which must be profitable. This was the heart of what we were saying in the report. We did not say so explicitly but our view was that "set aside" has not been thought through. That was a polite way of saying that we did not believe that this would work. We thought that afforestation had not been thought through in that we had received evidence that in certain circumstances afforestation could be environmentally disastrous, that is, from the point of view of the farmer. There is a high degree of common view on that matter, and I hope that we may progress in the requisite research on the less intensive farming aspects.
It is always a privilege to find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has participated in a debate. He was very much concerned about a matter which has concerned me over many years—that the making of directives is an indication of virility, if that is the right word; the more you make the better you are doing. What we are saying in this report is, "Just hold steady and let us see where we are going before we have too many more". I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, about the ESAs which, I believe, have been such an enormous success. That success is growing. I hope that that will prove to be a successful way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, a member of the committee, who has given great assistance over the years, made the interesting point that you should not change overnight vast programmes of agriculture throughout the Community. I think he would be inclined to say—I do not know whether he actually said it—that to reduce agricultural production in certain areas by 20 per cent. overnight would be quite disastrous, not just to the environment or to farming but also to the industries underlying both. I am sure that that is right. It is another reason why one feels that the whole programme of reduction of the CAP requires much more research and consideration on environmental and other grounds than has been given to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, assisted us in this inquiry. She was at one time a member of Sub-Committee G and we were sorry to lose her to Sub-Committee D. But she rejoined us in that capacity for this inquiry. It was interesting that she laid stress on the dieldrin situation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replied. That seems to me to be one of the areas where we really have to act. She also laid stress upon the necessity for the directives to be practical and relevant to our needs; otherwise, just as with directives which have no less an adequate scientific basis and fall into complete disrepute, you will not be able to get people to go along with them.
As I have said before to the Minister in other contexts when he was there in other capacities, it is gratifying to find such a positive and understanding response to the report that we have produced. On the point that he made (with full justification, of course, with regard to the process of enforcement through the courts) that this was not a satisfactory way of

807
proceeding and that there is a mass of litigation going on, I think that the tone has changed. At least that is the impression I got as a result of our going to Brussels and taking evidence there. We shall have to wait and see. Certainly the impression I got from being there was that they would regard litigation as the last resort and an indication of failure on their part. That, practically speaking, quotes the evidence we were given. That seems to me—and I speak as a lawyer—to be a positive approach.
The other point which struck me in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was the need for adequate science for a reason different from that given by any others in this debate; that is, that if you have inadequate science you have unjustifiably stringent standards with which you have to comply. That seems to me to be unsatisfactory. Again from the evidence we took we gained the impression—at least I did—that the attitude to the scientific research required at least in the environmental field in DGXII has changed for the better. It is a much more positive approach than hitherto.
I conclude by saying that I am most grateful for the substantial support from so many of your Lordships in this debate, and I am grateful to your Lordships for being here at this hour and giving that support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987
8.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships on 30th April this year be approved.
It is not any news to your Lordships that every year about this time for the past 13 years the Government have sought renewal for a further 12 months of the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I think your Lordships might legitimately ask for an explanation. The answer simply and sadly is that there remains an absence of political agreement in Northern Ireland on any way forward in politics.
Direct rule is a means of coping with this situation. In the absence of a devolved administration, the 1974 Act enables legislation to be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council rather than by measure of the Assembly; and further it provides that in the discharge of their functions the Northern Ireland departments shall be subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For as long as we are unable to make progress towards devolution, direct rule must continue if government in Northern Ireland is to function properly.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise that direct rule is not an ideal arrangement. It is a firm and fair framework, and it enjoys a good deal of acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. It has brought many advances to Northern Ireland, and in many ways we should be proud of it.
808
But whatever its advantages direct rule does not provide a system of government which is close to the people of Northern Ireland and with which they can easily identify. It has never been envisaged as a permanent arrangement. The intention of Parliament, embodied in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, was that greater responsibility for governing Northern Ireland should be returned to the people of Northern Ireland themselves. That remains the firm objective of this Government.
In commending the order before us this evening to your Lordships I ought to give an account of the stewardship of the Government of the affairs of Northern Ireland during the past year, and also of the steps we have taken and intend to take to promote peace and stability in the coming months. As your Lordships will know, direct rule remains most people's second choice as a form of government for Northern Ireland. The need for dialogue about the future remains urgent. I shall have a little more to say about this in a moment.
First, it is right that I should say one or two words about the security situation. For the Government, security remains the top priority in Northern Ireland. We aim to defeat terrorism through the impartial enforcement of the criminal law, while maintaining a high level of security force activity on the ground to deter and to prevent terrorist attacks, and to reassure the community. The unremitting work of the security forces to prevent more violence and to deny the terrorists money, weapons, explosives and recruits will continue.
I know that all your Lordships will join me in praising the courage, the impartiality and the steadfastness of the RUC. The professionalism and determination that marks the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a constant reassurance to all law-abiding people in the province. I also want to pay tribute, as I know the RUC would wish me to do, to the support provided to it by the armed forces, including the Ulster Defence Regiment. We all of us owe the security forces a debt of gratitude which we and the people of Northern Ireland can best discharge by giving them our full support and co-operation.
In recent years the security forces have made substantial progress in bringing those who commit violent crime before the courts to be dealt with according to the law. But the continuing seriousness of the terrorist threat must never be underestimated. The first half of this year saw the terrorist campaign enter a new and vicious phase. Significant extra resources have been deployed to assist the RUC to meet and counter the new terrorist ruthlessness. All of us admire the community for its commendable steadfastness and resilience in the face of this latest terrorist onslaught. The Government give the community this assurance: the terrorists will not succeed. We are committed to fight and defeat the evil of terrorism, but the eradication of terrorism is of necessity a long haul.
Perhaps I may say one or two words about the economy of Northern Ireland. The troubled image of the province deters people from investing in, and developing, new projects there. Such investment is much needed in a province where unemployment,

809
which was at a level of 18.4 per cent. in May this year, remains a grave problem. Unemployment represents a dreadful waste of talent and causes deep personal frustration. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate that burden.
There are some bright patches in the economic scene, but we should like to see more. The Government have introduced measures to deal with Northern Ireland's special economic problems. In the financial year 1987ߝ88, the year in which we are now, the level of public expenditure will be in the region of £4,800 million, which per capita is substantially higher than that projected for comparable programmes in the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular, Northern Ireland offers the most generous industrial development incentives available anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have in place a battery of special employment and training measures for adults and young people.
The results of the IDB for 1986ߝ87 show that, at a cost of £109 million of financial assistance, investment of £311 million was secured for Northern Ireland. As a result, companies entered into agreements to provide 4,187 new jobs and to renew and maintain 815 jobs in the province. At the same time, LEDU entered into contracts with existing local firms, which should lead to the creation of 4,244 jobs; it committed a total of £17·5 million and secured investment totalling £47 million. In addition, 773 jobs were promoted in new firms at a cost of £3·2 million. I think that those statistics go some way towards showing that there have been real achievements. However, we accept that there is no room for complacency, especially in view of the figure I mentioned earlier on. I think that every one of the unemployed people in Northern Ireland would concur with that statement.
We shall continue to encourage the development of a thriving and profitable private sector in which lasting jobs will be created, for Northern Ireland is overdependent upon the public sector. I cannot help but reflect on how much more successful our efforts to promote Northern Ireland and to achieve economic development would be if some widely acceptable and stable political settlement could be found.
As your Lordships are aware, the aim of the Government is to seek an agreed basis on which greater responsibility can be devolved to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. The test which Parliament has decided new devolved arrangements must meet is that of widespread acceptance throughout the community. That must be right. A system which did not command the support and confidence of both sides of the community would simply not survive, nor would it deserve to. In pursuing this objective, we know that formidable difficulties stand in the way of agreement. There is a need for all concerned to be realistic. We have to start from present circumstances, and with a consciousness of the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements for governing Northern Ireland.
These arrangements provide for direct rule of the province by British Ministers. Although that system
810
offers Northern Ireland efficient and impartial government, direct rule has obvious and widely recognised defects. Chief among these is the fact that it does not allow elected representatives with their roots in Northern Ireland to exert a major influence in the province's affairs. Direct rule involves too a legislative process which cannot easily give adequate time and consideration to Northern Ireland primary legislation. But direct rule was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it does not provide an adequate input from Northern Ireland to the processes of government which might enable local people to have a real say in their affairs.
We also have in place the Intergovernmental Conference operating under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government believe that this arrangement gives the minority the reassurance that their voice is heard in the administration of Northern Ireland. We acknowledge, however, that Unionists feel themselves excluded from that process and that they feel their interests are not necessarily given due weight.
The Government want to talk to the political leaders of both communities about the way ahead. The party leaders are, we believe, also seeking a way forward through dialogue, and we welcome that. It was in this spirit that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland welcomed in his speech in another place on 7th July 1987 the contribution to the debate made by last week's publication of an abridged version of the Unionist Task Force report. We hope that it can contribute to a movement towards dialogue in which, in due course, all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will be able to discuss their ideas, and the ideas of others, with the Government. We want to be able to talk to all the parties about the future form of government in the province. We therefore welcome the willingness of the Unionist leaders to enter into discussions which will need to be tentative and exploratory, without prejudice and without preconditions.
Meanwhile, direct rule provides a fair framework for the administration of Northern Ireland, despite its imperfections. We want the people of Northern Ireland to enjoy greater security and prosperity. We shall continue to do all we can to eradicate terrorism; we shall continue to promote reconciliation and partnership between both parts of the community; and we shall continue to encourage the growth of wealth-creating enterprise and industry. It is to serve those objectives that the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remain necessary, and I commend this order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Minister has reviewed the current situation in Northern Ireland and has made out the Government's case for the renewal of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for yet another year. Sadly we accept that the order must be passed, and we on these Benches give it our support.

811
Northern Ireland presents the most intractable and, we would say, probably the most important of all our domestic problems. In the Queen's Speech Northern Ireland merited at least one paragraph of seven lines, although, as I shall indicate, there were two omissions from that paragraph. It set out the Government's threefold commitment: to seek an agreed basis on which responsibility can be devolved to the people of the province; to work unremittingly for the defeat of terrorism; and to build creatively upon the relations established with the Republic of Ireland. We endorse those commitments.
The Minister's speech has been helpful. He has given the House a rough indication of how the Government propose to seek an agreed basis for devolution. As I interpret the Minister's speech, at this stage the Government are not committed to some new model which might be acceptable to the people of the province. Instead, it is one's impression that the Government will feel their way, seeking to encourage the constitutional parties to nourish the will to begin to construct the basis for an advance.
I believe that the Government can draw some encouragement from the debate on this order which took place in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. I believe that there is some evidence to be found in those speeches that the political parties may be coming to terms with the reality of the Government's strong mandate. I regret that they have that strong mandate, but nevertheless it is there and that is the harsh reality. I trust that this will lead to an awareness among some of the politicians that a boycott of Parliament and of the Northern Ireland Office cannot serve the cause of Ireland. That would be a good start at the beginning of a new Parliament.
The Government rightly expect support for their resolve to stand up to and defeat the forces of terrorism, violence and coercion. We on these Benches agree that the defeat of terrorism must be the Government's top priority. I pause to join with the Minister in paying tribute to the officers of the RUC and the men and women of the security forces who died or sustained injury, pain and suffering while doing their duty in very difficult circumstances.
However, it must be realised that the paramilitary forces remain dedicated to their task and are still able to summon up resources and the will to prosecute their campaign. Undoubtedly and sadly there will be more suffering and yet more suffering before the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is one day set aside. We are gratified—I believe that that is the right word—that the Government, notwithstanding the high level of violence, and casualties to which the Minister has referred, are satisfied, on the basis of the confidential evidence available to them, that progress has been made in the last 12 months in achieving improved co-operation between the police north and south of the Border. However, the Minister will appreciate that that is not how it looks to many people in the Province. The sooner the Government can point to visible evidence of improved and effective co-operation between the two Governments the better it will be.
We are fully in support of the Government's third commitment. The Government must continue to build upon the constructive relations established with
812
the Government of the Republic. Indeed, we believe that the improved relations with the Republic are one of the few important gains over the last few years.
It has not gone unnoticed that, unlike the Queen's Speech last November, there is no reference in the Queen's Speech to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which has been the main vehicle of co-operation in the last 20 months. The words of the Queen's Speech are of course very deliberately chosen. This tempted one at first to wonder what significance, if any, we were to attach to this omission. The Minister has gone a long way in his speech to assure me that there has been no radical departure from existing policy and that the omission of the reference can probably be accounted for by the Government's desire to create an environment in which political progress can be made in Northern Ireland. We gladly go along with such an explanation.
There was I thought another significant omission from the Queen's Speech. It contains no reference to the Government's intention to tackle, let alone solve, the problems of unemployment in the Province. I was particularly pleased therefore that the Minister brought unemployment and the economic difficulties into his speech. I do not propose to comment on the economic position in Northern Ireland because we shall have an opportunity next Thursday night to deal with it.
There are two matters to which I should like to refer. Although we give our consent to the order now before the House, we are not satisfied with the way in which primary legislation is enacted for Northern Ireland. Here again the Minster has anticipated our criticism. Since 1974 Northern Ireland, which had its own Parliament for 50 years, has had less influence on legislation than any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a very odd result. We suggest that it far outweighs the benefits that the 1974 Act may have brought to Northern Ireland. That very odd result to some extent is because Parliament has no effective influence over Orders in Council.
Last Monday evening the House dealt with three orders in just under one hour. It is true that their subject matter was not controversial, but next Tuesday night the House will have before it a highly controversial order, the Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, and that order cannot be amended in a single respect. We have voiced this criticism on many previous occasions, but apparently to no avail.
A year ago the Minister—no doubt on instructions—dealt with this criticism simply by asserting that it would place an enormous burden on Parliament if Northern Ireland legislation were to be enacted by Bill. Of course, it would be a burden, but it should not be an unwarranted burden. It was Parliament which imposed direct rule on the people of Northern Ireland. Having willed that end, it should now will the means to ensure that the legislation enacted for the Province is capable of being amended as necessary, at least by the elected representatives in another place.
There are many Orders in Council in the pipe-line. The Government must surely find a way of bringing public opinion effectively to bear on them. I believe that the Minister's speech this evening showed that the Government are alive to this criticism.

813
My final point is not entirely related to the last issue. It relates to the accountability of the intergovernmental conference. If the inter-governmental conference is to remain a part of the machinery of government in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future, do the Government intend to make it in some way answerable to the two parliaments? The conference is far more than a private discussion, as has been suggested, between two sovereign governments. It has been working for about 20 months and, on the Government's acknowledgement, it is bearing fruit in Northern Ireland. If it is to remain a part of the machinery of government of the Province for the foreseeable future—and we believe that it has a role to play, subject to the role to be played by the Assembly—the members of the two parliaments should be able to play their part within the machinery of the conference, thereby influencing its agenda, its discussions and possibly its decisions.
I have referred to some of the most important mischiefs and the difficulties that have to be resolved. They are of course old mischiefs apart from the non-accountability to Parliament of the inter-governmental conference. However, at the beginning of this new Parliament with the Government in a commanding position, there are hopeful signs, as I have suggested, that the mood among some of the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland is beginning to change. One cannot be too sure, but there may be prospects that the Government will soon begin to attract a coalition of interest broad enough to make talks, and thereafter negotiations, possible about an Assembly that will have proper checks and a balance of forces, and that at the same time will be an adequate instrument of government.
With those remarks, I support the order.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having introduced the order once again with his usual courtesy. It is of course inevitable that the order has to be accepted. I am afraid that the necessity for that is a reflection of the failure of those of us in Northern Ireland who have tried to take some part in the political process to find a more suitable way of governing the province. But I think that now there is probably more hope than there was this time last year because the report of the Unionist Task Force, An End to Drift, indicates at least a willingness to talk, which is a major advance and perhaps the most hopeful sign we have seen in the 20 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Incidentally, whereas one can read almost anything one wants to read out of election results, perhaps it is not unreasonable to say that one could read out of the last general election results the indication that the electorate of Northern Ireland felt that just to say no was not good enough and that something more constructive was needed to be, in their view, acceptable and favourable.
However, if I may digress for a moment, I do not think it was for that reason, that sadly at the last election we lost one of the greatest parliamentarians who has ever represented Northern Ireland—I would say certainly the greatest parliamentarian in my
814
lifetime. I refer of course to the previous right honourable Member for South Down, Enoch Powell. It is ironic that he actually sacrificed himself some years ago by pressing for an increased number of seats at Westminster for Northern Ireland. The result of that seemed to be that the newly-formed constituency of South Down had a built-in anti-Unionist majority. The surprising thing is not that he lost his seat a few weeks ago but that to his very great credit, he actually managed to retain it in 1983.
He may have been an adversary, but you could not but respect him. One might have disagreed with him but he had an irritating habit of being proved right on a discomfiting number of occasions. So I hope that the other place's loss will be this place's gain, and perhaps if the noble Lord on the Front Bench could have what is sometimes known as "a wee word" in the places that count, I am sure that the presence of that towering intellect, with his incisive eloquence and vast parliamentary experience, would be greatly to the advantage of your Lordships' House. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that.
To return to future prospects, one of the encouraging things that I read in this report, An End to Drift, was the statement that in the opinion of the authors,
"the expedient of compromise and barter can only succeed if it is a two way process".
That is absolutely right and I am delighted that they said that. A two-way process means that there has to be generosity on both sides, as in any negotiation. There is no place for a "no surrender" attitude and no place for a "not an inch" approach—or perhaps in these days of metrication one ought to say "not a 2.54 centimetre" approach. There is the need for generosity and a strong government can afford to be generous. I sincerely hope that they will be, and I also hope that the Unionist politicians will reciprocate equally generously in this respect.
No doubt in the course of such talks the various options will be discussed once again. One of them is continued direct rule, with its imperfections, to which reference has been made. It may turn out that this will be identified as being a solution which, though far from ideal, is the one least unacceptable to the most people. In passing, I mention that it would be rather more acceptable—and certainly much easier for those concerned—if our Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office (and particularly our Secretary of State) did not have to spend quite so much time at altitudes in excess of 25,000 feet—that is, if they did not have to spend so much time in the air to-ing and fro-ing. If they could spend more time in Northern Ireland, I think it would be helpful. However, I would hope we could do better than continue direct rule.
A second option which may be looked at again is that of total integration. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord, just to clear the air, what the attitude of Her Majesty's new Government is towards total integration; but on reflection, I should not like to press him for an answer because I should not like to prejudice any discussions or negotiations which may take place. My own attitude is that total integration would not help the minority in Northern Ireland further to identify with the state in which they live. It would not be helpful in that respect. So far as

815
concerns the campaign for equal citizenship—one of the main proponents of integration—I would merely observe that it is up to political parties to say whether or not they want to organise in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for the Government.
A third option which might be looked at again is the one that the late Mr. Airey Neave was enthusiastic about before his most tragic assassination: the upgrading of local government. That could be looked at once more, but here again I would say it has not a lot going for it because unfortunately, as we know, the previous abuses in Northern Ireland occurred largely at local government level. Furthermore, it must be said that the recent record of local government over the past 20 months has not been such as to inspire confidence in public representatives in that field.
The fourth option is devolution. I was tempted to ask the noble Lord whether he felt that devolution would have to be of a partnership nature. I think he inferred that it would, when he said it would have to be acceptable to all sections of the community. This is something which my party and I myself have been advocating throughout. It is one which would be difficult for the Unionists to address themselves to in view of what they have said in the past. I recognise the disadvantage of partnership in devolved government in so far as there is no opposition, which is an essential part of the democratic process; but it may be the best solution in this peculiar situation.
However, it must be asked whether the SDLP, who represent the minority community, really want it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, may possibly wish to comment on that—he knows more about it than I do—but they let us down, I am afraid, in the last Assembly by not taking their seats. We could have made something of the 1982 Assembly; but because of the absence of the SDLP it never really got off the ground.
The fifth option is some form of independence. People who talk about that are not just talking nonsense—it is not just dangerous nonsense; it is frighteningly dangerous nonsense. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will not give that any serious consideration whatsoever. It would not just be the minority community in Northern Ireland who would feel abandoned. I would myself, as would a lot of my friends; and a great many Unionists, if they addressed themselves to this, would feel the same. So I would sincerely hope that is not an option to which any serious consideration would be given.
We have to accept this order and I wish Her Majesty's Government good luck in whatever conversations, discussions—and ultimately, I hope, negotiations—that are entered into with political leaders.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, this is by far the most important order that we have to debate every year in Parliament, because without it all the other orders would not be debatable at all.
Unlike my noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench, on Monday I sat through the debate in the other House and did not leave that Chamber with any degree of optimism whatsoever. Indeed, I was
816
bitterly resentful at the intervention of the English newly elected Member for Brent, East, who made an incursion into the debate with one of the most damaging contributions to any hope for peace in Northern Ireland. The people of Ireland, North and South, can do very well without such incursions from people who know nothing about the situation there. Indeed, the speech that was made could very well have been made by the absentee Member for West Belfast because every sentence was laden with Republican sentiment and innuendo that was totally untrue.
I listened avidly to the speeches that were made by the Northern Ireland representatives. Having been born and reared in Northern Ireland and having been a member of a political party there for a number of years, I was able to detect some of the weasel words used in the Northern Ireland political vocabulary. In the other place it is easy to say that one is quite willing to enter into discussions with one's political opponents without preconditions when one knows very well that the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the biggest precondition that it is possible to place in the way of discussion. Like my noble friend on this side of the House I am quite happy to hear that the Unionists have called off their boycott of Government Ministers and institutions in Northern Ireland but I am only too well aware that they were not the originators of political boycotts in that country.
In the 1970s when I was leader of the SDLP, it continuously boycotted local authorities, called on people to withdraw from public life and totally took itself out of the political process. Looking back on the activities of the SDLP, if the Unionists thought that there was something to be gained from embarking on the same tactics I suppose they would have been quite justified in using them. However, it has been proved that the boycott tactic is no longer available.
All the Unionist politicians love to be called "major" or "captain" throughout their political life. Perhaps that is why they were able to pick out a task force to draw up a political judgment—the report of the task force. However, it appears that there are some sections—and only some sections—of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland who are prepared to acknowledge that the boycott tactic has failed and that they should enter into discussions with the representatives of the minority; in other words, the SDLP. The noble Lord. Lord Dunleath, has already alluded to this matter. But is it a fact that the SDLP now wants discussions to take place which would lead to devolved government? As a former leader of that party I have serious doubts that the SDLP now wants to bring into operation a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
During the recent election I listened to a broadcast on the BBC and to a talk-back programme on Radio 4 in which two prominent spokesmen for the SDLP took part: Seamus Mallon, now a Member of Parliament, and Brian Feeney, a councillor in Belfast. Questioned by the BBC interviewer as to whether they would like to see some form of political structure recreated at Stormont, both of them said no. They said that to recreate a talking shop at Stormont would not achieve anything. They would only get the

817
same amount of financial subsistence from Westminster and it would come down to a question of apportioning its distribution. I listened to what they said with a great deal of disappointment. Both spokesmen said that they were not interested in the return of government to Northern Ireland.
What was even more damaging was that when justifying the Anglo-Irish Agreement one of them said, "The SDLP lays great store on the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement". They regard that as a great political victory, and in Northern Ireland terms if it is a great political victory for the SDLP it is a great political defeat for their opponents. There are victories and defeats in Northern Ireland. There are no compromises.
But what did the SDLP Member say in that broadcast? When questioned by the interviewer as to what effect he thought the Anglo-Irish Agreement was having, he said that he found it to be of great assistance. He said that when one of his constituents came to him with a problem he did not, as hitherto, ring up the local authority or the Civil Service department in Northern Ireland; he rang up the bunker at Maryfield. The Intergovernmental Conference is known as the bunker in Northern Ireland. In other words, he rang up the representatives of the Government of the Republic to settle some constituency problem that he had.
One needs to know only a little about Northern Ireland to understand how bitterly resentful any member of the Unionist community feels when he hears that within Northern Ireland his representative did not ring up the people who were elected or any of the civil servants but rang up what the Unionists term an agent of a foreign government. That is bound to create friction and discontent, bitterness and resentment.
Why are such statements made? I realise that the SDLP has to justify the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that the Unionist Members have to decry the importance or even the existence of the agreement. But while it is there there will be great difficulty in trying to bring the two communities together. I am a former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, which is now referred to as the constitutional Nationalist Party. That is not denied; it says it is the constitutional Nationalist Party. The raison d'etre of the SDLP is to further the aspirations of nationalism, and if that is its primary objective then to it the hunker at Maryfield is more important than the creation of political institutions at Stormont. The creation of political institutions at Stormont lessens the impact of the march towards Irish nationalism.
There you have the contradiction. Is it in the interest of the SDLP to maintain that line of communication from Holywood Arches in Belfast to Dublin, or to see it taken away and new political structures created in its place? I urge the Minister seriously to question the bona fides of the leaders of all those parties to make sure that they do not engage in discussions just for the sake of talking and in the course of those discussions begin to find the easiest way out so that they can lay blame for the failure of the discussions on their political opponents.
Throughout my lifetime in politics in Northern Ireland I have listened to such discussions. It would
818
be better if the parties had no discussions whatsoever rather than engage in discussions which are bound ultimately to fail. I realise that it is very difficult for Members of this House and of another place to understand what has happended in the past 10 days in Northern Ireland. Although I do not now live in Northern Ireland I have relatives who still live there and they phone in with the news bulletins every morning. I read all the Irish newspapers and I am still very much involved with what is happening there. Eight people have been killed in 10 days; eight people cruelly and brutally murdered, six by the IRA and two by loyalist paramilitaries. It takes one who knows Northern Ireland to realise the great resentment brought about by these murders and the great panic that exists within the community. The question is: when is this all going to end?
Those who support constitutional nationalism would have argued that the coming into being of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was going to lessen the campaign of terror. It has not. The IRA terrorist murderers will continue with their campaign irrespective of whether or not there is an Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Anglo-Irish Agreement may mean that Irish-American or various embassies throughout the world call off their attacks on British embassies and the British Government. The British Government will then be able to say, "We brought into being an Anglo-Irish Agreement; it is not our fault." It will lessen the criticism that Britain was receiving internationally.
I have said repeatedly, and will continue to say as long as I remain in politics, that the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be settled in Brussels, Strasbourg, Washington, Dublin or in your Lordships' House. The problems of Northern Ireland can be settled only between the two communities which exist and inhabit that part of north-east Ireland. Unless and until discussions—real, honest and sincere discussions—can take place between people who live in Northern Ireland, then all attempts from Irish-Americans, the EC or Dublin to influence events in Northern Ireland will be to no avail.
My only reason for entering the debate was to tell the Minister that I have great reservations about the sincerity of some of the men who spoke during the course of the debate in the House of Commons. I believe that the SDLP—the party which I formerly led—could do a great deal to lessen the tension and hostility in the atmosphere of Northern Ireland if it were to make an unequivocal and non-ambiguous statement of support for the RUC in Northern Ireland.
The SDLP cannot say that it is a peaceful party, looking for reconciliation, while it continues to withhold support from the RUC, the only force in Northern Ireland that is capable of apprehending and bringing to justice the terrorists of both communities. If the SDLP is really sincere in seeking reconciliation and talks with its political opponents, I believe that its first step should be to give recognition to the RUC which has suffered so grievously over so many years.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister, before the talks take place, to make sure that the people entering into

819
them are doing so with a dedication and resolve that they want them to succeed.
9 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful for the tremendous interest which has been shown in the order this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as always, was most eloquent. He raised a number of very interesting points from what appears to be a somewhat brief and uninteresting order. However, the noble Lord and your Lordships appreciate this is attached to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Nevertheless, the noble Lord raised one or two serious and interesting points.
First, we are particularly grateful for his remarks on the tremendous and valiant efforts of the security forces in their attempts to stamp out terrorism and to bring evildoers to court in the due processes of law. Of course, the noble Lord was right—as always—in highlighting the women members of the security forces, together with those who still suffer from injuries which they acquired in the course of their duties.
The noble Lord raised one or two queries about security co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement certainly provides a framework for promoting the co-ordination of activities by the security forces on both sides of the Border. However, as I have stressed on a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere—and I am sure this will not be any great news to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies—the benefits will come only after fairly long and patient endeavour.
The noble Lord also raised one other query concerning the problems of legislating, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The query concerned the problems of legislation and dealing with Northern Ireland affairs properly in your Lordships' House or indeed, in another place; namely, do we carry out these duties in a reasonable way? We hope that we give the proper attention to the legislation which we introduce for Northern Ireland. As stressed before, Orders in Council are certainly not a perfect way of proceeding, but we believe that they are the best available.
Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the number of legislative documents that we have considered—in 1983 there were 17 affirmative Northern Ireland Orders in Council; in 1984 there were 14; in 1985 there were 13; and in 1986 there were 20. Most of them made different provisions for Northern Ireland and to accommodate such a volume of legislation in Bills would increase the work of Parliament, and I hesitate to suggest to the noble Lord what it may do to your Lordships' House. If we said that we could not deal with such a volume of legislation in your Lordships' House and elsewhere because of the problem of time, and we adopted a different course we would then lose much valuable legislation which is tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland.
I stress once again to the noble Lord and to the House that we appreciate the difficulties which are
820
posed by Orders in Council which are unamendable. The problem may best be addressed in the context of discussions about devolution; but as I have said before, we are willing to talk about all of those issues to all interested parties and also to consider constructive suggestions against the background which I have described.
Before I come to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, I wish to stress that I referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in my opening speech and again just now. I acknowledge that many in Northern Ireland have strong feelings about it but we hope that a process of dialogue may now begin again. We were very encouraged by the mood and the tone of the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, attended in another place earlier this week when there seemed to be a sense of realism on both sides although that may not be the gloss of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on the debate which he witnessed from his eagle's eyrie above the other place. However, it would not be helpful to the process of dialogue if I said anything more at this stage.
We recognise the concerns that have been expressed for legislation in Northern Ireland by Order in Council; and, as your Lordships will be aware, similar concerns have been expressed in another place. But it is for the reason that we have never made any claim that Orders in Council are the perfect method of legislation for Northern Ireland that our existing procedures provide for extensive prior consultation. It is just this evening that I have not heard the usual point that is raised in your Lordships' House which is that there has not been adequate consultation. That point is usually very fairly made by many noble Lords, but perhaps tonight is the unique occasion when the question of adequate consultation is not raised. Nevertheless, we accept that that question poses problems and causes a great deal of discussion in Northern Ireland. I stress that we take a great deal of care to ensure that any points made to us on proposals for draft legislation are considered. It is much easier to do that before draft orders are laid.
However, our minds are not closed to the possibility of changes in legislation and in the procedures to bring legislation before your Lordships. However, Orders in Council during direct rule stand in the place of measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore we wish to consider any changes in a wider constitutional and political framework. I have stressed that we are willing to talk about the problems to all interested parties, including the Unionist parties, and to consider any constructive suggestions bearing in mind the wider framework of the whole of Northern Ireland.
I have probaby covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, as always, raises the voice of North Down in your Lordships' House and it is always so welcome. However, I noted one comment in the noble Lord's remarks when he said that we could have made something of the 1982 Assembly. I think that that is an approximation of one of the points that he raised.
I think that everyone in Northern Ireland and all of your Lordships would agree that nobody could have worked harder than the noble Lord both in Northern

821
Ireland and here to make the processes of law and legislation work in Northern Ireland. I have always thought that the shining example shown by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has been apparent, certainly in the 14 or 15 years since I first spoke in your Lordships' House on Northern Ireland affairs—although perhaps in the past I spoke from a different position to my present one. The noble Lord need never feel any guilt that the Assembly of 1982 and subsequent years did not work.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the loss in political terms and on a personal basis of the right honourable Enoch Powell—although I understand that I may no longer call him that because he is no longer a Member of another place. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on that on a purely personal basis in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised briefly the question of integration. There is no evidence in our opinion that integration would prove widely acceptable in the sense of being in any way reasonable to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It would make devolved government impossible and there would be no room for a devolved administration alongside the powerful local authorities recommended by those supporting integration. There would be a general parity of policy and Northern Ireland's special needs and problems would no longer be catered for in different legislation. We do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland desire integration or that it would be widely accepted that that suggestion represented a sensible solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was right to draw attention to the unhelpful comments made in another place during the course of the debate which he attended. I regret that those comments have been splashed around widely in media in this country. I shall only say in that regard that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is a shining opposite to the honourable Member of another place. The obverse of everything we dislike about what was said and the context in which it was said in another place is reflected in the conduct of the noble Lord and everything he did in his career in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord also drew some interesting analogies between 1974, which is the time I presume that he had in mind, and the current thoughts of the Members of another place and political leaders in Northern Ireland. I am sure that his words will be noted by many in Northern Ireland as well as in this country.
Finally, there is a great deal of truth in the words spoken by the noble Lord concerning the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It must be seen by everyone and above all by the minority community as being their police force and their guardian against evildoers, breaches of the law, terrorism and all the other problems that beset Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by your Lordships. If there are any which I have missed, I shall write briefly and succinctly to the noble Lords concerned. With that, I hope that your
822
Lordships will agree to extend the life of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a further 12 months.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
Channel Tunnel Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have referred the amendments to the Bill set out in the Lords Message of 7th May, in the last Session of Parliament, to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Associated British Ports Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.